Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2006, 43842-43873 [06-6582]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 2, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43842-43873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6582]



[[Page 43841]]

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

Part II





Federal Communications Commission





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



47 CFR Part 1



Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2006; 
Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 43842]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[MD Docket No. 06-68; FCC 06-102]


Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2006

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, we conclude a proceeding to collect 
$288,771,000 in regulatory fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, pursuant to 
section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), and 
an additional $10,000,000 as required by section 3013 of the Deficit 
Reduction Act (Pub. L. 109-171). 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.

DATES: Effective September 1, 2006.

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Adopted: July 12, 2006. Released: July 17, 2006.

    By the Commission: Commissioner Copps concurring and issuing a 
statement; Commissioner Adelstein approving in part, concurring in 
part, and issuing a statement.

Table of Contents

 
                                                               Paragraph
                           Heading                                No.
 
I. Introduction.............................................           1
II. Discussion..............................................           2
    A. FY 2006 Regulatory Fee Assessment Methodology........           4
        1. Development of FY 2006 Regulatory Fees...........           5
            a. Calculation of Revenue and Fee Requirements..           5
            b. Additional Adjustments to Payment Units......           6
        2. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Messaging            8
         Service............................................
        3. Regulatory Fees for Direct Broadcast Service               10
         (DBS) Providers and Cable Television Operators.....
        4. Broadband Radio Service (BRS)/Educational                  17
         Broadband Service (EBS)............................
        5. International Bearer Circuits....................          18
    B. Clarifications.......................................          19
        1. Clarification Regarding When Section 9 Regulatory          19
         Fees Are Collected.................................
        2. Effective Date of Payment of Multi-Year Wireless           20
         Fees...............................................
        3. Clarification Regarding Experimental Licenses....          23
    C. Administrative and Operational Issues................          24
        1. Mandatory Use of Fee Filer.......................          27
        2. Proposals for Notification and Collection of               28
         Regulatory Fees....................................
            a. Interstate Telecommunications Service                  30
             Providers (ITSPs)--Billed......................
            b. Satellite Space Station Licensees--Billed....          31
            c. Additional Service Categories for Billing or           33
             Assessing......................................
            d. Media Services Licensees--Assessed...........          34
            e. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)                 38
             Cellular and Mobile Services--Assessed.........
            f. Cable Television Subscribers--Assessed.......          44
        3. Streamlined Regulatory Fee Payment Process for             48
         CMRS Providers.....................................
III. Procedural Matters.....................................          49
    A. Payment of Regulatory Fees...........................          49
        1. De Minimis Fee Payment Liability.................          49
        2. Standard Fee Calculations and Payment Dates......          50
        3. Limitations on Credit Card Transactions..........          51
    B. Enforcement..........................................          52
    C. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis.......          54
    D. Congressional Review Act Analysis....................          55
IV. Ordering Clauses Attachments............................          56
Attachment A--Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Attachment B--Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY 2006
Attachment C--Calculation of Revenue Requirements and Pro-
 Rata Fees
Attachment D--FY 2006 Schedule of Regulatory Fees
Attachment E--Factors, Measurements, and Calculations That
 Determine Station Contours and Population Coverages
Attachment F--FY 2005 Schedule of Regulatory Fees
Attachment G--List of Commenters Rule Changes
 

I. Introduction

    1. In this Report and Order, we conclude a proceeding to collect 
$288,771,000 in regulatory fees, pursuant to section 9 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), and an additional 
$10,000,000 as required by section 3013 of the Deficit Reduction Act 
(Pub. L. 109-171). Section 9 regulatory 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

    2. We retain the established methods, policies, and procedures for 
calculating regulatory fees adopted by the Commission in prior years. 
We have found that this assessment methodology adopted in prior 
regulatory fee cycles has provided a satisfactory means for collecting 
the Commission's annual appropriations. In addition to the assessment 
methodology, the Commission retains the same administrative measures 
used for notification and assessment of regulatory fees as in previous 
years,

[[Page 43843]]

such as generating pre-completed regulatory fee assessment forms for 
certain regulatees.
    3. The Commission is obligated to collect $288,771,000 in 
regulatory fees during Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 to fund the Commission's 
operations. Consistent with our established practice, we plan to 
collect these regulatory fees in the August-September 2006 time frame 
in order to collect the required amount by the end of the fiscal year. 
In addition to the $288,771,000 amount above, the Commission is 
required to assess and collect an additional $10,000,000 to contribute 
toward the Nation's debt reduction in FY 2006.\2\ In our FY 2006 Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we sought comment regarding how the 
Commission should implement this provision.\3\ Specifically, we asked 
whether the Commission should assess the additional $10,000,000 on 
application fees, on regulatory fees, or use some other form of 
assessment. We received no comment on this matter. Additionally, the 
legislative history of the act provides no guidance as to how Congress 
intends the Commission to collect these debt reduction funds. We 
believe that collecting the mandatory $10,000,000 debt reduction 
contribution in conjunction with our FY 2006 schedule of section 9 
regulatory fees will ensure the most equitable and timely collection of 
such fees. Therefore, in addition to the amount mandated by Congress in 
the appropriations law ($288,771,000), our FY 2006 schedule of section 
9 regulatory fees includes an additional $10,000,000 allocated across 
all service categories. Hereafter, in this Report and Order, we will 
refer to the total $298,771,000 as regulatory fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 3013 of Public Law 109-171 reads as follows, ``In 
addition to any fees assessed under the Communications Act of 1934 
(47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), the Federal Communications Commission shall 
assess extraordinary fees for licenses in the aggregate amount of 
$10,000,000, which shall be deposited in the Treasury during fiscal 
year 2006 as offsetting receipts.''
    \3\ See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2006, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 71 FR 17410 at para. 3 
(April 6, 2006) (FY 2006 NPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. FY 2006 Regulatory Fee Assessment Methodology

    4. On March 27, 2006, we released the FY 2006 NPRM. As noted in the 
FY 2006 NPRM, the section 9 regulatory fee proceeding is an annual 
process intended to ensure the Commission collects the amounts required 
by Congress. In the NPRM, we proposed to largely retain the section 9 
regulatory fee methodology used in the prior fiscal year. Only six 
comments and two reply comments were filed. We address our conclusions 
below.
1. Development of FY 2006 Regulatory Fees
a. Calculation of Revenue and Fee Requirements
    5. In our FY 2006 regulatory fee assessment, we use the same 
section 9 regulatory fee assessment methodology that we adopted in FY 
2005. Each fiscal year, the Commission proportionally allocates the 
total amount that must be collected via section 9 regulatory fees. The 
results of FY 2006 regulatory fee assessment methodology (including a 
comparison to the prior year's results) are contained in Attachment C. 
For FY 2006, the receipts collected through FY 2005 regulatory fees 
will be the basis for calculating the amount the Commission must 
collect in FY 2006. To collect the $298,771,000 million required by 
law, we first adjust the FY 2005 amount upward by 6.67 percent.\4\ 
Consistent with past practice, we then divide the FY 2006 amount by the 
number of payment units in each fee category to determine the unit 
fee.\5\ As in prior years, for cases involving small fees (e.g., 
licenses that are renewed over a multiyear term), we divide the 
resulting unit fee by the term of the license, and then round these 
unit fees consistent with the requirements of section 9(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We were required to collect $280,098,000 in FY 2005. We are 
required to collect $298,771,000 in FY 2006, which is an increase of 
approximately 6.67 percent. Note that the required increase of 
approximately 6.67 percent in FY 2006 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 for 
individual service categories is sometimes increased by a number 
other than 6.67 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.
    \5\ In many instances, the regulatory 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Additional Adjustments To Payment Units
    6. In calculating the FY 2006 regulatory fees listed in Attachment 
D, we further adjusted the FY 2005 list of payment units (see 
Attachment B for sources of payment units) based upon licensee 
databases and industry and trade group projections to produce the most 
up-to-date and equitable regulatory fee calculations possible. Whenever 
possible, we verified these estimates from multiple sources to ensure 
accuracy. Sources include Commission licensee databases, prior year 
payment records, and/or industry and trade association projections.\6\ 
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 2006, 
and fluctuations in the number of licensees or station operators due to 
economic, technical, or other reasons. Therefore, when we state that 
our estimated FY 2006 payment units are based on FY 2005 actual payment 
units, the number may have been rounded or adjusted slightly to account 
for these variables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. We consider additional factors 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 for 
radio stations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In addition, beginning in FY 2005, we established a 
procedure by which we set regulatory fees for AM and FM radio and 
VHF and UHF television Construction Permits each year at an amount 
no higher than the lowest regulatory fee in that respective service 
category. For example, the regulatory fee for a Construction Permit 
for an AM radio station will never be more than the regulatory fee 
for an AM Class C radio station serving a population of less than 
25,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Messaging Service
    8. In the FY 2006 NPRM, we proposed to continue our policy of 
maintaining the CMRS Messaging Service regulatory fee at the rate 
originally calculated in FY 2003 (i.e., $0.08 per subscriber), noting 
that the subscriber base in this industry has declined more than 75% 
from 40.8 million to 10.1 million from

[[Page 43844]]

FY 1997 to FY 2005.\8\ We received supporting comments from three 
entities and no opposing comments.\9\ All commenters endorse, at a 
minimum, maintaining the fee at $0.08 per subscriber. BloostonLaw urges 
the Commission to reduce the fee to $0.04 per subscriber, citing the 
paging industry's declining subscriber base and increasing regulatory 
obligations and expenditures that have been imposed on this industry 
since the inception of the section 9 regulatory fee program.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See FY 2006 NPRM, para. 7.
    \9\ Comments received from the American Association of Paging 
Carriers (AAPC), the law firm of Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, 
Duffy & Pendergast, LLP (BloostonLaw), and USA Mobility, Inc.
    \10\ BloostonLaw notes the paging industry's requirement to 
contribute to the Universal Service Fund, the Telecommunications 
Relay Service (TRS) fund, the Local Number Portability (LNP) fund, 
and the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) fund. 
See BloostonLaw Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. We are cognizant of the regulatory obligations cited by 
BloostonLaw. The Commission has already addressed the hardships 
suffered by the CMRS messaging industry by freezing the fee, which 
would otherwise have risen significantly.\11\ Moreover, the obligations 
cited by BloostonLaw are associated with significant regulatory costs 
and benefits that warrant increasing the fee. Therefore, we are not 
persuaded to reduce the regulatory fee amount. In consideration of the 
financial hardship that could be caused by increasing the fee 
(shrinking profit margins, additional loss of subscribers, reduced 
revenue, etc.) for this service category, we adopt our proposal to 
maintain the CMRS Messaging Service regulatory fee this fiscal year at 
$0.08 per subscriber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2005, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 
12259, 12264 para. 5 (2005) (FY 2005 R&O and Order on 
Reconsideration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Regulatory Fees for Direct Broadcast Service (DBS) Providers and 
Cable Television Operators
    10. In our FY 2005 regulatory fee proceeding, the National Cable 
and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and American Cable 
Association (ACA) submitted comments \12\ proposing that the Commission 
adopt the same per-subscriber assessment for DBS operators that applies 
to cable television operators.\13\ DirecTV, Inc. and Echostar Satellite 
L.L.C. (DirecTV and Echostar), in joint reply comments, argued that the 
cable operators failed to make the required showing to satisfy section 
9(b)(3) of the Act for changes to the Commission's regulatory fee 
structure, specifically, ``In making such amendments, the Commission 
shall add, delete, or reclassify services 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 law.'' 
\14\ We agreed that the cable commenters did not satisfy section 9 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2005, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 
12259, 12264 para. 10 (2005) (FY 2005 R&O and Order on Recon). See 
also FY 2005 Comments of NCTA and FY 2005 Comments of ACA.
    \13\ Since the inception of the Commission's regulatory fee 
program, we have assessed section 9 regulatory fees on cable 
operators using a per-subscriber approach, which is consistent with 
the original (1994) statute. By contrast, section 9 regulatory fee 
assessments for DBS providers are based on a per-license approach, 
which is also consistent with the Commission's permitted amendment 
to the statute that took place in 1996.
    \14\ 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(3). In addition, 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(4) 
requires that if the Commission revises its fee schedule based upon 
Commission rulemaking proceedings or changes in law, it must provide 
Congress with 90 days notice before such an amendment of the fee 
schedule can be implemented. See 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. As a procedural matter, we also found that, because the 
comments raised issues not contemplated in the FY 2005 NPRM, we had not 
provided sufficient notice for a change to the fee methodology for DBS 
operators.\15\ Therefore, we stated that we would seek further 
information on this issue in our FY 2006 regulatory fee proceeding in 
order to fully explore whether there is a legal basis for such a 
change, and to analyze the impact of any change in the methodology used 
to assess fees both for DBS providers and cable television 
operators.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See FY 2005 R&O and Order on Recon, 20 FCC Rcd 12259, 12264 
para. 10.
    \16\ See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2006, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 71 FR 17410 at para. 8 
(April 6, 2006) (FY 2006 NPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. In the FY 2006 NPRM, we sought comment on the appropriate 
regulatory fee structure for both cable operators and DBS 
providers.\17\ We asked that commenters proposing a fee change identify 
the Commission rulemaking proceeding(s) or change(s) in law that they 
believe warrant a modification of the fee assessment schedule. NCTA, 
ACA, and the DBS industry again commented on this issue in FY 2006. 
While many of the economic, competition, and perceived equity arguments 
presented in these comments repeated those made in FY 2005, they also 
provided additional information regarding changes in law and subsequent 
Commission rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. NCTA argues that the Commission should modify the structure for 
assessing DBS regulatory fees. In particular, NCTA argues that DBS 
should be assessed on a per-subscriber basis, and that cable regulatory 
fees should be reduced. NCTA argues that the Commission's per-license 
fee scheme for DBS rests on an out-dated and faulty premise that the 
Commission's regulatory responsibilities with respect to DBS are 
unrelated to the number of end users of satellite services.\18\ It 
asserts that the regulatory landscape for Multichannel Video 
Programming Distributor (MVPD) has changed significantly in the past 10 
years, stating that the Commission's regulatory responsibilities with 
respect to the cable industry have substantially diminished, while its 
responsibilities with respect to the DBS industry have increased.\19\ 
NCTA supports this assertion by noting that cable specific rulemakings 
at the Commission have been on the wane \20\ and that rate regulation 
of the cable programming service tier (CPST) ended in 1999, along with 
all of the Commission's CPST rate review activity.\21\ NCTA then 
highlights areas where DBS and cable are subject to a host of 
comparable, and in some cases service-specific, regulations. These 
include mandatory carriage obligations for broadcast signals, 
retransmission consent for the carriage of broadcast signals, network 
non-duplication, syndicated exclusivity and sports programming blackout 
requirements.\22\ ACA fully supports NCTA's recommendation that the 
Commission impose a per-subscriber fee on DBS.\23\ ACA points out the 
overwhelming disparity in regulatory fee assessments on small and 
medium-sized cable operators as compared to DBS, and states that the 
disparity places these operators at a structural disadvantage to their 
DBS competitors.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NCTA Comments at 2.
    \19\ NCTA Comments at 8.
    \20\ NCTA Comments at 8.
    \21\ NCTA Comments at 8.
    \22\ NCTA Comments at 9.
    \23\ ACA Comments at 2.
    \24\ ACA Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. DirecTV, Inc. and Echostar Satellite L.L.C. (DirecTV and 
Echostar) filed joint reply comments opposing the arguments of NCTA and 
ACA. The joint commenters claim that NTCA's proposal is only one part 
of the cable television industry's nationwide campaign to raise taxes 
paid by its DBS rivals.\25\ DirecTV

[[Page 43845]]

and Echostar assert that the cable industry has failed to show that DBS 
regulatory fees are out of line with the Commission's DBS regulatory 
costs and that, accordingly, the cable industry has not made an 
argument that satisfies the standard set forth in section 9(b)(3) for 
``permitted amendments,'' to justify a change to the section 9 
regulatory fees for DBS operators.\26\ Specifically, DirecTV and 
Echostar maintain that before the Commission can amend the 
geostationary orbit (GSO) satellite space station fee category, it 
must, at a minimum, find \27\ that new rulemaking proceedings or 
changes in law have caused additions, deletions, or changes to the 
nature of the GSO space station fee category such that the space 
station fee no longer reasonably relates to the regulatory costs caused 
by the GSO space station service for certain regulatory activities, as 
those costs may be ``adjusted'' by the benefits to space station 
operators of such activities.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ DirecTV and Echostar Reply Comments at 1 and fn. 1.
    \26\ DirecTV and Echostar Reply Comments at 1 and 2.
    \27\ Section 9(b)(3) states: ``In making such amendments, the 
Commission shall add, delete, or reclassify services 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 law.'' DirecTV & Echostar do not provide a citation for 
their interpretation of this provision.
    \28\ DirecTV and Echostar Reply Comments at 3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. DirecTV and Echostar maintain that the section 9 statutory 
conditions have not been met.\29\ They argue that NCTA's justifications 
for raising DBS section 9 fees are unrelated to the standard for 
amending fees, as those justifications range from items that have 
nothing to do with the GSO space station category (market and 
regulatory changes in the cable industry), to items that have nothing 
to do with rulemakings or law (DBS subscriber gains, cable subscriber 
losses), or to regulatory proceedings in which DBS participation has 
not changed significantly in years (video programming competition, 
closed captioning, etc.).\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ DirecTV & Echostar Reply Comments at 4.
    \30\ DirecTV & Echostar Reply Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. We are not persuaded by NCTA's arguments that modifications to 
the section 9 regulatory fee structure are warranted at this time. We 
agree with DirecTV and Echostar that NCTA has not shown that the 
requirements of section 9 would be better satisfied by the 
reclassification of DBS and the assessment of the DBS fee on a per 
subscriber basis, as proposed by NCTA. We therefore will continue to 
use the section 9 regulatory fee classification of DBS as a GSO service 
and assess the fee on a per satellite basis as adopted by the 
Commission in prior fiscal years. The existing regulatory fee 
classification and related methodology has ensured that regulatory fees 
are reasonably related to the benefits provided by the Commission's 
activities.\31\ In addition the existing classification and methodology 
retained herein has been proven to result in collecting the amount 
required by Congress in its annual appropriations for the 
Commission.\32\ Finally, as a practical matter, we do not have 
sufficient time available to modify the section 9 regulatory fee 
classification and methodology as proposed by NCTA and still comply 
with the 90-day congressional notification requirement before we start 
our regulatory fee collections in the August/September time frame. For 
these reasons, we decline to adopt the NCTA's proposals and instead 
retain the existing section 9 regulatory fee classification and 
methodology for DBS at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(1)(A).
    \32\ 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Broadband Radio Service (BRS)/Educational Broadband Service (EBS)
    17. On April 27, 2006, the Commission adopted a framework for BRS/
EBS regulatory fees in a BRS/EBS rulemaking.\33\ Briefly, the 
Commission adopted a MHz-based formula for BRS with tiered fees by 
markets, similar to our annual scale for broadcast television stations, 
but on a more simplified scale.\34\ As we proposed in the FY 2006 
NPRM,\35\ we would not implement these changes in our FY 2006 schedule 
of section 9 regulatory fees because the still-pending nature of the 
BRS/EBS rulemaking would not afford us with sufficient notice to do so. 
Accordingly, for FY 2006, BRS regulatory fees will be assessed using 
the rules currently in effect. For EBS, the Commission decided that 
section 9 regulatory fees should not be assessed on this service,\36\ 
which is consistent with our current policy of not assessing section 9 
regulatory fees on ITFS (Instructional Television Fixed Service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 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., Order on Reconsideration 
and Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Memorandum Opinion 
and Order and Second Report and Order, FCC 06-46, paras. 367-376 
(rel. April 27, 2006) (BRS/EBS Second Report and Order).
    \34\ See id., para. 376.
    \35\ See FY 2006 NPRM, 71 FR at 17412 para. 9 (April 6, 2006) 
(proposed not to implement in the FY 2006 schedule of section 9 
Regulatory Fees any changes that might be adopted in the BRS/EBS 
proceeding).
    \36\ See BRS/EBS Second Report and Order at para. 373.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. International Bearer Circuits
    18. On February 6, 2006, VSNL Telecommunications (US) Inc. (VSNL) 
filed a Petition for Rulemaking urging the Commission to modify the 
current International Bearer Circuit Fee rules and policies as applied 
to non-common carrier (i.e., private) submarine cable operators.\37\ 
This Petition remains pending before the Commission, which issued a 
Public Notice designating the proceeding as RM-11312 and requesting 
comment on the Petition.\38\ In the FY 2006 NPRM, we stated that the 
complex issues presented by the VSNL Petition warranted consideration 
separately from the Commission's annual regulatory fee proceeding 
process, and that any comments on these issues arising from the FY 2006 
NPRM would be addressed with the record generated by the VSNL 
Petition.\39\ Apollo Submarine Cable System, Ltd. (Apollo), one of the 
parties that submitted comments on the VSNL Petition, also filed 
comments on the International Bearer Circuit Fee issue in response to 
the FY 2006 NPRM.\40\ In accordance with our stated intent in the FY 
2006 NPRM, we incorporate Apollo's instant comments into the VSNL 
Petition proceeding, RM-11312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Petition for Rulemaking of VSNL Telecommunications (US) 
Inc., RM-11312 (filed February 6, 2006).
    \38\ See Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, Public Notice, Report No. 2759 (released 
February 15, 2006).
    \39\ See FY 2006 NPRM at fn. 20.
    \40\ See Apollo Comment at 2 and at fn. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clarifications

1. Clarification Regarding When Section 9 Regulatory Fees Are Collected
    19. We continue to receive many inquiries each year from regulatees 
as to whether section 9 regulatory fees are collected in advance of our 
fiscal year, or whether they are collected in arrears. The Commission's 
fiscal year is the period of time from October 1 through September 
30.\41\ The Commission generally collects section 9 regulatory fees in 
August and/or September toward the end of the fiscal year, and the 
Commission will maintain the same regulatory fee schedule in FY 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ By way of example, our Fiscal Year 2006 began on October 1, 
2005 and runs through September 30, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Effective Date of Payment of Multi-Year Wireless Fees
    20. The first eleven fee categories in our Attachment D, Schedule 
of Regulatory Fees, constitute a grouping

[[Page 43846]]

known as ``small wireless fees'' for multi-year wireless fees.\42\ 
Regulatory fees for this grouping are generally paid in advance for the 
entire 5-year or 10-year term of the license at the time that a renewal 
application (or application for a new license) is filed. Because these 
regulatory fees are paid when a renewal application (or application for 
a new license) is filed, these ``small wireless fees'' can be paid at 
any time during the fiscal year whenever the relevant application is 
filed. As a result, there has been some confusion as to whether the 
prior fiscal year (prior FY) or current fiscal year (current FY) rate 
applies when a renewal application (or application for a new license) 
is filed near the effective date of the current FY regulatory fees. The 
Commission clarified this matter in the FY 2005 R&O and Order on 
Reconsideration \43\ and we provide further clarification below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See 47 CFR 1.1152 (note 1). ``Small fees are collected in 
advance for the entire license term. Therefore, the annual fee 
amount shown in this table that is a small fee * * * must be 
multiplied by the 5- or 10-year license term, as appropriate to 
arrive at the total amount of the regulatory fees owed * * *.''
    \43\ FY 2005 R&0 and Order on Reconsideration at para. 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. In general, the applicable fee is the one in effect as of the 
date that the relevant application is filed. Thus, the current FY 
regulatory fee is applicable if the official filing date of the 
application is on or after the effective date of the current fee. The 
current FY regulatory fees generally become effective 30 or 60 days 
after publication of the regulatory fees Order in the Federal Register, 
or in some instances, 90 days after delivery of the Order to Congress. 
Generally, the ``effective date'' of the current fiscal year regulatory 
fees is published in a public notice soon after the Order is released.
    22. We wish to clarify the applicable filing date for wireless 
licenses in the fee category above. The Commission's rules for renewal 
of wireless licenses provide that licensees may file their renewal 
applications, and thus make regulatory fee payments, no more than 90 
days prior to the expiration date of their licenses.\44\ For the small 
wireless fees categories, the regulatory fee rate that applies depends 
upon the filing date of the application, i.e., the date that the 
application is electronically or manually filed with the Commission in 
accordance with the Commission's rules. However, applicants filing 
electronically have varying payment options that in some cases include 
the option to submit the payment manually with FCC Form 159. In this 
case, the applicant must submit payment so that it is received within 
10 days of filing the application electronically. As a result, an 
application that is filed shortly before the new FY fee rate becomes 
effective may result in payment occurring after the new FY fee rate is 
effective. In such cases, the fee rate will be calculated based on the 
prior FY fee rate because the application was electronically filed 
before the effective date of the current FY fee rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See 47 CFR 1.949(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Clarification Regarding Experimental Licenses
    23. It has come to our attention that some licensees mistakenly 
believe that they have a section 9 fee obligation for their 
experimental licenses. We clarify that holders of experimental licenses 
are not required to pay regulatory fees for such licenses. Any holder 
of an experimental license who has mistakenly paid a regulatory fee for 
such license may submit a refund request in accordance with the 
Commission's rules.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See 47 CFR 1.1160(d) and 1.1162. Refund requests should be 
sent via surface mail to: Federal Communications Commission, Office 
of the Managing Director, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 1-A625, 
Washington, DC 20554, Attention: Regulatory Fee Refund Request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Administrative and Operational Issues

    24. In our FY 2006 NPRM, we invited comment on the administrative 
and operational processes used to collect the annual section 9 
regulatory fees. Although these issues do not affect the amount of 
regulatory fees parties are obligated to submit, administrative and 
operational issues do impact the process of submitting fee payments. We 
sought general comment on ways to improve current processes. Mr. 
Kenneth J. Brown submitted comments on these issues, raising concerns 
over past practices regarding the accuracy of the Commission's billing 
of earth station non-payers. Mr. Brown states that last year the 
Commission erroneously sent licensees of recently-granted earth 
stations past-due bills for FY 2005 regulatory fees despite that fact 
that those earth stations licenses were granted after October 1, 2004 
(the effective date for FY 2005 regulatory fees).\46\ Because of this, 
Mr. Brown urges the Commission not to act on its proposal to expand its 
pre-billing initiatives to the earth station service category.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Comments of Kenneth J. Brown at 1-2.
    \47\ Comments of Kenneth J. Brown at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. In prior years the Commission's practice for issuing past-due 
bills was as follows. After the close of each annual regulatory fee 
collection cycle, we compared the FCC Registration Number (FRN) of 
those entities who paid with the total number of licensed entities in 
each fee service category and then sent those entities not having a 
record of payment a request for late payment or for information that 
clarifies their payment status. For FY 2006, we have obtained from each 
licensing system the names of the entities that had been granted 
licenses on or before October 1, 2005, prior to the start of the 
regulatory fee collection cycle. Using this information, we anticipate 
improvements in the post-regulatory fee season billing process that 
addresses the problem noted by Mr. Brown. Also, this fiscal year we 
have opted not to expand our pre-billing initiatives to the earth 
station category nor to any other categories, due to logistical and 
resource constraints.
    26. In his comments, Mr. Brown also states that he erroneously 
overpaid a regulatory fee obligation through Fee Filer and complains of 
the length of time it has taken for the Commission to process his 
refund request. Entities who do not receive a timely response to their 
refund request should call ARINQUIRES via the FCC Financial Operations 
Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201, Option 4, or e-mail ARINQUIRES@fcc.gov to 
obtain a status update.
1. Mandatory Use of Fee Filer
    27. In our FY 2006 NPRM, we sought comment on the impact of 
instituting a mandatory usage requirement for our electronic Fee Filer 
software application for large-volume section 9 regulatory fee payers. 
We invited comments solely to establish a record on this topic, stating 
that any such requirement would not be put into effect until FY 2007 or 
later.\48\ We received no comments supporting such action, one comment 
unfavorable to the use of Fee Filer in general,\49\ and one comment 
requesting that, if Fee Filer usage becomes mandatory, cable television 
operators serving less than 5,000 subscribers should have the option to 
mail their regulatory fee payments instead of using Fee Filer.\50\ In 
view of the foregoing, we will not mandate use of our Fee Filer 
software for large-volume section 9 regulatory fee payers either in FY 
2006 or FY 2007. We continue to encourage regulatees to use Fee Filer, 
especially those that would otherwise submit more than twenty-five (25) 
hardcopy Form 159-Cs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ FY 2006 NPRM at para. 11.
    \49\ Comments of Kenneth J. Brown at 3.
    \50\ American Cable Association (ACA) Comments at 6.

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

[[Page 43847]]

2. Proposals for Notification and Collection of Regulatory Fees
    28. In this section, we sought comment on the administrative 
processes that the Commission uses to notify regulatees and collect 
regulatory fees. 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. 
Consistent with our established practice, we will provide public 
notices, fact sheets and all other relevant material on our Web site at 
https://www.fcc.gov/fees/regfees.html for the FY 2006 regulatory fee 
cycle. As a general practice, we will not send such material via 
surface mail. However, in the event that regulatees do not have access 
to the Internet, we will mail public notices and other relevant 
material upon request. Regulatees and the general public may request 
such information by contacting the FCC Financial Operations Help Desk 
at (877) 480-3201, Option 4.
    29. Although we will not send public notices and fact sheets to 
regulatees en masse, we will send specific regulatory fee bills or 
assessments via surface mail or e-mail to select fee categories 
discussed below.\51\ We are pursuing our billing initiatives as part of 
our effort to modernize our financial practices. These initiatives also 
serve the purpose of providing licensees with notification of upcoming 
regulatory fees. Eventually, we intend to expand our billing 
initiatives to include all regulatory fee service categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 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. By contrast, a bill is 
automatically recognized as a debt owed to the Commission. Bills 
reflect the amount owed and have a Fee Due Date of the last day of 
the regulatory fee payment window. Consequently, if a bill is not 
paid by the Fee Due Date, it becomes delinquent and is subject to 
our debt collection procedures. See 47 CFR 1.1161(c), 1.1164(f)(5) 
and 1.1910.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers (ITSPs)--Billed
    30. 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. 
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.\52\ Beginning in FY 2004, 
the pre-completed FCC Form 159-W was sent to carriers as a bill, rather 
than as an assessment of amount due. 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 ITSP regulatory fees. In the FY 
2006 NPRM, we sought comment on this billing initiative and ways to 
improve it. We received no comments or reply comments on our ITSP 
billing initiative, and will therefore continue our ITSP, Form 159-W, 
billing initiative in FY 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Beginning in FY 2002, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Satellite Space Station Licensees--Billed
    31. Beginning in FY 2004, we mailed regulatory fee bills via 
surface mail to licensees in our two satellite space station service 
categories. Specifically, geostationary orbit space station (GSO) 
licensees receive bills requesting regulatory fee payment for 
satellites that (1) were licensed by the Commission and operational on 
or before October 1 of the respective fiscal year; and (2) were not co-
located with and technically identical to another operational satellite 
on that date (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 of the respective 
fiscal year.
    32. In the FY 2006 NPRM, we sought comment on this billing 
initiative and on ways to improve it. We received no comments or reply 
comments on the satellite billing initiative, and will therefore 
continue our practice of billing GSO and NGSO satellite space station 
fee categories for FY 2006. We emphasize that the bills that we 
generate for our GSO and NGSO licensees will only be 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.
c. Additional Service Categories for Billing or Assessing
    33. We initially explored the feasibility of expanding our FY 2006 
section 9 regulatory fee billing initiatives to include three 
additional service categories: Earth Stations, Cable Television Relay 
Service Stations (CARS), and the Local Multipoint Distribution Service 
(LMDS). We did not receive any comments supporting the billing of these 
three additional categories, and therefore will not pursue these 
additional billing initiatives in this fiscal year.
d. Media Services Licensees--Assessed
    34. Beginning in FY 2003, we sent fee assessment postcards via 
surface mail to media services entities on a per-facility basis. The 
postcards notified licensees of the date when fee payments were due; 
provided the assessed fee amount for the facility, as well as other 
data attributes that we used to determine the fee amount; and, 
beginning in FY 2004, provided licensees with a telephone number to 
call (Financial Operations Help Desk) in the event that they needed 
customer assistance. We received no comments or reply comments to 
improve our assessment initiative for media services licensees. 
Therefore, we will continue our postcard initiative in the manner 
originally planned for FY 2006.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Fee assessments are proposed to be 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, to the 
extent that applicants, permittees and licensees of such facilities 
do not qualify as government entities or non-profit entities. Fee 
assessments have not been issued for broadcast auxiliary stations in 
prior years, nor will they be issued in FY 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. Consistent with the procedures we used last year, we will 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 
databases for media services. By doing so, licensees and their other 
points of contact will be furnished 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 a Commission-authorized Web site to update or correct 
any information concerning the facility, or to certify their fee-exempt 
status, if appropriate. The

[[Page 43848]]

Web site will be available to licensees throughout this summer.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The Commission-authorized Web site for media services 
licensees is https://www.fccfees.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. In the past, some media services licensees have mistakenly 
mailed their postcards back to the Commission stapled to payment 
checks. We emphasize that licensees must still submit a completed FCC 
Form 159 Remittance Advice with their fee payments, despite having 
received an assessment postcard. The postcards may not be used as a 
substitute for a completed Form 159. If the licensee does not submit a 
completed Form 159 along with its fee payment, we will not be able to 
guarantee that a licensee's regulatory fee payment will be posted 
accurately to the licensee's account.
    37. We also emphasize that the most important data element that 
media services licensees need to include on their Form 159 is their 
facility ID number. The facility ID number is a unique identifier that 
remains constant over the course of a facility's existence. Despite the 
fact that we prominently display a facility ID number on the facility's 
postcard, and our Form 159 filing instructions require payers to 
provide their facility ID number (and associated call sign) for the 
facility in question, we continue to receive many incomplete Form 159s 
that do not provide the facility ID number for the facility for which 
the fee is being paid. If the facility ID number is not provided, we 
will not be able to guarantee that a licensee's regulatory fee payment 
will be posted accurately to the licensee's account.
e. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Cellular and Mobile 
Services--Assessed
    38. In FY 2004, the Commission began using telephone number data 
from the Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) form to assess 
regulatory fees on CMRS providers. Specifically, telephone number data 
is used to determine the number of subscribers upon which a regulatory 
fee assessment will be based. In both FY 2004 and FY 2005, we sought 
and received comments and reply comments from licensees that helped us 
to improve the CMRS cellular/mobile assessment process. For FY 2006, we 
again solicited, but did not receive, any comments or reply comments 
regarding the use of telephone number data to determine the subscriber 
count of CMRS providers. We continue to find telephone numbers to be a 
reliable, accurate method for determining subscriber counts for 
regulatory fee purposes. Based on our review of FY 2005 results, the 
Commission first assessed regulatory fees on 184.7 million numbers. The 
adjustment process resulted in a minor reduction of only 0.2 percent, 
or approximately 0.3 million telephone numbers. Therefore, as in prior 
years,\55\ we will send an assessment letter to CMRS providers using 
telephone number data based on the Numbering Resource Utilization 
Forecast (NRUF) form, which includes a list of the carrier's Operating 
Company Telephone Numbers (OCNs) upon which the assessment is 
based.\56\ Consistent with existing practice, the letters will not 
include OCNs with their respective assigned number counts, but rather, 
an aggregate total of assigned numbers for each carrier. We will also 
continue our procedure of giving entities an opportunity to amend their 
subscriber counts by sending two rounds of assessment letters--an 
initial assessment and a final assessment letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See FY 2005 R&O and Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 
12259, 12264 paras. 38-44.
    \56\ As described below, the NRUF figure will be adjusted for 
porting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. If the number of subscribers on the initial assessment letter 
differs from the subscriber count the service provider provided on its 
NRUF form, the carrier can correct its subscriber count by returning 
the assessment letter or by contacting (a telephone number will be 
provided in the letter) the Commission and stating a reason for the 
change, such as the purchase or the sale of a subsidiary, including the 
date of the transaction, and any other information that will help to 
justify a reason for the change.
    40. 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 as calculated using telephone number data from the 
NRUF report. We will review all responses to initial assessment letters 
and determine whether a change in the number of subscribers is 
warranted. We will then generate a final assessment letter that informs 
carriers as to whether or not we accept the changed number of 
subscribers.
    41. 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. As an additional enhancement this year 
to this assessment process, we will include porting information (e.g., 
information on the number of ``ports in'' and ``ports out'') in our 
``initial'' assessment letter so that licensees can account for any 
differences between the telephone number data submitted in their NRUF 
report and the Commission's assessment count.
    42. Although an initial and a final assessment letter will be 
mailed to carriers that have filed an NRUF form, some carriers may not 
be sent any letters of assessment because they did not file the NRUF 
form. These carriers should compute their fee payment using the 
standard methodology \57\ that is currently in place for CMRS Wireless 
services (e.g., compute their subscriber counts as of December 31, 
2005), and submit their payment accordingly on FCC Form 159. However, 
regardless of whether a carrier receives an assessment letter or 
computes the subscriber count themselves, the Commission reserves the 
right, under the Communications Act, to audit the number of subscribers 
for which regulatory fees are paid. In the event that the Commission 
determines that the number of subscribers is inaccurate or that an 
insufficient reason is given for making a correction on the initial 
assessment letter, we note that the Commission reserves the right to 
assess the carrier for the difference between what was paid and what 
should have been paid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Federal Communications Commission, Regulatory Fees Fact 
Sheet: What You Owe--commercial Wireless Services for FY 2005 at 1 
(rel. July 2005). (https://www.fcc.gov/fees/regfees.html)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. In summary, we will (1) derive the subscriber count from NRUF 
telephone data based on ``assigned'' telephone number counts that have 
been adjusted for porting to net Type 0 ports (``in'' and ``out''), 
which should reflect a more accurate subscriber count; (2) provide 
carriers with the opportunity to revise the subscriber count listed on 
the initial assessment letter, and (3) require carriers to confirm 
their subscriber counts on an aggregate basis using telephone number 
data in the NRUF report.
f. Cable Television Subscribers--Assessed
    44. We adopt our proposal to generate fee assessment letters for 
the cable television industry consistent with the process the 
Commission used in FY 2005. We received one reply comment from the 
American Cable Association supporting the Commission's initiative ``to 
send out the fee assessment letters and emails to remind cable 
operators of their fee payment obligations.'' \58\ Under our proposal, 
we will generate fee assessment letters for the cable

[[Page 43849]]

operators who are on file as having paid regulatory fees the previous 
fiscal year for their basic cable subscribers, and request that they 
access a Commission-authorized web site to provide their aggregate 
basic cable subscriber count as of December 31, 2005. Also, as an 
additional means of notifying cable television regulatees of their 
section 9 regulatory fee payment obligations for FY 2006, we will send 
an e-mail reminder to all operators that have an e-mail address 
populated in the Media Bureau's Cable Operations and Licensing System 
(COALS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Reply comments from the American Cable Association at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. Our assessment letter to each operator will (1) announce the 
due date for payment of regulatory fees; (2) reflect the subscriber 
count for which the operator paid regulatory fees in FY 2005, thereby 
certifying the subscriber count as of December 31, 2004; and (3) 
request that the operator access a Commission-authorized web site to 
provide its aggregate subscriber count as of December 31, 2005. If the 
number of subscribers as of December 31, 2005 differs from that as 
reported for last year, operators will be required to provide a brief 
explanation for the differing subscriber counts and indicate when the 
difference occurred. Cable operators who do not have access to the 
Internet will be able to contact the FCC Financial Operations Help Desk 
at (877) 480-3201, Option 4 to provide their subscriber count as of 
December 31, 2005.
    46. Some cable operators may not have made regulatory fee payments 
in FY 2005 and, as a result, will not receive an assessment letter for 
FY 2006 regulatory fees. For example, a new company may have become 
operational after the first day of the fiscal year and therefore did 
not have a regulatory fee obligation in FY 2005; or an existing company 
did not make a payment because it filed a petition for waiver of 
regulatory fees for FY 2005 based on financial hardship. Regardless of 
the circumstance, we emphasize that not receiving a regulatory fee 
assessment letter in FY 2006 does not excuse an operator from its 
obligation to pay FY 2006 regulatory fees. All non-exempt cable 
operators, not only those that made payments in FY 2005 and/or receive 
assessment letters for FY 2006 fees, are required to make payments.
    47. We will also retain the payment procedures for cable television 
operators that we have had in place for the past two fiscal years. That 
is, we will continue to permit cable television operators to base their 
payment on their company's aggregate subscriber count as of December 
31, 2005, rather than requiring them to report subscriber counts on a 
per community unit identifier (CUID) basis on the FCC Form 159 
Remittance Advice. After providing their company's aggregate subscriber 
count in Block 25A of the FCC Form 159, operators will still be 
required to certify the accuracy of the subscriber count in Block 30.
3. Streamlined Regulatory Fee Payment Process for CMRS Providers
    48. We proposed in our FY 2006 NPRM to permit CMRS Cellular, 
Mobile, and Messaging service providers using an FCC Form 159 or the 
automated Fee Filer system to pay their subscriber totals at the 
aggregate level without having to identify and associate their 
subscriber counts with calls signs. Because we are requiring CMRS 
Cellular/Mobile providers to use the aggregate subscriber totals from 
their Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast report (NRUF),\59\ netted 
for porting, it would be consistent for providers to pay their 
subscriber totals at the aggregate level as well without having to 
associate subscriber counts with their individual call signs. We 
received one comment from the American Association of Paging Carriers 
supporting the Commission's effort to eliminate the requirement of 
having to allocate the subscriber count with their respective call 
signs.\60\ We believe that eliminating this requirement will improve 
the Commission's efficiency in processing regulatory fee payments, as 
well as reduce the administrative burden on licensees during the 
payment process. As a result, we eliminate the requirement for CMRS 
providers to identify their individual call signs when making their 
regulatory fee payment if they pay their regulatory fees at the 
aggregate subscriber level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ For more information on our proposed regulatory fee 
assessment initiative for CMRS providers this fiscal year, see also 
section II.C.2.e. of this Report and Order.
    \60\ Comments of American Association of Paging Carriers at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Procedural Matters

A. Payment of Regulatory Fees

1. De Minimis Fee Payment Liability
    49. Consistent with past practice, regulatees whose total FY 2006 
regulatory fee liability, including all categories of fees for which 
payment is due, amounts to less than $10 will be exempted from payment 
of FY 2006 regulatory fees.
2. Standard Fee Calculations and Payment Dates
    50. The Commission will, for the convenience of payers, accept fee 
payments made in advance of the normal formal window for the payment of 
regulatory fees. Licensees are reminded that, under our current rules, 
the responsibility for payment of fees by service category is as 
follows:

    (a) Media Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for AM/FM radio 
station and VHF/UHF television station initial construction permits 
that were issued on or before October 1, 2005, and for all broadcast 
facility licenses granted on or before October 1, 2005. However, in 
instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after 
October 1, 2005, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of 
the permit or license as of the Fee Due Date.
    (b) Wireline (Common Carrier) Services: Fees must be paid for 
any authorization that was granted on or before October 1, 2005. 
However, in instances where a permit or license is transferred or 
assigned after October 1, 2005, responsibility for payment rests 
with the holder of the permit or license as of the Fee Due Date.
    (c) Wireless Services: Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) 
cellular, mobile, and messaging services (fees based upon a 
subscriber, unit or circuit count): Fees must be paid for any 
authorization that was issued on or before October 1, 2005. The 
number of subscribers, units or circuits on December 31, 2005 will 
be used as the basis from which to calculate the fee payment.
    The first eleven fee categories in our Attachment D, Schedule of 
Regulatory Fees, pay what the Commission refers to as ``small multi-
year wireless regulatory fees.'' Entities pay these regulatory fees 
in advance for the entire amount of the 5-year or 10-year term of