Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2010, 41932-41962 [2010-17331]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 137 (Monday, July 19, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41932-41962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17331]



[[Page 41931]]

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

Part II





Federal Communications Commission





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



47 CFR Part 1



Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2010; 
Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 137 / Monday, July 19, 2010 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 41932]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[MD Docket No. 10-87; FCC 10-123]


Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2010

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, we amend our Schedule of Regulatory Fees to 
collect $335,794,000 in regulatory fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, 
pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(the Act). 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: August 18, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing 
Director at (202) 418-0444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

    Adopted: July 8, 2010.
    Released: July 9, 2010.
    By the Commission.

Table of Contents

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Paragraph
                           Heading                                No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Introduction                                                        1
II. Report and Order                                                   2
    A. FY 2010 Regulatory Fee Assessment Methodology                   3
        1. AM and FM Radio Stations                                    5
        2. Submarine Cable Methodology                                11
    B. Regulatory Fee Obligations for Digital Full Service            16
     Television Broadcasters
    C. Regulatory Fee Obligations for Digital Low Power,              21
     Class A, and TV Translators/Boosters
    D. Commercial Mobile Radio Service Messaging Service              22
    E. Interstate Telecommunications Service Provider Fees            25
    F. Administrative and Operational Issues                          32
        1. Mandatory Use of Fee Filer                                 33
        2. Notification and Collection of Regulatory Fees             35
            a. Pre-Bills                                              35
III. Procedural Matters                                               39
    A. Public Notices and Fact Sheets                                 40
    B. Assessment Notifications                                       41
        1. Media Services Licensees                                   41
        2. CMRS Cellular and Mobile Services Assessments              44
    C. Streamlined Regulatory Fee Payment Process                     47
        1. Cable Television Subscribers                               47
        2. CMRS Cellular and Mobile Providers                         48
        3. Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers            49
         (``ITSP'')
    D. Payment of Regulatory Fees                                     50
        1. Lock Box Bank                                              50
        2. Receiving Bank for Wire Payments                           51
        3. De Minimis Regulatory Fees                                 52
        4. Standard Fee Calculations and Payment Dates                53
    E. Enforcement                                                    54
    F. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis                          56
    G. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis                 57
    H. Congressional Review Act Analysis                              58
IV. Ordering Clauses                                                  59
Appendix A--List of Commenters and Reply Commenters
Appendix B--Calculation of FY 2010 Revenue Requirements and
 Pro-Rata Fees
Appendix C--FY 2010 Schedule of Regulatory Fees
Appendix D--Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY 2010
Appendix E--Factors, Measurements, and Calculations That Go
 Into Determining Station Signal Contours and Associated
 Population Coverages
Appendix F--Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Appendix G--Rule Changes
Appendix H--FY 2009 Schedule of Regulatory Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------------


I. Introduction

    1. In this Report and Order, we conclude the Assessment and 
Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year (``FY'') 2010 
proceeding to collect $335,794,000 in regulatory fees for FY 2010, 
pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(the ``Act''). 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\ The annual regulatory 
fee amount to be collected is established each year in the 
Commission's Annual Appropriations Act which is adopted by Congress 
and signed by the President and which funds the Commission.\2\ In 
this annual regulatory fee proceeding, we retain many of the 
established methods, policies, and procedures for collecting section 
9 regulatory fees adopted by the Commission in prior years. 
Consistent with our established practice, we intend to collect these 
regulatory fees during an August 2010 filing window.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 47 U.S.C. 159(a).
    \2\ See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Public Law 111-
117 for the FY 2010 appropriations act language for the Commission 
establishing the amount of $335,794,000 of offsetting collections to 
be assessed and collected by the Commission pursuant to section 9 of 
the Communications Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Report and Order

    2. On April 13, 2010, we released a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (``FY 2010 NPRM'') (75 FR 21536, April 26, 2010) seeking 
comment on regulatory fee issues for FY

[[Page 41933]]

2010.\3\ The section 9 regulatory fee proceeding is an annual 
rulemaking process to ensure the Commission collects the required 
fee amount each year. In the FY 2010 NPRM, we proposed to retain the 
section 9 regulatory fee methodology used in the prior fiscal year 
except as discussed below. We received nine comments and five reply 
comments.\4\ We address the issues raised in our FY 2010 NPRM and 
these comments below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See FY 2010 NPRM.
    \4\ See Appendix A for the list of commenters and abbreviated 
names.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. FY 2010 Regulatory Fee Assessment Methodology

    3. In our FY 2010 regulatory fee assessment, we will use the 
same section 9 regulatory fee assessment methodology adopted in FY 
2009. Each fiscal year, the Commission proportionally allocates the 
total amount that must be collected via section 9 regulatory fees. 
The results of our FY 2010 regulatory fee assessment methodology 
(including a comparison to the prior year's results) are contained 
in Appendix B. To collect the $335,794,000 required by Congress, we 
adjust the FY 2009 amount downward by 1.8 percent and allocate this 
amount across the various fee categories. Consistent with past 
practice, we then divide the FY 2010 amount by the number of 
estimated 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 rounded these 
unit fees consistent with the requirements of section 9(b)(2) of the 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In many instances, the regulatory fee amount is a flat fee 
per licensee or regulatee. In some instances, the fee amount 
represents a per-unit fee (such as for International Bearer 
Circuits), a per-unit subscriber fee (such as for Cable, Commercial 
Mobile Radio Service (``CMRS'') Cellular/Mobile and CMRS Messaging), 
or a fee factor per revenue dollar (Interstate Telecommunications 
Service Provider (``ITSP'') fee). The payment unit is the measure 
upon which the fee is based, such as a licensee, regulatee, or 
subscriber fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In calculating the FY 2010 regulatory fees listed in Appendix 
C, we further adjusted the FY 2009 list of payment units (see 
Appendix D) based upon licensee databases, industry and trade group 
projections, as well as prior year payment information. In some 
instances, Commission licensee databases were used; in other 
instances, actual prior year payment records and/or industry and 
trade association projections were used in determining the payment 
unit counts.\6\ Where appropriate, we adjusted and rounded our final 
estimates to take into consideration events that may impact the 
number of units for which regulatees submit payment, such as waivers 
and exemptions that may be filed in FY 2010, and fluctuations in the 
number of licenses or station operators due to economic, technical, 
or other reasons. Our estimated FY 2010 payment units, therefore, 
are based on several variable factors that are relevant to each fee 
category. The fee rate also may be rounded or adjusted slightly to 
account for these variables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The databases we consulted are the following: the 
Commission's Universal Licensing System (``ULS''), International 
Bureau Filing System (``IBFS''), Consolidated Database System 
(``CDBS'') and Cable Operations and Licensing System (``COALS''). We 
also consulted 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, as well as industry 
sources including, but not limited to, Television & Cable Factbook 
by Warren Publishing, Inc. and the Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook 
by Reed Elsevier, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. AM and FM Radio Stations

    5. As in previous years, we consider the additional factors of 
facility attributes and the population served by each radio station 
in determining regulatory fees for AM and FM radio stations. The 
calculation of the population served is determined by coupling 
current U.S. Census Bureau data with technical and engineering data, 
as detailed in Appendix E. Consequently, the population served, as 
well as the class and type of service (AM or FM), will continue to 
determine the amount of regulatory fee to be paid.\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 for a licensed station in 
that respective service category. For example, in FY 2009 the 
regulatory fee for an AM radio station Construction Permit was no 
higher than the regulatory fee for an AM Class C radio station 
serving a population of less than 25,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. In response to our FY 2010 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we 
received two comments and one reply comment regarding regulatory 
fees applicable to radio stations. In his comment, Robert Bittner 
states that the regulatory fee structure unfairly favors the largest 
AM, FM, and television stations, which have much higher revenues.\8\ 
Mr. Bittner compares the greater revenues earned by large AM, FM, 
and TV stations and the proportion of regulatory fees that they pay 
with the revenues and regulatory fees of smaller markets.\9\ Mr. 
Bittner proposes the Commission use a flat percentage of a station's 
income as a more equitable methodology for assessing regulatory 
fees.\10\ As an alternative approach, Mr. Bittner suggests that the 
Commission assess regulatory fees on a per-person basis based on the 
station's city-grade contour, taking into consideration reductions 
for AM stations and those stations that have to reduce power at 
night.\11\ Finally, Mr. Bittner argues that the population 
thresholds currently in use are too narrow, thereby favoring the 
larger stations, which are well beyond the 750,000 population 
threshold. In his reply comment, Mr. Alex Goldman agrees with Mr. 
Bittner's recommendations.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See comments of Robert Bittner at page 1.
    \9\ Id. at page 1.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ See comments of Alex Goldman at page 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Mr. Edward A. Schober, representing Radiotechniques 
Engineering, also submitted a comment regarding radio station 
regulatory fees. Mr. Schober recommends that the Commission review 
the regulatory fee structure for AM radio stations in which fees, 
from highest to lowest, are currently assessed according to class: 
Class A, B, D, and C. Mr. Schober argues that Class D AM radio 
stations should be assessed the lowest AM regulatory fee as a class 
of service.\13\ In addition, Mr. Schober also recommends that the AM 
and FM radio station regulatory fees be related to the amount of 
spectrum occupied by the stations, which is 100 kHz for FM stations 
and 10 kHz for AM stations; hence, he asserts that AM stations 
should be assessed 10 percent of the FM station fee covering the 
same population.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See comments from Edward A. Schober, representing 
Radiotechniques Engineering, at page 2.
    \14\ Id. at pages 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Although Mr. Bittner and Mr. Schober provide interesting 
recommendations, the Commission is required to comply with the 
language and intent of 47 U.S.C. 159, which governs the assessment 
of regulatory fees. Any changes in fee methodology must be 
consistent with the governing statute, including the prior 
notification to Congress required therein. Mr. Bittner's 
recommendation to assess a fee based on revenue income is not 
without precedent; we currently consider revenues in assessing 
regulatory fees for the Interstate Telecommunications Service 
Provider (ITSP) fee. However, there are two significant obstacles to 
the use of revenues in assessing radio and TV station fees: (1) In 
contrast to ITSPs, radio stations are not required to submit income 
or revenue information, which means that radio and television 
stations would be left to the honor system in determining their 
regulatory fee obligation (and since revenues on a per station basis 
can fluctuate from year to year, it would be difficult for the 
Commission to project the total revenue base upon which regulatory 
fees would be calculated for future collections), and (2) there are 
over 12,000 radio and television facilities for which income data 
would have to be gathered and maintained from year to year.
    9. Mr. Bittner also recommends using a fee per person regulatory 
fee methodology for radio stations based on a station's city-grade 
contour, rather than the current flat fee per station.\15\ According 
to Mr. Bittner, the advantage here would be for radio stations to 
account for every person within the station's contour. Implementing 
such a regulatory fee methodology would be very burdensome for both 
the Commission and the licensees, with more than 10,600 radio 
stations having to calculate the per person fee each year. Moreover, 
if the Commission were to change to a fee per person methodology, 
there would actually be double-counting of persons that are served 
by many radio stations in the same community. For example, in a city 
such as Los Angeles, there are many radio stations that serve the 
same listening public, and if we assessed a fee on a per person 
basis, many of these radio stations would be paying a regulatory fee 
for the same person many times over. Thus, this proposed ``per 
person'' fee would not improve upon the current

[[Page 41934]]

assessment methodology, under which regulatory fees are assessed on 
a per license per station basis based on the population reach of the 
signal. For all of these reasons, implementing a fee structure based 
on a per person basis would be impractical as well as unmanageable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Comments by Robert Bittner, at page 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Finally, Mr. Schober recommends that the Commission use 
spectrum occupancy as the basis of assessing AM and FM regulatory 
fees. The Commission's current system uses population as the basis 
for differentiating between higher and lower regulatory fees. There 
is a dearth of data in the record to support a correlation between 
the amount of bandwidth occupied and the appropriate amount of 
regulatory fees to be assessed. Furthermore, the correlation between 
spectrum use and regulatory fees may not be consistent with the 
intent of the original Section 9 legislation. The original Section 9 
legislation only differentiates radio station regulatory fees by 
class and by type of service (AM or FM).\16\ We do not dismiss Mr. 
Schober's points about the need to review the current AM fee 
structure based on class, and find that this fee structure should be 
reviewed further for future funding years. Although the original AM 
and FM fee grid was submitted as a comment by the National 
Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and supported by 19 State 
Broadcaster Associations, it should be noted that the Commission 
adopted this grid in its FY 1998 Report & Order,\17\ (63 FR 35847, 
July 1, 1998) more than a decade ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 47 U.S.C. 159(g).
    \17\ See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 1998, Report and Order, FCC 98-115, 13 FCC Rcd 19820, para. 37 
(adopted June 16, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Submarine Cable Methodology

    11. In the NPRM, we proposed to continue to use an 87.6/12.4 
percent revenue allocation between submarine cable and satellite/
terrestrial for the bearer circuit regulatory fees for 2010.\18\ 
This allocation was established by the Commission in the FY 2009 
Regulatory Fees Report and Order,\19\ (74 FR 40089, August 11, 2009) 
and was based on a ``Consensus Proposal'' from a large group of 
submarine cable operators that was the basis for Commission revising 
the methodology for the bearer circuit regulatory fee in the 
Submarine Cable Order.\20\ In that Order, the Commission acted on 
the Consensus Proposal and adopted a new submarine cable bearer 
circuit methodology that assesses regulatory fees on a per cable 
landing license basis, with higher fees for larger submarine cable 
systems and lower fees for smaller systems, without distinguishing 
between common carriers and non-common carrier cables.\21\ In the 
NPRM we stated that since we do not have any additional information 
that would lead us to change the allocation, we would use the 87.6/
12.4 percent allocation to calculate the FY 2010 bearer circuit 
regulatory fees.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NPRM at para. 6.
    \19\ See FY 2009 Report and Order at para 8.
    \20\ See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2008, Second Report and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 4208 (2009) 
(``Submarine Cable Order'').
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ NPRM at para. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. In response to the NPRM, Global Crossing North America, Inc. 
(``GCNA'') filed comments seeking changes to the regulatory fee 
methodology for bearer circuits adopted by the Commission in the 
Submarine Cable Order.\23\ GCNA urges the Commission to place a 
limit on the aggregate fee that a submarine cable operator (or group 
of affiliated operators) should be required to pay in any given 
fiscal year to prevent the total regulatory fee from reaching an 
inequitable level.\24\ GSNC suggests several changes that the 
Commission could make to the regulatory fee methodology to address 
its concerns: (1) Imposing a fee on no more than two cable landing 
licenses held by a single licensee or group of affiliated licensees, 
(2) limiting the aggregate fee that any licensee or group of 
affiliated licensees must pay, (3) defining the ``system'' subject 
to a regulatory fee as an integrated network of cables, rather than 
presuming that each license represents a separate system, or (4) 
changing from the 87.6/12.4 percent allocation to a different one, 
such as a 50/50 percent allocation.\25\ Verizon and Qwest 
Communications International, Inc (``Qwest'') filed reply comments 
opposing GCNA's proposals.\26\ GCNA filed reply comments noting that 
the Office of the Managing Director (``OMD'') had denied its 
petition to have its 2009 regulatory fees reduced.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ GCNA comments. GCNA was not part of the group of submarine 
cable operators that supported the Consensus Proposal, but GCNA also 
did not file comments opposing the Consensus Proposal. See Submarine 
Cable Order at n. 3, para. 11. See also GCNA comments at n. 22.
    \24\ GCNA comments at 1.
    \25\ GCNA comments at pages 6-7.
    \26\ Qwest reply comments; Verizon reply comments.
    \27\ GCNA reply comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. We will not make any changes to the methodology for the 
bearer circuit regulatory fees and will use the 87.6/12.4 percent 
revenue allocation for 2010. The Commission adopted the current 
methodology in 2009 in the Submarine Cable Order, and it has only 
been in place since that time. In the Submarine Cable Order the 
Commission found that this methodology allocates bearer circuit 
regulatory fees in an equitable and competitively neutral 
manner.\28\ As Qwest and Verizon point out, the proposals from GCNA 
would shift the payment of the regulatory fees to the benefit of a 
few payers, such as GCNA, and to the detriment of most. The 
Commission must collect a certain amount of revenue from the bearer 
circuit regulatory fee category each year. Reducing the regulatory 
fees that certain submarine cable operators pay by either limiting 
the number of cable landing licenses for which a fee must be paid, 
limiting the aggregate fee a submarine cable operator must pay or 
changing the basis for the fees to a ``system'' fee that may include 
multiple cable landing licenses, will mean that other submarine 
cable operators will have to pay higher regulatory fees. We agree 
with Qwest that these changes would disadvantage cable operators 
with only one or two cables by increasing the proportion of the 
bearer circuit fee that they must pay.\29\ Thus, we find that these 
proposals would not be as equitable as the methodology adopted in 
the Submarine Cable Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Submarine Cable Order at paras. 1, 7, 9.
    \29\ Qwest reply comments at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. We also decline to change the basis for the assessment of 
the regulatory fee on submarine cable operators. In the Submarine 
Cable Order the Commission adopted a methodology for submarine 
cables based on a per cable landing license fee consistent with the 
Consensus Proposal.\30\ GCNA proposes that the Commission change the 
basis for the fee to be a ``system,'' which may include multiple 
cable landing licenses.\31\ This proposal, in addition to shifting 
the regulatory fees from operators with multiple submarine cable 
licenses to other submarine cable operators, would add complexity to 
the administration of the regulatory fees. In addition to being 
equitable and competitively neutral, the current methodology is easy 
to administer.\32\ As Qwest notes, using a ``system'' as the basis 
for the submarine cable fees will require the Commission to 
establish a new process to determine which submarine cable licenses 
comprise a ``system'' and to maintain an updated list of 
systems.\33\ This would be complex and controversial because 
different submarine cable operators may have different criteria for 
what comprises a system and indeed may argue that all of their 
submarine cables comprise a ``system'' regardless of any difference 
in technology or geography between the submarine cables.\34\ In 
addition, changing what is meant by a cable system will affect the 
Commission's submarine cable licensing procedures. As the Commission 
noted in the Submarine Cable Order, adoption of the new regulatory 
fee methodology did not amend the rules for licensing submarine 
cables,\35\ and we should not interpret our licensing rules for the 
purpose of achieving a particular result in connection with the 
application of the regulatory fee methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Submarine Cable Order at para. 1.
    \31\ GCNA comments at 7.
    \32\ Submarine Cable Order at paras. 7, 10.
    \33\ Qwest reply comments at 2.
    \34\ We note that most U.S. international service providers 
state that they provide seamless global services over their global 
networks which integrate subcable, terrestrial and satellite 
facilities.
    \35\ Submarine Cable Order at para. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Finally, we will not change the revenue allocation between 
submarine cable operators and terrestrial/satellite operators for 
the 2010 regulatory fees. For the 2009 regulatory fees the 
Commission used the 87.4/12.6 percent allocation proposed in the 
Consensus Proposal.\36\ The Commission noted in the Submarine Cable 
Order that this apportionment would be determined on an annual basis 
in the annual regulatory fee proceeding.\37\ In the NPRM we proposed 
to continue to use the 87.4/12.6 percent revenue allocation because 
we did not have any information on which to base a change in that 
allocation.\38\ We do not find that there is any basis in the record 
of this proceeding to alter that allocation. GCNA proposes that we 
change the allocation and suggests a 50/50 allocation.\39\ We agree 
with Qwest and

[[Page 41935]]

Verizon that GCNA has not provided any basis for a change in the 
allocation.\40\ GCNA questions the appropriateness of the current 
allocation, but provides no basis for a 50/50 allocation other than 
that it was included in a 2008 proposal by certain cable operators, 
including GCNA, as part of the process that lead to the Consensus 
Proposal.\41\ We will continue to review this allocation as part of 
our annual regulatory fee proceeding, but do not find any basis to 
alter the 87.4/12.6 percent revenue allocation for the 2010 
regulatory fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ FY 2009 Report and Order at para. 8.
    \37\ Submarine Cable Order at n. 35.
    \38\ NPRM at 6.
    \39\ GCNA comments at 7-8.
    \40\ Qwest reply comments at 2; Verizon reply comments at 2-3.
    \41\ GCNA comments at 7, n. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulatory Fee Obligations for Digital Full Service Television 
Broadcasters

    16. The digital transition on June 12, 2009 eliminated the 
distinction between digital and analog full-service television 
stations. As a result, beginning in FY 2010, the Commission will 
collect annual regulatory fees from all digital full-service 
television stations, and the ``digital-only'' exemption will no 
longer be applicable. Also, it is possible that because this is the 
first year following the Commission's transition to digital full 
service television, some facilities may be operating under a Special 
Temporary Authority (STA) beginning on October 1, 2009 until the 
digital license is issued. For FY 2010 regulatory fee purposes, 
facilities operating under an STA will be considered to be fully 
operational licensed facilities and will be obligated to pay the 
same regulatory fee as a licensed full-service television station.
    17. Although we did not seek comment on this issue, we received 
two comments regarding the assessment of regulatory fees for VHF 
television stations in the wake of the digital conversion. Fireweed 
Communications (``Fireweed'') states that VHF television station 
channels come in two ranges: Channels 2-6 (Low VHF and less 
desirable) and Channels 7-13 (High VHF and more desirable).\42\ 
Fireweed states that historically VHF television stations have been 
considered to be ``superior to UHF'', and as a result, VHF stations 
were assessed a much higher regulatory fee than UHF stations. 
Fireweed further asserts that, with the transition to digital TV, 
UHF channel assignments have become more advantageous, both in terms 
of lower interference and greater desirability.\43\ Therefore, 
Fireweed contends, it should not be surprising to see VHF licensees 
transitioning not only to UHF channels, but also between VHF 
Channels 2-6 and VHF Channels 7-13.\44\ Because of this 
transitioning within VHF and to UHF channels, Fireweed argues, the 
Commission should base its regulatory fee structure on three tiers 
of bands, VHF Channels 2-6, VHF Channels 7-13, and all UHF Channels 
(channels 14 and greater).\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See comments of Fireweed Communications, LLC at page 2.
    \43\ Id. at pages 1-2.
    \44\ Id. at page 2.
    \45\ Id. at page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Sky Television LLC, Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc., and 
Sarkes Tarzian, together known as VHF Digital Stations (``VHF 
Digital Stations''), also filed comments relating to VHF and UHF 
television stations. VHF Digital Stations urge the Commission to 
combine VHF and UHF television stations into one fee category by 
market size.\46\ VHF Digital Stations recommend that, instead of 
having six separate VHF and six separate UHF regulatory fee 
categories, the Commission should combine VHF and UHF station fees 
into six categories according to market size and identify them 
simply as full service digital television stations.\47\ By combining 
the VHF and UHF fee categories into one as VHF recommends, the 
resulting fee category would in effect eliminate the historical 
distinction between the higher VHF fees and the lower UHF fees. VHF 
Digital Stations also argue that the current regulatory fee 
methodology structure is inconsistent with the spirit of regulatory 
fees in which higher fees are assessed for more desirable spectrum; 
in the digital world, VHF argues, the UHF channels are the desirable 
spectrum.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See comments of VHF Digital Stations at page 1.
    \47\ Id.
    \48\ Id. at pages 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. We acknowledge that in the digital transition some stations 
moved from VHF to UHF channels. In fact, over the past several 
months, the number of entities changing channels from VHF to UHF has 
totaled over 38 percent.\49\ This will impact the regulatory fees 
paid by those VHF television stations still operating on VHF 
channels. In many of the Nielsen Designated Market Areas (DMA), the 
number of VHF stations decreased almost 50 percent and this in turn 
will increase the regulatory fee for these categories twofold. While 
this potential fee escalation underscores the need for more 
fundamental, long term reform of our regulatory fee process, it is 
imperative that we take steps under our current fee structure to 
mitigate the impact of this shift on television stations still 
operating on VHF channels and, at the same time, take at least a 
partial step toward more fairly apportioning fees across all 
television markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Data from the Media Bureau's Consolidated Database System 
(CDBS) shows that prior to the digital conversion, there were 600 
full service analog VHF stations; after the digital conversion, 
there were 370 VHF digital television stations, a reduction of 230 
VHF stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. A number of commenters have urged us to either combine all 
VHF and UHF full-service television stations into one fee category, 
or else to establish a three-tiered regulatory fee system for full-
service televisions.\50\ Rather than ``flash cut'' to one fee 
category, which would result in a large fee increase to many UHF 
licensees for FY2010, today we use the shift in stations discussed 
to move toward a combined fee category by including in the UHF 
category the units and their corresponding dollar amounts of the VHF 
stations that changed channels during or after the digital 
conversion. Thus, we use the VHF fee amount in the proposed FY 2010 
NPRM as a starting point in calculating the final FY 2010 VHF 
regulatory fee rate. Then, in order to calculate the VHF and UHF FY 
2010 regulatory fees, we move the number of ``shifting'' units 
(units of the stations that changed channels from VHF to UHF) and 
their corresponding dollar amounts from the VHF fee category by 
market size to the UHF fee category within the same market size. 
Thus, within each UHF fee category by market size, the projected 
revenue amount is increased along with the number of units in that 
fee category. The resulting larger projected revenue amount and the 
higher number of units is then used to calculate each UHF fee 
category by market size. It is important to note that, by moving 
only the dollar amounts and their corresponding units from the VHF 
to the UHF fee category by market size, the impact of the resulting 
fee increase on the UHF fee category is approximately 18%-20% less 
than the fee increase that would have resulted from combining all 
VHF and all UHF television stations into one digital category by 
market size. We find this to be in the public interest because it is 
a more equitable result for all entities involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ For comments regarding a combined VHF/UHF television fee 
category, see comments of VHF Digital Stations at pages 1-2; for 
recommendations on a three-tiered regulatory fees system for 
television stations, see comments of Fireweed Communications at page 
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Regulatory Fee Obligations for Digital Low Power, Class A, and 
TV Translators/Boosters

    21. Although the digital transition of full-service television 
stations was completed on June 12, 2009, the digital transition for 
Low Power, Class A, and TV Translators/Boosters is still voluntary, 
and there is currently no set date for the completion of this 
transition. Historically, the discussion of the digital transition 
conversion with respect to regulatory fees has centered on full-
service television stations, and therefore, the elimination of the 
``digital only'' exemption described in paragraph 20 has no impact 
on this class of regulatees. Because the digital transition in the 
Low Power, Class A, and TV Translators/Booster facilities is 
voluntary and the transition will occur over a period of time, it is 
possible that some facilities will convert from analog to digital 
more quickly than others. During this interim transition period, 
licensees of Low Power, Class A, and TV Translator/Booster 
facilities could be operating in analog mode, in digital mode, or in 
an analog and digital simulcast mode. For regulatory fee purposes, a 
fee will be assessed for each facility operating either in an analog 
or digital mode. In instances in which a licensee is operating in 
both an analog and digital mode as a simulcast, a single regulatory 
fee will be assessed for this analog facility that has a digital 
companion channel. As greater numbers of facilities convert to 
digital mode, the Commission will provide revised instructions on 
how regulatory fees will be assessed.

D. Commercial Mobile Radio Service Messaging Service

    22. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (``CMRS'') Messaging 
Service, which replaced the CMRS One-Way Paging fee category in

[[Page 41936]]

1997, includes all narrowband services.\51\ Since 1997, the number 
of subscribers has declined from 40.8 million to 6.5 million, and 
there does not appear to be any sign of recovery to the subscriber 
levels of 1997-1999. Because of this declining subscribership, since 
FY 2003 the Commission has maintained the CMRS Messaging fee rate at 
$0.08 per subscriber, the rate that was established in FY 2002.\52\ 
We therefore sought comment in the FY 2010 Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking to continue maintaining the regulatory fee rate at $0.08 
per subscriber due to the declining subscriber base in this 
industry.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 1997, MD Docket No. 96-186, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17161, 
17184-85, para. 60 (1997) (``FY 1997 Report and Order'').
    \52\ See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2003, MD Docket No. 03-83, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 15985, 
paras. 21-22 (2003) (``FY 2003 Report and Order'').
    \53\ Between FY 1997 and FY 2009, the subscriber base in the 
paging industry declined 84 percent from 40.8 million to 6.5 million 
subscribers, according to FY 2009 collections data as of September 
30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. We received one comment. The American Association of Paging 
Carriers (``AAPC'') filed a comment urging the Commission to either 
maintain the FY 2010 CMRS Messaging Service fee at $0.08 per unit or 
prescribe a lower fee.\54\ AAPC asserts that the industry 
circumstances of 2003 of declining subscribership continue 
today.\55\ AAPC also contends that a review of the regulatory fee 
methodology would reveal that further reduction in the paging 
regulatory fee is warranted.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See comments of American Association of Paging Carriers, at 
page 1.
    \55\ Id. at page 3.
    \56\ Id. at page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. We agree with AAPC that the circumstances prevailing in 2003 
still exist today, and conclude that the FY 2010 CMRS Messaging 
regulatory fee should remain at a rate of $0.08 per subscriber.

E. Interstate Telecommunications Service Provider Fees

    25. As we noted in Fiscal Year 2009 Regulatory Fee Report and 
Order,\57\ the comprehensive regulatory fee revision issues raised 
in the FY 2008 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) \58\ 
(73 FR 50201, August 26, 2008) remain outstanding. In part, we 
invited the Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers (ITSPs) 
to comment on several specific regulatory fee issues.\59\ We note 
that in addition to our request for comment, we released specific 
data to assist commenters.\60\ The responses were not as detailed as 
we had hoped. Indeed, we received two comments and one reply comment 
on the subject of regulatory fees applicable to ITSPs. STi Prepaid 
LLC (``STi Prepaid'') argues that since its inception in 1994, the 
Commission's regulatory fee methodology has not changed 
significantly,\61\ and as a result, the regulatory fee structure may 
not accurately reflect significant changes that have occurred in the 
interstate and international telecommunications marketplace since 
that time.\62\ Because the marketplace has changed while the 
regulatory fee structure has not, STi Prepaid asserts that ITSP 
providers bear by far the largest burden of total regulatory fees, 
and further increases in ITSP regulatory fees borne by interstate 
and international providers are no longer tenable.\63\ STi Prepaid 
urges the Commission to re-evaluate the allocation and methodology 
that is used to calculate ITSP regulatory fees.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Assessment and Collection Of Regulatory Fees For Fiscal 
Year 2009, Assessment And Collection Of Regulatory Fees For Fiscal 
Year 2008, Report and Order, 24 FCC Rcd. 10301 (2009).
    \58\ Assessment and Collection Of Regulatory Fees For Fiscal 
Year 2008, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd. 6388 (2008) (2008 Regulatory Fee R&O and 
FNPRM).
    \59\ Id., at 6402-05. We sought comments on ways to improve our 
regulatory fee process regarding any and all categories of service 
(see paras. 31-36), and we specifically invited ITSPs to respond to 
the following:
    41. Relative to other services that pay regulatory fees, we 
recognize that the ITSP market has changed since the Commission 
calculated the cost of ITSP regulation in FY 1997. We agree that it 
is appropriate to review our methodology for assessing regulatory 
fees on ITSPs. We seek comment on whether ITSPs current share of 
regulatory fees, which has not been revised significantly since 
1997, is appropriate. Commenters should discuss the ITSP market and 
how it has changed since 1997 relative to the other services that 
pay regulatory fees such as wireless and broadcast services. 
Commenters suggesting a change in the proportionate share for ITSPs 
should propose a methodology. For example, would it be more 
appropriate to return to the original Schedule of Regulatory Fees 
and assess fees per 1,000 access lines? We note that we have 
experienced significant success and accuracy with a number-based 
approach for CMRS. Would number of access lines be most appropriate?
    \60\ The Office of Managing Director Releases Data to Assist 
Commenters on Issues Presented in Further Notice Of Proposed 
Rulemaking Adopted on August 1, 2008, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd. 
14581 (2008).
    \61\ STi Prepaid's view of the antecedent regulatory fee events 
is a generalized overstatement. Indeed, the Commission has opened a 
number of proceedings to adjust the fee methodology, see e.g., 
Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2004, 
Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd. 11662, 11667, para. 12 (2004).
    \62\ See comments of STi Prepaid LLC at page 1.
    \63\ Id.
    \64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. Unlike most other regulatory fees that are based on a flat 
fee per license, or on some multiplier based on the regulatee's 
market size, ITSP regulatory fees are based on revenues, with ITSP 
providers paying a regulatory fee on each dollar of revenue 
generated from both interstate and international revenues. STi 
contends that, since ITSPs compete with entities paying regulatory 
fees based on a flat fee, the current regulatory fee methodology 
applicable to ITSPs puts them at a competitive disadvantage.\65\ 
Further, STi Prepaid urges the Commission to consider the size and 
scope of the carrier's resources, as well as the type of customer 
base, as grounds for regulatory fee relief.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Id. at page 4.
    \66\ Id. at page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. In its comments, The United States Telecom Association 
(USTelecom) argues that ITSP providers pay a disproportionate share 
of the regulatory fee burden based on a methodology that was 
established in 1994, and that this burden is passed on to 
consumers.\67\ USTelecom also argues that the methodology currently 
used to calculate regulatory fees does not take into consideration 
the changes that have occurred in the communications marketplace 
since 1994 that directly impact the ITSP industry.\68\ Updating FTEs 
and proportionally allocating the cost of support bureaus, USTA 
contends, would be the first step in rectifying an otherwise 
inequitable regulatory fee methodology that disproportionally 
burdens ITSP providers.\69\ In its reply comments, STi Prepaid again 
stresses that there have been few reforms in the regulatory fee 
methodology since 1994,\70\ and argues that, consistent with similar 
arguments for reforming the regulatory fee methodology made by 
paging, submarine cable, and VHF television service licensees during 
the past several years, \71\ the Commission should ``look for ways 
to ensure that [its] regulatory fee methodologies continue to 
reflect the industries [it] regulates.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See comments of The United States Telecom Association, at 
page 1.
    \68\ Id. at pages 1-2.
    \69\ Id. at pages 1, 4-5.
    \70\ See STi Prepaid reply comments at page 1.
    \71\ Id. at pages 2-3.
    \72\ Id. at page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. Section 9 of the Act permits the Commission to ``add, 
delete, or reclassify services in the [regulatory fee] Schedule to 
reflect * * * changes in the nature of * * * services as a 
consequence of Commission rulemaking proceedings or changes in 
law,'' \73\ and significant changes in telecommunications services 
and markets have unquestionably occurred as a result, inter alia, of 
the implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Our 
current fee methodology is based in part on a macro-level FTE data 
model that we instituted in FY 1999 after we discontinued attempts 
to base our fee schedule on the available cost data first used in 
1997.\74\ Since the inception of that last change to our model, both 
the industry and the Commission have undergone significant change. 
Accordingly, we agree with the notion that the proportion of 
regulatory fees paid by ITSP providers as a whole should be re-
examined. We further believe that we should consider whether and how 
our methodology for assessing regulatory fees should be changed to 
reflect other changes in the communications landscape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(3).
    \74\ Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal 
Year 2004, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd. 11662, 11667, para. 12 
(2004)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. With respect to the specific issue of rebalancing the fees 
paid by ITSPs, we note that for a number of years, the regulatory 
fees collected from ITSP service providers have accounted for a 
significant percentage of all regulatory fees collected.\75\ In 
recent years

[[Page 41937]]

the ITSP industry has experienced a decline in revenues but, because 
ITSPs do not pay a flat regulatory fee but instead pay fees based on 
a percentage of their revenues, the regulatory fees paid by ITSP 
service providers has risen substantially.\76\ Because the comments 
to our question did not provide sufficient detail, we are unable to 
ascertain exactly how the collection of fees from end users has 
affected the operation of the ITSP service providers or to what 
extent a shift in the amount of the payment would be warranted to 
address the alleged competitive disadvantage or provide warranted 
relief to ITSP service providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See e.g., Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for 
Fiscal Year 1997, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17161, Attachment C 
(1997). The pro-rated revenue requirement was $64,960.438 of a total 
revenue requirement of $152,523,000.
    \76\ Between FY 2007 and FY 2009, the ITSP fee rate increased 
from $0.00266 to $0.00342 per revenue dollar. Because of further 
declines in revenue, the FY 2010 ITSP fee rate is slated to increase 
further from $.00351 (the rate set forth in the FY 2010 Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking) to $0.00364 per revenue dollar based on more 
accurate revenue projections available at the time of this Report 
and Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. Moreover, we are aware that reducing the fees paid by ITSP 
providers will increase the fees paid by licensees in other service 
categories (some of which are not able to pass the cost of the fee 
to the end user), and this could potentially impact the regulatory 
fees paid by all other entities regulated by the Commission. Unless 
we revisit the fee schedule in light of all the shifts that have 
occurred in the market for telecommunications services, and consider 
carefully what further changes may occur in the foreseeable future, 
we may succeed in addressing one anomaly while unintentionally 
creating others.
    31. In light of these considerations and consistent with the 
comments received in response to the FY 2008 Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, we acknowledge that the revenue base upon which 
the ITSP fee is calculated has been decreasing for several 
years.\77\ Therefore, we believe it would best serve the public 
interest for the Commission in FY 2010 to set the ITSP regulatory 
fee rate at $0.00349 per revenue dollar. In future years, we will 
further examine the nature and extent of all changes that need to be 
made to our regulatory fee schedule and calculations. In a separate 
and forthcoming action, we will call for comment on issues 
including, but not limited to, how changes in the telecommunications 
marketplace may warrant rebalancing of regulatory fees among 
existing service providers, and how further changes to the schedule 
of fees may be anticipated in light of new changes to the 
telecommunications landscape resulting from implementation of the 
National Broadband Plan and the introduction of other new wired and 
wireless services. This FNPRM will therefore serve two purposes: it 
will update, to the extent necessary, the record on regulatory fee 
rebalancing that we had already been contemplating for existing 
services, \78\ and it will expand this inquiry to new issues and 
services not covered by the 2008 Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ The projected FY 2010 ITSP fee factor in the FY 2010 NPRM 
of $.00351 was based on December 2009 ITSP revenue data. April 2010 
ITSP revenue data, however, reflected revenues 3.4 percent lower 
than projections. This revenue decrease would have resulted in an 
increase in the resulting fee factor from the projected $.00351 to a 
fee factor of $.00364. Thus, based on the proposed methodology of 
the FY 2010 NPRM and the revised revenue numbers, the ITSP fee 
factor would have increased from $.00342 (FY 2009 ITSP fee rate) to 
$.00364. The concerns of these providers, which collectively 
represent 46.82 percent of all regulatory fees paid in any given 
year, resulted in the adoption, as an interim measure, an ITSP fee 
rate at $.00349, which is a 2.1% increase from FY 2009. We find this 
to be a reasonable interim measure pending our review of whether 
part of that 46.82 percent of the regulatory fee burden might be 
moved from ITSP in the context of fundamental reform.
    \78\ The Commission has acted on several of the issues raised in 
the FY 2008 Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, including implementation of (1) a change in the bearer 
circuit methodology for calculating regulatory fees, and (2) the 
elimination of two regulatory fee categories, the International 
Public Fixed Radio and International High Frequency Broadcast 
Stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Administrative and Operational Issues

    32. In FY 2009, the Commission implemented several changes in 
procedures which simplified the payment and reconciliation processes 
of FY 2009 regulatory fees. These changes proved to be very helpful 
to both licensees and to the Commission, and we propose in the 
following paragraphs to expand upon these improvements. In FY 2010, 
the Commission will promote greater use of technology (and less use 
of paper) to improve the regulatory fee notification and collection 
process.

1. Mandatory Use of Fee Filer

    33. In FY 2009, we required that all regulatees use the 
Commission's electronic filing and payment system (also known as 
``Fee Filer'').\79\ Licensees filing their annual regulatory fee 
payments were required to begin the process by entering the 
Commission's Fee Filer system with a valid FRN and password. This 
change was beneficial to both licensees and to the Commission. For 
licensees, the mandatory use of Fee Filer eliminated the need to 
manually complete and submit a hardcopy Form 159, and for the 
Commission, having the data in electronic format made it much easier 
to process payments more efficiently and effectively. Because of the 
success of this process change, we proposed in the FY 2010 NPRM to 
continue to make the use of Fee Filer mandatory as the starting 
point for filing annual regulatory fees. We sought comment on this 
proposal, but received no comments or reply comments on this 
specific issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ FY 2009 Report and Order at paras. 20 and 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. The mandatory use of Fee Filer does not mean that licensees 
are expected to pay only through Fee Filer--it is only mandatory for 
licensees to begin the process of filing their annual regulatory 
fees using Fee Filer. This is one reason it is very important for 
licensees to have a current and valid FRN address on file in the 
Commission's Registration System (CORES). Going forward, only Form 
159-E documents generated from Fee Filer will be permitted when 
sending in a regulatory fee payment to U.S. Bank. These Form 159-E's 
not only will reduce errors resulting from illegible handwriting on 
hardcopy Form 159's, but, because they are generated from Fee Filer, 
these forms also will create an electronic record of licensee 
payment attributes that are more easily tracked and searched than 
hardcopy Form 159's completed manually and mailed to the Commission. 
Hence, in FY 2010, we conclude that regulatees must start the FY 
2010 regulatory fee payment process using the Commission's 
electronic filing and payment system (``Fee Filer'').

2. Notification and Collection of Regulatory Fees

a. Pre-Bills

    35. In prior years, the Commission mailed pre-bills via surface 
mail to licensees in select regulatory fee categories: Interstate 
telecommunications service providers (``ITSPs''), Geostationary 
(``GSO'') and Non-Geostationary (``NGSO'') satellite space station 
licensees,\80\ holders of Cable Television Relay Service (``CARS'') 
licenses, and Earth Station licensees.\81\ The remaining regulatees 
did not receive pre-bills. In our FY 2009 Report and Order, the 
Commission decided to have the attributes of these pre-bills viewed 
in Fee Filer, rather than mailing pre-bills out to licensees via 
surface mail.\82\ Overall, the response to this procedural change 
was positive. In our FY 2010 NPRM, the Commission again proposed to 
continue the practice of not mailing out annual regulatory fee 
bills. We sought comment on this issue, and received one comment 
from the American Cable Association (ACA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Geostationary orbit space station (``GSO'') licensees 
received regulatory fee pre-bills 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 regulatory fee 
pre-bills for systems that were licensed by the Commission and 
operational on or before October 1 of the respective fiscal year.
    \81\ 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 
accounting system as a current debt. A pre-bill is considered an 
account receivable in the Commission's accounting system. Pre-bills 
reflect the amount owed and have a payment due date of the last day 
of the regulatory fee payment window. Consequently, if a pre-bill is 
not paid by the due date, it becomes delinquent and is subject to 
our debt collection procedures. See also 47 CFR 1.1161(c), 
1.1164(f)(5), and 1.1910.
    \82\ See FY 2009 Report and Order at paras. 24, 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. ACA urges the Commission to send e-mails to CARS and Earth 
Station licensees to notify them when pre-bills are loaded into Fee 
Filer for viewing, and to mail a final hardcopy notice to these 
licensees on how to log-in to Fee Filer and access the pre-bill.\83\ 
As an association of small and medium-sized cable companies, ACA 
believes that many of its member entities are not able to keep up 
with the Commission's rules and regulations, and therefore the 
Commission should make more of an effort to reach out to these 
entities regarding regulatory fees.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See comments of the American Cable Association (ACA) at 
page 1.
    \84\ Id. at pages 2-3.

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

[[Page 41938]]

    37. We agree with ACA that many small and medium-sized 
regulatees do not have the same resources as large regulatees to 
monitor Commission rulings on a regular basis. However, we are not 
imposing any significant burden on these small to medium-sized 
regulatees. Historically, regulatory fees have always been due in an 
August or September timeframe, and the due date is generally posted 
on the Commission-wide Web site weeks before the fee deadline. 
Hence, by checking the Commission's Web site periodically beginning 
in July, regulatees will be able to ascertain the fee due date, and 
receive instructions on how to access Fee Filer, view their bill, 
and make a fee payment.
    38. With respect to ACA's recommendation to send e-mails to CARS 
and Earth Station licensees as a form of notification, the 
Commission does not maintain a systematic listing of e-mail 
addresses for individual CARS and Earth Station licensees, and 
sending out e-mails that are not necessarily current in the 
Commission's licensing systems may not result in adequate 
notification. However, once Fee Filer is open to licensees, a public 
notice will be placed on the Commission's Web site, which will 
provide the signal for licensees to begin viewing their pre-bill 
information online. Until the Commission is able to maintain a 
current, systematic listing of licensee e-mails, the use of 
Commission e-mails would provide less than adequate notification.

III. Procedural Matters

    39. Included below are procedural items as well as our current 
payment and collection methods, which we have revised over the past 
several years to expedite the processing of regulatory fee payments. 
We include these payments and collection procedures here as a useful 
way of reminding regulatory fee payers and the public about these 
aspects of the annual regulatory fee collection process.

A. Public Notices and Fact Sheets

    40. Each year we post public notices and fact sheets pertaining 
to regulatory fees on our Web site. These documents contain 
information about the payment due date and the regulatory fee 
payment procedures. We will continue to post this information on 
https://www.fcc.gov/fees/regfees.html, but as in previous years we 
will not send public notices and fact sheets to regulatees.

B. Assessment Notifications

1. Media Services Licensees

    41. Beginning in FY 2003, we sent fee assessment notifications 
via surface mail to media services entities on a per-facility 
basis.\85\ The notifications provided the assessed fee amount for 
the facility in question, as well as the data attributes that 
determined the fee amount. We have since refined this initiative 
with improved results.\86\ Consistent with procedures used last 
year, we will mail media assessment notifications to licensees in FY 
2010 at their primary record of contact in our Consolidated Database 
System (``CDBS''), and to a secondary record of contact, if 
available.\87\ However, after FY 2010, as part of the Commission's 
initiative to emphasize electronic filing and reduce paper usage, 
the Commission will stop mailing out media notification assessments 
to media licensees. Instead the Commission will rely more on its 
various Web sites, including the Commission-authorized Web site at 
www.fccfees.com, to notify licensees of pending annual regulatory 
fees and to update or correct any information regarding their 
facilities and their fee-exempt status.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ As stated previously at footnote 41, 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 accounting system as a current 
debt.
    \86\ Some of those refinements have been to provide licensees 
with a Commission-authorized Web site to update or correct any 
information concerning their facilities, and to amend their fee-
exempt status, if need be. Also, our notifications now provide 
licensees with a telephone number to call in the event that they 
need customer assistance. The notifications themselves have been 
refined so that licensees of fewer than four facilities receive 
individual fee assessment postcards for their facilities; whereas 
licensees of four or more facilities now receive a single assessment 
letter that lists all of their facilities and the associated 
regulatory fee obligation for each facility.
    \87\ We will issue fee assessments 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. As in prior 
years, fee assessments will not be issued for broadcast auxiliary 
stations.
    \88\ If there is a change of address for the facility, it is the 
licensee's responsibility to make the address change in the Media 
Bureau's CDBS system, as well as in the Commission's Registration 
System (``CORES''). There is also a Commission-authorized Web site 
that media services licensees can use to view and update their 
exempt status (https://www.fccfees.com).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. The decision to dis