Schedule of Application Fees of the Commission's Rules, 15026-15067 [2021-03042]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 52 (Friday, March 19, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15026-15067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03042]



[[Page 15025]]

Vol. 86

Friday,

No. 52

March 19, 2021

Part II





Federal Communications Commission





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





47 CFR Part 1





Schedule of Application Fees of the Commission's Rules; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 15026]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[MD Docket No. 20-270; FCC 20-184; FRS 17412]


Schedule of Application Fees of the Commission's Rules

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopts a new application fee 
schedule that significantly updates the Commission's previous fee 
schedule in both the type of applications and the processes involved 
under section 158 (c)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(the Act).

DATES: Effective April 19, 2021.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, FCC 20-184, MD Docket No. 20-270, adopted on December 23, 
2020 and released on December 29, 2020. The full text of this document 
is available for public inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20554, or by downloading the text from the Commission's 
website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-184A1.pdf.

I. Administrative Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

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

C. Congressional Review Act

    3. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, concurs that these rules are non-major under the Congressional 
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this 
Report & Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    1. Prior to adoption of the RAY BAUM'S Act, the Commission's 
authority to make changes to application fees was limited to biannual 
adjustments based on changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI); the 
Commission was precluded from adding or deleting application fee 
categories.\1\ A filing not listed on the section 8 application fee 
schedule did not have a fee unless such a fee was added by Congress. 
Congress also provided that certain categories of applicants should 
receive exemptions in section 8(d) of the Act. Such statutory exempt 
entities included nonprofit entities licensed in certain radio 
services, as well as all governmental entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission was required to adjust the fees every two 
years to reflect changes in the CPI. Under the new section 8(b)(1) 
of the Act, the Commission is similarly required to review 
application fees in every even-numbered year, adjust the fees to 
reflect increases or decreases in the CPI, and round to the nearest 
$5 increment. 47 U.S.C. 158(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. In 2018, as part of the RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018, Congress 
specifically required that the Commission (i) adopt a schedule of 
application fees to recover the costs to process applications and (ii) 
amend the schedule, as needed, to reflect increases or decreases in the 
costs of processing applications or to reflect the consolidation or 
addition of new categories. The RAY BAUM'S Act requires the Commission 
to base application fees on the ``costs of the Commission to process 
applications.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 8(a) provides: ``The Commission shall assess and 
collect application fees at such rates as the Commission shall 
establish in a schedule of application fees to recover the costs of 
the Commission to process applications.'' 47 U.S.C. 158(a). The 
prior version of section 8(a) did not mention costs, it provided: 
``The Commission shall assess and collect application fees at such 
rates as the Commission shall establish or at such modified rates as 
it shall establish pursuant to the provisions of subsection (b) of 
this section.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 
August 26, 2020, seeking comment on proposed new, cost-based, 
application fees. The Commission proposed a new streamlined schedule of 
application fees to align with the types of applications the Commission 
now receives and to correlate the fees charged to the direct costs of 
processing the associated applications. In making the proposals under 
the revised statutory framework, the Commission proposed to adopt as 
overarching goals that the framework for assessing application fees 
would be fair, administrable, and sustainable.
    4. The Commission sought comment on consolidating the application 
fees assessed on licenses for wireless services so that instead of 
separate application fees for each application in each wireless 
service, the fees would be consolidated into site-based licenses, 
personal licenses, and geographic-based licenses. The Commission also 
sought comment on consolidating some of the application fees for 
licenses from the Media Bureau and removing some broadcast applications 
from the fee schedule. In addition, the Commission sought comment on 
new application fees for certain applications in the Wireline 
Competition Bureau that currently do not have fees. For applications 
for international services, the Commission proposed to consolidate some 
of the application fees for space stations and earth stations, and add 
new application fees for some international services, such as petitions 
for United States market access for foreign space stations.
    5. The Commission included estimates of the direct costs of 
processing the applications in support of the proposed fees. The 
Commission sought comment on the cost estimates and whether the 
appropriate steps in processing the application in estimating the costs 
were included.
    6. The RAY BAUM'S Act fundamentally changed the structure of the 
Commission's application fees by moving from a schedule established by 
statute and updated to keep pace with the CPI to one where the 
Commission has discretion to amend the schedule of application fees 
itself and set them based on the costs of the Commission to process 
applications. To implement the RAY BAUM'S Act, we adopt a new 
streamlined schedule of application fees that aligns with the types of 
applications the Commission now receives and correlates the fees 
charged to the costs of processing the associated applications. In 
adopting rules under the revised statutory framework, our overarching 
goals in assessing application fees are that they are fair, 
administrable, and sustainable.
    7. Methodology for Calculating Application Fees: The RAY BAUM'S Act 
directed the Commission to adopt a schedule of fees based on the cost 
of processing applications. In the NPRM,\3\ the Commission proposed to 
base the application fees on an estimate of direct labor costs where 
possible. Where that

[[Page 15027]]

was not possible, the Commission proposed to base fees for applications 
that are largely automated using a calculation that accounts for the 
direct labor costs needed to process the small percentage of 
applications in these categories that require occasional staff 
involvement in processing. We adopt our proposals as modified herein. 
As we explain here generally, and in the discussion of individual fee 
categories more specifically, our methodology for calculating direct 
costs of application processing by design limits the set of activities 
that are included in our estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 85 FR 65566 (October 15, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. We adopt the proposal in the NPRM to use time and staff 
compensation (salaries and the cost of employer-paid personnel 
benefits) estimates to establish the direct labor costs of application 
fees. Specifically, the estimates we developed are based on 
applications processed by Commission staff found to be typical in terms 
of the amount of time spent on processing each type of application. We 
estimated the direct labor costs to process a particular application by 
multiplying an estimate of the number of hours needed for each task, up 
through first-level supervisory tasks required to process the 
application, by an estimate of the labor cost per hour for the employee 
performing the task and by an estimate of the probability that the task 
needed to be performed. We estimated labor cost per hour for the 
various general schedule pay grades of the employees that process 
applications based on the 2020 federal government pay table for 
Washington DC, at the step 5 level, as we currently do under our 
Freedom of Information Act rules. We estimated the cost of personnel 
benefits at 20% of the salary level also per that rule, and we assumed 
that each employee works 2,087 hours in one year. We also rounded each 
fee to the nearest $5 increment, as required by section 8. After 
careful analysis, we find these cost estimates are a reasonable cost 
basis for the application fees we adopt in this Report and Order.
    9. National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) disagrees with our 
methodology and argues that application fees for broadcasters should 
not include supervisory tasks.\4\ We included the first-level 
supervisory costs because first-level supervisory labor is essential to 
the application process. An application decision typically cannot be 
finalized until it has been reviewed at least once and approved by a 
supervisor. Moreover, the first-level supervisory labor reflected in 
our estimates is an identifiable work activity that is a routine part 
of the application process and for which time estimates can be reliably 
developed relative to a specific type of application. Accordingly, we 
find it is appropriate to include supervisory tasks in our calculation 
of application fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NAB Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Some commenters argue that processes for some applications are 
so automated that there should be no application fee. We find there are 
some direct labor costs incurred for a portion of these applications 
and we therefore conclude that adoption of a fee to account for those 
costs is appropriate. We do, upon further consideration, lower the 
application fee from the amount proposed in the NPRM. We reviewed the 
significant automation involved in these applications and the minimal 
staff input normally incurred in processing the applications and 
determined that this lowered direct costs for the average application 
than we had initially estimated. The $35 cost-based fee we adopt for 
mostly automated applications assumes that a relatively small number of 
these applications require staff direct labor. For administrative 
purposes (including that neither we nor applicants can reliably 
anticipate which applications will require such intervention), we 
assess this $35 fee on each applicant for mostly automated applications 
as identified throughout this order.
    11. A Streamlined Application Fee Schedule: We adopt a streamlined 
schedule of application fees, consolidating the eight separate 
categories of fees currently in our rules down to five functional 
categories: Wireless Licensing Fees, Media Licensing Fees, Equipment 
Approval Fees, Domestic Service Fees, and International Service Fees. 
In conjunction with this streamlining, we consolidate our approach to 
listing application fees, reducing the total number of application fees 
from 450 to 173, while still including new fees for services that were 
not listed previously in section 8 of the Act. This consolidation will 
provide a more straightforward roadmap for filers to determine what 
fees they owe with any given application filed with the Commission.
    12. Wireless Licensing Fees: The Commission proposed in the NPRM to 
consolidate the wireless license application fees into four categories, 
instead of adopting separate fees for each service, and we implement 
those changes in this Report and Order.\5\ The fees we adopt are in the 
four categories consisting of site-based, personal,\6\ geographic-
based, and experimental.\7\ The Universal Licensing System (ULS), the 
Commission's online software platform for licensing wireless services, 
provides for the filing, review, and disposition of all types of 
applications in the Wireless Radio Services, including auctioned 
geographic licenses, site-based licenses, and personal licenses.\8\ 
Because ULS allows for the automated processing of many types of 
applications, the fees we adopt today are in many cases lower than the 
prior fees (which were set by statute and not necessarily reflective of 
current agency costs). We direct the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
and the Office of the Managing Director to issue and maintain on an 
ongoing basis on the Commission's website a list of the fee categories 
and the wireless radio services within each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 85 FR 65567 (October 15, 2020) at para 8.
    \6\ The terms personal licenses and personal license services 
were used in the NPRM and are used here to refer to a grouping of 
radio services with similar characteristics and do not refer only to 
Personal Radio Services under part 95 of the Commission's rules, 
which does not include the Amateur Radio Service. Our intent here 
was to group radio services together that had similar types of data 
and levels of processing effort. As stated in the NPRM and in this 
Report and Order, with personal licenses, an applicant's initial 
application for authorization for a personal license seeks shared 
use of certain spectrum bands or a permit required for operation of 
certain radio equipment, but in either case, these applications 
focus only on eligibility and do not require technical review. The 
personal license fee category includes a mixture of radio services, 
including services covered by parts 13 (commercial operator), 80 
(ship), 87 (aircraft), 95 (GMRS), and 97 (Amateur) of the 
Commission's rules.
    \7\ See 85 FR 65567 (October 15, 2020) at para 8.
    \8\ See id. ULS does not include licenses in the Experimental 
Radio Service. Applicants for conventional experimental licenses are 
required to file administrative and technical characteristics of 
their proposed experimental operation online in the Experimental 
Licensing System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Site-Based Licenses: We adopt the site-based license 
application fees proposed in the NPRM.\9\ Site-based licensed services 
include land mobile systems (one or more base stations communicating 
with mobile devices, or mobile-only systems), point-to-point systems 
(two stations using a spectrum band to form a data communications 
path), point-to-multipoint systems (one or more base stations that 
communicate with fixed remote units), as well as radiolocation and 
radionavigation systems. Applications to authorize these types of radio 
systems contain similar types of data (location, antenna, frequency, 
path, mobile devices) and the applications for some of these services 
often require technical analysis and review by Commission staff.\10\

[[Page 15028]]

Specifically, an applicant's initial application for authorization 
generally provides the exact technical parameters of its planned 
operations (such as transmitter location, area of operation, desired 
frequency(s)/band(s), and power levels).\11\ Deviation from the 
specific authorized parameters requires the licensee to file an 
application to modify the station which, depending on the nature of the 
modifications, may require prior approval (major modifications) or may 
simply require notification after the fact (minor modifications).\12\ 
The construction notification (where required) confirms construction 
based on authorized parameters, and the licensee's renewal request 
confirms continued operation at those parameters.\13\ Depending on the 
particular service, the application may be significantly automated or 
may require detailed, often technical, review prior to initial 
authorization or major modification, and administrative review of minor 
modifications and of construction and renewal deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 85 FR 65567 (October 15, 2020) at para 11.
    \10\ See id., e.g., sections 1.923, 101.21.
    \11\ See id., e.g., section 101.21(e).
    \12\ See id., e.g., sections 1.929, 1.947.
    \13\ See id., e.g., section 1.949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to consolidate application 
fees for these site-based licenses.\14\ We recognize that this 
consolidation includes both site-based licenses that require more staff 
input and site-based licenses that are largely automated and require 
less staff input. As one commenter, EWA, observed, part 90 licenses 
range from multi-frequency, multi-site systems seeking exclusivity and 
governed by complicated licensing requirements such as the eligibility 
criteria for particular 800 MHz frequencies to mobile-only systems 
requesting shared VHF/UHF itinerant frequencies throughout areas of 
operation such as counties, states, or even the entire nation, and 
currently they all have a $70 filing fee.\15\ EWA objected to the 
proposed fee increase from $70 to $190 for all part 90 applications 
because it included licenses for mobile-only systems that required 
almost no review by Commission staff.\16\ Another commenter, Moncure, 
also opposed the proposal to treat all site-based wireline services 
equally, asserting that for the part 90 site-based applications 
requiring frequency coordination, much of the processing needed by the 
Commission is automated, and the proposed fees are not justified.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 85 FR 65567 (October 15, 2020) at para 11.
    \15\ EWA Comments at 3-4.
    \16\ EWA Comments at 3-4. Forest Industries Telecommunications 
(FIT) and Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA) also disagree 
with the proposal to adopt a more than 171% increase. FIT Reply at 
1; WIA Reply at 4.
    \17\ Moncure Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. In the NPRM, the Commission estimated that its resources in 
processing an application for a new site-based license or modification 
of an existing site-based license consisted of program analyst review 
and engineer technical review and involved, on average, $190 in costs. 
EWA asserted this was unreasonable because virtually all new and 
modified applications go through prior coordination by an FCC-certified 
Frequency Advisory Committee to verify that the technical parameters of 
the proposed system meet FCC requirements, and renewal showings now are 
based on check-the-box certifications on the Form 601.\18\ We disagree 
that applications involving a frequency coordinator involve no review; 
however, we agree with EWA that a large number of site-based licenses 
have lower processing costs, and consequently the proposed fee of $190 
may be in some cases higher than the direct costs for certain types of 
part 90 applications. Streamlining the fee schedule is beneficial to 
licensees and the Commission, but such streamlining involves a certain 
amount of cost averaging. That said, on further review, and keeping in 
mind that such streamlining should not result in statistically 
inaccurate fees, we find that the number of more highly automated 
licenses in the fee category warrants a downward adjustment of the fee 
for this category. Accordingly, we increased the weighting for 
applications with lower processing costs in our calculation. Therefore, 
we adopt a fee of $95, a lower fee than proposed in the NPRM, for the 
applications in the site-specific services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EWA Reply at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. The Commission estimated in the NPRM that its resources in 
processing an application for special temporary authority (STA) 
consisted of program analyst review and processing, engineer technical 
review, and supervisor coordination with management. Its estimate was 
that this process involved $135 in costs. We adopt the proposed fee of 
$135.
    17. The Commission estimated in the NPRM that its resources in 
processing an application for an assignment or transfer of control 
consisted of program analyst review and processing, and it estimated 
that this process involved $50 in costs.\19\ In proposing and seeking 
comment on the adoption of a cost-based fee of $50 for an assignment or 
transfer of control application, the Commission indicated that this fee 
would be assessed on a per call sign basis.\20\ However, the Commission 
also noted that, under the current rule, it sometimes assesses an 
application fee for additional call signs that is significantly lower 
than the fee for the initial call sign.\21\ EWA asserts that applying 
this same fees for every call sign in a transaction involving multiple 
call signs is unreasonable because less individual call sign review is 
needed for assignment or transfer applications since each license has 
been approved already by the FCC and the focus is on whether the 
assignee/transferee is qualified.\22\ EWA explains that for site-based 
Part 90 land mobile radio services, an entity must identify each 
transmitter site at which it operates, and ULS allows only six fixed 
transmitter sites per call sign.\23\ A large business enterprise with 
many hundreds of sites could be required to hold a hundred or more 
individual call signs to cover its operating area.\24\ EWA contends 
that virtually all site-based applications for assignments and 
transfers are processed under the overnight immediate approval 
procedures and no oversight is involved, whether the application 
involves a single license or two hundred licenses.\25\ Therefore, 
according to EWA, assessing fees based on the number of call signs in 
the filing does not in any way reasonably represent the FCC resources 
associated with processing the application.\26\ Upon consideration of 
the record, we conclude that the cost of processing additional call 
signs is less than the initial call sign and therefore, weighting the 
costs for this reduced burden, adopt a fee of $35 for each additional 
call sign for assignments and transfers of control. Further, an 
analysis of assignment and transfer of control applications over the 
past five years shows that more than 90% of these applications involved 
10 or fewer call signs. Recognizing the diminishing identifiable direct 
costs associated with processing additional call signs in the same 
transaction, we find that reducing fees for additional call signs and 
capping the number of call signs feeable per application better 
reflects the predictable, identifiable,

[[Page 15029]]

direct costs of processing most applications in this fee category. 
Accordingly, we adopt a cap on application fees for assignments and 
transfers of control, under which only the first 10 call signs are 
feeable (e.g., an assignment application with 15 call signs would be 
charged $365; $50 for first call sign, $35 each for nine additional 
call signs, and $0 for the five remaining call signs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 85 FR 65567 (October 15, 2020) at para 12.
    \20\ Id. at 8, para. 18. (cite)
    \21\ Id. (noting that the current fee for applications to assign 
or transfer control of common carrier microwave licenses is $110 for 
the first call sign and $70 for each additional call sign); see also 
id. at 5, para. 6 (stating that the current application fees for 
wireless telecommunications services are codified in section 1.1102 
of the Commission's rules).
    \22\ EWA Reply at 2.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. In light of the adoption of a reduced fee and call sign cap for 
transactions involving multiple call signs, we will apply the same fee 
to all assignments and transfers of control. Verizon, in its objection 
to the proposal to assess fees on a per call sign basis, argues that 
the disproportionate nature of assessing fees based on the number of 
call signs is particularly highlighted when it comes to pro forma 
applications, which require no more than minimal staff review.\27\ Such 
applications can involve numerous call signs, but do not involve any 
actual change to the controlling party of a Commission license, and the 
Commission has long held them to be ``presumptively in the public 
interest.'' \28\ Verizon argues the Commission should make clear that 
pro forma transactions, which the Commission has long held to be in the 
public interest, should not be subject to the same fees.\29\ Our staff 
analysis finds identifiable direct costs associated with the processing 
of pro forma assignments and transfers of control, and therefore an 
application fee is appropriate. Moreover, we find that any concerns 
regarding disproportionate fees for these transactions are sufficiently 
mitigated by our adoption of a reduced fee for additional call signs 
and a cap of ten feeable calls signs per assignment or transfer of 
control application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Verizon Reply at 3.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. In contrast, we clarify that, in the context of assignments of 
licenses and transfers of control, the rule waiver fee we adopt is a 
per transaction fee, not a per call sign fee, as the Commission had 
proposed. In the NPRM, the Commission estimated that its resources in 
processing an application for rule waiver consist of program analyst 
review and processing, engineer technical review, attorney legal 
review, and supervisor coordination with management.\30\ The 
Commission's estimate was that this process involved $380 in costs. EWA 
contends that the waiver fee should be imposed on the lead application, 
but not on related applications, since there is only a single waiver 
showing requiring FCC consideration.\31\ EWA states that the FCC 
licensing structure dictates the number of call signs involved in a 
system, a number that varies widely depending on the service.\32\ We 
agree with EWA's suggestion, and we clarify that we are adopting the 
waiver fee to be assessed on a per transaction basis and not per call 
sign. For assignments and transfers of control that include requests 
for waiver of the Commission's rules, the waiver fee will be charged on 
the lead application at the time of filing, with no charge assessed on 
related applications. A single fee will be charged for the entire 
request for waiver. This per transaction approach is limited to the 
context of assignments and transfers of control, and does not apply to 
other applications that include requests for waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 85 FR 65567 (October 15, 2020) at para. 12.
    \31\ EWA Reply at 3.
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. We adopt a $35 fee for certain site-based applications that are 
all or mostly automated. As the Commission explained in the NPRM, the 
applications for site-based renewals and spectrum leasing, are all 
mostly automated and do not have specific staff costs for data input or 
review. The Commission proposed an application fee of $50 for these 
applications. We agree with commenters asserting that that identifiable 
direct costs for the majority of these applications are minimal, and, 
based on our revised analysis of the cost of processing mostly 
automated processes discussed in our methodology section, we therefore 
adopt a reduced fee amount of $35 for site-based renewals and spectrum 
leasing for site-based licenses.
    21. We adopt the proposal in the NPRM not to assess separate 
application fees for administrative updates, minor modifications, and 
license cancellations. In each of these cases, we find it difficult to 
calculate identifiable direct costs beyond those included in the 
calculation of the underlying license fee. For administrative updates 
we find it is difficult to calculate identifiable direct costs beyond 
those included in the calculation of the initial application fee for 
the license. Therefore, we are not adopting a separate fee for 
administrative updates. Minor modifications are largely automated, 
e.g., a minor modification to remove facilities, so it is difficult to 
calculate identifiable direct costs beyond those included in the 
calculation of the initial application fee associated with the 
application being modified. Moreover, such modifications also are in 
the public interest. Therefore, we are not adopting a separate fee for 
minor modifications. Similarly, we note that cancelling a license in 
its entirety would not include identifiable costs beyond the initial 
application fee calculation. If, in the future, we are able to 
calculate an identifiable direct cost for such filings, beyond what is 
included in underlying license fee, we may revisit this issue. Our 
determination here is indicative of our careful approach to adopting 
fees under section 8 to ensure our process is fair, administrable, and 
sustainable.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ We take a similar approach in the regulatory fee context 
where adoption of new fees and/or changes in fee categories is 
occasionally accomplished only after examining the issue multiple 
times to ensure that the record supports our actions. See, e.g., 
Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2020, 
Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 4976, 
4979-4980, para. 8 (2020), 85 FR 59864 (September 23, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. For the same reason, we decline to adopt the separate fees 
proposed in the NPRM for construction notifications associated with 
site-based license applications. EWA objected to such fees, asserting 
that the processing of site-based construction notifications is 
automated; the Commission has no staff costs for data input or review; 
and virtually all are granted overnight and thus, the proposed fees of 
$50 per call sign was unreasonable.\34\ Guse contends that charging 
fees for filing construction notifications will lead to a reduced level 
of filing which will result in unlicensed operation by entities that 
had obtained a license.\35\ After review of the record, we agree that 
it is difficult to calculate identifiable direct costs beyond those 
already included in the initial application fee for site-based 
construction notifications; we therefore conclude that we will not 
impose an additional application fee for site-based construction 
notifications.\36\ In contrast, with respect to construction extension 
requests, we find that individual staff review of such filings is 
required and conclude that the identifiable direct costs do warrant 
imposition of an application fee; we therefore adopt the $50 
application fee proposed in the NPRM for extension requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ EWA Comments at 8.
    \35\ Guse Reply at 1.
    \36\ Our determination here related to construction 
notifications is limited to site-based licenses. Review of 
construction notifications for geographic-based licenses have 
several calculated identifiable direct costs, resulting in the 
finding that adoption of a cost-based fee is appropriate. See infra 
para. 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. We further decline to adopt a separate application fee for 
amendments. CTIA contends that minor amendments, by definition, do not 
involve major changes that require significant new staff review and 
thus

[[Page 15030]]

impose minimal new labor costs and exempting these types of amendments 
from processing fees would be more consistent with Congress's intent 
and the Commission's goals in this proceeding to align fees with 
costs.\37\ EWA argues against imposing a fee for amendments because 
amendments may be required for a variety of reasons and, in some 
instances, the FCC returns applications for reasons that subsequently 
are determined to be incorrect and correcting the matter still may 
require the applicant to file an ``amendment'' explaining why no 
amendment is needed.\38\ Another commenter, Guse, contends that 
charging fees for amendments is poor policy because the fee increases 
and additions will discourage entities from obtaining licenses and 
there is no reason to charge fees for actions that usually do not 
require FCC staff involvement.\39\ We agree that with respect to such 
applications it is difficult to calculate identifiable direct costs 
beyond those included in the calculation of the underlying license fee 
and find that amendments allowed as part of an application should not 
be assessed an additional fee beyond the initial fee for the underlying 
application.\40\ If, in the future, we are able to calculate an 
identifiable direct cost for such filings, beyond what is included in 
the underlying license fee, we may revisit this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ CTIA Comments at 11.
    \38\ EWA Comments at 9.
    \39\ Guse Reply at 1.
    \40\ We note, however, that where filings effectively constitute 
a new application, a new application fee would be required. For 
example, an amendment to add call signs could be construed, given 
the per-call sign application fee, to be a new filing requiring the 
requisite application fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. We decline to adopt the proposal in the NPRM to assess a fee 
for requests to receive a physical license by mail (including requests 
for a duplicate authorization) because the Commission has adopted an 
order eliminating these services.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Completing the Transition to Electronic Filing, 
Licenses and Authorizations, and Correspondence in the Wireless 
Radio Services, WT Docket No. 19-212, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 
10781 (2020) (E-Licensing Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. In all other respects, we adopt the fees proposed in the NPRM 
and discussed in the paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule 
of fees in the final rules.
    26. Wireless Licensing Fees--Personal Licenses: We adopt the 
categories of personal license application fees proposed in the NPRM. 
The Commission proposed a fee of $50 for each of these applications. 
The Sonoma County Radio Amateurs, Amateur Radio Relay League (ARRL), 
and many individual commenters contend that the proposed $50 fee for 
Amateur Radio Service applications is too high and will prevent 
amateurs from joining the amateur radio service; instead, they contend, 
the Commission should adopt no fee or a nominal fee.\42\ We agree with 
commenters asserting this fee is too high to account for the minimal 
staff involvement in these applications and therefore adopt a reduced 
amount of $35 fee for all personal license application fees.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Sonoma County Radio Amateurs at 1.
    \43\ See, e.g., ARRL Comments at 6; Knowles Comments at 4-10; 
Sonoma County Radio Amateurs at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. In 2019, the Commission received over 197,000 personal license 
applications. Several services in the personal licenses category will 
be subject to new fees, such as Amateur Radio Service licenses, which 
were not listed on the fee schedule in the prior version of section 8 
of the Act, but are now subject to fees under the RAY BAUM'S Act. In 
the NPRM, we sought comment on adopting cost-based fees for personal 
license applications.
    28. Personal licenses include Amateur Radio Service licenses (used 
for recreational, noncommercial radio services), Ship licenses (used to 
operate all manner of ships), Aircraft licenses (used to operate all 
manner of aircraft), Commercial Radio Operator licenses (permits for 
ship and aircraft station operators, where required), and General 
Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) licenses (used for short-distance, two-way 
voice communications using hand-held radios, as well as for short data 
messaging applications).\44\ With personal licenses, an applicant's 
initial application for authorization seeks shared use of certain 
spectrum bands, or a permit required for operation of certain radio 
equipment. In either case, these applications focus only on eligibility 
and do not require technical review. As such, there is no construction 
requirement (or related filings) and renewal filings are non-technical 
as well. For these reasons, applications in these services are highly 
automated and should be subject to the same assessment of fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 85 FR 65567 (October 15, 2020) at para. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. Numerous commenters suggest that amateur radio licenses should 
be exempted or are exempt under section 8(d)(1) of the Act. We disagree 
and note as a starting point that the Commission has no authority to 
create an exemption where none presently exists. Thus, if an exemption 
exists, it must be contained within the wording of section 8(d)(1) of 
the Act.\45\ None of the listed exemptions apply to exempt Amateur 
Radio Service licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 47 U.S.C. 158(d)(1). The exemptions are the following: 
``(A) a governmental entity; (B) a nonprofit entity licensed in the 
Local Government, Police, Fire, Highway Maintenance, Forestry-
Conservation, Public Safety, or Special Emergency Radio radio 
services; or (C) a noncommercial radio station or noncommercial 
television station.'' Id. We note that the capitalization of the 
terms in section 8(d)(B) derive from the historical context of when 
they were first adopted as they refer to the names of current or 
former FCC radio services. See, e.g., Establishment of a Fee 
Collection Program to Implement the Provisions of the Consolidated 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Report and Order, 2 FCC 
Rcd 947, 958, 959-60, 963, paras. 71, 75-80, 111 & n.101 (1987); 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 1986 WL 292181, at *11, para. 53 & 
n.55. Because Amateur Radio Service licenses are not and were never 
licensed under any of those radio services, they cannot take 
advantage of the statutory exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. AGC argues that amateur radio licenses should be exempt under 
section 8(d)(1)(B) as they are ``operating for all intents and purposes 
as non-profit entities'' because they provide public safety and special 
emergency radio services in times of crisis on a volunteer basis.\46\ 
While we are very much aware of these laudable and important services 
amateur radio licensees provide to the American public, we do not agree 
that amateur radio licenses fit within the section 8(d)(1)(B) exemption 
Congress provided. These specific exemptions do not apply to the 
amateur radio personal licenses. Emergency communications, for example, 
are voluntary and are not required by our rules. Further, there is no 
indication that most or all amateurs solely use their license for 
emergency communications; even the section of our rules allowing 
certain amateur operators to broadcast civil defense communications 
limit such authorization to periods of local, regional or national 
civil emergencies. As we have noted previously, ``[w]hile the value of 
the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial 
communications service, particularly with respect to providing 
emergency communications, is one of the underlying principles of the 
amateur service, the amateur service is not an emergency radio 
service.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ AGC Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. We also disagree with commenters \47\ that argue that amateur 
radio operators are among the ``noncommercial'' entities that fall 
under section 8(d)(1)(C)'s exemption for ``a noncommercial radio 
station or a noncommercial television station.'' \48\

[[Page 15031]]

Although, under Commission rules, amateur radio is a ``voluntary 
noncommercial service,'' \49\ we do not believe Congress intended to 
cover amateur radio operators under the newly added exemption. That 
rule was based on the Commission's determination that Congress intended 
to exempt noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast stations from the 
application fees.\50\ Given that the Commission's longstanding 
exemption rule of over 30 years covered only noncommercial educational 
broadcast stations, Congress presumably would have more clearly 
indicated an expanded exemption if it had intended one to cover amateur 
radio service. We see no such indication here. To the contrary, we 
believe Congress's inclusion of the term ``noncommercial television 
station'' immediately following ``noncommercial radio station'' cabins 
the contextual meaning of that term.\51\ We did not then 30 years ago, 
nor do we now, conclude that the exemption covers non-broadcast 
services.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See, e.g., Golden Reply at 3 and 4-5.
    \48\ See, e.g., Griffin C. Klema, Esq. Comments at 2 (``so long 
as an applicant or licensee fits the definition of a `noncommercial' 
it is expressly exempted from the cost-based fee regime under 
section 8''); Christopher Ruvolo Comments at 1-3 (``Licensed amateur 
stations meet the `noncommercial' requirement of the exceptions 
authorized under 47 U.S.C. 158(d)(1)(C)''); Golden Reply at 3 and 4-
5 (arguing that the exemption in 8(d)(1)(C) is not limited to 
broadcast licensees and includes amateur radio licensees).
    \49\ See 47 CFR 97.1(a) (identifying one of the fundamental 
purposes of the amateur radio service includes ``[r]ecognition and 
enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a 
voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with 
respect to providing emergency communications''); 97.3(a)(4) 
(defining ``Amateur service'' as a ``radiocommunication service for 
the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical 
investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized 
persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and 
without pecuniary interest''); 97.113(a)(2), (3) (prohibiting 
amateur stations from transmitting ``communications for hire or for 
material compensation, direct or indirect, paid or promised'' or 
``communications in which the station licensee or control operator 
has a pecuniary interest''); see also 47 U.S.C. 153(3) (defining 
``amateur station'' as a radio station operated by a duly authorized 
person interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and 
without pecuniary interest'').
    \50\ Application Fee NPRM, para. 13 & note 13 (explaining that 
the exception in Sec.  1.111 was based on the statements in 
Conference Report to accompany H.R. 3128, House of Representatives 
Report No. 99-453 indicating that that ``non-commercial radio and 
television stations will not be subject to any of the fees listed in 
this schedule.'' 1985 Conference Report at 423; 425, 426. Moreover, 
the legislative history to the 1989 amendments to section 8 
reaffirmed the point. Conference Report to accompany H.R. 3299, 
House of Representative Report No. 101-386 (1989) (``Non-commercial 
broadcasters were excluded from the initial Schedule of Charges 
passed in 1985. The House recedes to the Senate position and agrees 
to continue to exclude non-commercial broadcasters from the Schedule 
of Charges.'')).
    \51\ See Yates v. U.S., 574 U.S. 528, 543 (2015) (explaining the 
principle of noscitur a socii--a word is known by the company it 
keeps--to avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is 
inconsistent with its accompanying words thus giving unintended 
breadth to the Acts of Congress).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. Lastly, while fees for amateur radio licenses were not 
previously listed on the fee schedule in section 8 of the Act, the RAY 
BAUM'S Act directed the Commission to establish fees for all 
applications and there is no specific exemption for this radio service 
under section 8 of the Act as amended. If Congress had intended to 
exempt amateur radio licensees from payment of application fees, it 
would have identified this service as exempt, as it did in section 9 of 
the Act, exempting ``an amateur radio operator licensee under part 97 
of the Commission's rules'' from payment of regulatory fees. While the 
RAY BAUM'S Act amended section 9 and retained the regulatory fee 
exemption for amateur radio station licensees, Congress did not include 
a comparable exemption among the amendments it made to section 8 of the 
Act. Indeed, had Congress intended amateur radio operators to be 
covered under the ``noncommercial radio station'' exemption in section 
9(e)(1)(C), it would have been unnecessary to retain the regulatory fee 
exemption for amateur radio operators in section 9(e)(1)(B). Having 
included both provisions in section 9, we believe the most reasonable 
interpretation is that Congress did not intend for the noncommercial 
radio and television station exemption to cover the amateur radio 
service. Given the identical language appears in section 8(d)(1)(C), we 
interpret the exemptions consistently \52\ and conclude that amateur 
radio station licensees are not covered under that exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Law v. Siegal, 571 U.S. 415, 422 (2014) (under the 
``normal rule of statutory construction'', ``words repeated in 
different parts of the same statute generally have the same 
meaning'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. Some commenters support the $50 fee we proposed in the NPRM as 
reasonable and fair.\53\ However, ARRL and many individual commenters 
argue that there is no cost-based justification for application fees 
for the Amateur Radio Service. ARRL explains that the service is 
largely self-governing and amateur radio operators prepare and 
administer examinations for amateur licenses.\54\ They explain that 
preparing, administering, grading, and reporting amateur examinations 
has been done exclusively by amateur radio organizations that in turn 
submit to the Commission only the paperwork required to issue a 
license.\55\ Several individual commenters argue that the only costs 
associated with this service relate to entry into and maintenance of 
ULS, which costs should be $0 per application and nominal per licensee 
(to cover FRN creation and ULS entry).\56\ Others acknowledge that 
there may be some incremental costs associated with applications for 
vanity call signs or requests for paper licenses, but not with other 
applications that are entirely automated.\57\ Other commenters propose 
graduated fees (generally starting at $0) for the different license 
classes (i.e., Technician, General, Extra), or for new licenses, 
renewal, vanity call sign, etc.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See, e.g., Greg Gallop Comments at 1; Serge Miller Comments 
at 1; Carl Akers Comments at 1; Mark Brown Comments at 1.
    \54\ ARRL Comments at 2-3. ARRL is also known as the American 
Radio Relay League.
    \55\ Id. at 3.
    \56\ See, e.g., Vollie T. Miller Comments at 1; Charles McKinnis 
Comments at 1; Terry Whitehead Express Comments at 1.
    \57\ See, e.g., Arthur Clark Comments at 1; Kim & Ralph Irons 
Comments at 1; Christopher A. Merck Comments at 1.
    \58\ See, e.g., Charles Bierwirth Comments at 1; Henry Silver 
Comments at 1; John Eddy Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. We agree that the applications for amateur licenses, and other 
personal licenses, are largely automated, and for that reason the cost-
based fee we adopt is only $35. With respect to the amateur licenses, 
while review is highly automated, staff must maintain the processing 
system to ensure applicants are qualified, vanity call sign procedures 
are followed, and off-lined applications are individually reviewed.\59\ 
Therefore, we cannot conclude that there are no costs involved in 
processing the applications and we do not have the discretion to exempt 
this service from application fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ To the extent the NPRM could be construed as basing the 
proposed amateur radio service application fee in part on ULS 
maintenance costs, see Joseph H. Hibberd Comments at 1-2, we do not 
consider such costs in establishing the $35 fee in this Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. ARRL and many individual commenters additionally claim that the 
proposed fee will harm the public interest by discouraging people who 
are younger from becoming licensed or by causing people who are older 
and living on fixed income to leave the service (depriving others of 
their skills and experience).\60\ These commenters explain that 
participation in the amateur radio service can be an entry point to 
science, technology, engineering, and math careers.\61\ They also note 
that amateur licensees have driven innovation in communications and

[[Page 15032]]

other technologies.\62\ While we agree that participation in the 
Amateur Radio Service offers important public interest benefits, that 
determination does not alter our obligation under RAY BAUM's Act to 
adopt cost-based fees for processing applications regarding nonexempt 
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See ARRL Comments at 6, 9; see also, e.g., Robert S. 
Antoniuk Comments at 1; Brian Wasson Comments at 1.
    \61\ See, e.g., ARRL Comments at 9.
    \62\ See, e.g., ARRL Comments at 6; Jamie Heim Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. Other commenters argue that it is unreasonable for the 
Commission to impose fees on Amateur Radio Service licensees given that 
the Commission has outsourced many of the administrative functions for 
the service. Individual operators and their organizations perform not 
only the training and examination functions we have discussed, but also 
assist the Enforcement Bureau in policing the service for unlicensed 
operations and other interference issues.\63\ These commenters argue 
that if the Commission adopts application fees for the service, it 
should use the fees for the benefit of licensees, for example, by 
taking more robust enforcement actions against unlawful operators.\64\ 
While we appreciate the commenters' diligent advocacy for their 
service, we remind them that the Commission does not have discretion on 
how to use application fees, which must be deposited in the U.S. 
Treasury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Amy S. Lindenmuth, Calvin T. Wagner Jr., Frances R. 
Wagner Comments at 1.
    \64\ See Jordan Nash Comments at 1; Joseph Grib Express Comments 
at 1; Paul Andrews Express Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. One commenter, Knowles, contends that the proposed $50 fee for 
GMRS is too high, as the application process is automated.\65\ There is 
no testing involved, as with the amateur license. We recognize that the 
application process for GMRS licenses is highly automated. There are, 
however, some costs involved in ensuring applicants are qualified and 
off-lined applications are individually reviewed, and we cannot 
conclude that there are no costs involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Knowles Comments at 4-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. After reviewing the record, including the extensive comments 
filed by amateur radio licensees and based on our revised analysis of 
the cost of processing mostly automated processes discussed in our 
methodology section, we adopt a $35 application fee, a lower 
application fee than the Commission proposed in the NPRM for personal 
licenses, in recognition of the fact that the application process is 
mostly automated.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See, e.g., several other applications, such as for license 
renewal and spectrum leasing in the site-based category, that are 
largely automated and now have $35 fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. We adopt the proposal from the NPRM to assess no additional 
application fee for minor modifications or administrative updates, 
which also are highly automated. Also, consistent with our decision for 
site-based applications, we do not adopt a fee for amendments. We find 
that it would difficult to calculate identifiable direct costs beyond 
those included in the calculation of the underlying license application 
fee adopted for personal license services. If, in the future, we are 
able to calculate an identifiable direct cost for such filings, beyond 
what is included in underlying license fee, we may revisit this issue. 
We also decline to adopt a fee for instances where an applicant elects 
to receive a physical license by mail (including requests for a 
duplicate license), because the Commission has adopted an order 
eliminating such printing and mailing services.
    40. We adopt the fees proposed in the NPRM as modified in the 
paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final 
rules.
    41. Geographic-Based Licenses: We adopt the geographic-based 
license application fees proposed in the NPRM. We further consolidate 
the short-form and long-form auction fees into a single fee that is 
paid by the entities that win the licenses in an auction. We conclude 
that a consolidated fee is consistent with section 8 and will also 
promote the various objectives of spectrum auctions enumerated in 
section 309(j) of the Communications Act.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3). For example, one such objective that 
may be impacted by reduced competition resulting from a short form 
fee assessed on all auction participants is the ``recovery for the 
public of a portion of the value of the public spectrum resource 
made available for commercial use.'' Id. Section 309(j)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. Geographic-based licenses authorize an applicant to construct 
anywhere within a particular geographic area's boundary (subject to 
certain technical requirements, including interference protection) and 
generally do not require applicants to submit additional applications 
for prior Commission approval of specific transmitter locations. 
Geographic-based licensing services include the 220-222 MHz Service 
(used for flexible wireless services over narrowband frequencies), 24 
GHz Service and Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (used for a 
variety of data services), Multilateration Location and Monitoring 
Service (used to locate and monitor remote radio units), Multiple 
Address System (used for supervisory control and data acquisition 
services), Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (used for 
TV programming and internet connectivity), Paging and Radiotelephone 
Service (used for narrowband one-way and two-way land mobile 
communications), VHF Public Coast Stations (used as a maritime mobile 
service to address the distress, navigational, and business 
communications needs of vessels), and 800 MHz and 900 MHz Specialized 
Mobile Radio Service (used for flexible wireless services to businesses 
and consumers).
    43. Some geographic-based services, such as the Advanced Wireless 
Service, Broadband Personal Communications Service, and the 600 MHz, 
700 MHz,\68\ 3.5 GHz,\69\ and 3.7-4.2 GHz Services,\70\ did not have 
application fees previously; however, the RAY BAUM'S Act requires the 
Commission to collect fees for all applications, unless specifically 
exempt. For these geographic-based services, an applicant's initial 
application is generally accepted as a result of an auction and focuses 
on the area and spectrum of interest, as well as the applicant's 
eligibility and qualifications. Applications in these services require 
detailed eligibility review prior to initial authorization, detailed 
technical review of construction filings, and detailed service review 
at renewal in some circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ The subdivisions of the 700 MHz band by radio service code 
and name are as follows: WU 700 MHz Upper Band (Block C), WX 700 MHz 
Guard Band, WY 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks A, B, E), WZ 700 MHz Lower 
Band (Blocks C, D).
    \69\ More specifically, this as radio service code is ``Public 
Law 3.5 GHz, Auctioned'' and we call this elsewhere Citizens Band 
Radio Service or CBRS.
    \70\ Also referred to as 3.7-3.98 GHz band (or the ``3.7 GHz 
Service'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. We adopt the proposal in the NPRM to adopt a single fee that is 
paid by an entity that wins licenses in an auction. In the NPRM, the 
Commission sought comment on whether it should adopt separate short-
form and long-form application fees or a single auction fee at the 
long-form stage so that only a winning bidder would be required to pay 
a combined application fee. Commenters recommend that the Commission 
consolidate auction application processing costs and impose a fee only 
on successful bidders that file long-form applications.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ EWA Comments at 5; WISPA Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. We conclude that a single fee is consistent with section 8 and 
will also promote the various objectives of spectrum auctions 
enumerated in section 309(j) of the Communications Act.\72\ We 
recognize that a single fee

[[Page 15033]]

would not require the short-form applicants that do not become winning 
bidders to pay an application fee; only the winning bidders would pay 
for the costs of processing applications. However, we find Section 8 is 
ambiguous on whether we must treat each stage of an application for an 
auctioned spectrum license (which requires a short-form application, a 
long-form application, along with an indeterminate number of bids) as 
one, two, or multiple applications.\73\ To the extent we have 
discretion in interpreting that provision, we exercise it in line with 
the record and our view that the short-form filing(s), any bids, and 
long-form filing(s) are part of a single ``application'' within the 
scope of section 8 such that a fee is required only once that 
application is submitted at the long-form stage. We also note that 
developing and implementing changes to the electronic auction 
application system, including integrating such changes with other 
electronic databases, to require a payment from each auction 
participant at time of filing a short-form would require significant 
effort upon the part of the Commission and could delay our ability to 
expeditiously conduct auctions in the next year. Any such delays would 
be avoided by waiting until the long-form application is due from the 
winning bidders and imposing a single application fee at that time to 
cover costs of processing of applications for licenses assigned by 
auction. Because this consolidated payment process avoids such delays, 
we find that a reasonable exercise of our discretion consistent with 
the requirement in section 8(a) that the fees ``recover the costs of 
the Commission to process applications'' and our obligation under 
section 309(j).\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3). For example, one such objective that 
may be affected by reduced competition is the ``recovery for the 
public of a portion of the value of the public spectrum resource 
made available for commercial use.'' Id. Section 309(j)(3)(C).
    \73\ Indeed, one could plausibly argue that each bid for a 
spectrum license is its own request or ``application'' for that 
license, but we find no evidence that Congress intended us to 
require a separate filing fee each time an applicant made any filing 
with respect to a particular spectrum license.
    \74\ Nothing in our treatment of auction applications for fee 
purposes should be construed to affect any other obligations under 
our auction rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. One commenter, Select Spectrum disagrees with the proposal to 
assess application fees for auction participation generally and 
contends that such a fee would threaten robust and diverse auction 
participation by small-scale enterprises and others.\75\ Alternatively, 
contends Select Spectrum, these fees, at minimum, should be waived for 
all organizations filing for Designated Entity status as a small 
business, tribal land, or rural service provider qualifying party.\76\ 
Select Spectrum argues that such exemption would help to preserve 
auction participation by the entities that would be impacted the most 
by these fees, while still allowing the Commission to collect fees from 
larger organizations that elect to participate.\77\ Although we agree 
that a robust and diverse auction is an important goal, there is no 
exemption in section 8 for auction applications.\78\ We further find 
that adopting the proposal to consolidate the short-form and long-form 
fees addresses in part the concerns raised by Select Spectrum in that 
only winning bidders will be assessed these fees and it will reduce the 
financial risk of all organizations with Designated Entity status to 
the extent they will not be subject to such fees unless they are 
winning bidders in an auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Select Spectrum LLC, Kitsune Communications LLC, Columbia 
Energy, LLC/Columbia Rural Electric Association, Diode Cable Co., 
Jade Communications LLC, Spectrum Financial Partners, LLC, SonicNet 
Inc., Southern Ohio Communication Services, Inc., Bayfield Wireless, 
Desert Winds Wireless/Performance Computing/Preferred Networks 
(Select Spectrum) Comments at 2.
    \76\ Id.
    \77\ Id.
    \78\ Under the RAY BAUM'S Act, the exemptions are to ``(A) a 
governmental entity; (B) a nonprofit entity licensed in the Local 
Government, Police, Fire, Highway Maintenance, Forestry-
Conservation, Public Safety, or Special Emergency Radio radio 
services; or (C) a noncommercial radio station or noncommercial 
television station.'' 47 U.S.C. 158(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    47. We adopt a single application fee of $3,175 as proposed. Each 
applicant would be charged one fee of $3,175, regardless of the number 
of licenses won at auction.
    48. We adopt the fees for a new license or a major modification, 
renewal, minor modifications, construction notification or extension, 
and STA proposed in the NPRM. \79\ In the NPRM, the Commission 
estimated that its resources in processing an application for a new 
license or a major modification (not a long-form or short-form 
application) consist of program analyst review and processing, engineer 
technical review, map review, and attorney supervisor legal review. Our 
estimate is that this process involves $305 in costs.\80\ The 
Commission estimated that its resources in processing an application 
for a renewal consist of analyst review, engineer technical review, and 
exhibit review, involving $50 in costs.\81\ The Commission estimated 
that its resources in processing an application for a minor 
modification consist of engineer technical review and map review, 
involving $200 in costs.\82\ The Commission estimated that its 
resources in processing an application for construction notification or 
extension consist of program analyst review and processing, engineer 
technical review, analysis, validation of coverage, attorney legal 
review, and supervisor coordination with management, involving $290 in 
costs.\83\ The Commission estimated that its resources in processing an 
application for STA consist of a contractor entering data in the ULS, a 
program analyst preparing a public notice accepting the application for 
filing, program analyst review, supervisor coordination with 
management, and a program analyst preparing the public notice granting 
or denying the application, involving $335 in costs.\84\ We adopt these 
proposed fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 85 FR 65568 (October 15, 2020) at para. 25.
    \80\ 85 FR 65568 (October 15, 2020) at para. 26.
    \81\ Id.
    \82\ Id.
    \83\ Id.
    \84\ 85 FR 65568 (October 15, 2020) at para. 26-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. We adopt with modification the proposal in the NPRM to assess a 
$195 fee for assignment or transfer of control and assess such fees on 
a per call sign basis. We modify the proposal by reducing the fee for 
each additional call sign to $35 and capping the number of calls signs 
assessed a fee on the same application at 10. In the NPRM, the 
Commission estimated that its resources in processing an application 
for assignment or transfer of control consist of program analyst 
review, engineer technical and map review, and supervisor legal review, 
involving $195 in costs.\85\ The Commission had proposed the fee for 
assignment or transfer of control on a per call sign basis. Commenters 
disagree. CTIA contends that the number of call signs in an application 
should not be the basis for assessing fees because it does not 
proportionally increase the Commission's processing costs and may lead 
to unfair or inappropriate results.\86\ CTIA explains that, for 
example, applications that currently incur fees on a per-call sign 
basis seek Commission approval for a variety of transactions, and 
Commission staff largely analyze and process them on a holistic, per-
transaction, not a per-call sign, basis.\87\ CTIA observes that some 
complex transactions requiring significant staff review may involve 
only a handful of call signs, and thus incur limited application 
processing fees, while simpler transactions requiring minimal

[[Page 15034]]

staff review may involve a larger number of call signs and thus incur 
comparatively higher application processing fees.\88\ After reviewing 
the record, we agree with CTIA and the other commenters that oppose the 
proposed fee on a per call sign basis for call signs beyond the first 
10. As we found with the site-based licenses, a lower fee of $35 for 
subsequent call signs and a cap of fees at 10 total call signs on the 
same application is an appropriate cost-based fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Id.
    \86\ CTIA Comments at 5.
    \87\ Id.
    \88\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. We adopt the proposals in the NPRM for application fees for 
spectrum leasing, waiver, and designated entity licensee reportable 
eligibility event, with one modification. Similar to our decision for 
site-based licenses, we clarify that in the context of assignments and 
transfers of control, the rule waiver fee we adopt is a per transaction 
fee, not a per call sign fee. The waiver fee will be charged on the 
lead application at the time of filing, with no charge assessed on 
related applications. This per transaction approach is limited to the 
context of assignments and transfers of control, and does not apply to 
other applications that include requests for waiver. In the NPRM, the 
Commission estimated that its costs in processing an application for 
spectrum leasing consist of program analyst review and processing, 
engineer technical review and map review, and attorney supervisor legal 
review, involving $165 in costs. The Commission estimated that its 
resources in processing an application for waiver consist of program 
analyst review and processing, engineer technical review, attorney 
review, and supervisor coordinate with management, involving $380 in 
costs.\89\ The Commission estimated that its resources in processing an 
application for a designated entity licensee reportable eligibility 
event consist of attorney-supervisor legal review, involving $50 in 
costs. We adopt the application fee for assignment and transfer of 
control for $380 and a $50 fee for a designated entity licensee 
reportable eligibility event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Consistent with existing practice, a request for waiver 
filed as part of an auction application would not be feeable. The 
waiver fee would be imposed on all other requests for waiver 
submitted in connection with geographic-based licenses, including 
any such request made by a potential auction applicant that is not 
filed as part of an auction application and any waiver request filed 
in association with an auction winner's long-form application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    51. We adopt the fees proposed in the NPRM as modified in the 
paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final 
rules.
    52. The Educational Broadband Service (EBS) Exemption. The 
Commission adopts its proposal to eliminate Sec.  1.1116(e)(4) of our 
rules. In light of the changes the Commission made in 2019 to its EBS 
rules, we conclude that a blanket exemption of EBS licensees no longer 
is appropriate. We note that governmental entities that hold EBS 
licenses would continue to be exempt from application fees under Sec.  
1.1116(f) of our rules.
    53. Eligibility to hold EBS licensees previously was limited to (1) 
accredited public and private educational institutions, (2) 
governmental organizations engaged in the formal education of enrolled 
students, and (3) nonprofit organizations whose purposes are 
educational and include providing educational and instructional 
television materials to accredited institutions and governmental 
organizations. EBS licenses also were subject to educational use and 
lease restrictions. In 2019, however, as part of the Commission's 
ongoing effort to maximize spectrum use in the commercial marketplace, 
the Commission eliminated eligibility, educational use, and leasing 
restrictions for EBS licenses, clearing the way for commercial, non-
educational use of the channels within the 2.5 GHz Band previously 
reserved for EBS services. As part of its decision, the Commission 
noted that most incumbent EBS licensees had abandoned use of EBS as a 
closed, dedicated means of distributing educational content, and that 
the educational use of the 2.5 GHz band has become indistinguishable 
from the commercial broadband service offered by the commercial lessee, 
with most EBS licensees or their commercial lessees providing digital 
broadband service. In light of these changes, the Commission proposed 
to eliminate Sec.  1.1116(e)(4) of the Commission's regulations.
    54. Some commenters opposed elimination of the EBS exemption. WISPA 
contends that the vast majority of EBS licenses continue to be held by 
non-profit educational entities, and WISPA expects that this will 
continue to be the case going forward.\90\ WISPA argues further that 
EBS spectrum lease provisions often require ongoing service to 
educational institutions, and the Commission's elimination of lease 
restrictions do not override the contractual provisions between EBS 
licensees and lessees.\91\ NEBSA recommends modifying rather than 
eliminating Sec.  1.1116(e)(4) to exempt existing private non-profit 
entities and new EBS licensees that provide only educational or other 
noncommercial services, or lease capacity of their EBS licenses to non-
profit or governmental entities who then provide educational or other 
noncommercial services, are exempt.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Wireless Internet Service Provider Association (WISPA) 
Comments at 7.
    \91\ Id.
    \92\ National EBS Association (NEBSA) Comments at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    55. The Commission is not persuaded that retention of Sec.  
1.1116(e)(4) of our rules, even in modified form as proposed by NEBSA, 
is warranted. Few, if any, EBS licensees would be eligible for the 
proposed exemption because most EBS licensees lease their spectrum to 
commercial providers. Even EBS licensees such as Northern Michigan 
University and Kings County Office of Education that self-deploy 
networks are operating commercial networks that charge customers.\93\ 
The proposed exemption would also be difficult to administer 
fairly.\94\ And commenters do not explain how applications related to a 
service used commercially could be exempt from fees consistent with 
section 8 as revised by the RAY BAUM'S Act. Accordingly, Sec.  
1.1116(e)(4) of our rules will be deleted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See https://nmu.edu/ean/ (detailing charges for Northern 
Michigan University's LTE network), https://www.kingscoe.org/domain/45 (same for Kings County, California).
    \94\ For example, it is not clear what would happen if a 
licensee claimed the proposed fee exemption but subsequently decided 
to lease its spectrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    56. Experimental Radio Service Licenses: We adopt the application 
fees for Experimental Radio Service for New Station Authorization, 
Modification of Authorization, Renewal of Station Authorization, 
Assignment of License or Transfer of Control, STA, and Confidentiality 
request that the Commission proposed in the NPRM. No entities filed 
comments on or otherwise objected to the proposed fees.
    57. The experimental radio service permits broad experimentation, 
including assessing equipment intended to operate in existing 
Commission services, proof of concept testing and evaluation of new 
radio technologies, equipment designs, radio wave propagation 
characteristics, and service concepts related to the use of the radio 
spectrum.\95\ Experimental operations include scientific or technical 
radio research, technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques, 
and product development and market trials, among other things.\96\ The 
experimental radio service rules prescribe flexible rules to encourage 
manufacturers, inventors,

[[Page 15035]]

entrepreneurs, and students to experiment across a wide range of 
frequencies, power, emissions, and applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ 47 CFR 5.1.
    \96\ 47 CFR 5.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    58. There are two distinct paths for obtaining an experimental 
radio license.\97\ Traditionally, applicants are required to file a 
conventional experimental license application and receive a license 
grant prior to operating. \98\ These licenses are generally limited to 
a single type of experiment.\99\ Conventional applications vary in the 
types of services requested, number of transmit sites needed, and 
technical complexity.\100\ For example, Cubesat experiments widely 
differ in their size and scope and can be extremely complex.\101\ Other 
applications, such as for new 3650 MHz Citizens Broadband Radio Service 
(CBRS) Experiments and sporting event STA applications, are more 
straightforward.\102\ Applicants for conventional experimental licenses 
are required to file administrative and technical characteristics of 
their proposed experimental operation online in the Experimental 
Licensing System. \103\ Commission staff review and manage the data, 
correspond with applicants, and manage frequency coordination workflow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ 85 FR 65569 (October 15, 2020) at para. 34-35.
    \98\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 5.53.
    \99\ See id. Section 5.54(a)(1) (defining a ``conventional 
experimental radio license'' as a license ``issued for a specific 
research or experimentation project (or a series of closely-related 
research or experimentation projects), a product development trial, 
or a market trial'' and noting that ``[w]idely divergent and 
unrelated experiments must be conducted under separate licenses''); 
see also Application Fee NPRM at 13, para. 41, 85 FR 65569 (October 
15, 2020) at para 34.
    \100\ 85 FR 65569 (October 15, 2020) at para 34.
    \101\ Cubesats are small satellites that use a standard size and 
form factor; generally, ``one unit'' or ``1U'' which measures 
10x10x10 centimeters. See What are SmallSats and CubeSats? (Feb. 26, 
2015), https://www.nasa.gov/content/what-are-smallsats-and-cubesats.
    \102\ 85 FR 65569 (October 15, 2020) at para 34.
    \103\ 47 CFR 5.53(c)-(d), 5.61. In certain circumstances, an 
applicant may request an STA by telephone or electronic media for 
operation of a conventional experimental radio service station, 
provided a properly signed application is filed within 10 days of 
such request. Id. 5.61(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    59. The Commission also offers additional types of licenses--the 
program license, the medical testing license, and the compliance 
testing license--collectively referred to herein as program licenses, 
as well as broadcast experimental licenses and spectrum horizon 
experimental licenses. The program license, medical testing license and 
compliance testing license offer an alternative streamlined process to 
the conventional experimental license procedures for entities that meet 
certain eligibility criteria. Rather than applying for a specific 
course of experimentation, qualified entities apply for and are 
approved to conduct a broad range of experiments within an area under 
their direct control, such as a university campus or manufacturing 
plant.\104\ Because licensees are not approved for specific 
experiments, they are required to post a description of each experiment 
along with the technical data to the Commission's Experimental 
Notification System web page.\105\ Once posted, licensees must wait ten 
days when using non-federally allocated spectrum to allow any 
potentially affected user to comment and raise any concerns. If there 
are no objections, the licensee may proceed with its experiment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See id. 5.304, 5.404. In addition, compliance testing 
licensees are authorized to conduct activities related to equipment 
authorization which generally occurs at their laboratory facilities. 
See 47 CFR 5.502.
    \105\ See id. 5.309(a), 5.406(b); FCC Experiments Notification 
System, https://apps2.fcc.gov/ELSExperiments/pages/login.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    60. Regardless of the complexity of any application, each must 
undergo a similar review process to determine if all required 
information is provided, to review the experimental description and 
analyze the technical data to ensure it is consistent with that 
description and to determine what coordination, if any, is required. 
The same process must also be followed for program experimental 
licenses. Although this process is similar across all application 
types, the amount of time needed to complete the application review 
differs based on complexity.
    61. We adopt the cost-based fee for these applications that we 
proposed in the NPRM and discussed in the above paragraphs and as 
reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules. All fees are per 
call sign unless otherwise noted.
    62. Media Licensing Fees: The Commission processes media 
applications for licensing broadcast television and radio spectrum for 
commercial and noncommercial users, and those related to the provision 
of cable service.\106\ Certain media license construction permits are 
assigned through competitive bidding and we will assess a single post-
auction consolidated long-form and short-form fee for auctioned 
construction permits. Application fees for services are currently 
organized according to whether they are for TV service or AM and FM 
radio service. We proposed in the NPRM to retain this organization for 
these services, remove those fees associated with requirements that the 
Commission has previously eliminated, and add fees for services, as now 
required, that are not covered by the current fee schedule. We adopt 
the media licensing application fees proposed in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ For a comprehensive description of Media Bureau 
activities, see https://www.fcc.gov/media.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    63. Auctioned Broadcast Services: Some broadcast licenses are 
obtained through a process including an auction for construction 
permits. For auctioned construction permits the Commission sought 
comment in the NPRM on imposing only a single application fee so that 
only a winning bidder would be required to pay an application fee to 
the costs of short-form and long-form processing. Under such a 
consolidation there will be no separate short-form fee; the only fee 
would be due when the application is submitted at the long-form stage. 
In the NPRM, the Commission asked for comment on whether consolidation 
would alleviate the possibility that establishing a fee for filing an 
auction application might discourage auction participation, 
particularly by small or minority-owned businesses.\107\ The Commission 
recognized that fewer applications could result in reduced competition 
in an auction, undermining its ability to promote the various 
objectives of spectrum auctions enumerated in section 309(j).\108\ For 
the same reasons we adopt single application fees for auctioned 
wireless licenses, we decide to charge only a single fee for auctioned 
broadcast construction permits, consistent with section 8 and in the 
interest of minimizing our costs of processing auctions and maximizing 
competition in the auction process.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ 85 FR 65576 (October 15, 2020) at para. 83.
    \108\ 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3). For example, one such objective that 
may be affected by reduced competition is the ``recovery for the 
public of a portion of the value of the public spectrum resource 
made available for commercial use.'' Id. 309(j)(3)(C).
    \109\ 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3). For example, one such objective that 
may be affected by reduced competition resulting from a short form 
fee assessed on all auction participants is the ``recovery for the 
public of a portion of the value of the public spectrum resource 
made available for commercial use.'' Id. 309(j)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    64. We adopt the proposed estimate of $575 in costs for broadcast 
auctions short-form processing. In the NPRM, we estimated that the 
Commission's costs in processing the short-form stage consists 
primarily of attorney review and attorney supervisor legal review, 
involving $575 in costs. Accordingly, when a broadcast construction 
permits is won at auction the application fee for that construction 
permit will be $575 higher than the otherwise applicable application 
fee.

[[Page 15036]]

    65. NYX Communications and REC Networks support the proposed fee of 
$575 for the broadcast auctions short-form application, for all short-
form filers and thus oppose a consolidated auction fee that is only 
assessed on winning bidders.\110\ These commenters contend that 
imposing a fee prior to auction could discourage speculators from 
selecting new facilities that they do not actually construct and other 
types of gamesmanship.\111\ We find that concerns about gamesmanship 
are outweighed by the likelihood of increased competition and better 
addressed through other available means to prevent speculation such as 
capping the number of applications each applicant may file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ NYX Communications Comments at 1-2; REC Networks Comments 
at 13.
    \111\ NYX Communications Comments at 1-2; REC Networks Comments 
at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    66. Commercial Full Power TV Services and Class A TV Stations: We 
adopt the Commercial Full Power TV Services and Class A TV Stations 
application fees as proposed in the NPRM. Full Power TV stations 
include all stations in the television broadcast band transmitting a 
vestigial sideband signal intended to be received by the general 
public, except for low power TV and TV translator stations. Class A TV 
stations are low power television stations that meet the programming 
and operational standards set forth in the Community Broadcasters 
Protection Act of 1999 and are broadcasting a minimum of 18 hours per 
week and an average of at least three hours per week of locally 
produced programming each quarter.
    67. The staff tasks involved in processing Full Power TV 
applications and Class A TV Station applications are the same. A party 
must apply for a construction permit before building a new TV station. 
The applicant must demonstrate that it is legally, technically, and 
financially qualified to construct and operate the station and that its 
proposed facility will not cause objectionable interference to any 
other station. Once its application has been granted, the applicant is 
issued a construction permit authorizing it to build the station within 
a specified period, usually three years. After the applicant, or 
permittee, builds the station, it must file a license application, in 
which it certifies that it has constructed the station consistent with 
the technical and other terms specified in its construction permit. 
Upon grant of that license application, the Commission issues the new 
license to operate to the permittee, now considered a licensee, which 
authorizes the new licensee to operate for a stated period, up to eight 
years. At the close of this period, the licensee must seek renewal of 
its station license. A licensee must file an application to the 
Commission for approval of an assignment, transfer, or technical 
modification of an existing license.
    68. The Commission proposed to adopt identical cost-based fees for 
Full Power TV and Class A TV applications because the processing of 
Full Power TV applications and Class A TV Station applications are the 
same.
    69. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing 
applications for new and major change construction permits consist of 
significant engineering and legal analysis, as the applications tend to 
be highly complex. We estimated that the Commission's cost of 
processing applications for permits, encompassing engineer technical 
review, engineer supervisory review, attorney legal review, attorney 
pleadings review, and attorney written disposition review, is $4,260. 
When a construction permit is auctioned, this fee will be increased by 
$575 to reflect the costs of short-form processing, for a total of 
$4,835 for Full Power TV and Class A TV applications.
    70. Applications for new licenses, long-form license assignments, 
long-form transfers of control, and Full Power TV minor modifications 
are complex matters that require significant engineering review and 
legal analysis. We estimated that the Commission's cost of processing 
an application for a new license, which consists of engineer 
application review, engineer supervisory review, attorney pleading 
review, and attorney written disposition review, is $380. Applications 
for long-form license assignment and long-form transfers of control 
often involve petitions or objections after the application is filed. 
We estimated that the Commission's cost of processing long-form license 
assignment and transfers of control, including attorney application 
review, attorney supervisory review, attorney pleading review, and 
attorney written disposition review, is $1,245. Commission review of 
minor modification construction permit applications for Full Power TV 
involves engineer application review, engineer supervisory review, 
attorney pleading review, and attorney written disposition review, at 
an estimated cost of $1,335.
    71. Other applications are of lesser complexity and therefore 
impose fewer costs on the Commission staff, including license renewals, 
short-form license assignments, short-form transfers of control and 
STA. The processing of these applications may involve petitions or 
objections after the application is filed and typically involve 
attorney application review, attorney supervisory review, attorney 
pleading review, and attorney written disposition review. We estimated 
that the Commission's cost of processing an application for license 
renewal is $330. For short-form license assignments and transfers of 
control, we estimate that the cost of processing is $405. We estimated 
that the Commission's cost of processing an STA application is $270.
    72. For applications for call signs, which involves some legal 
analysis, we estimated that the Commission's resources in processing a 
TV call sign consist of analyst application review at the cost of $170. 
For ownership report applications, which involve minimal review by 
Commission staff, we estimate that the Commission's resources in 
processing a TV Ownership Report consist of analyst application review 
and that the cost of this process is $85.
    73. A petition for a rulemaking to amend the DTV Table of 
Allotments for a new community of license has a high level of 
complexity and involves significant legal analysis and engineering 
review. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing a 
Full Power TV petition for rulemaking consist of engineer application 
review, engineer supervisory review, attorney legal review, attorney 
pleading review, and attorney written disposition review, and that the 
cost of this process is $3,395.
    74. We are deleting the Main Studio Request application fee from 
the fee schedule. The Commission proposed removing the Main Studio 
Request from the application fee schedule as a category because the 
Commission eliminated the Main Studio Rule.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ Elimination of Main Studio Rule, Report and Order, 32 FCC 
Rcd 8158 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    75. We adopt the cost-based fees, assessed per application, as 
proposed in the NPRM for these applications, and discussed in the 
paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final 
rules.
    76. TV Translators and LPTV Stations: We adopt the TV Translators 
and LPTV Stations application fees as proposed in the NPRM. A TV 
translator is a transmitter device which repeats, or transponds, the 
signal of the television station. The translator retransmits the 
primary signal to areas it may not reach due to distance or intervening 
terrain barriers. An LPTV station may retransmit the programs and 
signals of a TV broadcast station and may

[[Page 15037]]

originate programming. The Commission proposed cost-based application 
fees for TV translators and LPTV stations in the NPRM.
    77. TV translator and LPTV applications for new and major change 
construction permits have the highest level of complexity, and 
significant engineering and legal analysis is needed in processing 
these applications. We estimated that the Commission's resources in 
processing these applications consist of engineer technical review, 
engineer supervisory review, attorney pleadings review, and attorney 
written disposition review and that the cost of this process is $775. 
(When a construction permit is auctioned, this fee will be increased by 
$575 to reflect the costs of short-form processing, for a total of 
$1,350 for TV translator and LPTV applications.) We estimated that the 
Commission's resources in processing a TV Translator or an LPTV 
application for a new license, which involves some legal analysis and 
significant engineering review, consist of engineer application review, 
engineer supervisory review, attorney pleading review, and attorney 
written disposition review, and that the cost of this process is $215. 
License assignments, which require significant legal analysis, may 
involve petitions or objections, after the application is filed. We 
estimated that the Commission's resources in processing a TV translator 
or LPTV license assignment application consist of attorney application 
review, attorney supervisory review, attorney pleading review, and 
attorney written disposition review, and that the cost of this process 
is $335.
    78. Other applications require only some legal or engineering 
analysis. License renewals and transfers of control each involve 
attorney application review, application supervisory review, attorney 
pleading review, and attorney written disposition review. Some 
applications for transfer of control subsequently involve petitions or 
objections after the application is filed. For license renewals, our 
estimate is that the cost of this process is $145. For transfers of 
control, our estimate is that the cost of this process is $335.
    79. Applications for STA are less complex and involve some 
engineering and legal analysis. We estimated that the Commission's 
resources in processing a TV translator and LPTV STA consist of 
engineer application review, engineer supervisory review, attorney 
pleading review, and attorney written disposition review. Our estimate 
is that the cost of this process is $270. Call sign applications have a 
low level of complexity and involve some legal analysis. We estimated 
that the Commission's resources in processing a TV translator and LPTV 
call sign consist of analyst application review. Our estimate is that 
the cost of this process is $170.
    80. We adopt the cost-based fees as proposed in the NPRM, as 
described in the above paragraphs and as reflected in the schedule of 
fees in the final rules.
    81. TV Booster Stations: We adopt the proposal in the NPRM to 
remove TV Booster Stations from the application fee schedule because we 
no longer have applications for this analog service as a result of the 
digital television transition.
    82. Cable Television Services: We adopt the Cable Television 
Services application fees as proposed in the NPRM. Cable television 
service involves the delivery of video programming or other programming 
service to subscribers via radio frequency signals transmitted through 
coaxial or fiber-optic cables. The Commission's associated costs for 
cable service include cable system registration, cable television relay 
service (CARS) applications, special relief and show cause petitions 
involving technical matters, requests for rulings on technical matters, 
and requests for waivers of the rules as well as signal leakage 
performance reports filed by cable system operators, analysis of 
aeronautical frequency usage data, and ensuring compliance with 
Commission requirements.\113\ The Commission proposed cost-based 
application fees for this service in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ See generally Part 76 of the Commission's Rules 
(``Multichannel Video and Cable Television Service'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    83. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an 
application for a new CARS license consist of analyst application 
review, engineer application evaluation, and engineer application 
approval and that the cost of this process is $450. For major license 
modifications, we estimated that the Commission's resources in 
processing an application consist of analyst application review, 
engineer application evaluation, and engineer application approval and 
that the cost of this process is $345. We estimated that the 
Commission's processing of an application for a CARS license minor 
modification consists of analyst application review, analyst 
application evaluation, and engineer application approval and that the 
cost of this process is $50.
    84. The Commission's processing of an application for a CARS 
license renewal consists of analyst application review, engineer 
application evaluation, and engineer application approval. Our estimate 
is that the cost of this process is $260. The processing of license 
assignments involves an analyst reviewing the application, an engineer 
evaluating the application, and an attorney approving the application 
and our estimate is that the cost of this process is $365. The 
Commission's processing of an application for a CARS transfer of 
control application consists of an analyst reviewing the application, 
an engineer evaluating the application, and an attorney approving the 
application. Our estimate is that the cost of this process is $465. The 
Commission processes applications for STA by having an analyst review 
the application and an engineer evaluate and approve it. Our estimate 
is that the cost of this process is $225. We estimated that the 
Commission's resources in processing an application for a special 
relief petition consist of an analyst reviewing the application, an 
engineer evaluating it, a supervisory engineer evaluating it, and an 
attorney approving the application. Our estimate is that the cost of 
this process is $1,615. We estimated that the Commission's resources in 
processing an application for a registration statement consist of an 
analyst reviewing the application, an analyst evaluating the 
application, and an engineer approving the application. Our estimate is 
that the cost of this process is $105. We estimate that the 
Commission's resources in processing an application for an MVPD 
aeronautical frequency usage notification consist of an analyst 
reviewing the application, an analyst evaluating the application, and 
an engineer approving the application and that the cost of this process 
is $90.
    85. We adopt the cost-based fees as proposed in the NPRM, as 
described in the paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of 
fees in the final rules.
    86. Commercial AM and FM Radio Stations: We adopt the Commercial AM 
and FM Radio Station application fees as proposed in the NPRM. The 
radio broadcast service includes the commercial and noncommercial 
educational AM and FM radio services, and also the noncommercial 
educational low power FM radio service.\114\ A party must apply for a 
construction permit before building a new AM or FM radio

[[Page 15038]]

station. The applicant must demonstrate that it is legally, 
technically, and financially qualified to construct and operate the 
station as specified in its application and that the proposed facility 
will not cause objectionable interference to any other station. Once 
its application has been granted, the applicant is issued a 
construction permit, which authorizes the applicant to build the 
station within a specified period of time, usually three years. After 
the applicant, now a permittee, builds the station, it must file a 
license application, in which it certifies that it has constructed the 
station consistent with the technical and other terms specified in its 
construction permit. Upon grant of that license application, the 
Commission issues the new license to operate to the permittee, now a 
licensee, which authorizes the new licensee to operate for a stated 
period of time, up to eight years. At the close of this period, the 
licensee must seek renewal of its license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ Noncommercial stations are exempt from application fees. 
Specifically, under the RAY BAUM'S Act, the exemptions are to ``(A) 
a governmental entity; (B) a nonprofit entity licensed in the Local 
Government, Police, Fire, Highway Maintenance, Forestry-
Conservation, Public Safety, or Special Emergency Radio radio 
services; or (C) a noncommercial radio station or noncommercial 
television station.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    87. Commercial AM Stations. Applications for new construction 
permits have the highest level of complexity and significant 
engineering and legal analysis is needed in processing these 
applications. Many of these applications result in petitions or 
objections after the application is filed. We estimated that the 
Commission's resources in processing an application for a new AM 
construction permit consist of engineering technical review, an 
attorney reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney reviewing pleadings, 
and an attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this 
process is $3,980. Likewise, AM major change applications, which must 
be filed in windows along with new AM construction permits and have the 
exact same level of technical and legal review, have a process cost of 
$3,980.\115\ (When a new or major change construction permit is awarded 
as a result of a winning auction bid, this fee will be increased by 
$575 to reflect the costs of short-form processing, resulting in a 
total of $4,555 for auctioned commercial AM construction permit 
applications.) We estimated that the Commission's resources in 
processing an application for an AM minor change construction permit 
consist of engineer technical review, engineer supervisory review, an 
attorney reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney reviewing pleadings, 
and an attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this 
process is $1,625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ The Commission's rules treat applications for new 
broadcast stations and applications for major changes as falling 
into the same group. For AM broadcast facilities, see 47 CFR 
73.3571(a)(1) (``Applications for AM broadcast facilities are 
divided into three groups. (1) In the first group are applications 
for new stations or for major changes in the facilities of 
authorized stations. . . .''):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    88. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an 
application for an AM license consist of a legal analyst reviewing 
application, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing 
written disposition. Some of the applications involve petitions or 
objections. Our estimate is that the cost of this process is $645. An 
AM directional antenna application involves some legal analysis and 
significant engineering review. Some of the applications result in 
petitions or objections after the application is filed. We estimate 
that the Commission's resources in processing an application for an AM 
directional antenna consist of engineer technical review, engineer 
supervisory review, an attorney reviewing multiple ownership, an 
attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written 
disposition and that the cost of this process is $1,260. AM license 
renewal applications have a medium level of complexity and involve some 
legal analysis and significant engineering review. Some of the 
applications result in petitions or objections after the application is 
filed. We estimate that the Commission's resources in processing an 
application for renewal consist of a legal analyst reviewing the 
application, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing 
written disposition. Our estimate is that the cost of this process is 
$325.
    89. Long-form applications for AM license assignments involve 
significant legal analysis, with some assignments involving petitions 
or objections, after the application is filed. We estimate that the 
Commission's resources in processing a long-form application for an AM 
license assignment consist of a legal analyst reviewing the 
application, an attorney reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney 
reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition. Our 
estimate is that the cost of this process is $1,005. Short-form license 
applications have a lower level of complexity and require some, though 
less, legal analysis than long form applications. We estimate that the 
Commission's resources in processing a short-form application for an AM 
license assignment consist of a legal analyst reviewing the 
application, an attorney reviewing the pleadings, and an attorney 
reviewing written disposition. Our estimate is that the cost of this 
process is $425. Long-form applications for AM transfers of control 
involve significant legal analysis. Some applications for transfer of 
control involve petitions or objections, after the application is 
filed. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing a 
long-form application for AM transfer of control consist of a legal 
analyst reviewing the application, an attorney reviewing multiple 
ownership, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing 
written disposition and that the cost of this process is $1,005. Short-
form applications for transfer of control involve some legal analysis. 
We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing a short-form 
application for transfer of control consist of a legal analyst 
reviewing the application, an attorney reviewing the pleadings, and an 
attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this 
process is $410.
    90. AM radio call sign applications involve some legal analysis, 
and we estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an AM 
call sign application consist of analyst application review. Our 
estimate is that the cost of this process is $170. Applications for STA 
involve some engineering and legal analysis. We estimated that the 
Commission's resources in processing an AM STA application consist of 
engineer technical review, attorney pleading review, and supervisory 
attorney written disposition review and that the cost of this process 
is $290. AM ownership report applications involve minimal review by 
Media Bureau staff. We estimated that the Commission's resources in 
processing an AM ownership report consist of analyst application review 
and that the cost of this process is $85.
    91. We are deleting the AM Main Studio Request application fee from 
the fee schedule. The Commission proposed removing the Main Studio 
Request from the application fee schedule as a category because the 
Commission eliminated the Main Studio Rule.\116\ We are also deleting 
the AM Remote Control fee from the fee schedule. The Commission 
proposed removing AM Remote Control from the application fee schedule 
as a category because AM Remote Control licensees are not required to 
file this form in order to engage in remote control operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ Elimination of Main Studio Rule, Report and Order, 32 FCC 
Rcd 8158 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    92. We adopt cost-based application fees as the Commission proposed 
in the NPRM and discussed in the above paragraphs and as reflected in 
the schedule of fees in the final rules.
    93. Commercial FM Stations. Applications for new construction 
permits have the highest level of

[[Page 15039]]

complexity and significant engineering and legal analysis is needed in 
processing these applications. Many of these applications result in 
petitions or objections after the application is filed. We estimated 
that the Commission's resources in processing an application for a new 
FM construction permit consist of engineering technical review, 
supervisory engineer review, an attorney reviewing multiple ownership, 
an attorney reviewing pleadings, and a supervisory attorney reviewing 
written disposition and that the cost of this process is $3,295. 
Likewise, FM major change applications, which must be filed in windows 
along with new FM construction permits and have the exact same level of 
technical and legal review, have a process cost of $3,295. \117\ (When 
a new or major change construction permit is awarded as a result of a 
winning auction bid, this fee will be increased by $575 to reflect the 
costs of short-form processing, resulting a total of $3,870 for 
auctioned commercial FM construction permit applications.) We estimated 
that the Commission's resources in processing an application for an FM 
minor modification construction permit consist of engineer review, 
engineer supervisory review, an attorney reviewing multiple ownership, 
an attorney reviewing pleadings, and a supervisory attorney reviewing 
written disposition and that the cost of this process is $1,265.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ See 47 CFR 73.3572(a)(1) (``Applications for FM broadcast 
stations are divided into two groups: (1) In the first group are 
applications for new stations or for major changes of authorized 
stations . . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    94. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an 
application for an FM license consist of an analyst reviewing the 
application, engineering review, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and a 
supervisory attorney reviewing written disposition. Some of the 
applications involve petitions or objections after the application is 
filed. We estimated that the cost of this process is $235. An 
application for an FM directional antenna involves some legal analysis 
and significant engineering review. Some of the applications result in 
petitions or objections after the application is filed. We estimated 
that the Commission's resources in processing an application for an FM 
directional antenna consist of engineer review, engineer supervisory 
review, an attorney reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney reviewing 
pleadings, and a supervisory attorney reviewing written disposition and 
that the cost of this process is $630.
    95. An application for an FM license involves some legal analysis 
and significant engineering review. Some of the applications result in 
petitions or objections after the application is filed. We estimated 
that the Commission's resources in processing an application for FM 
license renewal consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, 
an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written 
disposition and that the cost of this process is $325. Long-form 
applications for FM license assignment involve significant legal 
analysis. Some of these applications involve petitions or objections, 
after the application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's 
resources in processing a long-form application for an FM assignment 
consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, an attorney 
reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an 
attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this 
process is $1,005. Short-form applications for FM license assignment 
involve some legal analysis. We estimated that the Commission's 
resources in processing a short-form application for an FM license 
assignment consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, an 
attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written 
disposition and that the cost of this process is $425. Long-form 
applications for FM transfers of control involve significant legal 
analysis. Some applications for transfer of control involve petitions 
or objections after the application is filed. We estimate that the 
Commission's resources in processing a long-form application for FM 
transfer of control consist of a legal analyst reviewing application, 
an attorney reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney reviewing 
pleadings, and an attorney reviewing written disposition and that the 
cost of this process is $1,005. Short-form applications for FM 
transfers involve some legal analysis. We estimated that the 
Commission's resources in processing a short form application for FM 
transfer of control consist of a legal analyst reviewing the 
application, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing 
written disposition and that the cost of this process is $425.
    96. Applications for FM call signs involve some legal analysis. We 
estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an FM call sign 
consist of analyst application review and that the cost of this process 
is $170. Applications for STA involve some engineering and legal 
analysis. We estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an 
FM STA application consist of engineer technical review, supervisory 
engineer review, attorney pleading review, and supervisory attorney 
written disposition review and that the cost of this process is $210. 
Applications for FM ownership report involve minimal review by Media 
Bureau staff. We estimated that the Commission's resources in 
processing an application for FM ownership report consist of analyst 
application review and that the cost of this process is $85.
    97. A petition for rulemaking to amend the FM Table of Allotments 
for a new community of license has a high level of complexity and 
involves significant legal analysis and engineering review. We 
estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an FM petition 
for rulemaking consist of engineering technical review, an attorney 
reviewing multiple ownership, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an 
attorney reviewing written disposition and that the cost of this 
process is $3,180.
    98. We are deleting the FM Main Studio Request application fee from 
the fee schedule. The Commission proposed removing the Main Studio 
Request from the application fee schedule as a category because the 
Commission eliminated the Main Studio Rule.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ Elimination of Main Studio Rule, Report and Order, 32 FCC 
Rcd 8158 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    99. We adopt the cost-based application fees for commercial FM 
stations as the Commission proposed in the NPRM as described above and 
as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules.
    100. FM Translators and Boosters. FM translators and FM boosters 
retransmit the signal of another radio broadcast station without 
significantly altering the characteristics of the incoming signal other 
than its frequency and amplitude. This service was first created in 
1970 to allow FM stations to provide supplementary service to areas in 
which direct reception of radio service is unsatisfactory due to 
distance or terrain barriers. Translator stations simultaneously re-
broadcast the signal of a primary station on a different frequency. 
Those translator stations that provide service within the primary 
station's protected service area are classified as fill-in stations. 
Fill-in translators can be owned by the main station or by an 
independent entity. FM booster stations must operate on the same 
frequency as the main station. Booster stations must be owned by the 
licensee of the primary FM station. Booster stations are also 
restricted in that the service contour of the booster

[[Page 15040]]

may not exceed the protected service contour of the primary station. 
\119\ We proposed cost-based fees in the NPRM. One commenter, REC 
Networks, agrees with our proposal to impose a $210 filing fee on FM 
translator minor modifications, and states that it will discourage 
warehousing of spectrum.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Id.
    \120\ REC Networks Comments at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    101. An application for either a new FM translator or an FM booster 
construction permit involves legal analysis and significant engineering 
review. Some applications may involve petitions or objections after the 
application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's resources in 
processing either an application for a new FM translator or an FM 
booster construction permit consist of engineering technical review, an 
attorney reviewing pleadings, and a supervisory attorney reviewing 
written disposition and that the cost of this process is $705 for 
either a new FM translator or an FM booster construction permit. 
Likewise, FM translator major change applications, which must be filed 
in windows along with new FM translator construction permits and have 
the exact same level of technical and legal review, have a process cost 
of $705.\121\ (When a new or major change construction permit for an FM 
translator application is awarded as a result of a winning auction bid, 
this fee will be increased by $575 to reflect the costs of short-form 
processing, for a total of $1,280 for FM translator applications.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ 47 CFR 74.1233(a)(1) (``Applications for FM translator and 
booster stations are divided into two groups: (1)(i) In the first 
group are applications for new stations or for major changes in the 
facilities of authorized stations.'').
    \122\ FM booster construction permits are not auctioned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    102. There is no current fee for an application for a minor change 
FM translator construction permit. Over the past 20 years, the 
definition of a minor change for FM translators has changed 
significantly. At the time this category of application was originally 
created, the definition of minor change was so narrow that very few 
such applications could be submitted. Furthermore, because of the 
limited circumstances under which they could be filed, the engineering 
analysis required to review them was minimal. The rule has been revised 
since that time to significantly increase the situations that can be 
filed as minor. These FM translator minor change applications involve 
some legal analysis and significant engineering review. Some 
applications will involve petitions or objections, after the 
application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's resources in 
processing an FM translator minor modification application consist of 
engineer technical review, supervisory engineer review, attorney 
pleading review, and supervisory attorney written disposition review 
and that the cost of this process is $210.
    103. Applications for either new FM translator or FM booster 
licenses involve some engineering analysis. Some applications may 
involve petitions or objections, after the application is filed. We 
estimated that the Commission's resources in processing an application 
for either a new FM translator license or a new FM booster license 
consist of an analyst reviewing the application, an engineer 
supervising, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and a supervisory 
attorney reviewing written disposition. Our estimate is that the cost 
of this process is $180 for either a new FM translator or a new FM 
booster license. Applications for renewal of existing FM translator or 
FM booster licenses have a low level of complexity. We estimated that 
the Commission's resources in processing either type of application 
consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, an attorney 
supervising, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing 
written disposition and that the cost of this process for renewal of 
either an FM translator or an FM booster is $175.
    104. Applications for either an FM translator or FM booster STA 
involve some engineering and legal analysis. We estimated that the 
Commission's resources in processing either type of STA application 
consist of engineering technical review, attorney pleading review, and 
supervisory attorney written disposition review and that the cost of 
this process is $170 for either an FM translator STA or an FM booster 
STA.
    105. Applications for FM translator license assignments involve 
some legal analysis. Some assignments involve petitions or objections, 
after the application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's 
resources in processing an application for an FM translator assignment 
consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, an attorney 
supervising, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing 
written disposition and that the cost of this process is $290. 
Applications for FM translator transfers of control involve some legal 
analysis. Some assignments involve petitions or objections, after the 
application is filed. We estimated that the Commission's resources in 
processing an application for an FM translator transfer of control 
consist of a legal analyst reviewing the application, an attorney 
supervising, an attorney reviewing pleadings, and an attorney reviewing 
written disposition and that the cost of this process is $290.
    106. We adopt the cost-based application fees as proposed by the 
Commission in the NPRM and as described above and reflected in the 
schedule of fees in the final rules.
    107. Media Services Foreign Ownership Petitions: We adopt the 
Foreign Ownership Petitions application fees as proposed in the NPRM. 
In the NPRM, the Commission proposed adding a new category for foreign 
ownership petitions for declaratory ruling filed pursuant to section 
310(b)(4) of the Act.\123\ This fee is a separate fee in addition to 
the fee required for the underlying application, if any.\124\ Since 
2016, the Media Bureau has processed petitions for declaratory rulings 
to exceed the section 310(b)(4) foreign ownership benchmark under the 
streamlined foreign ownership rules and procedures.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ Section 310(b)(4) establishes a 25% benchmark for 
investment by foreign individuals, governments, and corporations in 
U.S.-organized entities that directly or indirectly control a 
broadcast, common carrier or aeronautical radio station licensee if 
the Commission finds that the public interest would be served by 
rejecting foreign ownership above that benchmark. 47 U.S.C. 
310(b)(4).
    \124\ This fee for the initial filing of the petition for 
declaratory ruling. Amendments and supplements thereto occur with 
great frequency and will not require an additional fee.
    \125\ Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Broadcast, Common 
Carrier, and Aeronautical Radio Licensees Under Section 310(b)(4) of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, GN Docket 15-236, Report 
and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 11272 (2016). The procedures are set out in 
rule Sec. Sec.  1.5000 to 1.5004, 47 CFR 1.5000-1.5004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    108. Currently, there is no fee for a section 310(b)(4) petition 
for declaratory ruling. Typically, the petition includes complex 
ownership structures and requires substantial review by staff. We 
estimated the Commission's resources in processing a section 310(b) 
petition for declaratory ruling consist of attorney legal review, 
attorney coordination with other agencies, attorney pleading review, 
and attorney written disposition review and that the cost of this 
process is $2,485. After analysis and review of the record, we adopt 
the proposed cost-based fee of $2,485.
    109. Equipment Approval Fees: We adopt the Equipment Approval 
application fee category proposed in the NPRM, but at a fee of $35, 
rather than $50 as proposed in the NPRM. The Office of Engineering and 
Technology administers the Equipment Authorization program, in addition 
to the Experimental Radio Service. The

[[Page 15041]]

equipment authorization program is one of the principal ways the 
Commission ensures that RF devices operate effectively without causing 
harmful interference and otherwise comply with the Commission's rules. 
All RF devices subject to equipment authorization must comply with the 
Commission's technical requirements prior to importation or marketing. 
Equipment that contains an RF device must be authorized in accordance 
with the appropriate procedures specified in part 2, subpart J of the 
Commission's rules. These requirements not only minimize the potential 
for harmful interference, but also ensure that the equipment complies 
with the rules that address other policy objectives--such as human RF 
exposure limits and hearing aid compatibility with wireless handsets.
    110. The equipment approval services for certification were shifted 
from the Commission to Telecommunications Certification Bodies. Since 
1999, those services have been provided by accredited 
Telecommunications Certification Bodies which are approved by the 
Commission and the Commission retains oversight of the program through 
routine guidance to the Telecommunications Certification Bodies and 
test labs as well as participating in regular teleconferences as well 
as Telecommunications Certification Bodies workshops. Additionally, the 
Commission no longer performs advance approval of subscription TV 
systems. As these services are no longer performed by the Office of 
Engineering and Technology, we proposed to remove these categories from 
the application fee schedule.
    111. The fee for an assignment of grantee code is assessed 
automatically after an applicant (or its authorized agent) files for a 
grantee code on the FCC Equipment Authorization Electronic Filing 
System website. Approximately 4,000 new grantee codes are assigned each 
year. This process generally does not require intervention by 
Commission staff. However, staff must intervene if an applicant 
encounters a payment issue or if special action is necessary after a 
grantee code is assigned, such as a grantee name change or a transfer 
of control transaction. Such issues arise approximately 500 to 700 
times per year and staff time to address these issues, when required, 
is nominal. For this largely automated process, we proposed an 
application fee of $50 to cover staff costs associated with name change 
requests, transfers of control issues, and payment problems that arise. 
Similar to our treatment of highly automated processes for wireless 
fees, we have reviewed the record and determined that a lower fee is 
appropriate and adopt an application fee of $35 for this process.
    112. Domestic Service Fees: The Commission processes a wide range 
of applications not directly related to the issuance of licenses. In 
the NPRM, the Commission proposed to update the application fees for 
domestic matters. We adopt new fees for domestic section 214 
applications, VoIP numbering applications, tariff filings, applications 
for special permission for waiver of tariff rules, long-form 
applications for Universal Service Fund (USF) auction winners, and 
accounting applications. We also consolidate the fees for Formal 
Complaints and Pole Attachment Complaints into a single new application 
fee; and we adopt a new fee for Communications Assistance for Law 
Enforcement Act (CALEA) petitions.
    113. Transfers of Control and STA. We adopt the transfer of control 
fees as proposed in the NPRM.\126\ Under Sec. Sec.  s 63.03-63.04 of 
the Commission's rules, a carrier seeking domestic section 214 
authorization for a transfer of control must file an application 
providing certain information about the parties and the transaction. 
The Commission proposed to rename this application as ``Domestic 214 
Applications-Part 63 Transfers of Control'' to more clearly specify the 
applications subject to the fee.\127\ We adopt the name change and the 
cost-based fees as proposed in the NPRM for these applications.\128\ We 
also adopt the cost-based fee of $675 for STA requests filed by 
domestic wireline carriers that are associated with section 214 
transfer of control applications. As noted in the NPRM, this fee is 
consistent with the fee for similar 214 STA requests processed by the 
International Bureau.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ 85 FR 65577 (October 15, 2020) at para. 93-94.
    \127\ See 85 FR 65577 (October 15, 2020) at para. 93. Domestic 
common carriers under section 214 of the Act are authorized to 
undertake pro forma transactions, with only a notice filing required 
in certain very limited circumstances. 47 CFR 63.03(d). The 
Commission's fees for domestic section 214 transfer of control 
applications therefore cover only substantive transactions for which 
approval is required.
    \128\ 85 FR 65577 (October 15, 2020) at para. 93-94.
    \129\ 85 FR 65577 (October 15, 2020) at para. 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    114. Discontinuance of Service. We adopt the discontinuance of 
service fees as proposed in the NPRM.\130\ Under Sec.  63.71 of the 
Commission's rules, any domestic carrier that seeks to discontinue, 
reduce, or impair service must provide notice, as specified in Sec.  
63.71(a), and file an application with the Commission. In the NPRM, the 
Commission proposed to add ``Domestic 214 Applications-Part 63 
Discontinuances'' as a service requiring an application fee in Sec.  
1.1105 of its rules and to set that application fee based on its cost 
estimates.\131\ USTelecom suggests that we clarify the types of section 
214 discontinuance filings subject to the new discontinuance fee and we 
expand our description from the NPRM to address this request.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ 85 FR 65577 (October 15, 2020) at para. 97-98.
    \131\ 85 FR 65577 (October 15, 2020) at para. 97.
    \132\ USTelecom Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    115. Similar to the processing of the other domestic section 214 
applications required by Part 63 of our rules, processing section 214 
discontinuance applications includes industry analyst processing and 
review, staff attorney review, and supervisory review. The Commission 
estimated that this process involves $1,230 in costs for review and 
coordination on section 214 discontinuance filings that will typically 
require more time and resources (Non-Standard Review), such as those 
that address technology transitions subject to the adequate replacement 
test under Sec.  63.71(f)(2)(i), those that address technology 
transitions that are not subject to any streamlined processing, and 
those filed by dominant carriers that are subject to a 60-day auto 
grant period under the Commission's rules. The Commission estimated 
that this process involves $335 in costs for review and coordination on 
all other domestic 214 discontinuance filings that will typically 
require less time and fewer resources (Standard Streamlined Review), 
including streamlined filings from non-dominant carriers and 
interconnected VoIP service providers, filings by both dominant and 
non-dominant carriers for the emergency discontinuance of service under 
Sec.  63.63, filings that meet the alternative options test for 
streamlined processing under Sec.  63.71(f)(2)(ii), filings subject to 
copper retirement auto grant under Sec.  63.71(i), and filings by both 
dominant and non-dominant carriers for the discontinuance or 
grandfathering of voice or data services under Sec.  63.71(k) or Sec.  
63.71(l). We adopt the application fees proposed in the NPRM \133\ and 
as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ 85 FR 65577 (October 15, 2020) at para. 98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    116. Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) Numbering. We adopt the 
VoIP Numbering fees as proposed in the

[[Page 15042]]

NPRM.\134\ Interconnected VoIP providers seeking to obtain numbering 
resources directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator 
(or the Pooling Administrator) must first receive authorization from 
the Commission. This nationwide authorization is designed to assess the 
eligibility of an interconnected VoIP provider to obtain numbers 
directly and will fulfill the requirement under the Commission's rules 
to provide evidence of authorization to provide service. Under Sec.  
52.15(g)(2) and (3), a VoIP provider must file an application for 
numbering resources.\135\ In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to add 
``Interconnected VoIP Numbering Authorization Applications-Part 51'' as 
a service requiring an application fee in Sec.  1.1105 of its rules and 
set that application fee based on its cost estimates. We adopt the 
proposed fee of $1,330.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ 85 FR 65577-65578 (October 15, 2020) at paras. 99-100.
    \135\ Id. 52.15(g)(2) and (3). Section 52.15(g)(3) provides: 
``Commission authorization process. A provider of interconnected 
VoIP service may show a Commission authorization obtained pursuant 
to this paragraph as evidence that it is authorized to provide 
service under paragraph (g)(2) of this section.''
    \136\ 85 FR 65577-65578 (October 15, 2020) at para. 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    117. Tariffs. We adopt the tariff fees as proposed in the NPRM 
along with clarifications to address commenter concerns. Tariffs 
contain the rates, terms, and conditions of certain services provided 
by telecommunications carriers. Tariffs for interstate local access 
service are filed by local exchange carriers (LECs). The access 
services include end user access, switched access, and special access. 
Tariffs are typically filed under a process that gives the public 15 
days' notice on proposed price increases and changes in terms and 
conditions; and seven days' notice on proposed price reductions. 
Carriers file tariffs using the Commission's Electronic Tariff Filing 
System. Tariff filings are reviewed by staff and by industry. If staff 
takes no action, filings become effective and may be deemed 
lawful.\137\ Staff may approve, suspend or reject tariffs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ See 47 U.S.C. 204(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    118. USTelecom seeks clarification of several of the proposals 
relating to tariffing. First, it requests additional explanation of 
what constitutes an ``annual filing.'' \138\ We clarify that the annual 
access charge tariff that is filed to become effective on July 1 each 
year is the ``annual filing'' that is subject to the fee.\139\ Second, 
USTelecom seeks further clarification as to what constitutes a 
``restructured rate plan.'' \140\ A restructured filing is a price cap 
tariff filing that meets the definition of restructured service as 
defined in section 61.3(mm). Finally, USTelecom seeks clarification of 
whether the establishment of two categories of complex tariff filers, 
price cap LECs and entities involving more than 100 LECs (Complex 
Large) and a second category for other entities filing a complex tariff 
(Complex Small), means that all filings by price cap LECs are complex 
large filings.\141\ We clarify that the fee for filings designated as 
complex large are applicable to all price cap carriers. We adopt the 
cost-based fees as proposed in the NPRM for these applications and as 
reflected in the schedule of fees in the final rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ USTelecom Comments at 2-3.
    \139\ Id.
    \140\ Id. at 3.
    \141\ USTelecom Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    119. Waivers. We eliminate the fees for part 61 and part 69 waivers 
as proposed in the NPRM. Parties may file petitions seeking waivers of 
the Commission's rules in parts 61 and 69. As a general matter, the 
Commission may waive its rules for good cause shown.\142\ A waiver may 
be granted if (1) the waiver would better serve the public interest 
than would application of the rule; and (2) special circumstances 
warrant a deviation from the general rule.\143\ Generally, the 
Commission, or the Bureau through delegated authority, may waive 
Commission rules if the relief requested would not undermine the rule's 
policy objectives and would otherwise serve the public interest.\144\ 
Because parties may generally seek waiver of many of our rules under 
Sec.  1.3 of the Commission's rules without paying a fee, we proposed 
to eliminate the fees associated with the general part 61 and part 69 
waiver requests. We adopt that proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ 47 CFR 1.3; WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 
1969), appeal after remand, 459 F.2d 1203 (D.C. Cir. 1972), cert. 
denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972); Northeast Cellular Tel. Co. v. FCC, 
897 F.2d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
    \143\ Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166.
    \144\ WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    120. Universal Service Fund Auctions. We adopt a single fee for the 
universal service fund auction applications as proposed in the NPRM. 
The Commission does not currently apply a fee to USF applications. In 
the NPRM, the Commission proposed to adopt a single cost-based 
application fee that only the winning bidders would pay, i.e., only 
once all filings associated with an application including at the short-
form stage, during bidding, and through the long-form stage, are 
complete. For the same reasons we adopt a single fee for spectrum 
auctions and broadcast service auctions, we adopt the proposed combined 
cost-based fee of $2,965.
    121. Accounting--depreciation. We have not had an application for a 
depreciation update study in many years and we adopt our proposal to 
eliminate these application fees from the fee schedule.
    122. Waiver of accounting rules. We adopt the waiver of accounting 
rule fees as proposed in the NPRM. The Commission has a complex set of 
accounting requirements. Parties may petition for a waiver of part 69 
accounting rules, part 32 accounting rules, part 43 reporting 
requirements, part 64 allocation of costs rules, part 65 rate of return 
rules, or part 36 of the separation rules. The Commission has a complex 
set of accounting requirements and proposes assessment of a fee for 
requests for deviation from such requirements. In the NPRM, the 
Commission proposed cost-based fees, explaining that petitions for 
waiver of these requirements are reviewed by staff who draft a bureau 
or Commission level order addressing the petition.\145\ We adopt the 
proposed cost-based fee of $4,415 for a waiver of our accounting rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ 85 FR 65579 (October 15, 2020) at para. 115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    123. Informal Consumer Complaints. We adopt the proposal from the 
NPRM to assess no application fee for informal complaints. We did not 
receive any comments on this proposal. The Commission processes 
informal consumer complaints through the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau's Consumer Complaint Center.\146\ The informal consumer 
complaint process provides consumers with an effective and free way to 
raise issues with their providers. Informal consumer complaints 
involving billing and service issues are served on the consumer's 
provider. The provider is required to respond to the consumer with a 
copy to the Commission within 30 days. Certain informal consumer 
complaints that are not filed against a provider, including unwanted 
call complaints, are shared among Commission bureaus and offices to 
inform policy and potential enforcement actions. The collective data we 
receive from informal consumer complaints helps the Commission keep a 
pulse on what consumers are experiencing, may lead to enforcement 
investigations, and serves as a deterrent to the companies

[[Page 15043]]

we regulate. Informal complaint data, including unwanted call data, is 
available to the public through the Consumer Complaint Data Center and 
is a useful source of information for the public and industry. For 
example, voice service providers and third-party analytics companies 
use this information in their call blocking and labeling services 
provided to consumers. As the Commission discussed in the NPRM, 
informal complaints are not applications and we are not adopting an 
informal complaint filing fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ See FCC Consumer Complaint Center, https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    124. Formal Complaints and Pole Attachment Complaints. We adopt the 
formal complaint and pole attachment complaint fees as proposed in the 
NPRM. Section 208 of the Act provides for the filing of formal 
complaints against common carriers. Section 224 of the Act states that 
the Commission has a duty to ensure that the rates, terms, and 
conditions for pole attachments are just and reasonable, and that cable 
television systems and telecommunications carriers have non-
discriminatory access to utility poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-
way. Sections 1.720-1.740 and 1.1401-1.1414 of the Commission's rules 
govern formal section 208 and section 224 complaints. The rules require 
the filing of a complaint, an answer, a reply, and often discovery, 
motions, and briefs. A formal complaint must contain as much factual 
support as possible at the filing stage, including specific facts and 
proof regarding all claims in the complaint.
    125. Filing of the application for a formal section 208 complaint 
or a section 224 pole attachment complaint is automated using the 
Commission's ECFS's Non-Docketed Filing portal. In nearly all 
instances, the FCC Fee Filer system is used separately to collect the 
fee. Staff retrieves each filed formal complaint and pole attachment 
complaint from the ECFS Non-Docketed Filing portal and confirms 
payment. Staff then reviews the complaint for general conformance with 
the Commission's complaint rules to determine if it is accepted for 
adjudication. If the formal complaint or pole attachment complaint is 
accepted, staff arranges for its placement in a case-specific ECFS 
docket. Staff drafts a letter to the parties indicating that the filing 
has been accepted or rejected and posts that letter in ECFS.
    126. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to consolidate the 
section 208 formal complaints and section 224 pole attachment 
complaints in the new section 8 application fee schedule, and proposed 
a cost-based fee of $540. One commenter, Ormos, contends that the fee 
for formal complaints should be lower but does not dispute the costs of 
adjudicating such complaints nor explain how we could lower the fee 
below costs under the statutory standard.\147\ We are required by the 
RAY BAUM'S Act to adopt a cost-based fee and the fee we are adopting is 
based on the significant work performed by staff in handling formal 
complaints. We therefore adopt the proposed fee of $540 for formal 
complaints and pole attachment complaints based on the Commission's 
estimated costs as described in the NPRM.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ Ormas Comments at 7.
    \148\ 85 FR 65580 (October 15, 2020) at para. 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    127. Accounting and Audits and Agreed upon Procedures Engagement. 
We are adopting our proposal to eliminate field audits and agreed upon 
procedures engagements from the application fee schedule because no 
applications have been filed in many years.
    128. Petitions regarding Law Enforcement Assistance Capability. We 
adopt the cost-based fee of $6,945 proposed in the NPRM for petitions 
regarding law enforcement assistance capability.\149\ CALEA preserves 
the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct lawfully authorized 
electronic surveillance while protecting the privacy of information 
outside the scope of the authorization. CALEA imposes law enforcement 
assistance capability requirements on common carriers as the Commission 
has interpreted that term under CALEA.\150\ Any person may petition the 
Commission to issue technical standards for capability assistance that 
the person believes are deficient \151\ and telecommunications carriers 
and other interested persons may petition for a determination of 
whether an assistance capability is ``reasonably achievable,'' and the 
Commission must reach a determination on such petitions within one 
year.\152\ In the NPRM, the Commission proposed a cost-based fee of 
$6,945.\153\ We adopt the proposed cost-based fee of $6,945 for this 
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ 85 FR 65580 (October 15, 2020) at para. 124.
    \150\ See 47 U.S.C. 1001(8)(B)(ii); Communications Assistance 
for Law Enforcement and Broadband Access and Services, Second Report 
and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5360 (2006).
    \151\ Id. Section 1006(b).
    \152\ Id. Section 1008(b)(1).
    \153\ 85 FR 65580 (October 15, 2020) at para. 124. (estimating 
the tasks that are involved in reviewing a typical CALEA petition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    129. International Service Fee. The Commission sought comment in 
the NPRM on cost-based application fees for international services, 
including fees for earth station and space station applications and 
proposals to create a separate fee category for applications related to 
cable landing licenses, a new category for section 310(b) foreign 
ownership review, and fees for international services that do not 
currently have an application fee, such as foreign carrier affiliation 
notifications, and requests to become a recognized operating agency. 
The Commission also proposed to eliminate some fees and consolidate 
fees for earth stations and space stations. We address these issues in 
turn.
    130. International Cable Landing License. We adopt the proposed 
cost-based cable landing license fees in the NPRM with one change to 
reduce the cost of a pro forma assignment or transfer of control. To 
land or operate a submarine cable in the United States, submarine cable 
operators must obtain a cable landing license from the Commission 
pursuant to the Cable Landing Licensing Act of 1921 and Executive Order 
No. 10530.\154\ The Commission also authorizes assignments or transfers 
of existing cable landing licenses and modifications of licenses. The 
Commission coordinates the applications with the Department of State 
and any other federal agencies, as necessary. The requirements for 
filing applications for new cable landing licenses and assignments, 
transfers of control and modification of existing cable landing 
licenses are set out in Sec.  1.767 of the Commission's rules. 
Currently, there are different application fees for new licenses based 
on whether the license is for a common carrier or for a non-common 
carrier license.\155\ There are also fees for substantive assignments 
or transfers of control of a license and requests for STA.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ Executive Order No. 10530 delegates to the Commission the 
President's authority under the Cable Landing License Act of 1921 
adding that ``no such license shall be granted or revoked by the 
Commission except after obtaining approval of the Secretary of State 
and such advice from any executive branch department or 
establishment of the Government as the Commission may deem 
necessary.'' Exec. Ord. No. 10530 5(a), reprinted as amended in 3 
U.S.C. 301.
    \155\ There is one fee for an application for a non-common 
carrier system ($19,855). There are two application fees for a 
common carrier cable system, one for the cable application ($2,005) 
and another for the overseas cable construction ($17,850), which add 
up to the same amount as the fee for a non-common carrier 
application.
    \156\ Currently, there is no application fee for pro forma 
assignments and transfers of a license, foreign carrier affiliation 
notifications, amendments, modifications, or Landing Point 
Notifications (LPNs). We did not propose fees for amendments or LPNs 
since these filings are made as part of a pending application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    131. In the NPRM, we proposed to create a new cable landing license

[[Page 15044]]

category. Although historically the application fees for cable landing 
licenses have been included as part of the fee category for section 214 
applications,\157\ the processing of those applications differs 
significantly from the processing of international section 214 
applications and warrants a separate filing fee category; for example, 
we are required to coordinate cable landing license applications with 
the State Department and new cable landing license applications 
typically have multiple applicants seeking to become licensees, which 
require more extensive staff review than those for international 
section 214 applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ See 47 U.S.C. 158(g) (Schedule of Application Fees) (2017) 
(setting forth under the category of section 214 applications 
separate application fees for common carrier and non-common carrier 
submarine cable landing licenses).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    132. We adopt the proposal in the NPRM and make one change to the 
proposed cost-based fees. We reduce the fee for a pro forma assignment 
or transfer of control of a cable landing license to $400 from $675 
based on our re-evaluation of the cost of processing such an 
application. In the NPRM, we estimated that the Commission's resources 
in processing a pro forma application to assign or transfer control of 
a cable landing license consist of the following: Industry analyst 
processing and review, staff attorney review, and supervisory review, 
with an estimate of $675 in costs.\158\ After carefully re-examining 
our estimate for processing pro forma applications in general,\159\ we 
believe that a $400 fee more accurately reflects the cost of processing 
a pro forma assignment or transfer of control of a cable landing 
license. The review of substantive assignment or transfer of control 
applications typically takes staff significantly more time and effort 
compared to pro forma assignments. Accordingly, we find that our 
initial estimate of the cost for substantive transactions remains valid 
and reflects accurately our average cost of reviewing substantive 
assignments and transfer of control applications. This reduction also 
brings this fee to a level consistent with other similar cost-based 
fees adopted herein, including the pro forma assignment or transfer of 
control application fees applicable to international section 214 
authorizations, earth stations and space stations.\160\ Finally, any 
concerns regarding disproportionate fees for these pro forma assignment 
or transfer of control transactions are sufficiently mitigated. 
Accordingly, we adopt these new cost-based fees for cable landing 
license applications as proposed in the NPRM and modified in the 
paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final 
rules. These fees are all assessed on a per application basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ 85 FR 65581 (October 15, 2020) at para. 131.
    \159\ 85 FR 65580-65581 (October 15, 2020) at paras. 126-127.
    \160\ See infra paras. 138, 156, 172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    133. International Section 214 Applications. We adopt the proposed 
cost-based international section 214 fees in the NPRM for new 
authorizations, substantive assignments and transfers of control, pro 
forma assignments and transfers of control, foreign carrier affiliation 
notifications, modifications, STAs, waivers, and discontinuances of 
service. We adopt, however, one change from the fees proposed and 
reduce the cost of an international section 214 pro forma assignment or 
transfer of control.
    134. Any entity that seeks to provide U.S.-international common 
carrier service must obtain prior Commission approval pursuant to 
section 214 of the Communications Act by filing an international 
section 214 application. The application must contain the information 
required by part 63 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for 
filing an application for an international section 214 authorization 
are set out in Sec.  63.18 of the Commission's rules. The requirements 
for an assignment or transfer of control of such an authorization, in 
turn, are set out in Sec.  63.24. Currently, there is a fee for new 
international section 214 authorizations, for substantive assignments 
and transfers of control of authorizations, and requests for STA. In 
the NPRM, the Commission proposed new cost-based fees, including new 
fee categories for section 214 applications.
    135. USTelecom argues that the Commission should revise the fees 
for international section 214 pro forma transfer of control 
notifications and instead of creating a new fee, consider a nominal fee 
that better aligns with the actual operational costs.\161\ According to 
USTelecom, the pro forma transfer of control notifications clarify 
current license holder information and should not require substantive 
review by Commission staff.\162\ Further, USTelecom suggests, the 
Commission should also require limiting the expense for multiple pro 
forma transfer notifications filed for the same pro forma transaction--
arguing that there is no cost-based justification as to why the 
multipliers to review 10 essentially identical applications based on a 
separate license are 10 times the cost.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ USTelecom Comments at 6-7.
    \162\ Id. at 7.
    \163\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    136. After careful consideration of the resources expended in 
processing pro forma applications for assignment or transfer of control 
of an international 214 authorizations related to the same pro forma 
transaction, we are not convinced by USTelecom's arguments that a 
nominal fee would be appropriate and cost based. We review and process 
each application separately while ensuring each application's accuracy 
involving the associated licenses as well as its compliance with our 
rules. Accordingly, we reject USTelecom's argument that multiple 
applications (including similar information) should not be subject to 
multiple fees. After further evaluation, we conclude, however, that in 
the context of pro forma applications, and after staff assessment, a 
lower fee of $400 would reflect more accurately our average processing 
cost than the proposed $675. The review of substantive assignment or 
transfer of control applications typically take staff significantly 
more time and effort compared to pro forma assignments; accordingly, we 
find that our initial estimates of cost for substantive transactions 
remain valid and reflect accurately our average cost of reviewing 
substantive assignments and transfer of control applications. The lower 
amount continues, however, to take into account industry analyst 
processing and review, staff attorney review, supervisory review and 
the need to coordinate the application with other bureaus or offices 
within the Commission or federal agencies, as necessary.\164\ Such a 
fee also would be consistent with the fee for a pro forma assignment or 
transfer of control that we are adopting for cable landing licenses, 
earth stations and space stations.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ 85 FR 65582 (October 15, 2020) at para. 139.
    \165\ See infra at paras. 155, 171. As noted above, we are also 
changing the fee for a pro forma assignment or transfer of control 
of a cable landing license to $400 to be consistent with the fee for 
a pro forma application for an international section 214 
authorization. See supra at para. 132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    137. We adopt the cost-based fees, assessed per application, for 
section 214 applications proposed in the NPRM as modified in the 
paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final 
rules.
    138. Foreign Ownership Petitions for Declaratory Ruling. We adopt 
the cost-based fees proposed in the NPRM for section 310(b) petitions 
for declaratory ruling and waivers. Section 310(b) of the 
Communications Act contains specific restrictions on who can hold a 
broadcast, common carrier, or aeronautical radio station license. 
Section 310(b)(3) prohibits foreign individuals, governments and

[[Page 15045]]

corporations from owning more than 20% of the capital stock of a 
broadcast, common carrier, or aeronautical radio station licensee. 
Section 310(b)(4) establishes a 25% benchmark for investment by foreign 
individuals, governments and corporations in U.S.-organized entities 
that directly or indirectly control a broadcast, common carrier or 
aeronautical radio station licensee, unless the Commission finds that 
foreign ownership above that benchmark would serve the public interest. 
The Commission's rules set out procedures for seeking prior Commission 
approval to exceed the benchmarks set out in the statute. The 
International Bureau processes petitions for declaratory ruling seeking 
approval to exceed the benchmarks set out in sections 310(b)(3) and 
310(b)(4) for common carrier wireless or aeronautical licenses.\166\ 
Historically, there was no fee for a 310(b) petition for declaratory 
ruling. In the NPRM, we proposed new cost-based fees. We received no 
objections in the record to these proposals and we conclude that the 
fees proposed in the NPRM are reasonable and cost-based. We adopt these 
new cost-based fees, assessed per application, as proposed in the NPRM 
discussed in the paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of 
fees in the final rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ The Media Bureau processes petitions for declaratory 
ruling seeking approval to exceed the benchmarks set out in section 
310(b) for broadcast licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    139. Recognized Operating Agency. We adopt the cost-based 
recognized operating agency fees as proposed in the NPRM. Any 
individual or corporation, other than a government establishment, that 
seeks recognition to operate an international public correspondence or 
radio service capable of causing harmful interference and upon which 
are imposed obligations provided for in Article 44 of the International 
Telecommunication Convention, must file an recognized operating agency 
application via the Commission's International Bureau Filing System 
(IBFS). The purpose of the recognized operating agency is to assure 
members of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) that private 
communications entities that are not themselves parties to the 
Convention will nonetheless be required to observe the rights of other 
member states under the treaty. If the application is approved, a 
recommendation letter is sent to the State Department.\167\ Currently, 
there is a fee for a recognized operating agency application but no 
fees for any associated requests, such as waivers. In the NPRM, the 
Commission proposed new cost-based fees for ROA applications and waiver 
requests. We received no objections in the record on these proposals 
and fees. We conclude that the fees proposed in the NPRM and discussed 
above are reasonable and cost-based. We adopt these fees that are 
assessed on a per application basis as proposed in the NPRM and 
discussed in the paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of 
fees in the final rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ The State Department would then submit an application on 
behalf of the applicant to the ITU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    140. Data Network Identification Code. We adopt the cost-based data 
network identification code fees proposed in the NPRM for the data 
network identification code application and a waiver of our rules. The 
data network identification code (DNIC) is a four-digit number used to 
identify data networks and is the central device of the international 
data numbering plan developed by the ITU and set forth in 
Recommendation X.121.\168\ The primary function of the DNIC is to 
identify and to facilitate routing of traffic to a particular data-
network subscriber. Any public network provider seeking to obtain a 
DNIC must file an application through IBFS for a request for assignment 
of a DNIC. Currently, there is no fee for a DNIC. In the NPRM, we 
proposed new cost-based fees of $785 and a fee for Waivers of $335. We 
received no objections in the record on these proposals. We conclude 
that the fees proposed in the NPRM and discussed above are reasonable 
and cost-based. We adopt the cost-based fees, assessed on a per 
application basis, as proposed in the NPRM and discussed in the 
paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of fees in the final 
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ International Communications Policies Governing 
Designation of Recognized Private Operating Agencies, Grants of IRUs 
in International Facilities and Assignment of Data Network 
Identification Codes, CC Docket No. 83-1230, Report and Order, 104 
FCC 2d 208, 262-7, paras. 70-77 (1986), recon. granted in part, 2 
FCC Rcd 7375, 7378-80, paras. 26-34 (1987). The International 
Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT), now known as 
ITU-T, developed Recommendation X.121. See X.121: International 
numbering plan for public data networks, https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.121/en (visited Aug. 14, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    141. International Signaling Point Code. We adopt the cost-based 
fees proposed in the NPRM for international signaling point code (ISPC) 
applications as well as transfers of control and modifications. The ITU 
defines a signaling point code as a ``part of the label in a signalling 
[sic] message that uniquely identifies each signalling point which 
belongs to the international signalling network'' and is used for 
signaling message routing and identification of signaling points at the 
international level.\169\ Such signaling points are within a Signaling 
System 7 (SS7) switch. For this reason, only carriers that operate 
their own switch would need a signaling point code. Carriers that need 
an ISPC must file an application through IBFS for a Request for 
Assignment of International Signaling Point Codes (ISPC) for SS7. The 
ISPC application must include information demonstrating compliance with 
the standards set forth in ITU-T Recommendation Q.708. Currently, there 
is no fee for an ISPC application or associated request, such as an 
amendment or transfers.\170\ In the NPRM, the Commission proposed cost-
based fees for these applications at $785, Transfers of Control $675, 
Modifications $675, and Waivers $335. We received no objections on 
these proposals. We adopt the fees as proposed in the NPRM and 
discussed in the paragraphs above and as reflected in the schedule of 
fees in the final rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ Standardization (ITU-T), Definition, https://www.itu.int/net/ITU-R/asp/terminology-definition.asp?lang=en&rlink={EAA8C660-
C702-4B47-A23E-20812661AC3A{time} ; Q.708: Assignment procedures for 
international signaling point codes, https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Q.708/en (last visited Dec. 17, 2020) (ITU-T Rec. Q.708).
    \170\ According to ITU-T Rec. Q.708, an ISPC may not be sold, 
licensed or traded by signaling point operators. Transfers of ISPCs 
are permitted in the case of a merger, acquisition, divestiture, or 
formation of a joint venture. Id. at para. 7.10. An ISPC ``Transfer 
of Control'' application is intended to address ISPC transfers 
occurring as a result of a merger, acquisition, divestiture, or 
formation of a joint venture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    142. Earth Stations. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed cost-
based fees for earth station applications and the elimination and 
consolidation of some fees. We consolidate the filing fee categories 
for fixed or temporary fixed transmit/receive earth station 
applications, adopt a fee for pro forma assignments or transfers of 
control applications for earth stations, including receive-only 
stations, replace the filing fee category for Very Small Aperture 
Terminal (VSAT) systems with blanket-licensed earth stations, adopt the 
proposed fee for amendments and modifications, adopt a modification of 
the proposed fees for assignments and transfers of control on a per 
call sign basis, and adopt a cost-based application fee for processing 
and reviewing requests for U.S. market access from non-U.S. licensed 
space stations.
    143. Fixed satellite service. We adopt our proposal to eliminate 
the Fixed Satellite transmit/receive Earth Stations (2 meters or less 
operating in the \4/6\ GHz band) category and replace it with the fee 
categories for Fixed or Temporary

[[Page 15046]]

Fixed Transmit or Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. Earth stations 
transmitting, or transmitting and receiving signals, either at a fixed 
location or temporarily at a fixed location,\171\ include entities that 
operate earth stations to provide fixed-satellite service (FSS) \172\ 
as well as other services.\173\ The Commission proposed to eliminate 
the Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth Stations (2 meters or less 
operating in the \4/6\ GHz band) category and replace it with the fee 
categories for Fixed or Temporary Fixed Transmit or Transmit/Receive 
Earth Stations because there is no substantive difference in the review 
process for fixed or temporary fixed earth station applications in the 
\4/6\ GHz band compared with such applications in other frequency 
bands. Consolidating the filing fee categories for fixed or temporary 
fixed transmit/receive earth station applications will streamline the 
fee filing process by eliminating potential mis-categorization and 
unnecessary sub-categories. We received no objections to this proposal, 
and we conclude that the fees proposed in the NPRM are reasonable and 
cost-based. Accordingly, we adopt the proposal to eliminate the Fixed 
Satellite transmit/receive Earth Stations (2 meters or less operating 
in the \4/6\ GHz band) category and replace it with the fee categories 
for Fixed or Temporary Fixed Transmit or Transmit/Receive Earth 
Stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ Valid authorization must be obtained prior to the use and 
operation of transmitting earth station facilities within the United 
States. 47 CFR 25.102(a). A fixed earth station is ``[a]n earth 
station intended to be used at a fixed position. The position may be 
a specified fixed point or any fixed point within a specified 
area.'' Id. Section 25.103. A temporary fixed earth station is one 
that is to remain at a single location for fewer than six months. 
See id. Section 25.277(a).
    \172\ FSS is ``[a] radiocommunication service between earth 
stations at given positions, when one or more satellites are used; 
the given position may be a specified fixed point or any fixed point 
within specified areas; in some cases this service includes 
satellite-to-satellite links, which may also be operated in the 
inter-satellite service; the [FSS] may also include feeder links of 
other space radiocommunication services.'' 47 CFR 25.103.
    \173\ For example, this fee category would apply to Satellite 
Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) terrestrial repeaters that are 
licensed on a site-by-site basis. See 47 CFR 25.144(e)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    144. Receive-only earth stations. We adopt our proposed fee for the 
pro forma assignments or transfers of control applications, including 
receive-only earth stations. A separate Commission authorization is not 
generally required to operate a receive-only FSS earth station 
associated with a space station (either licensed or granted market 
access to operate in the United States).\174\ A party may seek to 
register a receive-only FSS earth station with the Commission. This 
does not constitute a license, but rather is a method to record the 
existence of the earth station so that it may be taken into account for 
regulatory purposes, such as for coordination with other services to 
avoid harmful radiofrequency interference. CTIA contends that the 
Commission should not impose fees on pro forma filings involving 
receive-only earth stations and notes that in 2015, the Commission 
eliminated application processing fees for the pro forma assignment or 
transfer of control of receive-only earth stations.\175\ CTIA argues 
that the Commission previously found that receive-only registrations 
are neither construction permits nor station licenses subject to 
section 310(d) of the Communications Act, and thus the pro forma 
assignment or transfer of control of such registrations does not 
require a public interest finding.\176\ We disagree that the absence of 
a public interest finding (with respect to section 310(d)) means that 
there are no costs associated with processing pro forma assignments and 
transfers of control of receive-only earth stations. Although the 
Commission has specified that its review of pro forma transfer 
applications ``is limited to determining that they are, in fact, pro 
forma in nature,'' the Commission did not eliminate review of pro forma 
transfer applications altogether. In fact, the review does require 
staff resources to ensure that the parties have complied with our rules 
and the application in fact falls in the pro-forma category, and to 
determine the accuracy of the information provided in the application 
and ownership of the licenses. Based on our cost-based analysis, we 
adopt our proposed fee for the pro forma assignments or transfers of 
control applications for receive-only earth stations. We assess this 
pro forma application fee on a per transaction basis because the costs 
involved with processing these applications typically are incurred per 
application due to the pro forma nature of these applications. The $400 
fee we adopt covers the average cost to process a pro forma 
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ A license is required for a receive-only earth station if 
it is receiving signals from a non-US licensed space station that 
does not have a valid grant of US-market access. See 47 CFR 
25.115(b)(1) (allowing registration, instead of licensing, for 
receive-only earth stations in the FSS that operate with U.S.-
licensed space stations, or with non-U.S. licensed space stations 
that have been duly approved for U.S. market access). In this 
instance, the new fee that we adopt for U.S. market access from non-
U.S. licensed space stations through earth station applications 
would apply.
    \175\ CTIA Comments at 12.
    \176\ Id. at 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    145. Blanket earth stations. We adopt our proposed fee for blanket-
licensed mobile earth stations. Blanket earth station facilities are 
earth station systems authorized pursuant to blanket licensing 
procedures in part 25 of the Commission's rules.\177\ Applications for 
licenses for Earth Stations in Motion (ESIM) \178\ and certain SDARS 
terrestrial repeaters are included in this fee category.\179\ This 
filing fee category replaces the filing fee category for VSAT systems, 
since the definition of a blanket earth station license includes the 
category of services included in VSAT systems. The Commission 
eliminated VSAT-specific rules in 2015.\180\ We proposed to eliminate 
the filing fees for VSAT but use the previous VSAT fees as the baseline 
for evaluating the change in filing fees for blanket-licensed earth 
stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ A blanket license is ``a license for: (1) [m]ultiple earth 
stations in the FSS or MSS, or for SDARS terrestrial repeaters, that 
may be operated anywhere within a geographic area specified in the 
license; or (2) [m]ultiple space stations in non-geostationary-
orbit.'' 47 CFR 25.103.
    \178\ ESIM is a term that collectively designates Earth Stations 
on Vessels (ESV), Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations (VMES), and Earth 
Station Aboard Aircraft (ESAA) as defined in Commission rules. 47 
CFR 25.103.
    \179\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 25.144(e)(2) (stating eligibility 
requirements for blanket licensing of SDARS terrestrial repeaters).
    \180\ See Second Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 14778, para. 
191 (deleting the VSAT-specific rules contained in former Sec.  
25.134 because they were duplicative of blanket licensing provisions 
contained in other rule sections).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    146. Commenters question the proposed higher fee for blanket-
licensed mobile earth stations compared to proposed fees for other 
blanket-licensed earth stations. EchoStar and SIA oppose the proposed 
$815 application fee for blanket-licensed mobile earth stations, and 
argue that we should adopt a $360 fee for all blanket-licensed earth 
stations, including mobile earth stations.\181\ We disagree and adopt 
our proposed fees. A higher fee for blanket-licensed mobile earth 
stations is warranted because the Commission's costs are higher to 
review these types of applications. Specifically, these applications 
are generally more complex, given the mobile nature of the services to 
be provided, and thus require significant engineering review and legal 
analysis to process. Consequently, higher cost-based fees are 
warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ EchoStar Comments at 4; SIA Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    147. Amendments and modifications. We adopt our proposed fee for 
amendments and modifications.\182\

[[Page 15047]]

According to some commenters, the proposed fees for earth station 
amendments and modifications are excessive compared to those for 
initial earth station applications, a $430 fee for single-site earth 
station amendments, and a $545 fee for earth station modifications 
compared to the proposed fee for initial single-site transmit earth 
stations of $360, which should require greater resources than the 
amendment or modification.\183\ We disagree. Our experience is that the 
costs involved in an amendment and modification are higher than the 
costs in processing an initial application. In order to process an 
application amendment or license modification, staff must first 
manually transfer the proposed amendment or modification into the 
underlying application or license in IBFS. Then, Commission engineering 
staff must re-familiarize themselves with the initial application or 
underlying license, and then review the amended application or modified 
license to determine if the revised technical specifications, such as 
power levels, remain within the rule requirements. This process has 
taken our staff, on average, more time and specific expertise than the 
time and specific expertise required to process the initial 
applications. For that reason, we adopt our proposed fees for 
amendments and modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ 85 FR 65586 (October 15, 2020) at para. 169. (proposing to 
create a separate fee category for amendments and modifications on a 
per call sign basis).
    \183\ EchoStar Comments at 4; SIA Comments at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    148. EchoStar further argues that the proposed fees for space and 
earth station amendments fail to distinguish between major and minor 
amendments permitted under Sec.  25.116 of the Commission's rules and 
that the proposed fees for space and earth station modifications fail 
to distinguish between modifications permitted under Sec.  25.117 and 
modifications not requiring prior authorization under Sec.  
25.118.\184\ EchoStar contends that the Commission should clarify that 
the proposed fees for space and earth station amendments and 
modifications are limited to major amendments and modifications 
requiring prior authorization.\185\ EchoStar proposes that the 
Commission adopt reduced fees for minor amendments and modifications 
not requiring prior authorization because such minor amendments and 
modifications are typically processed with minimal staff review.\186\ 
We decline to adopt different fees based on whether an amendment is 
determined to be minor or major, or whether a modification requires 
prior authorization or not. Staff resources are expended in all such 
cases in the initial review process to determine whether an amendment 
application is properly classified as minor or major, or whether a 
modification application is properly classified as not requiring prior 
authorization. Moreover, creating different fee categories based on 
such determinations would add complexity and administrative burden, 
potentially slowing down the processing of these applications. We 
therefore adopt the fees as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ EchoStar Comments at 3.
    \185\ Id.
    \186\ Id. at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    149. Multiple sites. We adopt our proposed fee for earth station 
applications seeking to license multiple sites. We proposed to adopt 
separate cost-based filing fees for applications involving a single 
site \187\ and applications involving multiple sites.\188\ SIA argues 
that the proposed fee for earth station applications seeking to license 
multiple sites, in the case of ``multiple stations at a single 
geographic location [that are] operating under a single call sign,'' 
$6,515, is more than 18 times the fee for an initial application for a 
single site ($360), an initial VSAT application ($360), or a blanket 
license application ($360).\189\ SIA observes that the fee for initial 
applications for multiple sites would encourage additional, unnecessary 
filings that would increase the administrative burden on the 
Commission, because for sites with multiple antennas eligible to be 
licensed under one call sign, in almost all cases it would be more 
cost-efficient for an earth station applicant to either apply for 
separate licenses for each antenna, or seek a license for a single site 
and then modify that license to add antennas.\190\ Accordingly, SIA 
argues, the Commission should either combine the single and multiple 
site categories into one category that retains the proposed single-site 
fee, or reduce the proposed fee for initial earth station applications 
for multiple sites to be more in line with the fees proposed for other 
types of initial earth station applications.\191\ We disagree with 
SIA's proposal. Multiple sites applications require additional costs to 
process, and may involve hundreds of different sites that need to be 
evaluated by Commission staff. In adopting cost-based fees, we must 
take these additional costs into account in calculating the appropriate 
fee. We are also developing these fees based on average costs. Since a 
multiple site application may include 20 or 200 sites, as well as 
different transmit/receive stations for different antennas, 
frequencies, and services under the same call sign, we must adopt a fee 
that covers the Commission's average costs. We understand that if an 
application has fewer than a dozen or so sites, assuming all other 
things are equal, the applicant may prefer the option of applying 
individually for separate licenses. Availability of such an option in 
itself neither renders our cost-based proposed fees invalid nor affects 
the Commission's calculation of average cost with respect to 
applications involving multiple sites. Accordingly, we adopt our 
proposed $6,515 fee for such applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ In the NPRM in footnote 135, the Commission stated that 
``[a]n example of a single site application would be one for 
authority to operate a single transmit/receive gateway station 
operating under a single call sign in the FSS.''
    \188\ In the NPRM in footnote 135, the Commission stated that 
``[a]n example of a multiple site application would be multiple 
stations at a single geographic location operating under a single 
call sign in the FSS.'' We clarify that this was just one example 
not a definition of applications seeking to license multiple sites. 
Another example of multiple site would be multiple stations at 
multiple geographic locations (each with a different specified 
latitude and longitude) operating under a single call sign in the 
FSS.
    \189\ SIA Comments at 5.
    \190\ Id. at 6.
    \191\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    150. Assignment and transfer of control. We adopt our proposed fee 
for assignments and transfer of control with a modification to reduce 
the fee charged for each additional call sign in transactions involving 
multiple call sign. Some commenters suggest that the application fee 
for assignments and transfer of control should be based on per the 
transaction, rather than per the number of call signs that each 
application involves, which is the case under fee schedules prior to 
the passage of the RAY BAUM'S Act.\192\ EchoStar argues that the 
Commission should not adopt a per-call sign application fee for 
assignment and transfer of control of space and earth station licenses 
because that would be inconsistent with the goal of aligning 
application fees with costs.\193\ SIA contends that the processing of 
an application to assign or transfer multiple earth or space stations 
requires virtually the same staff resources as processing an 
application for a single earth or space station.\194\ SIA explains that 
the current earth station fee structure reflects this difference, with 
the first call sign on an assignment or transfer of control application 
being charged at one rate and all additional call signs being charged 
at a much lower

[[Page 15048]]

rate.\195\ A non-pro forma application can be complex and include a 
large number of various licenses and services. Our experience shows 
that a non-pro forma application processing cost has a direct 
relationship with the number of call signs that might be included in a 
particular non-pro forma transaction. Because the review of a non-pro 
forma/substantive transaction for assignment or transfer of control 
requires differing staff resources based on the number of call signs on 
an assignment or transfer of control application, we adopt our proposed 
fees on a per call sign basis but modify them slightly. To better 
reflect our average cost of processing these non-pro forma 
applications, the first call sign on an assignment or transfer of 
control application will be charged at one rate ($745) and all 
additional call signs will be charged at lower rate ($400) consistent 
with our currently established fee structure. This change would reflect 
the additional average incremental costs incurred by our staff, 
including a first-line analyst to process the non-pro forma assignment 
and transfer of control of applications in IBFS beyond the initial call 
sign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ Id. at 4; EchoStar Comments at 5.
    \193\ EchoStar Comments at 5.
    \194\ SIA Comments at 4.
    \195\ SIA Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    151. U.S. market access from non-U.S. licensed space stations 
through earth station application. We adopt our proposed fee for a 
request for authority to communicate with a non-U.S. licensed space 
station as part of an earth station application. Applicants and 
licensees may request authority to communicate with a non-U.S. licensed 
space station as part of an earth station application. We adopt a cost-
based application fee for processing and reviewing requests for U.S. 
market access from non-U.S. licensed space stations. We adopt our 
proposal that any earth station application that includes a request to 
communicate with a non-U.S. licensed space station that does not have a 
valid grant of U.S. market access must also pay the filing fees for 
space station petitions for declaratory ruling for U.S. market access. 
An earth station application including a request for U.S. market access 
involves the same process and review as a space station petition for 
market access. In addition, unless the same fees are assessed for earth 
station applications involving requests for U.S. market access, parties 
may seek to arbitrage the system by shifting all market access requests 
to earth station filings in order to avoid any future fees adopted for 
filings of requests for market access by space stations.
    152. We adopt the following cost-based fees for earth stations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Application                            New fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Fixed or Temporary Fixed Transmit or Transmit/Receive Earth Stations,
                              per Call Sign
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial application, single site.............  $360.
Initial application, multiple sites..........  $6,515.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Receive Only Earth Stations License or Registration, per Call Sign or
                              Registration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial application or registration, single    $175.
 site, per site.
Initial application or registration, multiple  $465.
 sites, per system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Blanket Earth Stations, per Call Sign
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Application for Blanket Authorization  $360.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Mobile Earth Stations, per Call Sign
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Application for Blanket                $815.
 Authorization, per system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments to Earth Station Applications or Registrations, per Call Sign
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Site..................................  $430.
Multiple Sites...............................  $630.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Other Earth Station Applications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification of Earth Station Licenses or      $545.
 Registrations, per Call Sign.
Assignment or Transfer of Control of Earth     $745 (first call sign;
 Station Licenses or Registrations.             $400 (for each
                                                additional).
Pro Forma Assignment or Transfer of Control    $400.
 of Earth Station Licenses or Registrations,
 per transaction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Renewals of Earth Station Licenses, per Call Sign
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Site..................................  $115.
Multiple Sites...............................  $145.
Requests for U.S. Market for Non-U.S.          See the fee categories
 Licensed Space Stations, per request.          for Space Stations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    153. Space Stations. Valid authorization must be obtained from the 
Commission prior to the use and operation of a space station.\196\ With 
limited exceptions, approval for orbital deployment and a station 
license (i.e., operating authority) must be applied for and granted 
before a space station may be deployed and operated in orbit.\197\ In 
the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on proposals for cost-based 
fees and eliminating some fees. We remove the application fee for 
extension of launch authority; adopt fees for applications for 
authority to construct, deploy, and operate; adopt the proposed new fee 
category for authority to operate per system, a space station that is

[[Page 15049]]

already in orbit, as a U.S. licensed space station; and adopt a new 
application fee for petitions to access the U.S. market by foreign-
licensed space stations. We also adopt application fees for small 
satellite NGSO systems; adopt fees for amendments, modifications, and 
substantive and pro forma assignments and transfers of control for both 
GSOs and NGSOs; and adopt fees for STA applications for GSOs and NGSOs. 
We are adopting the proposals in the NPRM, with some modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ 47 CFR 25.102(a) (stating that ``[n]o person shall use or 
operate apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications 
or signals by space or earth stations except under, and in 
accordance with, an appropriate authorization granted by the Federal 
Communications Commission.'')
    \197\ Id. Section 25.113(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    154. Extension of launch authority. We adopt our proposals to 
remove the application fee for extension of launch authority for both 
GSOs and NGSOs. With limited exceptions, prior approval must be granted 
for any modification of a space station authorization,\198\ including 
an extension of launch authority. Any request to change to the terms or 
conditions of an authorization must be filed through a request for 
modification of the authorization. We see no reason to preserve a 
separate application fee for requests to extend authority for launch of 
geostationary satellites, and elimination of this separate fee category 
will help to streamline and simplify our fee structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ Id. Section 25.117(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    155. Application for authority to operate per system, a space 
station that is already in orbit. We adopt our proposed new fee 
category: Application for authority to operate per system, a space 
station that is already in orbit as a U.S. licensed space station. We 
find that the costs involved in this process are identical to those for 
authority to construct, deploy, and operate GSOs and NGSOs, per system, 
since the information required to be reviewed by Commission staff and 
the direct costs incurred are the same in both cases.
    156. SIA asks that the Commission clarify that the application fee 
for NGSO systems (not small satellite) is $15,050 regardless of whether 
authority is sought to ``construct, deploy, and operate'' an NGSO 
system or to ``operate'' an NGSO system that is already in orbit--the 
fee is listed as $15,050 for both application types.\199\ We clarify 
that these fees are based on the same costs and are intended to be the 
same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ SIA Comments at 9-10 (asserting inconsistent description 
of these fees in the text of the NPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    157. U.S. market access petitions for foreign-licensed space 
stations. We adopt our proposed fee for U.S. market access for foreign 
licensed space stations with the modification that we add an NGSO small 
satellite fee in the petition for declaratory ruling category, matching 
the fee that is already listed for applications to construct, deploy, 
and operate U.S.-licensed NGSO small satellites. The Commission 
assesses application fees involving space stations (both in 
geostationary and in non-geostationary orbits) licensed, or to be 
licensed, by the Commission, but does not currently have an application 
fee for petitions for foreign-licensed space stations to access the 
U.S. market. These petitions involve the submission and review of 
essentially the same information as provided in applications (i.e. Form 
312, Schedule S, and Technical and Legal Narratives) involving U.S.-
licensed space stations.\200\ The costs up through the first-level of 
supervision are identical for both applications for U.S. licenses and 
petitions for declaratory ruling to access the U.S. market. In both 
cases, the same documentation is required to be prepared and reviewed. 
In the NPRM, we proposed new cost-based fees for foreign-licensed space 
stations. We explained that, pursuant to the requirement of the RAY 
BAUM'S Act, we must recover the costs of processing filings.\201\ As a 
result, we are required to adopt a new application fee for petitions to 
access the U.S. market by foreign-licensed space stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ 47 CFR 25.137(b) (requiring an entity seeking U.S. market 
access by a non-U.S. licensed space station to provide ``an exhibit 
providing legal and technical information for the non-U.S. licensed 
space station of the kind that Sec.  25.114 would require in a 
license application for that space-station, including but not 
limited to, information required to complete Schedule S.'')
    \201\ 47 U.S.C. 158(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    158. One commenter, Kepler, contends that the application fee for 
market access for foreign-licensed space stations is in addition to the 
other costs, e.g., annual regulatory fees and milestone bonds, and adds 
to an already burdensome and prohibitively costly regulatory framework 
without providing any clear benefit to foreign-licensed operators.\202\ 
Kepler explains that the foreign operator application fee would 
discourage competition among satellite operators within the United 
States.\203\ Kepler contends that a reduction in application fees for 
U.S. operators should not be recouped by shifting the financial burden 
onto foreign operators--by doing so, the U.S. risks igniting 
retaliatory fees being imposed upon foreign-licensed systems in other 
administrations.\204\ In reply comments, EchoStar recalls the 
Commission's adoption of regulatory fees for non-U.S. licensed 
satellites in the Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for 
Fiscal Year 2020 Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for 
Fiscal Year 2019 Report and Order because the Commission expends effort 
and resources in regulating non-U.S. licensed satellites that, similar 
to U.S. licensed satellites, benefit from the Commission's oversight 
and regulation.\205\ EchoStar explains that in that proceeding the 
Commission found that the ``inequity of applying fees only to U.S. 
licensed operators when both U.S. operators and foreign operators 
applying for market access benefit from the work of the Commission 
outweighs unsubstantiated claims that the fees will cause harm to the 
competitiveness of the United States.'' \206\ EchoStar also adds that 
Kepler's comments ``do[ ] not provide any new evidence to justify a 
different outcome in this proceeding than the Regulatory Fee 
proceeding.'' \207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ Kepler Comments at 1.
    \203\ Id. at 1-2.
    \204\ Id. at 2.
    \205\ EchoStar Reply at 2-3.
    \206\ Id.
    \207\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    159. We recognize that foreign-licensed space station operators, 
like U.S. operators, will be paying this fee in addition to other 
expenses that the Commission has imposed. However, the RAY BAUM'S Act 
requires us to assess application fees based on cost. As the Commission 
explained in the NPRM, ``[w]e expect that the costs involved in this 
process [of reviewing a petition for market access] are identical to 
those for authority to construct, deploy, and operate a GSO, since the 
information required to be reviewed is the same in both cases.'' \208\ 
To fully comply with the RAY BAUM'S Act, we must require a fee for 
foreign-licensed space station operators seeking market access just as 
we do for domestic GSO applications. And because the staff costs and 
Commission resources involved in the market access petitions are 
identical to the costs for a U.S. licensed space station, we must adopt 
the same fee. We are not shifting costs, as Kepler asserts, but 
following the statute in determining cost-based fees for all 
applications as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ 85 FR 65587 (October 15, 2020) at para. 177.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    160. SIA notes that the proposed application fee schedule does not 
identify a small satellite fee in the category for U.S. market access 
for foreign-licensed space stations and suggests adding an NGSO small 
satellite fee of $2,175 in the petition for declaratory ruling 
category, matching the fee that is already listed for applications to 
construct, deploy, and operate U.S.-licensed NGSO small 
satellites.\209\ We agree and correct this

[[Page 15050]]

oversight by adding a fee for NGSO small satellites petitions for U.S. 
market access, calculated as the same $2,175 fee as for ``Application 
for Authority to Construct, Deploy, and Operate.'' \210\ This fee is 
clearly a logical outgrowth of our proposal in the NPRM to adopt cost-
based fees for all non-U.S. licensed NGSO satellites, similar to the 
fees imposed on the U.S. licensed satellites, and the satellite 
industry representatives raised it in the record so other interested 
parties should have had adequate notice.\211\ Since the cost of 
processing a request for market access for an NGSO small satellite is 
the same as processing a request for an application to construct, 
deploy, and operate a U.S.-licensed NGSO small satellite, we adopt this 
$2,175 fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ SIA Comments at 9.
    \210\ See NPRM at para. 186.
    \211\ See SIA Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    161. Two-step filing for GSO space stations. We adopt our proposed 
fee for two-step filings for GSO space stations. EchoStar contends that 
the Commission should clarify whether its proposed application fee for 
GSO space station licenses applies to optional two-step filings 
permitted under Sec.  25.110(b)(3).\212\ EchoStar suggests that the 
Commission should adopt a minimal cost-based application fee amount for 
streamlined, first-step application filings under the Commission's 
optional two-step process and clarify that the proposed GSO satellite 
application fee applies to full, second-step application filings under 
the two-step process.\213\ We clarify that these fees are calculated 
for one-step filings, which constitute nearly all of the GSO 
applications received to date. Because we have very little experience 
with two-step applications and their applicable costs to process, and 
because the administrative burden of implementing a separate fee for so 
few applications would outweigh the benefits, we have not proposed a 
separate fee for these types of applications. We therefore adopt our 
proposal for a single fee for all GSO applications, regardless whether 
they involve the one-step or two-step process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ EchoStar Comments at 6.
    \213\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    162. Small satellites. We adopt our proposed fee for small 
satellite NGSO systems.\214\ Small satellite NGSO systems typically are 
associated with small size, short duration missions, and relatively low 
cost. In the Small Satellite Report and Order,\215\ the Commission 
adopted rules governing licensing of these small satellites and adopted 
an interim application fee for small satellites of $30,000. After 
review of anticipated costs involved with the processing of all space 
station filing fees, the Commission proposed a new cost-based 
application fees for satellites that are able to be licensed under the 
small satellite rules, based on the estimated costs involved in 
processing the applications. We therefore adopt our proposed cost-based 
application fee of $2,175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ The same rationale for our adoption of filing fees for 
small satellites also applies to the filing fees applicable for 
small spacecraft. Applications for small satellites and small 
spacecraft entail the same direct costs, the only difference being 
that small spacecraft operate beyond Earth's orbit, whereas small 
satellites operate in Earth orbit. See 47 CFR 25.103. We adjust the 
fee tables to correct the prior inadvertent omission of small 
spacecraft in the fees applicable to small satellites. See 
Streamlining Licensing Procedures for Small Satellites, IB Docket 
18-86, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 13077, 13101, para. 65 (2019) 
(permitting small spacecraft to file under the streamlined process 
for small satellites).
    \215\ Streamlining Licensing Procedures for Small Satellites, IB 
Docket No. 18-86, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 13077 (2019) (Small 
Satellite Report and Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    163. Amendments. We adopt our proposed fee for amendments. In the 
NPRM, the Commission proposed to create a separate fee category for 
amendments of all categories of space station filings on a per call 
sign basis. We conclude that the costs involved with amendments up 
through the first level of supervision are likely to be similar for 
both GSO and NGSO space stations, as well as for small satellite NGSO 
systems, since the information reviewed in all cases will be the same 
and the standard for acceptability for filing is also the same.\216\ It 
will be more efficient to have a single fee category for all amendments 
to space station applications, rather than including a separate sub-
category for amendments for each category of space station licenses. We 
thus adopt our cost-based proposed fee of $1,620 for all amendments of 
all categories of space station filings on a per call sign basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ 47 CFR 25.116(e) (stating that ``[a]mendments to space 
station applications must be filed on Form 312 and Schedule S'' 
without distinction as to whether application involves geostationary 
or non-geostationary satellites).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    164. Modifications. We adopt our proposed fee for modifications. As 
a general matter, no modification of a station license that affects the 
parameters or terms and conditions of the station authorization can be 
made except upon application to and grant of such application by the 
Commission. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed a separate fee 
category for filings to modify all categories of space station license 
approvals on a per call sign basis. The Commission's costs involved 
with applications for modification through accepted-for-filing public 
notice and up through first-level supervision are similar for both 
geostationary and non-geostationary space stations, as well as for 
small satellites, since the information reviewed in all cases will be 
the same and the standard for acceptability for filing is also the 
same.\217\ We adopt our proposed cost-based fee of $2,495 for 
modifications of all categories of space station licenses on a per call 
sign basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ Id. Section 25.117(d)(1) (stating that ``applications for 
modifications of space station authorizations shall be filed in 
accordance with Sec.  25.114, but only those items of information 
listed in Sec.  25.114 that change need to be submitted, provided 
the applicant certifies that the remaining information has not 
changed'' without regard to whether the space station authorization 
is for a geostationary or non-geostationary satellite).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    165. Assignment and transfer of control. We adopt our proposed fee 
for assignments and transfers of control with a modification to reduce 
the fee charged for each additional call sign in transactions involving 
multiple call signs. An application is required to be filed and granted 
before a space station license can be transferred, assigned, or 
disposed of, voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, or 
by transfer of control to any corporation or any other entity.\218\ The 
Commission proposed to create a separate fee category for filings to 
assign or transfer control of all categories of space station licenses 
on a per call sign basis. The costs involved with applications for 
assignment or transfer of control are likely to be similar for both 
geostationary and non-geostationary space stations, as well as for 
small satellites, since the information reviewed in all cases will be 
the same and the standard for acceptability for filing is also the 
same. In the NPRM, we proposed new cost-based fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ Id. Section 25.119(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    166. As we discussed regarding earth stations, commenters contend 
that the fee should not be based on the number of call signs, but 
instead should be per transaction, because the substantive review of 
any assignment or transfer of control should not vary with the number 
of authorizations covered by the application.\219\ We disagree. The 
substantive review and processing of a transaction for assignment or 
transfer of control requires differing staff resources, based on the 
number of call signs in an assignment or transfer of control 
application. To better reflect our average cost of processing these 
applications, we adopt the cost-based fee of $745 proposed in the NPRM, 
but the fee for additional call signs will be $400. This change would 
reflect the additional

[[Page 15051]]

incremental costs incurred by first-line analysts to process assignment 
and transfer of control of applications (beyond the initial call sign) 
in IBFS, and is consistent with the approach adopted with respect to 
earth station fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ SIA Comments at 4; EchoStar Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    167. Pro forma assignments and transfers of control. We adopt our 
proposed fee for the pro forma assignments or transfers of control 
applications. The Commission sought comment on whether a separate fee 
category should be established for assignments and transfers that are 
pro forma. In these instances, public notice and prior Commission 
approval are not needed. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed new cost-
based fees. EchoStar argues that the Commission should reduce its 
proposed application fees for pro forma assignment and transfer of 
control of space and earth station licenses because pro forma transfers 
of control and assignments of non-common carrier licenses are 
presumptively granted the day after filing, and the same transactions 
involving common carrier licenses do not even require Commission 
consent.\220\ We agree that the fee should be lower than substantive 
assignments and transfers of control, and we had proposed $400. This 
proposed fee is based on the costs associated with the pro forma 
assignments and transfers of control, which include determining that 
the rules are followed and checking ownership. We cannot eliminate the 
fee merely because the costs are lower than those for substantive 
assignments and transfers of control. Based on our experience and 
evaluation of the cost of processing such an application, we adopt the 
cost-based fee we proposed of $400 for pro forma assignments and 
transfers of control. We apply this pro forma fee on a per transaction 
basis because, as discussed in the case of earth station application, 
the costs involved with processing these applications typically are 
incurred by transaction (per application basis) rather than by call 
sign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ EchoStar Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    168. Special temporary authority (STA). We adopt our proposal to 
create a separate fee category for an STA for all categories of space 
station license applications on a per call sign basis and the proposed 
fee for such application. In circumstances requiring immediate or 
temporary use of facilities, request may be made for an STA to install 
and/or operate new or modified equipment. The Commission may grant a 
temporary authorization only upon a finding that there are 
extraordinary circumstances requiring temporary operations in the 
public interest and that delay in the institution of these temporary 
operations would seriously prejudice the public interest. The 
Commission may grant a temporary authorization for a period not to 
exceed 180 days, with additional periods not exceeding 180 days, if the 
Commission has placed the STA request on public notice. The Commission 
may grant an STA without placing the request on public notice first, if 
the request is for a period not to exceed 30 days, or the period is not 
to exceed 60 days and the applicant plans to file a request for regular 
authority for the service. In the NPRM, we proposed new cost-based 
fees. We adopt our proposal to create a separate fee category for an 
STA for all categories of space station license applications on a per 
call sign basis.\221\ We adopt the proposed cost-based fee of $1,435. A 
summary of the adopted fees discussed above is listed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ Because grants of U.S. market access are not 
authorizations and non-U.S. licensed space stations are not licensed 
by the FCC, an STA is not available for space stations operations 
involved with access to the U.S. markets. Accordingly, no filing 
fees are being proposed for STAs involving grants of market access. 
Earth station licensees, however, have and may continue to request 
an STA to communicate with non-U.S, licensed space stations, and 
filing fees for such requests are covered by the proposed filing fee 
for Earth Stations, Special Temporary Authority, above.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Filing category                          New fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Space Stations, Geostationary Orbit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application for Authority to Construct,        $3,555.
 Deploy, and Operate, per satellite.
Application for Authority to Operate, per      3,555.
 satellite.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Space Stations, Non-Geostationary Orbit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application for Authority to Construct,        $15,050.
 Deploy, and Operate, per system of
 technically identical satellites, per Call
 Sign.
Application for Authority to Operate, per      15,050.
 system of technically identical satellites,
 per Call Sign.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Space Stations, Petition for Declaratory Ruling for a Foreign Space
               Station to Access the United States Market
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSO..........................................  $3,555.
NGSO.........................................  15,050.
Small satellite NGSO.........................  2,175.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Space Stations, Small Satellites, or Small Spacecraft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application to Construct, Deploy, and          $2,175.
 Operate, per Call Sign.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Space Stations, Other Applications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space Stations, Amendments, per Call Sign....  $1,620.
Space Stations, Modifications, per Call Sign.  2,495.
Space Stations, Assignment or Transfer of      $745 (first call sign;
 Control.                                       $400 for each
                                                additional).
Space Stations, Pro Forma Assignment or        400.
 Transfer of Control, per transaction.
Space Stations, Special Temporary Authority,   1,435.
 per Call Sign.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    169. Direct Broadcast Satellites. We adopt our proposal to assess 
filing fees for DBS satellites under the proposed fees for 
geostationary space stations. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed 
removing this fee category and using

[[Page 15052]]

application fees and categories for geostationary space stations 
instead. In September 2019, the Commission revised and updated the 
rules governing DBS processing procedures to align them with the 
streamlined processing procedures for GSO FSS satellites. The 
Commission found that there is little difference technically between 
GSO FSS satellite systems and DBS systems in geostationary orbit, and 
that DBS license applications could be processed in the same manner as 
GSO FSS satellites under a first-come, first-serve basis.\222\ Given 
the technical and regulatory similarities between GSO FSS satellites 
and DBS satellites, there is no need to maintain a separate filing fee 
for DBS satellites and we adopt our proposal to assess filing fees for 
DBS satellites under the proposed fees for geostationary space 
stations, which also apply to GSO FSS satellite applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ DBS Streamlining Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 9016-17, 
para. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    170. Unified Space and Earth Station Licenses. The Commission 
created a set of temporary rules regarding fees for unified space and 
earth station licenses in the Further Streamlining Part 25 Rules 
Governing Satellite Services Report and Order.\223\ In the Report and 
Order, we ``assess[ed] a fee for unified license applications that is 
equal to the combined fees of the relevant space station license 
application and earth station blanket-license application.'' \224\ 
However, we qualified those fees as a ``simple, clear solution until 
the comprehensive Commission application fee rulemaking is completed.'' 
\225\ We further qualified those as ``interim fee decisions . . . 
[that] will be considered in the larger application fee rulemaking, and 
may change significantly based on the analyses conducted there.'' \226\ 
In the Further Streamlining Part 25 Rules Governing Satellite Services 
proceeding, we received public comments favoring our adoption of that 
fee. Intelsat supported a fee that ``reflect[ed] the dual earth station 
and space station elements of the unified license.'' \227\ Viasat 
supported fees that were ``commensurate with the lower rates applicable 
to additional earth stations in an assignment or transfer of control 
application, or an additional site-based application.'' \228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ Further Streamlining Part 25 Rules Governing Satellite 
Services, Report and Order, --FCC Rcd--(2020).
    \224\ Id. at 13, para. 34.
    \225\ Id.
    \226\ Id. at 12, para. 33.
    \227\ Intelsat License LLC Comments, FCC 20-159, IB Docket No. 
18-314, at 6 (rec. Mar. 18, 2020).
    \228\ Viasat, Inc. Comments, FCC 20-159, IB Docket No. 18-314, 
at 6-7 (rec. Mar. 18, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    171. In this current proceeding, EchoStar contends that if we allow 
applications for unified space and earth station licenses, we should 
also adopt a cost-based fee for these filings, no greater than the sum 
of the filing fees for the component space and earth station licenses, 
and the fee should be reduced to reflect any material reductions in the 
information required for Commission review and to account for other 
administrative efficiencies offered by unified license filings.\229\ 
SIA also contends that a unified licensing fee structure for space and 
earth stations should be cost-based.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ EchoStar Comments at 7.
    \230\ SIA Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    172. We adopt a cost-based approach for unified space and earth 
station license fees. At this time, we adopt a fee that is equal to the 
combined, cost-based fees of the relevant space station license 
application and earth station blanket license as adjusted herein, 
consistent with the approach that we adopted in our Further 
Streamlining Part 25 Rules Governing Satellite Services Report and 
Order. In the future, once Commission staff has more experience with 
processing new unified license applications and the costs incurred to 
do so, we may reevaluate our methodology and the fee amount as 
appropriate.
    173. International Broadcast Stations. An International Broadcast 
Station (IBS) uses broadcast frequencies between 5,950 kHz and 26,100 
kHz to provide its broadcast service which is intended to be received 
in foreign countries.\231\ This service also is known as High Frequency 
Broadcasting (HF) or Shortwave Broadcasting. Unlike other broadcasting 
services, HF broadcasters are authorized frequencies on a seasonal 
basis. Currently, two seasons exist: A Summer season and a Winter 
season. The adjustment of frequencies between seasons results mainly 
from changes in propagation conditions, altered programming needs, and 
objectionable interference situations. In the NPRM, we proposed new 
cost-based fees. We received no comment on these proposals and adopt 
the following cost-based fees for IBS services listed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ See 47 CFR 73.701(a) (defining IBS as ``[a] broadcasting 
station employing frequencies allocated to the broadcasting service 
between 5900 and 26100 kHz, the transmissions of which are intended 
to be received directly by the general public in foreign countries. 
(A station may be authorized more than one transmitter.) There are 
both Federal and non-Federal Government international broadcast 
stations; only the latter are licensed by the Commission . . . .''

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Application                            New fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBS New Construction Permit.............................          $4,010
IBS Construction Permit Modification....................           4,010
IBS New License.........................................             905
IBS License Renewal.....................................             230
IBS Frequency Assignment................................              80
IBS Transfer of Control.................................             595
IBS STA.................................................             395
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    174. Permit to Deliver Programs to Foreign Broadcast Stations. We 
adopt the proposed cost-based permit to deliver programs to foreign 
broadcast stations fees in the NPRM. An application for 325(c) 
authorization for a new license, license renewal, license transfer of 
control, or an STA is received in electronic or hard copy format and 
reviewed for completeness. If the application is complete, then it will 
be placed on public notice for 30 days and reviewed. The application is 
reviewed by a staff engineer to ensure foreign station facilities are 
accurate and approved via treaty guidelines. Upon a positive review of 
the application by engineering and legal staff the application is 
uploaded into IBFS. The application is coordinated within the 
Commission for further analysis, enforcement violations, and possible 
ownership/applicant issues. If there are no problems, then the 
application will be granted, and the Public Notice of the grant will be 
released. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed new cost-based fees for 
these applications. We received no objections to these proposals.
    175. We adopt the following cost-based fees for section 325(c) 
authorizations proposed in the NPRM and summarized below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Application                            New fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
325(c) New License......................................            $360
325(c) License Modification.............................             185
325(c) License Renewal..................................             155
325(c) STA..............................................             155
325(c) Transfer of Control..............................             260
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    176. International Fixed Public Radio. We eliminate this fee 
category from the application fee schedule as proposed in the NPRM 
because this service was removed from the Commission's rules in 
2010.\232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ In 2010, the Commission eliminated Part 23 of its rules 
governing International Fixed Public Radiocommunication Services. 
Elimination of Part 23 of the Commission's Rules, IB Docket No. 05-
216, Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 541 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    177. Exemptions. In the NPRM, the Commission explained that section 
8(d)(2) of the RAY BAUM'S Act allows the Commission to eliminate an 
application fee when the Commission determines that the cost of 
collecting the

[[Page 15053]]

fee exceeds the amount collected.\233\ Specifically, section 8(d)(2) 
provides that ``[i]f in the judgment of the Commission, the cost of 
collecting an application fee established under this section would 
exceed the amount collected, the Commission may by rule eliminate such 
fee.'' \234\ The Commission has no or nominal collection costs for 
delinquent application fees because we do not consider or grant 
applications for which application fees are owed unless the fee is paid 
at the time of filing.\235\ Thus, we did not propose to create a rule 
based on section 8(d)(2) of the Communications Act. We did not receive 
comments on this issue. We conclude that our original analysis that a 
section 8(d)(2) rule is unnecessary with respect to applications fees 
remains correct. In the NPRM, we explained the history of the 
exemptions to our application fees and explained that the revised 
statutory text did not require any additions to Sec.  1.1116 of our 
rules, which deals with exemptions.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ NPRM at para. 222; 47 U.S.C. 158(d)(2).
    \234\ 47 U.S.C. 158(d)(2).
    \235\ 85 FR 65591-65592 (October 15, 2020) at para. 211, (and 
also explaining that collection of fees after a waiver request is 
denied are too infrequent to be used as a basis upon which to 
propose section 8(d)(2) rule).
    \236\ 85 FR 65591 (October 15, 2020) at para. 209-210. In the 
NPRM, however, we did propose to eliminate Sec.  1.1116(e)(4), which 
provided an exemption for EBS licenses. We have eliminated the EBS 
exemption. In the NPRM, we also explained that if additional 
exemptions are sought by commenters, they should provide relevant 
authority and/or legislative history that would support modifying 
the limited Congressional list of exemptions. We received various 
requests to extend the exemptions to include amateur licenses. We 
explained why amateur licenses do not qualify for any of the 
existing exemptions and we conclude here for the same reasons that 
we will not create an exemption for such licenses where none exists 
in the statute. We have received no other relevant comments on our 
proposed update to Sec.  1.1116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    178. Large and small application fees. Section 9A(e) of the RAY 
BAUM'S Act requires the Commission to allow applicants to pay large 
application fees in installments and small application fees in advance, 
for a number of years not to exceed the applicable license term. We 
sought comment in the NPRM on how to define ``large'' and ``small'' 
fees and how and under what circumstances to implement the requirements 
of section 9A(e), but received no responses.\237\ Without comment from 
interested parties we do not have a record from which to implement the 
requirements fairly and efficiently, without undue administrative 
burden or cost, as we aim to do.\238\ Accordingly, we will defer 
consideration of how, and adoption of rules, to implement the section 
9A(e) requirements until a later time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \237\ 85 FR 65592 (October 15, 2020) at para. 214-216.
    \238\ 85 FR 65592 (October 15, 2020) at para. 214, (In 
discussing implementation of the large fee installment payment 
requirement, we noted our ``aim to adopt a rule . . . that can be 
fairly and efficiently administered, without undue administrative 
burden or cost.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    179. Administrative rule changes. Moreover, we expect that as a 
result of the changes made here and those made previously to implement 
the RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018 with respect to regulatory fees, some of our 
Part 1, Subpart G, Schedule of Statutory Charges and Procedures for 
Payment, may require revision.\239\ Accordingly, we direct the Office 
of Managing Director (OMD), in consultation with the Offices and 
Bureaus, to propose such revisions for our consideration.\240\ In our 
NPRM, we proposed revisions to such rules, but on review, anticipate 
that it would be more efficient to adopt any changes to such rules only 
after we have addressed any internal changes necessary to fully 
implement the newly adopted schedule. Accordingly, we direct OMD to 
take such provisions into consideration when reviewing Subpart G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \239\ In addition, the Commission has been moving for some time 
toward a paperless environment, including to paperless disbursement 
and collection of fees. See, e.g., Amendment of Part I of the 
Commission's Rules, MD Docket No. 19-40, Order, 34 FCC Rcd 1506 
(2019) (providing the history of the ongoing transition to 
electronic payments at the FCC). Toward that end, the Commission has 
closed and continues to close the lock boxes used for receipt of 
manual payment of application filing fees. The Commission has and 
will continue to revise applicable service rules with updated 
payment instructions as lock boxes are closed.
    \240\ 47 CFR 0.231 (among other things, OMD's longstanding 
delegation with respect to fees includes issuing ``notices proposing 
amendments or adjustments to the fee schedules established under 
part 1, subpart G, of this chapter.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    180. Notice to Congress. The RAY BAUM's Act of 2018 amended Section 
8 of the Communications Act and provided an effective date of October 
1, 2018 for such changes.\241\ Congress envisioned a transition between 
fees adopted before and after the effective date of the amendments to 
Section 8.\242\ In particular, Congress provided that application fees 
in effect on the day before the effective date of the RAY BAUM's Act 
shall remain in effect until such time as the Commission adjusts or 
amends such fee.\243\ With this Report and Order, we adopt the new fee 
schedule envisioned by Congress. Accordingly, we find the new schedule 
satisfies our obligation to establish a new application fee schedule 
under Section 8(a) of the Act. In consideration of Congress's direction 
in the RAY BAUM's Act, moreover, we conclude that our amended schedule 
must be submitted to Congress at least 90 days before it becomes 
effective pursuant to section 9A(b)(2) of the Communications Act.\244\ 
Accordingly, we direct the Office of Managing Director (OMD) to provide 
such a notification to Congress upon release of the Report and Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Division P--RAY 
BAUM'S Act of 2018, Title I, FCC Reauthorization, Public Law 115-141 
(March 23, 2018).
    \242\ RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018, Title I, 103(d) (uncodified 
provisions entitled ``Transitional Rules'').
    \243\ Id.
    \244\ The uncodified transitional rules for Applications Fees 
appear to suggest that changes to the schedule after the effective 
date of the RAY BAUM'S Act must be either an adjustment under 
section 8(b) or an amendment under section 8(c). Our action here is 
certainly not limited to the adjustments contemplated by section 
8(b) and thus we conclude that the 90-day notice provision in 
required for amendments under section 8(c) is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    181. Rule effective date. As the Commission implements the changes 
to our application fee schedule, we anticipate that OMD, along with the 
Bureaus and Offices, may be required to update some of our licensing 
databases, payment instruction guides and/or adjust administrative 
internal procedures before we may begin accepting the new fees for 
certain categories of application fee payors. Accordingly, we direct 
the Office of Managing Director, in consultation with the relevant 
Offices and Bureaus, to cause a notice to be published in the Federal 
Register announcing when rule change(s) will become effective, once the 
relevant databases, guides, and internal procedures have been updated.
    182. Motion for extension of time. Richard Golden filed a motion 
for an extension of time to file comments in this proceeding, arguing 
in part that he required time to file a FOIA with the Commission.\245\ 
We note that Mr. Golden filed comments and reply comments in this 
docket and to our knowledge Mr. Golden has not filed a FOIA request. 
The NPRM was released on August 26, 2020, and published in the Federal 
Register on October 15, 2020. The NPRM provided that comments were due 
30 days from the date that the NPRM was published in the Federal 
Register. The Commission had limited time to consider comments, draft 
and deliberate on this Report and Order to meet the RAY BAUM'S Act 
requirement to establish application fees. In light of these facts, 
including that Mr. Golden did file comments and reply comments, the 
motion is denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ Motion of Richard Golden to Extend Time to File Comments 
(filed Nov. 8, 2020).

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

[[Page 15054]]

    183. Scope of proceeding. We also note that this rulemaking 
proceeding is limited to the directive in the RAY BAUM'S Act to 
establish cost-based fees for application processing. As such, we did 
not propose changing the manner in which the Bureaus and Offices 
process applications. We accordingly decline to address comments that 
were filed in this docket regarding the substance of application 
processing, which are outside the scope of this proceeding, but 
commenters are welcome to refile any such comments in relevant 
proceedings, or as petitions for rulemaking, as appropriate.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended, (RFA),\246\ an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 
was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this docket. 
The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the 
Notice, including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \246\ 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
    \247\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    2. The Report and Order adopts new cost-based application fees, 
which replace the prior schedule of fees adopted by Congress over 30 
years ago. The RAY BAUM'S Act requires the Commission to establish fees 
for all applications filed with the Commission based on the cost to 
process such applications.\248\ The new fees adopted in this Report and 
Order are needed to meet the statutory requirement. The objective of 
this rulemaking is to provide an opportunity to bring this set of fees 
into the 21st century by lowering fees to account for processing 
efficiencies where appropriate, adding new fees for applications that 
were implemented after the original fee schedule was adopted, and 
eliminating fees for applications that no longer exist. The new fee 
schedule will further simplify and streamline an overly complex 
schedule of fees by consolidating matters overseen by both the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau and the International Bureau. We believe that 
these objectives and the rules we adopt are in the public interest and 
will benefit both large and small entities because we are simplifying 
the schedule of fees and also reducing many of the fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \248\ 47 U.S.C. 158(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Report and Order adopts a methodology to establish the 
direct costs of processing applications in services in the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Media Bureau, Wireline Competition Bureau, 
Enforcement Bureau, International Bureau, Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau, Office of Engineering and Technology, and Office of 
Economic Analysis.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    4. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the 
rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    5. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended 
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rules as a result of those comments.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the 
proposed rules m this proceeding.

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply

    7. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted.\250\ The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' \251\ In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act.\252\ A ``small business concern'' is one 
which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in 
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 
established by the SBA.\253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \251\ Id. 601(6).
    \252\ Id. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of 
``small-business concern'' in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 
632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a 
small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with 
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and 
after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more 
definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of 
the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal 
Register.''
    \253\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly 
affected herein.\254\ First, while there are industry specific size 
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business 
is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.\255\ These 
types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the 
United States, which translates to 30.7 million businesses.\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ See 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(6).
    \255\ See SBA, Office of Advocacy, ``What's New With Small 
Business?'', https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/23172859/Whats-New-With-Small-Business-2019.pdf (Sept 2019).
    \256\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
\257\ The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of 
$50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements 
for small exempt organizations.\258\ Nationwide, for tax year 2018, 
there were approximately 571,709 small exempt organizations in the U.S. 
reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and 
tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.\259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ 5 U.S.C. 601(4).
    \258\ The IRS benchmark is similar to the population of less 
than 50,000 benchmark in 5 U.S.C 601(5) that is used to define a 
small governmental jurisdiction. Therefore, the IRS benchmark has 
been used to estimate the number small organizations in this small 
entity description. See Annual Electronic Filing Requirement for 
Small Exempt Organizations--Form 990-N (e-Postcard), ``Who must 
file,'' https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/annual-electronic-filing-requirement-for-small-exempt-organizations-form-990-n-e-postcard. We note that the IRS data does not provide information on 
whether a small exempt organization is independently owned and 
operated or dominant in its field.
    \259\ See Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract 
(E.O. BMF), ``CSV Files by Region,'' https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-business-master-file-extract-eo-bmf. The IRS Exempt Organization Business Master File (E.O. BMF) 
Extract provides information on all registered tax-exempt/non-profit 
organizations. The data utilized for purposes of this description 
was extracted from the IRS E.O. BMF data for Region 1-Northeast Area 
(76,886), Region 2-Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Areas (221,121), and 
Region 3-Gulf Coast and Pacific Coast Areas (273,702) which includes 
the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. This data does not include 
information for Puerto Rico.

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

[[Page 15055]]

    10. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' \260\ U.S. 
Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments \261\ indicate 
that there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of 
general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the 
United States.\262\ Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose 
governments (county,\263\ municipal and town or township \264\) with 
populations of less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose 
governments--independent school districts \265\ with enrollment 
populations of less than 50,000.\266\ Accordingly, based on the 2017 
U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,971 
entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.'' \267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
    \261\ See 13 U.S.C. 161. The Census of Governments survey is 
conducted every five (5) years compiling data for years ending with 
``2'' and ``7''. See also Census of Governments, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cog/about.html.
    \262\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments--
Organization Table 2. Local Governments by Type and State: 2017 
[CG1700ORG02]. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html. Local governmental jurisdictions are made up 
of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or 
township) and special purpose governments (special districts and 
independent school districts). See also Table 2. CG1700ORG02 Table 
Notes_Local Governments by Type and State_2017.
    \263\ See id. at Table 5. County Governments by Population-Size 
Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG05]. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html. There were 2,105 county 
governments with populations less than 50,000. This category does 
not include subcounty (municipal and township) governments.
    \264\ See id. at Table 6. Subcounty General-Purpose Governments 
by Population-Size Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG06]. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html. 
There were 18,729 municipal and 16,097 town and township governments 
with populations less than 50,000.
    \265\ See id. at Table 10. Elementary and Secondary School 
Systems by Enrollment-Size Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG10]. 
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html. There were 12,040 independent school districts 
with enrollment populations less than 50,000. See also Table 4. 
Special-Purpose Local Governments by State Census Years 1942 to 2017 
[CG1700ORG04], CG1700ORG04 Table Notes Special Purpose Local 
Governments by State Census Years 1942 to 2017.
    \266\ While the special purpose governments category also 
includes local special district governments, the 2017 Census of 
Governments data does not provide data aggregated based on 
population size for the special purpose governments category. 
Therefore, only data from independent school districts is included 
in the special purpose governments category.
    \267\ This total is derived from the sum of the number of 
general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) 
with populations of less than 50,000 (36,931) and the number of 
special purpose governments--independent school districts with 
enrollment populations of less than 50,000 (12,040), from the 2017 
Census of Governments--Organizations Tables 5, 6, and 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in 
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable and IPTV) audio and video 
programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By 
exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution 
services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are 
included in this industry.'' \268\ The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which 
consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees.\269\ 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that 
operated that year.\270\ Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 
1,000 employees.\271\ Thus, under this size standard, the majority of 
firms in this industry can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \268\ See 13 CFR 120.201. The Wired Telecommunications Carrier 
category formerly used the NAICS code of 517110. As of 2017 the U.S. 
Census Bureau definition shows the NAICS code as 517311 for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS 
Definition, https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517311&search=2017.
    \269\ See 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS Code 517311 (previously 517110).
    \270\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United 
States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series--Estab & 
Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms: 2012 (517110 Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers). https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/
table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517110.
    \271\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS 
Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers.\272\ Under the 
applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 
or fewer employees.\273\ U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 
there were 3,117 firms that operated for the entire year.\274\ Of that 
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.\275\ Thus under 
this category and the associated size standard, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of local exchange carriers are small 
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \272\ See 13 CFR 121.201. The Wired Telecommunications Carrier 
category formerly used the NAICS code of 517110. As of 2017 the U.S. 
Census Bureau definition shows the NAICs code as 517311 for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. See https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517311&search=2017.
    \273\ Id.
    \274\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United 
States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series--Estab & 
Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms: 2012 (517110 Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers). https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/
table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517110.
    \275\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Incumbent LECs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent 
local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.\276\ Under the applicable SBA size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.\277\ U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 
firms operated the entire year.\278\ Of this total, 3,083 operated with 
fewer than 1,000 employees.\279\ Consequently, the Commission estimates 
that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small 
businesses that may be affected by our actions. According to Commission 
data, one thousand three hundred and seven (1,307) Incumbent Local 
Exchange Carriers reported that they were incumbent local exchange 
service providers.\280\ Of this total, an

[[Page 15056]]

estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees.\281\ Thus, using the 
SBA's size standard the majority of incumbent LECs can be considered 
small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ See 13 CFR 121.201. The Wired Telecommunications Carrier 
category formerly used the NAICS code of 517110. As of 2017 the U.S. 
Census Bureau definition shows the NAICs code as 517311 for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. See, https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517311&search=2017.
    \277\  Id.
    \278\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United 
States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series--Estab & 
Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms: 2012 (517110 Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers). https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/
table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517110.
    \279\ Id.
    \280\ See Trends in Telephone Service, Federal Communications 
Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and 
Technology Division at Table 5.3 (Sept. 2010) (Trends in Telephone 
Service).
    \281\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), 
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these 
service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers and under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\282\ U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that 
year.\283\ Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees.\284\ Based on these data, the Commission concludes that the 
majority of Competitive LECS, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to 
Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of either competitive local exchange services or competitive 
access provider services.\285\ Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 
1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees.\286\ In addition, 17 carriers have 
reported that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are 
estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees.\287\ Also, 72 carriers have 
reported that they are Other Local Service Providers.\288\ Of this 
total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees.\289\ Consequently, based on 
internally researched FCC data, the Commission estimates that most 
providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access 
providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service 
Providers are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \282\ See 13 CFR 121.201. The Wired Telecommunications Carrier 
category formerly used the NAICS code of 517110. As of 2017 the U.S. 
Census Bureau definition shows the NAICs code as 517311 for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. See, https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517311&search=2017.
    \283\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United 
States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series--Estab & 
Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms: 2012 (517110 Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers). https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/
table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517110.s.
    \284\ Id.
    \285\ See Federal Communications Commission, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, 
Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3 (Sept. 2010) (Trends in 
Telephone Service), https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf.
    \286\ Id.
    \287\ Id.
    \288\ Id.
    \289\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
Interexchange Carriers. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.\290\ The applicable size standard 
under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees.\291\ U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 
3,117 firms operated for the entire year.\292\ Of that number, 3,083 
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.\293\ According to internally 
developed Commission data, 359 companies reported that their primary 
telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange 
services.\294\ Of this total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees.\295\ Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of interexchange service providers are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \290\ See 13 CFR 121.201. The Wired Telecommunications Carrier 
category formerly used the NAICS code of 517110. As of 2017 the U.S. 
Census Bureau definition shows the NAICs code as 517311 for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS 
Definition, https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517311&search=2017.
    \291\ Id.
    \292\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United 
States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series--Estab & 
Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms: 2012 (517110 Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers). https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/
table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517110.
    \293\ Id.
    \294\ See Trends in Telephone Service, Federal Communications 
Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and 
Technology Division at Table 5.3 (Sept. 2010) (Trends in Telephone 
Service). https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf.
    \295\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate NAICS code category for 
prepaid calling card providers is Telecommunications Resellers. This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and 
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications 
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services 
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) 
are included in this industry.\296\ The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for the category of Telecommunications 
Resellers.\297\ Under that size standard, such a business is small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\298\ U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 
show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year.\299\ 
Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.\300\ 
Thus, under this category and the associated small business size 
standard, the majority of these resellers can be considered small 
entities. According to Commission data, 193 carriers have reported that 
they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards.\301\ All 
193 carriers have 1,500 or fewer employees.\302\ Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of prepaid calling card 
providers are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \296\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, NAICS Code 
517911 ``Telecommunications Resellers'', https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517911&search=2017%20NAICS%20Search.
    \297\ 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 517911).
    \298\ Id.
    \299\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United 
States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series--Estab & 
Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms: 2012 NAICS Code 517911, https:/
/factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//
naics~517911.
    \300\ Id. Available census data does not provide a more precise 
estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or 
fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with 
``1000 employees or more.''
    \301\ See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.
    \302\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Local Resellers. The SBA has not developed a small business 
size standard specifically for Local Resellers. The SBA category of 
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest NAICs code category for 
local resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises 
establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from 
owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired 
and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to 
businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell 
telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and 
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included 
in this industry.\303\ Under the SBA's size standard, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\304\ U.S. Census Bureau 
data from 2012 show

[[Page 15057]]

that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year.\305\ Of 
that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.\306\ Thus, 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities. 
According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that they are 
engaged in the provision of local resale services.\307\ Of these, an 
estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 
1,500 employees.\308\ Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of local resellers are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \303\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, 517911 
Telecommunications Resellers, https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517911&search=2017%20NAICS%20Search.
    \304\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
    \305\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United 
States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series--Estab & 
Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms: 2012 NAICS Code 517911, https:/
/factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//
naics~517911.
    \306\ Id. Available census data does not provide a more precise 
estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or 
fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with 
``1000 employees or more.''
    \307\ See Trends in Telephone Service, Federal Communications 
Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and 
Technology Division at Table 5.3 (Sept. 2010) (Trends in Telephone 
Service).
    \308\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition 
for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS Code Category is 
Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry 
comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network 
capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and 
reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except 
satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. MVNOs are included in this 
industry.\309\ The SBA has developed a small business size standard for 
the category of Telecommunications Resellers.\310\ Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.\311\ 2012 Census Bureau data show that 1,341 firms provided 
resale services during that year.\312\ Of that number, 1,341 operated 
with fewer than 1,000 employees.\313\ Thus, under this category and the 
associated small business size standard, the majority of these 
resellers can be considered small entities. According to Commission 
data, 881 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision 
of toll resale services.\314\ Of this total, an estimated 857 have 
1,500 or fewer employees.\315\ Consequently, the Commission estimates 
that the majority of toll resellers are small entities. The closest 
NAICS Code Category is Telecommunications Resellers. The 
Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged 
in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of 
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless 
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and 
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; 
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. MVNOs 
are included in this industry.\316\ The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for the category of Telecommunications 
Resellers.\317\ Under that size standard, such a business is small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\318\ 2012 Census Bureau data show that 
1,341 firms provided resale services during that year.\319\ Of that 
number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.\320\ Thus, 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities. 
According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are 
engaged in the provision of toll resale services.\321\ Of this total, 
an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees.\322\ Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small 
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \309\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, 517911 
Telecommunications Resellers, https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517911&search=2017%20NAICS%20Search.
    \310\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
    \311\ Id.
    \312\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United 
States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series--Estab & 
Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms: 2012 NAICS Code 517911, https:/
/factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//
naics~517911.
    \313\ Id. Available census data does not provide a more precise 
estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or 
fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with 
``1000 employees or more.''
    \314\ See Trends in Telephone Service, Federal Communications 
Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and 
Technology Division at Table 5.3 (Sept. 2010) (Trends in Telephone 
Service).
    \315\ See id.
    \316\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, 517911 
Telecommunications Resellers, https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517911&search=2017%20NAICS%20Search.
    \317\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
    \318\ Id.
    \319\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United 
States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series--Estab & 
Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms: 2012 NAICS Code 517911, https:/
/factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//
naics~517911.
    \320\ Id. Available census data does not provide a more precise 
estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or 
fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with 
``1000 employees or more.''
    \321\ See Trends in Telephone Service, Federal Communications 
Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and 
Technology Division at Table 5.3 (Sept. 2010) (Trends in Telephone 
Service).
    \322\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable 
to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do 
not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator 
service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service 
carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable NAICS code category 
is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as defined in paragraph 6 of 
this IRFA. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees.\323\ U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show 
that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year.\324\ Of this 
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.\325\ Thus, under 
this size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be 
considered small. According to Commission data, 284 companies reported 
that their primary telecommunications service activity was the 
provision of other toll carriage.\326\ Of these, an estimated 279 have 
1,500 or fewer employees.\327\ Consequently, the Commission estimates 
that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \323\ See 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS Code 517311 (previously 517110).
    \324\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United 
States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series--Estab & 
Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms: 2012 (517110 Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers). https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/
table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517110.
    \325\ Id.
    \326\ Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.
    \327\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services.\328\ 
The appropriate size

[[Page 15058]]

standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees.\329\ For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the 
entire year.\330\ Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or 
fewer employees.\331\ Thus under this category and the associated size 
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless 
telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \328\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517210 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (Except Satellite).'' See 
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?lang=en&type=ib&id=ib.en./ECN.NAICS2012.517210.
    \329\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
    \330\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United 
States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series: Estab and 
Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 
517210. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/
51SSSZ5//naics~517210.
    \331\ Id. Available census data does not provide a more precise 
estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or 
fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with 
``1000 employees or more.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category 
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images 
together with sound.'' \332\ These establishments operate television 
broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission 
of programs to the public.\333\ These establishments also produce or 
transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television 
stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a 
predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, 
from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has 
created the following small business size standard for such businesses: 
Those having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts.\334\ The 2012 
Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category operated in 
that year.\335\ Of that number, 656 had annual receipts of $25,000,000 
or less.\336\ Based on this data we therefore estimate that the 
majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities under 
the applicable SBA size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \332\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, ``515120 
Television Broadcasting,'' https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=515120&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017.
    \333\ Id.
    \334\ 13 CFR 121.201; 2012 NAICS code 515120.
    \335\ U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC1251SSSZ4, Information: 
Subject Series--Establishment and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms 
for the United States: 2012 (515120 Television Broadcasting). 
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4/
/naics~515120.
    \336\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial 
television stations to be 1,377.\337\ Of this total, 1,258 stations (or 
about 91%) had revenues of $41.5 million or less, according to 
Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro 
Television Database (BIA) on November 16, 2017, and therefore these 
licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In 
addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed 
noncommercial educational television stations to be 384.\338\ 
Notwithstanding, the Commission does not compile and otherwise does not 
have access to information on the revenue of noncommercial educational 
broadcast services stations that would permit it to determine how many 
such stations would qualify as small entities. There are also 2,300 low 
power television stations, including Class A stations (LPTV) and 3,681 
TV translator stations.\339\ Given the nature of these services, we 
will presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under 
the above SBA small business size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \337\ Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 2018, Press 
Release (MB, rel. Jul. 3, 2018) (June 30, 2018 Broadcast Station 
Totals Press Release), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-352168A1.pdf.
    \338\ Id.
    \339\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern 
qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition, business (control) 
affiliations \340\ must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely 
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our 
action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not 
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, 
another element of the definition of ``small business'' requires that 
an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at 
this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish 
whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its 
field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to 
which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the 
definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly 
over-inclusive. Also, as noted above, an additional element of the 
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be 
independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is 
difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media 
entities and its estimates of small businesses to which they apply may 
be over-inclusive to this extent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \340\ ``[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when 
one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a 
third party or parties controls or has the power to control both.'' 
13 CFR 21.103(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. Radio Stations. This Economic Census category ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by 
radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio, 
from an affiliated network, or from external sources.'' \341\ The SBA 
has established a small business size standard for this category as 
firms having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts.\342\ Economic 
Census data for 2012 show that 2,849 radio station firms operated 
during that year.\343\ Of that number, 2,806 firms operated with annual 
receipts of less than $25 million per year.\344\ Therefore, based on 
the SBA's size standard the majority of such entities are small 
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \341\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, ``515112 Radio 
Stations,'' https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=515112&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017.
    \342\ 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 515112.
    \343\ U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC1251SSSZ4, Information: 
Subject Series--Establishment and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms 
for the United States: 2012 NAICS Code 515112, https://
factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//
naics~515112.
    \344\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. According to Commission staff review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC's 
Media Access Pro Radio Database as of January 2018, about 11,261 (or 
about 99.9%) of 11,383 commercial radio stations had revenues of $41.5 
million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA 
definition.\345\ The Commission has estimated the number of licensed 
commercial AM radio stations to be 4,633 stations and the number of 
commercial FM radio stations to be 6,738, for a total number of 
11,371.\346\ We note the Commission has also estimated the number of 
licensed noncommercial FM radio stations to be 4,128.\347\ 
Nevertheless, the Commission does not compile and otherwise does not 
have access to information on the revenue of noncommercial stations 
that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify 
as small entities. We also note, that in assessing whether a business 
entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control 
affiliations must be included.\348\ The Commission's estimate therefore 
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected 
by

[[Page 15059]]

its action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not 
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, 
to be determined a ``small business,'' an entity may not be dominant in 
its field of operation.\349\ We further note, that it is difficult at 
times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and 
the estimate of small businesses to which these rules may apply does 
not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business 
on these basis, thus our estimate of small businesses may therefore be 
over-inclusive. Also, as noted above, an additional element of the 
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be 
independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is 
difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media 
entities and the estimates of small businesses to which they apply may 
be over-inclusive to this extent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \345\ BIA/Kelsey, MEDIA Access Pro Database (viewed Jan. 26, 
2018).
    \346\ Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 2018, Press 
Release (MB Jul. 3, 2018) (June 30, 2018 Broadcast Station Totals), 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-352168A1.pdf.
    \347\ Id.
    \348\ ``[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when 
one concern controls or has the power to control the other, or a 
third party or parties controls or has power to control both.'' 13 
CFR 121.103(a)(1).
    \349\ Id. 121.102(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission 
has also developed its own small business size standards, for the 
purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a 
``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers 
nationwide.\350\ Industry data indicate that there are 4,600 active 
cable systems in the United States.\351\ Of this total, all but five 
cable operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size 
standard.\352\ In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation 
rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer 
subscribers.\353\ Commission records show 4,600 cable systems 
nationwide.\354\ Of this total, 3,900 cable systems have fewer than 
15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems have 15,000 or more subscribers, 
based on the same records.\355\ Thus, under this standard as well, we 
estimate that most cable systems are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \350\ 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size 
standard equates approximately to a size standard of $100 million or 
less in annual revenues. Implementation of Sections of the 1992 
Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh 
Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995).
    \351\ The number of active, registered cable systems comes from 
the Commission's Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS) 
database on August 15, 2015. See FCC, Cable Operations and Licensing 
System (COALS), www.fcc.gov/coals (last visited Oct. 25, 2016).
    \352\ S&P Global Market Intelligence, Top Cable MSOs as of 12/
2019, https://platform.marketintelligence.spglobal.com/(Dec 2019). 
The five cable operators all had more than 400,000 basic cable 
subscribers.
    \353\ 47 CFR 76.901(c).
    \354\ See supra note 351.
    \355\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended also contains a size standard 
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, 
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 
one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not 
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in 
the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' \356\ As of 2019, there were 
approximately 48,646,056 cable video subscribers in the United 
States.\357\ Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 486,460 
subscribers shall be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, 
when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do 
not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.\358\ Based on available data, 
we find that all but five incumbent cable operators are small entities 
under this size standard.\359\ We note that the Commission neither 
requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are 
affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 
million.\360\ Therefore we are unable at this time to estimate with 
greater precision the number of cable system operators that would 
qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the 
Communications Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \356\ 47 CFR 76.90(f) and notes ff. 1, 2, and 3.
    \357\ S&P Global Market Intelligence, U.S. Cable Subscriber 
Highlights, Basic Subscribers(actual) 2018, U.S. Cable MSO Industry 
Total.
    \358\ 47 CFR 76.901(f) and notes ff. 1, 2, and 3.
    \359\ S&P Global Market Intelligence, U.S. Cable Subscriber 
Highlights, Basic Subscribers(actual) 2019, U.S. Cable MSO Industry 
Total, see also U.S. Multichannel Industry Benchmarks, U.S. Cable 
Industry Benchmarks, Basic Subscribers 2019Y, https://platform.marketintelligence.spglobal.com.
    \360\ The Commission receives such information on a case-by-case 
basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's 
finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator 
pursuant to Sec.  76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 
76.901(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a 
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and 
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna 
at the subscriber's location. DBS is included in SBA's economic census 
category ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' \361\ The Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers industry comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities 
and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications 
networks.\362\ Transmission facilities may be based on a single 
technology or combination of technologies. Establishments in this 
industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they 
operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony 
services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video 
programming distribution; and wired broadband internet services.\363\ 
By exception, establishments providing satellite television 
distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they 
operate are included in this industry.\364\ The SBA determines that a 
wireline business is small if it has fewer than 1,500 employees.\365\ 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicates that 3,117 wireline 
companies were operational during that year.\366\ Of that number, 3,083 
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.\367\ Based on that data, we 
conclude that the majority of wireline firms are small under the 
applicable SBA standard. Currently, however, only two entities provide 
DBS service, which requires a great deal of capital for operation: 
DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) and DISH Network.\368\ DIRECTV and DISH Network 
each report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a 
small business. Accordingly, we must conclude that internally developed 
FCC data are persuasive that, in general, DBS service is provided only 
by large firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \361\ See 13 CFR 120.201. The Wired Telecommunications Carrier 
category formerly used the NAICS code of 517110. As of 2017 the U.S. 
Census Bureau definition shows the NAICS code as 517311 for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. See https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517311&search=2017.
    \362\ Id.
    \363\ See id. Examples of this category are broadband internet 
service providers (e.g., cable, DSL); local telephone carriers 
(wired); cable television distribution services; long-distance 
telephone carriers (wired); CCTV services; VoIP service providers, 
using own operated wired telecommunications infrastructure; DTH 
services; telecommunications carriers (wired); satellite television 
distribution systems; and MMDS.
    \364\ Id.
    \365\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517110.
    \366\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United 
States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series--Estab & 
Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms: 2012 (517110 Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers). https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/
table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517110.
    \367\ Id.
    \368\ See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the 
Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, Eighteenth Report, 
Table III.A.5, 32 FCC Rcd 568, 595 (Jan. 17, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as 
satellite tracking,

[[Page 15060]]

communications telemetry, and radar station operation.\369\ This 
industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing 
satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with 
one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting 
telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite 
systems.\370\ Establishments providing internet services or voice over 
internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.\371\ 
The SBA has developed a small business size standard for All Other 
Telecommunications, which consists of all such firms with annual 
receipts of $35 million or less.\372\ For this category, U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 1,442 firms that operated 
for the entire year.\373\ Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual 
receipts less than $25 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $25 
million to $49, 999,999.\374\ Thus, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected 
by our action can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \369\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, NAICS Code 
``517919 All Other Telecommunications'', https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=517919&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017.
    \370\ Id.
    \371\ Id.
    \372\ See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517919.
    \373\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United 
States, Table EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series--Estab and 
Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012, NAICS 
code 517919, https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/
2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~517919.
    \374\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. RespOrgs. Responsible Organizations, or RespOrgs, are entities 
chosen by toll free subscribers to manage and administer the 
appropriate records in the toll free Service Management System for the 
toll free subscriber.\375\ Although RespOrgs are often wireline 
carriers, they can also include non-carrier entities. Therefore, in the 
definition herein of RespOrgs, two categories are presented, i.e., 
Carrier RespOrgs and Non-Carrier RespOrgs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \375\ See 47 CFR 52.101(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. Carrier RespOrgs. Neither the Commission, the U.S. Census, nor 
the SBA have developed a definition for Carrier RespOrgs. Accordingly, 
the Commission believes that the closest NAICS code-based definitional 
categories for Carrier RespOrgs are Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers,\376\ and Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
satellite).\377\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \376\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
    \377\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. The U.S. Census Bureau defines Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers as ``establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or 
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that 
they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, 
and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities 
may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. 
Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications 
network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, 
such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired 
(cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband 
internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite 
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure 
that they operate are included in this industry.'' \378\ The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers, which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer 
employees.\379\ U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 
3,117 firms that operated that year.\380\ Of this total, 3,083 operated 
with fewer than 1,000 employees.\381\ Based on that data, we conclude 
that the majority of Carrier RespOrgs that operated with wireline-based 
technology are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \378\ See 13 CFR 120.201. The Wired Telecommunications Carrier 
category formerly used the NAICS code of 517110. As of 2017 the U.S. 
Census Bureau definition shows the NAICS code as 517311 for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS 
Definition, https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517311&search=2017.
    \379\ See 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS Code 517311 (previously 517110).
    \380\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United 
States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series--Estab & 
Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms: 2012 (517110 Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers). https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/
table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517110.
    \381\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. The U.S. Census Bureau defines Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except satellite) as establishments engaged in operating and 
maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide 
communications via the airwaves, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services.\382\ 
The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\383\ Census data for 2012 
show that 967 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers operated in that 
year. Of that number, 955 operated with less than 1,000 employees.\384\ 
Based on that data, we conclude that the majority of Carrier RespOrgs 
that operated with wireless-based technology are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \382\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517210 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (Except Satellite).'' See 
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?lang=en&type=ib&id=ib.en./ECN.NAICS2012.517210.
    \383\ 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 517120.
    \384\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United 
States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject Series: Estab and 
Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 
517210. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/
51SSSZ5//naics~517210pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. Non-Carrier RespOrgs. Neither the Commission, the U.S. Census, 
nor the SBA have developed a definition of Non-Carrier RespOrgs. 
Accordingly, the Commission believes that the closest NAICS code-based 
definitional categories for Non-Carrier RespOrgs are ``Other Services 
Related to Advertising'' \385\ and ``Other Management Consulting 
Services.'' \386\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \385\ 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 541890.
    \386\ 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 541618.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. The U.S. Census defines Other Services Related to Advertising 
as comprising establishments primarily engaged in providing advertising 
services (except advertising agency services, public relations agency 
services, media buying agency services, media representative services, 
display advertising services, direct mail advertising services, 
advertising material distribution services, and marketing consulting 
services).\387\ The SBA has established a size standard for this 
industry as annual receipts of $15 million dollars or less.\388\ Census 
data for 2012 show that 5,804 firms operated in this industry for the 
entire year. Of that number, 5,612 operated with annual receipts of 
less than $10 million.\389\ Based on that data we conclude that the 
majority of Non-Carrier RespOrgs who provide toll-free number (TFN)-
related advertising services are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \387\ https://www.census,gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics.naicsrch.
    \388\ 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 541890.
    \389\ https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. The U.S. Census defines Other Management Consulting Services as 
establishments primarily engaged in providing management consulting 
services (except administrative and general management consulting; 
human resources consulting; marketing consulting; or process, physical

[[Page 15061]]

distribution, and logistics consulting). Establishments providing 
telecommunications or utilities management consulting services are 
included in this industry.\390\ The SBA has established a size standard 
for this industry of $15 million dollars or less.\391\ Census data for 
2012 show that 3,683 firms operated in this industry for that entire 
year. Of that number, 3,632 operated with less than $10 million in 
annual receipts.\392\ Based on this data, we conclude that a majority 
of non-carrier RespOrgs who provide TFN-related management consulting 
services are small.\393\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \390\ https://www.census,gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics.naicsrch.
    \391\ 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 514618.
    \392\ https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.
    \393\ The four NAICS code-based categories selected above to 
provide definitions for Carrier and Non-Carrier RespOrgs were 
selected because as a group they refer generically and 
comprehensively to all RespOrgs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. In addition to the data contained in the four (see above) U.S. 
Census NAICS code categories that provide definitions of what services 
and functions the Carrier and Non-Carrier RespOrgs provide, Somos, the 
trade association that monitors RespOrg activities, compiled data 
showing that as of July 1, 2016 there were 23 RespOrgs operational in 
Canada and 436 RespOrgs operational in the United States, for a total 
of 459 RespOrgs currently registered with Somos.

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    38. This Report and Order does not adopt any changes to the 
Commission's current information collection, reporting, recordkeeping, 
or compliance requirements. Licensees, including small entities, will 
be required to pay application fees after such fees are adopted. In 
some cases, we have adopted new application fees, as required by the 
RAY BAUM'S Act, but we are not adopting specific reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements for licensees.

F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    39. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives, among others: (1) The 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.\394\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \394\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. The fees adopted are based on the Commission's costs in 
processing the applications. This is now required under the RAY BAUM'S 
Act, in section 8 of the Communications Act.\395\ In many instances, 
the new fees are much lower than prior fees. In some cases, the new 
fees are similar to prior fees or slightly higher. There are, however, 
some new fees adopted for applications that previously had no fees. The 
Commission is required to base the application fees on costs and is 
required to adopt new cost-based fees. There are some exemptions set 
out in the statute, but no specific exemption for small entities. Due 
to the RAY BAUM'S Act requirement to adopt cost-based fees, the 
Commission did not have an opportunity or the discretion to minimize 
new fees that had not been previously collected. The Commission, in 
following the statute, adopted cost-based criteria for all 
applications, whether fees were lowered, stayed the same, or were 
increased.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \395\ 47 U.S.C. 158(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the 
Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to 
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the 
Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this 
FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the 
Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published 
in the Federal Register.

II. Ordering Clauses

    42. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to section 8 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 158, this Report and 
Order is hereby adopted.
    43. It is further ordered that the Motion for Extension of Time 
filed by Richard Golden is denied.
    44. It is further ordered that Commission's rules are amended as 
set forth in in the back of this summary, and such rule amendments 
shall be effective 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal 
Register, except for Sec. Sec.  1.1102, 1.1103, 1.1104, 1.1105, 1.1106, 
1.1107, and 1.1109, which require notice to Congress and also require 
certain updates to the FCC's information technology systems and 
internal procedures to ensure efficient and effective implementation. 
Sections 1.1102, 1.1103, 1.1104, 1.1105, 1.1106, 1.1107, and 1.1109 
will not take effect until the requisite notice has been provided to 
Congress, the FCC's information technology systems and internal 
procedures have been updated, and the Commission publishes notice(s) in 
the Federal Register announcing the effective date of such rules.
    45. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended to 
read as follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  1.767 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.767  Cable landing licenses.

* * * * *
    (e) A separate application shall be filed with respect to each 
individual cable system for which a license is requested or a 
modification of the cable system, renewal, or extension of an existing 
license is requested. Applicants for common carrier cable landing 
licenses shall also separately file an international section 214 
authorization for overseas cable construction.
* * * * *

0
3. Revise Sec.  1.1101 to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1101  Authority.

    Authority to impose and collect these charges is contained in 
section 8 of the Communications Act, as amended by sections 102 and 103 
of title I of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-
141, 132 Stat. 1084), 47 U.S.C. 158, which directs the Commission to 
assess and collect

[[Page 15062]]

application fees to recover the costs of the Commission to process 
applications.

0
4. Revise Sec.  1.1102 to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1102  Schedule of charges for applications and other filings in 
the wireless telecommunications services.

    (a) In tables to this section, the amounts appearing in the column 
labeled ``Fee Amount'' are for application fees only. Certain services, 
as indicated in the table below, also have associated regulatory fees 
that must be paid at the same time the application fee is paid. For 
more information on the associated regulatory fees, please refer to the 
most recent Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Fee Filing Guide for the 
corresponding regulatory fee amount located at https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/application-processing-fees. For additional 
guidance, please refer to Sec.  1.1152 of this chapter. Application fee 
payments can be made electronically using the Commission's Universal 
Licensing System (ULS). Remit manual filings and/or payments for these 
services to: Federal Communications Commission, Wireless Bureau 
Applications, P.O. Box 979097, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
    (b) Site-based licensed services are services for which an 
applicant's initial application for authorization generally provides 
the exact technical parameters of its planned operations (such as 
transmitter location, area of operation, desired frequency(s)/band(s), 
power levels). Site-based licensed services include land mobile systems 
(one or more base stations communicating with mobile devices, or 
mobile-only systems), point-to-point systems (two stations using a 
spectrum band to form a data communications path), point-to-multipoint 
systems (one or more base stations that communicate with fixed remote 
units), as well as radiolocation and radionavigation systems. Examples 
of these licenses include, but are not limited to, the Industrial/
Business Pool, Trunked licenses and Microwave Industrial/Business Pool 
licenses.

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Site-based license applications                  New fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New license, major modification..............  $95.
Extension Requests...........................  $50.
Special temporary authority..................  $135.
Assignment/transfer of control, initial call   $50.
 sign.
Assignment/transfer of control, each           $35.
 subsequent call sign, fee capped at 10 total
 call signs per application.
Rule waivers associated with applications for  $380.
 assignment/transfer of control, per
 transaction, assessed on the lead
 application.
Rule waiver not associated with an             $380.
 application for assignment/transfer of
 control.
Renewal......................................  $35.
Spectrum leasing.............................  $35.
Maritime, Aviation, Microwave, Land Mobile,    Please refer to the
 and Rural Radio.                               Wireless
                                                Telecommunications
                                                Bureau Fee Filing Guide
                                                for Information on the
                                                payment of an associated
                                                regulatory fee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Personal licenses authorize shared use of certain spectrum 
bands or provide a required permit for operation of certain radio 
equipment. In either case, personal licenses focus only on eligibility 
and do not require technical review. Examples of these licenses 
include, but are not limited to, Amateur Radio Service licenses (used 
for recreational, noncommercial radio services), Ship licenses (used to 
operate all manner of ships), Aircraft licenses (used to operate all 
manner of aircraft), Commercial Radio Operator licenses (permits for 
ship and aircraft station operators, where required), General Mobile 
Radio Service (GMRS) licenses (used for short-distance, two-way voice 
communications using hand-held radios, as well as for short data 
messaging applications), Vanity, and Restricted Operator licenses.

                        Table 2 to Paragraph (c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Personal license application                   New fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New license, modification....................  $35.
Special temporary authority..................  $35.
Rule waiver..................................  $35.
Renewal......................................  $35.
Vanity Call Sign (Amateur Radio Service).....  $35.
Marine (Ship), Aviation (Aircraft), and GMRS.  Please refer to the
                                                Wireless
                                                Telecommunications
                                                Bureau Fee Filing Guide
                                                for Information on the
                                                payment of an associated
                                                regulatory fee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Geographic-based licenses authorize an applicant to construct 
anywhere within a particular geographic area's boundary (subject to 
certain technical requirements, including interference protection) and 
generally do not require applicants to submit additional applications 
for prior Commission approval of specific transmitter locations. 
Examples of these licenses include, but are not limited to, the 220-222 
MHz Service licenses, Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licenses, 
600 MHz Band Service licenses, and 700 MHz Lower Band Service licenses.

[[Page 15063]]



                        Table 3 to Paragraph (d)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Geographic-based license applications               New fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New License (other than Auctioned Licenses),   $305.
 Major Modification.
New License (Auctioned Licenses, Post-Auction  $3,175.
 Consolidated Long-Form and Short-Form Fee)
 (per application; NOT per call sign).
Renewal......................................  $50.
Minor Modification...........................  $200.
Construction Notification/Extensions.........  $290.
Special Temporary Authority..................  $335.
Assignment/Transfer of Control, initial call   $195.
 sign.
Assignment/Transfer of Control, subsequent     $35.
 call sign.
Spectrum Leasing.............................  $165.
Rule waivers associated with applications for  $380.
 assignment/transfer of control, per
 transaction, assessed on the lead
 application.
Rule waiver not associated with an             $380.
 application for assignment/transfer of
 control.
Designated Entity Licensee Reportable          $50.
 Eligibility Event.
Maritime, Microwave, Land Mobile, 218-219 MHz  Please refer to the
                                                Wireless
                                                Telecommunications
                                                Bureau Fee Filing Guide
                                                for information on the
                                                payment of an associated
                                                regulatory fee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
5. Amend Sec.  1.1103 by revising the section heading and the table to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1.1103  Schedule of charges for experimental radio services.

* * * * *

                        Table 1 to Sec.   1.1103
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              New fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experimental License Application, per Call Sign:
    New Station Authorization...........................            $125
    Modification of Authorization.......................             125
    Renewal of Station Authorization....................             125
    Assignment of License or Transfer of Control........             125
    Special Temporary Authority.........................             125
    Confidentiality Request.............................              50
Equipment Approval Applications:
Assignment of Grantee Code..............................              35
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
6. Amend Sec.  1.1104 by revising the table to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1104  Schedule of charges for applications and other filings 
for media services.

* * * * *

                        Table 1 to Sec.   1.1104
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        New fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application for Full Power and Class A TV:
    Full Power TV, Class A TV, new and major   $4,260 (if no auction).
     change construction permit.               $4,835 (if auction--
                                                includes Post-Auction
                                                Consolidated Long Form
                                                and Short Form Fee).
    Full Power TV, minor modification          $1,335.
     construction permit.
    Full Power TV, Class A TV, new license...  $380.
    Full Power TV, Class A TV, license         $330.
     renewal.
    Full Power TV, Class A TV, license         $1,245.
     assignment, long form.
    Full Power TV, Class A TV, license         $405.
     assignment, short form.
    Full Power TV, Class A TV, transfer of     $1,245.
     control, long form.
    Full Power TV, Class A TV, transfer of     $405.
     control, short form.
    Full Power TV, Class A TV, call sign.....  $170.
    Full Power TV, Class A TV, STA...........  $270.
    Full Power TV, petition for rulemaking...  $3,395.
    Full Power TV, ownership report..........  $85.
Application for TV translator and LPTV:
    TV translator and LPTV, new or major       $775 (if no auction).
     change construction permit.               $1,350 (if auction--
                                                includes Consolidated
                                                Long Form and Short Form
                                                Fee).
    TV translator and LPTV, new license......  $215.
    TV translator and LPTV, license renewal..  $145.
    TV translator and LPTV, STA..............  $270.

[[Page 15064]]

 
    TV translator and LPTV, license            $335.
     assignment.
    TV translator and LPTV, transfer of        $335.
     control.
    TV translator and LPTV, call sign........  $170.
Application for Cable Television and CARS
 License:
    Cable television, CARS license...........  $450.
    Cable television, CARS license             $345.
     modification, major.
    Cable television, CARS license             $50.
     modification, minor.
    Cable television, CARS license renewal...  $260.
    Cable television, CARS, license            $365.
     assignment.
    Cable television, CARS, transfer of        $465.
     control.
    Cable television, CARS, STA..............  $225.
    Cable television, special relief petition  $1,615.
    Cable television, CARS license,            $105.
     registration statement.
    Cable television, multichannel video       $90.
     programming distributor (MVPD)
     aeronautical frequency usage
     notification.
Application for Commercial AM Stations:
    AM radio new or major change construction  $3,980 (if no auction).
     permit.                                   $4,555 (if auction--
                                                includes Consolidated
                                                Long Form and Short Form
                                                Fee).
    AM radio, minor modification construction  $1,625.
     permit.
    AM radio, new license....................  $645.
    AM radio, directional antenna............  $1,260.
    AM radio, license renewal................  $325.
    AM radio, license assignment, long-form..  $1,005.
    AM radio, license assignment, short-form.  $425.
    AM radio, transfer of control, long-form.  $1,005.
    AM radio, transfer of control, short-form  $425.
    AM radio, call sign......................  $170.
    AM radio, STA............................  $290.
    AM radio, ownership report...............  $85.
Application for Commercial FM Stations:
    FM radio new or major change construction  $3,295 (if no auction).
     permit.                                   $3,870 (if auction--
                                                includes Consolidated
                                                Long Form and Short Form
                                                Fee).
    FM radio, minor modification construction  $1,265.
     permit.
    FM radio, new license....................  $235.
    FM radio, directional antenna............  $630.
    FM radio, license renewal................  $325.
    FM radio, license assignment, long-form..  $1,005.
    FM radio, license assignment, short-form.  $425.
    FM radio, transfer of control, long-form.  $1,005.
    FM radio, transfer of control, short-form  $425.
    FM radio, call sign......................  $170.
    FM radio, STA............................  $210.
    FM radio, petition for rulemaking........  $3,180.
    FM radio, ownership report...............  $85.
Application for FM Translators:
    FM translator new or major change          $705.
     construction permit.                      $1,280 (if auction--
                                                includes Consolidated
                                                Long Form and Short Form
                                                Fee).
    FM translator, minor modification          $210.
     construction permit.
    FM translator, new license...............  $180.
    FM translator and booster, license         $175.
     renewal.
    FM translator and booster, STA...........  $170.
    FM translator, license assignment........  $290.
    FM translator, transfer of control.......  $290.
    FM booster, new or major change            $705.
     construction permit.
    FM booster, new license fee..............  $180.
    FM booster, STA..........................  $170.
Application for Section 310(b)(4) Foreign
 Ownership Petition:
    Section 310(b)(4) Foreign Ownership        $2,485.
     Petition (separate and additional to fee
     required for underlying application, if
     any)..
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 15065]]


0
7. Amend Sec.  1.1105 by revising the table to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1105  Schedule of charges for applications and other filings 
for the wireline competition services.

* * * * *

                        Table 1 to Sec.   1.1105
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Application                            New fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic 214 Applications--Part 63 Transfers of Control.          $1,230
Domestic 214 Applications--Special Temporary Authority..             675
Domestic 214 Applications--Part 63 Discontinuances (Non-           1,230
 Standard Review) (Technology Transition Filings Subject
 To Section 63.71(f)(2)(i) or Not Subject To Streamlined
 Automatic Grant, and Filings From Dominant Carriers
 Subject To 60-Day Automatic Grant).....................
Domestic 214 Applications--Part 63 Discontinuances                   335
 (Standard Streamlined Review) (All Other Domestic 214
 Discontinuance Filings)................................
VoIP Numbering..........................................           1,330
Standard Tariff Filing..................................             930
Complex Tariff Filing (annual access charge tariffs, new           6,540
 or restructured rate plans) (Large--all price cap LECs
 and entities involving more than 100 LECs).............
Complex Tariff Filing (annual access charge tariffs, new           3,270
 or restructured rate plans) (Small--other entities)....
Application for Special Permission for Waiver of Tariff              375
 Rules..................................................
Waiver of Accounting Rules..............................           4,415
Universal Service Fund Auction (combined long-form and             2,965
 short-form fee, paid only by winning bidder)...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
8. Amend Sec.  1.1106 by revising the section heading and table to read 
as follows:


Sec.  1.1106  Schedule of charges for applications and other filings 
for the enforcement services.

* * * * *

                        Table 1 to Sec.   1.1106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Application                            New fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formal Complaints and Pole Attachment Complaints........            $540
Petitions Regarding Law Enforcement Assistance                     6,945
 Capability under CALEA.................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
9. Amend Sec.  1.1107 by revising the table to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1107  Schedule of charges for applications and other filings 
for international services.

* * * * *

                        Table 1 to Sec.   1.1107
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        New fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cable Landing License, per Application:
    New License..............................  $3,835.
    Assignment/Transfer of Control...........  $1,230.
    Pro Forma Assignment/Transfer of Control.  $400.
    Foreign Carrier Affiliation Notification.  495.
    Modification.............................  $1,230.
    Renewal..................................  $2,440.
    Special Temporary Authority..............  $675.
    Waiver...................................  $335.
International Section 214 Authorization, per
 Application:
    New Authorization........................  $785.
    Assignment/transfer of control...........  $1,230.
    Pro forma Assignment/transfer of control.  $400.
    Foreign Carrier Affiliation Notification.  $495.
    Modification.............................  $675.
    Special Temporary Authority..............  $675.
    Waiver...................................  $335.
    Discontinuance of services...............  $335.
Section 310(b) Foreign Ownership, per
 Application:
    Petition for Declaratory Ruling..........  $2,485.
    Waiver...................................  $335.
Recognized Operating Agency per Application:
    Application for ROA Status...............  $1,145.
    Waiver...................................  $335.
Data Network Identification Code (DNIC), per
 Application:
    New DNIC.................................  $785.

[[Page 15066]]

 
    Waiver...................................  $335.
International Signaling Point Code (ISPC),
 per Application:
    New ISPC.................................  $785.
    Transfer of Control......................  $675.
    Modification.............................  $675.
    Waiver...................................  $335.
Satellite Earth Station Applications:
    Fixed or Temporary Fixed Transmit or
     Transmit/Receive Earth Stations, per
     Call Sign:
        Initial application, single site.....  $360.
        Initial application, multiple sites..  $6,515.
    Receive Only Earth Stations License or
     Registration, per Call Sign or
     Registration:
        Initial application or registration,   $175.
         single site.
        Initial application or registration,   $465.
         multiple sites, per system.
        Initial application for Blanket Earth  $360.
         Stations, per Call Sign.
    Mobile Earth Stations Applications, per
     Call Sign:
        Initial Application for Blanket        $815.
         Authorization, per system, per Call
         Sign.
    Amendments to Earth Station Applications
     or Registrations per Call Sign:
        Single Site..........................  $430.
        Multiple Sites.......................  $630.
    Earth Stations, Other Applications:
        Applications for Modification of       $545.
         Earth Station Licenses or
         Registrations, per Call Sign.
        Assignment or Transfer of Control of   $745 (first call sign).
         Earth Station Licenses or             $400 (for each additional
         Registrations, per Call Sign.          call sign).
        Pro Forma Assignment or Transfer of    $400.
         Control of Earth Station Licenses or
         Registrations, per Transaction.
    Earth Station Renewals of Licenses, per
     Call Sign:
        Single Site..........................  $115.
        Multiple Sites.......................  $145.
    Earth Station Requests for U.S. Market     See Space Stations.
     Access for Non-U.S. Licensed Space
     Stations.
Satellite Space Station Applications:
    Space Stations, Geostationary Orbit:
        Application for Authority to           $3,555.
         Construct, Deploy, and Operate, per
         satellite.
        Application for Authority to Operate,  $3,555.
         per satellite.
    Space Stations, Non-Geostationary Orbit:
        Application for Authority to           $15,050.
         Construct, Deploy, and Operate, per
         system of technically identical
         satellites, per Call Sign.
        Application for Authority to Operate,  $15,050.
         per system of technically identical
         satellites, per Call Sign.
    Space Stations, Petition for Declaratory
     Ruling for Foreign-Licensed Space
     Station to Access the U.S. Market:
        Geostationary Orbit, per Call Sign...  $3,555.
        Non-Geostationary Orbit, per Call      $15,050.
         Sign.
        Small Satellites, per Call Sign......  $2,175.
    Space Stations, Small Satellites, or
     Small Spacecraft:
        Application to Construct, Deploy, and  $2,175.
         Operate, per Call Sign.
    Other Applications for Space Stations:
        Space Stations, Amendments, per Call   $1,620.
         Sign.
        Space Stations, Modifications, per     $2,495.
         Call Sign.
        Space Stations, Assignment or          $745 (first call sign).
         Transfer of Control, per Call Sign.   $400 (for each additional
                                                call sign).
        Space Stations, Pro Forma Assignment   $400.
         or Transfer of Control, per
         transaction.
        Space Stations, Special Temporary      $1,435.
         Authority, per Call Sign.
Unified Space Station and Earth Station
 Initial Application, Amendment, and
 Modification:
    Unified Space Station and Earth Station    Applicable Space Station
     Initial Application, Amendment, and        Fee + Applicable Earth
     Modification.                              Station Fee.
International Broadcast Stations (IBS)
 Applications:
    New Construction Permit..................  $4,010.
    Construction Permit Modification.........  $4,010.
    New License..............................  $905.
    License Renewal..........................  $230.
    Frequency Assignment.....................  $80.
    Transfer of Control......................  $595.
    Special Temporary Authority..............  $395.
Permit to Deliver Programs to Foreign
 Broadcast Stations under Section 325(c)
 Applications:
New License..................................  $360.
License Modification.........................  $185.
License Renewal..............................  $155.
Special Temporary Authority..................  $155.
Transfer of Control..........................  $260.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 15067]]

Sec.  1.1116  [Amended]

0
10. Amend Sec.  1.1116 by removing paragraph (e)(4).

[FR Doc. 2021-03042 Filed 3-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P