Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2013; Procedures for Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees; and Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008
Federal Register, Volume 78 Issue 111 (Monday, June 10, 2013)
Federal Register Volume 78, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2013)
Proposed Rules
Pages 34612-34634
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office www.gpo.gov
FR Doc No: 2013-13679
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
MD Docket Nos. 12-201, 13-140, 08-65; FCC 13-74
Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2013; Procedures for Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees; and Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) will revise its Schedule of Regulatory Fees in order to recover an amount of $339,844,000 that Congress has required the Commission to collect for fiscal year 2013. Section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, provides for the annual assessment and collection of regulatory fees, respectively, for annual ``Mandatory Adjustments'' and ``Permitted Amendments'' to the Schedule of Regulatory Fees.
DATES: Submit comments on or before June 19, 2013, and reply comments on or before June 26, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MD Docket No. 13-140, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
Email: ecfs@fcc.gov. Include MD Docket No. 13-140 in the subject line of the message.
Mail: Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail, and Priority Mail, must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-
class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing Director at (202) 418-0444.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 13-74, MD Docket No. 13-140, adopted on May 22, 2013 and released May 23, 2013. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Portals II, Washington, DC 20554, and may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, BCPI, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI, Inc. via their Web site, http://www.bcpi.com, or call 1-800-378-3160. This document is available in alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio record, and braille). Persons with disabilities who need documents in these formats may contact the FCC by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
-
Procedural Matters
-
Ex Parte Rules Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding
-
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FY 2013 NPRM) and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) shall be treated as a ``permit-
but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
-
-
Comment Filing Procedures
-
Comments and Replies. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
ssquf All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
Page 34613
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
ssquf Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
ssquf U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
-
Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available free online, via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
-
Accessibility Information. To request information in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format (``PDF'') at: http://www.fcc.gov.
-
-
Paperwork Reduction Act
-
This NPRM and FNPRM document solicits possible proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the possible proposed information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
-
-
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
-
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') is contained herein. Comments to the IRFA must be identified as responses to the IRFA and filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
-
-
-
Introduction and Executive Summary
-
In the FY 2013 NPRM and FNPRM, two interrelated proceedings, we seek comment on the collection of regulatory fees in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 and on proposals to more generally reform the Commission's policies and procedures for assessing and collecting regulatory fees. Specifically, in the FY 2013 NPRM, we seek comment on our annual process of assessing regulatory fees to offset the Commission's FY 2013 appropriation, as directed by Congress. We propose several reforms to the process for calculating and collecting the FY 2013 fees. The regulatory fees calculated in response to the FY 2013 NPRM will be collected later this year. We also seek comment on more long-range proposals to reform and revise our regulatory fee schedule after FY 2013 (for FY 2014 and beyond) to take into account changes in the communications industry and in the Commission's regulatory processes and staffing in recent years.
-
The FY 2013 NPRM seeks comment concerning adoption and implementation of proposals to reallocate regulatory fees to more accurately reflect the subject areas worked on by current Commission full time employees (FTEs) \1\ for FY 2013. We seek comment on, among other things, reallocating for purposes of regulatory fee calculations: Direct FTEs working on Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers (ITSPs) and other fee categories to reflect current workloads devoted to these subject areas and FTEs in the International Bureau to more accurately reflect the Commission's regulation and oversight of the International Bureau regulatees. We also seek comment on whether, if these proposals are adopted, we should limit any increase in regulatory fee assessments to industry segments resulting from such reallocation. In addition, we seek comment generally on whether direct and indirect FTEs should be allocated differently as described below. Further, we seek comment on whether to delay our proposal to reallocate FTEs for regulatory fee purposes and, in the interim, maintain the same allocation percentages from last year for FY 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One FTE, typically called a ``Full Time Equivalent,'' is a unit of measure equal to the work performed annually by a full time person (working a 40 hour workweek for a full year) assigned to the particular job, and subject to agency personnel staffing limitations established by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Any reference to FTE or ``Full Time Employee'' used herein refers to such Full Time Equivalent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
In addition, we seek comment concerning adoption and implementation of proposals for FY 2014 and beyond, which include: (1) Combining ITSPs with wireless telecommunications services into one regulatory fee category and using revenues as the basis for calculating the resulting regulatory fees; (2) using revenues to calculate regulatory fees for other industries that now use subscribers as the basis for regulatory fee calculations, such as the cable industry; (3) consolidating UHF and VHF television stations into one regulatory fee category; (4) proposing a regulatory fee for Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) at the rate of cable fees; (5) alleviating large fluctuations in the fee rate of Multiyear Wireless Services; and (6) determining whether the Commission should modify the methodology in collecting regulatory fees for regulatees in declining industries (e.g., CMRS Messaging). We also clarify that licensees of Digital Low Power, Class A, and TV Translators/Boosters should pay only one regulatory fee on their analog or digital station, but not on both. As required by Treasury and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) initiatives, we also announce and seek comment on our proposal to require that all regulatory fee payments be made electronically beginning in FY 2014. Finally, we state that beginning in FY 2014 the Commission will no longer mail out initial regulatory fee assessments to CMRS licensees, and we propose to transfer unpaid regulatory fees for collection by the Department of the Treasury at the end of the payment period (instead of waiting 180 days) beginning in FY 2014.
-
The attached FNPRM seeks comment on the treatment of non-U.S.-
Licensed Space Stations; Direct Broadcast Satellites; and other services, such as broadband, in our regulatory fee process. We invite comment on these topics to better inform the Commission on whether and/
or how these services should be assessed under our regulatory fee methodology in future years.
-
We propose to collect $339,844,000 in regulatory fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, pursuant to Section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act or
Page 34614
Communications Act) and the FY 2013 Continuing Appropriations Resolution. Section 9 regulatory fees are mandated by Congress and collected to recover the regulatory costs associated with the Commission's enforcement, policy and rulemaking, user information, and international activities.\2\ Further, as provided by section 9(a)(2), the amount of regulatory fees to be collected is established each year by Congress,\3\ which directs the Commission to use the fees to offset its entire appropriation. For FY 2013, the sequester effectuated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 \4\ reduces the agency's permitted FY 2013 salary and expenses expenditures by $17M to $322,844,000. However, that Act does not alter the congressional directive set out in the FY 2012 appropriation \5\ (and continued in effect in FY 2013 by virtue of the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013) to collect $339,844,000 in regulatory fees.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 47 U.S.C. 159(a).
\3\ In FY 2013, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, Public Law 113-6 (2013) at Division F authorizes the Commission to collect offsetting regulatory fees at the level provided to the Commission's FY 2012 appropriation of $339,844.00. See Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2012, Division C of Public Law 112-74, 125 Stat. 108-9 (2011).
\4\ Budget Control Act of 2011, Public Law 112-15, 101, 125 Stat. 241 (2011) (amending 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, Public Law 99-177, 99 Stat. 1037 (2005).
\5\ See Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2012, Division C of Public Law 112-74, 125 Stat. 108-9 (2011);
\6\ Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, Public Law 113-
6, xxx Stat. xxx (2013) at Division F, 1101(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
Background
-
We began this regulatory fee reform analysis in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.\7\ In 2012, a report on the Commission's regulatory fee program issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO Report) provided further support for a more fundamental reevaluation of how to align regulatory fees more closely with regulatory costs.\8\ In our FY 2012 NPRM proposing basic changes to the current fee assessment process, we incorporated the GAO Report into the record and sought comment on it.\9\ To encourage a more robust discussion of the record in this docket, the Commission invited all the parties who filed comments to the FY 2012 NPRM to further discuss their comments and any other regulatory fee reform issues they wished to raise with Commission staff. Staff has met with commenters representing the wireline, wireless, broadcast, cable, satellite, and submarine cable industries. Their additional comments have been summarized in ex parte filings and placed in the record of the proceeding in compliance with the Commission's rules.\10\ To facilitate a more robust record to better inform the Commission as it contemplates further reform of our regulatory fee policies and procedures for FY 2013 and beyond, we seek comment not only on the issues raised herein, but also on the concerns and comments raised by the GAO Report, the issues presented and comments filed in response to the FY 2012 NPRM and any issues raised in ex parte filings by industry representatives. We anticipate that in the Report and Order we will adopt certain proposals discussed herein for FY 2013 and other proposals for implementation in FY 2014 and beyond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 6388 (2008) (FY 2008 FNPRM).
\8\ See GAO, ``Federal Communications Commission Regulatory Fee Process Needs to be Updated,'' Aug. 2012, GAO-12-686.
\9\ Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 8458 (2012) (FY 2012 NPRM). We cite some of the comments filed in response to the FY 2012 NPRM in the discussion herein.
\10\ See, e.g., American Cable Association, Notice of Ex Parte Presentation (Feb. 22, 2013); North American Submarine Cable Association, MD Docket Nos. 12-201 and 08-65, Notice of Ex Parte Presentation (Feb. 15, 2013); Enterprise Wireless Alliance, MD 12-
201 Ex Parte Presentation (Feb. 15, 2013); North American Submarine Cable Association, MD Docket Nos. 12-201 and 08-65, Notice of Ex Parte Presentation (Mar. 27, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
-
Regulatory Fee Allocation Process and Need for Reform.
-
Each year the Commission derives the fees that Congress requires it to collect ``by determining the full-time equivalent number of employees performing'' these activities ``adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payer of the fee by the Commission's activities . . . .'' \11\ To calculate regulatory fees, the Commission allocates the total amount to be collected, among the various regulatory fee categories. Each regulatee within a fee category must pay its proportionate share based on an objective measure, e.g., revenues, subscribers, or licenses. The first step, allocating fees to fee categories, is based on the Commission's calculation of the number of FTEs devoted to each regulatory fee category. FTEs are categorized as either ``direct'' or ``indirect.'' An FTE is considered ``direct'' if the employee is in one of the core bureaus, i.e., the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Media Bureau, Wireline Competition Bureau, or International Bureau.\12\ If an employee is not assigned to one of those four bureaus, that employee is considered an ``indirect'' FTE.\13\ Thus, the total FTEs for each fee category includes the direct FTEs associated with that category (i.e., the FTEs in the bureau associated with that category), plus a proportional allocation of the indirect FTEs. This preliminary allocation has been based on the concept that the FTEs in each of those four bureaus perform activities related to the service providers regulated by those bureaus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(1)(A).
\12\ The current numbers of direct FTEs are as follows: International Bureau, 119; Media Bureau, 171; Wireline Competition Bureau, 160; and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 98. FTEs involved in Section 309 auctions, 194 FTEs, are not included in this analysis because auctions activities are funded separately.
\13\ The ``indirect'' FTEs are the employees from the following bureaus and offices: Enforcement Bureau, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Chairman and Commissioners' offices, Office of Managing Director, Office of General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, Office of Communications Business Opportunities, Office of Engineering and Technology, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, Office of Workplace Diversity, Office of Media Relations, and Office of Administrative Law Judges, totaling 967 FTEs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The current allocations of direct and indirect FTEs are taken from FTE data compiled in FY 1998.\14\ A comparison of current FTE numbers in the various bureaus to their respective share of the overall regulatory fee burden illustrates the need to reexamine the FTE data used. For example, the International Bureau currently employs 22 percent of the Commission's direct FTEs, yet International Bureau regulatees contribute 6.3 percent of the total regulatory fee collection.\15\ On the other hand, ITSPs, regulated by the Wireline Competition Bureau, pay 47 percent of the total annual regulatory fee collection, while the Wireline Competition Bureau employs only 29.2 percent of the Commission's direct FTEs. The proposals herein seek not only to address this issue, but also to make the allocation of regulatory fee burden more transparent.\16\ Although we seek to better align regulatory fees with the level of current regulation, it is important to note that there is no statutory requirement that regulatory
Page 34615
fees offset only the actual costs of regulating each service. In fact, the FY 2013 Further Continuing Resolution requires that the Commission collect an amount of regulatory fees sufficient to offset its entire appropriation. Thus the total benefit received by any particular regulatee from Commission actions will not necessarily correlate directly with the quantity of Commission resources used for that regulatee's benefit.\17\ For example, regulatory fees also cover the costs the Commission incurs in regulating entities that are statutorily exempt from paying regulatory fees,\18\ entities whose regulatory fees are waived,\19\ and entities that provide nonregulated services, as well other Commission activities, such as consumer-related services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ FY 2012 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 8461, para. 8.
\15\ See FY 2012 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 8467, paras. 24-25.
\16\ The GAO noted the lack of transparency of the regulatory fee process, and was particularly concerned with the regulatory fee allocations for the International Bureau and the Wireline Competition Bureau, see GAO Report at p. 23.
\17\ FY 2004 Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 11667, para. 11.
\18\ Id. For example, governmental and nonprofit entities are exempt from regulatory fees under section 9(h) of the Act. 47 U.S.C. 159(h); 47 CFR 1.1162.
\19\ 47 CFR 1.1166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
As discussed in the FY 2012 NPRM, the FY 1998 FTE data may no longer fairly and accurately reflect the time that Commission employees devote to these activities.\20\ Using updated \21\ FTE data (without other significant changes in our methodology) would reduce the percentage of regulatory fees allocated to Wireline Competition Bureau regulatees from 47 percent to 29.2 percent and increase the percentage of fees allocated to International Bureau regulatees from 6.3 percent to 22 percent.\22\ Therefore, substituting current FTE data for FY 1998 FTE data would subject some international service providers to significant fee increases.\23\ In determining how to update the FTE data to more accurately reflect the current composition of the Commission, we recognize that not only can the regulatory fees not be calculated to reflect the exact costs of each regulated industry, but such direct relationship of costs to each industry is not consistent with the statutory mandate to allocate based on the FTEs performing the enumerated functions in each named bureau. Nevertheless, we find that it is consistent with section 9 of the Act to better align, to the extent feasible, these regulatory fees with the current costs of Commission oversight and regulation of each industry group. Specifically, a more accurate alignment of FTE work to subject matter promotes the requirement in section 9 to ensure the benefits provided to the payor of the fee are consistent with the Commission's activities.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ FY 2012 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 8464, para. 12.
\21\ The FTEs used herein are determined as of Sept. 30, 2012.
\22\ FY 2012 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 8467, para. 25.
\23\ Id.
\24\ 47 U.S.C. 159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The GAO Report concluded that, due to changes in the communications industry and in the Commission during the past 15 years, the Commission should perform an updated FTE analysis, determine whether the fee categories should be revised, and increase the transparency of the regulatory fee process.\25\ For this purpose, we examine whether these functions and activities performed by FTEs in the International Bureau, often to the benefit of multiple categories of regulatees, warrant considering only a portion of the International Bureau as a ``core bureau.'' We also examine whether wireline and wireless telecommunications services should be combined into a single new category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ GAO Report at 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
Discussion
-
Changes to the Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers (ITSPs) Fee Category
-
One of the primary issues discussed in the FY 2012 NPRM is how to fairly allocate the FTEs for ITSPs, which are the Wireline Competition Bureau fee payors.\26\ ITSPs--interexchange carriers (IXCs), incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs), toll resellers, and other IXC service providers--use end-user revenues to calculate regulatory fee assessments based on the reported revenue in the FCC Form 499-A, filed April 1 of each year with the prior year's interstate and international revenue.\27\ As stated previously, in FY 2012, ITSPs paid 47 percent of the total regulatory fees collection, even though the Wireline Competition Bureau employees comprised 29.2 percent of the Commission's direct FTEs. In addition, since ITSPs pay regulatory fees based on revenues, the regulatory fee assessment rates for ITSPs generally have increased over time due to a declining revenue base in that industry segment.\28\ At the same time, wireless revenues have increased significantly, in part due to substitution of wireless services for wireline services. Nevertheless, as wireless revenues have increased, the proportion of all regulatory fees paid by wireless providers has not significantly increased. Thus, our regulatory fee methodology has not kept pace with the changes in both the communications industry and within the Commission. We seek comment on reallocating the direct FTEs for ITSP for FY 2013, based on current FTEs in the core bureaus, which would significantly decrease the regulatory fee allocation for ITSPs. We propose this reallocation in conjunction with a reallocation of International Bureau FTEs, as explained in more detail below. We also seek comment on revising our methodology to account for changes in the wireless and wireline industries by making additional changes to the ITSP fee category for FY 2014, such as combining wireless and wireline into a new ITSP category, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See FY 2012 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 8467, para. 25.
\27\ The Commission has separated revenues listed on Form 499-A into two fee categories: ITSP providers and non-ITSP providers. Providers that derive a predominant amount of their revenues from Lines 412(e), 420(d), and 420(e) on FCC Form 499-A are ITSP providers and subject to ITSP regulatory fees. Those providers that do not derive their revenues predominantly from Lines 412(e), 420(d), and 420(e) on FCC Form 499-A, non-ITSP providers, paid a regulatory fee calculated differently, such as by number of subscribers.
\28\ Wireline revenues have not decreased for all carriers. Verizon, for example, reported for 2012 that ``Consumer wireline revenues grew by 3.2 percent for the year--the best in a decade--
fueled by double-digit growth in FiOS.'' Verizon 2012 Annual Report at p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Currently wireless and wireline telecommunications services are in separate regulatory fee categories. The Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance (ITTA) proposes that the Commission assess all voice service providers on the basis of revenues to ensure that like services are treated in a similar manner.\29\ We agree with ITTA that wireless services are comparable to wireline services in many ways and therefore both encompass similar regulatory policies and programs, such as universal service and number portability.\30\ As wireless services are increasingly displacing wireline services, we seek comment on whether it would be fair to combine both services into one category by including all wireless and wireline FTEs in the same allocation to arrive at one uniform regulatory fee rate for ITSP and wireless providers, assessed based on revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ ITTA Comments at 3.
\30\ The GAO Report discussed using revenues for assessing wireless providers' regulatory fees, as proposed by ITTA. See GAO Report at 19-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Under section 9 of the Communications Act, the Commission must make certain changes to the regulatory fee schedule if it ``determines that the Schedule requires amendment to comply with the requirements'' of section 9(b)(1)(A).\31\ The Commission must add, delete, or reclassify services in the fee schedule to reflect additions,
Page 34616
deletions, or changes in the nature of its services ``as a consequence of Commission rulemaking proceedings or changes in law.'' \32\ These ``permitted amendments'' require Congressional notification \33\ and resulting changes in fees are not subject to judicial review.\34\ Combining wireless and wireline FTEs in the same allocation, for a new ITSP category, would be such a ``permitted amendment'' requiring Congressional notification. Therefore, if adopted, this allocation change would not take effect until FY 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(3).
\32\ 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(3).
\33\ 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(4)(B).
\34\ 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
We recognize, however, that carriers whose regulatory fees are calculated on the basis of revenues, instead of subscribers, may have an incentive to allocate more of their revenues to data services in order to reduce their regulatory fees.\35\ Therefore, we invite commenters to also discuss whether there are alternate ways to assess regulatory fees for wireless and wireline telecommunications services to achieve fair, sustainable, and predictable results, such as moving both industry groups to another common objective measure as the basis for calculating regulatory fees, and what such common measure should be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ We do not currently assess regulatory fees on broadband revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Reallocation of FTEs
-
The GAO Report recommended that the Commission reexamine the activities performed by FTEs in the various bureaus.\36\ This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is responsive to the GAO's recommendation. Adjusting the allocation fee category percentages and rates to reflect current FTEs, without further examining precisely what regulatory functions these FTEs are performing would result in an incomplete reexamination of the issues involved in updating our FTE allocations. Moreover, using updated FTE calculations without other significant changes in our methodology would subject some classes of regulatees to significant fee increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ GAO Report at 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
While we are required by section 9 of the Act to calculate regulatory fees based on an allocation of FTEs, we are not required to use the same methodology year after year. We tentatively conclude that our methodology of using the direct and indirect FTEs based on the four core bureaus and supporting bureaus and offices should be revised to more accurately reflect the direct and indirect costs for those regulatees. Such revisions should take into account the impact on all regulatees, because any change in the allocation of the total regulatory fee amount for one category of fee payors necessarily affects the fees paid by payors in all the other fee categories. The GAO Report noted the disparity in the allocation for the International Bureau, the Wireline Competition Bureau, and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.\37\ The current FTE allocations, as of September 30, 2012, and the FTE allocations what would result from our reallocation proposals are shown in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See GAO Report at 14-15.
TABLE 1--Direct and Indirect FTE Allocations/Current and Proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective FY 2013
allocation resulting
from the reallocation
Bureaus (all FTE amounts shown exclude auctions-funded Current allocations proposal in this NPRM,
employees) based on 1998 direct applying proposed cap
FTE analysis (percent) of 7.5% on fee rate
increases \38\
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Bureau.......................................... 6.3 5.99
Media Bureau.................................................. 30.2 33.33
Wireline Competition Bureau................................... 46.7 \39\ 41.26
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau............................ 16.8 19.42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The percentages shown are the estimated allocations for FY 2013 when the fee rate increases are capped at 7.5%. The actual fees to be paid for FY 2013 may be affected by additional factors, such as number of subscribers, revenues, or other units to which the capped fee rate will be applied.
\39\ This result reflects an approximately ten percent (10%) reduction in the ITSP fee rate from what it would have been in FY 2012 but for the off-setting rate freeze for ITSP's applied in our FY 2012 Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
We propose to update our FTE analysis using data from September 30, 2012. The International Bureau, which employs 22 percent of the Commission's direct FTEs, currently pays, as illustrated in the table above, 6.3 percent of the total regulatory fees. \40\ Conversely, ITSPs, based on the current allocation, would pay almost 47 percent of the total regulatory fees while the Wireline Competition Bureau employs roughly 30 percent of the Commission's direct FTEs. We seek comment on how to revise the apportionment of direct and indirect FTEs to reach a fair and equitable regulatory fee allocation, under proposals including, but not limited to, those described herein. Our proposed reallocation, without further reforms or adjustments (such as the caps discussed herein at paragraphs 30 and 31) would result in allocation of 5.92 percent to the International Bureau, 37.50 percent to the Media Bureau, 35.09 percent to the Wireline Competition Bureau, and 21.49 percent to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. When these figures are adjusted to reflect the proposed 7.5 percent cap on rate increases for FY 2013, the resulting effective allocations for FY 2013 are as set forth in the far right column in the table above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See FY 2012 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 8467, paras. 24-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
We had previously sought comment on revising the regulatory fee schedule, which would thereby increase the amount paid by the International Bureau's regulatees to 22 percent of the total.\41\ Although our proposals in this proceeding are based, in part, on such a reallocation, we believe that, as discussed below, fairness warrants an allocation that more closely reflects the appropriate proportion of direct costs required for regulation and oversight of International Bureau regulatees. Under such an analysis, the regulatory fee allocation of these regulatees, should be decreased, rather than significantly increased, for the reasons stated herein. When section 9 was adopted, the total FTEs were to be calculated based on the number of FTEs in the Private Radio
Page 34617
Bureau,\42\ Mass Media Bureau,\43\ and Common Carrier Bureau.\44\ Satellites and submarine cable were regulated through the Common Carrier Bureau before the International Bureau was created. As discussed below, the services offered by regulatees in the Wireline Competition Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and Media Bureau have evolved and converged over time and, therefore their regulation involves many similar issues and generates common Commission costs. To cite but one example, wireline, wireless, and cable companies compete with each other for customers.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ FY 2012 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 8467, paras. 24-25.
\42\ The predecessor to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
\43\ Now the Media Bureau.
\44\ The predecessor to the Wireline Competition Bureau.
\45\ Apart from DBS video services, for the most part the International Bureau regulatees do not offer the same services as the wireline, wireless, and cable companies, although wireline and wireless companies use the services, e.g. submarine cables that International Bureau regulatees provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
During this technological convergence among wireline, wireless, and cable services, the International Bureau's work has expanded beyond its regulation of international licensees. It also has unique duties to assist bureaus and their regulatees throughout the Commission, and represent the Commission on a variety of international issues affecting those regulatees. In discharging these duties, the International Bureau works on matters including but not limited to spectrum use, cross-
border coordination, broadband deployment, and foreign ownership. At the same time, International Bureau licensees have required less Commission oversight and regulation. Thus, the International Bureau now serves the entire Commission's international needs, not just the specific requirements of the International Bureau regulatees. For these reasons, we propose that the International Bureau should no longer be entirely classified as a ``core bureau'' in the way that the Wireline Competition Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and Media Bureau are classified today. Below, we seek comment on proposals to reallocate the International Bureau FTEs for regulatory fee purposes.
-
Strategic Analysis and Negotiations Division, International Bureau
-
-
Consistent with section 9(b) of the Act, any reallocation methodology we adopt must be reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities. A reallocation that reflects benefits provided to the fee payor will also meet our objectives of being fair and sustainable. Revising the percentage of the total regulatory fees paid by international service providers to reflect the full percentage of direct FTEs in the International Bureau would promote fairness if we determined that the increase in International Bureau FTEs is due to a corresponding increase in FTEs working on regulation and oversight of international service providers. If, instead, the increase is attributable to the increasing number of International Bureau FTEs performing duties that are related to the Commission as a whole or benefit service providers regulated by other Bureaus, the fee increase should not be imposed solely on international service providers. Rather, it should also be allocated to the other regulatory fee categories whose fee payors benefit from that work.
-
For example, the largest division in the International Bureau is the Strategic Analysis and Negotiations Division (SAND), which is not significantly involved in regulation or oversight of International Bureau regulatees. Instead, SAND is responsible for intergovernmental and regional leadership, negotiating, and planning--processes that benefit offices and bureaus throughout the Commission. SAND oversees the Commission's global participation in international forums such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), including World Radio-
communication Conferences; various regional organizations, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Inter-American Telecommunications Conference, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; and cross-border negotiations with Canada and Mexico. These activities cover telecommunications services outside of the bureau's direct oversight and regulatory activities, e.g., coordination of wireless services with Canada and Mexico.\46\ SAND also performs oversight to enable the International Bureau to integrate international and bilateral meetings with visits to the Commission by foreign regulators and other government officials. SAND is responsible for performing economic and policy analyses for the International Bureau concerning trends in the international communications markets and services. Finally, SAND conducts research and studies concerning international regulatory trends, as well as their implications on U.S. policy. For these reasons we propose excluding the SAND FTEs from the International Bureau for regulatory fee purposes and instead allocating them as indirect FTEs.\47\ We seek comment on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See FY 2012 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 8467-68, para. 26.
\47\ See id., 27 FCC Rcd at 8467-68, paras. 26-27; North American Submarine Cable Association Comments at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Satellite Division, International Bureau
-
-
In contrast to SAND, the International Bureau's Satellite Division is responsible for the regulation and oversight of satellite system licensees, specifically operators of space stations and earth stations, by authorizing satellite systems to facilitate deployment of satellite services and fostering efficient use of the radio frequency spectrum and orbital resources. In addition to the application and licensing process, the Satellite Division provides expertise about the commercial satellite industry in the domestic spectrum management process and advocates U.S. satellite radiocommunication interests in international coordinations and negotiations. The Satellite Division is also responsible for the process of placing non-U.S.-licensed space stations on a ``Permitted List,'' \48\ a process that is similar to the application process and allows access to the U.S. market for certain non-U.S. licensed satellites.\49\ The Satellite Division also reviews market access requests that are not eligible for inclusion on a Permitted List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See Amendment of the Commission's Regulatory Policies to Allow Non-U.S.-Licensed Space Stations to Provide Domestic and International Satellite Service in the United States, IB Docket No. 96-111, First Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 7207 (1999) (DISCO II First Reconsideration Order) (adopting the original procedure for making changes to the Permitted List). See also 2006 Biennial Regulatory Review--Revision of Part 25, Establishment of a Permitted List Procedure for Ka-band Space Stations, IB Docket 06-
154, Declaratory Order, 25 FCC Rcd 1542 (2010).
\49\ This is the process used by certain non-U.S.-licensed satellite operators to serve customers in the United States. These satellite operators may file a petition for a Declaratory Ruling seeking approval to provide service in the United States. These operators do not pay application fees or regulatory fees to the Commission, yet their petitions, together with the information required by an application, are analyzed by Satellite Division staff and these operators benefit from International Bureau regulatory activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
We propose that of all the International Bureau's Satellite Division employees whose work involves regulation of International Bureau regulatees, we use 25 direct FTEs \50\ to determine the regulatory fees for both
Page 34618
satellite space stations and earth stations.\51\ We seek comment on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Indirect FTEs would be allocated to these entities as they are for all regulatory fee payors.
\51\ See Satellite Industry Association Comments at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Policy Division, International Bureau
-
-
The work of the third division in the International Bureau, the Policy Division, is multifaceted. The Policy Division work involves development of polices in connection with regulation and licensing of international facilities and services (including submarine cable systems, which provide bearer circuits). The Policy Division conducts international spectrum rulemakings, handles applications for transfer and assignment of international service providers and implements Commission policies designed to protect competition in international telecommunications, and promotes lower international calling rates for U.S. consumers. It coordinates and provides guidance to and shares its expertise with the Commission and other agencies. For example, the Policy Division oversees Commission policies involving foreign ownership of U.S. telecommunications providers, and in this connection, coordinates major mergers and other license applications with U.S. agencies on matters relating to national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy. Many of these functions involve wireless and wireline issues and therefore benefit regulatees in other Bureaus.\52\ Commenters to the FY 2012 NPRM argued that the Policy Division's limited regulation and oversight of submarine cable systems does not support the current allocation of 36.08 percent of all the International Bureau regulatory fees or 2.28 percent of all regulatory fees to the submarine cable industry.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See Satellite Industry Association Comments at 14.
\53\ See Joint Reply Comments of International Carrier Coalition at 3. See also Telstra Incorporated and Australia-Japan Cable (Guam) Limited Comments at 3 (``the Commission's primary regulatory activity is the granting of the cable landing license.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Sixty submarine cable systems are licensed by the Commission, including 43 international submarine cable systems.\54\ Submarine cable systems transport most of the U.S. international traffic,\55\ including Internet broadband, video, other high bandwidth applications, voice services (public switched and interconnected VoIP), and non-public, private traffic for various international carriers, content and Internet providers, corporations, wholesale operators, and governments. Large corporate customers include financial and news companies and other content providers. Cable capacity is generally sold on an indefeasible right of use (IRU) basis for 10-15 year terms and also on a long-term lease basis; \56\ therefore, a large increase in regulatory fees is likely difficult to recover from customers as a ``pass-
through'' charge.\57\ Commenters responding to the FY 2012 NPRM noted that regulatory fee charges in the U.S. are much higher than those charged by other countries.\58\ Therefore, substantially increasing the regulatory fees paid by submarine cable service providers would serve as a disincentive for carriers to land new cables in the U.S. and an incentive to land new cables in Mexico and Canada instead. Over time, this would result in increased costs to American consumers as well as potential national security issues.\59\ These commenters contend that if the newer submarine cable systems choose to land in Canada or Mexico to avoid our high regulatory fees, eventually almost all international traffic will leave from (or arrive into) Canada or Mexico instead of the U.S.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ There are 42 international submarine cable systems in operation subject to regulatory fees and one more licensed system that will become subject to regulatory fees when it becomes operational.
\55\ Submarine cables transport approximately 95 percent of U.S. international traffic. See North American Submarine Cable Association Comments at 15.
\56\ See North American Submarine Cable Association Comments at 4.
\57\ See id. at 18-19; Telstra Incorporated and Australia-Japan Cable (Guam) Limited Comments at 4.
\58\ The annual regulatory fees charged to submarine cable systems are much higher in the U.S. than in other countries. See Joint Comments of International Carrier Coalition at 13. Canada charges $100 (Canadian) per year. Id. at 14. Several other countries charge fees on telecommunications companies that would include submarine cable operators, although there is no special category or assessment for submarine cable systems; e.g., the United Kingdom (.0609% of UK revenues); Spain (less than .2% of revenues in Spain); the Netherlands (.077% of revenues in the Netherlands), Argentina (.5% of revenues in Argentina); and Australia ($1,000 (Australian) plus .00118% Australian revenues. Id. Many other countries, such as Japan, Germany, and Mexico, do not charge regulatory fees at all. Id. See also North American Submarine Cable Association, MD Docket Nos. 12-201 and 08-65, Notice of Ex Parte Presentation (Mar. 27, 2013) at 3 (``Asia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia compete fiercely for submarine cable landings to maintain and improve their connectivity and support their services industries.'').
\59\ See, e.g., Joint Comments of International Carrier Coalition at 17 (additionally, ``landings outside of the US are also outside the reach of US law enforcement authorities and cannot be monitored for evidence of criminal or terrorist activity.'').
\60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
We recognize that submarine cable systems have been subject to significant regulatory fee reform recently.\61\ In the Submarine Cable Order, the Commission adopted a new submarine cable bearer circuit methodology to assess regulatory fees on a cable landing license basis, based on the proposal (the ``Consensus Proposal'') of a large group of submarine cable operators representing both common carriers and non-
common carriers with both large and small submarine cable systems.\62\ This methodology allocates international bearer circuit (IBC) costs among service providers without distinguishing between common carriers and non-common carriers, by assessing a flat per cable landing license fee for all submarine cable systems, with higher fees for larger submarine cable systems and lower fees for smaller systems. The Submarine Cable Order did not assess a particular regulatory fee for the submarine cable systems but instead it adopted a new methodology that was considered fairer and easier to administer than the previous method of assessing regulatory fees. This recent in-depth review and revision of the regulatory fee methodology for submarine cable serves as another important factor to consider in determining the appropriate allocation of regulatory fees in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008, Second Report and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 4208 (2009) (Submarine Cable Order).
\62\ The 15 parties to the Consensus Proposal represented 35 of the 42 international submarine cable systems in operation as well as three planned systems. Submarine Cable Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 4213, para. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The 2.28 percent of all regulatory fees submarine cable service providers now pay is the sixth highest regulatory fee percentage among all fee categories,\63\ notwithstanding the fact that the provision of international submarine cable service involves little regulation and oversight from the Commission after the initial licensing process. Under Part 43 of the Commission's rules, common carriers must file Traffic and Revenue Reports regarding international services and, for U.S. facilities-based international common carriers, Circuit Status Reports for information concerning leased or owned circuits.\64\ Within the Policy Division, submarine cable licensing,
Page 34619
regulation, and oversight is handled by a small number of FTEs during each fiscal year.\65\ The Policy Division employees whose work involves the regulation of submarine cable systems and bearer circuits, equates to only two FTEs. The remaining Policy Division FTEs handle other matters involving international issues and, like the SAND FTEs, should more accurately be considered indirect FTEs, together with the remaining bureau level employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Geostationary Space Stations are higher, at 3.23%, as are ITSP (46.66%), CMRS Mobile (14.33%), Cable TV (16.55%), and FM Classes B, C, C0, C1, & C2 (2.62%). Of all the International Bureau regulatees, (presently, 6.32% of all regulatory fees) the Submarine Cable systems pay 36.08%.
\64\ The Commission recently made changes to the international reporting requirements, which have yet to go into effect. See Reporting Requirements for U.S. Providers of International Telecommunications Services, IB Docket No. 04-112, Second Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 575 (2013).
\65\ The Commission, through the International Bureau Policy Division, seeks to ensure that the applicant controls one of the necessary inputs of the submarine cable system (the wet link, cable landing station, or back haul facilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To summarize, we propose to reclassify SAND's FTEs as indirect FTEs and reallocate them among the remaining core bureaus. In light of the number of employees in the Satellite Division who work on satellite and earth station issues, the number of employees in the Policy Division who work on bearer circuits and submarine cable issues, and the amount of time Satellite Division and Policy Division employees spend on other issues that are not specific to the International Bureau regulatees, we estimate that the appropriate number of FTEs to allocate as direct for regulatory fee purposes is 27. This calculation factors in 25 FTEs from the Satellite Division and 2 from the Policy Division. We recognize in reaching this estimate that most of the International Bureau FTEs should be considered indirect because their activities benefit the Commission as a whole and are not specifically focused on International Bureau regulatees. Therefore, we also propose that only a total of 27 of the FTEs in the Satellite Division and the Policy Division involved in regulation and oversight of International Bureau regulatees, i.e., satellites, earth stations, submarine cable, and bearer circuits, be considered in the direct International Bureau FTE allocation for regulatory fee purposes. All remaining International Bureau FTEs would be indirect because their activities benefit the Commission as a whole and are not focused on International Bureau regulatees. This proposal, if adopted, would be implemented in FY 2013. We ask commenters to address the substance and timing of this proposal.
-
Reallocation of Other FTEs
-
-
Many Commission functions are not directly attributable to only one specific regulated industry; the regulatory fee allocation, therefore, has a large number of FTEs that we currently consider indirect. As explained in the FY 2012 NPRM, our current approach is to distribute these indirect FTEs proportionally across the core bureaus according to these bureaus' respective percentages of the Commission's total direct FTE costs. As we also noted, this approach is based on the view that ``the work of the FTEs in the support bureaus and offices is not primarily focused on any one bureau or regulatory fee category, but instead services the needs of all four core bureaus.'' Further analysis indicates, however, that work of the FTEs in a support bureau may tend to focus disproportionately more on some of the core bureaus than others and that this focus may shift over time. It might be difficult to allocate these indirect FTEs on a task-by-task basis. We seek comment on whether the work of indirect FTEs is focused disproportionately on one or more core bureaus and if we should allocate indirect FTEs among the core bureaus on this basis. For example, if a particular support bureau or office routinely does a disproportionate amount of work on matters affecting the regulatees of a particular core bureau or bureaus, should the allocation of its indirect FTEs be adjusted to reflect such focus in its work? We seek comment on whether there are any divisions in non-core bureaus that should be assigned as indirect FTEs in a different manner or assigned as direct FTEs for a particular group of regulatees. We also seek comment on whether there are other divisions within the core bureaus that should be treated as indirect FTEs instead of as direct FTEs and reassigned proportionally among the bureaus.
-
Limitation on Increases of Regulatory Fees
-
The proposals set forth above will likely reduce the regulatory fee assessment for some regulatory fee categories, such as ITSPs and regulatees of the International Bureau, significantly, while increasing the assessment for many other fee categories. In order to provide a reasonable transition to our new allocations and because there are unresolved regulatory fee reform issues that may be adopted in FY 2014 that could further impact these allocations, we propose limiting any rate increases resulting from our reallocations for this fiscal year. Such a limitation of, for example, 7.5 percent, would prevent ``unexpected, substantial increases which could severely impact the economic wellbeing of these licensees regulatees.'' \66\ We propose implementing such a limitation on the increase in regulatory fee rates, before any rounding to the nearest applicable dollar unit as set forth in our rules, above FY 2012 fee rates.\67\ This limitation, if adopted, would be effective in FY 2013. Below are tables illustrating the impact of limiting the increase to 7.5 percent on regulatory fee collection and its associated Schedule of Fees. This will allow us to begin the transition toward better alignment of regulatory fees with Commission work performed, permitting necessary downward adjustment of regulatory fees in some sectors without imposing undue economic hardship on regulates in other sectors. Limiting increases will, necessarily, limit the decrease in fees for other regulatory fee categories, since the overall fee collection amount does not change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 1997, Report and Order, 12 FCC 17161, 17176, para. 37 (1997).
\67\ The cap would not limit changes in regulatory fees paid by a particular payor resulting from other factors, such as increased or decreased revenues, changes in subscriber numbers, number of licenses, etc.
Table 2--Maintain the Same Percentage Allocations as in Prior Years Calculation of FY 2013 Revenue Requirements and Pro-Rata Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2012 Pro-rated FY Computed new Rounded new FY
Fee category FY 2013 Payment Years Revenue 2013 revenue FY 2013 2013 Expected FY
units estimate requirement regulatory fee regulatory fee 2013 revenue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLMRS (Exclusive Use)....................... 1,400 10 490,000 507,072 36 35 490,000
PLMRS (Shared use).......................... 15,000 10 2,250,000 2,426,700 16 15 2,250,000
Microwave................................... 13,200 10 2,640,000 2,390,480 18 20 2,640,000
218-219 MHz (Formerly IVDS)................. 5 10 3,500 3,622 72 70 3,500
Marine (Ship)............................... 6,550 10 655,000 796,827 12 10 655,000
GMRS........................................ 7,900 5 192,500 289,755 7 5 197,500
Aviation (Aircraft)......................... 2,900 10 290,000 362,194 12 10 290,000
Page 34620
Marine (Coast).............................. 285 10 142,500 144,878 51 50 142,500
Aviation (Ground)........................... 900 10 135,000 144,878 16 15 135,000
Amateur Vanity Call Signs................... 14,300 10 214,500 217,316 1.52 1.52 217,360
AM Class A \4\.............................. 68 1 250,100 253,978 3,735 3,725 253,300
AM Class B \4\.............................. 1,454 1 3,125,875 3,161,850 2,175 2,175 3,162,450
AM Class C \4\.............................. 837 1 1,107,975 1,129,223 1,349 1,350 1,129,950
AM Class D \4\.............................. 1,406 1 3,698,400 3,742,299 2,662 2,650 3,725,900
FM Classes A, B1 & C3 \4\................... 2,935 1 7,764,750 7,836,522 2,670 2,675 7,851,125
FM Classes B, C, C0, C1 & C2 \4\............ 3,110 1 9,513,000 9,611,273 3,090 3,100 9,641,000
AM Construction Permits..................... 51 1 35,750 28,658 562 560 28,560
FM Construction Permits \1\................. 170 1 84,000 118,614 698 700 119,000
Satellite TV................................ 129 1 178,125 181,097 1,404 1,400 180,600
Satellite TV Construction Permit............ 3 1 3,580 3,622 1,207 1,200 3,600
VHF Markets 1-10............................ 22 1 1,761,650 1,804,524 82,024 82,025 1,804,550
VHF Markets 11-25........................... 23 1 1,836,875 1,880,596 81,765 81,775 1,880,825
VHF Markets 26-50........................... 39 1 1,512,400 1,549,293 39,725 39,725 1,549,275
VHF Markets 51-100.......................... 61 1 1,255,500 1,290,409 21,154 21,150 1,290,150
VHF Remaining Markets....................... 140 1 798,025 814,033 5,815 5,825 815,500
VHF Remaining Markets....................... 140 1 798,025 814,033 5,815 5,825 815,500
VHF Construction Permits \1\................ 1 1 11,650 5,825 5,825 5,825 5,825
UHF Markets 1-10............................ 109 1 3,853,150 3,880,922 35,605 35,600 3,880,400
UHF Markets 11-25........................... 106 1 3,458,250 3,478,876 32,820 32,825 3,479,450
UHF Markets 26-50........................... 135 1 2,959,875 2,977,132 22,053 22,050 2,976,750
UHF Markets 51-100.......................... 225 1 2,868,750 2,884,066 12,818 12,825 2,885,625
UHF Remaining Markets....................... 247 1 845,975 852,059 3,450 3,450 852,150
UHF Construction Permits \1\................ 7 1 23,975 24,150 3,450 3,450 24,150
Broadcast Auxiliaries....................... 25,400 1 248,000 254,000 10 10 254,000
LPTV/Translators/Boosters/Class A TV........ 3,725 1 1,436,820 1,448,776 389 390 1,452,750
CARS Stations............................... 325 1 178,125 181,097 557 555 180,375
Cable TV Systems............................ 60,000,000 1 59,090,000 59,943,108 .99905 1.00 60,000,000
Interstate Telecommunication Service $39,000,000,000 1 148,875,000 146,250,000 0.003750 0.00375 146,250,000
Providers..................................
CMRS Mobile Services (Cellular/Public 321,000,000 1 53,210,000 52,821,422 0.1646 0.17 54,570,000
Mobile)....................................
CMRS Messag. Services....................... 3,000,000 1 272,000 240,000 0.0800 0.080 240,000
BRS \2\..................................... 920 1 451,250 588,800 640 640 588,800
LMDS........................................ 170 1 225,625 108,800 640 640 108,800
Per 64 kbps Int'l Bearer Circuits 4,220,000 1 1,157,602 1,167,825 .277 .28 1,181,600
Terrestrial (Common) & Satellite (Common &
Non-Common)................................
Submarine Cable Providers (see chart in 38.313 1 8,150,984 8,249,219 215,314 215,325 8,249,639
Table 3) \3\...............................
Earth Stations.............................. 3,400 1 893,750 905,485 266 265 901,000
Space Stations (Geostationary).............. 87 1 11,560,125 11,698,866 134,470 134,475 11,699,325
Space Stations (Non-Geostationary).......... 6 1 858,900 869,266 144,878 144,875 869,250
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
****** Total Estimated Revenue to be ................. ....... 340,568,811 339,521,495 .............. .............. 341,106,534
Collected..............................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
****** Total Revenue Requirement........ ................. ....... 339,844,000 339,844,000 .............. .............. 339,844,000
Difference.............................. ................. ....... 724,811 -322,505 .............. .............. 1,262,534
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The FM Construction Permit revenues and the VHF and UHF Construction Permit revenues were adjusted to set the regulatory fee to an amount no higher
than the lowest licensed fee for that class of service. The reductions in the FM Construction Permit revenues are offset by increases in the revenue
totals for FM radio stations. Similarly, reductions in the VHF and UHF Construction Permit revenues are offset by increases in the revenue totals for
VHF and UHF television stations, respectively.
\2\ MDS/MMDS category was renamed Broadband Radio Service (BRS). See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate
the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands, Report & Order
and FNPRM of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 14165, 14169, 6 (2004).
\3\ The chart at the end of Table 3 lists the submarine cable bearer circuit regulatory fees (common and non-common carrier basis) that resulted from
the adoption of the following proceedings: Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008, Second Report and Order (MD Docket No.
08-65, RM-11312), released March 24, 2009; and Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2009 and Assessment and Collection of
Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order (MD Docket No. 09-65, MD Docket No. 08-65), released on May 14, 2009.
\4\ The fee amounts listed in the column entitled ``Rounded New FY 2013 Regulatory Fee'' constitute a weighted average media regulatory fee by class of
service. The actual FY 2013 regulatory fees for AM/FM radio station are listed on a grid located at the end of Table 3.
Table 3--Maintain the Same Percentage Allocations as in Prior Years
FY 2013 schedule of regulatory fees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
Fee category regulatory fee
(U.S. $'s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLMRS (per license) (Exclusive Use) (47 CFR part 90). 35
Microwave (per license) (47 CFR part 101)............ 20
218-219 MHz (Formerly Interactive Video Data Service) 70
(per license) (47 CFR part 95)......................
Marine (Ship) (per station) (47 CFR part 80)......... 10
Marine (Coast) (per license) (47 CFR part 80)........ 50
General Mobile Radio Service (per license) (47 CFR 5
part 95)............................................
Rural Radio (47 CFR part 22) (previously listed under 15
the Land Mobile category)...........................
Page 34621
PLMRS (Shared Use) (per license) (47 CFR part 90).... 15
Aviation (Aircraft) (per station) (47 CFR part 87)... 10
Aviation (Ground) (per license) (47 CFR part 87)..... 15
Amateur Vanity Call Signs (per call sign) (47 CFR 1.52
part 97)............................................
CMRS Mobile/Cellular Services (per unit) (47 CFR .17
parts 20, 22, 24, 27, 80 and 90)....................
CMRS Messaging Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, .08
22, 24 and 90)......................................
Broadband Radio Service (formerly MMDS/MDS) (per 640
license) (47 CFR part 27)...........................
Local Multipoint Distribution Service (per call sign) 640
(47 CFR, part 101)..................................
AM Radio Construction Permits........................ 560
FM Radio Construction Permits........................ 700
TV (47 CFR part 73) VHF Commercial:
Markets 1-10..................................... 82,025
Markets 11-25.................................... 81,775
Markets 26-50.................................... 39,725
Markets 51-100................................... 21,150
Remaining Markets................................ 5,825
Construction Permits............................. 5,825
TV (47 CFR part 73) UHF Commercial:
Markets 1-10..................................... 35,600
Markets 11-25.................................... 32,825
Markets 26-50.................................... 22,050
Markets 51-100................................... 12,825
Remaining Markets................................ 3,450
Construction Permits............................. 3,450
Satellite Television Stations (All Markets).......... 1,400
Construction Permits--Satellite Television Stations.. 1,200
Low Power TV, Class A TV, TV/FM Translators & 390
Boosters (47 CFR part 74)...........................
Broadcast Auxiliaries (47 CFR part 74)............... 10
CARS (47 CFR part 78)................................ 555
Cable Television Systems (per subscriber) (47 CFR 1.00
part 76)............................................
Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers (per .00375
revenue dollar).....................................
Earth Stations (47 CFR part 25)...................... 265
Space Stations (per operational station in 134,475
geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) also includes
DBS Service (per operational station) (47 CFR part
100)................................................
Space Stations (per operational system in non- 144,875
geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25)...............
International Bearer Circuits--Terrestrial/Satellites .28
(per 64KB circuit)..................................
International Bearer Circuits--Submarine Cable....... See Table Below
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 (Continued)--FY 2013 Schedule of Regulatory Fees: Maintain Allocation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Radio station regulatory fees
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FM classes A, FM classes B,
Population served AM class A AM class B AM class C AM class D B1 & C3 C, C0, C1 & C2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,000,000.............................................. 9,000 7,500 5,475 6,500 9,800 11,375
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Schedule of Regulatory Fees
International bearer circuits--submarine cable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine cable systems
(capacity as of December 31, Fee amount Address
2012)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,000,000.............................................. 9,475 7,875 5,725 6,825 10,700 12,375
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Schedule of Regulatory Fees: Fee Rate Increases
Capped at 7.5%, Prior to Rounding \6\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
International bearer circuits--
submarine cable submarine cable
systems (capacity as of Fee amount Address
December 31, 2012)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,000,000.............................................. 8,825 7,325 5,325 6,350 9,950 11,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2012 Schedule of Regulatory Fees
International Bearer Circuits--Submarine Cable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine cable systems
(capacity as of December 31, Fee amount Address
2011)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
