15026 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1The 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). 

2Section 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 85 FR 65566 (October 15, 2020). 

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/FCC20-184A1.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. 

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

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15027 

4NAB Comments at 7. 5 85 FR 65567 (October 15, 2020) at para 8. 

6The 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. 

7See 85 FR 65567 (October 15, 2020) at para 8. 

8See 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. 

9 85 FR 65567 (October 15, 2020) at para 11. 

10See id., e.g., sections 1.923, 101.21. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15028 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

11See id., e.g., section 101.21(e). 

12See id., e.g., sections 1.929, 1.947. 

13See id., e.g., section 1.949. 

14 85 FR 65567 (October 15, 2020) at para 11. 

15EWA Comments at 3–4. 

16EWA 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. 

17Moncure Comments at 1. 

18EWA Reply at 2. 

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). 

22EWA Reply at 2. 

23 Id. 

24 Id. 

25 Id. 

26 Id. 

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. 

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

15. In the NPRM, the Commission 

estimated that its resources in 

processing an application for a new sitebased 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 FCCcertified Frequency Advisory 

Committee to verify that the technical 

parameters of the proposed system meet 

FCC requirements, and renewal 

showings now are based on check-thebox 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. 

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 costbased 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 sitebased 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, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15029 

27 Verizon Reply at 3. 

28 Id. 

29 Id at 5. 

30 85 FR 65567 (October 15, 2020) at para. 12. 

31EWA Reply at 3. 

32 Id. 

33We 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). 

34EWA Comments at 8. 

35 Guse Reply at 1. 

36Our determination here related to construction 

notifications is limited to site-based licenses. 

Review of construction notifications for geographicbased licenses have several calculated identifiable 

direct costs, resulting in the finding that adoption 

of a cost-based fee is appropriate. See infra para. 48. 

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). 

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. 

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. 

20. We adopt a $35 fee for certain sitebased 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 sitebased 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

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 sitebased 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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15030 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

37CTIA Comments at 11. 

38EWA Comments at 9. 

39 Guse Reply at 1. 

40We 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. 

41See 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). 

42Sonoma County Radio Amateurs at 1. 

43See, e.g., ARRL Comments at 6; Knowles 

Comments at 4–10; Sonoma County Radio 

Amateurs at 1. 

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

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, ForestryConservation, 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. 

46AGC Comments at 4. 

47See, e.g., Golden Reply at 3 and 4–5. 

48See, 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 

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. 

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

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

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 nontechnical as well. For these reasons, 

applications in these services are highly 

automated and should be subject to the 

same assessment of fees. 

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. 

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.’’ 

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


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15031 

(‘‘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). 

49See 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’’). 

50Application Fee NPRM, para. 13 & note 13 

(explaining that the exception in § 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 ‘‘noncommercial 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.’’)). 

51See 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). 

52See 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’’). 

53See, e.g., Greg Gallop Comments at 1; Serge 

Miller Comments at 1; Carl Akers Comments at 1; 

Mark Brown Comments at 1. 

54ARRL Comments at 2–3. ARRL is also known 

as the American Radio Relay League. 

55 Id. at 3. 

56See, e.g., Vollie T. Miller Comments at 1; 

Charles McKinnis Comments at 1; Terry Whitehead 

Express Comments at 1. 

57See, e.g., Arthur Clark Comments at 1; Kim & 

Ralph Irons Comments at 1; Christopher A. Merck 

Comments at 1. 

58See, e.g., Charles Bierwirth Comments at 1; 

Henry Silver Comments at 1; John Eddy Comments 

at 1. 

59To 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. 

60See ARRL Comments at 6, 9; see also, e.g., 

Robert S. Antoniuk Comments at 1; Brian Wasson 

Comments at 1. 

61See, e.g., ARRL Comments at 9. 

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.’’ 

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. 

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

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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15032 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

62See, e.g., ARRL Comments at 6; Jamie Heim 

Comments at 1. 63See Amy S. Lindenmuth, Calvin T. Wagner Jr., 

Frances R. Wagner Comments at 1. 64See Jordan Nash Comments at 1; Joseph Grib 

Express Comments at 1; Paul Andrews Express 

Comments at 1. 

65 Knowles Comments at 4–10. 

66See, e.g., several other applications, such as for 

license renewal and spectrum leasing in the sitebased category, that are largely automated and now 

have $35 fees. 

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). 

68The 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). 

69More specifically, this as radio service code is 

‘‘Public Law 3.5 GHz, Auctioned’’ and we call this 

elsewhere Citizens Band Radio Service or CBRS. 

70Also referred to as 3.7–3.98 GHz band (or the 

‘‘3.7 GHz Service’’). 

71EWA Comments at 5; WISPA Comments at 4. 

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 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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

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

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. 

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

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15033 

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. 

74Nothing in our treatment of auction 

applications for fee purposes should be construed 

to affect any other obligations under our auction 

rules. 

75Select 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. 

78Under 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). 

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. 

85 Id. 

86CTIA Comments at 5. 

87 Id. 

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

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 longform 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. 

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 shortform 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. 

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, pertransaction, 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15034 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

88 Id. 

89Consistent 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. 

90Wireless Internet Service Provider Association 

(WISPA) Comments at 7. 

91 Id. 

92National EBS Association (NEBSA) Comments 

at 2–3. 

93See https://nmu.edu/ean/ (detailing charges for 

Northern Michigan University’s LTE network), 

https://www.kingscoe.org/domain/45 (same for 

Kings County, California). 

94For example, it is not clear what would happen 

if a licensee claimed the proposed fee exemption 

but subsequently decided to lease its spectrum. 

95 47 CFR 5.1. 

96 47 CFR 5.3. 

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. 

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. 

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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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

55. The Commission is not persuaded 

that retention of § 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, 

§ 1.1116(e)(4) of our rules will be 

deleted. 

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, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15035 

97 85 FR 65569 (October 15, 2020) at para. 34–35. 

98See, e.g., 47 CFR 5.53. 

99See 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 closelyrelated 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. 

101Cubesats 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-smallsatsand-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). 

104See 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. 

105See id. 5.309(a), 5.406(b); FCC Experiments 

Notification System, https://apps2.fcc.gov/ 

ELSExperiments/pages/login.htm. 

106For a comprehensive description of Media 

Bureau activities, see https://www.fcc.gov/media. 

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). 

entrepreneurs, and students to 

experiment across a wide range of 

frequencies, power, emissions, and 

applications. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 longform 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

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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15036 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

110NYX Communications Comments at 1–2; REC 

Networks Comments at 13. 

111NYX Communications Comments at 1–2; REC 

Networks Comments at 13. 

112Elimination of Main Studio Rule, Report and 

Order, 32 FCC Rcd 8158 (2017). 

65. NYX Communications and REC 

Networks support the proposed fee of 

$575 for the broadcast auctions shortform 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. 

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, longform 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 longform 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

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15037 

113See generally Part 76 of the Commission’s 

Rules (‘‘Multichannel Video and Cable Television 

Service’’). 

114Noncommercial 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.’’ 

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 fiberoptic 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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15038 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

115The 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. . . .’’): 

116Elimination of Main Studio Rule, Report and 

Order, 32 FCC Rcd 8158 (2017). 

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. 

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. 

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. Shortform 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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15039 

117See 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 

. . . .’’). 

118Elimination of Main Studio Rule, Report and 

Order, 32 FCC Rcd 8158 (2017). 

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. 

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. Longform 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. Shortform 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

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15040 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

119 Id. 

120REC Networks Comments at 12. 

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.’’). 

122FM booster construction permits are not 

auctioned. 

123Section 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). 

124This 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. 

125Review 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 

§§ 1.5000 to 1.5004, 47 CFR 1.5000–1.5004. 

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

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

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

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 costbased 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15041 

126 85 FR 65577 (October 15, 2020) at para. 93– 

94. 

127See 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. 

130 85 FR 65577 (October 15, 2020) at para. 97– 

98. 

131 85 FR 65577 (October 15, 2020) at para. 97. 

132USTelecom Comments at 4. 

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

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 §§ 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

114. Discontinuance of Service. We 

adopt the discontinuance of service fees 

as proposed in the NPRM.130 Under 

§ 63.71 of the Commission’s rules, any 

domestic carrier that seeks to 

discontinue, reduce, or impair service 

must provide notice, as specified in 

§ 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 § 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

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 § 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 nondominant carriers for the emergency 

discontinuance of service under § 63.63, 

filings that meet the alternative options 

test for streamlined processing under 

§ 63.71(f)(2)(ii), filings subject to copper 

retirement auto grant under § 63.71(i), 

and filings by both dominant and nondominant carriers for the 

discontinuance or grandfathering of 

voice or data services under § 63.71(k) 

or § 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. 

116. Voice over internet Protocol 

(VoIP) Numbering. We adopt the VoIP 

Numbering fees as proposed in the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15042 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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

138USTelecom Comments at 2–3. 

139 Id. 

140 Id. at 3. 

141USTelecom Comments at 3. 

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). 

143Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166. 

144WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157. 

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

146See FCC Consumer Complaint Center, https:// 

consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us. 

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 

§ 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 

§ 1.1105 of its rules and set that 

application fee based on its cost 

estimates. We adopt the proposed fee of 

$1,330.136

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. 

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. 

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 § 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. 

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 shortform 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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15043 

147Ormas Comments at 7. 148 85 FR 65580 (October 15, 2020) at para. 121. 149 85 FR 65580 (October 15, 2020) at para. 124. 150See 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). 

154Executive 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. 

155There is one fee for an application for a noncommon 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 noncommon carrier application. 

156Currently, 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. 

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. 

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 nondiscriminatory 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 casespecific 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

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. 

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 costbased 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 

§ 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

131. In the NPRM, we proposed to 

create a new cable landing license 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15044 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

157See 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). 

158 85 FR 65581 (October 15, 2020) at para. 131. 

159 85 FR 65580–65581 (October 15, 2020) at 

paras. 126–127. 

160See infra paras. 138, 156, 172. 

161USTelecom Comments at 6–7. 

162 Id. at 7. 

163 Id. 

164 85 FR 65582 (October 15, 2020) at para. 139. 

165See 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. 

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. 

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 reexamining 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 costbased 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. 

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 § 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 § 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

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

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 costbased 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15045 

166The Media Bureau processes petitions for 

declaratory ruling seeking approval to exceed the 

benchmarks set out in section 310(b) for broadcast 

licenses. 167The State Department would then submit an 

application on behalf of the applicant to the ITU. 

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). 

169Standardization (ITU–T), Definition, https://

www.itu.int/net/ITU-R/asp/terminologydefinition.asp?lang=en&rlink={EAA8C660-C702- 

4B47-A23E-20812661AC3A}; 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). 

170According 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 costbased 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. 

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 blanketlicensed 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15046 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

172FSS 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. 

173For example, this fee category would apply to 

Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) 

terrestrial repeaters that are licensed on a site-bysite basis. See 47 CFR 25.144(e)(9). 

174A 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. 

175CTIA Comments at 12. 

176 Id. at 12–13. 

177A 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 nongeostationary-orbit.’’ 47 CFR 25.103. 178ESIM 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. 179See, e.g., 47 CFR 25.144(e)(2) (stating 

eligibility requirements for blanket licensing of 

SDARS terrestrial repeaters). 180See Second Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 

14778, para. 191 (deleting the VSAT-specific rules 

contained in former § 25.134 because they were 

duplicative of blanket licensing provisions 

contained in other rule sections). 

181EchoStar Comments at 4; SIA Comments at 8. 

182 85 FR 65586 (October 15, 2020) at para. 169. 

(proposing to create a separate fee category for 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 blanketlicensed 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. 

147. Amendments and modifications. 

We adopt our proposed fee for 

amendments and modifications.182


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15047 

amendments and modifications on a per call sign 

basis). 

183EchoStar Comments at 4; SIA Comments at 6– 

7. 

184EchoStar Comments at 3. 

185 Id. 

186 Id. at 3–4. 

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. 

189SIA Comments at 5. 

190 Id. at 6. 

191 Id. 

192 Id. at 4; EchoStar Comments at 5. 

193EchoStar Comments at 5. 

194SIA Comments at 4. 

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 refamiliarize 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. 

148. EchoStar further argues that the 

proposed fees for space and earth 

station amendments fail to distinguish 

between major and minor amendments 

permitted under § 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 

§ 25.117 and modifications not requiring 

prior authorization under § 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. 

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 costefficient 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 costbased 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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15048 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

195SIA Comments at 5. 

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). 

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. 

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 costbased 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 site, per site ...................................................................... $175. 

Initial application or registration, multiple sites, per system ........................................................... $465.

Blanket Earth Stations, per Call Sign 

Initial Application for Blanket Authorization ..................................................................................... $360. 

Mobile Earth Stations, per Call Sign 

Initial Application for Blanket Authorization, per system ................................................................. $815.

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 Registrations, per Call Sign .......................................... $545. 

Assignment or Transfer of Control of Earth Station Licenses or Registrations ............................. $745 (first call sign; $400 (for each additional). 

Pro Forma Assignment or Transfer of Control of Earth Station Licenses or Registrations, per 

transaction.

$400. 

Renewals of Earth Station Licenses, per Call Sign 

Single Site ....................................................................................................................................... $115. 

Multiple Sites ................................................................................................................................... $145. 

Requests for U.S. Market for Non-U.S. Licensed Space Stations, per request ............................ See the fee categories 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15049 

198 Id. Section 25.117(a). 

199SIA Comments at 9–10 (asserting inconsistent 

description of these fees in the text of the NPRM). 

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 § 25.114 would 

require in a license application for that spacestation, including but not limited to, information 

required to complete Schedule S.’’) 201 47 U.S.C. 158(a). 202 Kepler Comments at 1. 203 Id. at 1–2. 204 Id. at 2. 

205EchoStar Reply at 2–3. 

206 Id. 

207 Id. at 3. 

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

209SIA Comments at 9. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 nongeostationary 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 foreignlicensed space stations. 

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

159. We recognize that foreignlicensed 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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15050 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

210See NPRM at para. 186. 

211See SIA Comments at 9. 

212EchoStar Comments at 6. 

213 Id. at 7. 

214The 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). 

215Streamlining Licensing Procedures for Small 

Satellites, IB Docket No. 18–86, Report and Order, 

34 FCC Rcd 13077 (2019) (Small Satellite Report 

and Order). 

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 nongeostationary satellites). 

217 Id. Section 25.117(d)(1) (stating that 

‘‘applications for modifications of space station 

authorizations shall be filed in accordance with 

§ 25.114, but only those items of information listed 

in § 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). 

218 Id. Section 25.119(a). 219SIA Comments at 4; EchoStar Comments at 5. 

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 costbased 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. 

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 

§ 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. 

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. 

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. 

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 costbased fee of $2,495 for modifications of 

all categories of space station licenses 

on a per call sign basis. 

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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15051 

220EchoStar Comments at 6. 

221Because 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. 

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. 

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 noncommon 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. 

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. 

Filing category New fee 

Space Stations, Geostationary Orbit 

Application for Authority to Construct, Deploy, and Operate, per satellite ..................................... $3,555. 

Application for Authority to Operate, per satellite ........................................................................... 3,555. 

Space Stations, Non-Geostationary Orbit 

Application for Authority to Construct, Deploy, and Operate, per system of technically identical 

satellites, per Call Sign.

$15,050. 

Application for Authority to Operate, per system of technically identical satellites, per Call Sign 15,050. 

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 Operate, per Call Sign ....................................................... $2,175. 

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 Control ....................................................................... $745 (first call sign; $400 for each additional). 

Space Stations, Pro Forma Assignment or Transfer of Control, per transaction ........................... 400. 

Space Stations, Special Temporary Authority, per Call Sign ......................................................... 1,435. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15052 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

222 DBS Streamlining Report and Order, 34 FCC 

Rcd at 9016–17, para. 8. 

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). 

229EchoStar Comments at 7. 

230SIA Comments at 8. 

231See 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 . . . .’’ 

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). 

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. 

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

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

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 costbased fees for IBS services listed below. 

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 costbased 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

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15053 

233NPRM 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 § 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 § 1.1116. 

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.’’) 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.’’). 

241Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, 

Division P—RAY BAUM’S Act of 2018, Title I, FCC 

Reauthorization, Public Law 115–141 (March 23, 

2018). 

242RAY BAUM’S Act of 2018, Title I, 103(d) 

(uncodified provisions entitled ‘‘Transitional 

Rules’’). 

243 Id. 

244The 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. 

245Motion of Richard Golden to Extend Time to 

File Comments (filed Nov. 8, 2020). 

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 § 1.1116 of our 

rules, which deals with exemptions.236

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15054 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

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

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

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. 

254See 5 U.S.C. 601(3)–(6). 

255See 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-Business2019.pdf (Sept 2019). 

256 Id. 

257 5 U.S.C. 601(4). 

258The 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-nonprofits/annual-electronic-filing-requirement-forsmall-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. 

259See Exempt Organizations Business Master 

File Extract (E.O. BMF), ‘‘CSV Files by Region,’’ 

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exemptorganizations-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 

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

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. 

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

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

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

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


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15055 

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. 

260 5 U.S.C. 601(5). 

261See 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. 

262See 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. 

263See 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. 

264See 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. 

265See 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. 

266While 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. 

267This 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. 

268See 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. 

269See 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS Code 517311 

(previously 517110). 

270See 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. 

272See 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. 

274See 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. 

276See 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. 

278See 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. 

280See 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). 

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

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. 

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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15056 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

281 Id. 

282See 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. 

283See 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. 

285See 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. 

290See 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. 

292See 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. 

294See 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. 

296U.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. 

299See 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.’’ 

301See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3. 

302 Id. 

303U.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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15057 

305See 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.’’ 

307See 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). 

308See id. 

309U.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. 

312See 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.’’ 314See 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). 315See id. 316U.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. 

319See 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.’’ 

321See 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). 

322See id. 

323See 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS Code 517311 

(previously 517110). 

324See 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. 

326Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3. 

327 Id. 

328U.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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15058 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

329 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210. 

330U.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.’’ 

332U.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. 

335U.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. 

337Broadcast 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/DOC352168A1.pdf. 

338 Id. 

339 Id. 

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). 

341U.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. 343U.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. 

345BIA/Kelsey, MEDIA Access Pro Database 

(viewed Jan. 26, 2018). 

346Broadcast 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). 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15059 

349 Id. 121.102(b). 

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). 

351The 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). 

352S&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). 

354See supra note 351. 

355 Id. 

356 47 CFR 76.90(f) and notes ff. 1, 2, and 3. 

357S&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. 

359S&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. 

360The 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 § 76.901(f) of the Commission’s rules. See 47 CFR 

76.901(f). 

361See 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. 

363See 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. 

366See 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. 

368See 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). 

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 overinclusive. 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

29. All Other Telecommunications. 

The ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ 

category is comprised of establishments 

primarily engaged in providing 

specialized telecommunications 

services, such as satellite tracking, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15060 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

369See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS 

Definitions, NAICS Code ‘‘517919 All Other 

Telecommunications’’, https://www.census.gov/cgibin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=517919&

search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017. 

370 Id. 

371 Id. 

372See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517919. 

373U.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. 

375See 47 CFR 52.101(b). 

376 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110. 

377 Id. 

378See 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. 

379See 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS Code 517311 

(previously 517110). 

380See 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. 

382U.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. 384U.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. 

385 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 541890. 

386 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 541618. 

387http://www.census,gov/cgi-bin/sssd/ 

naics.naicsrch. 

388 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 541890. 

389http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/ 

tableservices/jsf/pages/ 

productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_

51SSSZ4&prodType=table. 

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 clientsupplied 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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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 wirelessbased technology are small. 

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

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 NonCarrier RespOrgs who provide toll-free 

number (TFN)-related advertising 

services are small. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15061 

390http://www.census,gov/cgi-bin/sssd/ 

naics.naicsrch. 

391 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 514618. 

392http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/ 

tableservices/jsf/pages/ 

productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_

51SSSZ4&prodType=table. 

393The 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. 

394 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)–(c)(4). 

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

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 noncarrier RespOrgs who provide TFNrelated management consulting services 

are small.393

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

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 costbased criteria for all applications, 

whether fees were lowered, stayed the 

same, or were increased. 

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 §§ 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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 1.767 by revising 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 1.1101 to read as follows: 

§ 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15062 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

application fees to recover the costs of 

the Commission to process applications. 

■ 4. Revise § 1.1102 to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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-tomultipoint 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 sign ................................................................................ $50. 

Assignment/transfer of control, each subsequent call sign, fee capped at 10 total call signs per 

application.

$35. 

Rule waivers associated with applications for assignment/transfer of control, per transaction, 

assessed on the lead application.

$380. 

Rule waiver not associated with an application for assignment/transfer of control ....................... $380. 

Renewal .......................................................................................................................................... $35. 

Spectrum leasing ............................................................................................................................ $35. 

Maritime, Aviation, Microwave, Land Mobile, and Rural Radio ...................................................... Please refer to the 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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15063 

TABLE 3 TO PARAGRAPH (d) 

Geographic-based license applications New fee 

New License (other than Auctioned Licenses), Major Modification ................................................ $305. 

New License (Auctioned Licenses, Post-Auction Consolidated Long-Form and Short-Form Fee) 

(per application; NOT per call sign).

$3,175. 

Renewal .......................................................................................................................................... $50. 

Minor Modification ........................................................................................................................... $200. 

Construction Notification/Extensions ............................................................................................... $290. 

Special Temporary Authority ........................................................................................................... $335. 

Assignment/Transfer of Control, initial call sign .............................................................................. $195. 

Assignment/Transfer of Control, subsequent call sign ................................................................... $35. 

Spectrum Leasing ........................................................................................................................... $165. 

Rule waivers associated with applications for assignment/transfer of control, per transaction, 

assessed on the lead application.

$380. 

Rule waiver not associated with an application for assignment/transfer of control ....................... $380. 

Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event ................................................................ $50. 

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. 

■ 5. Amend § 1.1103 by revising the 

section heading and the table to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.1103 Schedule of charges for 

experimental radio services. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 1 TO § 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 

■ 6. Amend § 1.1104 by revising the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 1.1104 Schedule of charges for 

applications and other filings for media 

services. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 1 TO § 1.1104 

New fee 

Application for Full Power and Class A TV: 

Full Power TV, Class A TV, new and major change construction permit ............................... $4,260 (if no auction). 

$4,835 (if auction—includes Post-Auction Consolidated Long Form and Short Form Fee). 

Full Power TV, minor modification construction permit ........................................................... $1,335. 

Full Power TV, Class A TV, new license ................................................................................. $380. 

Full Power TV, Class A TV, license renewal ........................................................................... $330. 

Full Power TV, Class A TV, license assignment, long form ................................................... $1,245. 

Full Power TV, Class A TV, license assignment, short form .................................................. $405. 

Full Power TV, Class A TV, transfer of control, long form ...................................................... $1,245. 

Full Power TV, Class A TV, transfer of control, short form ..................................................... $405. 

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 change construction permit ....................................... $775 (if no auction). 

$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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15064 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO § 1.1104—Continued 

New fee 

TV translator and LPTV, license assignment .......................................................................... $335. 

TV translator and LPTV, transfer of control ............................................................................. $335. 

TV translator and LPTV, call sign ............................................................................................ $170. 

Application for Cable Television and CARS License: 

Cable television, CARS license ............................................................................................... $450. 

Cable television, CARS license modification, major ................................................................ $345. 

Cable television, CARS license modification, minor ................................................................ $50. 

Cable television, CARS license renewal ................................................................................. $260. 

Cable television, CARS, license assignment ........................................................................... $365. 

Cable television, CARS, transfer of control ............................................................................. $465. 

Cable television, CARS, STA .................................................................................................. $225. 

Cable television, special relief petition ..................................................................................... $1,615. 

Cable television, CARS license, registration statement .......................................................... $105. 

Cable television, multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) aeronautical frequency usage notification.$90. 

Application for Commercial AM Stations: 

AM radio new or major change construction permit ................................................................ $3,980 (if no auction). 

$4,555 (if auction—includes Consolidated Long 

Form and Short Form Fee). 

AM radio, minor modification construction permit ................................................................... $1,625. 

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 permit ................................................................ $3,295 (if no auction). 

$3,870 (if auction—includes Consolidated Long 

Form and Short Form Fee). 

FM radio, minor modification construction permit .................................................................... $1,265. 

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 construction permit ......................................................... $705. 

$1,280 (if auction—includes Consolidated Long 

Form and Short Form Fee). 

FM translator, minor modification construction permit ............................................................. $210. 

FM translator, new license ....................................................................................................... $180. 

FM translator and booster, license renewal ............................................................................ $175. 

FM translator and booster, STA .............................................................................................. $170. 

FM translator, license assignment ........................................................................................... $290. 

FM translator, transfer of control ............................................................................................. $290. 

FM booster, new or major change construction permit ........................................................... $705. 

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 Petition (separate and additional to fee required for 

underlying application, if any)..

$2,485. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15065 

■ 7. Amend § 1.1105 by revising the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 1.1105 Schedule of charges for 

applications and other filings for the 

wireline competition services. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 1 TO § 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-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) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,230 

Domestic 214 Applications—Part 63 Discontinuances (Standard Streamlined Review) (All Other Domestic 214 Discontinuance 

Filings) .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 335 

VoIP Numbering .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,330 

Standard Tariff Filing ........................................................................................................................................................................... 930 

Complex Tariff Filing (annual access charge tariffs, new or restructured rate plans) (Large—all price cap LECs and entities involving more than 100 LECs) .......................................................................................................................................................... 6,540 

Complex Tariff Filing (annual access charge tariffs, new or restructured rate plans) (Small—other entities) ................................... 3,270 

Application for Special Permission for Waiver of Tariff Rules ............................................................................................................ 375 

Waiver of Accounting Rules ................................................................................................................................................................ 4,415 

Universal Service Fund Auction (combined long-form and short-form fee, paid only by winning bidder) ......................................... 2,965 

■ 8. Amend § 1.1106 by revising the 

section heading and table to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.1106 Schedule of charges for 

applications and other filings for the 

enforcement services. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 1 TO § 1.1106 

Application New fee 

Formal Complaints and Pole Attachment Complaints ........................................................................................................................ $540 

Petitions Regarding Law Enforcement Assistance Capability under CALEA ..................................................................................... 6,945 

■ 9. Amend § 1.1107 by revising the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 1.1107 Schedule of charges for 

applications and other filings for 

international services. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 1 TO § 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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
15066 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO § 1.1107—Continued 

New fee 

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, single site ...................................................................... $175. 

Initial application or registration, multiple sites, per system ............................................. $465. 

Initial application for Blanket Earth Stations, per Call Sign .............................................. $360. 

Mobile Earth Stations Applications, per Call Sign: 

Initial Application for Blanket Authorization, per system, per Call Sign ........................... $815. 

Amendments to Earth Station Applications or Registrations per Call Sign: 

Single Site ......................................................................................................................... $430. 

Multiple Sites .................................................................................................................... $630. 

Earth Stations, Other Applications: 

Applications for Modification of Earth Station Licenses or Registrations, per Call Sign $545. 

Assignment or Transfer of Control of Earth Station Licenses or Registrations, per Call 

Sign.

$745 (first call sign). 

$400 (for each additional call sign). 

Pro Forma Assignment or Transfer of Control of Earth Station Licenses or Registrations, per Transaction.$400. 

Earth Station Renewals of Licenses, per Call Sign: 

Single Site ......................................................................................................................... $115. 

Multiple Sites .................................................................................................................... $145. 

Earth Station Requests for U.S. Market Access for Non-U.S. Licensed Space Stations ....... See Space Stations. 

Satellite Space Station Applications: 

Space Stations, Geostationary Orbit: 

Application for Authority to Construct, Deploy, and Operate, per satellite ...................... $3,555. 

Application for Authority to Operate, per satellite ............................................................. $3,555. 

Space Stations, Non-Geostationary Orbit: 

Application for Authority to Construct, Deploy, and Operate, per system of technically 

identical satellites, per Call Sign.

$15,050. 

Application for Authority to Operate, per system of technically identical satellites, per 

Call Sign.

$15,050. 

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 Sign ............................................................................ $15,050. 

Small Satellites, per Call Sign .......................................................................................... $2,175. 

Space Stations, Small Satellites, or Small Spacecraft: 

Application to Construct, Deploy, and Operate, per Call Sign ......................................... $2,175. 

Other Applications for Space Stations: 

Space Stations, Amendments, per Call Sign ................................................................... $1,620. 

Space Stations, Modifications, per Call Sign ................................................................... $2,495. 

Space Stations, Assignment or Transfer of Control, per Call Sign .................................. $745 (first call sign). 

$400 (for each additional call sign). 

Space Stations, Pro Forma Assignment or Transfer of Control, per transaction ............ $400. 

Space Stations, Special Temporary Authority, per Call Sign ........................................... $1,435. 

Unified Space Station and Earth Station Initial Application, Amendment, and Modification: 

Unified Space Station and Earth Station Initial Application, Amendment, and Modification .. Applicable Space Station Fee + Applicable 

Earth 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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 52 / Friday, March 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 15067 

§ 1.1116 [Amended] 

■ 10. Amend § 1.1116 by removing 

paragraph (e)(4). 

[FR Doc. 2021–03042 Filed 3–18–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2