SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 26-25, MD Docket No. 26-94, adopted on April 27, 2026 and released on April 28, 2026. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. When the FCC Headquarters reopens to the public, these documents will also be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).

I. Administrative Matters

5. Ex Parte Information. The proceeding initiated by this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in which we seek comment on proposals as described above, shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments ( printed page 25269) thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format ( e.g.,.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

6. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning potential rule and policy changes contained in this NPRM. The IRFA is set forth in Section VI. The Commission invites the general public, in particular small businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM indicated on the first page of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.

7. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document does not contain any proposed new or substantively modified information collections 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).

II. Introduction

8. Each fiscal year, the Commission must adopt a schedule of regulatory fees to be assessed and collected by the end of September in an amount that reasonably can be expected to total the Commission's annual salaries and expenses (S&E) appropriation. Pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, the Commission must collect $416,112,000, which is an amount equal to its fiscal year (FY) 2026 salaries and expenses (S&E) appropriation.

9. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose and seek comment on the regulatory fees and methodology to assess and collect $416,112,000 in congressionally required regulatory fees for FY 2026, as set forth in Tables 3 and 4. Consistent with the Commission's long-standing regulatory fee methodology, staff has again undertaken a high-level, yet comprehensive, analysis of the work being performed by Commission employees to determine if identifiable full time equivalent (FTE) time is related to the oversight and regulation of fee payors such that it should be taken into consideration in applying our fee methodology. Based upon this analysis, we propose to reallocate a total of 59 FTEs as direct to the Commission's core licensing bureaus. As described below, our proposals to increase the number of direct FTEs allocated to a core bureau—which are substantially similar to the Commission's determinations in fiscal years 2023, 2024, and 2025—reflect our conclusion that we can determine with reasonable accuracy that certain FTE work in the Office of Economics and Analytics, the Office of General Counsel, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau is sufficiently linked to the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors for regulatory fee purposes for FY 2026.

10. Moreover, using the Commission's methodology of calculating television broadcaster regulatory fees based on population covered by the station's contour as the Commission has since 2020, we propose full-service broadcast television regulatory fees as set forth in Table 8. Finally, we seek comment on whether to continue to use Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) assigned number data as the basis for assessing regulatory fees on Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers.

III. Background

11. Section 9 of the Communications Act obligates the Commission to assess and collect regulatory fees each year, totaling an amount that can reasonably be expected to equal the amount of its annual S&E appropriation. Thus, the Commission has no discretion regarding the amount of fees to be collected in any given fiscal year. Regulatory fees cover all of the Commission's non-auctions direct, indirect, and support costs, including costs to cover statutorily required tasks that do not directly equate with oversight and regulation of a particular fee payor, but instead benefit the Commission and the industry as a whole. Direct costs are those such as salaries and expenses, indirect costs are those such as overhead functions, and support costs include those such as rent, utilities, and equipment. Since regulatory fees must recover the total amount of the Commission's S&E appropriation, they also must cover the costs incurred in oversight and regulation of: (1) entities that are statutorily exempt from paying regulatory fees; (2) entities whose total assessed annual regulatory fees fall below the annual de minimis threshold; and (3) entities whose regulatory fees are waived. For instance, entities that are exempt from paying regulatory fees include governmental and nonprofit entities, amateur radio operators, and noncommercial radio and television stations.

12. Congress has prescribed a method for the Commission to collect an amount equal to the full S&E appropriation in section 9 of the Communications Act, by keying our regulatory fee assessment to our “Full Time Equivalent” or “Full Time Employee” (FTE) burden. One FTE is a unit of measure equal to the work performed annually by a full-time person (working a 40-hour workweek for a full year) assigned to the particular job, and subject to agency personnel staffing limitations established by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The methodology for assessing regulatory fees must “reflect the full-time equivalent number of employees within the bureaus and offices of the Commission, adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.” Thus, the fee assigned to each regulatory fee category relates to the FTE burden associated with oversight and regulation of each regulatory fee category by the relevant core bureaus ( i.e., the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, the Media Bureau, most of the Wireline Competition Bureau, part of the Office of International Affairs, and most of the Space Bureau). In this proceeding, if we state 1.5 FTEs work on a particular subject matter, that might mean three individuals spend 50% of their time on that area. Moreover, in this NPRM, when we discuss FTEs and any change in allocation, it is solely for regulatory fee purposes and does not reflect proposals for the change of personnel in the various organizational work units.

13. The total amount of the offsetting collection generally changes each fiscal year. This means the regulatory fees due from payors also typically change as a mathematical consequence of the total amount that needs to be collected, the number of FTEs, and the projected unit estimates for each regulatory fee category. For example, if the number of units in a regulatory fee category increase, the amount due per unit may decrease, depending on other factors. This would also include proportionate increases in a given fee category to reflect an overall increase in the annual FY appropriation. Since the Communication Act's explicit language ( printed page 25270) requires that fees must reflect FTEs, FTE counts are the most administrable starting point for regulatory fee allocations, and regulatory fees are based on the direct FTEs in core bureaus. Thus, when considering changes, additions, or deletions to the regulatory fee schedule, we focus on the direct FTE cost burden related to each regulatory fee category within the core licensing bureaus. Our prior decisions to add to, delete from, or amend the regulatory fee schedule are instructive of the detailed analysis that generally accompanies a change to the FTE allocation as direct or indirect, the attribution of FTEs to a regulatory fee category, and the allocation of fees within a regulatory fee category based on the unit measure adopted.

14. FTEs within a bureau are not assigned to specific fee categories “by rote or at random, but rather in a manner that reflects the time spent by FTEs on a regulatory fee category, which is in itself a reflection of `benefit' to the fee category.” We apportion regulatory fees across fee categories based on the number of direct FTEs in each core bureau to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the payors' benefits. Any decrease to the fees paid by one category of regulatory fee payors necessitates an increase in fees paid by other categories of regulatory fee payors, which means regulatory fees are a zero-sum game because the Commission must collect the full amount of its appropriation each fiscal year.

15. The Commission allocates FTEs according to the nature of the work performed by its different organizational units. If the FTE work directly relates to the oversight and regulation of a regulatory fee category in one of the five core licensing bureaus then those FTEs are considered to be direct FTEs. The Commission has long relied on direct FTE allocations because the Commission has found those allocations best reflect the `benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities Work that cannot be allocated to one of those regulatory fee categories counts as indirect FTE time. For example, the Commission has historically determined that the burden of FTE time devoted to non-high-cost Universal Service Fund programs is properly categorized as indirect and has further determined to exclude broadcasters from the fee burden associated with these indirect FTEs because broadcasters do not directly participate in the universal service program. On the other hand, the Commission continues to categorize the FTE work of Office of International Affairs concerning international bearer circuit issues, including the services provided over submarine cables as direct because it directly relates to the oversight and regulation of a regulatory fee category.

16. Indirect FTE time includes work associated with a wide range of issues regarding services that are not specifically correlated with one core bureau, let alone one specific category of regulatory fee payors. Many Commission attorneys, economists, engineers, analysts, and other staff perform work during a single fiscal year, which generally benefits the telecommunications industry and the public as opposed to matters that are specific to any regulatory fee category. The Commission has categorized FTE work conducted in the Enforcement, Consumer and Governmental Affairs, and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureaus along with some of the work in the Wireline Competition Bureau, the Space Bureau, and the Office of International Affairs as well as the work of those in the Office of the Chair and the Commissioners' Offices and in the Offices of the Managing Director, General Counsel, Inspector General, Communications Business Opportunities, Engineering and Technology, Legislative Affairs, Workplace Diversity, Media Relations, Economics and Analytics, and Administrative Law Judges as indirect for regulatory fee purposes.

17. Following this framework, the Commission assesses the allocation of FTEs by first determining the number of direct non-auctions FTEs in each of the Commission's core bureaus. Early in each fiscal year, the Human Resources Management office identifies FTEs at the core bureau level. We then validate that data through consultation with the bureaus and offices to determine the number of direct FTEs allocated to each of the five core bureaus. Those numbers are then used to calculate the corresponding percentage of the total amount of regulatory fees to be collected for a given fiscal year from the fee payors of each core bureau. The percentage for each core bureau is the number of direct non-auction FTEs within the core bureau divided by the total number of direct non-auction FTEs in the Commission. Other factors the Commission takes into consideration include the annual S&E appropriation and the projected unit estimates.

18. This means regulatory fees are initially apportioned across the regulatory fee categories based on the number of direct FTEs in each core bureau whose time is focused on a particular industry segment and then are adjusted “to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.” Specifically, staff allocates appropriated amounts to be recovered proportionally based on the number of direct FTEs within each core bureau. Those proportions are then subdivided and apportioned within each core bureau into fee categories among the regulatees being served based on the time spent on each fee category. Finally, within each regulatory fee category, the amount to be collected is divided by a unit count that allocates the regulatory fee payor's proportionate share based on an objective measure. As a general matter, there is no additional calculation to attribute indirect costs. Instead, the proportional allocation of the whole S&E appropriation based on the number of direct FTEs effectively attributes all indirect costs among the core bureaus so that the Commission can recover its entire appropriation each year.

19. The FTE time devoted to developing and implementing the Commission's spectrum auctions is not included in the calculation of regulatory fees and is not offset by the collection of regulatory fees. To the extent that FTEs within the core bureaus spend a portion of their time on auctions issues and a portion of their time on appropriated issues, their time is split and only the non-auctions portion of their time is reflected in the relevant core bureau's direct FTE count. Thus, the Commission's methodology excludes all spectrum auction-related FTEs and their overhead from the regulatory fee calculations.

20. In order to collect regulatory fees in the amount required by its annual S&E appropriation, the Commission conducts a rulemaking proceeding each year to consider any necessary increases or decreases in the number of units subject to the payment of such fees and to reflect any adjustments needed to the prior year's fees schedule. For example, if the number of units in a regulatory fee category increases, the amount due per unit may decrease. This would also include proportionate increases in a given fee category to reflect an overall increase in the annual FY appropriation. Such changes are rarely the subject of dispute and are usually addressed in the more ministerial changes to the fee schedule. The Commission will propose amendments to the fee schedule “if it determines that changes are necessary for the fees to reflect the full-time equivalent number of employees within the bureaus and offices of the Commission, adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the ( printed page 25271) payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.” Pursuant to the Act, the Commission must notify Congress immediately upon adoption of any adjustment. The Act also requires the Commission to notify Congress at least 90 days prior to making effective any amendments to the regulatory fee schedule.

21. In implementing our statutory authority, we consider the adoption of a new regulatory fee category or a change in an existing regulatory fee category only when we develop a sufficient basis for making the change, ensuring that our assessment of regulatory fees is fair, administrable, and sustainable. The Commission will adopt new regulatory fee categories and new methodologies for calculating regulatory fees when there is a sufficient basis for doing so based on the record, and under the relevant statutory provisions and precedent.

IV. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

22. In this NPRM, we propose to adopt a schedule of regulatory fees to be assessed and collected for FY 2026 and seek comment on those proposals as set forth in Tables 3 and 4. As discussed below, we propose to increase the number of FTEs that are allocated directly to the core licensing bureaus for FY 2026 based upon the determination that the burden of the FTE work is sufficiently linked to the oversight and regulation of certain regulatory fee payors. In particular, we propose to reallocate a total of 59 indirect FTEs as direct FTEs to the Commission's core licensing bureaus from certain bureaus and offices, while we propose to allocate no such FTE work as direct from others as the Commission has done in the past. We also seek comment on our proposal to continue to calculate television broadcaster regulatory fees using the Commission's methodology of population-based full-service broadcast television regulatory fees and whether to use a different data source for our assessment of fees on CMRS providers.

A. Assessment of Regulatory Fees

1. Methodology for Assessing Regulatory Fees

23. For FY 2026, we propose to assess and collect $416,112,000 in regulatory fees, which is equal to our annual salaries and expenses (S&E) FY 2026 appropriation. Section 9 of the Communications Act requires us to set regulatory fees to “reflect the full-time equivalent number of employees within the bureaus and offices of the Commission adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.” Our first step in establishing our regulatory fee schedule is identifying changes from the prior fiscal year regulatory fee proceeding, e.g., changes in the (i) FY S&E appropriation, (ii) FTE levels, and (iii) relevant unit measures for each regulatory fee category. Our second step is to identify the number of direct non-auction FTEs in each core bureau for purposes of the regulatory fee calculation. After we determine the number of direct FTEs for each core bureau, we calculate the percentage of regulatory fees that we will need to collect for the given fiscal year from each regulatory fee category within each core bureau. These proportional calculations allocate all Commission non-auction related costs across all regulatory fee categories.

2. Adjustment of Reallocations of Certain Indirect FTEs as Direct FTEs

24. Using the Commission's long-standing methodology to assess regulatory fees, staff conducted a high-level analysis of the time utilized in the oversight and regulation of certain segments of the telecommunications industry to propose regulatory fees for FY 2026, which reflect the full-time equivalent number of employees within the Commission's bureaus and offices, adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities. Our proposals to reallocate certain indirect FTEs as direct to one of the Commission's core bureaus reflect our conclusion that we can determine, with reasonable accuracy for this fiscal year, that certain FTE time from the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Economics and Analytics, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau is devoted to work that is sufficiently linked to the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors such that the FTE burden of that work should be allocated as direct to a core bureau for regulatory fee purposes. As the Commission has explained, it will continue to evaluate whether any FTEs should be reallocated for regulatory fee purposes each year when reviewing and validating the FTE data. The Commission, however, will exercise its discretion regarding where to focus its analytical efforts each year to best respond to changes in the Commission's substantive work and organization, and changes in the telecommunications industry itself.

25. Any commenter seeking a change or modification to our proposed methodology for FY 2026 should include a thorough analysis showing a sufficient basis for making the change and provide alternative options for the Commission to meet its statutory obligation to collect the full amount of the appropriation by the end of the fiscal year. Commenters should also explain how their proposal is fair, administrable, and sustainable.

3. Adjustment of Reallocations of Certain Indirect FTEs as Direct FTEs

26. According to information provided by our Human Resources Management office, at the start of FY 2026, there were 317.5 direct non-auctions FTEs distributed among the core licensing bureaus. With respect to the FTE time in the non-core bureaus and offices, as we have done in prior years, staff has undertaken a high-level, yet comprehensive analysis of the work being performed by non-auctions FTEs in the Office of Economics and Analytics, Office of General Counsel, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, as well as the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, the Enforcement Bureau, and the Office of Engineering and Technology (and other bureaus and offices) to determine if identifiable FTE time in those organizational units is related to the oversight and regulation of fee payors such that it should be taken into consideration in applying our fee methodology. In other words, staff has examined and validated the data to determine the proposals regarding whether any FTE time in the non-core bureaus and offices should be reallocated to be considered as direct FTE time to a core bureau.

27. The Commission has previously concluded that the majority of FTE work being performed in the non-core bureaus and offices should be categorized as indirect because it benefits the Commission and the entire telecommunications industry generally and does not specifically focus on regulatory fee payors. We do not revisit this general determination on an annual basis because doing so is not administrable as it would require the Commission to expend considerable resources to attempt to calculate the constantly shifting work of its FTEs within these organizational units. We nonetheless acknowledge that our consideration of whether the work of our FTEs is direct or indirect can change over time based on the priority of the Commission's work assignments, fluctuations within industry segments, and needs of specific regulatory fee payors. After analyzing the data for FY 2026, we tentatively conclude that the FTE burden associated with the majority of the work in the Commission's non- ( printed page 25272) core bureaus and offices remains indirect because it cannot be attributed to specific categories of fee payors and it broadly benefits the Commission, the entire communications industry, and the general public.

28. Nevertheless, as the Commission has found in the past three fiscal years, the data for FY 2026 do support a conclusion that some measurable time is being spent by FTEs in the Office of Economics and Analytics, the Office of General Counsel and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau that is directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors in certain industry segments such that it should be reallocated to a core bureau. The proposals in this proceeding do not alter the functions of and delegation of authority to the Office of Economics and Analytics, the Office of General Counsel and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. We therefore propose to reallocate 61 FTEs from the Office of Economics and Analytics, the Office of General Counsel, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau as direct FTEs to core bureaus because the nature of their work has been determined to be primarily related to the oversight and regulation of fee payors. Specifically, for FY 2026, we propose reallocating 31 FTEs from the Office of Economics and Analytics as direct to a core bureau for regulatory fee purposes as follows: three to the Space Bureau, one to the Office of International Affairs, eight to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 17 to the Wireline Competition Bureau, and two to the Media Bureau. Similarly, we propose reallocating three FTEs from the Office of General Counsel as direct FTEs to a core bureaus follows: one to the Wireline Competition Bureau, one to the Space Bureau, and one to the Media Bureau. Likewise, we propose reallocating 27 FTEs in the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau as direct to a core bureau as follows: 13 to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, eight to the Wireline Competition Bureau, and six to the Media Bureau. Notably, the reallocations the Commission makes in its annual rulemaking are not cumulative but rather reflect changes in the underlying number of FTEs in the non-core bureaus and/or changes in the amount of work performed by the non-core bureaus for this fiscal year. We seek comment on these proposed reallocations.

29. Additionally, consistent with the Commission's past practice, we propose reallocating two FTEs from the Media Bureau as indirect FTEs because the nature of their work is similar to work performed in the Enforcement Bureau, which we consider to be indirect. These reallocations result in an overall proposed increase of 59 FTEs being reallocated as direct FTEs to core bureaus.

30. Our proposals to reallocate FTEs for FY 2026 rely on staff's validation of the data and the same analysis employed in the last three fiscal years evaluating whether measurable FTE time is primarily being spent on the regulation and oversight of regulatory fee payors such that it should be considered as direct to a core bureau. Specifically, where the amount of work under consideration equaled .5 FTE or less, we rounded down to the nearest whole FTE and only proposed our reallocations in one full FTE increments. In analyzing the work of indirect FTEs in the non-core bureaus, we applied conservative estimates. The Commission previously concluded that less than a full-time FTE demonstrates that the work being done is appropriately considered to be indirect and should not be reassigned.

31. As represented below, FTE time associated with the proposed reallocations would be added to the direct FTE totals of the relevant core bureau. In other words, these reallocations would increase the number of direct FTEs in a core bureau and reduce the total number of indirect FTEs within the Commission. Because our underlying methodology for calculating regulatory fees remains unchanged, we tentatively conclude that our regulatory fee calculation continues to be consistent with section 9 of the Communications Act, which requires us to base our methodology on the number of FTEs in calculating regulatory fees. We seek comment on this conclusion.

32. Table 1 below shows the percentage of regulatory fees allocated to each core bureau based on the proposed reallocation of a total of 59 FTEs as direct to a core bureau. Our proposed reallocations result in an 18.58% increase in our overall direct FTE count for the fiscal year. These reallocations would be proportionally distributed within the core bureau. We seek comment on these reallocations for FY 2026 in Tables 3 and 4, which are based on our existing methodology and incorporate these proposals.

33. As reflected in Table 1 above, based on these proposed reallocations and after adjustments are made to the direct FTE counts to implement Commission precedent, we would have a total of 376.5 non-auctions direct FTEs for FY 2026. Accordingly, as shown in Table 2 below, we would propose to collect approximately $9.988 million (2.40%) in fees from the Office of International Affairs regulatory fee payors; $53.267 million (12.80%) in fees from the Space Bureau regulatory fee payors; $113.192 million (27.20%) in fees from Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulatory fee payors; $119.296 million (28.67%%) in fees from Wireline Competition Bureau regulatory fee payors; and $120.369 million (28.93%) in fees from Media Bureau regulatory fee payors.

34. Any proposals or comments requesting a change or modification to these proposed regulatory fees for FY 2026 should include a thorough analysis showing a sufficient basis for making the change and should provide alternative options for the Commission to meet its statutory obligation to collect the full amount of the appropriation by the end of the fiscal year. Commenters should also indicate how such proposed alternative options are fair, administrable, and sustainable.

35. While above we have proposed reallocating some FTEs from the Office of Economics and Analytics, the Office of General Counsel, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau as direct to a core bureau, to date, our analysis of the work of FTEs in the Office of Engineering and Technology, Enforcement Bureau, and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau has not justified similar reallocations. In prior orders, the Commission has continually reached this conclusion, and we are aware of nothing specific in FY 2026 that would support a different approach. For example, in previously examining the work of FTEs in the Office of Engineering and Technology, the Commission has repeatedly explained that the office provides engineering and technical expertise to the agency as a whole and supports each of the agency's core bureaus. Likewise, the Commission has long concluded that Enforcement Bureau oversight is focused on the integrity of Commission's rules and ensuring the implementation of the Communications Act, which is FTE work that benefits the agency as a whole and directly benefits the American public, and not one particular group of regulatory fee payors. Similarly, in prior evaluations of the work of FTEs in the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, the Commission has observed that the bureau is primarily devoted to developing and implementing consumer policies as required by the Communications Act, including disability rights, consumer education, processing informal complaints, outreach to state, local, and Tribal governments, and oversight more generally of the telecommunications industry ( e.g., establishing and oversight of the Reassigned Numbers Database). In sum, historically, the Commission has found it would not be equitable for any one regulatory fee group of payors to shoulder the FTE burden of such work.

36. In the FY 2023 Report and Order, the Commission explained that, as part of its annual FTE analysis, it will continue to evaluate whether any FTEs should be reallocated for regulatory fee purposes when reviewing and ( printed page 25274) validating the FTE data, but it noted that in doing so, it will exercise its discretion regarding where to focus its analytical efforts each year in order to best respond to changes in the Commission's substantive work and organization, and changes in the telecommunications industry itself. The Commission therefore indicated that where its analysis merits inclusion of proposed reallocations, it will seek comment on any such potential reallocation of FTEs in an annual proceeding. In other words, consistent with our existing methodology, we will reevaluate the nature of work performed within the non-core bureaus and offices if there is a reasoned basis to determine that measurable FTE work is being done within an organizational unit that should be reallocated to be direct to an identifiable category of fee payors.

37. We invite commenters to offer any new or current reasons why the Commission should reexamine the nature of the work being performed by FTEs in its non-core bureaus and offices. For instance, have there been any significant developments in the communications industry, changes in law, and/or substantial shifts in Commission policy and workload over the past year that suggest that there would now be measurable FTE work being performed in the Office of Engineering and Technology, Enforcement Bureau, or Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau that directly benefits a specific category of fee payors? In particular, have there been changes in any industry segment or any increases in the specific work performed by staff of the Commission that necessitate a reevaluation of our general determination that the work being performed by FTEs within these organizational units remains indirect? Are there any significant rulemakings or adjudications involving the FTEs from the Office of Engineering and Technology, Enforcement Bureau, or Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau that might warrant further examination of whether there is measurable FTE work in these organizational units being devoted directly in furtherance of the oversight and regulation of specific fee payors? Have there been substantial changes such that the Commission's previously articulated policy reasons for treating these FTEs as indirect no longer hold? How can we ensure that the nature of any such identified work would remain consistent throughout the fiscal year, and that any recategorization of FTE work from indirect to direct would adhere to our statutory requirements and be consistent with our goal of a regulatory fee system that is fair, administrable and sustainable? In the absence of changes in fact or law, we request that commenters refrain from filing comments advancing repetitious arguments advocating for new categories of fee payors that have previously been declined by the Commission.

B. Broadcast Television Stations

38. For FY 2026, we also propose to continue to assess fees for full-power broadcast television stations based on the population covered by a full-service broadcast television station's contour as the Commission has since 2020. The population-based methodology conforms with the service authorized here—broadcasting television to the American people. We further propose to continue our use of 2020 U.S. Census data to assess fees for full-power broadcast television stations, as we traditionally have over the last few years. The population data for broadcasters' service areas are determined using the TVStudy software and the Licensing and Management System (LMS) database, based on a station's projected noise-limited service contour. TVStudy software is released by the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology. TVStudy uses 2020 U.S. Census data and interfaces with data contained in the LMS to perform coverage and interference analyses of full service digital and Class A television stations. However, consistent with the Commission's prior decisions, we will continue to base assessments on limiting the population count of full-power television stations that rely on satellite television stations to reach terrain-limited areas in Puerto Rico. As previously implemented, the Commission based assessments on a full-power television station and its satellite facility on a maximum of 3.1 million population. We seek comment on our mechanism for how we will calculate the regulatory fee based on the previously decided population-based methodology. We propose adopting a factor of $.006957 per population served for the FY 2026 full-power broadcast television station fee. The population data for each licensee and the population-based fee (population multiplied by $.006957 for each full-power broadcast television station) are listed in Table 8. For those VHF stations whose power had to be increased to obtain a clearer signal, the Commission will continue to use a population count based on that station's lower VHF power level rather than at the increased power level. We seek comment on these proposed fees.

C. CMRS and Mobile Services Assessments

39. Pursuant to statute, the Commission's regulatory fee assessments are keyed to the FTE burden associated with the oversight and regulation of its regulatory fee payors. For each regulatory fee payor category, the Commission must have a mechanism to apportion the fee within a category. For some payors, the unit measure is per license; for other payors, it is per subscriber or it relates to population served. Since FY 2004, the Commission has used a unit measure methodology of assessing regulatory fees for CMRS providers based on the count of “assigned numbers” reported in providers' biannual Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) filings, with such data serving as a proxy for a provider's subscriber count.

40. Given the passage of time and new data collections adopted and implemented by the Commission that also provide the Commission with visibility into CMRS providers' subscriber counts, we seek comment on whether using a different unit measure to apportion regulatory fees for CMRS providers would better reflect the FTE burden of oversight of such fee payors. Would another source of data result in a unit measure for CMRS providers that would better achieve our goal that all aspects of our regulatory fee methodology be fair, sustainable, and administrable? For instance, would using mobile subscription data that service providers are required to submit into the Broadband Data Collection (BDC) system to determine CMRS unit counts for regulatory fee purposes be administratively easier for both the Commission and fee payors? Providers of mobile services, among others, must submit subscription data required under FCC Form 477 into the BDC system. Would using another source of data like the BDC lead to a more accurate outcome? Keeping in mind our statutory obligation to amend the fee schedule with factors that are reasonably related to the benefit of the payor of the fee and our policy goal of ensuring that our regulatory fees are fair, administrable, and sustainable, what are the tradeoffs in using one data source over another? For the purposes of the Commission's ability to determine most accurately a CMRS provider's unit counts for the assessment of regulatory fees, are there discernable variances between the Commission's data sources that make one fairer than another? We ask commenters to provide detailed ( printed page 25275) comments regarding why one data source may provide a superior basis than the other for the purposes of assessing CMRS regulatory fees.

41. To the extent we adopt a change to the data used to assess regulatory fees for this category of fee payors, any such changes would not be implemented until FY 2027 to allow fee payors the opportunity to prepare for the change and also to comply with relevant congressional notification requirements.

D. Improving the Regulatory Fee Process

42. As part of the Commission's statutory obligation to assess and collect regulatory fees each fiscal year in an amount equal to its annual S&E appropriation, the Commission strives to consider ways in which it can improve the regulatory fee process. In implementing our section 9 authority, we consider the adoption of a new regulatory fee category or a change in an existing regulatory fee category only when we develop a sufficient basis for making the change, and we work to ensure that all changes serve the goal of ensuring that our assessment of regulatory fees is fair, administrable, and sustainable. The concept of administrability includes the difficulty in collecting regulatory fees under a system that could have unpredictable dramatic shifts in assessed fees in certain categories from year to year. As explained herein, our meticulous approach to making changes to our process and methodology ensures that our actions in assessing regulatory fees are fair, administrable, and sustainable. For FY 2026, we again invite comment “on ways to improve our regulatory fee process.” Commenters should be mindful of the Commission's prior conclusions with respect to past proposals and fully explain the legal bases for any proposals they make and how such proposals fit within the Commission's statutory authority, precedent, and existing regulatory fee methodology.

43. Specifically, for the last several years, the Commission has rejected proposals for new fee categories offered by commenters because they have failed to satisfy the fair, administrable, and sustainable standard. After reviewing the FTE data for this fiscal year and the expected work of those FTEs, we tentatively conclude that there is no basis upon which to propose new fee categories. Commenters that disagree with this tentative conclusion should provide detailed evidence of materially changed circumstances, rather than reiterate arguments that the Commission has historically declined to adopt.

V. Procedural Matters

44. Included below are procedural items as well as our current payment and collection methods. We include these payments and collection procedures to remind regulatory fee payers and the public about these aspects of the annual regulatory fee collection process.

45. Credit Card Transaction Levels. In accordance with Treasury Financial Manual, Volume I, Part 5, Chapter 7000, Section 7065.20a— Credit Card Collections, the total daily credit card transactions processed from a single customer can be no more than $24,999.99 (hereinafter the “Maximum Daily Limit”) and the total monthly transactions processed from a single customer (based on a rolling 30-day period) can be no more than $100,000.00 (hereinafter the “Maximum Monthly Limit”). Transactions greater than the Maximum Limits will be rejected. If a customer initiates multiple transactions on the same day with the same credit card, those transactions causing the total charge to exceed the Maximum Limits will also be rejected. This applies to single payments or bundled payments of more than one bill. Multiple transactions to a single agency in one day may be aggregated and treated as a single transaction subject to the $24,999.99 limit. Customers who wish to pay an amount greater than $24,999.99 should consider available electronic alternatives such as debit cards, Automated Clearing House (ACH) debits from a bank account, and wire transfers. Each of these payment options is available after filing regulatory fee information in the Commission's Registration System (CORES). Further details will be provided regarding payment methods and procedures at the time of FY 2026 regulatory fee collection in Fact Sheets, https://www.fcc.gov/​regfees.

46. Payment Methods. During the fee season for collecting regulatory fees, regulatees can pay their fees by credit card through Pay.gov, ACH, debit card, or by wire transfer. Additional payment instructions are posted on the Commission's website at https://www.fcc.gov/​licensing-databases/​fees. The receiving bank for all wire payments is the U.S. Treasury, New York, NY (TREAS NYC). Any other form of payment ( e.g., checks, cashier's checks, or money orders) will be rejected. For payments by wire, an FCC Form 159-E should still be transmitted via fax so that the Commission can associate the wire payment with the correct regulatory fee information. The fax should be sent to the Commission at (202) 418-2843 at least one hour before initiating the wire transfer (but on the same business day) so as not to delay crediting their account. Regulatees should discuss arrangements (including bank closing schedules) with their bankers several days before they plan to make the wire transfer to allow sufficient time for the transfer to be initiated and completed before the deadline. Complete instructions for making wire payments are posted at https://www.fcc.gov/​licensing-databases/​fees/​wire-transfer.

47. Standard Fee Calculations and Payment Dates. The Commission will accept fee payments made in advance of the window for the payment of regulatory fees. The responsibility for payment of fees by service category is as follows:

48. Media Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for initial construction permits that were granted on or before October 1, 2025 for AM/FM radio stations, full-power VHF/UHF broadcast television stations, and satellite television stations. Regulatory fees must be paid for all broadcast facility licenses granted on or before October 1, 2025.

49. Wireline (Common Carrier) Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 2025. In instances where an authorization is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2025, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the authorization as of the fee due date. Audio bridging service providers are included in this category. For Responsible Organizations (RespOrgs) that manage Toll Free Numbers (TFN), regulatory fees should be paid on all working, assigned, and reserved toll free numbers as well as toll free numbers in any other status as defined in section 52.103 of the Commission's rules. The unit count should be based on toll free numbers managed by RespOrgs on or about December 31, 2025.

50. Wireless Services: Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) cellular, mobile, and messaging services (fees based on number of subscribers or telephone number count): Regulatory fees must be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 2025. The number of subscribers, units, or telephone numbers on December 31, 2025 will be used as the basis from which to calculate the fee payment. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2025, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

51. Wireless Services, Multi-year fees: The first eight regulatory fee categories ( printed page 25276) in our Schedule of Regulatory Fees (first seven in our Calculation of Fees Table) pay “small multi-year wireless regulatory fees.” Entities pay these regulatory fees in advance for the entire amount covered by the ten-year terms of their initial licenses and pay regulatory fees again only when the license is renewed, or a new license is obtained. We include these fee categories in our rulemaking to publicize our estimates of the number of “small multi-year wireless” licenses that will be renewed or newly obtained in FY 2026.

52. Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) Services (cable television operators, Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) licensees, DBS, and IPTV): Regulatory fees must be paid for the number of basic cable television subscribers as of December 31, 2025. Regulatory fees also must be paid for CARS licenses that were granted on or before October 1, 2025. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2025, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date. For providers of DBS service and IPTV-based MVPDs, regulatory fees should be paid based on a subscriber count on or about December 31, 2025. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2025, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

53. Space Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for earth stations that were licensed (or authorized) on or before October 1, 2025. Regulatory fees must also be paid for geostationary orbit space stations (GSO) and non-geostationary orbit satellite systems (NGSO), and the two NGSO subcategories “Small Constellations” and “Large Constellations,” that were authorized or granted U.S. market access on or before October 1, 2025. Licensees of small satellites and space stations principally used for Rendezvous and Proximity Operations (RPO) or On-Orbit Servicing (OOS), including Orbit Transfer Vehicles (OTV), that were authorized or granted U.S. market access on or before October 1, 2025 must also pay regulatory fees. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2025, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the authorization as of the fee due date.

54. International Services ( Submarine Cable Systems, Terrestrial and Satellite Services): Regulatory fees for submarine cable systems are to be paid on a per cable landing license basis based on lit circuit capacity as of December 31, 2025. Regulatory fees for terrestrial and satellite IBCs are to be paid based on active (used or leased) international bearer circuits as of December 31, 2025, in any terrestrial or satellite transmission facility for the provision of service to an end user or resale carrier. When calculating the number of such active circuits, entities must include circuits used by themselves or their affiliates. For these purposes, “active circuits” include backup and redundant circuits as of December 31, 2025. Whether circuits are used specifically for voice or data is not relevant for purposes of determining that they are active circuits. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2025, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

55. CMRS and Mobile Services Assessments. The Commission will compile data from the Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) report that is based on “assigned” telephone number (subscriber) counts that have been adjusted for porting to net Type 0 ports (“in” and “out”). We have included non-geographic numbers in the calculation of the number of subscribers for each CMRS provider in Table 3 and the CMRS regulatory fee factor proposed in Table 4. CMRS provider regulatory fees will be calculated and should be paid based on the inclusion of non-geographic numbers. CMRS providers can adjust the total number of subscribers, if needed. This information of telephone numbers (subscriber count) will be posted on CORES along with the carrier's Operating Company Numbers (OCNs).

56. A carrier wishing to revise its telephone number (subscriber) count can do so by accessing CORES and following the prompts to revise their telephone number counts. Any revisions to the telephone number counts should be accompanied by an explanation. The Commission will then review the revised count and supporting explanation, if any, and either approve or disapprove the submission in CORES. If the submission is disapproved, the Commission will contact the provider to afford the provider an opportunity to discuss its revised subscriber count and/or provide supporting documentation. If the Commission receives no response from the provider, or the Commission does not reverse its initial disapproval of the provider's revised count submission, the fee payment must be based on the number of subscribers listed initially in CORES. Once the timeframe for revision has passed, the telephone number counts are final and are the basis upon which CMRS regulatory fees are to be paid. Providers can view their final telephone counts online in CORES.

57. Because some carriers do not file the NRUF report, they may not see their telephone number counts in CORES. In these instances, the carriers should compute their fee payment using the standard methodology that is currently in place for CMRS Wireless services ( i.e., compute their telephone number counts as of December 31, 2025), and submit their fee payment accordingly. Whether a carrier reviews its telephone number counts in CORES or not, the Commission reserves the right to audit the number of telephone numbers for which regulatory fees are paid. If the Commission determines that a carrier paid CMRS or mobile services regulatory fees based on an incorrect number of telephone numbers, the Commission will bill the carrier for the difference between what was paid and what should have been paid.

58. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, a summary of this document will be available on https://www.fcc.gov/​proposed-rulemakings.

Table 5—Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY 2026

In order to calculate individual service fees for FY 2026, we adjusted FY 2025 payment units for each service to more accurately reflect expected FY 2026 payment liabilities. We obtained our updated estimates through a variety of means and sources. For example, we used Commission licensee databases, actual prior year payment records, and industry and trade association projections, where available. The databases we consulted include our Universal Licensing System (ULS), International Communications Filing System (ICFS), Licensing and Management System (LMS), and Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS), as well as reports generated within the Commission such as the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast. Regulatory fee payment units are not all the same for all fee categories. For most fee categories, the term “units” ( printed page 25279) reflects licenses or permits that have been issued, but for other fee categories, the term “units” reflects quantities such as subscribers, population counts, circuit counts, telephone numbers, and revenues. As more current data are received after the NPRM is released, the Commission sometimes adjusts the NPRM fee rates to reflect the new information in the Report and Order. This is intended to make sure that the fee rates in the Report and Order reflect more recent and accurate information. We realize that by adjusting the unit counts as more accurate information is received may adjust the fee rates for certain regulatory fee categories. Certain entities that collect the fees from customers in advance in order to pay the Commission, such as Cable and DBS companies, ITSP providers, Cell Phone and Toll-Free providers, may need to adjust their billings to customers as the Commission adjusts its fee rates. As a result, the Commission understands that these adjustments are necessary so that these regulatees can recover their fee obligations from their customers.

We sought verification for these estimates from multiple sources and, in all cases, we compared FY 2026 estimates with actual FY 2025 payment units to ensure that our revised estimates were reasonable. Where appropriate, we adjusted and/or rounded our final estimates to take into consideration the fact that certain variables that impact on the number of payment units cannot yet be estimated with sufficient accuracy. These include an unknown number of waivers and/or exemptions that may occur in FY 2026 and the fact that, in many services, the number of actual licensees or station operators fluctuates over time due to economic, technical, or other reasons. When we note, for example, that our estimated FY 2026 payment units are based on FY 2025 actual payment units, it does not necessarily mean that our FY 2026 projection is exactly the same number as in FY 2025. We have either rounded the FY 2026 number or adjusted it slightly to account for these variables.

Table 6—Factors, Measurements, and Calculations That Determine Station Signal Contours and Associated Population Coverages

AM Stations

For stations with nondirectional daytime antennas, the theoretical radiation was used at all azimuths. For stations with directional daytime antennas, specific information on each day tower, including field ratio, phase, spacing, and orientation was retrieved, as well as the theoretical pattern root-mean-square of the radiation in all directions in the horizontal plane (RMS) figure (milliVolt per meter (mV/m) @1 km) for the antenna system. The standard, or augmented standard if pertinent, horizontal plane radiation pattern was calculated using techniques and methods specified in sections 73.150 and 73.152 of the Commission's rules. Radiation values were calculated for each of 360 radials around the transmitter site. Next, estimated soil conductivity data was retrieved from a database representing the information in FCC Figure R3. Using the calculated horizontal radiation values, and the retrieved soil conductivity data, the distance to the principal community (5 mV/m) contour was predicted for each of the 360 radials. The resulting distance to principal community contours were used to form a geographical polygon. Population counting was accomplished by determining which 2020 block centroids were contained in the polygon. (A block centroid is the center point of a small area containing population as computed by the U.S. Census Bureau.) The sum of the population figures for all enclosed blocks represents the total population for the predicted principal community coverage area.

FM Stations

The greater of the horizontal or vertical effective radiated power (ERP) (kW) and respective height above average terrain (HAAT) (m) combination was used. Where the antenna height above mean sea level (HAMSL) was available, it was used in lieu of the average HAAT figure to calculate specific HAAT figures for each of 360 radials under study. Any available directional pattern information was applied as well, to produce a radial-specific ERP figure. The HAAT and ERP figures were used in conjunction with the Field Strength (50-50) propagation curves specified in 47 CFR 73.313 of the Commission's rules to predict the distance to the principal community (70 dBu (decibel above 1 microVolt per ( printed page 25280) meter) or 3.17 mV/m) contour for each of the 360 radials. The resulting distance to principal community contours were used to form a geographical polygon. Population counting was accomplished by determining which 2020 block centroids were contained in the polygon. The sum of the population figures for all enclosed blocks represents the total population for the predicted principal community coverage area.

( printed page 25283)

Table 9 FY 2025 Schedule of Regulatory Fees

Regulatory fees for the first eight categories listed, identified with an *, are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed. ( printed page 25309)

VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

59. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) assessing the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments ( printed page 25310) must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy. In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

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

60. Each fiscal year, the Commission is required to collect regulatory fees in an amount equal to our annual salaries and expenses (S&E) appropriation by the end of September. Pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act), and the fiscal year (FY) 2026 Further Consolidation Appropriations Act, the Commission must collect $416,112,000, which is an amount equal to its fiscal year (FY) 2026 salaries and expenses (S&E) appropriation. The Commission's methodology for assessing regulatory fees must “reflect the full-time equivalent number of employees within the bureaus and offices of the Commission, adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.” The total amount we must collect in an offsetting collection generally changes each fiscal year, and payors' regulatory fees will also typically change each fiscal year as a mathematical consequence of the changes in the total amount to be collected, the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs), and projected unit estimates for each regulatory fee category. The NPRM seeks comment on the proposed regulatory fees and methodology for FY 2026, as set forth in Tables 3 and 4. The NPRM also seeks comment on the calculation of television broadcaster regulatory fees as set forth in Table 8, whether we should reexamine the “indirect” classification of FTEs in its non-core bureaus and offices, and whether to use a different data source for our assessment of fees on CMRS providers. Finally, we seek comment on whether there are ways to improve our regulatory fee process in order to meet our statutory obligations to assess and collect regulatory fees from payors, some of which are small entities.

B. Legal Basis

61. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 9, 9A, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 159, 159A, and 303(r).

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

62. 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, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 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. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing so.

63. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. 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. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, “small organization” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field.” While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, “small governmental jurisdiction” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with a populations of less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.

64. The rules proposed in the NPRM will apply to small entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified industry, we conclude that the proposed rules will impact a substantial number of small entities. Where available, we also provide additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the industries identified below.

( printed page 25311)

D. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

65. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.

66. The NPRM does not propose any changes to the Commission's current information collection, reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements for collecting regulatory fees from small entities. Small and other regulated entities are required to pay regulatory fees on an annual basis. The cost of compliance with the annual regulatory assessment for small entities is the amount assessed for their regulatory fee category, which may increase or decrease based upon the methodology employed by the Commission in FY 2026 to determine the allocation of direct FTEs within the core bureaus, and indirect FTEs in non-core bureaus and offices. Complying with their annual regulatory assessment should not require small entities to hire professionals to comply, as they are accustomed to paying the annual fees and most should be familiar with both the Commission's current collection process.

67. For small licensees experiencing financial hardship, access to fee relief, via options such as waiver, reduction, deferral and/or installment payment of their regulatory fees may be available, and small entities may be exempt from paying a regulatory fee if the assessed fee is below the de minimis threshold that the Commission has established.

E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

68. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is required to include alternatives such as: “(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 and reporting requirements under the rule for such 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 such small entities.”

69. Assessment of Regulatory Fees. The Commission's long-standing methodology for assessing regulatory fees reflects the full-time equivalent number of employees within the Commission's bureaus and offices, adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities. In making such adjustments to establish our regulatory fee schedule for FY 2026, following a high-level staff analysis of the time utilized in the oversight and regulation of certain segments of the telecommunications industry, we propose reallocating certain indirect FTEs as direct to one of the Commission's core licensing bureaus. Our proposals reflect our conclusion that we can determine, with reasonable accuracy for this fiscal year, that certain FTE time from the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Economics and Analytics, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau is devoted to work that is sufficiently linked to the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors in a core bureau such that the FTE burden of that work should be allocated as direct to a licensing bureau for regulatory fee purposes.

70. For FY 2026, we propose that 61 indirect FTEs could be reallocated as direct FTEs to a relevant core bureau for purposes of calculating regulatory fees for FY 2026, which could reduce regulatory fee obligations for some small and other regulatory payees. ( printed page 25312) Additionally, consistent with the Commission's determination for the past three fiscal years, we propose to reallocate 2 direct FTEs from the Media Bureau to be indirect FTEs because the nature of their work is sufficiently linked to work that is similar to that performed in the Enforcement Bureau, which has previously been categorized as indirect. These reallocations result in an overall proposed increase of 59 indirect FTEs being reallocated as direct FTEs to core bureaus. While we considered alternatives to the reallocations we propose for FY 2026, we find that these proposed reallocations are consistent with section 9 of the Communications Act, which requires us to determine regulatory fees based on FTEs.

71. Broadcast Regulatory Fees. The NPRM considers and seeks comment on whether the Commission should continue to assess fees for full-power broadcast television stations based on the population covered by a full-service broadcast television station's contour, which may reduce the economic impact of the regulatory fees for some small licensees. While the population-based methodology increases fees for some licensees and reduces fees for others, the Commission believes the population-based metric better conforms with the service of broadcasting television to the American people.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

72. None.

VII. Ordering Clauses

73. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 47 U.S.C. 4(i), 4(j), 9, 9A, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 159, 159A, and 303(r), this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.

74. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy.