SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in MD Docket No. 26-94, FCC 26-59, adopted on August 26, 2026, and released on August 27, 2026. The full text of this document is available at docs.fcc.gov/​public/​attachments/​FCC-26-59A1.pdf. 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).

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 rulemakings, 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 a final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the potential impact of rule and policy changes contained in the FY 2026 Regulatory Fees Report and Order. The FRFA is set forth below.

Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Final 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).

I. Introduction

1. Each fiscal year (FY), 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 the Commission's statutory obligation in section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (Act or Communications Act) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, the Commission adopts a regulatory fee schedule for fiscal year (FY) 2026 to assess and collect $416,112,000, which is an amount that reasonably can be expected to total the Commission's FY 2026 salaries and expenses (S&E) appropriation. By statute, the Commission must collect these regulatory fees by the end of September.

2. In April, the Commission proposed a regulatory fee schedule for FY 2026. Consistent with the Commission's longstanding regulatory fee methodology and the record gathered, the Commission adopts most of the proposals in the FY 2026 NPRM,91 FR 25268, May 8, 2026, to increase the number of full time equivalents (FTEs) allocated directly to the core licensing bureaus for FY 2026. In particular, the Commission adopts the proposals to reallocate 61 FTEs from the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Economics and Analytics, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau as direct FTEs to the Commission's core licensing bureaus because the work of those FTEs is sufficiently linked to the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors such that the burden of that work should be considered in applying the Commission regulatory fee methodology. But, after careful review, the Commission declines to adopt the FY 2026 NPRM proposal to subtract two FTEs from the Media Bureau's direct allocation and also concludes it is appropriate to reallocate one additional FTE from the Office of General Counsel as direct to the Media Bureau. The Commission will, however, continue to treat all FTEs in the Office of Engineering and Technology, Enforcement Bureau, and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau as indirect. The Commission also adopts its proposal for the calculation of television broadcaster regulatory fees, as adjusted, and where appropriate, adjusts its appendices in response to company- and industry-specific facts put forward by certain commenters. The Commission implements these determinations and adopts a schedule of regulatory fees, as set forth in Tables 3 and 4.

3. Finally, the Commission declines to adopt any of the commenters' various proposals to depart from its well-established assessment methodology to lessen fees for regulatees in certain industry sectors, which would unfairly shift the burden of regulatory fees to other fee payors, or to implement new fee categories that were largely considered and rejected by the Commission as recently as last year, particularly since commenters have provided no basis to change the Commission's prior determinations. The Commission does not alter the data source used for assessing regulatory fees on Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers, and the Commission also declines to change the de minimis threshold of $1,000.

II. Background

4. FY 2026 started on October 1, 2025, and ends on September 30, 2026. The regulatory fee collection is guided by both the statutory authority in sections 6 and 9 of the Act and the explicit language of each fiscal year's S&E appropriation directing the amount to be collected as an offsetting collection. Pursuant to Section 9 of the Act and the Commission's FY 2026 S&E appropriation, the Commission is required to collect $416,112,000, in regulatory fees. The Act requires the Commission to assess and collect regulatory fees to recover the costs of carrying out its activities in the total amounts provided for in Appropriations Act. Regulatory fees must therefore cover 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 ( printed page 58259) include those such as rent, utilities, and equipment. Since regulatory fees must recover the total amount of the Commission's S&E appropriation for the fiscal year, 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. The Commission has previously observed that it is consistent with the Act to include those costs that are attributable to the fee paying and exempt regulatees in the revenue requirement because all of the regulatees in that fee category, whether they pay regulatory fees or not, benefit from the oversight and regulation of that bureau. The Commission's annual de minimis threshold remains at $1,000. The Commission takes into consideration the relatively small amount of waivers, exemptions, and non-payors in the Commission calculations each year so that it can recover the full amount of the Commission S&E appropriation. The Commission has no discretion regarding the amount of fees to be collected in any given fiscal year.

5. Congress has prescribed a method for the Commission to collect the full S&E appropriation by keying the Commission's regulatory fee assessment to its FTE burden. One FTE, a “Full Time Equivalent” or “Full Time Employee,” is a unit of measure equal to the work performed annually by a full-time person (working a 40-hr work week 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. In this proceeding, if the Commission states 1.5 FTEs work on a particular subject matter, that might mean three individuals spend 50% of their time on that area. Moreover, in the FY 2026 Regulatory Fees Report and Order, when the Commission discusses 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. 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). The Commission has previously concluded that allocating the work of FTEs in the Wireline Competition Bureau devoted to non-high-cost Universal Service Fund programs as indirect FTEs is consistent with how FTEs working for programs that benefit consumers and the American public are treated elsewhere in the Commission. Moreover, in the non-high-cost universal service fund programs, the E-Rate, Lifeline, and Rural Healthcare programs tie funding eligibility to the beneficiary, i.e., a school, a library, a low-income individual or family, or a rural healthcare provider and not to Commission regulatory fee payors. Thus, the burden of FTE time devoted to non-high-cost Universal Service Fund programs is properly categorized as indirect. As part of this determination, the Commission has also excluded broadcasters from the fee burden associated with these indirect FTEs because broadcasters do not directly participate in the universal service program. Thus, in its annual analysis of FTE time, after deducting the burden of this indirect FTE work from the calculation of the direct FTEs allocated to the Wireline Competition Bureau, the Commission apportions these FTEs as indirect among all fee payors except broadcasters. The Commission has also explained that most of the work of the Office of International Affairs, including the work of the Global Strategies and Negotiation Division, does not benefit a specific fee payor, but rather the government as a whole, and is therefore appropriately categorized as indirect. However, the Commission continues to categorize as direct the FTE work of the Office of International Affairs concerning international bearer circuit issues, including the services provided over submarine cables, determining that there are eight FTEs within the Office of International Affairs whose work was direct on that basis.

6. The total amount of the offsetting collection generally changes each fiscal year. Therefore, the regulatory fees due from fee 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. Insofar as the Communication Act's explicit language requires that fees must reflect FTEs, the Commission has consistently concluded that FTE counts are the most administrable starting point for regulatory fee allocations, and the Commission regulatory fees are based on the direct FTEs in core bureaus. Thus, when considering changes, additions, or deletions to the regulatory fee schedule, the Commission focus on the direct FTE cost burden related to the regulatory fee category at issue within each of the core licensing bureaus.

7. FTEs are not assigned within a bureau 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.” The Commission apportions 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. The Commission has stated that Section 9 of the Act is clear, however, that regulatory fee assessments are based on the burden imposed on the Commission, not benefits realized by regulatees. The Commission apportions 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 the collection of the Commission's regulatory fees is a zero-sum exercise.

8. The Commission allocates FTEs according to the nature of the work performed by its different organizational units. If FTE work directly relates to the oversight and regulation of a regulatory fee category in one of the five core licensing bureaus then it is considered to be direct. Work that cannot be allocated to one of those regulatory fee categories is counted as indirect FTE time.

9. Indirect FTE time covers a wide range of issues that include services that are not specifically correlated with one core bureau, let alone one specific category of regulatory fee payors. Indirect FTE work also includes matters that are not specific to any regulatory fee category, and many Commission attorneys, economists, engineers, ( printed page 58260) 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.

10. Following this framework, the Commission assesses the allocation of FTEs to regulatory fee payors by first determining the number of direct non-auctions FTEs in each of the Commission's core bureaus. Other factors the Commission takes into consideration include the annual S&E appropriation and the projected unit estimates. Early in each fiscal year, the Human Resources Management office identifies FTEs at the core bureau level. The Commission then validates 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.

11. This means fees are 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 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, the Commission 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 those 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.

12. 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. Thus, the Commission's methodology excludes all spectrum auction-related FTEs and their overhead from the regulatory fee calculations. 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 other 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.

13. In order to collect regulatory fees in the amount required by the Commission 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. As necessary, the Commission will also 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 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.

14. The Commission considers the adoption of a new regulatory fee category or a change in an existing regulatory fee category only when it develops a sufficient basis for making the change, ensuring that the Commission 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.

III. Discussion

15. The Commission received 12 comments and four reply comments in response to the Commission's FY 2026 NPRM. As generally supported by the record, the Commission adopts the Commission's proposals in the FY 2026 NPRM to reallocate 61 FTEs from the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Economics and Analytics, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau as direct FTEs to the Commission's core licensing bureaus. The Commission bases these reallocations on its determination with reasonable certainty for the fiscal year 2026 that the work of those FTEs is sufficiently linked to the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors such that the burden of that work should be considered in applying the Commission regulatory fee methodology. After further review, and based on those same determinations, the Commission also declines to adopt the FY 2026 NPRM proposal to reallocate two direct FTEs from Media Bureau as indirect and concludes it is appropriate to reallocate one additional FTE from the Office of General Counsel as direct to the Media Bureau.

16. Additionally, the Commission adopts its proposal to continue to calculate television broadcaster regulatory fees using the Commission's methodology of population-based full-service broadcast television regulatory fees. Furthermore, the Commission will continue using Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) assigned number data as the basis for assessing regulatory fees on Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers. The Commission also adjusts its tables in response to company- and industry-specific facts put forward by certain commenters. Finally, the Commission will continue to utilize a $1,000 de minimis threshold because it concludes the Commission's average cost of collections do not exceed that amount.

17. Consistent with the Commission's past practice, however, the Commission declines to reallocate other FTE work performed in the non-core bureaus, and the Commission concludes such work is appropriately considered to be indirect. Moreover, commenters have presented no new arguments for the Commission consideration to support their ( printed page 58261) suggestions to adopt new fee categories, and the Commission therefore reaffirms its repeated conclusion that additional proposed fee categories are not workable or logistically feasible at this time. The Commission will also continue its current approach to assessing space and earth station regulatory fees until the newly adopted Part 100 rules become effective and replace the existing rules governing satellite communications contained in Part 25, and until the Commission has had an opportunity to seek notice and comment on how those rules should be considered in applying its regulatory fee methodology.

18. Accordingly, using the Commission's historical methodology for allocating FTEs, the Commission adopts a regulatory fee schedule for FY 2026 as set forth in Tables 3 and 4 to assess and collect $416,112,000, which is an amount that reasonably can be expected to total the Commission's annual S&E FY 2026 appropriation.

A. Assessment of Regulatory Fees

1. Methodology for Assessing Regulatory Fees

19. Section 9 of the Communications Act requires the Commission 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.” As a general matter, the Commission's methodology to establish its regulatory fee schedule is to first identify 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. After that, the Commission identifies the number of direct non-auction FTEs in each core bureau for purposes of the regulatory fee calculation. The remaining non-auction FTEs are considered indirect and are not part of the regulatory fee calculation. Once the Commission determines the number of direct FTEs for each core bureau, the Commission calculates the percentage of regulatory fees that it 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. FTE Allocations

20. For FY 2026, the Commission implements the same methodology that the Commission has historically used to allocate FTEs. To conduct its annual review of regulatory fees for FY 2026, the Commission began by evaluating the work being performed by Commission FTEs. According to information provided by the Commission's 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 other bureaus and offices within the Commission, staff next conducted 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 Office of Engineering and Technology, the Enforcement Bureau, and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (and other bureaus and offices) in order to determine whether with reasonable certainty for the fiscal year 2026 any identifiable time of the FTEs in those organizational units is directly related to the oversight and regulation of fee payors such that it should be considered in applying the Commission's fee methodology. In other words, the Commission examined and validated the FTE data through consultation with the bureaus and offices to determine whether in applying the Commission's regulatory fee methodology any FTE time in the non-core bureaus and offices should be considered to be reallocated as direct FTE time to a core bureau.

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

21. Although the Commission continues to conclude that much of the work of the FTEs in the Office of Economics and Analytics, the Office of General Counsel, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau is appropriately considered indirect, in validating the FTE count for FY 2026, it again finds the data support a conclusion that there is measurable FTE time devoted to work that is sufficiently linked to the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors such that the burden of that work should be allocated as direct to a core bureau for regulatory fee purposes. Moreover, commenters generally support the Commission's efforts to ensure that regulatory fees reflect the work performed by Commission FTEs that benefits fee payors. Likewise, no commenter objects to the Commission's proposed reallocations from Office of Economics and Analytics, the Office of General Counsel, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. The Commission therefore adopts most of its proposals 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. With respect to the Office of General Counsel, however, the Commission concludes that one additional FTE should be allocated as direct. Additionally, the Commission declines to adopt the FY 2026 NPRM proposal to reallocate two direct FTEs from Media Bureau as indirect. These reallocations result in an increase of 62 FTEs being reallocated as direct FTEs to core bureaus.

22. In the FY 2026 NPRM, the Commission proposed to reallocate two FTEs as indirect from the Media Bureau because such FTE work is devoted to enforcement responsibilities. The Commission's proposal was based on a rationale first articulated in 2023. This rationale, however, acknowledged that the enforcement actions taken by the Media Bureau are associated with the Bureau's administration of the licensing programs for television and radio, rather than from an enforcement investigation. On review, the Commission finds that this work directly benefits the Media Bureau fee payors. As a result, reallocation of such FTE time as indirect would not be consistent with the statute nor with the Commission's overarching goals that its regulatory framework is fair, administrable, and sustainable. Furthermore, in reviewing the Commission's FTE allocations, it was presented with the fact that the Media Bureau has experienced staff reductions that required changes in work priorities which in turn made the measurement of this work to a degree of accuracy extremely difficult. That conclusion coupled with a fresh look at the nature of the work lead to the conclusion that the Commission lacks a basis for making the reallocation. Therefore, the Commission declines to adopt its proposal.

23. Additionally, because the amount of work of FTEs in the Office of General Counsel devoted to Media Bureau matters has increased in this fiscal year, the Commission reallocates an additional FTE to the Media Bureau as direct for this fiscal year. The Commission believes that this adjustment is fully consistent with its longstanding methodology, while offering a more precise and thus more equitable assessment of fees. Although the Commission makes this adjustment based on staff validation of the data regarding FTE utilization, it notes that it ( printed page 58262) is in accordance with the State Broadcasters Associations' “urg[ing] the Commission to conduct even more searching reviews of indirect FTE work going forward.”

24. Specifically, for FY 2026, the Commission reallocates 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, as explained above, the Commission reallocates four FTEs from the Office of General Counsel as direct FTEs to a core bureaus as follows: one to the Wireline Competition Bureau, one to the Space Bureau, and two to the Media Bureau. Likewise, the Commission reallocates 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.

25. The Commission bases these reallocations on staff's validation of the data and an analysis similar to 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. As the Commission has previously explained, in discussing FTEs, it is not referring to any particular employee at the Commission but rather an amount of work performed annually by a full time employee or employees. In analyzing the work of FTEs, the Commission's staff applies conservative estimates so as not to imply a false sense of precision in the reallocations. Specifically, where the amount of work under consideration for reallocation of an indirect FTE is half an FTE or less, the Commission rounds down, and it only implements reallocations in full FTE increments.

26. As represented below, FTE time associated with these reallocations is added to the direct FTE totals of the relevant core bureau. In other words, these reallocations increase the number of direct FTEs in a core bureau and reduce the total number of indirect FTEs within the Commission. Because the Commission's underlying methodology for calculating regulatory fees remains unchanged, it concludes that its regulatory fee calculation continues to be consistent with section 9 of the Communications Act, which requires the Commission to base its methodology on the number of FTEs.

27. Table 1 below shows the percentage of regulatory fees allocated to each core bureau based on the reallocation of a net increase of 62 FTEs as direct to a core bureau. These reallocations result in a 19.53% increase in the Commission overall direct FTE count for the fiscal year. These reallocations are proportionally distributed within the core bureau and are reflected in Tables 3 and 4, which are based on the Commission's existing methodology and incorporate these reallocations.

28. As reflected in Table 1 above, based on these reallocations and after adjustments are made to the direct FTE counts to implement Commission precedent, the Commission has a total of 379.5 non-auctions direct FTEs for FY 2026. Accordingly, as shown in Table 2 below, the Commission will collect approximately $9.909 million (2.38%) in fees from the Office of International Affairs regulatory fee payors; $52.851 million (12.70%) in fees from the Space Bureau regulatory fee payors; $112.308 million (26.99%) in fees from Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulatory fee payors; $118.363 million (28.45%) in fees from Wireline Competition Bureau regulatory fee payors; and ( printed page 58263) $122.681 million (29.48%) in fees from Media Bureau regulatory fee payors.

29. The Commission rejects requests to adjust its FTE analysis solely to benefit one category of regulatory fee payors and shift the fee burden to the other categories in the absence of reliable data upon which to base such a change. In particular, Kepler and SES express concern about the increase in fees from FY 2025 for regulatees of the Space Bureau and ask the Commission “to place a moratorium on increasing the FY 2026 fees relative to those collected for FY 2025” or to “buffer increases” of the fees. Similarly, SCC and NASCA assert that the fee increase for regulatees of the Office of International Affairs is excessive and propose that the Commission “reduce the proposed submarine cable fees to a level commensurate with economic reality and the statutory boundaries the Commission must abide by” or “cap any increase at no more than 10 percent for FY 2026, with the revenue requirement in excess of the amount represented by the cap treated as the equivalent of indirect FTEs.” Furthermore, NAB contends that the Commission should reduce the fee burden for earth stations by capping their fees to no more than $2,500 per earth station license, contending that such a result would be fair because broadcasters pay earth station regulatory fees in addition to the fees assessed for their broadcasting licenses, which unfairly compounds the financial burden on broadcasters. NAB recommends that the Commission shift the burden to other Space Bureau regulatory fee payors, namely NGSO satellite operators.

30. Although the Commission is mindful of concerns raised by these commenters that its regulatory fees need to be predictable and not prone to excessive fluctuation, requests for special accommodation are not consistent with the Commission's statutory obligation to collect the its entire appropriation this fiscal year. Such requests, as the Commission has previously explained, are in essence requests to shift fees from one category of regulatory fee payors to other regulatory fee payors based not on the relative FTE burden, but on policy rationales. In FY 2024 in the context of rejecting similar requests, the Commission explained and distinguished adjustments undertaken over a decade before that were necessary to address validation flaws identified by GAO. Specifically, in 2012, GAO reported that the Commission used FTE data that was 13 years out of date. In 2013, the Commission implemented a “multi-year program of reform” agency-wide “correcting the extraordinary error on the Commission's part in applying a stale FTE count.” Commenters' requests for accommodations in this fiscal year are therefore not analogous to that situation. Instead, here, as the Commission explained in detail above, the FTE counts are validated annually and the regulatory fee increases for FY 2026 are due to the roughly 6.6% increase in its overall fiscal year 2026 appropriation, changes in the direct FTEs working on space and earth station matters and submarine cable matters, and/or changes in the units of measure for these fee categories. Thus, the FY 2026 regulatory fee increase is attributable directly to the requirements of following the Commission statutory methodology—which include the benefit of oversight and regulation of its regulatory fee payors as measured by FTE levels. NAB itself recognizes that the increase in fees for earth station fee payors is a function of the Commission's methodology and the fact that the number of earth stations decreased while the percentage of the Commission's appropriation attributable to the Space Bureau increased.

31. As the Commission observed the last time it was asked to implement such measures, “because [the Commission] must collect the full amount of the appropriation as an offsetting collection, decreasing the fee on any one category must be offset with an increased collection in another category.” Section 9 of the Act prescribes a method of collecting an amount equal to the full S&E appropriation by keying the regulatory fee assessment to the Commission's FTE burden. As a result, 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. Section 9 does not provide any other basis for assessing regulatory fees or any basis for capping fees for a particular fiscal year, or phasing in increases in fees over several fiscal years, for a particular category or categories of fee payors. The Commission therefore declines to implement commenters' suggestions in circumstances such as these where regulatory fees are based on direct FTEs to a core bureau, are consistent with its statutory congressional direction under section 9 of the Communications Act, and no other special extenuating circumstances for consideration exist. ( printed page 58264)

4. Other FTEs of the Non-Core Bureaus and Offices Remain Indirect

32. After analyzing the data for FY 2026 as well as the record in this proceeding, the Commission affirms the its prior conclusion 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. The Commission reaches this conclusion based on both the staff's high level review of the work of FTEs in the non-core bureaus and offices and because no commenter provided any insight into its questions in the FY 2026 NPRM whether there had 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 demonstrates measurable FTE work is being performed in these organizational units that directly benefits a specific category of fee payors. Notably, no commenter provided any examples of changes in the specific work performed by Commission staff that would necessitate a reevaluation of the Commission's repeated determination that the work being performed by these FTEs is indirect. Instead, commenters advocating for additional reallocations of FTEs from the non-core bureaus and offices simply repeat the same reasons that the Commission has previously rejected.

33. NAB's contention that the Commission should reallocate FTEs in non-core bureaus as direct even when those FTEs work on matters that also pertain to non-fee payors fails to consider the Commission's repeated explanation that it takes a conservative approach to analyzing the workload of its FTEs and only reallocates an FTE as direct where the amount of work under consideration is more than half of an FTE. NAB's conclusory statements without any analysis do not warrant further examination by the Commission. In sum, NAB offers no reasons why the Commission should expand its methodology to include FTEs that work primarily on matters that pertain to non-fee payors and provides no solutions regarding how to do so.

34. NAB also renews its criticism of the Commission's well-established decision to treat FTEs working on non-high cost universal service fund issues, but fails to dispute the Commission's long-held conclusion that such treatment is consistent with how it treats FTEs working for programs that benefit consumers and the American public elsewhere in the Commission. Likewise, NAB's repetition of its 2022 comments arguing that the Commission should not include broadcasters in the allocation of FTEs associated with the Commission's broadband data mapping work under the Broadband DATA Act offers no new reasoning other than NAB's continued disagreement with the Commission's decision that the unique change in its methodology in 2021 to exclude Media Services licensees from their share in such costs was based on the one-time nature of a congressional earmark and had nothing to do with the Commission making a finding that “any group of regulatees do not benefit from broadband-related activities.”

35. Finally, the Commission disagrees with NAB's more general complaint that its FTE allocations are “opaque.” While NAB applauds the Commission's continued efforts to modernize its regulatory fee methodology, it nonetheless maintains that commenters are unable to participate in the Commission's reallocation decisions. Contrary to NAB's criticism, however, the Commission has made clear how commenters can contribute to the Commission's assessment of annual regulatory fees and the basis for why the Commission may reallocate an FTE as direct to a core bureau. In particular, the Commission specifically invites commenters, as it did again this year, “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” and seeks specific input in the record regarding whether there have 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 reflect measurable FTE work being performed in the non-core bureaus and offices that may not have been considered.

36. Moreover, the claim that without more transparency, commenters cannot offer contributions that will impact the regulatory fee assessment process does not withstand scrutiny. Indeed, the State Broadcasters Associations' assertion “that the Commission imposes conditions upon commenters that cannot be met” is belied by its own reference to past instances where its comments affected the Commission's allocations of FTEs. At the same time the State Broadcasters Associations complain that the Commission “demands that outside commenters bring evidence to it that they simply do not possess and will not possess unless it is provided to them by the Commission,” they trumpet their success in 2021 convincing the Commission to adjust its proposed FTE allocations due to the congressional earmark for the Broadband Data Act.

37. As previously noted, the Commission strives to make the regulatory fee process, including the reallocations of FTEs in its methodology, fair, sustainable, and administrable. The delegated authority of the Commission's bureau and offices is well understood and documented, the regulatory work of these organizational units is both public and easily reviewed, and the Commission includes significant information about its performance, budgets, and policy objectives in the information it releases to satisfy numerous reporting requirements. Thus, commenters have access to both resources and data to challenge the Commission's FTE allocations. Rather than stepping into the Commission's shoes to evaluate the Commission's analysis of its own FTE data, commenters can contribute to the process by offering responses to the questions posed in the NPRM and evaluating issues the Commission should factor into its reallocation considerations. In this regard, the Commission finds it notable that no commenter offered any insight into new or current reasons to reevaluate its FY 2026 NPRM FTE reallocation proposals. Nevertheless, as a routine part of its annual proceeding, the Commission makes any necessary adjustments to its proposals to ensure that the final fiscal year FTE reallocations reflect, as accurately as possible, the work being done for the benefit of fee payors.

38. In sum, the Commission concludes that NAB's and the State Broadcasters Associations' general requests to have more information from the Commission regarding the Commission's FTE data seeks to impose a level of precision on the Commission's reallocation process that does not align with the Commission's methodology. Each year in proposing FTE reallocations from indirect to direct, the Commission has provided notice of what organizational unit the FTE burden is being reallocated to and from. Moreover, commenters have historical and detailed insight into the type of measurable FTE work the Commission has found warranted the reallocation of FTEs as direct to a core bureau. The Commission therefore concludes, as it has in the past, that amending its methodology to include “added granularity” to its process like NAB and the State Broadcasters Associations request would not “change the overall result, or improve the Commission's ( printed page 58265) regulatory fee methodology, but would simply consume more staff resources and increase the indirect FTE time devoted to regulatory fee administration.” Instead, the Commission's analysis is “most accurate when we look at the work of a larger group such as a division, office, or bureau, consistent with the language of section 9 of the Act to ensure that `fees reflect the full-time equivalent number of employees within the bureaus and offices of the Commission.' ”

39. The Commission also rejects the claims of commenters that it must find ways to reduce the burden of indirect FTEs on fee payors that are based on arguments that the Commission has previously, and thoroughly, rejected. In particular, SES argues that the Commission should create new fee categories for “experimental licenses, unlicensed use, and automated frequency coordination systems” and even goes so far as to suggest the Commission should designate the Office of Engineering and Technology as a new core bureau—all without offering a single new reason for the Commission to consider doing so. As the Commission explicitly explained in the FY 2026 NPRM, commenters were asked to provide “detailed evidence of materially changed circumstances, rather than reiterate[d] arguments that the Commission has historically declined to adopt.” Instead, SES along with its supporting reply commenters— i.e., the State Broadcasters Associations and One Ministries—either repeat or slightly recast old arguments and fail to provide any material changed circumstances in support of their arguments.

40. For example, the State Broadcasters Associations suggest that the Commission should adopt a new fee category for equipment certification labs because they contend such a category would be “remarkably similar to the `holds an FCC-issued authorization' criterion that has served as the basis for charging regulatory fees to broadcasters and other legacy fee payors for the past several decades.” But, in making this argument, the State Broadcasters Associations notably avoid the more apt comparison to equipment authorizations—a category that the Commission has repeatedly declined to adopt. It seems that having failed to convince the Commission that equipment authorizations should be added to the regulatory fees categories, the State Broadcasters Associations now try to convince us that a regulatory fee should apply to the test labs that provide equipment certifications to those seeking such authorizations from the Commission. This would essentially backdoor the addition of equipment authorizations to the regulatory fee categories as testing labs would presumably pass those fees onto the manufacturers of the equipment they certify. The State Broadcasters Associations provide no explanation for why the Commission's reasoning in declining to adopt a fee category for equipment authorizations is not equally applicable to laboratories that perform measurements of equipment subject to an equipment authorization ( i.e., the State Broadcasters Associations' “equipment certification labs”). Although laboratories involved in the testing of equipment for Certification under the equipment authorization rules are subject to accreditation, recognition, and periodic reassessment, there is no correlation between these steps and how many devices a testing laboratory actually tests or, once those devices are certified by a Telecommunications Certification Body, how many units are actually produced. Moreover, the State Broadcasters Associations provide no cognizable rationale why only testing laboratories and not the other entities involved in the equipment authorization process ( e.g., the laboratory accreditation bodies that accredit a laboratory with a scope covering the measurements required for the types of equipment that it will test, and the Telecommunications Certification Bodies that are authorized to issue Certifications) would be subject to a fee payor classification, if such a classification were warranted for equipment authorization-related activities. Thus, in neither instance would the Commission be able to credit FTE resources to such issues.

41. Moreover, the State Broadcasters Associations do not address the very minimal nature of the Commission's FTE work related to the recognition process for laboratories that perform measurements of equipment subject to an equipment authorization. Although the Commission acknowledges that in establishing certain rules related to these labs, some FTE time is devoted to adopting regulations that allow such labs to perform their functions for certain Commission licensees as well as other permittees, these efforts are limited and do not result in the work of FTEs being sufficient to subsequently assess fees year after year based on such a limited FTE burden. Furthermore, such work represents only a subcomponent of the larger equipment authorization workstream. For example, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and not the Commission manages the process of test lab accrediting and designating Telecommunications Certification Bodies in the U.S., whereas, the designation of third-party certification bodies located outside the U.S. are a matter of bi-lateral or multi-lateral international agreements, which would make requiring such entities to pay regulatory fees an international policy concern (were the Commission to find a basis to subject equipment authorization activities to regulatory fees). The Commission adopts a new regulatory fee category only when there is a sufficient legal and factual basis to conclude that significant FTE time is used in the oversight and regulation of a regulatee such that adoption of a fee category and designation of fee would satisfy the requirements of Section 9 of the Communications Act and the Commission's overarching goals that its regulatory framework is fair, administrable, and sustainable. Because the State Broadcasters Associations have not offered a framework by which it could assess laboratories involved in the testing of equipment for Certification with regulatory fees consistent with the Commission's methodology and policy goals, the Commission declines to do so.

42. One Ministries, which argues in a single sentence that the Commission should consider virtual MVPD providers as equivalent to cable service providers and assess them with the same regulatory fees, likewise offers no support or basis for how to do so. Specifically, this suggestion is provided without a factual or legal justification for how the agency could do so within the Commission's statutory authority and prior decision-making.

43. Additionally, because the Commission fully considered and rejected the suggestion to convene “stake holder roundtables” in 2023, for the same reasons the previously articulated, the Commission will not revisit the State Broadcasters Associations' suggestion to do so in FY 2026. Although the Commission recognizes the incentives for some commenters to continue to seek to expand the pool of entities subject to the Commission's regulatory fee process, repeatedly offering the same suggestions, without more factual or legal support for doing so, does not improve the Commission's regulatory fee process or satisfy the Commission's obligation to collect its full appropriation as dictated by section 9 of the Act. On the other hand, the Commission is encouraged by CTIA's agreement with the Commission's assessment that the work of FTEs in the non-core bureaus and offices should remain indirect as well as CTIA's ( printed page 58266) observation that the Commission proposes reallocations only “after performing considerable analysis and finding the clearest case for reassignment.”

44. As the Commission has explained for many years, the work of FTEs in the Office of Engineering and Technology, the Enforcement Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau benefits the agency as a whole and the American public, and not one particular group of regulatory fee payors. In light of CTIA's support and in the absence of evidence to depart from the Commission's previously articulated reasons for treating its FTEs in the non-core bureau and offices, and more specifically, the FTEs in the Office of Engineering and Technology, Enforcement Bureau, and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, as indirect, the Commission affirms its past conclusion that it is not equitable for any one regulatory fee group of payors to shoulder the FTE burden of such indirect work.

45. As part of the Commission's ongoing efforts to modernize the assessment of regulatory fees, the Commission will continue its annual evaluation of whether any FTEs in the non-core bureaus and offices should be reallocated for regulatory fee purposes and exercise its discretion regarding where to focus its analytical efforts each year to best respond to changes in its substantive work and organization and changes in the telecommunications industry itself. In so doing, the Commission will look for additional ways in which it can ensure that it conducts its annual review and analysis of the FTE data in a manner that is fair, administrable, and sustainable.

B. Broadcast Television Stations

46. The Commission adopts its proposal, which was supported by NAB in the record, 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. The Commission will also continue the Commission's use of 2020 U.S. Census data to assess fees for full-power broadcast television stations, as the Commission traditionally has 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. However, consistent with the Commission's decision in FY 2024, the Commission will 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. The Commission adopts a factor of $.007090 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 $.007090 for each full-power broadcast television station) are listed in Table 8.

C. CMRS and Mobile Services Assessments

47. The Commission concludes that it will continue to assess regulatory fees for providers of CMRS and Mobile Services using a unit measure methodology based on the count of “assigned numbers” reported in providers' biannual Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) filings.

48. CTIA was the only commenter to address the questions the Commission posed in the FY 2026 NPRM regarding 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. CTIA correctly points out that the Commission has utilized NRUF data since FY 2004 and cautions us to take more time to fully evaluate any options before amending the Commission's methodology for assessing regulatory fees for the CMRS fee category. CTIA further advises that until the Commission determines whether and how it may change NRUF reporting, “it is unclear how NRUF data will compare to other data sources for purposes of allocating regulatory fees among CMRS providers.”

49. The Commission agrees with CTIA that the Commission should not make any changes at this time. Given the lack of record support to change the Commission's existing methodology, the Commission concludes that NRUF assigned numbers data, which serve as a proxy for a provider's subscriber count, remain a reliable reflection of the FTE burden of the Commission's oversight of CMRS and mobile service providers and continue to meet the Commission's goals that the regulatory fee methodology is fair, sustainable, and administrable.

D. Space Station, Earth Station and Submarine Cable Assessments

50. The Commission also declines to act on the requests of commenters to amend the Commission's methodology for assessing regulatory fees in this fiscal year based on issues raised in the Space Modernization proceeding. While the Commission appreciates that the adoption of licensing decisions reached in Space Modernization proceeding may necessitate the consideration of amendments to the methodology for the Commission's annual assessment of regulatory fees, the Commission concludes that none of the issues raised by commenters in this current regulatory fee rulemaking are ripe for resolution in FY 2026 as those licensing decisions were not reached prior the release of the FY 2026 NPRM. As the Commission just explained in denying Kinéis's petition for reconsideration of the FY 2025 Report and Order, “[i]n plain terms, whether any of the proposed changes, if adopted, will materially alter FTE resources devoted to the oversight and regulation of space stations sufficient to merit the Commission proposing changes to fee categories or methodologies is premature at this time.” Rather, as CSF observed, as the Commission implements licensing changes adopted in the Space Modernization proceeding, the Commission will consider how those changes may impact the category of fee payors and the allocation of FTE benefits among fee categories in the assessment of regulatory fees in FY 2027 and in future years.

51. For similar reasons, the Commission also declines the request of NAB to reduce the regulatory fees on Transmit/Receive and Transmit only earth stations and shift such burdens to non-GSO space station fee payors because NAB claims those fee payors “appear to be the focus of the Space Bureau's priorities.” While NAB makes an effort to support its proposal for a fee reduction by generally pointing to the Space Bureau's recent work associated with the Space Modernization proceeding, it does not provide, nor does the record otherwise contain, sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the Commission should shift FTEs from earth station payors to NGSO space station payors based on FTE workloads benefitting one fee category over another in FY 2026. As discussed above, the Commission will not implement fee reductions or fee caps to mitigate fee increases that result from the Commission's well-established fee assessment methodology. Additionally, as observed above, changes adopted Space Modernization proceeding may necessitate a comprehensive look at regulatory fees due to possible re-allocation of FTEs as a result of those change becoming ( printed page 58267) effective and any measurable changes in FTE utilization becomes apparent. NAB would have the opportunity to provide input on this issue as part of that proceeding.

52. The Commission does, however, make the necessary corrections to its FY 2026 NPRM proposals where the record supports such actions. In particular, NASCA asks us to revise the payment units for the submarine cable system fee based on actual data reported in the annual circuit capacity filings, rather than the projections the Commission used to formulate its proposals in the FY 2026 NPRM. Given the limited time the Commission has to initiate and conclude its annual regulatory fee proceeding, for the NPRM, the Commission must rely on historical data and projected trends to determine the unit count for submarine cables, as well as a number of other fee categories. Following the release of the NPRM, however, any new or updated data that are made available to the Commission by stakeholders in the record or otherwise obtained or updated by the Commission will become part of the Commission's analysis of unit counts to be used in the assessment of regulatory fees in the annual report and order. Making such adjustments during this process of the rulemaking proceeding is consistent with the Commission's rules and existing methodology, as outlined in Table 5. In accordance with the Commission's standard process and based on the Commission's verification of the additional information on circuit capacity data provided by NASCA as well as an updated review of Commission data, the Commission increases the unit count of submarine cables from 79 to 88, thus reducing the per unit fee from what the Commission proposed in the FY 2026 NPRM to $106,975.

53. Additionally, after review of the relevant Commission data and consistent with comments from SES, Spire, and Eutelsat, the Commission corrects Table 7 of the FY 2026 NPRM to more accurately reflect the list of space station satellites that were authorized as of October 1, 2025, and subject to regulatory fees. SES proposed the addition of one Geostationary Orbit U.S.-Licensed Space Station and the removal of three Geostationary Orbit U.S.-Licensed Space Stations and two Geostationary Orbit Non-U.S.-Licensed Space Stations with Market Access Through Earth Stations. Spire proposed the removal of one Non-Geostationary Orbit Small Constellation and the modification of a second Non-Geostationary Orbit Small Constellation. Eutelsat proposed the modification of one Non-Geostationary Large Constellation, which reclassifies the remaining affected call sign to the Non-Geostationary Small Constellation category. Consistent with the Commission's efforts to adjust fee rates to reflect information about actual authorized satellites as of October 1, 2025, which becomes available after the release of a regulatory fee NPRM, the Commission concludes that such modifications are appropriate.

E. De Minimis Threshold

54. Section 9(e)(2) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt a party from paying regulatory fees if “in the judgment of the Commission, the cost of collecting a regulatory fee established under this section from a party would exceed the amount collected from such party.” As explained below, after a careful review of the Commission's costs for the collection of delinquent regulatory fees, the Commission declines NAB's request to increase the de minimis threshold amount to $1,200.

55. By statute, a determination to raise the de minimis threshold for the payment of regulatory fees narrowly rests upon the Commission's cost of collections. At the outset, the Commission notes that the Commission's Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) implementation, including adoption of the red-light rule, minimizes regulatory fee delinquent debt. In the limited circumstances where the Commission must pursue delinquent regulatory fees, the Commission has explained that its administrative process includes various functions, such as gathering data and validating data from the bureaus and external sources; validating delinquent bills; preparing delinquency bills for transfer to collection agent for processing; and processing payments received from collection ( e.g., U.S. Department of the Treasury). Moreover, generally, delinquent debt is transferred to the Department of Treasury within 120 days after the date of delinquency.

56. The Commission calculates its collection costs for purposes of determining the de minimis threshold by estimating the number of FTE hours spent on each collection task multiplied by the value of FTE time expended on the task, to arrive at the estimated total cost of each task. The totals for each task are then added together to determine the total estimated cost of collection. The total estimated cost of collection divided by the estimated number of delinquent regulatory fee debts for that fiscal year yields the average cost of collecting an unpaid regulatory fee. The Commission's review of the estimated amount of FTE time devoted to collecting delinquent regulatory fees as well as the hourly rate of a Commission FTE assigned to such tasks reveals that the Commission's costs have not increased above the existing de minimis threshold.

57. Accordingly, NAB's and the State Broadcasters Associations' inferences to the contrary both fail to validate a different result. In particular, NAB reasons that since the Commission's staff salaries have increased since 2022, the Commission's cost of collections has “likely increased.” The State Broadcasters Associations support NAB's request and further maintain that since some fee payors' regulatory fees have now increased above the $1,000 de minimis threshold, it must follow that the Commission's cost of collections “have similarly climbed.” But an increase in the regulatory fees of certain regulatees to levels above the $1,000 de minimis threshold does not cause—or even directly correlate to—an increase in FCC's cost of collection of delinquent regulatory fees. In other words, because the methodologies for calculating regulatory fees and the cost of collections expenses differ, a rise in regulatory fees does not necessarily reflect or result in an increased cost of collections. And, while FTE salaries are one input into the Commission's cost of collection of delinquent debt, higher salaries without a significant increase in FTE time devoted to collections does not alone justify a 20% increase in the threshold.

58. Unlike the variable amount of regulatory fees that must be collected on an annual basis, the cost of the Commission's collections is less prone to fluctuations. It is merely one small aspect in the agency implementation of a vigorous debt collection process. Thus, it is not surprising that the cost has remained below the existing threshold.

59. Additionally, because regulatory fees are a zero-sum game, a higher de minimis threshold means that in order to collect the Commission's entire appropriation, regulatees with fee obligations above the threshold must cover the shortfall of regulatory fees that fall below it. Consequently, raising the de minimis threshold to benefit some regulatory fee payors over others, in the absence of an increase in costs of collection, is not supported by the Commission's statutory authority and is contrary to the goals of a fair, sustainable, and administrable regulatory framework. And, while NAB is correct that the Commission does not provide its internal collection calculations for review by commenters, ( printed page 58268) the results would be no different if the Commission did. The Commission has no reason to artificially deflate the de minimis threshold as the calculus dictated by the statute requires us to use the Commission's predictive judgment to determine whether the cost of collections outweighs the Commission's efforts in what will be collected.

60. Moreover, due to the limited nature of the fee exemptions expressly provided by statute, the Commission cannot implement NAB's suggestion to cap the regulatory fee assessment for classes of stations that fell below the de minimis threshold last year. Establishing the de minimis threshold on such a basis would result in exempting classes or categories of fee payors, which would necessarily result in another set of entities shouldering the fee burden. As the Commission explained the last time it entertained NAB's request to raise the threshold amount, although the de minimis threshold “has the collateral effect of providing financial relief to some regulatees” that does not mean that a regulatee's de minimis status provides it with a permanent exemption from regulatory fees. Furthermore, as the Commission has previously explained, pursuant to the wording of section 9(e)(2) of the Act, “providing relief for financially strapped regulatees is not a factor for Commission consideration in setting this threshold.” Nothing in the text of the statute supports using policy factors outside the cost of collection in establishing the de minimis threshold, and any regulatee with a financial hardship may seek a waiver, reduction, or deferral of its regulatory fees through the Commission's well-established process. Accordingly, after an internal evaluation of the Commission's costs, the Commission again concludes that the cost of collecting regulatory fees does not justify an increase to the existing $1,000 de minimis threshold.

IV. Procedural Matters

61. Included below are procedural items as well as our current payment and collection methods. The Commission includes these payments and collection procedures here as a useful way of reminding regulatory fee payers and the public about these aspects of the annual regulatory fee collection process.

62. Commission's Registration System. To increase efficiency, the Commission is using an all-electronic payment system for regulatory fees, which is contained within the Commission's Registration System (CORES). Before using CORES for the first time, you must obtain an FCC Username through the FCC User Registration System, and subsequently use it to access CORES and either register an FCC Registration Number (FRN) or associate an existing FRN to your Username. If you are unable to register electronically, you may fax your application for a Registration Number (FCC Form 160) to the CORES Helpdesk at (202) 418-7869 for filing procedures.

63. 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, Automates 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, www.fcc.gov/​regfees.

64. 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 www.fcc.gov/​licensing-databases/​fees/​wire-transfer. 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 www.fcc.gov/​licensing-databases/​fees/​wire-transfer.

65. De Minimis Regulatory Fees, Section 9(e)(2) Exemption. Under the de minimis rule, and pursuant to the Commission's analysis under section 9(e)(2) of the Act, a regulatee is exempt from paying regulatory fees if the sum total of all of its annual regulatory fee liabilities is $1,000 or less for the fiscal year. The de minimis threshold applies only to filers of annual regulatory fees, not regulatory fees paid through multi-year filings, and it is not a permanent exemption. Each regulatee will need to reevaluate the total annual fee liability each fiscal year to determine whether it meets the de minimis exemption.

66. 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:

• 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.
• 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 § 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.
• Wireless Services: Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) cellular, ( printed page 58269) 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.
• Wireless Services, Multi-year fees: The first eight regulatory fee categories in the Commission's Schedule of Regulatory Fees (Table 4) (first seven in the Commission's Calculation of Fees (Table 3) pay “small multi-year wireless regulatory fees.” Entities pay these regulatory fees in advance for the entire amount period covered by the five-year or ten-year terms of their initial licenses and pay regulatory fees again only when the license is renewed, or a new license is obtained. The Commission includes these fee categories in its rulemaking to publicize its estimates of the number of “small multi-year wireless” licenses that will be renewed or newly obtained in FY 2026.
• 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.
• 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 RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations 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.
• 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.

67. 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”). The Commission has 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).

68. 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.

69. 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. ( printed page 58270)

( printed page 58271) ( printed page 58272)

Table 5—Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY 2026

In order to calculate individual service fees for FY 2026, the Commission adjusted FY 2025 payment units for each service to more accurately reflect expected FY 2026 payment liabilities. The Commission obtained its updated estimates through a variety of means and sources. For example, the Commission used Commission licensee databases, actual prior year payment records, and industry and trade association projections, where available. The databases the Commission consulted include the Commission's 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” reflect licenses or permits that have been issued, but for other fee categories, the term “units” reflect 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. The Commission realizes 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.

The Commission sought verification for these estimates from multiple sources and, in all cases, the Commission compared FY 2026 estimates with actual FY 2025 payment units to ensure that its revised estimates were reasonable. Where appropriate, the Commission adjusted and/or rounded its 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 the Commission notes, for example, that its estimated FY 2026 payment units are based on FY 2025 actual payment units, it does not necessarily mean that the Commission's FY 2026 projection is exactly the same number as in FY 2025. The Commission has either rounded the FY 2026 number or adjusted it slightly to account for these variables.

Table 6—Factors, Measurements, and Calculations That Determine 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 §§ 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 ( printed page 58273) 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 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 58303)

V. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

70. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Review of the Commission's Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2026, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( FY 2026 NPRM), released in April 2026. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the FY 2026 NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA; however, comments in the record regarding alternatives to the methodology for assessing regulatory fees are discussed below. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA and it (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

71. In the FY 2026 Report and Order, the Commission adopts a regulatory fee schedule to meet its objective of fully complying with its congressionally mandated requirement of collecting regulatory fees for fiscal year (FY) 2026. For FY 2026, pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act), and the FY 2026 Consolidation Appropriations Act, the Commission is required to assess and collect $416,112,000, which is an amount that reasonably can be expected to total the Commission's 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 the Commission 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.

72. In the FY 2026 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on several regulatory fee issues, including: (i) the proposed regulatory fees and methodology for FY 2026, as set forth in Tables 3 and 4 of the FY 2026 NPRM; (ii) the calculation of television broadcaster regulatory fees as set forth in Table 8 of the FY 2026 NPRM; and (iii) 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. In the FY 2026 Report and Order, the Commission adopts, with modification, the regulatory fee schedule set forth in Tables 3 and 4 of the FY 2026 NPRM. The Commission also continues to use NRUF assigned number data for assessing CMRS regulatory fees.

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

73. Although not specifically filed in response to the IRFA, comments were filed suggesting alternatives to various elements of the methodology for assessing regulatory fees, including but not limited to proposals to adopt new fee categories, proposals to alleviate the impact of fee increases by reducing them or capping them for particular categories of fee payors—thereby effectively shifting the burden to other payors—and proposals to raise the de minimis threshold for exemptions from fees. Various proposals for new categories were supported by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), State Broadcasters Associations, SES Americom (SES), and One Ministries, Inc., but opposed by others, such as CTIA. Proposals to alleviate fee increases by reducing or capping and shifting regulatory fees for certain fee payors were offered by SES, Kepler, the Submarine Cable Coalition (SCC), the North American Submarine Cable Association (NASCA), and NAB. NAB proposed, and State Broadcasters Associations supported, raising the de minimis threshold. The Commission addresses these comments in Section F below. ( printed page 58304)

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

74. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy, and also provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

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

75. 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 adopted rules. 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.

76. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by the Commission's actions. 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 organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their field. While the Commission does 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 jurisdictions” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.

77. The rules adopted in the FY 2026 Report and Order 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. Where available, the Commission also provides additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the identified industries below.

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

78. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of adopted 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 requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.

79. The FY 2026 Report and Order does not adopt any changes to the Commission's reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for collecting regulatory fees from regulatees. 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, 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. Moreover, 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.

80. In addition, small entities facing financial hardship from the regulatory assessments adopted in the FY 2026 Report and Order may qualify for fee relief through waivers, reductions, deferrals, or installment payments. Further, small entities may be exempt from regulatory fees if the assessed amount falls below the Commission's established de minimis threshold.

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

81. The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”

82. In response to the FY 2026 NPRM, the Commission received comments proposing alternatives to various elements of the methodology for assessing regulatory fees, to the FY 2026 regulatory fee schedule, as well as to proposals advocating the adoption of new fee categories for the collection of regulatory fees, shifting burdens among payors by, e.g., capping fees for selected categories, and increasing the de minimis threshold for exemptions from fees. After considering those comments and the Commission's precedent, the regulatory fees adopted in the FY 2026 Report and Order reflect the Commission's efforts to minimize significant economic impact on small entities when practicable. Below is a discussion of some of the steps the Commission has taken in the FY 2026 Report and Order and alternative proposals it considered in reaching its conclusions.

83. Assessment of Regulatory Fees. For FY 2026, the Commission employs the same long-standing methodology as the Commission has applied in FY 2023, 2024 and 2025. However, the Commission concludes as the Commission did in FY 2023, 2024, and 2025 that the work of certain FTEs located in the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Economics and Analytics, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau merits reallocation as ( printed page 58306) direct FTEs to a core bureau. Based on the results of the Commission staff's high-level evaluation of the work conducted within the Commission, the Commission concludes in the FY 2026 Report and Order that certain indirect FTEs could be reassigned as direct FTEs, and the Commission incorporates these into the count of FTEs of the relevant core bureau for purposes of calculating regulatory fees for FY 2026.

84. New Categories of Fee Payors. In the Report and Order, the Commission considered and rejected the alternatives proposed by commenters, including SES, the State Broadcasters Associations, and One Ministries, Inc., to adopt new categories of regulatory fee payors. SES argues that the Commission should create new fee categories for experimental licenses, unlicensed use, and automated frequency coordination systems^. The State Broadcasters Associations suggest that the Commission adopt a new fee category of equipment certification labs. One Ministries argues that the Commission should consider virtual Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPD) providers as equivalent to cable service providers and assess the same fees. SES even goes so far as to suggest the Commission should designate the Office of Engineering and Technology as a new core bureau. As the Commission explicitly explained in the FY 2026 NPRM, commenters were asked to provide “detailed evidence of materially changed circumstances, rather than reiterate[d] arguments that the Commission has historically declined to adopt.” Instead, commenters and their supporters either repeat or slightly recast old arguments and fail to provide any material changed circumstances in support of their arguments. For these and other reasons detailed in the FY 2026 Report and Order, the Commission declined to adopt any of these new fee payor categories which could impose new economic burdens on small entities in these categories.

85. Shifting Fee Burdens. Certain commenters request the Commission cap fees for selected categories of fee payors to alleviate the burden of fee increases, but such a shift would inevitably increase burdens on other payors. In particular, Kepler and SES express concern about the increase in fees from FY 2025 for regulatees of the Space Bureau and ask the Commission “to place a moratorium on increasing the FY 2026 fees relative to those collected for FY 2025” or to “buffer increases” of the fees. Similarly, SCC and NASCA assert that the fee increase for regulatees of the Office of International Affairs is excessive and propose that the Commission “reduce the proposed submarine cable fees to a level commensurate with economic reality and the statutory boundaries the Commission must abide by” or “cap any increase at no more than 10 percent for FY 2026, with the revenue requirement in excess of the amount represented by the cap treated as the equivalent of indirect FTEs.” NAB proposes that the Commission reduce the regulatory fees on Transmit/Receive and Transmit only earth stations because broadcasters pay earth station regulatory fees in addition to the fees assessed for their broadcasting licenses, which they claim unfairly compounds their financial burden.

86. Although the Commission is mindful of concerns raised by these commenters that the Commission's regulatory fees need to be predictable and not prone to excessive fluctuation, it was unable to reconcile these particular requests for special accommodations with its statutory obligation to collect the Commission's entire appropriation this fiscal year. The fee increases for FY 2026 are due to either increased direct FTEs working on satellite and earth station matters and submarine cable matters, changes in the units of measure for these fee categories, and/or the roughly 6.6% increase in the Commission's overall fiscal year appropriation. Thus, the FY 2026 regulatory fee increase is attributable directly to circumstances which were for the benefit of these fee payors under the Commission's methodology. As the Commission has observed, “because we must collect the full amount of the appropriation as an offsetting collection, decreasing the fee on any one category must be offset with an increased collection in another category.” The Commission declined to take such inherently unfair actions in circumstances such as these where regulatory fees are based on direct FTEs to a core bureau, are consistent with the Commission's statutory congressional direction under section 9 of the Communications Act, and no other special extenuating circumstances for consideration exist. Contrary to suggestions by certain commenters, the Commission declined to adjust its analysis to financially advantage certain categories of regulatees at the expense of others, including small entities.

87. De Minimis Threshold. NAB, supported by the State Broadcasters Association, asked the Commission to raise the de minimis threshold from $1,000 to $1,200. Section 9(e)(2) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt a party from paying regulatory fees if “in the judgment of the Commission, the cost of collecting a regulatory fee established under this section from a party would exceed the amount collected from such party.” After a careful review of the Commission's costs for the collection of regulatory fees, the Commission declined NAB's request to increase the de minimis threshold amount to $1,200. NAB reasoned that since the Commission's staff salaries have increased since 2022, the Commission's cost of collections has “likely increased.” The State Broadcasters Association supported NAB's request and further maintained that since some fee payors' regulatory fees have now increased above the $1,000 de minimis threshold, it must follow that the Commission's cost of collections “have similarly climbed.”

88. Yet, by statute, a determination to raise the de minimis threshold for the payment of regulatory fees narrowly rests upon the Commission's cost of collections. The Commission concluded that the calculus dictated by the statute required it to use its predictive judgment to determine whether the cost of collections outweighs the Commission's efforts in what will be collected. Unlike the variable amount of regulatory fees that must be collected on an annual basis, the cost of the Commission's collections is less prone to fluctuations and has remained relatively constant over time. Additionally, because regulatory fees are a zero-sum game, a higher de minimis threshold means that in order to collect the Commission's entire appropriation, regulatees with fee obligations above the threshold must cover the shortfall of regulatory fees that fall below it. Consequently, raising the de minimis threshold to benefit some regulatory fee payors over others, in the absence of an increase in costs of collection, is not supported by the Commission's statutory authority and is contrary to the goal of a fair, sustainable, and administrable regulatory framework. The Commission's review of the cost of collections revealed that the Commission's costs have not increased above the existing de minimis threshold. Accordingly, after an internal evaluation of the costs, the Commission again concluded that the cost of collecting regulatory fees did not justify an increase to the existing $1,000 de minimis threshold. Nonetheless, any regulatee with a financial hardship may seek a waiver, reduction, or deferral of its regulatory fees through the Commission's well-established process.

89. Broadcast Regulatory Fees. In the FY 2026 Report and Order, the Commission adopted the FY 2026 NPRM proposals for full-power ( printed page 58307) broadcast stations regulatory fee assessments, which was supported by NAB, 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, which may reduce the economic impact of the regulatory fees for some small licensees. The Commission therefore concluded, as it has in the past, that the population-based metric conforms with the service of broadcasting television to the American people.

G. Report to Congress

90. The Commission will send a copy of the FY 2026 Report and Order, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the FY 2026 Report and Order, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for the SBA Office of Advocacy and will publish a copy of the FY 2026 Report and Order, and this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (or summaries thereof) in the Federal Register .

VI. Ordering Clauses

91. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 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), this Report and Order is hereby adopted.

92. It is further ordered that the FY 2026 section 9 regulatory fees assessment requirements are adopted as specified herein.

98. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary 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.