Completing the Transition to Electronic Filing, Licenses and Authorizations, and Correspondence in the Wireless Radio Services
| Published date | 30 September 2019 |
| Citation | 84 FR 51502 |
| Record Number | 2019-20527 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Federal Communications Commission |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 189 (Monday, September 30, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51502-51507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20527]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 17
[WT Docket No. 19-212; FCC 19-87]
Completing the Transition to Electronic Filing, Licenses and
Authorizations, and Correspondence in the Wireless Radio Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) builds upon the
Commission's recent efforts to modernize its legacy filing,
communications, and information retention systems by improving
electronic access to data and digitizing Commission communications in a
wide variety of services. Specifically, this NPRM proposes to make all
filings to the Universal Licensing System (ULS) completely electronic;
expand electronic filing and correspondence elements for related
systems; and require applicants to provide an email address on the FCC
Forms related to these systems. This NPRM also seeks comment on
additional rule changes that would further expand the use of electronic
filing and electronic service. Together, these proposals will
facilitate the remaining steps to transition these systems from paper
to electronic, reducing regulatory burdens and environmental waste, and
making interaction with these systems more accessible and efficient for
those who rely on them.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before October 30,
2019; and reply comments on or before November 14, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 19-212,
by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[ssquf] People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Greffenius of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418-2986 or
[email protected].
For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements contained in this NPRM, contact
Cathy Williams, Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918 or
[email protected] or email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comment Filing Procedures
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be
[[Page 51503]]
addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis
This document contains proposed information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it
might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. It requests written public
comment on the IRFA, contained at Appendix B to the NPRM. Comments must
be filed in accordance with the same deadlines as comments filed in
response to the NPRM as set forth on the first page of this document,
and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses
to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, will send a copy of the NPRM, including
the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
Ex Parte Rules
The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a ``permit-
but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules.\1\ Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Synopsis
ULS and Supporting Systems. The Commission manages applications for
all wireless radio licenses through the ULS. Other systems accept
filings and work in tandem with the ULS: The Antenna Structure
Registration (ASR) System, the Tower Construction Notification System
(TCNS), and the Electronic Section 106 (E-106) System. The ASR System
ensures that physical structures used for wireless radio operations
that are above a certain height or in close proximity to airports do
not pose a hazard to aircraft. The TCNS and E-106 Systems advance the
goal of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) to protect
historic properties, including Tribal religious and cultural sites.
Specifically, the TCNS provides a mechanism for Tower Notifiers
(applicants seeking to build a tower or collocate on a tower or
consultants/entities representing them) to notify and communicate with
Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) regarding a
proposed construction or collation, and the E-106 System works in
conjunction with TCNS to enable real-time information referral and
communication among the Commission, Tower Notifiers, and State Historic
Preservation Officers (SHPOs). Collectively, these systems provide an
efficient and transparent means to accept, review, and dispose of the
Commission's wireless radio applications.
Today, the majority of applications filed in the ULS are
electronic, as required by rule. Exceptions exist for the following
services: (i) Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio services for shared
spectrum, spectrum in the public safety pool below 746 MHz, and
spectrum in the public safety allocation above 746 MHz, except those
filed by FCC-certified frequency coordinators; (ii) part 97 Amateur
Radios Service, except those filed by Volunteer Examination
Coordinators; (iii) part 95 General Mobile Service and Personal Radio
Service, excluding 218-219 MHz service; (iv) part 80 Maritime Services,
excluding VHF 156-162 MHz Public Coast Stations; (v) part 87 Aviation
Services; (vi) part 13 Commercial Radio Operators (individual
applicants only); and (vii) certain part 101 licensees who also fall
under the exempted groups. 47 CFR 1.913(d)(1)(i)-(vii). Similarly, the
overwhelming majority of ASR applications are filed electronically;
however, applicants have the choice to file manually or electronically.
TCNS is an electronic-only system, so all interactions with it are
electronic by design. However, TCNS is a voluntary system; Tower
Notifiers can, but are not required under any Commission rule, use TCNS
as the vehicle to fulfill their obligation to identify and contact
Indian Tribes and NHOs. Similarly, while Tower Notifiers can provide
information to SHPOs via certain FCC Forms, there is no requirement
that they use the E-106 system to submit these forms or otherwise file
them electronically.
Correspondence with Applicants/Licensees. While the Commission
corresponds electronically with applicants and licensees in some
instances, there remains a large amount of paper communication
generated by the ULS and its supporting systems. Across these systems,
the relevant applications and FCC Forms provide an opportunity, but do
not require, users to provide an email address as part of their contact
information. The Wireless Telecommunications and Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureaus (the Bureaus) by practice send correspondence
generated by these systems to applicants and licensees, such as copies
of licenses, reminder letters, and other courtesy notices. The Bureaus
send thousands of these letters via U.S. Postal Mail each year.
[[Page 51504]]
A. Mandatory Electronic Filing
ULS and ASR. In 1998, the Commission adopted mandatory electronic
filing for some applications and related filings in the ULS. In doing
so, it noted many benefits to mandatory electronic filing, including
streamlining Wireless Radio Services (WRS) application processing,
affording parties a quick and economical process to file applications,
and making licensing information quickly and easily available to
interested parties and the public. At the same time, the Commission
recognized that ``some wireless services applicants or licensees might
lack access not only to high quality telephone lines but also computers
capable of submitting their applications electronically.'' Biennial
Regulatory Review--Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87,
90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the
Development and Use of the Universal Licensing System in the Wireless
Telecommunications Services, et al., Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd
21027, 21040-43, paras. 21-25 (1998) (1998 ULS Report and Order). It
thus adopted several exemptions to mandatory electronic filing for a
limited group of filers in services that were not subject to licensing
by auction and that consisted ``primarily of individuals, small
businesses, or public agencies that may lack resources to convert
quickly to electronic filing.'' 1998 ULS Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd
at 21040, para. 20. The Commission noted that it would review this
issue in the future and extend mandatory electronic filing if it found
that it was ``operationally feasible and cost effective.'' Id.
Given the drastic changes that have occurred with regard to the
ubiquity of the internet and increased personal computer access, we
find it unlikely that electronic filing remains infeasible or cost-
prohibitive for the previously exempted types of filers, or that they
lack resources to file electronically. We therefore propose to
eliminate section 1.913's exemptions to mandatory electronic filing. We
seek comment on this proposal.
We note, however, that while the vast majority of ULS applications
today are submitted electronically, some are still manually filed,
largely from exempted filers.\2\ Last year, for example, the Commission
received about 5,000 manually filed applications out of about 425,000
total applications.\3\ We seek comment on whether our underlying
assumptions about the ease of electronic filing for the previously
exempted filers are valid. Are there still categories of individuals or
entities for which electronic filing may pose enough of a burden to
outweigh the benefits, such as small entities, individuals with
disabilities, or low-income individuals? If so, are any exemptions
still warranted? Or is the Commission's waiver process sufficient to
handle such instances?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ There are a few limited categories of submissions that the
ULS cannot handle electronically and that must be filed and
processed manually: Two-step transactions, subleases, leases
contingent on assignments, and STAs in certain market-based
services.
\3\ About one-third of these manual filings are from Private
Land Mobile Radio filers, and about one-third are Amateur Radio
Service filings. Manually filed applications also include those from
filers who sought and received a waiver of the electronic filing
rule, or whose applications fall in the limited category that cannot
be processed electronically in ULS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also propose to mandate electronic filing in the ASR System,
which currently allows electronic filing of antenna structure
registrations via FCC Form 854, but no Commission rule mandates
electronic filing. We propose to revise sections 17.4 and 17.57 to
specifically require electronic filing.\4\ As with filings to the ULS,
we anticipate that there are many benefits to relying exclusively on
electronic registrations, with few costs to ASR registrants. We
anticipate that electronic submission is less, not more, burdensome for
applicants, as the Commission receives very few manual ASR submissions
each year, evidencing that this option is unnecessary for the
overwhelming majority of registrants. Notably, out of the 7,000
applications filed in the ASR System last year, only 15 were filed
manually. We seek comment on this proposal, and on whether there
remains a reason to allow paper filings in the ASR System under limited
circumstances. If so, is the Commission's waiver process the
appropriate vehicle to address such instances?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ We also take this opportunity to correct a typographic error
in sections 17.4(c)(1)(ii) and 17.4(c)(1)(iv), which incorrectly
refers to ``paragraph I(C)(1)-(3)''and instead should refer to
``I(E)(1)-(3)'' for the definition of ``Substantial increase in the
size of the tower'' in the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the
Collocation of Wireless Antennas, 47 CFR Pt. 1, Appx. B, Section
I(E)(1)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For both the ULS and ASR Systems, we seek comment on the amount of
time we should provide for filers to prepare for the transition to
mandatory electronic filing. Would six months be sufficient lead-time
for licensees/applicants and registrants to convert their practices to
electronic filing? Are there differences between the entities
previously exempted from electronic ULS filings and entities that
submit ASRs manually that might warrant different timelines for the
respective transitions?
We also seek comment on whether the Commission's rules for filing
electronic pleadings related to applications filed in the ULS and the
ASR System--e.g., petitions to deny, petitions for reconsideration,
applications for review, and status reports--also should be revised to
require electronic filing. Most pleadings already can be filed
electronically via the ``Submit Pleading'' link in ULS. We seek comment
on whether to make electronic submission of ULS and ASR-related
pleadings mandatory, to the extent they are not already. Additionally,
some general Commission rules that apply to ULS and ASR applications as
well as to other proceedings require service on other parties, and
service must be manual, unless the party agrees otherwise. Should we
revise these service requirements to permit a party to serve pleadings
on other parties electronically? For proceedings in which all
electronic filings are publicly available, does electronic filing
itself provide sufficient notice to parties interested in the
proceeding that it should be sufficient to constitute service on other
parties? Should we also require or encourage that requests by members
of the public for environmental review of ASR towers, and pleadings or
comments related to those requests, be filed and/or served
electronically? Or should we exempt certain members of the public, some
of whom may, for example, live in remote areas with limited electronic
or internet access, from mandatory electronic filing and/or service
when they wish to file requests for environmental review or other
complaints and participate in pleading cycles? Is the Commission's
waiver process an appropriate vehicle to address such instances? What
are the costs and benefits of each option?
TCNS and the E-106 System. Tower Notifiers that choose to use TCNS
file proposed construction notices electronically. What steps could we
take to encourage Tower Notifiers to use TCNS to fulfill their
obligation to notify and respond to Indian Tribes and NHOs? Under the
Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National
Historic Preservation Act Review Process (NPA), Indian Tribes and NHOs
may elect to receive notices and associated information from TCNS in
accord with their reasonable communications preference, which may
include U.S. or
[[Page 51505]]
Express Mail.\5\ What would incentivize Tribes and NHOs to receive
information and complete their reviews electronically using TCNS, and
what steps can the Commission take to remove barriers, make it easier,
or otherwise encourage them to do so?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The NPA requires the Commission and our applicants to
communicate in a manner consistent with the reasonable wishes of
Indian Tribes or NHOs. 47 CFR part 1, Appx. C Sec. IV(C), (D) and
(E). For more details on the NPA and the Commission's TCNS process,
see https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/systems-utilities/tower-construction-notifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the state historic review process of tower proposals,
Tower Notifiers can provide information to State Historic Preservation
Officers (SHPOs) electronically by submitting the relevant FCC Forms
using either the Commission's electronic system (E-106) or a SHPO-
created database. Tower Notifiers also have the option to send these
forms and other communications via U.S. or Express mail. We propose to
require that Tower Notifiers that chose to use the E-106 System submit
FCC Forms 620 and 621 electronically, and that all of the Tower
Notifiers' communications associated with the review process be made
electronically. We seek comment on this approach. Because E-106 is an
electronic system, all filings made by SHPOs in response to tower
proposals into the system are inherently electronic. However, SHPOs are
not required to use the system,\6\ and a large number of them do not:
Currently, just 19 out of 59 SHPOs review tower projects via this
system. We seek comment on what steps we could take to encourage SHPOs
to participate in our electronic system and complete their reviews
without the need for paper mail. Are there any scenarios where E-106
users might need to communicate with physical mail? We seek comment on
any other changes we could make to the E-106 system itself or the
review process that could reduce or eliminate the use of paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As with TCNS, use of E-106 is voluntary. The system was
designed to save users time and resources by automating and
expediting the exchange of information and correspondence in the
Section 106 process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Issues To Consider. Are there other situations involving the
ULS and ASR System that we have not considered where electronic filing
could be used? If a rule is silent on how a filing or communication
should be made in connection with ULS, ASR, TCNS, or E-106, should we
(subject to the limitations discussed herein) revise the rule to
require an electronic filing or communication? Are there other
conforming or related rule changes that the Commission should consider
to facilitate these transitions? Are there other implementation issues
we should consider? For example, do we need to make any changes with
regard to how we handle confidential information submitted to these
systems, including sensitive information submitted by Tribes? Are there
any accessibility-related issues we should be aware of that could
impact our finalizing the transition to electronic filings? We note
that we will continue to meet our requirement to provide accommodations
for people with disabilities, and seek comment on how best to ensure
compliance with the requirements of Sections 504 and 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or any other relevant statute, in requiring
electronic filing.
Currently, if an application that is required to be filed
electronically is manually filed without a waiver request, the
Commission's practice has been to dismiss the application as defective.
We propose, and seek comment on, using the same approach going forward.
B. Email Address for Applications, Registrations, and Notifications
It is currently optional--not mandatory--for applicants, licensees,
registrants, Tower Notifiers, and people who otherwise use these
systems to provide an email address on the relevant FCC Forms submitted
to these systems. Through this optional process, we have an email
address on file for roughly 60% of the more than 2.2 million active WRS
licenses.\7\ To increase this number and finalize our transition to
electronic correspondence and outgoing notices from these systems, we
propose to require inclusion of an email address on all applications
and associated FCC Forms for ULS, ASR, and TCNS/E-106. To accomplish
this goal, we propose to update the respective electronic FCC Forms to
require inclusion of an email address going forward. This change will
be implemented as soon as feasible, based on completing any requisite
updates to our electronic systems, and on any necessary Paperwork
Reduction Act approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This includes WRS licenses for which there is a licensee
email address, a point-of-contact email address, or both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that section 1.934 of our rules allows us to dismiss an
application as defective if it is incomplete with respect to required
answers to questions. Thus, once inclusion of an email address is
mandatory on the respective FCC Forms, the Commission may dismiss as
defective an application if an email address is not included. We also
propose to amend section 1.923(i) of the Commission's rules--which
requires applications to specify a U.S. Postal Mail address--to require
that applications also specify an email address, and seek comment on
this proposal. Alternatively, should we remove section 1.923(i) as
unnecessary, given that the appropriate FCC Forms will require both
U.S. Postal Mail and email addresses going forward? Should we also
require an email address on all pleadings related to applications and
filings in these systems? Are there other rule changes that may be
warranted to make furnishing an email address mandatory within these
systems? For example, section 1.5 of the Commission's rules requires
licensees and applicants for a license to provide the Commission with
an address where the Commission can direct correspondence. Should we
revise this rule, or others, to reference email addresses?
We also seek comment on how to ensure that applicants, licensees,
and registrants keep their email addresses up-to-date. Are changes to
the Commission's existing rules about keeping contact information
current sufficient to encompass email addresses? Should the Commission
add ``change of an email address'' to the non-exhaustive list of minor
modifications in section 1.929(k)? What changes to our rules might we
need to ensure that entities with registered antenna structures in the
ASR System keep email addresses current? Should we require ASR users to
keep their contact information, including email addresses, current at
all times? Are there reasons why we should not adopt such a
requirement? Are there other ways to ensure that the Commission has
accurate, up-to-date, email addresses associated with applications,
licenses, and registrations across these electronic systems? Are there
other ways to provide convenient means and appropriate incentives to
ensure we have accurate, up-to-date email addresses? Notwithstanding
that our WRS licensing data is public, are there possible privacy
issues related to the collection of email addresses, and if so, how
could we best address them? Currently, email addresses provided to ULS
are publicly available, with certain exceptions.\8\ Should we continue
using
[[Page 51506]]
this approach going forward? If the Commission were to continue masking
email addresses for certain categories of licensees, how would that
affect electronic service of documents on third parties?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The public facing ULS masks email addresses, phone numbers,
and fax numbers connected to licenses in the Amateur Radio Service,
Aircraft Radio Service, Commercial Radio Operators Services, Ship
Radio Service, and the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Electronic Notices, Correspondence, and Alerts
ULS and ASR. The Bureaus took steps in 2014 and 2016 to reduce the
amount of paper correspondence generated by the ULS and ASR System.
First, the Bureaus converted to official electronic records for
authorizations, mailing hard copies of such authorizations only when an
entity ``opted in.'' Second, they eliminated several categories of
notices generated by these systems and sent to users through the U.S.
Postal Service. The Bureaus cited several benefits to electronic
correspondence, including saving money in terms of staff resources,
paper supplies, and mailing costs, and eliminating the risk of notices
getting lost or damaged in delivery.
Despite these initial steps, the ULS and ASR System still generate
thousands of authorizations and letters each year that are sent via
U.S. Postal Mail. Notwithstanding that official copies can be accessed
electronically and downloaded, the Bureaus printed and mailed over
60,000 specifically requested hard copy authorizations each year for
the past three years. In about 80% of these instances, the relevant
Bureau had an email address on file for the entity to which it mailed
the hard copy authorization. We propose to eliminate requests for the
Bureaus to mail hard copies of these authorizations, given that users
can access and download their official authorizations, leases, and
registrations from the ULS and ASR System at any time.
In addition to authorizations, the Commission prints and mails hard
copies of thousands of letters from the ULS and ASR System to
licensees/applicants and registrants each year. For example, in 2018,
the Commission printed more than 20,000 dismissal letters; more than
13,000 return letters; over 8,000 cancellation letters; about 4,000
termination letters; and roughly 4,500 letters notifying owners of
registered towers of an application to change ownership. 90% of the
time, the Bureaus had an email address on file for the entities
receiving these letters. We propose to send these types of letters
electronically using the email address on file (once applicants/
licensees and registrants are required to update their contact
information to include email addresses, as discussed in Part B above).
We seek comment on this proposal, and on whether there is a need to
maintain U.S. Postal Mail-delivered correspondence for certain
categories of notices, or to certain types of recipients. Should the
Commission maintain an option for licensees, applicants, and
registrants to receive paper letters on a case-by-case basis? Is the
Commission's waiver process sufficient to deal with any case-specific
need for paper mailings? What are the costs and benefits of maintaining
this option?
We also seek comment on the various implementation issues raised by
transitioning to email correspondence. For example, how many email
addresses should we allow on file for each licensee, applicant,
registrant, Tower Notifier, or other user of systems affected by these
proposed changes? Should the user be able to designate which email
address is the ``primary'' address for all, or for certain types, of
correspondence, or should all notices be sent to every email address on
file? Must the email include the actual substance of the communication
(e.g., an electronic copy of a dismissal letter), or could the email
simply alert the user to log in to the respective system to check an
electronic mailbox or administrative tab that hosts the electronic
correspondence? What other vehicles of electronic communication might
be an option? We note, for example, that some court systems rely on
online portals for electronic communications. Commenters arguing in
favor of a specific vehicle or approach to email delivery should
address the costs, benefits, and feasibility of the Commission
implementing the approach.
Today, about 10% of the letters we deliver by U.S. Postal Mail are
returned as undeliverable. When this occurs, the Bureaus will check for
any error (e.g., misspelling) and attempt to send the letter a second
time. Should we use the same practice for emails that get bounced back
as undeliverable (i.e., attempt to deliver twice)? If not, what
approach might make sense for undeliverable electronic mail? Should
there be an alert in the ULS and ASR System to let users know that a
notice was sent to their on-file email address, with an electronic copy
also available within those systems? Should the Bureau provide
instructions or other assistance to licensees and applicants in advance
of this transition, to help ensure that the recipient's email program
will not block or filter Commission emails? What should be the
consequence if an entity is not aware of a notice or other
communication from the Bureaus because it failed to ensure its email
program will not block or filter Commission emails or failed to keep
its email address current? Are there other technical issues we should
keep in mind as we transition to electronic correspondence?
The Bureaus also print and mail more than 60,000 hard copy courtesy
letters a year, such as letters reminding licensees of important dates
like renewal and construction deadlines. We seek comment on whether
courtesy letters remain necessary or could be eliminated. If recipients
continue to find them helpful, should we transition to sending courtesy
letters via email, or would a different method of online alerting be
more efficient or useful to convey important deadlines? For example,
would it be helpful to receive online alerts about important deadlines
in a tab or mailbox within the ULS and ASR System? If we were to start
using an online alerting mechanism, are there additional categories of
alerts that we should include, besides important deadlines and, for the
ASR System, tower ownership changes? If so, what kind of additional
alerts would be beneficial? Should the Commission send notifications to
ASR applicants completing the environmental notification process, such
as determinations, dispositions, and Findings of No Significant Impact
(FONSIs), by electronic means only? If so, should there be an option
within the system for applicants to print all or some of these
notifications?
What is the appropriate timeframe for the transition of the ULS and
ASR System to electronic correspondence and electronic alerts? How long
after the Commission requires an email address associated with its
applications should it begin using the on-file email addresses for
notices and correspondence?
TCNS and E-106 System. The Bureaus printed and mailed nearly 38,000
letters last year related to the TCNS/E-106 historic preservation
process. Within the limits of the NPA, which allows Indian Tribes and
NHOs to choose their preferred form of communication with the
Commission and Tower Notifiers, we seek comment on how to incentivize
the use of electronic correspondence with Indian Tribes and NHOs to the
maximum extent possible in connection to their involvement with these
systems, and on what steps the Commission could take to remove barriers
that might prevent their doing so. We seek comment on the same
implementation, technical, and mechanical issues discussed above with
respect to the ULS and ASR System. We also seek comment on the
appropriate amount of time to allow for this transition.
[[Page 51507]]
List of Subjects
Administrative practice and procedure; Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend parts 1 and 17 of Title 47
of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note,
unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 1.913 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 1.913 remove and reserve paragraph (d).
0
3. In Sec. 1.923 revise paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.923 Content of applications.
* * * * *
(i) Unless an exception is set forth elsewhere in this chapter,
each applicant must specify an email address and a United States Postal
Service address for the Commission to serve documents or direct
correspondence to the applicant.
PART 17--CONSTRUCTION, MARKING, AND LIGHTING OF ANTENNA STRUCTURES
0
4. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 303, 309.
0
5. Amend Sec. 17.4 by revising paragraphs (b), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(1)(iv),
and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.4 Antenna structure registration.
* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, each owner
of an antenna structure described in paragraph (a) of this section must
file FCC Form 854 with the Commission. FCC Form 854, and all related
amendments, modifications, and attachments, including environmental
assessments, shall be filed electronically. Additionally, each owner of
a proposed structure referred to in paragraph (a) of this section must
submit a valid FAA determination of ``no hazard.'' In order to be
considered valid by the Commission, the FAA determination of ``no
hazard'' must not have expired prior to the date on which FCC Form 854
is received by the Commission. The height of the structure will be the
highest point of the structure including any obstruction lighting or
lightning arrester. If an antenna structure is not required to be
registered under paragraph (a) of this section and it is voluntarily
registered with the Commission after the effective date of this rule,
the registrant must note on FCC Form 854 that the registration is
voluntary. Voluntarily registered antenna structures are not subject to
the lighting and marking requirements contained in this part.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) For a reduction in height of an antenna structure or an
increase in height that does not constitute a substantial increase in
size as defined in paragraph I(E)(1)-(3) of Appendix B to part 1 of
this chapter, provided that there is no construction or excavation more
than 30 feet beyond the existing antenna structure property;
* * * * *
(iv) For replacement of an existing antenna structure at the same
geographic location that does not require an Environmental Assessment
(EA) under Sec. 1.1307(a) through (d) of this chapter, provided the
new structure will not use a less preferred lighting style, there will
be no substantial increase in size as defined in paragraph I(E)(1)-(3)
of Appendix B to part 1 of this chapter, and there will be no
construction or excavation more than 30 feet beyond the existing
antenna structure property;
* * * * *
0
6. Revise Sec. 17.57 to read as follows:
Sec. 17.57 Report of radio transmitting antenna construction,
alteration, and/or removal.
The owner of an antenna structure for which an Antenna Structure
Registration Number has been obtained must notify the Commission within
5 days of completion of construction by filing FCC Form 854-R and/or
dismantlement by filing FCC Form 854. The owner must also notify the
Commission within 5 days of any change in structure height or change in
ownership information by filing FCC Form 854. FCC Forms 854 and 854-R,
and all related amendments, modifications, and attachments, shall be
filed electronically.
[FR Doc. 2019-20527 Filed 9-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
