Electronic Delivery of MVPD Communications; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative
| Citation | 84 FR 8278 |
| Record Number | 2019-04142 |
| Published date | 07 March 2019 |
| Court | Federal Communications Commission |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8278-8282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04142]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket No.17-317 and 17-105; FCC 18-166]
Electronic Delivery of MVPD Communications; Modernization of
Media Regulation Initiative
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
or Commission) seeks comment on whether we should permit Subpart T and
privacy notices to be delivered electronically to subscribers via means
other than verified email.
DATES: Submit comments on or before April 8, 2019; reply comments on or
before April 22, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket Nos. 17-105
and 17-317, by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 888-835-5322.
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: For additional information, contact
Lyle Elder, Lyle.Elder@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Policy Division
(202) 418-2120. Direct press inquiries to Janice Wise at (202) 418-
8165. For additional information concerning the information collection
requirements contained in this document, send an email to PRA@fcc.gov
or contact Cathy Williams, (202) 418-2918.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), FCC 18-166, adopted on
November 15, 2018 and released on November 16, 2018, and the Erratum to
that FNPRM, adopted on November 30, 2018 and released on December 4,
2018. The full text of these documents is available electronically via
the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ or via the FCC's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft
Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document is also available for public
inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC
Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The Reference
Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The complete
text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th
Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are
available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov
or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking we seek comment on
whether we should permit Subpart T and privacy notices to be delivered
electronically to subscribers via means other than verified email.
Through this proceeding, the Commission continues its efforts to
modernize its regulations and reduce unnecessary requirements
[[Page 8279]]
that can impede competition and innovation in the media marketplace.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Commission Launches Modernization of Media Regulation
Initiative, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 4406 (MB 2017) (initiating a
review of rules applicable to media entities to eliminate or modify
regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. We seek comment on whether we should permit the Subpart T and
privacy notices discussed above to be delivered to subscribers via
other electronic means. In the attached Report and Order, we conclude
that these notices may be delivered by verified email, so long as
certain consumer protections are satisfied. Some commenters maintain
that we should adopt a wider range of permissible electronic delivery
formats.\2\ For example, Charter advocates ``using texting to
communicate with customers, utilizing the same standard for a verified
telephone number as was put in place for email.'' \3\ NCTA similarly
suggests that SMS texting to a ``verified phone number'' and ``other
forms of messaging,'' such as the use of smartphone apps, should be
permissible ways to deliver Subpart T notices.\4\ In addition, Verizon
asserts that subscriber notices could be made available through an
``electronic message center'' that is accessible via a subscriber's
television screen.\5\ Although each of these specific alternatives is
referenced and supported by at least one commenter, the record in this
proceeding provides little evidence regarding how each would work in
practice or discussion of what the costs and benefits of these
methodologies would be to consumers or cable operators. Accordingly, we
seek further input on these alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., Comcast Nov. 8, 2018 Ex Parte.
\3\ Charter October 25, 2018 Ex Parte at 2.
\4\ These methodologies may include social media communications,
push notifications from smartphone apps, and dedicated third-party
messaging programs (which can be used on a variety of platforms).
See NCTA Comments at 7 (citing Micah Solomon, Here's How The New
Wave Of Messaging Has Transformed Customer Service, Forbes, Jan. 18,
2017, available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/micahsolomon/2017/01/18/heres-how-texting-is-transforming-customer-service-and-customer-support/ and Twilio, How Consumers Use Messaging Today,
https://www.twilio.com/learn/commerce-communications/how-consumers-use-messaging (last visited Nov. 11. 2018). NCTA also argues that
cable operators should be permitted to use any electronic means of
delivery that is ``reasonably calculated'' to reach subscribers.
NCTA Comments at 7. As discussed in the Report and Order, we reject
this broad standard.
\5\ Verizon Comments at 9 (the ``electronic message center'' is
accessed by subscribers ``through their in-home equipment.
Subscribers can access messages posted in the message center on
their TV receivers'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Would allowing the delivery of Subpart T notices through the use
of other electronic means, such as SMS texting, be helpful to
subscribers? How would subscribers be made aware that they would be
receiving notices in this manner? Should the subscriber have to
affirmatively agree to access these notices through the relevant
electronic means? Would allowing additional electronic means increase
operator efficiency or decrease the environmental waste associated with
paper delivery in a meaningful way? We seek comment generally on the
costs and benefits of permitting cable operators more flexibility in
how these notices are delivered to their subscribers.
4. With regard to texting, to what extent do cable operators text
information to their customers today? Operators should specify what
information they text and how they determine which customers receive
texts. Should consumers reasonably expect that a cable operator will
text them notices simply because they have provided a ``verified phone
number'' to the cable operator? Do cable operators have methods to
verify whether a particular phone number is associated with a cell
phone whose user accepts text messages? We assume this option would
only be viable for subscribers using smartphones. For example, we note
that only subscribers with smartphones can click on weblinks that would
contain the notices. Is this assumption accurate? If so, how can
operators verify that a given number is tied to a smartphone? If a
subscriber does not have a smartphone, how would cable operators ensure
delivery of required notices? Some notices required under Subpart T,
such as the annual notices under Sec. 76.1602(b), are lengthy. Is it
reasonable to send such notices in their entirety to cell phones via
text? Could any subscriber incur charges for receiving and accessing
this information? How is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
implicated by the use of texting as a means of delivering subscriber
notices?
5. With regard to other means of electronic delivery, such as the
use of smartphone apps or the ``electronic message center'' suggested
by Verizon, to what extent do cable operators use these methods to
deliver information to their subscribers today? With respect to notices
sent through smartphone apps, how would subscribers be made aware that
notices were available to be viewed? If the apps send notices the
user's screen even if the app is closed (``push notifications''), could
these be deactivated by the smartphone user? How would subscribers opt
out of notices sent to smartphone apps (or know that they might want to
do so) if they do not have the smartphone app installed? We seek
similar input with respect to the ``electronic message center''
proposal. That is, what affirmative steps, if any, would subscribers
need to take in order to access the Subpart T information, and would it
be reasonably accessible? Finally, if we permitted additional means of
electronic delivery, are there any consumer protections that would be
necessary or beneficial? If so, what protections should we adopt?
6. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),\6\ the Commission
has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) concerning the possible significant economic impact on small
entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on
this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and
must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page
of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA).\7\ In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), Pubic Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
The SBREFA was enacted as Title II of the Contract With America
Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA).
\7\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
\8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules.
8. The Report and Order associated with this item adopts rules that
permit cable operators and other MVPDs to send specific consumers
notices electronically to a verified email address rather than on paper
to a physical address. This FNPRM seeks comment on whether we should
adopt additional alternative forms of electronic delivery.
9. Legal Basis.
10. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4(i),
4(j), 325, 338, 624A, 631, 632, and 653 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 325, 338, 544a, 551,
552, and 573.
11. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply.
12. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\9\ The
[[Page 8280]]
RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and
``small governmental jurisdiction.''\10\ In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act.\11\ 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.\12\ Below, we provide a description of such
small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small
entities, where feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
\10\ Id. section 601(6).
\11\ Id. section 601(3) (including by reference the definition
of ``small-business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies
``unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for
public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term
which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes
such definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
\12\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation Standard). The
Commission has also developed its own small business size standards,
for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules,
a ``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers,
nationwide.\13\ Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators
nationwide, all but 11 are small under this size standard.\14\ In
addition, under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable
system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.\15\ Industry data indicate
that, of 6,635 systems nationwide, 5,802 systems have under 10,000
subscribers, and an additional 302 systems have 10,000-19,999
subscribers.\16\ Thus, under this second size standard, the Commission
believes that most cable systems are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size
standard equates approximately to a size standard of $100 million or
less in annual revenues. Implementation of Sections of the 1992
Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh
Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995).
\14\ These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting &
Cable Yearbook 2006, ``Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,'' pages A-8
& C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications
News, Television & Cable Factbook 2006, ``Ownership of Cable Systems
in the United States,'' pages D-1805 to D-1857.
\15\ 47 CFR76.901(c).
\16\ Warren Communications News, Television & Cable Factbook
2008, ``U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size,'' page F-2 (data
current as of Oct. 2007). The data do not include 851 systems for
which classifying data were not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Cable System Operators. The Act also contains a size standard
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that,
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1
percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated
with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the
aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' \17\ The Commission has determined
that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed
a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total
annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in
the aggregate.\18\ Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable
operators nationwide, all but 10 are small under this size
standard.\19\ We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects
information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with
entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,\20\ and
therefore we are unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable
system operators that would qualify as small under this size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see also 47 CFR 76.901(f) & nn.1-3.
\18\ 47 CFR 76.901(f); see FCC Announces New Subscriber Count
for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, Public Notice, 16 FCC
Rcd 2225 (Cable Services Bureau 2001).
\19\ These data are derived from R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting &
Cable Yearbook 2006, ``Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,'' pages A-8
& C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications
News, Television & Cable Factbook 2006, ``Ownership of Cable Systems
in the United States,'' pages D-1805 to D-1857.
\20\ The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-
case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's
finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator
pursuant to section 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Open Video Services. Open Video Service (OVS) systems provide
subscription services.\21\ The open video system framework was
established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options
for the provision of video programming services by local exchange
carriers.\22\ The OVS framework provides opportunities for the
distribution of video programming other than through cable systems.
Because OVS operators provide subscription services,\23\ OVS falls
within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services,
which is ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' \24\ The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for this category, which is:
All such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees.\25\ To gauge small
business prevalence for the OVS service, the Commission relies on data
currently available from the U.S. Census for the year 2012. According
to that source, there were 3,117 firms that in 2012 were Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Of these, 3,059 operated with less than
1,000 employees. Based on this data, the majority of these firms can be
considered small.\26\ In addition, we note that the Commission has
certified some OVS operators, with some now providing service.\27\
Broadband service providers (``BSPs'') are currently the only
significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises.\28\
The Commission does not have financial or employment information
regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not
yet be operational. Thus, at least some of the OVS operators may
qualify as small entities. The Commission further notes that it has
certified approximately 45 OVS operators to serve 116 areas, and some
of these are currently providing service.\29\ Affiliates of Residential
Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate OVS
systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, DC, and other areas. RCN
has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small
business entity. Little financial information is available for the
other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet
operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service
have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that
up to 44 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small
businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted
herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See 47 U.S.C. 573.
\22\ 47 U.S.C. 571(a)(3)-(4). See 13th Annual Report, 24 FCC Rcd
at 606, para. 135.
\23\ See 47 U.S.C. 573.
\24\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 517110 Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, http://www.census.gov/naics/2012/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.
\25\ 13 CFR 201.121, NAICS code 517110 (2012).
\26\ See U.S. Census Bureau, Table EC1251SSSZ5, https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t#none.
\27\ A list of OVS certifications may be found at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html.
\28\ See 13th Annual Report, 24 FCC Rcd at 606-07 para. 135.
BSPs are newer firms that are building state-of-the-art, facilities-
based networks to provide video, voice, and data services over a
single network.
\29\ See http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/current-filings-certification-open-video-systems (current as of July 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known
as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video
distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without
using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and
distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban
[[Page 8281]]
multiple dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and
commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings.
SMATV systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA's broad economic
census category, ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers,'' \30\ which was
developed for small wireline firms.\31\ Under this category, the SBA
deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees.\32\ Census data for 2012 indicate that in that year there
were 3,117 firms operating businesses as wired telecommunications
carriers. Of that 3,117, 3,059 operated with 999 or fewer employees.
Based on this data, we estimate that a majority of operators of SMATV/
PCO companies were small under the applicable SBA size standard.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2012).
\31\ Although SMATV systems often use DBS video programming as
part of their service package to subscribers, they are not included
in section 340's definition of ``satellite carrier.'' See 47 U.S.C.
340(i)(1) and 338(k)(3); 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(6).
\32\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (2012).
\33\ U.S. Census Bureau, Table EC1251SSSZ5, https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t#none.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS Service is a
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic dish antenna at
the subscriber's location. DBS is now included in SBA's economic census
category ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' The Wired
Telecommunications Carriers industry comprises establishments primarily
engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities
and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the
wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming
distribution; and wired broadband internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in
this industry.\34\ The SBA determines that a wireline business is small
if it has fewer than 1,500 employees.\35\ Census data for 2012 indicate
that 3,117 wireline companies were operational during that year. Of
that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.\36\ Based
on that data, we conclude that the majority of wireline firms are small
under the applicable standard. However, currently only two entities
provide DBS service, which requires a great deal of capital for
operation: DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) and DISH Network.\37\ DIRECTV and
DISH Network each report annual revenues that are in excess of the
threshold for a small business. Accordingly, we must conclude that
internally developed FCC data are persuasive that in general DBS
service is provided only by large firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, ``517110
Wired Telecommunications Carriers,'' http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.
\35\ NAICS Code 517110; 13 CFR 121.201.
\36\ See U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC1251SSSZ4, Information:
Subject Series--Estab & Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the
U.S.: 2012; 2012 Economic Census of the United States, http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices.jasf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid+ECN_2012_US.51SSSZ4&prodType=table.
\37\ See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the
Market for Delivery of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 12-203,
Fifteenth Report, 28 FCC Rcd 10496, 10507, para. 27 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements.
19. The Commission seeks comment on whether alternative electronic
delivery of certain notices to subscribers will reduce the costs and
burdens on MVPDs of providing such notices. We anticipate that adoption
of any additional options will result in no increase to the reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements of MVPDs, including
small entities.
20. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered.
21. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1)
the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small
entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for
small entities.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic
impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in
response to the FNPRM and this IRFA. The Commission has found that
electronic delivery of notices greatly eases the burden of complying
with notification requirements for MVPDs, including small MVPDs, and
there is no evidence that adoption of alternative electronic means of
communication would result in any increase of that lowered burden. The
Commission's evaluation of the comments filed on this topic will shape
the final conclusions it reaches, the final significant alternatives it
considers, and the actions it ultimately takes in this proceeding to
minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small
entities.
23. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
24. None.
25. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act 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.''
26. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding shall be
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules.\39\ 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
[[Page 8282]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Filing Comments and Replies--Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 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).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
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.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th Street SW, TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8 a.m. to 7 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.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 220701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
28. Availability of Documents--Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC
20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will
be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe
Acrobat.
29. People with Disabilities--To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice),
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).
30. It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in sections
1, 4(i), 4(j), 325, 338, 624A, 631, 632, and 653 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 325, 338, 544a,
551, 552, and 573 this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
31. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-04142 Filed 3-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
