Updating the Commission's Rule for Over-the-Air Reception Devices
| Published date | 02 May 2019 |
| Citation | 84 FR 18757 |
| Record Number | 2019-08432 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Federal Communications Commission |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18757-18762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08432]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[WT Docket No. 19-71; FCC 19-36]
Updating the Commission's Rule for Over-the-Air Reception Devices
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on updating the Over-the-Air Reception
Devices (OTARD) rule by eliminating the restriction that currently
excludes hub and relay antennas from the scope of the rule.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before June 3, 2019,
and reply comments on or before June 17, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and reply comments on or before the
dates indicated in the DATES section above. 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). All filings related to this document shall refer to WT Docket
No. 19-71.
[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.
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
[[Page 18758]]
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 Street 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 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
People With Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
For additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection
modifications proposed herein should be submitted to the Commission via
email to [email protected] and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management
and Budget, via email to [email protected] or via fax at
202-395-5167.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this
proceeding, contact Erin Boone, [email protected], of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Competition & Infrastructure Policy
Division, (202) 418-0736.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Federal
Communications Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in WT
Docket No. 19-71; FCC 19-36, adopted April 12, 2019, and released on
April 12, 2019. The document is available for download at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. The complete text of this document is
also available for inspection and copying during normal business hours
in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street
SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Synopsis
I. NPRM
1. The Commission agrees with the Wireless internet Service
Providers Association (WISPA) that it should seek comment on
modernizing and updating the OTARD regulatory framework to reflect the
current technological landscape. Accordingly, the Commission proposes
to eliminate the restriction that currently excludes hub and relay
antennas from the scope of the OTARD provisions. The Commission's
previous decision to limit the applicability of the OTARD rule
reflected the infrastructure needs of a previous generation of wireless
technologies that relied on larger antennas spread over greater
distances to provide service to consumers. The wireless infrastructure
landscape has since shifted toward the development of 5G networks and
technologies that require dense deployment of smaller antennas across
provider networks in locations closer to customers. The Commission
anticipates that revising the OTARD framework would allow fixed
wireless providers to deploy hub and relay antennas more quickly and
efficiently and would help spur investment in and deployment of needed
infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the public interest.
The Commission seeks comment on its proposal.
2. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which extending
the OTARD rule to fixed wireless hub and relay antennas would spur
infrastructure deployment, including the deployment of mesh networks in
urban, suburban, and rural areas. To what extent would extending the
rule create more siting opportunities for fixed wireless service
providers? What effect would adoption of the proposed rule have on
infrastructure deployment in rural, Tribal, and other underserved
areas? What effect would it have on infrastructure deployment by small
providers? With respect to the hub and relay antennas, what types of
services are these antennas typically used to supply, and what types of
services might they supply in the future? Where do providers expect to
deploy these facilities? To what extent are these facilities typically
used to provide service both to the owner of the property on which they
are located as well as to other customers? To what extent do State,
local, or private restrictions delay or impede the installation of
fixed wireless hub or relay antennas currently? If there are delays or
impediments, commenters should provide information and data on the
length of delays and associated costs imposed by the restrictions. In
addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether updating the OTARD
rule could help facilitate the deployment of other 5G infrastructure,
such as small wireless facilities.
3. Do fixed wireless service providers face a competitive
disadvantage with respect to the deployment of these network facilities
compared with other types of providers, such as carriers whose
deployments are subject to the provisions of Section 253 of the Act or
mobile operators whose deployments are subject to the provisions of
Section 332? What are these competitive disadvantages? To what extent
would extending OTARD protections as described here effectively address
any competitive disparity? Specifically, would extending OTARD
protections increase competition or provide an incentive for entry?
Commenters opposing the proposal should explain their reasons for doing
so, including providing any relevant data, and should discuss other
steps the Commission could take to facilitate the deployment of the
infrastructure necessary for modern fixed wireless networks.
4. The OTARD rule preempts restrictions on antennas that are
located on property within the antenna user's exclusive use or control,
and where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the
property, and it does not apply to restrictions on antennas located in
common areas. How should the rule apply in the case of hub or relay
antennas? Should the Commission clarify that it will interpret
``antenna user'' to include fixed wireless service providers? For
example, if a fixed wireless service provider leases space for a hub
antenna on private property, should the Commission clarify that the
service provider becomes the ``antenna user'' with respect to that
property? Would doing so be necessary to ensure that fixed wireless
providers are able to take advantage of an expanded OTARD rule? ``Fixed
wireless signals'' are defined under the rule to mean ``any commercial
non-broadcast communications signals transmitted via wireless
technology to and/or from a fixed customer location.'' Should the
Commission revise this provision to delete the word ``customer''? Is
doing so necessary to ensure that the rule applies to hub and relay
antennas? Should the
[[Page 18759]]
Commission further define the term ``hub or relay antenna''? If so,
what definition should it adopt? Is it necessary to make any other
changes to the text of the rule to ensure that it extends to hub and
relay antennas or would other rule revisions or interpretations better
effectuate the proposal?
5. Currently, the OTARD provisions applicable to fixed wireless
antennas apply only to those antennas measuring one meter or less in
diameter or diagonal measurement. In addition, the current rule is
subject to an exception for State, local, or private restrictions that
are necessary to accomplish a clearly defined, legitimate safety
objective, or to preserve prehistoric or historic places that are
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places,
provided such restrictions impose as little burden as necessary to
achieve the foregoing objectives, and apply in a nondiscriminatory
manner throughout the regulated area. The Commission proposes not to
change these aspects of the rule at this time. The Commission seeks
comment on this approach. Is there any reason to approach the size-
limitation differently in rural or underserved areas?
6. The Commission proposes to rely on the legal authority it relied
on originally to extending the OTARD rule to apply to antennas used in
connection with fixed wireless services. The Commission notes that it
assumed all hub sites were ``personal wireless service facilities''
covered by section 332(c)(7) of the Act--defined by the Act to include
only facilities that provide ``telecommunications services''--and
therefore beyond the scope of its OTARD provisions. However, this
assumption does not currently appear to be accurate. The Commission
therefore seeks comment on extending relief to those relay antennas and
hub sites that are not ``personal wireless service facilities''--i.e.,
those that fall into the gap between the current OTARD provisions and
the protections of section 332(c)(7) of the Act, and those that WISPA
claims are needed for modern high-speed broadband wireless networks.
Commenters are invited to identify any other legal authorities that may
be relevant.
II. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
7. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this NPRM. 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 on the NPRM provided on the first
page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
8. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on proposals to
facilitate the deployment of 5G wireless networks and technologies by
removing outdated regulatory requirements. Specifically, the Commission
proposes to eliminate the restriction that currently excludes certain
hub and relay antennas from the scope of the over-the-air reception
devices (OTARD) provisions. The Commission's earlier decision to limit
the applicability of the OTARD rule reflected the infrastructure needs
of a previous generation of wireless technologies that relied on larger
antennas spread over greater distances to provide service to consumers.
The wireless infrastructure landscape has since shifted to the
development of 5G networks and technologies that require dense
deployment of smaller antennas across provider networks in locations
closer to customers. The Commission anticipates that revising the OTARD
framework to allow fixed wireless providers to deploy hub and relay
antennas more quickly and efficiently in areas within their exclusive
use or control will help spur investment in and deployment of needed
infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the public interest.
9. Currently, the OTARD provisions applicable to fixed wireless
antennas apply only to those antennas measuring one meter or less in
diameter or diagonal measurement. The current rule is also subject to
an exception for state, local, or private restrictions that are
necessary to accomplish a clearly defined, legitimate safety objective
or to preserve an eligible category of prehistoric or historic
preservation place, provided such restrictions impose as little burden
as necessary to achieve the foregoing objectives, and apply in a
nondiscriminatory manner throughout the regulated area.
10. In the Notice the Commission asks detailed questions about its
proposals to update the OTARD rule, and request comments to help us
evaluate the impact of the proposed rule changes and facilitate the
deployment of modern fixed wireless infrastructure by modernizing the
OTARD rule.
2. Legal Basis
11. The proposed actions are authorized under sections 1, 4(i),
s201(b), 202(a), 205(a), 303(r), and 1302 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201(b), 202(a), 205(a),
303(r), and 1302 and section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Public Law 104-104, section 207, 110 Stat. 56, 114.
3. 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 and policies, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA. Below, the Commission provides a description of such small
entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities,
where feasible.
13. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission
therefore describes here, at the outset, three broad groups of small
entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are
industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in
the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's
Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent
business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States,
which translates to 28.8 million businesses.
14. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small
[[Page 18760]]
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
15. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicates that there
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
States. Of this number there were 37,132 General purpose governments
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than
50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school
districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000.
The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the
local government category shows that the majority of these governments
have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data the Commission
estimates that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in
the category of ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
16. Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable
to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS Code category
is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the applicable SBA size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of that total, 3,083 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated size
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of local exchange
carriers are small entities.
17. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or
fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus,
under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission
estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers
(except satellite) are small entities.
18. The Commission's own data--available in its Universal Licensing
System--indicate that, as of May 17, 2018, there are 264 Cellular
licensees that will be affected by the Commission's actions today. The
Commission does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the
Commission does not collect that information for these types of
entities. Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data,
413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of
wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications
Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio Telephony (SMR) services.
Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152
have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, the
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can be
considered small.
19. Non-Licensee Owners of Towers and Other Infrastructure.
Although at one time most communications towers were owned by the
licensee using the tower to provide communications service, many towers
are now owned by third-party businesses that do not provide
communications services themselves but lease space on their towers to
other companies that provide communications services. The Commission's
rules require that any entity, including a non-licensee, proposing to
construct a tower over 200 feet in height or within the glide slope of
an airport must register the tower with the Commission's Antenna
Structure Registration (ASR) system and comply with applicable rules
regarding review for impact on the environment and historic properties.
20. As of March 1, 2017, the ASR database includes approximately
122,157 registration records reflecting a ``Constructed'' status and
13,987 registration records reflecting a ``Granted, Not Constructed''
status. These figures include both towers registered to licensees and
towers registered to non-licensee tower owners. The Commission does not
keep information from which the Commission can easily determine how
many of these towers are registered to non-licensees or how many non-
licensees have registered towers. Regarding towers that do not require
ASR registration, the Commission does not collect information as to the
number of such towers in use and therefore cannot estimate the number
of tower owners that would be subject to the rules on which the
Commission seeks comment. Moreover, the SBA has not developed a size
standard for small businesses in the category ``Tower Owners.''
Therefore, the Commission is unable to determine the number of non-
licensee tower owners that are small entities. The Commission believes,
however, that when all entities owning 10 or fewer towers and leasing
space for collocation are included, non-licensee tower owners number in
the thousands. In addition, there may be other non-licensee owners of
other wireless infrastructure, including Distributed Antenna Systems
(DAS) and small cells that might be affected by the measures on which
the Commission seeks comment. The Commission does not have any basis
for estimating the number of such non-licensee owners that are small
entities.
21. The closest applicable SBA category is All Other
Telecommunications, and the appropriate size standard consists of all
such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. For
this category, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 1,442
firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of
1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million and 15 firms
had annual receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999. Thus, under this SBA
size standard a majority of the firms potentially affected by the
Commission's action can be considered small.
22. Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings. This industry
comprises establishments primarily engaged in acting as lessors of
buildings used as residences or dwellings, such as single-family homes,
apartment buildings, and town homes. Included in this industry are
owner-lessors and establishments renting real estate and then acting as
lessors in subleasing it to others. The establishments in this industry
may manage the property themselves or have another establishment manage
it for them. The appropriate SBA size standard for this industry
classifies a business as small if it has $27.5 million or less in
annual receipts. U.S. Census Bureau 2012 data for Lessors of
Residential Buildings and Dwellings show that there were 42,911 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of that number, 42,618 firms
operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million per year, while
142 firms operated with annual receipts between $25 million
[[Page 18761]]
and $49,999,999 million. Therefore, based on the SBA's size standard
the majority of Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings are
small entities.
23. Property Owners' Associations. This industry comprises
establishments formed on the behalf of individual property owners, to
make collective decisions based on the wishes of a majority of owners.
This includes associations formed on behalf of individual residential
condominium owners or homeowners. These associations may provide
overall management, publish a telephone directory of the owners,
sponsor seasonal events for the owners, establish and collect funds to
operate the project, enforce rules and regulations, settle differences
of opinion among residents, and make other decisions that are vital to
the owners. Associations formed on behalf of individual real estate
owners or tenants that provide no property management, but which
arrange and organize civic and social functions are included here as
well. The appropriate SBA size standard for this industry classifies a
business as small if it has $7.5 million or less in annual receipts.
U.S. Census Bureau 2012 data for Property Owners' Associations show
that there were 17,379 firms that operated for the entire year. Of that
number, 16,963 firms operated with annual receipts of less than $5
million per year, while 334 firms operated with annual receipts between
$5 million and $ 9,999,999 million. Therefore, based on the SBA's size
standard the majority of Property Owners' Associations are small
entities.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
24. The proposed updates to the OTARD rule, if adopted, would not
impose any new or additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance obligations. However, the number of entities subject to the
rule's protections and the labelling requirements may expand as a
result of the proposals.
25. The Commission takes steps to reduce regulatory impediments to
deployment by ensuring that State, local, and private restrictions do
not delay or impede the installation of fixed wireless hub or relay
antennas on private property. If enacted, the Commission's proposal
would benefit fixed wireless providers--both small and large--by
creating more siting opportunities, and the Commission anticipates its
proposal would spur investment in and deployment of needed
infrastructure. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and, in
particular, on the potential impact it may have on infrastructure
deployment in rural areas and by small providers.
26. As part of the Commission's efforts to modernize and update the
OTARD regulatory framework to reflect the current technological
landscape, the Commission also seeks comment on other steps it could
take to facilitate the deployment of the infrastructure necessary for
modern fixed wireless networks, and on what implementation issues the
Commission should consider. Following the Commission's review and
consideration of any comments filed in response to the Notice, the
Commission will fully address any requirements adopted that impose new
or additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance
obligations, and/or will require small entities to hire attorneys,
engineers, consultants, or other professionals to comply.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
27. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
especially small business, 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 such small
entities.''
28. The proposed rule changes contemplated by the Commission in
this proceeding would relieve small as well as large companies from
private and governmental restrictions on the placement of devices
integral to the deployment of modern fixed wireless infrastructure.
However, to better evaluate the economic impact on small entities,
which could occur as a result of the actions proposed in this Notice,
the Commission has sought comment. By revising the OTARD framework to
allow fixed wireless providers to site hub and relay antennas more
quickly and efficiently, in areas within their exclusive use or control
(provided that devices are properly labelled as required by the
existing rule), the Commission seeks to significantly reduce the
economic impact on small and large entities involved in deploying fixed
wireless infrastructure. Moreover, while these changes would be
beneficial to all companies, they should be particularly beneficial to
small entities that may not have the resources and economies of scale
of larger entities. In addition, these proposed changes represent
alternatives to the existing framework which will allow the Commission
to continue to fulfill its statutory responsibilities, while reducing
the burden on small entities by removing unnecessary impediments to the
rapid deployment of modern fixed wireless infrastructure across the
country.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
29. None.
B. Ex Parte Presentations
30. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with 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,
[[Page 18762]]
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should
familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
31. This document contains proposed new or modified 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 in this document, subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 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.
III. Ordering Clauses
32. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i),
201(b), 202(a), 205, 303(r), and 1302 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201(b), 202(a), 205(a),
303(r), and 1302 and section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Public Law 104-104, section 207, 110 Stat. 56, 114 that this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
33. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
Proposed Rules
The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend Sec.
1.4000 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 225, 227,
303(r), 309, 1403, 1404, 1451, and 1452.
0
2. Section 1.4000 paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A) and (ii)(A) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 1.4000 Restrictions impairing reception of television broadcast
signals, direct broadcast satellite services or multichannel multipoint
distribution services.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) An antenna that is used to receive direct broadcast satellite
service, including direct-to-home satellite service, or to receive or
transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite, including a hub or relay
antenna, and
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) An antenna that is used to receive video programming services
via multipoint distribution services, including multichannel multipoint
distribution services, instructional television fixed services, and
local multipoint distribution services, or to receive or transmit fixed
wireless signals other than via satellite, including a hub or relay
antenna, and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-08432 Filed 5-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
