Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 22000-22004 [2017-09541]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22000
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices
TABLE 2—NOCS RECEIVED FROM FEBRUARY 1, 2017 TO FEBRUARY 28, 2017
Case No.
Commencement
date
Received date
J–16–0023 .....
P–13–0824 .....
2/10/2017
2/2/2017
1/13/2017
1/19/2017
P–14–0166
P–14–0185
P–14–0321
P–15–0009
P–15–0751
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
2/23/2017
2/23/2017
2/1/2017
2/2/2017
2/10/2017
12/6/2016
12/9/2016
1/11/2017
1/29/2017
2/10/2017
P–16–0177 .....
P–16–0284 .....
2/2/2017
2/12/2017
12/6/2016
1/24/2017
P–16–0367 .....
2/2/2017
2/1/2017
P–16–0369 .....
2/2/2017
2/2/2017
P–17–0144 .....
2/21/2017
2/17/2017
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.
Dated: March 28, 2017.
Pamela Myrick,
Director, Information Management Division,
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2017–09559 Filed 5–10–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[WC Docket No. 17–84; FCC 17–37]
Accelerating Wireline Broadband
Deployment by Removing Barriers to
Infrastructure Investment
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This Notice of Inquiry
(Notice) seeks comment on whether the
Commission should enact rules to
promote the deployment of broadband
infrastructure by preempting state and
local laws that inhibit broadband
deployment, such as state and local
moratoria on market entry or the
deployment of telecommunications
facilities, excessive delays in
negotiations and approvals for rights-ofway agreements and permitting for
telecommunications services, excessive
state and local fees that may have the
effect of prohibiting the provision of
telecommunications services,
unreasonable conditions or
requirements in the context of granting
access to rights-of-way, permitting,
construction, or licensure related to the
provision of telecommunications
services, bad faith conduct in the
context of deployment, rights-of-way,
permitting, construction, or licensing
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
Chemical
(G) Trichoderma reesei modified.
(S) D-glucitol, 1,4:3,6-dianhydro-, polymer with 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol and diphenyl
carbonate.
(G) Fatty acid amide.
(G) Fatty acid amide acetate.
(S) 2-chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoropropane(244bb).
(S) Cyclohexane, 2-ethoxy-1,3-dimethyl-.
(G) Naturally-occurring minerals, reaction products with hetero substituted alkyl acrylate
polymer, kaolin and sodium silicate.
(S) Barium molybdenum niobium tantalum tellurium vanadium zinc oxide.
(G) ‘‘anilino substituted bis-triazinyl derivative of 4, 4′-diaminostilbene-2, 2′ disulfonic
acid, mixed amine sodium salt’’.
(G) Substituted heteromonocycle, polymer with substituted alkane and ethoxylated alkane, substituted heteromonocycle substituted alkyl ester-blocked.
(G) Substituted heteromonocycle, telomer with substituted carbomonocycles, substituted
alkyl ester.
(S)
Amines,
c36-alkylenedi-,polymers
with
octahydro-4,7-methano-1hindenedimethanamine and pyromellitic dianhydride, maleated.
negotiations and processes, and any
other instances where state or local legal
requirements or practices prohibit the
provision of telecommunications
services. This Notice also seeks
comment on whether there are state
laws governing the maintenance or
retirement of copper facilities that serve
as a barrier to deploying next-generation
technologies and services that the
Commission might seek to preempt. The
Commission adopted the Notice in
conjunction with a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Request for Comment
in WC Docket No. 17–84.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
June 12, 2017, and reply comments are
due on or before July 10, 2017.
ADDRESSES: All filings in response to the
Notice must refer to WC Docket No. 17–
84. The Commission strongly
encourages parties to develop responses
to the Notice that adhere to the
organization and structure of the Notice.
Comments may be filed using the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS):
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
• 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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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., 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.
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. 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 fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
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:
Wireline Competition Bureau,
Competition Policy Division, Michele
Berlove, at (202) 418–1477, or Michael
Ray, at (202) 418–0357.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Inquiry (Notice) in WC Docket No. 17–
84, adopted April 20, 2017 and released
April 21, 2017. The full text of this
document is available for public
inspection during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Information
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
It is available on the Commission’s Web
site at https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_
Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0421/
FCC–17–37A1.pdf.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. High-speed broadband is an
increasingly important gateway to jobs,
health care, education, information, and
economic development. Access to highspeed broadband can create economic
opportunity, enabling entrepreneurs to
create businesses, immediately reach
customers throughout the world, and
revolutionize entire industries. Today,
we propose and seek comment on a
number of actions designed to accelerate
the deployment of next-generation
networks and services by removing
barriers to infrastructure investment.
2. This Notice seeks to better enable
broadband providers to build, maintain,
and upgrade their networks, which will
lead to more affordable and available
Internet access and other broadband
services for consumers and businesses
alike. Today’s actions, through this
Notice and accompanying Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Request for
Comment, propose to remove regulatory
barriers to infrastructure investment at
the federal, state, and local level;
suggest changes to speed the transition
from copper networks and legacy
services to next-generation networks
and services; and propose to reform
Commission regulations that increase
costs and slow broadband deployment.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
II. Prohibiting State and Local Laws
Inhibiting Broadband Deployment
3. We seek comment on whether we
should enact rules, consistent with our
authority under Section 253 of the Act,
to promote the deployment of
broadband infrastructure by preempting
state and local laws that inhibit
broadband deployment. Section 253(a),
which generally provides that no state
and local legal requirements ‘‘may
prohibit or have the effect of
prohibiting’’ the provisioning of
interstate or intrastate
telecommunications services, provides
the Commission with ‘‘a rule of
preemption’’ that ‘‘articulates a
reasonably broad limitation on state and
local governments’ authority to regulate
telecommunications providers.’’ Section
253(b), provides exceptions for state and
local legal requirements that are
competitively neutral, consistent with
Section 254 of the Act, and necessary to
preserve and advance universal service.
Section 253(c) provides another
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
exception described by the Eighth
Circuit as a ‘‘safe harbor functioning as
an affirmative defense’’ which ‘‘limits
the ability of state and local
governments to regulate their rights-ofway or charge ‘fair and reasonable
compensation.’’’ Under Section 253(d),
Congress directed the FCC to preempt
the enforcement of any legal
requirement which violates 253(a) or
253(b) ‘‘after notice and an opportunity
for public comment.’’
4. While we recognize that not all
state and local regulation poses a barrier
to broadband development, we seek
comment below on a number of specific
areas where we could utilize our
authority under Section 253 to enact
rules to prevent states and localities
from enforcing laws that ‘‘may prohibit
or have the effect of prohibiting the
ability of any entity to provide any
interstate or intrastate
telecommunications service.’’ In our
preliminary view, restrictions on
broadband deployment may effectively
prohibit the provision of
telecommunications service, and we
seek comment on this view. What
telecommunications services are
effectively prohibited by restrictions on
broadband deployment? In each case
described below, we seek comment on
whether the laws in question are
inconsistent with Section 253(a)’s
prohibition on local laws that inhibit
provision of telecommunications
service.
5. Deployment Moratoria. First, we
seek comment on adopting rules
prohibiting state or local moratoria on
market entry or the deployment of
telecommunications facilities. We also
seek comment on the types of conduct
such rules should prevent. We invite
commenters to identify examples of
moratoria that states and localities have
adopted. How do state and local
moratoria interfere with facilities
deployment or service provision? What
types of delays result from local
moratoria (e.g., application processing,
construction)? How do moratoria affect
the cost of deployment and providing
service, and is this cost passed down to
the consumer? Are there any types of
moratoria that help advance the goals of
the Act? If we adopt the proposal to
prohibit moratoria, should we provide
an exception for certain moratoria, such
as those that are limited to exigent
circumstances or that have certain
sharply restricted time limits? If so,
what time limits should be permissible?
6. Rights-of-Way Negotiation and
Approval Process Delays. Second, we
seek comment on adopting rules to
eliminate excessive delays in
negotiations and approvals for rights-of-
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22001
way agreements and permitting for
telecommunications services. We invite
commenters to identify examples of
excessive delays. How can the
Commission streamline the negotiation
and approval process? For instance,
should the Commission adopt a
mandatory negotiation and/or approval
time period, and if so, what would be
an appropriate amount of time for
negotiations? For purposes of evaluating
the timeliness of negotiations, when
should the Commission consider the
negotiations as having started and
having stopped? For example, the
Commission adopted rules placing time
limits on applicants for cable franchises.
We seek comment on similar rules for
telecommunications rights-of-way
applicants. How have slow negotiation
or approval processes inhibited the
provision of telecommunications
service? Are there any examples of
delays that jeopardized investors or
deployment in general? How can local
governments expedite rights-of-way
negotiations and approvals? Are there
any examples of successful expedited
processes? How should regulations
placing time limits on negotiations
address or recognize delays in
processing applications or negotiations
that result from local moratoria? For
example, in 2014, the Commission
clarified that the shot clock timeframe
for wireless siting applications runs
regardless of any moratorium. Are
stalled negotiations and approvals ever
justified, and if so how could new rules
take these situations into account?
7. Excessive Fees and Other Excessive
Costs. Third, we seek comment on
adopting rules prohibiting excessive
fees and other costs that may have the
effect of prohibiting the provision of
telecommunications service. We invite
commenters to identify examples of fees
adopted by states and localities that
commenters consider excessive. For
example, we note that many states and
localities charge rights-of-way fees. Our
preliminary view is that Section 253
applies to fees other than cable
franchise fees as defined by Section
622(g) of the Act and we seek comment
on this view. By ‘‘rights-of-way fees,’’
we refer to those fees including, but not
limited to, fees that states or local
authorities impose for access to rightsof-way, permitting, construction,
licensure, providing a
telecommunications service, or any
other fees that relate to the provision of
telecommunications service. We
recognize Section 622 of the Act governs
the administration of cable franchise
fees, and that Section 622(i) limits the
Commission’s authority to ‘‘regulate the
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22002
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices
amount of the franchise fees paid by a
cable operator, or regulate the use of
funds derived from such fees,’’ except as
otherwise permitted elsewhere in
Section 622. Our preliminary view is
that Section 622(i) would prevent the
Commission from enacting rules
pursuant to Section 253 to address
‘‘excessive’’ cable franchise fees, but
that such franchise fees could be taken
into account when determining whether
other types of fees are excessive. We
seek comment on this view. Also, we
seek comment on whether there are
different types of state or local fees,
authorized under the provisions of the
Act other than 622, for which
application of Section 253 would not be
appropriate.
8. We recognize that states and
localities have many legitimate reasons
for adopting fees, and thus our focus is
directed only on truly excessive fees
that have the effect of cutting off
competition. We seek comment on how
the Commission should define what
constitutes ‘‘excessive’’ fees. For
example, should rights-of-way fees be
capped at a certain percentage of a
provider’s gross revenues in the
permitted area? If so, at what
percentage? For example, Section 622 of
the Act provides that for any twelvemonth period, the franchise fees paid by
a cable operator with respect to a cable
system shall not exceed five percent of
the cable operator’s gross revenues
derived from a cable service. When a
provider seeks to offer additional
services using the rights-of-way under
an existing franchise or authorization,
are there circumstances in which it may
be excessive to require the provider to
pay additional fees in connection with
the introduction of additional services?
More broadly, are fees tied to a
provider’s gross revenues ‘‘fair and
reasonable’’ if divorced from the costs to
the state or locality of allowing access?
If we look at costs in assessing fees,
should we focus on the incremental
costs of each new attacher? Should
attachers be required to contribute to
joint and common costs? And if so,
should we look holistically at whether
a state or locality recovers more than the
total cost of providing access to the right
of way from all attaching entities? We
seek comment on evaluating other fees
in a similar manner. Are states and
localities imposing fees that are not ‘‘fair
and reasonable’’ for access to local
rights-of-way? How do these fees
compare to construction costs? Should
fees be capped to only cover costs
incurred by the locality to maintain and
manage the rights-of-way? Should we
require that application fees not exceed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
the costs reasonably associated with the
administrative costs to review and
process an application? Should any
increase in fees be capped or controlled?
For example, should fees increases be
capped at ten percent a year? What
types of fees should we consider within
the scope of any rule we adopt? How do
excessive fees impact consumers?
9. Unreasonable Conditions. Fourth,
we seek comment on adopting rules
prohibiting unreasonable conditions or
requirements in the context of granting
access to rights-of-way, permitting,
construction, or licensure related to the
provision of telecommunications
services. For example, we seek comment
on rights-of-way conditions that inhibit
the deployment of broadband by forcing
broadband providers to expend
resources on costs not related to rightsof-way management. Do these
conditions make the playing field
uneven for smaller broadband providers
and potential new entrants? If the
Commission were to adopt such rules,
how should the Commission define
what constitutes an ‘‘unreasonable’’
rights-of-way condition? We seek
comment from both providers and local
governments on conditions that they
consider are reasonable and
unreasonable. Should the Commission
place limitations on requirements that
compel the telecommunications service
provider to furnish service or products
to the right-of-way or franchise
authority for free or at a discount such
as building out service where it is not
demanded by consumers, donating
equipment, or delivering free broadband
to government buildings? Should nonnetwork related costs be factored into
any kind of a fee cap? For instance, the
Commission determined that nonincidental franchise-related costs and
in-kind payments unrelated to the
provision of cable service required by
local franchise authorities for cable
franchises count toward the five percent
cable franchise fee cap. We seek
comment on whether the Commission
should adopt similar rules for
telecommunication rights-of-way
agreements.
10. Bad Faith Negotiation Conduct.
Fifth, we seek comment on whether the
Commission should adopt rules banning
bad faith conduct in the context of
deployment, rights-of-way, permitting,
construction, or licensure negotiations
and processes. We seek comment on
what types of bad faith conduct such
rules should prohibit and examples of
such conduct. Should the Commission
ban bad faith conduct generally, specific
forms of bad faith conduct, or both?
Should the Commission establish
specific objective criteria that define the
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
meaning of ‘‘bad faith’’ insofar as the
Commission prohibits ‘‘bad faith’’
conduct generally? If so, we seek
comment on proposed criteria. What
types of negotiation conduct have
directly affected the provision of
telecommunications service? Would a
streamlined process for responding to
bad faith complaints help negate such
behavior? What would that process look
like?
11. Other Prohibitive State and Local
Laws. Finally, we seek comment
regarding any other instances where the
Commission could adopt rules to
preempt state or local legal
requirements or practices that prohibit
the provision of telecommunications
service. For instance, should the
Commission adopt rules regarding the
transparency of local and state
application processes? Could the
Commission use its authority under
Section 253 to regulate access to
municipally-owned poles when the
actions of the municipality are deemed
to be prohibiting or effectively
prohibiting the provisions of
telecommunications service? If so, could
the Commission use its Section 253
authority in states that regulate pole
attachment under Section 224(c)? Are
there any other local ordinances that
erect barriers to the provision of
telecommunications service especially
as applied to new entrants? Are there
any other specific rights-of-way
management practices that frustrate,
delay or inhibit the provision of
telecommunications service? The
Commission has described Section
253(a) as preempting conduct by a
locality that materially inhibits or limits
the ability of a provider ‘‘to compete in
a fair and balanced legal and regulatory
environment.’’ Is this the legal standard
that should apply here? We seek
comment on identifying particular
practices, regulations and requirements
that would be deemed to violate Section
253 in order to provide localities and
industry with greater predictability and
certainty.
12. Authority To Adopt Rules. The
Commission has historically used its
Section 253 authority to respond to
preemption petitions that involve
competition issues and relationships
among the federal, state and local levels
of government. We seek comment on
our authority under Section 253 to
adopt rules that prospectively prohibit
the enforcement of local laws that
would otherwise prevent or hinder the
provision of telecommunications
service. Our view is that under Section
201(b) and Section 253, the Commission
has the authority to engage in a
rulemaking to adopt rules that further
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices
define when a state or local legal
requirement or practice constitutes an
effective barrier to the provision of
telecommunications service under
Section 253(a). We seek comment on
this approach. We also recognize that
state and local governments have
authority, pursuant to Sections 253(b)
and (c) to, among other things, regulate
telecommunications services to protect
the public safety and welfare, provide
universal service, and to manage public
rights-of-way on a non-discriminatory
basis. How can we ensure that any rules
we adopt comport with Sections 253(b)
and (c)? Should we adopt the text of
Sections 253(b) and (c), to the extent
relevant, as explicit carve-outs from any
rules that we adopt? Could we include
the substance of Sections 253(b) and (c)
in rules without an explicit, verbatim
carve-out? Would enacting rules conflict
with Section 253(b) or (c)?
13. Would adopting rules to interpret
or implement Section 253(a) be
consistent with Section 253(d), which
directs the Commission to preempt the
enforcement of particular State or local
statutes, regulations, or legal
requirements ‘‘to the extent necessary to
correct such violation or
inconsistency’’? Subsection (d) directs
the Commission to preempt such
particular requirements ‘‘after notice
and an opportunity for public
comment.’’ Does this preclude the
adoption of general rules? Would notice,
comment, and adjudicatory action in a
Commission proceeding to take
enforcement action following a rule
violation satisfy these procedural
specifications? Can we read Section
253(d) as setting forth a non-mandatory
procedural vehicle that is not
implicated when adopting rules
pursuant to Sections 253(a)-(c)? If the
Commission were to adopt rules
pursuant to Section 253, we seek
comment on whether Section 622 of the
Act limits the Commission’s authority to
enact rules with respect to non-cable
franchise fee rights-of-way practices that
might apply to cable operators in their
capacities as telecommunications
providers.
14. Collaboration With States and
Localities. We also seek comment on
actions the Commission can take to
work with states and localities to
remove the barriers to broadband
deployment. The Commission’s newly
formed Broadband Deployment
Advisory Committee (BDAC) includes
members from states and localities, and
it has been charged with working to
develop model codes for municipalities
and states. The BDAC will also consider
additional steps that can be taken to
remove state and local regulatory
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
22003
barriers. Are there additional actions
outside of the BDAC that the
Commission can take to work with
states and localities to promote adoption
of policies that encourage deployment?
15. We recognize that states and
localities play a vital role in deployment
and addressing the needs of their
residents. How can we best account for
states’ and localities’ important roles?
Are collaborative efforts such as the
development of recommendations
through the BDAC sufficient to address
the issues described above? What are
the benefits and burdens of such an
approach? To what extent should we
rely on collaborative processes to
remove barriers to broadband
deployment before resorting to
preemption?
advance universal service, protect the
public safety and welfare, ensure the
continued quality of
telecommunications services, and
safeguard the rights of consumers,’’ such
that state authority is not preserved
from preemption under Section 253(b)?
Commenters arguing in favor of
preemption should identify specific
state laws they believe to be at issue.
Would preemption allow the
Commission to develop a uniform
nationwide copper retirement policy for
facilitating deployment of nextgeneration technologies? Are there other
sources of authority for Commission
preemption of the state laws being
discussed that we should consider
using?
III. Preemption of State Laws
Governing Copper Retirement
16. We seek comment on whether
there are state laws governing the
maintenance or retirement of copper
facilities that serve as a barrier to
deploying next-generation technologies
and services that the Commission might
seek to preempt. For example, certain
states require utilities or specific
carriers to maintain adequate equipment
and facilities. Other states empower
public utilities commissions, either
acting on their own authority or in
response to a complaint, to require
utilities or specific carriers to maintain,
repair, or improve facilities or
equipment or to have in place a written
preventative maintenance program.
First, we seek comment on the impact
of state legacy service quality and
copper facilities maintenance
regulations. Next, we seek comment on
the impact of state laws restricting the
retirement of copper facilities. In each
case, how common are these
regulations, and in how many states do
they exist? How burdensome are such
regulations, and what benefits do they
provide? Are incumbent LECs or other
carriers less likely to deploy fiber in
states that continue to impose service
quality and facilities maintenance
requirements than in those states that
have chosen to deregulate?
17. We seek comment on whether
Section 253 of the Act provides the
Commission with authority to preempt
state laws and regulations governing
service quality, facilities maintenance,
or copper retirement that are impeding
fiber deployment. Do any such laws
‘‘have the effect of prohibiting the
ability of [those incumbent LECs] to
provide any interstate or intrastate
telecommunications service?’’ Are such
laws either not ‘‘competitively neutral’’
or not ‘‘necessary to preserve and
A. Ex Parte Rules
18. The proceeding related to this
Notice shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
IV. Procedural Matters
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
22004
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices
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.
V. Ordering Clause
19. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to the authority contained in
Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C 151, 154(i), 154(j),
and 403, this Notice is adopted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017–09541 Filed 5–10–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Federal Advisory Committee Act;
Technological Advisory Council
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Communications Commission.
Julius P. Knapp,
Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology.
In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, this
notice advises interested persons that
the Federal Communications
Commission’s (FCC) Technological
Advisory Council will hold a meeting
on Thursday, June 8th, 2017 in the
Commission Meeting Room, from 10:00
a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
DATES: Thursday, June 8th, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Walter Johnston, Chief, Electromagnetic
Compatibility Division, 202–418–0807;
Walter.Johnston@FCC.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is the
first meeting of the Technological
Advisory Council for 2017. At its prior
meeting on December 7th, 2016, the
Council had discussed possible work
initiatives for 2017. These initiatives
have been discussed in the interim
within the FCC, with the TAC chairman,
as well as with individual TAC
members. At the June meeting, the FCC
Technological Advisory Council will
discuss its proposed work program for
2017. The FCC will attempt to
accommodate as many people as
possible. However, admittance will be
limited to seating availability. Meetings
are also broadcast live with open
captioning over the Internet from the
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
FCC Live Web page at https://
www.fcc.gov/live/. The public may
submit written comments before the
meeting to: Walter Johnston, the FCC’s
Designated Federal Officer for
Technological Advisory Council by
email: Walter.Johnston@fcc.gov or U.S.
Postal Service Mail (Walter Johnston,
Federal Communications Commission,
Room 2–A665, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554). Open
captioning will be provided for this
event. Other reasonable
accommodations for people with
disabilities are available upon request.
Requests for such accommodations
should be submitted via email to
fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Office
of Engineering and Technology at 202–
418–2470 (voice), (202) 418–1944 (fax).
Such requests should include a detailed
description of the accommodation
needed. In addition, please include your
contact information. Please allow at
least five days advance notice; last
minute requests will be accepted, but
may be impossible to fill.
[FR Doc. 2017–09575 Filed 5–10–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
[NIOSH Docket 094]
World Trade Center Health Program;
Petition 015—Neuropathy; Finding of
Insufficient Evidence
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, HHS.
ACTION: Denial of petition for addition of
a health condition.
AGENCY:
On November 25, 2016, the
Administrator of the World Trade
Center (WTC) Health Program received
a petition (Petition 015) to add
neuropathy to the List of WTC-Related
Health Conditions (List). Upon
reviewing the scientific and medical
literature, including information
provided by the petitioner, the
Administrator has determined that the
available evidence does not have the
potential to provide a basis for a
decision on whether to add neuropathy
to the List. The Administrator finds that
insufficient evidence exists to request a
recommendation of the WTC Health
Program Scientific/Technical Advisory
Committee (STAC), to publish a
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
proposed rule, or to publish a
determination not to publish a proposed
rule.
DATES: The Administrator of the WTC
Health Program is denying this petition
for the addition of a health condition as
of May 11, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst, 1090
Tusculum Avenue, MS: C–46,
Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855)
818–1629 (this is a toll-free number);
email NIOSHregs@cdc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
A. WTC Health Program Statutory Authority
B. Petition 015
C. Review of Scientific and Medical
Information and Administrator
Determination
D. Administrator’s Final Decision on
Whether to Propose the Addition of
Neuropathy to the List
E. Approval To Submit Document to the
Office of the Federal Register
A. WTC Health Program Statutory
Authority
Title I of the James Zadroga 9/11
Health and Compensation Act of 2010
(Pub. L. 111–347, as amended by Pub.
L. 114–113), added Title XXXIII to the
Public Health Service (PHS) Act,1
establishing the WTC Health Program
within the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). The WTC
Health Program provides medical
monitoring and treatment benefits to
eligible firefighters and related
personnel, law enforcement officers,
and rescue, recovery, and cleanup
workers who responded to the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in
New York City, at the Pentagon, and in
Shanksville, Pennsylvania (responders),
and to eligible persons who were
present in the dust or dust cloud on
September 11, 2001, or who worked,
resided, or attended school, childcare,
or adult daycare in the New York City
disaster area (survivors).
All references to the Administrator of
the WTC Health Program
(Administrator) in this notice mean the
Director of the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) or his or her designee.
Pursuant to section 3312(a)(6)(B) of
the PHS Act, interested parties may
petition the Administrator to add a
health condition to the List in 42 CFR
88.15 (2017). Within 90 days after
1 Title XXXIII of the PHS Act is codified at 42
U.S.C. 300mm to 300mm–61. Those portions of the
James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act
of 2010 found in Titles II and III of Public Law 111–
347 do not pertain to the WTC Health Program and
are codified elsewhere.
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22000-22004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09541]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[WC Docket No. 17-84; FCC 17-37]
Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers
to Infrastructure Investment
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice of Inquiry (Notice) seeks comment on whether the
Commission should enact rules to promote the deployment of broadband
infrastructure by preempting state and local laws that inhibit
broadband deployment, such as state and local moratoria on market entry
or the deployment of telecommunications facilities, excessive delays in
negotiations and approvals for rights-of-way agreements and permitting
for telecommunications services, excessive state and local fees that
may have the effect of prohibiting the provision of telecommunications
services, unreasonable conditions or requirements in the context of
granting access to rights-of-way, permitting, construction, or
licensure related to the provision of telecommunications services, bad
faith conduct in the context of deployment, rights-of-way, permitting,
construction, or licensing negotiations and processes, and any other
instances where state or local legal requirements or practices prohibit
the provision of telecommunications services. This Notice also seeks
comment on whether there are state laws governing the maintenance or
retirement of copper facilities that serve as a barrier to deploying
next-generation technologies and services that the Commission might
seek to preempt. The Commission adopted the Notice in conjunction with
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Comment in WC Docket
No. 17-84.
DATES: Comments are due on or before June 12, 2017, and reply comments
are due on or before July 10, 2017.
ADDRESSES: All filings in response to the Notice must refer to WC
Docket No. 17-84. The Commission strongly encourages parties to develop
responses to the Notice that adhere to the organization and structure
of the Notice. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS):
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
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., 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. 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. 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 fcc504@fcc.gov or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
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: Wireline Competition Bureau,
Competition Policy Division, Michele Berlove, at (202) 418-1477, or
Michael Ray, at (202) 418-0357.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Inquiry (Notice) in WC Docket No. 17-84, adopted April 20, 2017 and
released April 21, 2017. The full text of this document is available
for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Information
[[Page 22001]]
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC
20554. It is available on the Commission's Web site at https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0421/FCC-17-37A1.pdf.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. High-speed broadband is an increasingly important gateway to
jobs, health care, education, information, and economic development.
Access to high-speed broadband can create economic opportunity,
enabling entrepreneurs to create businesses, immediately reach
customers throughout the world, and revolutionize entire industries.
Today, we propose and seek comment on a number of actions designed to
accelerate the deployment of next-generation networks and services by
removing barriers to infrastructure investment.
2. This Notice seeks to better enable broadband providers to build,
maintain, and upgrade their networks, which will lead to more
affordable and available Internet access and other broadband services
for consumers and businesses alike. Today's actions, through this
Notice and accompanying Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for
Comment, propose to remove regulatory barriers to infrastructure
investment at the federal, state, and local level; suggest changes to
speed the transition from copper networks and legacy services to next-
generation networks and services; and propose to reform Commission
regulations that increase costs and slow broadband deployment.
II. Prohibiting State and Local Laws Inhibiting Broadband Deployment
3. We seek comment on whether we should enact rules, consistent
with our authority under Section 253 of the Act, to promote the
deployment of broadband infrastructure by preempting state and local
laws that inhibit broadband deployment. Section 253(a), which generally
provides that no state and local legal requirements ``may prohibit or
have the effect of prohibiting'' the provisioning of interstate or
intrastate telecommunications services, provides the Commission with
``a rule of preemption'' that ``articulates a reasonably broad
limitation on state and local governments' authority to regulate
telecommunications providers.'' Section 253(b), provides exceptions for
state and local legal requirements that are competitively neutral,
consistent with Section 254 of the Act, and necessary to preserve and
advance universal service. Section 253(c) provides another exception
described by the Eighth Circuit as a ``safe harbor functioning as an
affirmative defense'' which ``limits the ability of state and local
governments to regulate their rights-of-way or charge `fair and
reasonable compensation.''' Under Section 253(d), Congress directed the
FCC to preempt the enforcement of any legal requirement which violates
253(a) or 253(b) ``after notice and an opportunity for public
comment.''
4. While we recognize that not all state and local regulation poses
a barrier to broadband development, we seek comment below on a number
of specific areas where we could utilize our authority under Section
253 to enact rules to prevent states and localities from enforcing laws
that ``may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of
any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications
service.'' In our preliminary view, restrictions on broadband
deployment may effectively prohibit the provision of telecommunications
service, and we seek comment on this view. What telecommunications
services are effectively prohibited by restrictions on broadband
deployment? In each case described below, we seek comment on whether
the laws in question are inconsistent with Section 253(a)'s prohibition
on local laws that inhibit provision of telecommunications service.
5. Deployment Moratoria. First, we seek comment on adopting rules
prohibiting state or local moratoria on market entry or the deployment
of telecommunications facilities. We also seek comment on the types of
conduct such rules should prevent. We invite commenters to identify
examples of moratoria that states and localities have adopted. How do
state and local moratoria interfere with facilities deployment or
service provision? What types of delays result from local moratoria
(e.g., application processing, construction)? How do moratoria affect
the cost of deployment and providing service, and is this cost passed
down to the consumer? Are there any types of moratoria that help
advance the goals of the Act? If we adopt the proposal to prohibit
moratoria, should we provide an exception for certain moratoria, such
as those that are limited to exigent circumstances or that have certain
sharply restricted time limits? If so, what time limits should be
permissible?
6. Rights-of-Way Negotiation and Approval Process Delays. Second,
we seek comment on adopting rules to eliminate excessive delays in
negotiations and approvals for rights-of-way agreements and permitting
for telecommunications services. We invite commenters to identify
examples of excessive delays. How can the Commission streamline the
negotiation and approval process? For instance, should the Commission
adopt a mandatory negotiation and/or approval time period, and if so,
what would be an appropriate amount of time for negotiations? For
purposes of evaluating the timeliness of negotiations, when should the
Commission consider the negotiations as having started and having
stopped? For example, the Commission adopted rules placing time limits
on applicants for cable franchises. We seek comment on similar rules
for telecommunications rights-of-way applicants. How have slow
negotiation or approval processes inhibited the provision of
telecommunications service? Are there any examples of delays that
jeopardized investors or deployment in general? How can local
governments expedite rights-of-way negotiations and approvals? Are
there any examples of successful expedited processes? How should
regulations placing time limits on negotiations address or recognize
delays in processing applications or negotiations that result from
local moratoria? For example, in 2014, the Commission clarified that
the shot clock timeframe for wireless siting applications runs
regardless of any moratorium. Are stalled negotiations and approvals
ever justified, and if so how could new rules take these situations
into account?
7. Excessive Fees and Other Excessive Costs. Third, we seek comment
on adopting rules prohibiting excessive fees and other costs that may
have the effect of prohibiting the provision of telecommunications
service. We invite commenters to identify examples of fees adopted by
states and localities that commenters consider excessive. For example,
we note that many states and localities charge rights-of-way fees. Our
preliminary view is that Section 253 applies to fees other than cable
franchise fees as defined by Section 622(g) of the Act and we seek
comment on this view. By ``rights-of-way fees,'' we refer to those fees
including, but not limited to, fees that states or local authorities
impose for access to rights-of-way, permitting, construction,
licensure, providing a telecommunications service, or any other fees
that relate to the provision of telecommunications service. We
recognize Section 622 of the Act governs the administration of cable
franchise fees, and that Section 622(i) limits the Commission's
authority to ``regulate the
[[Page 22002]]
amount of the franchise fees paid by a cable operator, or regulate the
use of funds derived from such fees,'' except as otherwise permitted
elsewhere in Section 622. Our preliminary view is that Section 622(i)
would prevent the Commission from enacting rules pursuant to Section
253 to address ``excessive'' cable franchise fees, but that such
franchise fees could be taken into account when determining whether
other types of fees are excessive. We seek comment on this view. Also,
we seek comment on whether there are different types of state or local
fees, authorized under the provisions of the Act other than 622, for
which application of Section 253 would not be appropriate.
8. We recognize that states and localities have many legitimate
reasons for adopting fees, and thus our focus is directed only on truly
excessive fees that have the effect of cutting off competition. We seek
comment on how the Commission should define what constitutes
``excessive'' fees. For example, should rights-of-way fees be capped at
a certain percentage of a provider's gross revenues in the permitted
area? If so, at what percentage? For example, Section 622 of the Act
provides that for any twelve-month period, the franchise fees paid by a
cable operator with respect to a cable system shall not exceed five
percent of the cable operator's gross revenues derived from a cable
service. When a provider seeks to offer additional services using the
rights-of-way under an existing franchise or authorization, are there
circumstances in which it may be excessive to require the provider to
pay additional fees in connection with the introduction of additional
services? More broadly, are fees tied to a provider's gross revenues
``fair and reasonable'' if divorced from the costs to the state or
locality of allowing access? If we look at costs in assessing fees,
should we focus on the incremental costs of each new attacher? Should
attachers be required to contribute to joint and common costs? And if
so, should we look holistically at whether a state or locality recovers
more than the total cost of providing access to the right of way from
all attaching entities? We seek comment on evaluating other fees in a
similar manner. Are states and localities imposing fees that are not
``fair and reasonable'' for access to local rights-of-way? How do these
fees compare to construction costs? Should fees be capped to only cover
costs incurred by the locality to maintain and manage the rights-of-
way? Should we require that application fees not exceed the costs
reasonably associated with the administrative costs to review and
process an application? Should any increase in fees be capped or
controlled? For example, should fees increases be capped at ten percent
a year? What types of fees should we consider within the scope of any
rule we adopt? How do excessive fees impact consumers?
9. Unreasonable Conditions. Fourth, we seek comment on adopting
rules prohibiting unreasonable conditions or requirements in the
context of granting access to rights-of-way, permitting, construction,
or licensure related to the provision of telecommunications services.
For example, we seek comment on rights-of-way conditions that inhibit
the deployment of broadband by forcing broadband providers to expend
resources on costs not related to rights-of-way management. Do these
conditions make the playing field uneven for smaller broadband
providers and potential new entrants? If the Commission were to adopt
such rules, how should the Commission define what constitutes an
``unreasonable'' rights-of-way condition? We seek comment from both
providers and local governments on conditions that they consider are
reasonable and unreasonable. Should the Commission place limitations on
requirements that compel the telecommunications service provider to
furnish service or products to the right-of-way or franchise authority
for free or at a discount such as building out service where it is not
demanded by consumers, donating equipment, or delivering free broadband
to government buildings? Should non-network related costs be factored
into any kind of a fee cap? For instance, the Commission determined
that non-incidental franchise-related costs and in-kind payments
unrelated to the provision of cable service required by local franchise
authorities for cable franchises count toward the five percent cable
franchise fee cap. We seek comment on whether the Commission should
adopt similar rules for telecommunication rights-of-way agreements.
10. Bad Faith Negotiation Conduct. Fifth, we seek comment on
whether the Commission should adopt rules banning bad faith conduct in
the context of deployment, rights-of-way, permitting, construction, or
licensure negotiations and processes. We seek comment on what types of
bad faith conduct such rules should prohibit and examples of such
conduct. Should the Commission ban bad faith conduct generally,
specific forms of bad faith conduct, or both? Should the Commission
establish specific objective criteria that define the meaning of ``bad
faith'' insofar as the Commission prohibits ``bad faith'' conduct
generally? If so, we seek comment on proposed criteria. What types of
negotiation conduct have directly affected the provision of
telecommunications service? Would a streamlined process for responding
to bad faith complaints help negate such behavior? What would that
process look like?
11. Other Prohibitive State and Local Laws. Finally, we seek
comment regarding any other instances where the Commission could adopt
rules to preempt state or local legal requirements or practices that
prohibit the provision of telecommunications service. For instance,
should the Commission adopt rules regarding the transparency of local
and state application processes? Could the Commission use its authority
under Section 253 to regulate access to municipally-owned poles when
the actions of the municipality are deemed to be prohibiting or
effectively prohibiting the provisions of telecommunications service?
If so, could the Commission use its Section 253 authority in states
that regulate pole attachment under Section 224(c)? Are there any other
local ordinances that erect barriers to the provision of
telecommunications service especially as applied to new entrants? Are
there any other specific rights-of-way management practices that
frustrate, delay or inhibit the provision of telecommunications
service? The Commission has described Section 253(a) as preempting
conduct by a locality that materially inhibits or limits the ability of
a provider ``to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory
environment.'' Is this the legal standard that should apply here? We
seek comment on identifying particular practices, regulations and
requirements that would be deemed to violate Section 253 in order to
provide localities and industry with greater predictability and
certainty.
12. Authority To Adopt Rules. The Commission has historically used
its Section 253 authority to respond to preemption petitions that
involve competition issues and relationships among the federal, state
and local levels of government. We seek comment on our authority under
Section 253 to adopt rules that prospectively prohibit the enforcement
of local laws that would otherwise prevent or hinder the provision of
telecommunications service. Our view is that under Section 201(b) and
Section 253, the Commission has the authority to engage in a rulemaking
to adopt rules that further
[[Page 22003]]
define when a state or local legal requirement or practice constitutes
an effective barrier to the provision of telecommunications service
under Section 253(a). We seek comment on this approach. We also
recognize that state and local governments have authority, pursuant to
Sections 253(b) and (c) to, among other things, regulate
telecommunications services to protect the public safety and welfare,
provide universal service, and to manage public rights-of-way on a non-
discriminatory basis. How can we ensure that any rules we adopt comport
with Sections 253(b) and (c)? Should we adopt the text of Sections
253(b) and (c), to the extent relevant, as explicit carve-outs from any
rules that we adopt? Could we include the substance of Sections 253(b)
and (c) in rules without an explicit, verbatim carve-out? Would
enacting rules conflict with Section 253(b) or (c)?
13. Would adopting rules to interpret or implement Section 253(a)
be consistent with Section 253(d), which directs the Commission to
preempt the enforcement of particular State or local statutes,
regulations, or legal requirements ``to the extent necessary to correct
such violation or inconsistency''? Subsection (d) directs the
Commission to preempt such particular requirements ``after notice and
an opportunity for public comment.'' Does this preclude the adoption of
general rules? Would notice, comment, and adjudicatory action in a
Commission proceeding to take enforcement action following a rule
violation satisfy these procedural specifications? Can we read Section
253(d) as setting forth a non-mandatory procedural vehicle that is not
implicated when adopting rules pursuant to Sections 253(a)-(c)? If the
Commission were to adopt rules pursuant to Section 253, we seek comment
on whether Section 622 of the Act limits the Commission's authority to
enact rules with respect to non-cable franchise fee rights-of-way
practices that might apply to cable operators in their capacities as
telecommunications providers.
14. Collaboration With States and Localities. We also seek comment
on actions the Commission can take to work with states and localities
to remove the barriers to broadband deployment. The Commission's newly
formed Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC) includes members
from states and localities, and it has been charged with working to
develop model codes for municipalities and states. The BDAC will also
consider additional steps that can be taken to remove state and local
regulatory barriers. Are there additional actions outside of the BDAC
that the Commission can take to work with states and localities to
promote adoption of policies that encourage deployment?
15. We recognize that states and localities play a vital role in
deployment and addressing the needs of their residents. How can we best
account for states' and localities' important roles? Are collaborative
efforts such as the development of recommendations through the BDAC
sufficient to address the issues described above? What are the benefits
and burdens of such an approach? To what extent should we rely on
collaborative processes to remove barriers to broadband deployment
before resorting to preemption?
III. Preemption of State Laws Governing Copper Retirement
16. We seek comment on whether there are state laws governing the
maintenance or retirement of copper facilities that serve as a barrier
to deploying next-generation technologies and services that the
Commission might seek to preempt. For example, certain states require
utilities or specific carriers to maintain adequate equipment and
facilities. Other states empower public utilities commissions, either
acting on their own authority or in response to a complaint, to require
utilities or specific carriers to maintain, repair, or improve
facilities or equipment or to have in place a written preventative
maintenance program. First, we seek comment on the impact of state
legacy service quality and copper facilities maintenance regulations.
Next, we seek comment on the impact of state laws restricting the
retirement of copper facilities. In each case, how common are these
regulations, and in how many states do they exist? How burdensome are
such regulations, and what benefits do they provide? Are incumbent LECs
or other carriers less likely to deploy fiber in states that continue
to impose service quality and facilities maintenance requirements than
in those states that have chosen to deregulate?
17. We seek comment on whether Section 253 of the Act provides the
Commission with authority to preempt state laws and regulations
governing service quality, facilities maintenance, or copper retirement
that are impeding fiber deployment. Do any such laws ``have the effect
of prohibiting the ability of [those incumbent LECs] to provide any
interstate or intrastate telecommunications service?'' Are such laws
either not ``competitively neutral'' or not ``necessary to preserve and
advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare,
ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and
safeguard the rights of consumers,'' such that state authority is not
preserved from preemption under Section 253(b)? Commenters arguing in
favor of preemption should identify specific state laws they believe to
be at issue. Would preemption allow the Commission to develop a uniform
nationwide copper retirement policy for facilitating deployment of
next-generation technologies? Are there other sources of authority for
Commission preemption of the state laws being discussed that we should
consider using?
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Ex Parte Rules
18. The proceeding related to this Notice 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
[[Page 22004]]
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.
V. Ordering Clause
19. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 403, this Notice
is adopted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09541 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
