Completing the Transition to Electronic Filing, Licenses and Authorizations, and Correspondence in the Wireless Radio Services, 51502-51507 [2019-20527]

Download as PDF 51502 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules plan. In the event the participant has received a partial plan distribution, PBGC adjusts the participant’s benefits assigned to the priority categories under section 4044(a) of ERISA by: (i) Determining the amount of the participant’s benefit in each of the priority categories, treating the participant’s total benefit as the sum of the partial plan distribution and remainder benefit; and (ii) Reducing the otherwise applicable amount in the highest priority category in which the participant has benefits by the annuity equivalent of the partial plan distribution (generally determined as of the starting date of the remainder annuity, but no later than the plan’s termination date, using plan factors and assumptions). If the amount of the partial plan distribution exceeds the benefit in the highest category, PBGC reduces the otherwise applicable amount in the next highest priority category by the excess. * * * * * ■ 9. Amend § 4044.41 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 4044.41 General valuation rules. * * * * * (b) Valuation of assets. Plan assets generally will be valued at their fair market value as defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter. As appropriate, plan assets will be valued at their fair value in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S. GAAP). PART 4062—LIABILITY FOR TERMINATION OF SINGLE— EMPLOYER PLANS 10. The authority citation for part 4062 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1362– 1364, 1367, 1368. 11. Amend § 4062.4 by revising paragraph (c) introductory text to read as follows: ■ § 4062.4 Determinations of net worth and collective net worth. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS * * * * * (c) Factors for determining net worth. A person’s net worth is to be determined on the basis of the factors set forth below in this section, to the extent relevant; different factors may be considered with respect to different portions of the person’s operations. Generally, fair market value, as defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter, is to be used. As appropriate, fair value in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S. GAAP) is to be used. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Sep 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 Issued in Washington, DC. Gordon Hartogensis, Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. 2019–21088 Filed 9–27–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709–02–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1 and 17 [WT Docket No. 19–212; FCC 19–87] Completing the Transition to Electronic Filing, Licenses and Authorizations, and Correspondence in the Wireless Radio Services Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) builds upon the Commission’s recent efforts to modernize its legacy filing, communications, and information retention systems by improving electronic access to data and digitizing Commission communications in a wide variety of services. Specifically, this NPRM proposes to make all filings to the Universal Licensing System (ULS) completely electronic; expand electronic filing and correspondence elements for related systems; and require applicants to provide an email address on the FCC Forms related to these systems. This NPRM also seeks comment on additional rule changes that would further expand the use of electronic filing and electronic service. Together, these proposals will facilitate the remaining steps to transition these systems from paper to electronic, reducing regulatory burdens and environmental waste, and making interaction with these systems more accessible and efficient for those who rely on them. DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before October 30, 2019; and reply comments on or before November 14, 2019. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 19–212, by any of the following methods: D Federal Communications Commission’s website: https:// apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. D People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 418–0432. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Greffenius of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418–2986 or Jessica.Greffenius@fcc.gov. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this NPRM, contact Cathy Williams, Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418–2918 or Cathy.Williams@ fcc.gov or email PRA@fcc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comment Filing Procedures Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). D Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ ecfs/. D 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. D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. D Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. D U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM 30SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis This document contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. It requests written public comment on the IRFA, contained at Appendix B to the NPRM. Comments must be filed in accordance with the same deadlines as comments filed in response to the NPRM as set forth on the first page of this document, and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Ex Parte Rules The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.1 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 1 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Sep 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules. Synopsis ULS and Supporting Systems. The Commission manages applications for all wireless radio licenses through the ULS. Other systems accept filings and work in tandem with the ULS: The Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) System, the Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS), and the Electronic Section 106 (E–106) System. The ASR System ensures that physical structures used for wireless radio operations that are above a certain height or in close proximity to airports do not pose a hazard to aircraft. The TCNS and E–106 Systems advance the goal of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) to protect historic properties, including Tribal religious and cultural sites. Specifically, the TCNS provides a mechanism for Tower Notifiers (applicants seeking to build a tower or collocate on a tower or consultants/entities representing them) to notify and communicate with Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) regarding a proposed construction or collation, and the E–106 System works in conjunction with TCNS to enable real-time information referral and communication among the Commission, Tower Notifiers, and State Historic PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 51503 Preservation Officers (SHPOs). Collectively, these systems provide an efficient and transparent means to accept, review, and dispose of the Commission’s wireless radio applications. Today, the majority of applications filed in the ULS are electronic, as required by rule. Exceptions exist for the following services: (i) Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio services for shared spectrum, spectrum in the public safety pool below 746 MHz, and spectrum in the public safety allocation above 746 MHz, except those filed by FCC-certified frequency coordinators; (ii) part 97 Amateur Radios Service, except those filed by Volunteer Examination Coordinators; (iii) part 95 General Mobile Service and Personal Radio Service, excluding 218–219 MHz service; (iv) part 80 Maritime Services, excluding VHF 156–162 MHz Public Coast Stations; (v) part 87 Aviation Services; (vi) part 13 Commercial Radio Operators (individual applicants only); and (vii) certain part 101 licensees who also fall under the exempted groups. 47 CFR 1.913(d)(1)(i)–(vii). Similarly, the overwhelming majority of ASR applications are filed electronically; however, applicants have the choice to file manually or electronically. TCNS is an electronic-only system, so all interactions with it are electronic by design. However, TCNS is a voluntary system; Tower Notifiers can, but are not required under any Commission rule, use TCNS as the vehicle to fulfill their obligation to identify and contact Indian Tribes and NHOs. Similarly, while Tower Notifiers can provide information to SHPOs via certain FCC Forms, there is no requirement that they use the E– 106 system to submit these forms or otherwise file them electronically. Correspondence with Applicants/ Licensees. While the Commission corresponds electronically with applicants and licensees in some instances, there remains a large amount of paper communication generated by the ULS and its supporting systems. Across these systems, the relevant applications and FCC Forms provide an opportunity, but do not require, users to provide an email address as part of their contact information. The Wireless Telecommunications and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureaus (the Bureaus) by practice send correspondence generated by these systems to applicants and licensees, such as copies of licenses, reminder letters, and other courtesy notices. The Bureaus send thousands of these letters via U.S. Postal Mail each year. E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM 30SEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 51504 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules A. Mandatory Electronic Filing ULS and ASR. In 1998, the Commission adopted mandatory electronic filing for some applications and related filings in the ULS. In doing so, it noted many benefits to mandatory electronic filing, including streamlining Wireless Radio Services (WRS) application processing, affording parties a quick and economical process to file applications, and making licensing information quickly and easily available to interested parties and the public. At the same time, the Commission recognized that ‘‘some wireless services applicants or licensees might lack access not only to high quality telephone lines but also computers capable of submitting their applications electronically.’’ Biennial Regulatory Review—Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Development and Use of the Universal Licensing System in the Wireless Telecommunications Services, et al., Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 21027, 21040–43, paras. 21–25 (1998) (1998 ULS Report and Order). It thus adopted several exemptions to mandatory electronic filing for a limited group of filers in services that were not subject to licensing by auction and that consisted ‘‘primarily of individuals, small businesses, or public agencies that may lack resources to convert quickly to electronic filing.’’ 1998 ULS Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 21040, para. 20. The Commission noted that it would review this issue in the future and extend mandatory electronic filing if it found that it was ‘‘operationally feasible and cost effective.’’ Id. Given the drastic changes that have occurred with regard to the ubiquity of the internet and increased personal computer access, we find it unlikely that electronic filing remains infeasible or cost-prohibitive for the previously exempted types of filers, or that they lack resources to file electronically. We therefore propose to eliminate section 1.913’s exemptions to mandatory electronic filing. We seek comment on this proposal. We note, however, that while the vast majority of ULS applications today are submitted electronically, some are still manually filed, largely from exempted filers.2 Last year, for example, the Commission received about 5,000 manually filed applications out of about 2 There are a few limited categories of submissions that the ULS cannot handle electronically and that must be filed and processed manually: Two-step transactions, subleases, leases contingent on assignments, and STAs in certain market-based services. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Sep 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 425,000 total applications.3 We seek comment on whether our underlying assumptions about the ease of electronic filing for the previously exempted filers are valid. Are there still categories of individuals or entities for which electronic filing may pose enough of a burden to outweigh the benefits, such as small entities, individuals with disabilities, or low-income individuals? If so, are any exemptions still warranted? Or is the Commission’s waiver process sufficient to handle such instances? We also propose to mandate electronic filing in the ASR System, which currently allows electronic filing of antenna structure registrations via FCC Form 854, but no Commission rule mandates electronic filing. We propose to revise sections 17.4 and 17.57 to specifically require electronic filing.4 As with filings to the ULS, we anticipate that there are many benefits to relying exclusively on electronic registrations, with few costs to ASR registrants. We anticipate that electronic submission is less, not more, burdensome for applicants, as the Commission receives very few manual ASR submissions each year, evidencing that this option is unnecessary for the overwhelming majority of registrants. Notably, out of the 7,000 applications filed in the ASR System last year, only 15 were filed manually. We seek comment on this proposal, and on whether there remains a reason to allow paper filings in the ASR System under limited circumstances. If so, is the Commission’s waiver process the appropriate vehicle to address such instances? For both the ULS and ASR Systems, we seek comment on the amount of time we should provide for filers to prepare for the transition to mandatory electronic filing. Would six months be sufficient lead-time for licensees/ applicants and registrants to convert their practices to electronic filing? Are there differences between the entities previously exempted from electronic ULS filings and entities that submit 3 About one-third of these manual filings are from Private Land Mobile Radio filers, and about onethird are Amateur Radio Service filings. Manually filed applications also include those from filers who sought and received a waiver of the electronic filing rule, or whose applications fall in the limited category that cannot be processed electronically in ULS. 4 We also take this opportunity to correct a typographic error in sections 17.4(c)(1)(ii) and 17.4(c)(1)(iv), which incorrectly refers to ‘‘paragraph I(C)(1)–(3)’’and instead should refer to ‘‘I(E)(1)–(3)’’ for the definition of ‘‘Substantial increase in the size of the tower’’ in the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, 47 CFR Pt. 1, Appx. B, Section I(E)(1)–(3). PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 ASRs manually that might warrant different timelines for the respective transitions? We also seek comment on whether the Commission’s rules for filing electronic pleadings related to applications filed in the ULS and the ASR System—e.g., petitions to deny, petitions for reconsideration, applications for review, and status reports—also should be revised to require electronic filing. Most pleadings already can be filed electronically via the ‘‘Submit Pleading’’ link in ULS. We seek comment on whether to make electronic submission of ULS and ASR-related pleadings mandatory, to the extent they are not already. Additionally, some general Commission rules that apply to ULS and ASR applications as well as to other proceedings require service on other parties, and service must be manual, unless the party agrees otherwise. Should we revise these service requirements to permit a party to serve pleadings on other parties electronically? For proceedings in which all electronic filings are publicly available, does electronic filing itself provide sufficient notice to parties interested in the proceeding that it should be sufficient to constitute service on other parties? Should we also require or encourage that requests by members of the public for environmental review of ASR towers, and pleadings or comments related to those requests, be filed and/or served electronically? Or should we exempt certain members of the public, some of whom may, for example, live in remote areas with limited electronic or internet access, from mandatory electronic filing and/or service when they wish to file requests for environmental review or other complaints and participate in pleading cycles? Is the Commission’s waiver process an appropriate vehicle to address such instances? What are the costs and benefits of each option? TCNS and the E–106 System. Tower Notifiers that choose to use TCNS file proposed construction notices electronically. What steps could we take to encourage Tower Notifiers to use TCNS to fulfill their obligation to notify and respond to Indian Tribes and NHOs? Under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review Process (NPA), Indian Tribes and NHOs may elect to receive notices and associated information from TCNS in accord with their reasonable communications preference, which may include U.S. or E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM 30SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Express Mail.5 What would incentivize Tribes and NHOs to receive information and complete their reviews electronically using TCNS, and what steps can the Commission take to remove barriers, make it easier, or otherwise encourage them to do so? As part of the state historic review process of tower proposals, Tower Notifiers can provide information to State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) electronically by submitting the relevant FCC Forms using either the Commission’s electronic system (E–106) or a SHPO-created database. Tower Notifiers also have the option to send these forms and other communications via U.S. or Express mail. We propose to require that Tower Notifiers that chose to use the E–106 System submit FCC Forms 620 and 621 electronically, and that all of the Tower Notifiers’ communications associated with the review process be made electronically. We seek comment on this approach. Because E–106 is an electronic system, all filings made by SHPOs in response to tower proposals into the system are inherently electronic. However, SHPOs are not required to use the system,6 and a large number of them do not: Currently, just 19 out of 59 SHPOs review tower projects via this system. We seek comment on what steps we could take to encourage SHPOs to participate in our electronic system and complete their reviews without the need for paper mail. Are there any scenarios where E–106 users might need to communicate with physical mail? We seek comment on any other changes we could make to the E–106 system itself or the review process that could reduce or eliminate the use of paper. Other Issues To Consider. Are there other situations involving the ULS and ASR System that we have not considered where electronic filing could be used? If a rule is silent on how a filing or communication should be made in connection with ULS, ASR, TCNS, or E–106, should we (subject to the limitations discussed herein) revise the rule to require an electronic filing or communication? Are there other conforming or related rule changes that the Commission should consider to facilitate these transitions? Are there 5 The NPA requires the Commission and our applicants to communicate in a manner consistent with the reasonable wishes of Indian Tribes or NHOs. 47 CFR part 1, Appx. C § IV(C), (D) and (E). For more details on the NPA and the Commission’s TCNS process, see https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/ systems-utilities/tower-construction-notifications. 6 As with TCNS, use of E–106 is voluntary. The system was designed to save users time and resources by automating and expediting the exchange of information and correspondence in the Section 106 process. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Sep 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 other implementation issues we should consider? For example, do we need to make any changes with regard to how we handle confidential information submitted to these systems, including sensitive information submitted by Tribes? Are there any accessibilityrelated issues we should be aware of that could impact our finalizing the transition to electronic filings? We note that we will continue to meet our requirement to provide accommodations for people with disabilities, and seek comment on how best to ensure compliance with the requirements of Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or any other relevant statute, in requiring electronic filing. Currently, if an application that is required to be filed electronically is manually filed without a waiver request, the Commission’s practice has been to dismiss the application as defective. We propose, and seek comment on, using the same approach going forward. B. Email Address for Applications, Registrations, and Notifications It is currently optional—not mandatory—for applicants, licensees, registrants, Tower Notifiers, and people who otherwise use these systems to provide an email address on the relevant FCC Forms submitted to these systems. Through this optional process, we have an email address on file for roughly 60% of the more than 2.2 million active WRS licenses.7 To increase this number and finalize our transition to electronic correspondence and outgoing notices from these systems, we propose to require inclusion of an email address on all applications and associated FCC Forms for ULS, ASR, and TCNS/E–106. To accomplish this goal, we propose to update the respective electronic FCC Forms to require inclusion of an email address going forward. This change will be implemented as soon as feasible, based on completing any requisite updates to our electronic systems, and on any necessary Paperwork Reduction Act approval from the Office of Management and Budget. We note that section 1.934 of our rules allows us to dismiss an application as defective if it is incomplete with respect to required answers to questions. Thus, once inclusion of an email address is mandatory on the respective FCC Forms, the Commission may dismiss as defective an application if an email 7 This includes WRS licenses for which there is a licensee email address, a point-of-contact email address, or both. PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 51505 address is not included. We also propose to amend section 1.923(i) of the Commission’s rules—which requires applications to specify a U.S. Postal Mail address—to require that applications also specify an email address, and seek comment on this proposal. Alternatively, should we remove section 1.923(i) as unnecessary, given that the appropriate FCC Forms will require both U.S. Postal Mail and email addresses going forward? Should we also require an email address on all pleadings related to applications and filings in these systems? Are there other rule changes that may be warranted to make furnishing an email address mandatory within these systems? For example, section 1.5 of the Commission’s rules requires licensees and applicants for a license to provide the Commission with an address where the Commission can direct correspondence. Should we revise this rule, or others, to reference email addresses? We also seek comment on how to ensure that applicants, licensees, and registrants keep their email addresses up-to-date. Are changes to the Commission’s existing rules about keeping contact information current sufficient to encompass email addresses? Should the Commission add ‘‘change of an email address’’ to the non-exhaustive list of minor modifications in section 1.929(k)? What changes to our rules might we need to ensure that entities with registered antenna structures in the ASR System keep email addresses current? Should we require ASR users to keep their contact information, including email addresses, current at all times? Are there reasons why we should not adopt such a requirement? Are there other ways to ensure that the Commission has accurate, up-to-date, email addresses associated with applications, licenses, and registrations across these electronic systems? Are there other ways to provide convenient means and appropriate incentives to ensure we have accurate, up-to-date email addresses? Notwithstanding that our WRS licensing data is public, are there possible privacy issues related to the collection of email addresses, and if so, how could we best address them? Currently, email addresses provided to ULS are publicly available, with certain exceptions.8 Should we continue using 8 The public facing ULS masks email addresses, phone numbers, and fax numbers connected to licenses in the Amateur Radio Service, Aircraft Radio Service, Commercial Radio Operators Services, Ship Radio Service, and the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS). E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM 30SEP1 51506 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS this approach going forward? If the Commission were to continue masking email addresses for certain categories of licensees, how would that affect electronic service of documents on third parties? C. Electronic Notices, Correspondence, and Alerts ULS and ASR. The Bureaus took steps in 2014 and 2016 to reduce the amount of paper correspondence generated by the ULS and ASR System. First, the Bureaus converted to official electronic records for authorizations, mailing hard copies of such authorizations only when an entity ‘‘opted in.’’ Second, they eliminated several categories of notices generated by these systems and sent to users through the U.S. Postal Service. The Bureaus cited several benefits to electronic correspondence, including saving money in terms of staff resources, paper supplies, and mailing costs, and eliminating the risk of notices getting lost or damaged in delivery. Despite these initial steps, the ULS and ASR System still generate thousands of authorizations and letters each year that are sent via U.S. Postal Mail. Notwithstanding that official copies can be accessed electronically and downloaded, the Bureaus printed and mailed over 60,000 specifically requested hard copy authorizations each year for the past three years. In about 80% of these instances, the relevant Bureau had an email address on file for the entity to which it mailed the hard copy authorization. We propose to eliminate requests for the Bureaus to mail hard copies of these authorizations, given that users can access and download their official authorizations, leases, and registrations from the ULS and ASR System at any time. In addition to authorizations, the Commission prints and mails hard copies of thousands of letters from the ULS and ASR System to licensees/ applicants and registrants each year. For example, in 2018, the Commission printed more than 20,000 dismissal letters; more than 13,000 return letters; over 8,000 cancellation letters; about 4,000 termination letters; and roughly 4,500 letters notifying owners of registered towers of an application to change ownership. 90% of the time, the Bureaus had an email address on file for the entities receiving these letters. We propose to send these types of letters electronically using the email address on file (once applicants/licensees and registrants are required to update their contact information to include email addresses, as discussed in Part B above). We seek comment on this proposal, and on whether there is a need to maintain VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Sep 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 U.S. Postal Mail-delivered correspondence for certain categories of notices, or to certain types of recipients. Should the Commission maintain an option for licensees, applicants, and registrants to receive paper letters on a case-by-case basis? Is the Commission’s waiver process sufficient to deal with any case-specific need for paper mailings? What are the costs and benefits of maintaining this option? We also seek comment on the various implementation issues raised by transitioning to email correspondence. For example, how many email addresses should we allow on file for each licensee, applicant, registrant, Tower Notifier, or other user of systems affected by these proposed changes? Should the user be able to designate which email address is the ‘‘primary’’ address for all, or for certain types, of correspondence, or should all notices be sent to every email address on file? Must the email include the actual substance of the communication (e.g., an electronic copy of a dismissal letter), or could the email simply alert the user to log in to the respective system to check an electronic mailbox or administrative tab that hosts the electronic correspondence? What other vehicles of electronic communication might be an option? We note, for example, that some court systems rely on online portals for electronic communications. Commenters arguing in favor of a specific vehicle or approach to email delivery should address the costs, benefits, and feasibility of the Commission implementing the approach. Today, about 10% of the letters we deliver by U.S. Postal Mail are returned as undeliverable. When this occurs, the Bureaus will check for any error (e.g., misspelling) and attempt to send the letter a second time. Should we use the same practice for emails that get bounced back as undeliverable (i.e., attempt to deliver twice)? If not, what approach might make sense for undeliverable electronic mail? Should there be an alert in the ULS and ASR System to let users know that a notice was sent to their on-file email address, with an electronic copy also available within those systems? Should the Bureau provide instructions or other assistance to licensees and applicants in advance of this transition, to help ensure that the recipient’s email program will not block or filter Commission emails? What should be the consequence if an entity is not aware of a notice or other communication from the Bureaus because it failed to ensure its email program will not block or filter Commission emails or failed to keep its PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 email address current? Are there other technical issues we should keep in mind as we transition to electronic correspondence? The Bureaus also print and mail more than 60,000 hard copy courtesy letters a year, such as letters reminding licensees of important dates like renewal and construction deadlines. We seek comment on whether courtesy letters remain necessary or could be eliminated. If recipients continue to find them helpful, should we transition to sending courtesy letters via email, or would a different method of online alerting be more efficient or useful to convey important deadlines? For example, would it be helpful to receive online alerts about important deadlines in a tab or mailbox within the ULS and ASR System? If we were to start using an online alerting mechanism, are there additional categories of alerts that we should include, besides important deadlines and, for the ASR System, tower ownership changes? If so, what kind of additional alerts would be beneficial? Should the Commission send notifications to ASR applicants completing the environmental notification process, such as determinations, dispositions, and Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs), by electronic means only? If so, should there be an option within the system for applicants to print all or some of these notifications? What is the appropriate timeframe for the transition of the ULS and ASR System to electronic correspondence and electronic alerts? How long after the Commission requires an email address associated with its applications should it begin using the on-file email addresses for notices and correspondence? TCNS and E–106 System. The Bureaus printed and mailed nearly 38,000 letters last year related to the TCNS/E–106 historic preservation process. Within the limits of the NPA, which allows Indian Tribes and NHOs to choose their preferred form of communication with the Commission and Tower Notifiers, we seek comment on how to incentivize the use of electronic correspondence with Indian Tribes and NHOs to the maximum extent possible in connection to their involvement with these systems, and on what steps the Commission could take to remove barriers that might prevent their doing so. We seek comment on the same implementation, technical, and mechanical issues discussed above with respect to the ULS and ASR System. We also seek comment on the appropriate amount of time to allow for this transition. E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM 30SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules List of Subjects Administrative practice and procedure; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. ■ Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary. * For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend parts 1 and 17 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows: ■ Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, unless otherwise noted. § 1.913 [Amended] 2. In § 1.913 remove and reserve paragraph (d). ■ 3. In § 1.923 revise paragraph (i) to read as follows: ■ § 1.923 Content of applications. * * * * * (i) Unless an exception is set forth elsewhere in this chapter, each applicant must specify an email address and a United States Postal Service address for the Commission to serve documents or direct correspondence to the applicant. PART 17—CONSTRUCTION, MARKING, AND LIGHTING OF ANTENNA STRUCTURES 4. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: ■ khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 303, 309. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Sep 27, 2019 Jkt 247001 5. Amend § 17.4 by revising paragraphs (b), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(1)(iv), and (e) to read as follows: § 17.4 Antenna structure registration. * * * * (b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, each owner of an antenna structure described in paragraph (a) of this section must file FCC Form 854 with the Commission. FCC Form 854, and all related amendments, modifications, and attachments, including environmental assessments, shall be filed electronically. Additionally, each owner of a proposed structure referred to in paragraph (a) of this section must submit a valid FAA determination of ‘‘no hazard.’’ In order to be considered valid by the Commission, the FAA determination of ‘‘no hazard’’ must not have expired prior to the date on which FCC Form 854 is received by the Commission. The height of the structure will be the highest point of the structure including any obstruction lighting or lightning arrester. If an antenna structure is not required to be registered under paragraph (a) of this section and it is voluntarily registered with the Commission after the effective date of this rule, the registrant must note on FCC Form 854 that the registration is voluntary. Voluntarily registered antenna structures are not subject to the lighting and marking requirements contained in this part. (c) * * * (1) * * * (ii) For a reduction in height of an antenna structure or an increase in height that does not constitute a substantial increase in size as defined in PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 51507 paragraph I(E)(1)–(3) of Appendix B to part 1 of this chapter, provided that there is no construction or excavation more than 30 feet beyond the existing antenna structure property; * * * * * (iv) For replacement of an existing antenna structure at the same geographic location that does not require an Environmental Assessment (EA) under § 1.1307(a) through (d) of this chapter, provided the new structure will not use a less preferred lighting style, there will be no substantial increase in size as defined in paragraph I(E)(1)–(3) of Appendix B to part 1 of this chapter, and there will be no construction or excavation more than 30 feet beyond the existing antenna structure property; * * * * * ■ 6. Revise § 17.57 to read as follows: § 17.57 Report of radio transmitting antenna construction, alteration, and/or removal. The owner of an antenna structure for which an Antenna Structure Registration Number has been obtained must notify the Commission within 5 days of completion of construction by filing FCC Form 854–R and/or dismantlement by filing FCC Form 854. The owner must also notify the Commission within 5 days of any change in structure height or change in ownership information by filing FCC Form 854. FCC Forms 854 and 854–R, and all related amendments, modifications, and attachments, shall be filed electronically. [FR Doc. 2019–20527 Filed 9–27–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM 30SEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51502-51507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20527]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 17

[WT Docket No. 19-212; FCC 19-87]


Completing the Transition to Electronic Filing, Licenses and 
Authorizations, and Correspondence in the Wireless Radio Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) builds upon the 
Commission's recent efforts to modernize its legacy filing, 
communications, and information retention systems by improving 
electronic access to data and digitizing Commission communications in a 
wide variety of services. Specifically, this NPRM proposes to make all 
filings to the Universal Licensing System (ULS) completely electronic; 
expand electronic filing and correspondence elements for related 
systems; and require applicants to provide an email address on the FCC 
Forms related to these systems. This NPRM also seeks comment on 
additional rule changes that would further expand the use of electronic 
filing and electronic service. Together, these proposals will 
facilitate the remaining steps to transition these systems from paper 
to electronic, reducing regulatory burdens and environmental waste, and 
making interaction with these systems more accessible and efficient for 
those who rely on them.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before October 30, 
2019; and reply comments on or before November 14, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 19-212, 
by any of the following methods:
    [ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    [ssquf] People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Greffenius of the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418-2986 or 
[email protected].
    For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements contained in this NPRM, contact 
Cathy Williams, Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918 or 
[email protected] or email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comment Filing Procedures

    Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    [ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be

[[Page 51503]]

addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    This document contains proposed information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it 
might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the 
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of 
the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. It requests written public 
comment on the IRFA, contained at Appendix B to the NPRM. Comments must 
be filed in accordance with the same deadlines as comments filed in 
response to the NPRM as set forth on the first page of this document, 
and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses 
to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, will send a copy of the NPRM, including 
the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

Ex Parte Rules

    The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a ``permit-
but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules.\1\ Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any 
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation 
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different 
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making 
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Synopsis

    ULS and Supporting Systems. The Commission manages applications for 
all wireless radio licenses through the ULS. Other systems accept 
filings and work in tandem with the ULS: The Antenna Structure 
Registration (ASR) System, the Tower Construction Notification System 
(TCNS), and the Electronic Section 106 (E-106) System. The ASR System 
ensures that physical structures used for wireless radio operations 
that are above a certain height or in close proximity to airports do 
not pose a hazard to aircraft. The TCNS and E-106 Systems advance the 
goal of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) to protect 
historic properties, including Tribal religious and cultural sites. 
Specifically, the TCNS provides a mechanism for Tower Notifiers 
(applicants seeking to build a tower or collocate on a tower or 
consultants/entities representing them) to notify and communicate with 
Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) regarding a 
proposed construction or collation, and the E-106 System works in 
conjunction with TCNS to enable real-time information referral and 
communication among the Commission, Tower Notifiers, and State Historic 
Preservation Officers (SHPOs). Collectively, these systems provide an 
efficient and transparent means to accept, review, and dispose of the 
Commission's wireless radio applications.
    Today, the majority of applications filed in the ULS are 
electronic, as required by rule. Exceptions exist for the following 
services: (i) Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio services for shared 
spectrum, spectrum in the public safety pool below 746 MHz, and 
spectrum in the public safety allocation above 746 MHz, except those 
filed by FCC-certified frequency coordinators; (ii) part 97 Amateur 
Radios Service, except those filed by Volunteer Examination 
Coordinators; (iii) part 95 General Mobile Service and Personal Radio 
Service, excluding 218-219 MHz service; (iv) part 80 Maritime Services, 
excluding VHF 156-162 MHz Public Coast Stations; (v) part 87 Aviation 
Services; (vi) part 13 Commercial Radio Operators (individual 
applicants only); and (vii) certain part 101 licensees who also fall 
under the exempted groups. 47 CFR 1.913(d)(1)(i)-(vii). Similarly, the 
overwhelming majority of ASR applications are filed electronically; 
however, applicants have the choice to file manually or electronically. 
TCNS is an electronic-only system, so all interactions with it are 
electronic by design. However, TCNS is a voluntary system; Tower 
Notifiers can, but are not required under any Commission rule, use TCNS 
as the vehicle to fulfill their obligation to identify and contact 
Indian Tribes and NHOs. Similarly, while Tower Notifiers can provide 
information to SHPOs via certain FCC Forms, there is no requirement 
that they use the E-106 system to submit these forms or otherwise file 
them electronically.
    Correspondence with Applicants/Licensees. While the Commission 
corresponds electronically with applicants and licensees in some 
instances, there remains a large amount of paper communication 
generated by the ULS and its supporting systems. Across these systems, 
the relevant applications and FCC Forms provide an opportunity, but do 
not require, users to provide an email address as part of their contact 
information. The Wireless Telecommunications and Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureaus (the Bureaus) by practice send correspondence 
generated by these systems to applicants and licensees, such as copies 
of licenses, reminder letters, and other courtesy notices. The Bureaus 
send thousands of these letters via U.S. Postal Mail each year.

[[Page 51504]]

A. Mandatory Electronic Filing

    ULS and ASR. In 1998, the Commission adopted mandatory electronic 
filing for some applications and related filings in the ULS. In doing 
so, it noted many benefits to mandatory electronic filing, including 
streamlining Wireless Radio Services (WRS) application processing, 
affording parties a quick and economical process to file applications, 
and making licensing information quickly and easily available to 
interested parties and the public. At the same time, the Commission 
recognized that ``some wireless services applicants or licensees might 
lack access not only to high quality telephone lines but also computers 
capable of submitting their applications electronically.'' Biennial 
Regulatory Review--Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 
90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the 
Development and Use of the Universal Licensing System in the Wireless 
Telecommunications Services, et al., Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 
21027, 21040-43, paras. 21-25 (1998) (1998 ULS Report and Order). It 
thus adopted several exemptions to mandatory electronic filing for a 
limited group of filers in services that were not subject to licensing 
by auction and that consisted ``primarily of individuals, small 
businesses, or public agencies that may lack resources to convert 
quickly to electronic filing.'' 1998 ULS Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 
at 21040, para. 20. The Commission noted that it would review this 
issue in the future and extend mandatory electronic filing if it found 
that it was ``operationally feasible and cost effective.'' Id.
    Given the drastic changes that have occurred with regard to the 
ubiquity of the internet and increased personal computer access, we 
find it unlikely that electronic filing remains infeasible or cost-
prohibitive for the previously exempted types of filers, or that they 
lack resources to file electronically. We therefore propose to 
eliminate section 1.913's exemptions to mandatory electronic filing. We 
seek comment on this proposal.
    We note, however, that while the vast majority of ULS applications 
today are submitted electronically, some are still manually filed, 
largely from exempted filers.\2\ Last year, for example, the Commission 
received about 5,000 manually filed applications out of about 425,000 
total applications.\3\ We seek comment on whether our underlying 
assumptions about the ease of electronic filing for the previously 
exempted filers are valid. Are there still categories of individuals or 
entities for which electronic filing may pose enough of a burden to 
outweigh the benefits, such as small entities, individuals with 
disabilities, or low-income individuals? If so, are any exemptions 
still warranted? Or is the Commission's waiver process sufficient to 
handle such instances?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ There are a few limited categories of submissions that the 
ULS cannot handle electronically and that must be filed and 
processed manually: Two-step transactions, subleases, leases 
contingent on assignments, and STAs in certain market-based 
services.
    \3\ About one-third of these manual filings are from Private 
Land Mobile Radio filers, and about one-third are Amateur Radio 
Service filings. Manually filed applications also include those from 
filers who sought and received a waiver of the electronic filing 
rule, or whose applications fall in the limited category that cannot 
be processed electronically in ULS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also propose to mandate electronic filing in the ASR System, 
which currently allows electronic filing of antenna structure 
registrations via FCC Form 854, but no Commission rule mandates 
electronic filing. We propose to revise sections 17.4 and 17.57 to 
specifically require electronic filing.\4\ As with filings to the ULS, 
we anticipate that there are many benefits to relying exclusively on 
electronic registrations, with few costs to ASR registrants. We 
anticipate that electronic submission is less, not more, burdensome for 
applicants, as the Commission receives very few manual ASR submissions 
each year, evidencing that this option is unnecessary for the 
overwhelming majority of registrants. Notably, out of the 7,000 
applications filed in the ASR System last year, only 15 were filed 
manually. We seek comment on this proposal, and on whether there 
remains a reason to allow paper filings in the ASR System under limited 
circumstances. If so, is the Commission's waiver process the 
appropriate vehicle to address such instances?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We also take this opportunity to correct a typographic error 
in sections 17.4(c)(1)(ii) and 17.4(c)(1)(iv), which incorrectly 
refers to ``paragraph I(C)(1)-(3)''and instead should refer to 
``I(E)(1)-(3)'' for the definition of ``Substantial increase in the 
size of the tower'' in the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the 
Collocation of Wireless Antennas, 47 CFR Pt. 1, Appx. B, Section 
I(E)(1)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For both the ULS and ASR Systems, we seek comment on the amount of 
time we should provide for filers to prepare for the transition to 
mandatory electronic filing. Would six months be sufficient lead-time 
for licensees/applicants and registrants to convert their practices to 
electronic filing? Are there differences between the entities 
previously exempted from electronic ULS filings and entities that 
submit ASRs manually that might warrant different timelines for the 
respective transitions?
    We also seek comment on whether the Commission's rules for filing 
electronic pleadings related to applications filed in the ULS and the 
ASR System--e.g., petitions to deny, petitions for reconsideration, 
applications for review, and status reports--also should be revised to 
require electronic filing. Most pleadings already can be filed 
electronically via the ``Submit Pleading'' link in ULS. We seek comment 
on whether to make electronic submission of ULS and ASR-related 
pleadings mandatory, to the extent they are not already. Additionally, 
some general Commission rules that apply to ULS and ASR applications as 
well as to other proceedings require service on other parties, and 
service must be manual, unless the party agrees otherwise. Should we 
revise these service requirements to permit a party to serve pleadings 
on other parties electronically? For proceedings in which all 
electronic filings are publicly available, does electronic filing 
itself provide sufficient notice to parties interested in the 
proceeding that it should be sufficient to constitute service on other 
parties? Should we also require or encourage that requests by members 
of the public for environmental review of ASR towers, and pleadings or 
comments related to those requests, be filed and/or served 
electronically? Or should we exempt certain members of the public, some 
of whom may, for example, live in remote areas with limited electronic 
or internet access, from mandatory electronic filing and/or service 
when they wish to file requests for environmental review or other 
complaints and participate in pleading cycles? Is the Commission's 
waiver process an appropriate vehicle to address such instances? What 
are the costs and benefits of each option?
    TCNS and the E-106 System. Tower Notifiers that choose to use TCNS 
file proposed construction notices electronically. What steps could we 
take to encourage Tower Notifiers to use TCNS to fulfill their 
obligation to notify and respond to Indian Tribes and NHOs? Under the 
Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National 
Historic Preservation Act Review Process (NPA), Indian Tribes and NHOs 
may elect to receive notices and associated information from TCNS in 
accord with their reasonable communications preference, which may 
include U.S. or

[[Page 51505]]

Express Mail.\5\ What would incentivize Tribes and NHOs to receive 
information and complete their reviews electronically using TCNS, and 
what steps can the Commission take to remove barriers, make it easier, 
or otherwise encourage them to do so?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The NPA requires the Commission and our applicants to 
communicate in a manner consistent with the reasonable wishes of 
Indian Tribes or NHOs. 47 CFR part 1, Appx. C Sec.  IV(C), (D) and 
(E). For more details on the NPA and the Commission's TCNS process, 
see https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/systems-utilities/tower-construction-notifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the state historic review process of tower proposals, 
Tower Notifiers can provide information to State Historic Preservation 
Officers (SHPOs) electronically by submitting the relevant FCC Forms 
using either the Commission's electronic system (E-106) or a SHPO-
created database. Tower Notifiers also have the option to send these 
forms and other communications via U.S. or Express mail. We propose to 
require that Tower Notifiers that chose to use the E-106 System submit 
FCC Forms 620 and 621 electronically, and that all of the Tower 
Notifiers' communications associated with the review process be made 
electronically. We seek comment on this approach. Because E-106 is an 
electronic system, all filings made by SHPOs in response to tower 
proposals into the system are inherently electronic. However, SHPOs are 
not required to use the system,\6\ and a large number of them do not: 
Currently, just 19 out of 59 SHPOs review tower projects via this 
system. We seek comment on what steps we could take to encourage SHPOs 
to participate in our electronic system and complete their reviews 
without the need for paper mail. Are there any scenarios where E-106 
users might need to communicate with physical mail? We seek comment on 
any other changes we could make to the E-106 system itself or the 
review process that could reduce or eliminate the use of paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As with TCNS, use of E-106 is voluntary. The system was 
designed to save users time and resources by automating and 
expediting the exchange of information and correspondence in the 
Section 106 process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other Issues To Consider. Are there other situations involving the 
ULS and ASR System that we have not considered where electronic filing 
could be used? If a rule is silent on how a filing or communication 
should be made in connection with ULS, ASR, TCNS, or E-106, should we 
(subject to the limitations discussed herein) revise the rule to 
require an electronic filing or communication? Are there other 
conforming or related rule changes that the Commission should consider 
to facilitate these transitions? Are there other implementation issues 
we should consider? For example, do we need to make any changes with 
regard to how we handle confidential information submitted to these 
systems, including sensitive information submitted by Tribes? Are there 
any accessibility-related issues we should be aware of that could 
impact our finalizing the transition to electronic filings? We note 
that we will continue to meet our requirement to provide accommodations 
for people with disabilities, and seek comment on how best to ensure 
compliance with the requirements of Sections 504 and 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or any other relevant statute, in requiring 
electronic filing.
    Currently, if an application that is required to be filed 
electronically is manually filed without a waiver request, the 
Commission's practice has been to dismiss the application as defective. 
We propose, and seek comment on, using the same approach going forward.

B. Email Address for Applications, Registrations, and Notifications

    It is currently optional--not mandatory--for applicants, licensees, 
registrants, Tower Notifiers, and people who otherwise use these 
systems to provide an email address on the relevant FCC Forms submitted 
to these systems. Through this optional process, we have an email 
address on file for roughly 60% of the more than 2.2 million active WRS 
licenses.\7\ To increase this number and finalize our transition to 
electronic correspondence and outgoing notices from these systems, we 
propose to require inclusion of an email address on all applications 
and associated FCC Forms for ULS, ASR, and TCNS/E-106. To accomplish 
this goal, we propose to update the respective electronic FCC Forms to 
require inclusion of an email address going forward. This change will 
be implemented as soon as feasible, based on completing any requisite 
updates to our electronic systems, and on any necessary Paperwork 
Reduction Act approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This includes WRS licenses for which there is a licensee 
email address, a point-of-contact email address, or both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that section 1.934 of our rules allows us to dismiss an 
application as defective if it is incomplete with respect to required 
answers to questions. Thus, once inclusion of an email address is 
mandatory on the respective FCC Forms, the Commission may dismiss as 
defective an application if an email address is not included. We also 
propose to amend section 1.923(i) of the Commission's rules--which 
requires applications to specify a U.S. Postal Mail address--to require 
that applications also specify an email address, and seek comment on 
this proposal. Alternatively, should we remove section 1.923(i) as 
unnecessary, given that the appropriate FCC Forms will require both 
U.S. Postal Mail and email addresses going forward? Should we also 
require an email address on all pleadings related to applications and 
filings in these systems? Are there other rule changes that may be 
warranted to make furnishing an email address mandatory within these 
systems? For example, section 1.5 of the Commission's rules requires 
licensees and applicants for a license to provide the Commission with 
an address where the Commission can direct correspondence. Should we 
revise this rule, or others, to reference email addresses?
    We also seek comment on how to ensure that applicants, licensees, 
and registrants keep their email addresses up-to-date. Are changes to 
the Commission's existing rules about keeping contact information 
current sufficient to encompass email addresses? Should the Commission 
add ``change of an email address'' to the non-exhaustive list of minor 
modifications in section 1.929(k)? What changes to our rules might we 
need to ensure that entities with registered antenna structures in the 
ASR System keep email addresses current? Should we require ASR users to 
keep their contact information, including email addresses, current at 
all times? Are there reasons why we should not adopt such a 
requirement? Are there other ways to ensure that the Commission has 
accurate, up-to-date, email addresses associated with applications, 
licenses, and registrations across these electronic systems? Are there 
other ways to provide convenient means and appropriate incentives to 
ensure we have accurate, up-to-date email addresses? Notwithstanding 
that our WRS licensing data is public, are there possible privacy 
issues related to the collection of email addresses, and if so, how 
could we best address them? Currently, email addresses provided to ULS 
are publicly available, with certain exceptions.\8\ Should we continue 
using

[[Page 51506]]

this approach going forward? If the Commission were to continue masking 
email addresses for certain categories of licensees, how would that 
affect electronic service of documents on third parties?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The public facing ULS masks email addresses, phone numbers, 
and fax numbers connected to licenses in the Amateur Radio Service, 
Aircraft Radio Service, Commercial Radio Operators Services, Ship 
Radio Service, and the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Electronic Notices, Correspondence, and Alerts

    ULS and ASR. The Bureaus took steps in 2014 and 2016 to reduce the 
amount of paper correspondence generated by the ULS and ASR System. 
First, the Bureaus converted to official electronic records for 
authorizations, mailing hard copies of such authorizations only when an 
entity ``opted in.'' Second, they eliminated several categories of 
notices generated by these systems and sent to users through the U.S. 
Postal Service. The Bureaus cited several benefits to electronic 
correspondence, including saving money in terms of staff resources, 
paper supplies, and mailing costs, and eliminating the risk of notices 
getting lost or damaged in delivery.
    Despite these initial steps, the ULS and ASR System still generate 
thousands of authorizations and letters each year that are sent via 
U.S. Postal Mail. Notwithstanding that official copies can be accessed 
electronically and downloaded, the Bureaus printed and mailed over 
60,000 specifically requested hard copy authorizations each year for 
the past three years. In about 80% of these instances, the relevant 
Bureau had an email address on file for the entity to which it mailed 
the hard copy authorization. We propose to eliminate requests for the 
Bureaus to mail hard copies of these authorizations, given that users 
can access and download their official authorizations, leases, and 
registrations from the ULS and ASR System at any time.
    In addition to authorizations, the Commission prints and mails hard 
copies of thousands of letters from the ULS and ASR System to 
licensees/applicants and registrants each year. For example, in 2018, 
the Commission printed more than 20,000 dismissal letters; more than 
13,000 return letters; over 8,000 cancellation letters; about 4,000 
termination letters; and roughly 4,500 letters notifying owners of 
registered towers of an application to change ownership. 90% of the 
time, the Bureaus had an email address on file for the entities 
receiving these letters. We propose to send these types of letters 
electronically using the email address on file (once applicants/
licensees and registrants are required to update their contact 
information to include email addresses, as discussed in Part B above). 
We seek comment on this proposal, and on whether there is a need to 
maintain U.S. Postal Mail-delivered correspondence for certain 
categories of notices, or to certain types of recipients. Should the 
Commission maintain an option for licensees, applicants, and 
registrants to receive paper letters on a case-by-case basis? Is the 
Commission's waiver process sufficient to deal with any case-specific 
need for paper mailings? What are the costs and benefits of maintaining 
this option?
    We also seek comment on the various implementation issues raised by 
transitioning to email correspondence. For example, how many email 
addresses should we allow on file for each licensee, applicant, 
registrant, Tower Notifier, or other user of systems affected by these 
proposed changes? Should the user be able to designate which email 
address is the ``primary'' address for all, or for certain types, of 
correspondence, or should all notices be sent to every email address on 
file? Must the email include the actual substance of the communication 
(e.g., an electronic copy of a dismissal letter), or could the email 
simply alert the user to log in to the respective system to check an 
electronic mailbox or administrative tab that hosts the electronic 
correspondence? What other vehicles of electronic communication might 
be an option? We note, for example, that some court systems rely on 
online portals for electronic communications. Commenters arguing in 
favor of a specific vehicle or approach to email delivery should 
address the costs, benefits, and feasibility of the Commission 
implementing the approach.
    Today, about 10% of the letters we deliver by U.S. Postal Mail are 
returned as undeliverable. When this occurs, the Bureaus will check for 
any error (e.g., misspelling) and attempt to send the letter a second 
time. Should we use the same practice for emails that get bounced back 
as undeliverable (i.e., attempt to deliver twice)? If not, what 
approach might make sense for undeliverable electronic mail? Should 
there be an alert in the ULS and ASR System to let users know that a 
notice was sent to their on-file email address, with an electronic copy 
also available within those systems? Should the Bureau provide 
instructions or other assistance to licensees and applicants in advance 
of this transition, to help ensure that the recipient's email program 
will not block or filter Commission emails? What should be the 
consequence if an entity is not aware of a notice or other 
communication from the Bureaus because it failed to ensure its email 
program will not block or filter Commission emails or failed to keep 
its email address current? Are there other technical issues we should 
keep in mind as we transition to electronic correspondence?
    The Bureaus also print and mail more than 60,000 hard copy courtesy 
letters a year, such as letters reminding licensees of important dates 
like renewal and construction deadlines. We seek comment on whether 
courtesy letters remain necessary or could be eliminated. If recipients 
continue to find them helpful, should we transition to sending courtesy 
letters via email, or would a different method of online alerting be 
more efficient or useful to convey important deadlines? For example, 
would it be helpful to receive online alerts about important deadlines 
in a tab or mailbox within the ULS and ASR System? If we were to start 
using an online alerting mechanism, are there additional categories of 
alerts that we should include, besides important deadlines and, for the 
ASR System, tower ownership changes? If so, what kind of additional 
alerts would be beneficial? Should the Commission send notifications to 
ASR applicants completing the environmental notification process, such 
as determinations, dispositions, and Findings of No Significant Impact 
(FONSIs), by electronic means only? If so, should there be an option 
within the system for applicants to print all or some of these 
notifications?
    What is the appropriate timeframe for the transition of the ULS and 
ASR System to electronic correspondence and electronic alerts? How long 
after the Commission requires an email address associated with its 
applications should it begin using the on-file email addresses for 
notices and correspondence?
    TCNS and E-106 System. The Bureaus printed and mailed nearly 38,000 
letters last year related to the TCNS/E-106 historic preservation 
process. Within the limits of the NPA, which allows Indian Tribes and 
NHOs to choose their preferred form of communication with the 
Commission and Tower Notifiers, we seek comment on how to incentivize 
the use of electronic correspondence with Indian Tribes and NHOs to the 
maximum extent possible in connection to their involvement with these 
systems, and on what steps the Commission could take to remove barriers 
that might prevent their doing so. We seek comment on the same 
implementation, technical, and mechanical issues discussed above with 
respect to the ULS and ASR System. We also seek comment on the 
appropriate amount of time to allow for this transition.

[[Page 51507]]

List of Subjects

    Administrative practice and procedure; Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend parts 1 and 17 of Title 47 
of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, 
unless otherwise noted.


Sec.  1.913  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  1.913 remove and reserve paragraph (d).
0
3. In Sec.  1.923 revise paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.923   Content of applications.

* * * * *
    (i) Unless an exception is set forth elsewhere in this chapter, 
each applicant must specify an email address and a United States Postal 
Service address for the Commission to serve documents or direct 
correspondence to the applicant.

PART 17--CONSTRUCTION, MARKING, AND LIGHTING OF ANTENNA STRUCTURES

0
4. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 303, 309.

0
5. Amend Sec.  17.4 by revising paragraphs (b), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(1)(iv), 
and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.4   Antenna structure registration.

* * * * *
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, each owner 
of an antenna structure described in paragraph (a) of this section must 
file FCC Form 854 with the Commission. FCC Form 854, and all related 
amendments, modifications, and attachments, including environmental 
assessments, shall be filed electronically. Additionally, each owner of 
a proposed structure referred to in paragraph (a) of this section must 
submit a valid FAA determination of ``no hazard.'' In order to be 
considered valid by the Commission, the FAA determination of ``no 
hazard'' must not have expired prior to the date on which FCC Form 854 
is received by the Commission. The height of the structure will be the 
highest point of the structure including any obstruction lighting or 
lightning arrester. If an antenna structure is not required to be 
registered under paragraph (a) of this section and it is voluntarily 
registered with the Commission after the effective date of this rule, 
the registrant must note on FCC Form 854 that the registration is 
voluntary. Voluntarily registered antenna structures are not subject to 
the lighting and marking requirements contained in this part.
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) For a reduction in height of an antenna structure or an 
increase in height that does not constitute a substantial increase in 
size as defined in paragraph I(E)(1)-(3) of Appendix B to part 1 of 
this chapter, provided that there is no construction or excavation more 
than 30 feet beyond the existing antenna structure property;
* * * * *
    (iv) For replacement of an existing antenna structure at the same 
geographic location that does not require an Environmental Assessment 
(EA) under Sec.  1.1307(a) through (d) of this chapter, provided the 
new structure will not use a less preferred lighting style, there will 
be no substantial increase in size as defined in paragraph I(E)(1)-(3) 
of Appendix B to part 1 of this chapter, and there will be no 
construction or excavation more than 30 feet beyond the existing 
antenna structure property;
* * * * *
0
6. Revise Sec.  17.57 to read as follows:


Sec.  17.57   Report of radio transmitting antenna construction, 
alteration, and/or removal.

    The owner of an antenna structure for which an Antenna Structure 
Registration Number has been obtained must notify the Commission within 
5 days of completion of construction by filing FCC Form 854-R and/or 
dismantlement by filing FCC Form 854. The owner must also notify the 
Commission within 5 days of any change in structure height or change in 
ownership information by filing FCC Form 854. FCC Forms 854 and 854-R, 
and all related amendments, modifications, and attachments, shall be 
filed electronically.

[FR Doc. 2019-20527 Filed 9-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.