Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority, 5436-5437 [2020-01734]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
5436
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 2020 / Notices
are not.’’ We agree. The services
provided by over-the-top VoIP providers
and facilities-based VoIP providers are
not functionally equivalent—the latter
provides the physical connection to the
last-mile facilities used to serve an end
user, and the former does not. We thus
reject the overbroad suggestion in the
2015 Declaratory Ruling that ‘‘disparate
treatment based on technological
distinctions between facilities-based
and over-the-top providers directly
contradicts the advancement of
‘competitive or technological
neutrality.’ ’’ Where there are material
technological distinctions, differences
in treatment can be appropriate. The
reasoning underpinning the 2015
Declaratory Ruling is circular: It is only
by excluding interconnection from the
scope of end office switching that the
2015 Declaratory Ruling could have
treated differences between facilitiesbased and over-the-top VoIP providers
as immaterial. Our interpretation
‘‘embraces the concept of compensation
for new and non-traditional
functionality,’’ but not at the expense of
a departure from the historical standard
for functional equivalency that we find
represents the best interpretation of the
VoIP Symmetry Rule.
25. In departing from the
Commission’s interpretation of the VoIP
Symmetry Rule in the 2015 Declaratory
Ruling, we are mindful of the fact that
‘‘an agency is free to change its mind so
long as it supplies ‘a reasoned
analysis.’ ’’ The Supreme Court has
observed that there is ‘‘no basis in the
Administrative Procedure Act or in our
opinions for a requirement that all
agency change be subjected to more
searching review. . . . [I]t suffices that
the new policy is permissible under the
statute, that there are good reasons for
it, and that the agency believes it to be
better, which the conscious change of
course adequately indicates.’’ Relevant
precedent holds that we need only
‘‘examine the relevant data and
articulate a satisfactory explanation for
[our] action,’’ a duty we fully satisfy
here. The ‘‘possibility of drawing two
inconsistent conclusions from the
evidence does not prevent an
administrative agency’s finding from
being supported by substantial
evidence.’’ Thus, contrary to
CenturyLink’s assertion that we cannot
or should not depart from the
conclusion of the 2015 Declaratory
Ruling, we are ‘‘entitled to assess
administrative records and evaluate
priorities’’ in light of our current policy
judgments as well as in response to a
remand order from the court. Indeed, by
vacating the 2015 Declaratory Ruling
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 Jan 29, 2020
Jkt 250001
and remanding the matter to us, the D.C.
Circuit required us to reevaluate the
Commission’s reasoning in the 2015
Declaratory Ruling and take into the
account the weaknesses in that ruling
that the D.C. Circuit identified in its
opinion.
26. In the interest of further clarity,
we find that this Declaratory Ruling
should have retroactive effect. As a
general matter, declaratory rulings are
adjudicatory and are presumed to have
retroactive effect. Clarifying the law and
applying that clarification to past
behavior are routine functions of
adjudications. As various commenters
point out, the applicability of the VoIP
Symmetry Rule has not been clear. This
retroactive clarification is necessary to
provide clarity on the meaning of the
VoIP Symmetry Rule. As such, we reject
the assertion that the interpretation of
the VoIP Symmetry Rule adopted in this
Order may not be applied retroactively
because such interpretation would
result in ‘‘manifest injustice’’ and that
our revised interpretation of the VoIP
Symmetry Rule may be applied only
prospectively. Instead, retroactivity is
necessary to prevent an undue hardship
being worked upon those parties who
properly interpreted the VoIP Symmetry
Rule and have been in disputes ever
since.
IV. Ordering Clauses
27. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to sections 4(i), 201, 202, and
251 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 202,
and 251, and sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.2,
this Order on Remand and Declaratory
Ruling in WC Docket No. 10–90 and CC
Docket No. 01–92 is adopted.
28. It is further ordered that the
Petition of CenturyLink for a
Declaratory Ruling filed May 11, 2018 is
denied.
29. It is further ordered that, pursuant
to section 1.103 of the Commission’s
rules, 47 CFR 1.103, this Order on
Remand and Declaratory Ruling shall be
effective upon release.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020–01658 Filed 1–29–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[OMB 3060–1238; FRS 16434]
Information Collection Being Reviewed
by the Federal Communications
Commission Under Delegated
Authority
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
As part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork burdens, and as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA), the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC or Commission)
invites the general public and other
Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on the
following information collection.
Comments are requested concerning:
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
the accuracy of the Commission’s
burden estimate; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and ways to
further reduce the information
collection burden on small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor
a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) control
number. No person shall be subject to
any penalty for failing to comply with
a collection of information subject to the
PRA that does not display a valid OMB
control number.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted on or before March 30, 2020.
If you anticipate that you will be
submitting comments but find it
difficult to do so within the period of
time allowed by this notice, you should
advise the contacts below as soon as
possible.
SUMMARY:
Direct all PRA comments to
Cathy Williams, FCC, via email PRA@
fcc.gov and to Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information about the
information collection, contact Cathy
Williams at (202) 418–2918.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: 3060–1238.
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM
30JAN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 2020 / Notices
Title: First Amendment to Nationwide
Programmatic Agreement for the
Collocation of Wireless Antennas.
Form Number: Not applicable.
Type of Review: Extension of an
approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities, not-for-profit institutions,
and State, local, or Tribal governments.
Number of Respondents and
Responses: 71 respondents; 765
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 1
hour—5 hours.
Frequency of Response: Third party
disclosure reporting requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Required to
obtain or retain benefits. Statutory
authority for this information collection
is contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 301,
303, 309, and 332 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
157, 301, 303, 309, 332, and Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, 54 U.S.C. 306108.
Total Annual Burden: 2,869 hours.
Total Annual Cost: $82,285.
Privacy Impact Assessment: There are
no impacts under the Privacy Act.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:
No known confidentiality between third
parties.
Needs and Uses: The Commission
will submit this information collection
for approval after the comment period to
obtain the full three-year clearance from
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). The Commission is requesting
OMB approval for disclosure
requirements pertaining to the First
Amendment to Nationwide
Programmatic Agreement for the
Collocation of Wireless Antennas (First
Amendment) to address the review of
deployments of small wireless antennas
and associated equipment under Section
106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C.
306108 (formerly codified at 16 U.S.C.
470f). The FCC, the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (Council), and
the National Conference of State
Historic Preservation Officers
(NCSHPO) amended the Nationwide
Programmatic Agreement for the
Collocation of Wireless Antennas
(Collocation Agreement) to account for
the limited potential of small wireless
antennas and associated equipment,
including Distributed Antenna Systems
(DAS) and small cell facilities, to affect
historic properties. The Collocation
Agreement addresses historic
preservation review for collocations on
existing towers, buildings, and other
non-tower structures. Under the
Collocation Agreement, most antenna
collocations on existing structures are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 Jan 29, 2020
Jkt 250001
excluded from Section 106 historic
preservation review, with a few
exceptions defined to address
potentially problematic situations. On
August 3, 2016, the Commission’s
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
ACHP, and NCSHPO finalized and
executed the First Amendment to the
Collocation Agreement, to tailor the
Section 106 process for small wireless
deployments by excluding deployments
that have minimal potential for adverse
effects on historic properties.
The following are the information
collection requirements in connection
with the amended provisions of
Appendix B of Part 1 of the
Commission’s rules (47 CFR pt.1, App.
B):
• Stipulation VII.C of the amended
Collocation Agreement provides that
proposals to mount a small antenna on
a traffic control structure (i.e., traffic
light) or on a light pole, lamp post or
other structure whose primary purpose
is to provide public lighting, where the
structure is located inside or within 250
feet of the boundary of a historic
district, are generally subject to review
through the Section 106 process. These
proposed collocations will be excluded
from such review on a case-by-case
basis, if (1) the collocation licensee or
the owner of the structure has not
received written or electronic
notification that the FCC is in receipt of
a complaint from a member of the
public, an Indian Tribe, a SHPO or the
Council, that the collocation has an
adverse effect on one or more historic
properties; and (2) the structure is not
historic (not a designated National
Historic Landmark or a property listed
in or eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places) or
considered a contributing or compatible
element within the historic district,
under certain procedures. These
procedures require that applicant must
request in writing that the SHPO concur
with the applicant’s determination that
the structure is not a contributing or
compatible element within the historic
district, and the applicant’s written
request must specify the traffic control
structure, light pole, or lamp post on
which the applicant proposes to
collocate and explain why the structure
is not a contributing element based on
the age and type of structure, as well as
other relevant factors. The SHPO has
thirty days from its receipt of such
written notice to inform the applicant
whether it disagrees with the applicant’s
determination that the structure is not a
contributing or compatible element
within the historic district. If within the
thirty-day period, the SHPO informs the
applicant that the structure is a
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5437
contributing element or compatible
element within the historic district or
that the applicant has not provided
sufficient information for a
determination, the applicant may not
deploy its facilities on that structure
without completing the Section 106
review process. If, within the thirty day
period, the SHPO either informs the
applicant that the structure is not a
contributing or compatible element
within the historic district, or the SHPO
fails to respond to the applicant within
the thirty-day period, the applicant has
no further Section 106 review
obligations, provided that the
collocation meets the certain volumetric
and ground disturbance provisions.
The First Amendment to the
Collocation Agreement established new
exclusions from the Section 106 review
process for physically small
deployments like DAS and small cells,
fulfilling a directive in the
Commission’s Infrastructure Report and
Order, 80 FR 1238, Jan. 8, 2015, to
further streamline review of these
installations. These exclusions will
continue to reduce the cost, time, and
burden associated with deploying small
facilities in many settings and provide
opportunities to increase densification
at low cost and with very little impact
on historic properties.
Facilitating these deployments thus
directly advances efforts to roll out 5G
service in communities across the
country.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020–01734 Filed 1–29–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Notice of Agreements Filed
The Commission hereby gives notice
of the filing of the following agreement
under the Shipping Act of 1984.
Interested parties may submit comments
on the agreements to the Secretary by
email at Secretary@fmc.gov, or by mail,
Federal Maritime Commission,
Washington, DC 20573, within twelve
days of the date this notice appears in
the Federal Register. Copies of
agreements are available through the
Commission’s website (www.fmc.gov) or
by contacting the Office of Agreements
at (202) 523–5793 or tradeanalysis@
fmc.gov.
Agreement No.: 201330.
Agreement Name: CMA CGM/COSCO
Shipping Vessel Sharing Agreement
Brazil-Caribbean/U.S. Gulf.
E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM
30JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5436-5437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01734]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[OMB 3060-1238; FRS 16434]
Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal
Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens,
and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment
on the following information collection. Comments are requested
concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; the
accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the
information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for
failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA
that does not display a valid OMB control number.
DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before March 30,
2020. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find
it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice,
you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
[email protected] and to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the
information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: 3060-1238.
[[Page 5437]]
Title: First Amendment to Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the
Collocation of Wireless Antennas.
Form Number: Not applicable.
Type of Review: Extension of an approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit
institutions, and State, local, or Tribal governments.
Number of Respondents and Responses: 71 respondents; 765 responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour--5 hours.
Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure reporting
requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in
Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 301, 303, 309, and 332 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 157, 301, 303,
309, 332, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, 54 U.S.C. 306108.
Total Annual Burden: 2,869 hours.
Total Annual Cost: $82,285.
Privacy Impact Assessment: There are no impacts under the Privacy
Act.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: No known confidentiality
between third parties.
Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this information
collection for approval after the comment period to obtain the full
three-year clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Commission is requesting OMB approval for disclosure requirements
pertaining to the First Amendment to Nationwide Programmatic Agreement
for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas (First Amendment) to address
the review of deployments of small wireless antennas and associated
equipment under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 306108 (formerly codified at 16 U.S.C. 470f). The
FCC, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council), and the
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO)
amended the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of
Wireless Antennas (Collocation Agreement) to account for the limited
potential of small wireless antennas and associated equipment,
including Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and small cell facilities,
to affect historic properties. The Collocation Agreement addresses
historic preservation review for collocations on existing towers,
buildings, and other non-tower structures. Under the Collocation
Agreement, most antenna collocations on existing structures are
excluded from Section 106 historic preservation review, with a few
exceptions defined to address potentially problematic situations. On
August 3, 2016, the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
ACHP, and NCSHPO finalized and executed the First Amendment to the
Collocation Agreement, to tailor the Section 106 process for small
wireless deployments by excluding deployments that have minimal
potential for adverse effects on historic properties.
The following are the information collection requirements in
connection with the amended provisions of Appendix B of Part 1 of the
Commission's rules (47 CFR pt.1, App. B):
Stipulation VII.C of the amended Collocation Agreement
provides that proposals to mount a small antenna on a traffic control
structure (i.e., traffic light) or on a light pole, lamp post or other
structure whose primary purpose is to provide public lighting, where
the structure is located inside or within 250 feet of the boundary of a
historic district, are generally subject to review through the Section
106 process. These proposed collocations will be excluded from such
review on a case-by-case basis, if (1) the collocation licensee or the
owner of the structure has not received written or electronic
notification that the FCC is in receipt of a complaint from a member of
the public, an Indian Tribe, a SHPO or the Council, that the
collocation has an adverse effect on one or more historic properties;
and (2) the structure is not historic (not a designated National
Historic Landmark or a property listed in or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places) or considered a contributing
or compatible element within the historic district, under certain
procedures. These procedures require that applicant must request in
writing that the SHPO concur with the applicant's determination that
the structure is not a contributing or compatible element within the
historic district, and the applicant's written request must specify the
traffic control structure, light pole, or lamp post on which the
applicant proposes to collocate and explain why the structure is not a
contributing element based on the age and type of structure, as well as
other relevant factors. The SHPO has thirty days from its receipt of
such written notice to inform the applicant whether it disagrees with
the applicant's determination that the structure is not a contributing
or compatible element within the historic district. If within the
thirty-day period, the SHPO informs the applicant that the structure is
a contributing element or compatible element within the historic
district or that the applicant has not provided sufficient information
for a determination, the applicant may not deploy its facilities on
that structure without completing the Section 106 review process. If,
within the thirty day period, the SHPO either informs the applicant
that the structure is not a contributing or compatible element within
the historic district, or the SHPO fails to respond to the applicant
within the thirty-day period, the applicant has no further Section 106
review obligations, provided that the collocation meets the certain
volumetric and ground disturbance provisions.
The First Amendment to the Collocation Agreement established new
exclusions from the Section 106 review process for physically small
deployments like DAS and small cells, fulfilling a directive in the
Commission's Infrastructure Report and Order, 80 FR 1238, Jan. 8, 2015,
to further streamline review of these installations. These exclusions
will continue to reduce the cost, time, and burden associated with
deploying small facilities in many settings and provide opportunities
to increase densification at low cost and with very little impact on
historic properties.
Facilitating these deployments thus directly advances efforts to
roll out 5G service in communities across the country.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01734 Filed 1-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
