80 FR 38424 - Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 128 (July 6, 2015)

Page Range		38424-38426
FR Document		2015-16493

In this document, the Commission via the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), seeks comment on whether to maintain a temporary exemption for smaller providers from certain enhancements to the existing transparency rules that govern the content and format of disclosures made by providers of broadband Internet access service.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 128 (Monday, July 6, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38424-38426]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16493]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 8

[GN Docket No. 14-28; DA 15-731]


Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission via the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), seeks comment on whether to maintain 
a temporary exemption for smaller providers from certain enhancements 
to the existing transparency rules that govern the content and format 
of disclosures made by providers of broadband Internet access service.

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 5, 2015. Reply comments are 
due on or before September 4, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 14-28, 
by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions 
provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in 
completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full 
name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and GN Docket No. 14-28.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by 
hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the 
Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal 
Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand 
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. 
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    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: Richard D. Smith, Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, (717) 338-2797.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document DA 15-731, released June 22, 2015 in GN Docket No. 14-28, 
seeking comment on the exemption from Open Internet enhanced 
transparency requirements. The full text of document DA 15-731 will be 
available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during 
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals 
II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document 
DA 15-731 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format 
(PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/cgb-seek-comment-exemption-open-internet-enhanced-transparency. This proceeding shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 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

[[Page 38425]]

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.
    To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Commission currently has an Office and Management and Budget 
(OMB) collection 3060-1158 pending OMB's review and approval. The 60 
day Federal Register notice seeking comment on the revision was 
published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2015, at 80 FR 29000. This 
collection contains information collection requirements for the Open 
Internet transparency rules, which are subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Pub. L. 104-13. However, document DA 15-
731 does not modify the existing information collection requirements 
contained in OMB collection 3060-1158, and it does not contain new or 
modified information collection requirements subject to the PRA. In 
addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act 
of 2002. Public Law 107-198. See also 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The 2015 Open Internet Order included a Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, discussing the 
impact on small entities of the policies and rules adopted therein. The 
Commission incorporates the FRFA and invites parties to file comments 
in light of document DA 15-731.

Synopsis

    1. In the 2015 Open Internet Order, published at 80 FR 19738, April 
13, 2015, the Commission temporarily exempted those providers with 
100,000 or fewer broadband subscribers as per their most recent Form 
477, aggregated over all the providers' affiliates from the enhanced 
transparency requirements adopted therein. At the same time, the 
Commission stated that ``both the appropriateness of the exemption and 
the [subscriber] threshold require further deliberation,'' and directed 
CGB to seek comment on the exemption and to adopt an order announcing 
whether it is maintaining an exemption and at what level by no later 
than December 15, 2015.
    2. While the Commission described the exemption threshold using the 
terms ``subscribers'' and ``subscriber lines,'' it emphasized that the 
relevant metric should be that used on Form 477. That metric is 
broadband ``connections,'' the broadband equivalent of subscriber 
lines, which the Commission used in the analogous exemption adopted in 
the Rural Call Completion Order, published at 78 FR 76218, December 17, 
2013. For these reasons, we make clear that the exemption from the 
enhanced transparency requirements applies to providers with 100,000 or 
fewer broadband connections.
    3. Small Business Exemption. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether the enhancements to the transparency rule raise compliance 
burden concerns that warrant making permanent the exemption. The 
Commission notes that it did not adopt some of the enhancements 
originally proposed and found those it did adopt were ``modest in 
nature.'' The Commission seeks comment on whether the adopted enhanced 
transparency requirements nevertheless impose burdens on smaller 
providers sufficient to justify retaining the exemption.
    4. The Commission seeks specific comment on the following 
questions. What is the burden of the enhanced disclosures to smaller 
providers as measured in financial and other resources, and how is the 
burden disproportionately experienced by smaller providers? To the 
extent that concerns remain regarding any burdens, what is the 
corresponding benefit to customers of smaller providers of the 
information contained in those disclosures? For example, to what extent 
are customers of exempted providers deprived of information they need 
to understand the services they purchase and receive, and to monitor 
practices that could undermine an open Internet? Are rural customers 
likely to be disproportionally affected by exempting smaller providers 
from the enhanced disclosure requirements?
    5. How should any benefits of the enhanced transparency 
requirements to customers of exempted providers be balanced against any 
public interest benefits of reducing burdens to the providers? Will the 
reduction of compliance burdens for smaller providers benefit consumers 
in the areas served by those providers by, for example, facilitating 
broadband deployment, lower prices, or better quality services for 
consumers?
    6. If the Commission does not make the exemption permanent, would a 
one-time temporary extension of the exemption for some period be 
necessary to allow a smooth transition to full compliance, and would 
such an approach be more beneficial to consumers than a permanent 
exemption? What period of time would be appropriate for smaller 
providers to adequately address the potential burdens associated with 
the enhanced transparency rules? How does the subscriber threshold 
discussed below affect this analysis? Should the Commission require 
carriers to report to the Commission on their progress with meeting the 
goals of the enhanced transparency rules? What conditions may be 
appropriate for a one-time, temporary extension of the current 
exemption? What factors should the Commission consider in determining 
the limitations of a one-time, temporary extension of the exemption? 
The Commission seeks comment on these and any other relevant issues.
    7. Small Provider Threshold. The Commission set the smaller 
provider threshold for purposes of the exemption at 100,000 or fewer 
broadband connections as measured by their most recent Form 477, 
aggregated over all affiliates. Is this the right threshold for any 
extension of the exemption? If not, what is a more appropriate level to 
identify those providers likely to be most disproportionately affected 
by the new disclosure requirements? How should the Commission determine 
whether a provider qualifies for the exemption if it is required to 
file a Form 477 but has not done so? Should such providers be 
ineligible for the exemption until they have done so? Are there reasons 
to adopt thresholds that vary for fixed and mobile providers? The 
Commission notes that the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
contained in the 2015 Open Internet Order discusses a number of ways to 
define the small entities impacted by that Order. The Commission seeks 
comment on these and any other issues commenters deem relevant.


[[Page 38426]]


Federal Communications Commission.
Alison Kutler,
Acting Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2015-16493 Filed 7-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

38424 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air COMMISSION Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. • U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 47 CFR Part 8 Express, and Priority mail should be
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
[GN Docket No. 14–28; DA 15–731]
Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only Washington, DC 20554.
accepted during the Regional Office Protecting and Promoting the Open For detailed instructions for
normal hours of operation, and special Internet submitting comments and additional
arrangements should be made for information on the rulemaking process,
AGENCY: Federal Communications see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
deliveries of boxed information. The
Commission. section of this document.
Regional Office official hours of
ACTION: Proposed rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Richard D. Smith, Consumer and
SUMMARY: In this document, the Governmental Affairs Bureau, (717)
Federal holidays. Commission via the Consumer and 338–2797.
Please see the direct final rule which Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
is located in the Rules section of this seeks comment on whether to maintain summary of the Commission’s
Federal Register for detailed a temporary exemption for smaller document DA 15–731, released June 22,
instructions on how to submit providers from certain enhancements to 2015 in GN Docket No. 14–28, seeking
comments. the existing transparency rules that comment on the exemption from Open
govern the content and format of Internet enhanced transparency
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: disclosures made by providers of requirements. The full text of document
Michael Leslie, Environmental broadband Internet access service. DA 15–731 will be available for public
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air DATES: Comments are due on or before inspection and copying via ECFS, and
Programs Branch (AR–18J), August 5, 2015. Reply comments are during regular business hours at the
Environmental Protection Agency, due on or before September 4, 2015. FCC Reference Information Center,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–6680, identified by GN Docket No. 14–28, by CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
leslie.michael@epa.gov. any of the following methods: Document DA 15–731 can also be
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the • Electronic Filers: Comments may be downloaded in Word or Portable
Rules section of this Federal Register, filed electronically using the Internet by Document Format (PDF) at: https://
EPA is approving the State’s SIP accessing the Commission’s Electronic www.fcc.gov/document/cgb-seek-
submittal as a direct final rule without Comment Filing System (ECFS), through comment-exemption-open-internet-
the Commission’s Web site http:// enhanced-transparency. This
prior proposal because the Agency
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should proceeding shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-
views this as a noncontroversial
follow the instructions provided on the but-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance
submittal and anticipates no adverse Web site for submitting comments. For with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
comments. A detailed rationale for the ECFS filers, in completing the 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex
approval is set forth in the direct final transmittal screen, filers should include parte presentations must file a copy of
rule, which is located in the Rules their full name, U.S. Postal service any written presentation or a
section of this Federal Register. If no mailing address, and GN Docket No. 14– memorandum summarizing any oral
adverse comments are received in 28. presentation within two business days
response to this rule, no further activity • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to after the presentation (unless a different
is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse file by paper must file an original and deadline applicable to the Sunshine
comments, the direct final rule will be one copy of each filing. Filings can be period applies). Persons making oral ex
withdrawn and all public comments sent by hand or messenger delivery, by parte presentations are reminded that
received will be addressed in a commercial overnight courier, or by memoranda summarizing the
subsequent final rule based on this first-class or overnight U.S. Postal presentation must (1) list all persons
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a Service mail (although the Commission attending or otherwise participating in
second comment period. Any parties continues to experience delays in the meeting at which the ex parte
interested in commenting on this action receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All presentation was made, and (2)
should do so at this time. Please note filings must be addressed to the summarize all data presented and
that if EPA receives adverse comment Commission’s Secretary, Office of the arguments made during the
on an amendment, paragraph, or section Secretary, Federal Communications presentation. If the presentation
of this rule and if that provision may be Commission. consisted in whole or in part of the
severed from the remainder of the rule, • All hand-delivered or messenger- presentation of data or arguments
EPA may adopt as final those provisions delivered paper filings for the already reflected in the presenter’s
of the rule that are not the subject of an Commission’s Secretary must be written comments, memoranda or other
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 filings in the proceeding, the presenter
adverse comment.
12th Street SW., Room TW–A325, may provide citations to such data or
Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Dated: June 19, 2015. Washington, DC 20554. All hand arguments in his or her prior comments,
Susan Hedman, deliveries must be held together with memoranda, or other filings (specifying
Regional Administrator, Region 5. rubber bands or fasteners. Any the relevant page and/or paragraph
[FR Doc. 2015–16398 Filed 7–2–15; 8:45 am] envelopes must be disposed of before numbers where such data or arguments
entering the building. can be found) in lieu of summarizing
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
• Commercial Mail sent by overnight them in the memorandum. Documents
mail (other than U.S. Postal Service shown or given to Commission staff
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be during ex parte meetings are deemed to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:36 Jul 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM 06JYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 38425

be written ex parte presentations and exempted those providers with 100,000 5. How should any benefits of the
must be filed consistent with rule or fewer broadband subscribers as per enhanced transparency requirements to
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by their most recent Form 477, aggregated customers of exempted providers be
rule 1.49(f) or for which the over all the providers’ affiliates from the balanced against any public interest
Commission has made available a enhanced transparency requirements benefits of reducing burdens to the
method of electronic filing, written ex adopted therein. At the same time, the providers? Will the reduction of
parte presentations and memoranda Commission stated that ‘‘both the compliance burdens for smaller
summarizing oral ex parte appropriateness of the exemption and providers benefit consumers in the areas
presentations, and all attachments the [subscriber] threshold require served by those providers by, for
thereto, must be filed through the further deliberation,’’ and directed CGB example, facilitating broadband
electronic comment filing system to seek comment on the exemption and deployment, lower prices, or better
available for that proceeding, and must to adopt an order announcing whether quality services for consumers?
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, it is maintaining an exemption and at 6. If the Commission does not make
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants what level by no later than December the exemption permanent, would a one-
in this proceeding should familiarize 15, 2015.
themselves with the Commission’s ex time temporary extension of the
2. While the Commission described exemption for some period be necessary
parte rules. the exemption threshold using the terms
To request materials in accessible to allow a smooth transition to full
‘‘subscribers’’ and ‘‘subscriber lines,’’ it compliance, and would such an
formats for people with disabilities emphasized that the relevant metric
(Braille, large print, electronic files, approach be more beneficial to
should be that used on Form 477. That consumers than a permanent
audio format), send an email to fcc504@ metric is broadband ‘‘connections,’’ the
fcc.gov or call the Consumer and exemption? What period of time would
broadband equivalent of subscriber be appropriate for smaller providers to
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– lines, which the Commission used in
418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY). adequately address the potential
the analogous exemption adopted in the
burdens associated with the enhanced
Paperwork Reduction Act Rural Call Completion Order, published
transparency rules? How does the
at 78 FR 76218, December 17, 2013. For
The Commission currently has an subscriber threshold discussed below
these reasons, we make clear that the
Office and Management and Budget affect this analysis? Should the
exemption from the enhanced
(OMB) collection 3060–1158 pending Commission require carriers to report to
transparency requirements applies to
OMB’s review and approval. The 60 day the Commission on their progress with
providers with 100,000 or fewer
Federal Register notice seeking meeting the goals of the enhanced
broadband connections.
comment on the revision was published transparency rules? What conditions
3. Small Business Exemption. The
in the Federal Register on May 20, may be appropriate for a one-time,
Commission seeks comment on whether
2015, at 80 FR 29000. This collection temporary extension of the current
the enhancements to the transparency
contains information collection exemption? What factors should the
rule raise compliance burden concerns
requirements for the Open Internet Commission consider in determining
that warrant making permanent the
transparency rules, which are subject to the limitations of a one-time, temporary
exemption. The Commission notes that
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of extension of the exemption? The
it did not adopt some of the
1995. Pub. L. 104–13. However, Commission seeks comment on these
enhancements originally proposed and
document DA 15–731 does not modify and any other relevant issues.
found those it did adopt were ‘‘modest
the existing information collection 7. Small Provider Threshold. The
in nature.’’ The Commission seeks
requirements contained in OMB Commission set the smaller provider
comment on whether the adopted
collection 3060–1158, and it does not threshold for purposes of the exemption
enhanced transparency requirements
contain new or modified information at 100,000 or fewer broadband
nevertheless impose burdens on smaller
collection requirements subject to the connections as measured by their most
providers sufficient to justify retaining
PRA. In addition, therefore, it does not recent Form 477, aggregated over all
the exemption.
contain any new or modified
4. The Commission seeks specific affiliates. Is this the right threshold for
information collection burden for small
comment on the following questions. any extension of the exemption? If not,
business concerns with fewer than 25
What is the burden of the enhanced what is a more appropriate level to
employees, pursuant to the Small
disclosures to smaller providers as identify those providers likely to be
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.
measured in financial and other most disproportionately affected by the
Public Law 107–198. See also 44 U.S.C.
resources, and how is the burden new disclosure requirements? How
3506(c)(4).
disproportionately experienced by should the Commission determine
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis smaller providers? To the extent that whether a provider qualifies for the
The 2015 Open Internet Order concerns remain regarding any burdens, exemption if it is required to file a Form
included a Final Regulatory Flexibility what is the corresponding benefit to 477 but has not done so? Should such
Analysis (FRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. customers of smaller providers of the providers be ineligible for the
603, discussing the impact on small information contained in those exemption until they have done so? Are
entities of the policies and rules disclosures? For example, to what there reasons to adopt thresholds that
adopted therein. The Commission extent are customers of exempted vary for fixed and mobile providers?
Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

incorporates the FRFA and invites providers deprived of information they The Commission notes that the Final
parties to file comments in light of need to understand the services they Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
document DA 15–731. purchase and receive, and to monitor contained in the 2015 Open Internet
practices that could undermine an open Order discusses a number of ways to
Synopsis Internet? Are rural customers likely to define the small entities impacted by
1. In the 2015 Open Internet Order, be disproportionally affected by that Order. The Commission seeks
published at 80 FR 19738, April 13, exempting smaller providers from the comment on these and any other issues
2015, the Commission temporarily enhanced disclosure requirements? commenters deem relevant.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:36 Jul 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM 06JYP1

$38426 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules Federal Communications Commission. Alison Kutler, Acting Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. [FR Doc. 2015–16493 Filed 7–2–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:36 Jul 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM 06JYP1$

Document Created: 2015-12-15 13:18:00
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 13:18:00

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Proposed rule.
Dates		Comments are due on or before August 5, 2015. Reply comments are due on or before September 4, 2015.
Contact		Richard D. Smith, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, (717) 338-2797.
FR Citation		80 FR 38424