82 FR 17959 - FCC Seeks Comment on Reform of Rules Governing the Cellular Service and Other Public Mobile Services
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 71 (April 14, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 71 (April 14, 2017)
| Page Range | 17959-17964 | |
| FR Document | 2017-07549 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 71 (Friday, April 14, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 17959-17964] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-07549] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 22 [WT Docket No. 12-40; FCC 17-27] FCC Seeks Comment on Reform of Rules Governing the Cellular Service and Other Public Mobile Services AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes and seeks comment on reforms of its rules governing the 800 MHz Cellular (Cellular) Service and other Public Mobile Services. Specifically, the Commission proposes to eliminate four rules that impose requirements on licensees in these services concerning station inspections, records retention and production, operators at station control points, and the filing of certain employment reports. The Commission believes that the existing requirements may disadvantage the affected licensees, as compared to licensees of other wireless spectrum bands, or may no longer be necessary in today's digital age, or for which the benefits may no longer outweigh the costs and burdens of compliance. The Commission also [[Page 17960]] seeks comment on whether other measures could be taken to give Public Mobile Services licensees more flexibility and administrative relief, and on ways to consolidate and simplify its rules, not only for the Cellular Service, but also other geographically licensed wireless services. In this regard, the Commission considers a possible relocation of rules governing certain flexibly licensed wireless services. DATES: Submit comments on or before May 15, 2017 and reply comments on or before June 13, 2017. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 12-40, by any of the following methods:Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Mail: 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. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554. People with Disabilities: 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: Nina Shafran, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-2781, TTY (202) 418-7233, or [email protected] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM) in WT Docket No. 12-40, FCC 17-27, adopted March 23, 2017, and released March 24, 2017. The full text of the Second FNPRM, including Appendices, is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A157, Washington, DC 20554, or by downloading the text from the Commission's Web site at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-27A1.pdf. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Comment Filing Instructions Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. All filings related to the Second FNPRM should refer to WT Docket No. 12-40. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Parties should only file in WT Docket No. 12-40. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th 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. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202- 418-0432 (tty). Synopsis I. Introduction and Background 1. In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 12-40 (Second FNPRM), the Commission proposes and seeks comment on reforms of its rules governing the 800 MHz Cellular (Cellular) Service and other public mobile services, as explained in detail in the sections below. These reforms would build on those that were adopted in the Report and Order in WT Docket No. 12-40, adopted November 7, 2014 and released November 10, 2014 (FCC 14-181) (2014 Report and Order), and on the reforms adopted in the Second Report and Order in WT Docket No. 12-40 and the companion Report and Order in WT Docket No. 10-112, adopted on March 23, 2017 and released on March 24, 2017 (FCC 17-27). In making its proposals in this Second FNPRM, the Commission draws in part on certain comments submitted in response to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 12-40 (FNPRM), adopted November 7, 2014 and released November 10, 2014 (FCC 14-181), and on certain comments submitted in response to a public notice inviting comment on the Commission's 2016 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations, WT Docket Nos. 16-138 et al., released November 3, 2016 (FCC 16-149) (2016 Biennial Review Public Notice).\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Although the Commission here considers comments that were submitted regarding the Part 22 rules in response to the 2016 Biennial Review Public Notice, such consideration does not otherwise impact review of other comments filed in response to the 2016 Biennial Review Public Notice, including those submitted by commenters regarding other rule provisions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Specifically, commenters identify as ripe for elimination 47 CFR 22.301, 22.303, and 22.325, which provide for retention and inspection of certain paper records at each station's control point, and on-duty personnel at control points responsible for station operation. Verizon also highlights 47 CFR 22.321(c), requiring the filing of annual Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint reports with the Commission. Each of these rules was adopted more than twenty years ago, when the Commission revised Part 22 in its entirety with the goal of making the rules better organized and easier to understand and use. As discussed below, the Commission now proposes to eliminate these four rules and invites comment on the effects of doing so, including the potential impact of [[Page 17961]] repealing these rules not just for Cellular licensees, but for all Part 22 licensees--i.e., Paging, Air-Ground, Rural Radiotelephone, and Offshore Radiotelephone licensees. 3. More generally, in this Second FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on any other measures that could help ensure flexibility and consistency in licensing across wireless spectrum bands, while taking into account the unique features of each service. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on possibly relocating certain of its rules, including the Part 22 Cellular Service and Part 24 broadband Personal Communications Services (PCS) rules, to Part 27. In addition to enhancing licensees' flexibility and promoting consistent treatment across wireless spectrum bands, the Commission's goals include eliminating unnecessary regulatory burdens on licensees, allowing them to use their resources more efficiently to provide services to consumers. II. Proposed Rule Revisions and Other Possible Reforms A. 47 CFR 22.301, 22.303--Station Inspection, Retention of Station Authorizations 4. Section 22.301 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 22.301, requires that, ``[u]pon reasonable request, the licensee of any station authorized in the Public Mobile Services must make the station and station records available for inspection by authorized representatives of the Commission at any reasonable hour.'' Section 22.303 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 22.303) more broadly requires Part 22 licensees to retain, among other documentation, the authorization for each station as a permanent part of station records. Specifically, section 22.303 states that: ``The current authorization for each station, together with current administrative and technical information concerning modifications to facilities pursuant to Sec. 1.929 of this chapter, and added facilities pursuant to Sec. 22.165 must be retained as a permanent part of the station records. A clearly legible photocopy of the authorization must be available at each regularly attended control point of the station, or in lieu of this photocopy, licensees may instead make available at each regularly attended control point the address or location where the licensee's current authorization and other records may be found.'' No similar rules exist for commercial licensees governed by Part 24 of the Commission's rules, nor for licensees governed by the Part 27 rules. In its comments in response to the FNPRM, Verizon argues that Cellular licensees should not be required to retain and post information about license authorizations, calling this requirement ``burdensome, outdated and unnecessary.'' Verizon notes that, because the Commission does not send copies of licenses when minor modifications are granted, licensees ``have to periodically take inventory of their licenses and print copies of licenses once applications are granted to ensure they have the current license in the file.'' It argues that this administrative burden is unjustified given that the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau now maintains official authorizations in its Universal Licensing System (ULS). CTIA echoes these concerns, and more broadly supports elimination of rules that ``inhibit Cellular licensees from benefitting from the same level of flexibility as is available in other CMRS spectrum bands.'' In comments filed in response to the 2016 Biennial Review Public Notice, CTIA and T-Mobile reiterate arguments for eliminating sections 22.301 and 22.303. CTIA again stresses that there is no justification for asymmetry across different wireless services, particularly when electronic licensing renders these requirements unnecessary. 5. Both sections 22.301 and 22.303, 47 CFR 22.301 and 22.303, collectively require hard copies of license authorizations and other records to be maintained for each station and made available for inspection upon request. The Commission proposes to eliminate each of these provisions in their entirety from the rules and seeks comment on this proposal. As mentioned above, no similar rules exist for Part 24 or Part 27 licensees, and the Commission questions whether the benefit of maintaining hard copies outweighs the costs and burdens to Part 22 licensees in the age of electronic licensing and recordkeeping. When these rules were adopted in 1994, maintaining hard copies in files for inspection at a station control point may have made sense. But today, the justification for continuing to require this paperwork burden seems to have significantly diminished if not disappeared entirely, particularly given that license authorizations are maintained in ULS. The Commission seeks comment on these assumptions. Is there any reason that warrants licensees continuing to maintain hard copies of records at each station's control point? Are there any other relevant records that are maintained at a station's control point but are not readily available electronically? In response to the 2016 Biennial Review Public Notice, Public Knowledge has suggested that, even if sections 22.301 and 22.303 are eliminated, the Commission should nonetheless affirmatively require Part 22 licensees ``to have electronic copies [of licenses] easily accessible to personnel and FCC inspectors.'' The Commission seeks comment on Public Knowledge's suggestion and whether such a requirement would be necessary. 6. Section 22.301 requires that the station itself, not just the station's records, be available for inspection by the Commission. There is no corollary requirement in Parts 24 or 27. The Commission emphasizes that, regardless of whether it retains a rule in Part 22 explicitly requiring licensees to make their stations available for inspection, it retains general station inspection authority under section 303(n) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Similarly, section 22.303 of the Commission's rules requires ``administrative and technical information concerning modifications to facilities . . . and added facilities'' to be retained in the stations' records. Is there a need to keep that portion of the rule? Or do sections 1.929 and 22.165 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.929 and 22.165)--which are cross-referenced in 47 CFR 22.303--render the reference to such materials in 47 CFR 22.303 unnecessary and duplicative? The Commission also seeks comment on whether this type of administrative and technical information is maintained by stations electronically. B. 47 CFR 22.325, Control Points 7. Section 22.325 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 22.325) requires that ``[e]ach station in the Public Mobile Services [ ] have at least one control point and a person on duty who is responsible for station operation.'' It specifies that ``[t]his section does not require that the person on duty be at the control point or continuously monitor all transmissions of the station. However, the control point must have facilities that enable the person on duty to turn off the transmitters in the event of a malfunction.'' CTIA argues that the requirement to designate a person who is responsible for the station and who has the ability to shut down service at any time ``is unique to Part 22 and should be removed as another example of unnecessary, costly, and asymmetrical regulation.'' 8. The Commission proposes to eliminate section 22.325 in its entirety from the Commission's rules and invites comment on this proposal. As with the rules discussed above, there is no similar rule in Part 24 or Part 27 of the Commission's rules related to station control points or requiring a person on [[Page 17962]] duty who is responsible for station operation. The Commission seeks comment on the costs and burdens of having such an employee on duty. Do automatic and remote monitoring render this rule unnecessary from a technological standpoint? Section 22.325 requires each Part 22 licensee's station to have at least one control point. Is it necessary to retain that part of the rule? Is the control point requirement duplicative of other Part 22 rules, or unnecessary given the way stations are operated and monitored today? The Commission seeks comment on any information relevant to the proposed elimination of this requirement from Part 22 of the rules. C. Section 22.321(c), Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Report 9. Section 22.321(c) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 22.321(c)) requires all Part 22 licensees to submit an annual report to the Commission indicating whether any Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints have been filed at the federal, state, or local level against the licensee. For any such complaint, the report must state the parties involved, date of filing, court or agencies reviewing the complaint, appropriate file number, and disposition of the complaint. As with the other Part 22 rules discussed above in this Second FNPRM, there is no similar requirement for Part 24 and Part 27 licensees. However, all common carriers must comply with a similar requirement in section 1.815 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.815). That section requires that ``[e]ach common carrier licensee or permittee with 16 or more full time employees [ ] file with the Commission . . . an annual employment report'' on FCC Form 395. Form 395 requires carriers to check a box if EEO complaints have been filed, and to attach to Form 395 the same information about the complaints that is required under section 22.321(c). In comments filed in response to the 2016 Biennial Review Public Notice, Verizon asks the Commission to repeal section 22.321(c), arguing that other regulated entities required to file Form 395 do not have to file a separate ``charge report'' akin to that required under section 22.321(c). 10. The Commission proposes to eliminate section 22.321(c) from the Commission's rules. For all practical purposes, this rule appears duplicative of the requirement to complete FCC Form 395 under section 1.815--a rule that applies broadly to all common carriers, including licensees subject to Part 22 of the rules. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, and on whether there is any need to retain a separate requirement related to reporting of EEO complaints for Part 22 licensees in addition to what is already required of common carriers on FCC Form 395 pursuant to section 1.815. D. Other Measures To Increase Flexibility for Cellular Licensees 11. In addition to the proposed rule eliminations discussed above, the Commission invites comment more broadly on other steps or measures it could take to ensure that Cellular licensees benefit from the same level of flexibility available to other commercial wireless licensees. Are there other rules that commenters deem unnecessary that apply to Part 22 licensees but not to the flexibly licensed services under Part 24 or Part 27? Are there other Part 22 rules ripe for removal in light of changed technology, electronic licensing and recordkeeping, or other modernizations that have occurred over the past two decades? The Commission invites comment on anything else that could aid its efforts to bring Cellular licensing more in line with the flexible licensing approach used for other CMRS. E. Possible Relocation of Rules to Part 27 12. The Commission seeks comment on whether its goal of providing, to the extent possible, the same flexibility in licensing across competing commercial wireless bands would be furthered by migrating the Part 22 Cellular Service and Part 24 PCS rules to Part 27. The Commission sought comment on this issue in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 12-40, adopted and released on February 15, 2012 (FCC 12-20) (2012 NPRM). The Commission now seeks to revisit the issue and refresh the record on the potential benefits and costs of such relocation in light of the rule changes made thus far in this proceeding. 13. In the 2012 NPRM, the Commission's proposal to bring the Cellular licensing rules more in line with the flexible rules that govern competing wireless services entailed issuing geographic-area (CMA-based) ``overlay licenses'' through competitive bidding in two stages. In connection with the overlay licensing proposal, the Commission invited comment regarding placement of the revised Cellular rules that might ultimately be adopted. Specifically, the Commission queried whether, in the event that it were to adopt a geographic-based regime that would include overlay licenses, the new Cellular rules should be incorporated into Part 27, which contains the rules for certain other flexibly licensed wireless services. The Commission also suggested that, if those Cellular Service rules were to be moved into Part 27, then the rules for PCS, which is also a flexibly licensed wireless service, should be moved from Part 24 into Part 27. It asked as well whether the Commission should initiate a separate rulemaking to revise the Part 27 rules and reserve the possible relocation of Cellular and PCS rules to that separate proceeding. 14. In response to the 2012 NPRM, the Rural Wireless Association, Inc. (RWA) objected to relocating any Part 22 rules to Part 27 at that time; it also contended that any consideration of relocating the Part 24 PCS rules was beyond the scope of that proceeding and should be addressed, if at all, in a separate rulemaking proceeding. No other commenter addressed this issue in response to the 2012 NPRM. 15. As noted in the 2014 Report and Order, commenters generally opposed the Commission's overlay licensing proposal. Based on the record, which included a subsequent proposal by an industry coalition to retain key elements of the site-based Cellular licensing model, the Commission adopted a geographic-based transition approach that preserves direct site-based access to Unserved Area while dramatically reducing licensees' regulatory burdens. In that context, and given the absence of express support in the record, the Commission decided not to relocate the Part 22, Subpart H Cellular Service rules to Part 27. Moreover, as the Commission's suggestion to relocate the Part 24 PCS rules was contingent on relocating the Part 22 Cellular rules, the Commission declined to pursue relocation of the PCS rules. 16. With adoption of revised and modernized Cellular rules thus far in WT Docket Nos. 12-40 and 10-112, greatly enhancing licensees' flexibility within their licensed geographic boundaries and eliminating numerous regulatory restrictions, the Commission believes it is timely to revisit the issue of relocating the Cellular-specific rules of Part 22, Subpart H, to Part 27. In addition, the Commission considers it timely to ask anew whether a new rulemaking should be initiated to revise the Part 27 rules and reserve the possible relocation of Cellular rules to that separate proceeding. The Commission's queries are explained further below. 17. The rules in Part 22 applicable to the Cellular Service include general rules on definitions, licensing, and technical matters that are applicable to all Part 22 services (Subparts A, B, and C), as well as the Cellular-specific rules [[Page 17963]] in Subpart H. Some of the applicable rules correspond to similar rules in Part 27, while others reflect unique characteristics of Part 22 (including Cellular) licensees and have no corresponding rules in Part 27. For example, the revised Cellular licensing scheme is now largely geographically based but nonetheless includes site-based rules allowing carriers to continue to expand into Unserved Area, which exists primarily in rural areas in the western United States and Alaska. The particular rules governing the Cellular Service, including the revised licensing scheme addressed in Part 22's Subpart H, would need to be retained as separate provisions if all the Part 22 rules were migrated to Part 27. Would such relocation promote similar regulatory treatment for geographically licensed services and improve clarity for licensees? Or would such relocations--e.g., moving the Cellular build-out requirements into section 27.14, and the Cellular radiated power rules (as revised today) into section 27.50--result in less clarity for licensees? Further, if those Cellular Service rules are to be moved into Part 27, should the Commission also consider moving the rules for PCS from Part 24 into Part 27? 18. Commenters should also address whether the Commission should reorganize Part 27 in order to accommodate these additional Part 22 and Part 24 rules more efficiently. There are other geographically- licensed, auctioned services that are not included in Part 27, including Public Coast (Part 80), Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR), Location and Monitoring, and 220 MHz (Part 90), and 218-219 MHz (Part 95). Of these, only SMR is used today by wireless carriers to provide services directly to consumers nationwide. Should the Commission move the Part 22 Cellular and Part 24 PCS rules to Part 27 in conjunction with moving those other service rules to Part 27 as well? 19. The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of these possible approaches to relocation of the rules, including the optimal timing for them, and invites alternative ideas. It also seeks comment on the potential economic costs and benefits of the various possible approaches to rule placement. III. Procedural Matters A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 20. The Second FNPRM seeks comment on potential revised information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts revised information collection requirements, the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). 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. B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 21. 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 Second FNPRM. The analysis is found in Appendix E in the full text of the Second FNPRM. The Commission requests written public comment on the analysis. Comments must be filed in accordance with the same deadlines as comments filed in response to the Second FNPRM, and must 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 this Second FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. C. Ex Parte Presentations 22. Permit-But-Disclose. The Commission will continue to treat this proceeding as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making 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 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 47 CFR 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 Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (``ECFS'') 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. 23. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be publically available online via ECFS. Documents will generally be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. These documents will also be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. D. Statutory Authority 24. This Second FNPRM is adopted pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 7, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 157, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, and 332. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 22 Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary. Proposed Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 22 as follows: [[Page 17964]] PART 22--PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES 0 1. The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309 and 332. Sec. 22.301 [Removed and Reserved]. 0 2. Remove and reserve Sec. 22.301. Sec. 22.303 [Removed and Reserved]. 0 3. Remove and reserve Sec. 22.303. 0 4. Section 22.321 is amended by removing paragraph (c), redesignating paragraphs (d) through (f) as paragraphs (c) through (e), and by revising the subject headings of newly redesignated paragraphs (c) through (e) to read as follows: Sec. 22.321 Equal Employment Opportunities * * * * * (c) Complaints of violations of Equal Employment Programs. * * * (d) FCC records. * * * (e) Licensee records. * * * Sec. 22.325 [Removed and Reserved]. 0 5. Remove and reserve Sec. 22.325. [FR Doc. 2017-07549 Filed 4-13-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 71 / Friday, April 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 17959
SO2 emission NOX emission
Source name PM emission limit limit limit
(lb/ton clinker) (lb/ton clinker)
Ash Grove, Montana City ......................... If the process weight rate of the kiln is less than or equal to 30 11.5 8.0
tons per hour, then the emission limit shall be calculated using
E = 4.10p0.67 where E = rate of emission in pounds per hour
and p = process weight rate in tons per hour; however, if the
process weight rate of the kiln is greater than 30 tons per hour,
then the emission limit shall be calculated using E = 55.0p0.11
¥ 40, where E = rate of emission in pounds per hour and P =
process weight rate in tons per hour.
Oldcastle, Trident ..................................... 0.77 lb/ton clinker ............................................................................. 1.3 7.6
* * * * * particulate emissions for compliance lb/ton clinker, using the following
(d) Compliance date. The owners and with the BART emission limits in equation:
operators of the BART sources subject to accordance with the applicable E = (CsQs)/PK
this section shall comply with the Compliance Assurance Monitoring
Where:
emission limitations and other (CAM) plan developed and approved in E = emission rate of PM, lb/ton of clinker
requirements of this section as follows, accordance with 40 CFR part 64. produced;
unless otherwise indicated in specific (2) Cement kiln particulate matter Cs = concentration of PM in grains per
paragraphs: Compliance with PM BART emission limits. Compliance with standard cubic foot (gr/scf);
emission limits is required by November the particulate matter BART emission Qs = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas,
17, 2012. Compliance with SO2 and limits for each cement kiln shall be where Cs and Qs are on the same basis
NOX emission limits is required by (either wet or dry), scf/hr;
determined by the owner/operator from P = total kiln clinker production, tons/hr; and
April 16, 2013, unless installation of annual performance stack tests. Within
additional emission controls is K = conversion factor, 7000 gr/lb,
60 days of the compliance deadline
necessary to comply with emission specified in paragraph (d) of this * * * * *
limitations under this rule, in which section, and on at least an annual basis [FR Doc. 2017–07597 Filed 4–13–17; 8:45 am]
case compliance is required by October thereafter, the owner/operator of each BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
18, 2017. unit shall conduct a stack test on each
NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (d): On June 9, unit to measure particulate matter
2015, the NOX and SO2 emission limits, and emissions using EPA Method 5, 5B, 5D, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
thereby compliance dates, for Colstrip Units or 17, as appropriate, in 40 CFR part 60,
1 and 2 and Corette were vacated by court
COMMISSION
order.
Appendix A. A test shall consist of three
runs, with each run at least 120 minutes 47 CFR Part 22
* * * * * in duration and each run collecting a
[WT Docket No. 12–40; FCC 17–27]
(f) * * * minimum sample of 60 dry standard
(1) EGU particulate matter BART cubic feet. The average of the results of FCC Seeks Comment on Reform of
emission limits. Compliance with the three test runs shall be used by the Rules Governing the Cellular Service
particulate matter BART emission limits owner/operator for demonstrating and Other Public Mobile Services
for each EGU BART unit shall be compliance. The results from a stack
determined by the owner/operator from test meeting the requirements of this AGENCY: Federal Communications
annual performance stack tests. Within paragraph that was completed within 12 Commission.
60 days of the compliance deadline months prior to the compliance ACTION: Proposed rule.
specified in this paragraph (d) of this deadline can be used in lieu of the first
section, and on at least an annual basis stack test required. If this option is SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal
thereafter, the owner/operator of each chosen, then the next annual stack test Communications Commission
unit shall conduct a stack test on each shall be due no more than 12 months (Commission) proposes and seeks
unit to measure the particulate after the stack test that was used. comment on reforms of its rules
emissions using EPA Method 5, 5B, 5D, governing the 800 MHz Cellular
Clinker production shall be
or 17, as appropriate, in 40 CFR part 60, (Cellular) Service and other Public
determined in accordance with the
Appendix A. A test shall consist of three Mobile Services. Specifically, the
requirements found at 40 CFR 60.63(b).
runs, with each run at least 120 minutes Commission proposes to eliminate four
Results of each test shall be reported by
in duration and each run collecting a rules that impose requirements on
the owner/operator as the average of
minimum sample of 60 dry standard licensees in these services concerning
three valid test runs. In addition to
cubic feet. Results shall be reported by station inspections, records retention
annual stack tests, owner/operator shall
the owner/operator in lb/MMBtu. The and production, operators at station
monitor particulate emissions for
results from a stack test meeting the control points, and the filing of certain
compliance with the BART emission
requirements of this paragraph that was employment reports. The Commission
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
limits in accordance with the applicable
completed within 12 months prior to believes that the existing requirements
Compliance Assurance Monitoring
the compliance deadline can be used in may disadvantage the affected licensees,
(CAM) plan developed and approved in
lieu of the first stack test required. If this as compared to licensees of other
accordance with 40 CFR part 64.
option is chosen, then the next annual wireless spectrum bands, or may no
stack test shall be due no more than 12 * * * * * longer be necessary in today’s digital
months after the stack test that was (ii) For Trident, the emission rate (E) age, or for which the benefits may no
used. In addition to annual stack tests, of particulate matter shall be computed longer outweigh the costs and burdens
owner/operator shall monitor by the owner/operator for each run in of compliance. The Commission also
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 Apr 13, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM 14APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_18030/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 71 / Friday, April 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 17961
repealing these rules not just for post information about license sections 22.301 and 22.303 are
Cellular licensees, but for all Part 22 authorizations, calling this requirement eliminated, the Commission should
licensees—i.e., Paging, Air-Ground, ‘‘burdensome, outdated and nonetheless affirmatively require Part 22
Rural Radiotelephone, and Offshore unnecessary.’’ Verizon notes that, licensees ‘‘to have electronic copies [of
Radiotelephone licensees. because the Commission does not send licenses] easily accessible to personnel
3. More generally, in this Second copies of licenses when minor and FCC inspectors.’’ The Commission
FNPRM, the Commission seeks modifications are granted, licensees seeks comment on Public Knowledge’s
comment on any other measures that ‘‘have to periodically take inventory of suggestion and whether such a
could help ensure flexibility and their licenses and print copies of requirement would be necessary.
consistency in licensing across wireless licenses once applications are granted to 6. Section 22.301 requires that the
spectrum bands, while taking into ensure they have the current license in station itself, not just the station’s
account the unique features of each the file.’’ It argues that this records, be available for inspection by
service. In addition, the Commission administrative burden is unjustified the Commission. There is no corollary
seeks comment on possibly relocating given that the Commission’s Wireless requirement in Parts 24 or 27. The
certain of its rules, including the Part 22 Telecommunications Bureau now Commission emphasizes that, regardless
Cellular Service and Part 24 broadband maintains official authorizations in its of whether it retains a rule in Part 22
Personal Communications Services Universal Licensing System (ULS). explicitly requiring licensees to make
(PCS) rules, to Part 27. In addition to CTIA echoes these concerns, and more their stations available for inspection, it
enhancing licensees’ flexibility and broadly supports elimination of rules retains general station inspection
promoting consistent treatment across that ‘‘inhibit Cellular licensees from authority under section 303(n) of the
wireless spectrum bands, the benefitting from the same level of Communications Act of 1934, as
Commission’s goals include eliminating flexibility as is available in other CMRS amended. Similarly, section 22.303 of
unnecessary regulatory burdens on spectrum bands.’’ In comments filed in the Commission’s rules requires
licensees, allowing them to use their response to the 2016 Biennial Review ‘‘administrative and technical
resources more efficiently to provide Public Notice, CTIA and T-Mobile information concerning modifications to
services to consumers. reiterate arguments for eliminating facilities . . . and added facilities’’ to be
sections 22.301 and 22.303. CTIA again retained in the stations’ records. Is there
II. Proposed Rule Revisions and Other a need to keep that portion of the rule?
Possible Reforms stresses that there is no justification for
asymmetry across different wireless Or do sections 1.929 and 22.165 of the
A. 47 CFR 22.301, 22.303—Station services, particularly when electronic Commission’s rules (47 CFR 1.929 and
Inspection, Retention of Station licensing renders these requirements 22.165)—which are cross-referenced in
Authorizations unnecessary. 47 CFR 22.303—render the reference to
such materials in 47 CFR 22.303
4. Section 22.301 of the Commission’s 5. Both sections 22.301 and 22.303, 47 unnecessary and duplicative? The
rules, 47 CFR 22.301, requires that, CFR 22.301 and 22.303, collectively Commission also seeks comment on
‘‘[u]pon reasonable request, the licensee require hard copies of license whether this type of administrative and
of any station authorized in the Public authorizations and other records to be technical information is maintained by
Mobile Services must make the station maintained for each station and made stations electronically.
and station records available for available for inspection upon request.
inspection by authorized representatives The Commission proposes to eliminate B. 47 CFR 22.325, Control Points
of the Commission at any reasonable each of these provisions in their entirety 7. Section 22.325 of the Commission’s
hour.’’ Section 22.303 of the from the rules and seeks comment on rules (47 CFR 22.325) requires that
Commission’s rules (47 CFR 22.303) this proposal. As mentioned above, no ‘‘[e]ach station in the Public Mobile
more broadly requires Part 22 licensees similar rules exist for Part 24 or Part 27 Services [ ] have at least one control
to retain, among other documentation, licensees, and the Commission point and a person on duty who is
the authorization for each station as a questions whether the benefit of responsible for station operation.’’ It
permanent part of station records. maintaining hard copies outweighs the specifies that ‘‘[t]his section does not
Specifically, section 22.303 states that: costs and burdens to Part 22 licensees require that the person on duty be at the
‘‘The current authorization for each station, in the age of electronic licensing and control point or continuously monitor
together with current administrative and recordkeeping. When these rules were all transmissions of the station.
technical information concerning adopted in 1994, maintaining hard However, the control point must have
modifications to facilities pursuant to § 1.929 copies in files for inspection at a station facilities that enable the person on duty
of this chapter, and added facilities pursuant control point may have made sense. But to turn off the transmitters in the event
to § 22.165 must be retained as a permanent today, the justification for continuing to of a malfunction.’’ CTIA argues that the
part of the station records. A clearly legible
require this paperwork burden seems to requirement to designate a person who
photocopy of the authorization must be
available at each regularly attended control have significantly diminished if not is responsible for the station and who
point of the station, or in lieu of this disappeared entirely, particularly given has the ability to shut down service at
photocopy, licensees may instead make that license authorizations are any time ‘‘is unique to Part 22 and
available at each regularly attended control maintained in ULS. The Commission should be removed as another example
point the address or location where the seeks comment on these assumptions. Is of unnecessary, costly, and
licensee’s current authorization and other there any reason that warrants licensees asymmetrical regulation.’’
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
records may be found.’’ continuing to maintain hard copies of 8. The Commission proposes to
No similar rules exist for commercial records at each station’s control point? eliminate section 22.325 in its entirety
licensees governed by Part 24 of the Are there any other relevant records that from the Commission’s rules and invites
Commission’s rules, nor for licensees are maintained at a station’s control comment on this proposal. As with the
governed by the Part 27 rules. In its point but are not readily available rules discussed above, there is no
comments in response to the FNPRM, electronically? In response to the 2016 similar rule in Part 24 or Part 27 of the
Verizon argues that Cellular licensees Biennial Review Public Notice, Public Commission’s rules related to station
should not be required to retain and Knowledge has suggested that, even if control points or requiring a person on
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Apr 13, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM 14APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_18030/page/3.svg)
![17962 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 71 / Friday, April 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules
duty who is responsible for station whether there is any need to retain a wireless services. The Commission also
operation. The Commission seeks separate requirement related to suggested that, if those Cellular Service
comment on the costs and burdens of reporting of EEO complaints for Part 22 rules were to be moved into Part 27,
having such an employee on duty. Do licensees in addition to what is already then the rules for PCS, which is also a
automatic and remote monitoring render required of common carriers on FCC flexibly licensed wireless service,
this rule unnecessary from a Form 395 pursuant to section 1.815. should be moved from Part 24 into Part
technological standpoint? Section 27. It asked as well whether the
D. Other Measures To Increase
22.325 requires each Part 22 licensee’s Commission should initiate a separate
Flexibility for Cellular Licensees
station to have at least one control rulemaking to revise the Part 27 rules
point. Is it necessary to retain that part 11. In addition to the proposed rule and reserve the possible relocation of
of the rule? Is the control point eliminations discussed above, the Cellular and PCS rules to that separate
requirement duplicative of other Part 22 Commission invites comment more proceeding.
rules, or unnecessary given the way broadly on other steps or measures it 14. In response to the 2012 NPRM, the
stations are operated and monitored could take to ensure that Cellular Rural Wireless Association, Inc. (RWA)
today? The Commission seeks comment licensees benefit from the same level of objected to relocating any Part 22 rules
on any information relevant to the flexibility available to other commercial to Part 27 at that time; it also contended
proposed elimination of this wireless licensees. Are there other rules that any consideration of relocating the
requirement from Part 22 of the rules. that commenters deem unnecessary that Part 24 PCS rules was beyond the scope
apply to Part 22 licensees but not to the of that proceeding and should be
C. Section 22.321(c), Equal Employment flexibly licensed services under Part 24 addressed, if at all, in a separate
Opportunity Complaint Report or Part 27? Are there other Part 22 rules rulemaking proceeding. No other
9. Section 22.321(c) of the ripe for removal in light of changed commenter addressed this issue in
Commission’s rules (47 CFR 22.321(c)) technology, electronic licensing and response to the 2012 NPRM.
requires all Part 22 licensees to submit recordkeeping, or other modernizations 15. As noted in the 2014 Report and
an annual report to the Commission that have occurred over the past two Order, commenters generally opposed
indicating whether any Equal decades? The Commission invites the Commission’s overlay licensing
Employment Opportunity (EEO) comment on anything else that could proposal. Based on the record, which
complaints have been filed at the aid its efforts to bring Cellular licensing included a subsequent proposal by an
federal, state, or local level against the more in line with the flexible licensing industry coalition to retain key elements
licensee. For any such complaint, the approach used for other CMRS. of the site-based Cellular licensing
report must state the parties involved, model, the Commission adopted a
E. Possible Relocation of Rules to Part
date of filing, court or agencies geographic-based transition approach
27
reviewing the complaint, appropriate that preserves direct site-based access to
file number, and disposition of the 12. The Commission seeks comment Unserved Area while dramatically
complaint. As with the other Part 22 on whether its goal of providing, to the reducing licensees’ regulatory burdens.
rules discussed above in this Second extent possible, the same flexibility in In that context, and given the absence of
FNPRM, there is no similar requirement licensing across competing commercial express support in the record, the
for Part 24 and Part 27 licensees. wireless bands would be furthered by Commission decided not to relocate the
However, all common carriers must migrating the Part 22 Cellular Service Part 22, Subpart H Cellular Service rules
comply with a similar requirement in and Part 24 PCS rules to Part 27. The to Part 27. Moreover, as the
section 1.815 of the Commission’s rules Commission sought comment on this Commission’s suggestion to relocate the
(47 CFR 1.815). That section requires issue in a Notice of Proposed Part 24 PCS rules was contingent on
that ‘‘[e]ach common carrier licensee or Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 12–40, relocating the Part 22 Cellular rules, the
permittee with 16 or more full time adopted and released on February 15, Commission declined to pursue
employees [ ] file with the Commission 2012 (FCC 12–20) (2012 NPRM). The relocation of the PCS rules.
. . . an annual employment report’’ on Commission now seeks to revisit the 16. With adoption of revised and
FCC Form 395. Form 395 requires issue and refresh the record on the modernized Cellular rules thus far in
carriers to check a box if EEO potential benefits and costs of such WT Docket Nos. 12–40 and 10–112,
complaints have been filed, and to relocation in light of the rule changes greatly enhancing licensees’ flexibility
attach to Form 395 the same information made thus far in this proceeding. within their licensed geographic
about the complaints that is required 13. In the 2012 NPRM, the boundaries and eliminating numerous
under section 22.321(c). In comments Commission’s proposal to bring the regulatory restrictions, the Commission
filed in response to the 2016 Biennial Cellular licensing rules more in line believes it is timely to revisit the issue
Review Public Notice, Verizon asks the with the flexible rules that govern of relocating the Cellular-specific rules
Commission to repeal section 22.321(c), competing wireless services entailed of Part 22, Subpart H, to Part 27. In
arguing that other regulated entities issuing geographic-area (CMA-based) addition, the Commission considers it
required to file Form 395 do not have ‘‘overlay licenses’’ through competitive timely to ask anew whether a new
to file a separate ‘‘charge report’’ akin to bidding in two stages. In connection rulemaking should be initiated to revise
that required under section 22.321(c). with the overlay licensing proposal, the the Part 27 rules and reserve the
10. The Commission proposes to Commission invited comment regarding possible relocation of Cellular rules to
eliminate section 22.321(c) from the placement of the revised Cellular rules that separate proceeding. The
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Commission’s rules. For all practical that might ultimately be adopted. Commission’s queries are explained
purposes, this rule appears duplicative Specifically, the Commission queried further below.
of the requirement to complete FCC whether, in the event that it were to 17. The rules in Part 22 applicable to
Form 395 under section 1.815—a rule adopt a geographic-based regime that the Cellular Service include general
that applies broadly to all common would include overlay licenses, the new rules on definitions, licensing, and
carriers, including licensees subject to Cellular rules should be incorporated technical matters that are applicable to
Part 22 of the rules. The Commission into Part 27, which contains the rules all Part 22 services (Subparts A, B, and
seeks comment on this proposal, and on for certain other flexibly licensed C), as well as the Cellular-specific rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Apr 13, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM 14APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_18030/page/4.svg)
![17964 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 71 / Friday, April 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules
PART 22—PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES 2017 fishing year and projected cooperatively manage the summer
specifications for 2018. flounder, scup, and black sea bass
■ 1. The authority citation for part 22 DATES: Comments must be received by fisheries. The Summer Flounder, Scup,
continues to read as follows: 5 p.m. local time, on May 1, 2017. and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309 and ADDRESSES: An environmental Plan (FMP) and its implementing
332. assessment (EA) was prepared for this regulations outline the Council’s
action and describes the proposed process for establishing specifications.
§ 22.301 [Removed and Reserved].
measures and other considered Specifications in these fisheries include
■ 2. Remove and reserve § 22.301. various catch and landing subdivisions,
alternatives, and provides an analysis of
§ 22.303 [Removed and Reserved]. the impacts of the proposed measures such as the commercial and recreational
■ 3. Remove and reserve § 22.303. and alternatives. Copies of the sector annual catch limits (ACLs),
■ 4. Section 22.321 is amended by Specifications Document, including the annual catch targets (ACTs), and sector-
removing paragraph (c), redesignating EA and the Regulatory Flexibility Act specific landing limits (i.e., the
paragraphs (d) through (f) as paragraphs Analysis, are available on request from commercial fishery quota and
(c) through (e), and by revising the Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive recreational harvest limit). Annual
subject headings of newly redesignated Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery specifications may be proposed for
paragraphs (c) through (e) to read as Management Council, Suite 201, 800 three-year periods, with the Council
follows: North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. reviewing the specifications each year to
These documents are also accessible via ensure that previously established
§ 22.321 Equal Employment Opportunities the Internet at http://www.mafmc.org. multi-year specifications remain
* * * * * You may submit comments on this appropriate. Following review, NMFS
(c) Complaints of violations of Equal document, identified by NOAA–NMFS– publishes the final annual specifications
Employment Programs. * * * 2017–0023, by either of the following in the Federal Register. The FMP also
(d) FCC records. * * * methods: contains formulas to divide the
(e) Licensee records. * * * Electronic Submission: Submit all specification catch limits into
electronic public comments via the commercial and recreational fishery
§ 22.325 [Removed and Reserved]. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. allocations, state-by-state quotas, and
■ 5. Remove and reserve § 22.325. 1. Go to www.regulations.gov/ quota periods, depending on the species
[FR Doc. 2017–07549 Filed 4–13–17; 8:45 am] #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017- in question. Rulemaking for measures
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 0023, used to manage the recreational
2. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, fisheries (minimum fish sizes, open
complete the required fields, seasons, and bag limits) for these three
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 3. Enter or attach your comments. species occurs separately, and typically
—OR— takes place in the spring of each year.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Mail: Submit written comments to
On December 28, 2015, NMFS
Administration John Bullard, Regional Administrator,
published a final rule implementing the
National Marine Fisheries Service, 55
Council’s recommended specifications
50 CFR Part 648 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA,
for the black sea bass fishery (80 FR
01930. Mark the outside of the
[Docket No. 170316276–7276–01] 80689). The Council intended to
envelope, ‘‘Comments on the Proposed
RIN 0648–XF300 Rule for Revised Black Sea Bass reconsider the specifications set for
Specifications.’’ fishing year 2017 following completion
Fisheries of the Northeastern United Instructions: Comments sent by any of the next black sea bass benchmark
States; Black Sea Bass Fishery; 2017 other method, to any other address or assessment.
and Projected 2018 Specifications individual, or received after the end of The assessment was completed in late
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries the comment period, may not be 2016 and was peer reviewed by the
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and considered by NMFS. All comments Stock Assessment Workshop/Stock
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), received are part of the public record Assessment Review Committee (SAW/
Commerce. and will generally be posted for public SARC 62) in December 2016. The
viewing on www.regulations.gov benchmark assessment was effective in
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
without change. All personal identifying determining stock status, biological
comments.
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), reference points and proxies, and in
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes revised black confidential business information, or projecting probable short-term trends.
sea bass specifications for the 2017 otherwise sensitive information The assessment successfully cleared the
fishing year and projected specifications submitted voluntarily by the sender will SAW/SARC 62 peer review process,
for 2018. In addition, this rule proposes be publicly accessible. NMFS will addressing many of the significant
to remove an accountability measure accept anonymous comments (enter concerns raised during peer reviews of
implemented at the start of the fishing ‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish earlier assessments. The assessment
year designed to account for commercial to remain anonymous). indicates that the black sea bass stock
sector overages in 2015. Updated FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: north of Cape Hatteras is not overfished
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
scientific information regarding the Cynthia Hanson, Fishery Management and overfishing is not occurring. The
black sea bass stock indicates that Specialist, (978) 281–9180. spawning stock biomass in 2015 was
higher catch limits should be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: estimated to be 2.3 times higher than the
implemented to obtain optimum yield, target and the fishing mortality rate (F)
and that the accountability measure is General Background was 25 percent below the FMSY proxy.
no longer necessary or appropriate. This The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Table 1 outlines the updated biological
action is intended to inform the public Management Council and the Atlantic reference points and 2015 stock
of the proposed specifications for the States Marine Fisheries Commission information.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Apr 13, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM 14APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_18030/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2017-04-14 00:56:31
Document Modified: 2017-04-14 00:56:31
| 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 | Submit comments on or before May 15, 2017 and reply comments on or before June 13, 2017. | |
| Contact | Nina Shafran, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-2781, TTY (202) 418-7233, or [email protected] . | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 17959 | |
| CFR Associated | Communications Common Carriers and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR