[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14395-14400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06741]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[GN Docket No. 18-22; FCC 18-18]


Encouraging the Provision of New Technologies and Services to the 
Public

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission is committed to improving the 
process for enabling the introduction of new technologies and services 
that serve the public interest and made available to the public on a 
timely basis. Therefore, the Commission proposes guidelines and 
procedures to implement.

DATES: Comments are due May 4, 2018. Reply comments are due May 21, 
2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Murray, Office of Engineering and 
Technology, 202-418-0688, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, GN Docket No. 18-22, FCC 18-18, adopted 
February 22, 2018, and released February 23, 2018. The full text of 
this document is available for inspection and copying during normal 
business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th 
Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded 
at: https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0223/FCC-18-18A1.pdf. 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 & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

Synopsis

    1. Background. Section 7, entitled ``New Technologies and 
Services,'' reads in its entirety as follows:
    (a) It shall be the policy of the United States to encourage the 
provision of new technologies and services to the public. Any person or 
party (other than the Commission) who opposes a new technology or 
service proposed to be permitted under this Act shall have the burden 
to demonstrate that such proposal is inconsistent with the public 
interest.
    (b) The Commission shall determine whether any new technology or 
service proposed in a petition or application is in the public interest 
within one year after such petition or application is filed. If the 
Commission initiates its own proceeding for a new technology or 
service, such proceeding shall be completed within 12 months after it 
is initiated.
    2. Discussion. In this NPRM, the Commission proposes to adopt rules 
describing guidelines and procedures to implement the stated policy 
goal of section 7 ``to encourage the provision of new technologies and 
services to the public.'' Although the forces of competition and 
technological growth work together to enable the development and 
deployment of many new technologies and services to the public, the 
Commission has at times been slow to identify and take action to ensure 
that important new technologies or services are made available as 
quickly as possible. The Commission has sought to overcome these 
impediments by streamlining many of its processes, but all too often 
regulatory delays can adversely impact newly proposed technologies or 
services.
    3. Section 7 reflects clear Congressional intent to encourage and 
expedite provision of technological innovation that would serve the 
public interest. To better align purpose and practice, the Commission 
propose a set of rules that will allow the Commission to effectively 
breathe life into section 7. As noted above, this law applies to new 
technologies or services proposed to be permitted in a petition or 
application, as well as to Commission-initiated proceedings for new 
technologies and services.
    4. By its terms, Sec.  7 could apply to any petition or application 
that includes a proposal involving the use of new technologies and 
services. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to interpret Sec.  7 to 
include petitions for rulemaking or waiver of the Commission's rules as 
well as applications for authorization of any type of technology or 
service within the Commission's statutory purview, whether radio-based, 
wired, or otherwise. The Commission also proposes to interpret Sec.  7 
to apply to any petitions or applications that properly could be 
resolved either by the Commission or by any Bureau or Office pursuant 
to delegated authority. Whether the Commission itself, or a particular 
Bureau or Office acting on delegated authority, would address the Sec.  
7-related issue would depend on the particular filing, the nature of 
the request, and the kind of decision(s) and course(s) of action 
regarding the proposed new technology or service that may be deemed 
appropriate under the circumstances.
    5. The Commission proposes adopting a new subpart in part 1 that 
sets forth specific procedures and timetables for action with respect 
to requests in petitions or applications for Sec.  7 consideration. 
These procedures and timetables are designed to ensure that the 
Commission or Bureau/Office identifies and moves swiftly to promote new 
technologies and services that are in the public interest. These new 
rules would not replace or substitute for the Commission's existing 
rules for processing petitions and applications (e.g., the part 1 rules 
for rulemaking proceedings and for applications involving common 
carriers or wireless radio services, the part 25 rules for satellite 
service applications, the part 73 and 74 rules for broadcast service 
applications, among many other rule parts dealing with applications). 
Instead, they would specify additional steps to ensure that timely 
decisions are made on Sec.  7 requests suited to serve the public 
interest.
    6. Section 7 establishes a timeline by which the Commission must 
determine

[[Page 14396]]

whether a new technology or service proposed in a petition or 
application is in the public interest--i.e., one year after a petition 
or application that proposes a new technology or service is filed. 
However, the statute does not provide clear guidance about how to 
evaluate requests for consideration under Sec.  7, nor does it 
prescribe what form of action the Commission must take when making a 
public interest finding about the proposed new technology or service. 
The rules that the Commission proposes, described below, are designed 
to provide such guidance and would ensure that any petition or 
application that includes a Sec.  7-related request is evaluated under 
a coherent and consistent set of procedures.
    7. Filing Requirements and Related Factors. The Commission proposes 
specific filing requirements for petitions and applications that 
include a request for section 7 consideration. As noted above, while 
the existing procedures for any particular petition or application 
would remain applicable, the voluntary inclusion of a Sec.  7 request 
would require that additional steps be taken to address whether a new 
technology or service is being proposed that would serve the public 
interest and, if so, what specific course of action should be taken to 
promote such technology or service. The Commission, or the appropriate 
Bureau or Office, in exercising its discretion, would make a public 
interest determination concerning the proposed technology or service, 
with any qualifying Sec.  7 request requiring further action within one 
year.
    8. The Commission proposes that a petitioner or applicant must 
expressly request consideration under section 7 at the time of the 
initial filing, and must include a detailed description of the proposed 
``new technology or service'' and how it differs from existing 
technologies or services. In addition, the Sec.  7 request must include 
both qualitative and quantitative analyses showing how such new 
technology or service would be in the public interest. The Commission 
also proposes to codify a set of factors, described below, all of which 
the petitioner or applicant must address with respect to its Sec.  7 
request in the proceeding, and by which the Commission or the Bureau or 
Office will evaluate whether the proposed technology or service is 
``new'' and would serve the public interest.
    9. First, because the timeline for a Commission public interest 
finding regarding a Sec.  7 request is only one year from the filing 
date of the petition or application that proposes a new technology or 
service, the Commission proposes that the petition or application 
include a separate Sec.  7 request that demonstrates that the new 
technology or service proposed is both technically feasible and 
available for commercial use/application, not merely theoretical or 
speculative, so that the public benefits from the proposed new 
technology or service can be evaluated in a meaningful way and can be 
realized as soon as practicable.
    10. Second, to evaluate the merits of a section 7 request, the 
Commission proposes several categories of factors to identify whether 
proposed technologies or services would be considered ``new.'' In 
considering these factors, we note that determining what is ``new'' 
will not always be easy, particularly considering that technologies and 
services in the communications industry are often evolutionary rather 
than revolutionary. Petitions and applications that include a Sec.  7 
request would be required to include a sufficient demonstration that 
the proposed technology or service meets one or more of the specified 
factors. For example, if the proposed technology or service has not 
previously been authorized by the Commission, the Sec.  7 request in 
the petition or application must explain how the function and 
performance of the technology or service differs in essential or 
fundamental respects from others that are already authorized. If the 
proposed technology or service would make extraordinary or truly 
significant enhancements to a previously-authorized technology or 
service, the Sec.  7 request in the petition or application would need 
to specifically quantify, qualify, or otherwise explain in sufficient 
detail what is so new that it warrants consideration under Sec.  7.
    11. Finally, the Commission proposes that the request for Sec.  7 
consideration must show that the proposed new technology or service 
would be in the public interest by, for example, promoting innovation 
and investment, providing new competitive choices, providing new 
technologies that enable accessibility to people with disabilities, or 
meeting public demand for new or significantly improved services in 
unserved and underserved areas.
    12. In addition, the underlying petition or application that 
includes the Sec.  7 request must comply with other legal or regulatory 
requirements applicable to consideration of the various technical and 
policy issues raised in the petition or application, including, as 
applicable, any statutory requirements and the established licensing 
rules and rights of existing licensees, regulatees, or users. Petitions 
and applications, including the Sec.  7-related proposal, shall be 
filed electronically using the Commission database that is appropriate 
for the type of petition or application being filed, and a copy also 
shall be sent electronically to the Chief(s) of the authorizing 
Bureau(s) or Office(s) (e.g., Wireless Telecommunications, Wireline 
Competition, International, and/or Media Bureaus) as well as the Chief 
of the Office of Engineering and Technology, or to an appropriate 
mailbox designated by them. The petitioner or applicant must make clear 
in the filing that it is seeking consideration under section 7.
    13. The proposed technological and service factors that we propose 
to adopt are intended to single out for consideration and action those 
proposals that involve significant breakthroughs or are truly 
innovative, rather than those that are foreseeable or incremental 
outgrowths of existing technologies or services. The Commission seeks 
comment on these factors or other factors that would be appropriate 
with effective implementation of Sec.  7 goals. What indicia should the 
Commission use when evaluating what would constitute a ``new'' 
technology, as distinguished from an existing or evolving technology? 
Similarly, the Commission requests comment on what would constitute a 
``new'' service, as distinguished from existing services, and thus be 
subject to Sec.  7 consideration.
    14. Processing and Initial Assessment. The proposed rules would 
provide for processing of a Sec.  7 request that is included as part of 
a petition or application as follows. When a petition or application 
that includes a Sec.  7 request is filed, both the authorizing 
Bureau(s)/Office(s) and the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) 
will review the filing and issue a public notice on both the petition/
application and the Sec.  7 request. OET will assemble a team of 
Commission staff with relevant expertise, including at least one 
representative from any Bureau(s) or Office(s) with subject matter 
expertise, to conduct an initial review to determine if the Sec.  7 
request is complete and will be accepted for filing. The Commission 
proposes that the filing date of the request for consideration under 
Sec.  7, and hence the initiation of the review period under the Sec.  
7 process, will be the date that the petition/application including the 
Sec.  7 request is complete as filed, and thus can be accepted for 
filing.
    15. A public notice will be issued after the authorizing Bureau(s)/
Office(s) and the OET-led review team determines that the petition or 
application, including the Sec.  7 request, is complete and ready for 
processing. This

[[Page 14397]]

review would ensure that the petition or application that includes a 
Sec.  7 claim complies both with the Sec.  7-related requirements 
proposed and the other legal or regulatory requirements applicable to 
the particular petition or application. This Public Notice will 
identify the date the request was complete as filed, as well as 
relevant deadlines for agency action.
    16. 90-Day Determination. Next, the Commission proposes that the 
OET-led team will determine whether the technology or service proposed 
qualifies as a new technology or service for consideration under 
section 7 within 90 days. To the extent appropriate or necessary, such 
determination could take into consideration any comments, including any 
oppositions, received in response to the public notice regarding the 
Sec.  7 request. The OET-led team will notify the petitioner or 
applicant in writing of its determination within 90 days after the 
public notice is issued, or sooner where appropriate or practicable, 
and its determination will be included in the public record of the 
particular proceeding relating to the petition or application. This 
determination would promote timely Commission or Bureau/Office action 
to enable the provision of new technologies or services to the public 
that could serve the public interest.
    17. If the determination is positive--that is, that the request 
qualifies for Sec.  7 treatment--we propose to commit the agency to 
swift action, consistent with Sec.  7, to evaluate that technology or 
service. Conversely, the Commission proposes not to make a negative 
finding binding on the agency. Because this determination too will 
necessarily be conducted prior to a more complete evaluation by the 
Commission or the Bureau/Office of the various public interest benefits 
associated either with the particular petition/application or the 
proposed technology/service, the Commission or Bureau/Office, which 
would be informed of the OET-led determination, may itself later 
determine that a particular petition/application's proposed technology 
or service initially deemed ineligible nonetheless may ultimately merit 
Sec.  7 treatment. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on what 
the proper notification-and-elevation process should be before 
releasing the 90-day determination, whether positive or negative. For 
instance, should OET notify the offices of the Commissioners 48 hours 
in advance, or some other length of time, of a pending 90-day 
determination? Should two Commissioners or a majority of the Commission 
be required to elevate the 90-day determination to a Commission-level 
vote? If elevated, how can we ensure prompt voting? For example, would 
five calendar days from elevation be sufficient time for Commissioners 
to register a vote? If a quorum of commissioners registers a vote by 
the deadline, should Commissioners not registering a vote be marked as 
``not participating''? If less than a quorum of Commissioners registers 
a vote, should the OET-led team release the 90-day determination on its 
own?
    18. The Commission also proposes not to entertain petitions for 
reconsideration or applications for review of the 90-day determination. 
First, the determination only guides agency process and would not in 
itself constitute a final Commission or Bureau/Office order, decision, 
report, or action with respect to the particular petition/application 
or the public interest regarding use of the proposed technology/
service. Those public interest determinations fall squarely within the 
purview of the Commission or the Bureau/Office, which has the authority 
and responsibility to evaluate the various elements of the petition or 
application as well as the use of the proposed technology or service 
set forth in the petition or application, and to make associated public 
interest findings. Thus, the OET-led team's evaluation of the Sec.  7 
request would merely serve as a step in the overall process of 
considering the proposed technology or service included in the 
underlying petition or application and reaching the merits of the 
public interest determinations. Subjecting the OET-led staff 
determination to immediate and formal reconsideration could have the 
perverse effect of slowing consideration of the more important core 
issues that are before the Commission or Bureau/Office for 
determination--namely, the merits and public interest associated with 
the particular petition or application (and its constituent pieces), 
and how best to ensure that the proposed technology or service (whether 
new or not) can be used to serve the public. Such early formal review 
could also result in scarce staff resources remaining focused on the 
extent to which a technology or service is ``new,'' which can be a 
complicated or involved question, thus diverting needed resources away 
from the more important question of how best to address the underlying 
issues. We also note that while a negative determination would not be 
reviewable upon issuance, parties nonetheless would have the 
opportunity to comment on the determination and ask that the Commission 
or Bureau/Office reach a different conclusion when it evaluates the 
full record and takes action with respect to the petition/application 
or the proposed technology/service.
    19. As required by section 7, any person or party (other than the 
Commission) who opposes a new technology or service has the burden to 
demonstrate that such a new technology or service is inconsistent with 
the public interest. For example, it would not be sufficient for 
someone to oppose a proposed technology or service merely because it 
might cause economic harm to its own service or disrupt a particular 
sector of the economy; the statute's stated goal to promote new 
technologies and services in effect requires that opponents address the 
potential public interest associated with the proposed technology or 
service, not their own private interests.
    20. Commission or Bureau/Office Review. For any petition/
application proposing a technology or service that receives a positive 
90-day determination, the Commission or Bureau/Office will evaluate the 
record once complete, and decide within a year of the filing date the 
appropriate course of action with respect to the petition or 
application.
    21. Although Sec.  7 requires timely action by the Commission, it 
does not create a presumption in favor of granting (in whole or part) 
any particular petition or application that includes a proposal to 
provide such new technology or service. Indeed, it grants the agency 
plenary authority to dispose of the petition or application as it sees 
fit, including by initiating its own proceeding to explore matters 
further.
    22. In cases where the 90-day determination is positive, to the 
extent the Commission or Bureau/Office determines that the petition/
application proposes a technology or service that qualifies under Sec.  
7, it would be obligated to take some concrete action within one year 
that advances the development and use of new technologies or services 
that are in the public interest. The Commission seeks comment on how to 
apply these procedures in instances where outside parties are either 
collaborating on or disputing the merits of a new technology or 
service. Should the Commission take these types of considerations into 
account when determining how to meet the one year deadline imposed by a 
Sec.  7 finding? In contrast, if the Commission or the Bureau/Office 
finds that a petition/application is not proposing use of new 
technologies or services, and thus does not include any request that 
qualifies for

[[Page 14398]]

consideration under Section 7, that petition/application would be 
handled under the existing Commission processes that apply generally to 
petitions and applications under the applicable rules.
    23. Pending Petitions and Applications. The new rules and 
procedures discussed above would apply with respect to all newly filed 
petitions or applications that include a Sec.  7 request. For any 
petition or application already pending at the time that the new rules 
would become effective, the Commission proposes a variant of this 
approach to accommodate any petitioner or applicant who also seeks 
consideration under Sec.  7. In such cases, the petitioner or applicant 
would supplement its filing with a specific Sec.  7 request that meets 
the criteria outlined above, which would be followed by issuance of a 
public notice focused on the Sec.  7-specific request, the 90-day 
determination, and action within a year of the filing if merited.
    24. Commission-initiated Proceedings. Section 7 provides that if 
the Commission initiates its own proceeding for a new technology or 
service, such proceeding must be completed within a year after it is 
initiated. The Commission seek comments on how to ensure the Commission 
complies with this statutory provision. For instance, what factors 
should the Commission weigh in deciding whether to initiate a 
proceeding on its own under Sec.  7? Additionally, when the Commission 
itself does initiate a proceeding that it determines would trigger the 
Sec.  7 timeline, should it identify the type of action(s) that it 
plans to complete within a year that would promote such new technology 
or service, so that it can in fact complete such action(s) within one 
year, or, does the statutory provision require a final order? The 
Commission also seeks comment on the various issues raised above and on 
alternative approaches to implementing procedures to ensure compliance 
with the Sec.  7 requirements.

Procedural Matters

    25. Paperwork Reduction Analysis. This document contains proposed 
new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the 
general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment 
on the information collection requirements contained in this document, 
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seek 
specific comment on how we might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.
    26. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the 
policies and rules proposed in the FNPRM. The IRFA is found in Appendix 
B. The Commission requests written public comment on the IRFA. Comments 
must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments 
filed in response to the NPRM, 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 NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    27. Comment Filing Procedures. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 
1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested 
parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates 
indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed 
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See 
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 
(1998).
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    [ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be 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 & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
    28. The proceeding that this Notice initiates shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy 
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must

[[Page 14399]]

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.

Ordering Clauses

    29. It is ordered that, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1, 4(i), 4(j) and 7 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 
154(j) and 157, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    30. It is ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements and Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 
1 as follows:
    Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

0
1. The authority citation of part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 34-39, 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 160, 
201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452 and 1455.

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
2. Add Subpart U to read as follows:

Subpart U--Implementation of Section 7 of the Communications Act: 
New Technologies and Services

Sec.
1.6000 Purpose and scope.
1.6001 Terms and definitions.
1.6002 Filing requirements for petitions and applications in which 
consideration under section 7 is requested.
1.6003 Processing procedures for petitions or applications, 
including a determination within 90 days.
1.6004 Evaluating new technologies and services proposed in 
petitions or applications.
1.6005 Commission or Bureau/Office review.
1.6006 Commission-initiated proceedings for new technologies or 
services.

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 157.


Sec.  1.6000   Purpose and scope.

    (a) The purpose of this subpart is to set out the procedures and 
terms by which the Commission will implement the provisions of Sec.  7 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 157, to 
encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public. 
The procedures set forth in this subpart shall apply with respect to 
any petition or application proposing use of a new technology or 
service in which the petitioner or applicant requests consideration 
under section 7.
    (b) The rules and procedures set forth in this subpart do not 
replace or substitute for the Commission's existing rules and 
procedures for processing that apply with respect to the particular 
petition or application submitted for consideration.


Sec.  1.6001  Terms and definitions.

    (a) Terms used in this subpart have the following meanings:
    Petition or application. Any request for Commission action, as 
required under the Communications Act or the Commission's rules, 
including, but not limited to, petitions for rulemaking, petitions for 
waiver of Commission rules, and applications for authorization to 
provide technologies or services to the public.
    Service. An activity, method, or system that provides to the public 
the means of meeting a public need including, but not limited to, 
communications, industrial, or scientific uses authorized under the 
Communications Act.
    Technology. The application of scientific knowledge in engineering 
to solve problems or invent useful tools for practical, industrial, or 
scientific uses that rely on radio-frequency, wired, or other means 
authorized under the Communications Act.
    (b) For purposes of this subpart, the following dates shall apply:
    (1) A petition or application that includes a proposal to permit 
use of a new technology or service, and for which the petitioner or 
applicant specifically requests consideration under Sec.  7, shall be 
deemed filed as of the date when the petition or application, including 
the request for consideration under section 7, is complete as filed; 
such date shall be used for computing the beginning date pursuant to 
Sec.  1.4(b) of this part.
    (2) If the Commission initiates its own proceeding for a new 
technology or service under Sec.  7, the beginning date for the action 
taken is computed pursuant to Sec.  1.4(b) of this part.


Sec.  1.6002   Filing requirements for petitions and applications in 
which consideration under section 7 is requested.

    (a) If a petitioner or applicant seeks consideration under Sec.  7, 
the petition or application shall include an express request for 
consideration under Sec.  7 when the petition or application initially 
is filed.
    (b) The petition or application shall include:
    (1) A detailed description of the proposed technology or service 
associated with the petition or application, and how it differs from 
existing technologies or services;
    (2) A demonstration that the proposed technology or service 
satisfies Sec.  1.6004(a) and one or more of the factors in Sec.  
1.6004(b), and
    (3) A showing that the use of the proposed technology or service 
would be in the public interest as set forth in Sec.  1.6004(c).
    (c) The petition or application shall comply with any legal or 
procedural requirements for the type of request being filed, whether 
required by statute, judicial precedent or Commission rules in this 
chapter, or include a request for waiver of Commission requirements.
    (d) The petition or application shall be filed electronically 
through the Commission database that is appropriate for the type of 
request being filed, and a copy of the petition or application shall be 
sent electronically to the Chief(s) of the authorizing Bureau and/or 
Office and the Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), or to 
an appropriate mailbox designated by them.
    (e) Section 7 consideration for pending petitions or applications. 
If a petition or application is already pending before the Commission 
at the time the rules in this subpart become effective, a petitioner or 
applicant that seeks Sec.  7 consideration must submit an express 
request for consideration under Sec.  7 that sets forth how it meets 
the specific requirements set forth in this section.


Sec.  1.6003  Processing procedures for petitions or applications, 
including a determination within 90 days.

    (a) With regard to the specific request for consideration under 
Sec.  7, the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) will assemble a 
team of Commission staff with appropriate expertise, including at least 
one representative from any Bureau(s) or Office(s) with subject matter 
expertise, to review the request to determine if it is complete and can 
be accepted for filing pursuant to Sec.  1.6001(b)(1). The team will 
determine whether the request provides the

[[Page 14400]]

information required by Sec. Sec.  1.6002 and 1.6004 of this part and 
complies with any other legal or procedural requirements necessary for 
processing.
    (b) When the underlying petition or application is complete and 
accepted for filing, consistent with applicable rules and procedures, 
and the request for consideration under Sec.  7 is complete and 
accepted for filing pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, a public 
notice seeking comment on the petition or application, including the 
proposed technology or service that the petitioner or applicant asserts 
as qualifying for Sec.  7 consideration, will be issued. This public 
notice will identify the date that the petition or application and the 
section 7 request is complete as filed, as well as any other relevant 
deadlines for agency action.
    (c) Any person or party (other than the Commission) who opposes a 
new technology or service proposed by the petitioner or applicant shall 
have the burden to demonstrate that such proposed technology or service 
is inconsistent with the public interest.
    (d) The OET-led team will make a determination within 90 days of 
the issuance of the public notice as to whether the technology or 
service proposed to be permitted qualifies as a new technology or 
service for consideration under Sec.  7. This team will make this 
determination by evaluation the Sec.  7 request pursuant to the factors 
set forth in Sec.  1.6004 of this part.
    (1) The OET-led team will notify the petitioner or applicant in 
writing of its determination within these 90 days.
    (2) The determination will be included in the public record in the 
proceeding.
    (3) The Commission and Bureau(s)/Office(s) with subject matter 
expertise will be informed of this determination.
    (4) This determination is not subject to review in petitions for 
reconsideration or applications for review.
    (e) To the extent that the OET-led team determines that the request 
qualifies for Sec.  7 treatment, the agency shall be committed to 
taking swift action to evaluate the technology or service. A 
determination by the OET-led team that the request does not qualify for 
Sec.  7 treatment is not binding on the agency, and the Commission or 
the Bureau/Office may determine in its evaluation of the record that 
the request merits Sec.  7 treatment.


Sec.  1.6004   Evaluating the new technologies or services proposed in 
petitions or applications.

    (a) The proposed technology or service shall be technically 
feasible and commercially viable; the Commission will not consider a 
proposed technology or service that is merely theoretical or 
speculative. Petitioners or applicants shall include a showing of 
technical feasibility and commercial viability for the proposed 
technology or service by including, for example, the results of 
experimental testing, technical analysis, or research.
    (b) The proposed technology or service will be evaluated using one 
or more of the following factors.
    (1) The technology or service has not previously been authorized by 
the Commission. This could include combining a previously-approved 
technology in new ways to improve performance or functionalities. The 
petition or application shall explain how the function and/or 
performance of the proposed technology or service differs in essential 
or fundamental respects from previously-approved technologies or 
services.
    (2) The proposed technology or service is similar to one previously 
authorized but includes significant enhancements that result in new 
functionalities or improved performance. The petition or application 
shall explain how the proposed technology or service differs from 
previously-approved technologies or services, and shall specifically 
quantify or qualify the improvements in functionality or performance or 
otherwise explain in sufficient detail what is so new that it warrants 
consideration under Sec.  7.
    (3) Other factors set forth by the petitioner or applicant, or 
factors that the Commission deems appropriate for the specific 
technology or service that is proposed.
    (c) The petition or application shall include a showing that the 
proposed new technology or service would be in the public interest by, 
for example, explaining how the proposed technology or service would 
promote innovation and investment, provide new competitive choices to 
the public, provide new technologies that enable accessibility to 
people with disabilities, or meet public demand for new or 
significantly improved services in unserved and underserved areas.


Sec.  1.6005  Commission or Bureau/Office review.

    (a) For any petition/application including a proposed technology or 
service that receives a positive 90-day determination, the Commission 
or Bureau/Office will evaluate the record once complete, and decide 
within a year of the filing date the appropriate course of action with 
respect to the petition or application.
    (b) Although Sec.  7 requires timely action by the Commission, it 
does not create a presumption in favor of granting (in whole or part) 
any particular petition or application that includes a proposal to 
provide such new technology or service. The agency retains plenary 
authority to dispose of the petition or application and the proposed 
technology or service as it sees fit, including by initiating its own 
proceeding to explore matters further.
    (c) In cases where the 90-day assessment is positive, to the extent 
the Commission or Bureau/Office determines that the petition or 
application proposes a technology or service that qualifies under Sec.  
7, it would be obligated to take some concrete action within one year 
that advances the development and use of new technologies or services 
that are in the public interest.
    (d) If the Commission or the Bureau/Office finds that a petition or 
application is not proposing use of new technologies or services, and 
thus does not include any request that qualifies for consideration 
under section 7, that petition or application would be handled under 
the existing Commission processes that apply generally to petitions and 
applications under the applicable rules.


Sec.  1.6006   Commission-initiated proceedings for new technologies or 
services.

    If the Commission initiates its own proceeding for a new technology 
or service, such proceeding must be completed within a year after it is 
initiated.

[FR Doc. 2018-06741 Filed 4-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P