[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69927-69930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22427]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[OMB 3060-0430, OMB 3060-1202, 3060-1279; FR ID 177216]


Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval 
to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general 
public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment 
on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it 
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any 
penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject 
to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

DATES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed 
information collection should be submitted on or before November 9, 
2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting 
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using 
the search function. Your comment must be submitted into 
www.reginfo.gov per the above instructions for it to be considered. In 
addition to submitting in www.reginfo.gov also send a copy of your 
comment on the proposed information collection to Nicole Ongele, FCC, 
via email to [email protected] and to [email protected]. Include in the 
comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or copies 
of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. 
To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted 
to OMB: (1) go to the web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the web page called ``Currently 
Under Review,'' (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the 
``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under Review'' heading, (4) 
select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from the list of agencies 
presented in the ``Select Agency'' box, (5) click the ``Submit'' button 
to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box, (6) when the list of FCC 
ICRs currently under review appears, look for the Title of this ICR and 
then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to 
OMB will be displayed.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of its continuing effort to reduce 
paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and 
other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the 
following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: 
(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including 
whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy 
of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the 
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might ``further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.''
    OMB Control Number: 3060-0430.
    Title: Section 1.1206, Permit-but-Disclose Proceedings.
    Form Number: N/A.

[[Page 69928]]

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Individuals or households; Business or other for-
profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government; and State, 
Local, or Tribal governments.
    Number of Respondent and Responses: 11,500 respondents; 34,500 
responses.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.
    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain benefits. Statutory 
authority for this collection of information is contained in sections 
4(i) and (j), 303(r), and 409 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and (j), 303(r), and 409.
    Estimated Time per Response: 0.75 hours (45 minutes).
    Total Annual Burden: 25,875 hours.
    Total Annual Cost: No cost.
    Needs and Uses: The Commission's rules, under 47 CFR 1.1206, 
require that a public record be made of ex parte presentations (i.e., 
written presentations not served on all parties to the proceeding or 
oral presentations as to which all parties have not been given notice 
and an opportunity to be present) to decision-making personnel in 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceedings, such as notice-and-comment 
rulemakings and declaratory ruling proceedings.
    On February 2, 2011, the FCC released a Report and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, GC Docket Number 10-43, FCC 11-
11, which amended and reformed the Commission's rules on ex parte 
presentations (47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2)) made in the course of Commission 
rulemakings and other permit-but-disclose proceedings. The 
modifications to the existing rules adopted in this Report and Order 
require that parties file more descriptive summaries of their ex parte 
contacts, by ensuring that other parties and the public have an 
adequate opportunity to review and respond to information submitted ex 
parte, and by improving the FCC's oversight and enforcement of the ex 
parte rules. The modified ex parte rules which contain information 
collection requirements which OMB approved on December 6, 2011, are as 
follows: (1) Ex parte notices will be required for all oral ex parte 
presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings, not just for those 
presentations that involve new information or arguments not already in 
the record; (2) If an oral ex parte presentation is limited to material 
already in the written record, the notice must contain either a 
succinct summary of the matters discussed or a citation to the page or 
paragraph number in the party's written submission(s) where the matters 
discussed can be found; (3) Notices for all ex parte presentations must 
include the name of the person(s) who made the ex parte presentation as 
well as a list of all persons attending or otherwise participating in 
the meeting at which the presentation was made; (4) Notices of ex parte 
presentations made outside the Sunshine period must be filed within two 
business days of the presentation; (5) The Sunshine period will begin 
on the day (including business days, weekends, and holidays) after 
issuance of the Sunshine notice, rather than when the Sunshine Agenda 
is issued (as the current rules provide); (6) If an ex parte 
presentation is made on the day the Sunshine notice is released, an ex 
parte notice must be submitted by the next business day, and any reply 
would be due by the following business day. If a permissible ex parte 
presentation is made during the Sunshine period (under an exception to 
the Sunshine period prohibition), the ex parte notice is due by the end 
of the same day on which the presentation was made, and any reply would 
need to be filed by the next business day. Any reply must be in writing 
and limited to the issues raised in the ex parte notice to which the 
reply is directed; (7) Commissioners and agency staff may continue to 
request ex parte presentations during the Sunshine period, but these 
presentations should be limited to the specific information required by 
the Commission; (8) Ex parte notices must be submitted electronically 
in machine-readable format. PDF images created by scanning a paper 
document may not be submitted, except in cases in which a word-
processing version of the document is not available. Confidential 
information may continue to be submitted by paper filing, but a 
redacted version must be filed electronically at the same time the 
paper filing is submitted. An exception to the electronic filing 
requirement will be made in cases in which the filing party claims 
hardship. The basis for the hardship claim must be substantiated in the 
ex parte filing; (9) To facilitate stricter enforcement of the ex parte 
rules, the Enforcement Bureau is authorized to levy forfeitures for ex 
parte rule violations; (10) Copies of electronically filed ex parte 
notices must also be sent electronically to all staff and Commissioners 
present at the ex parte meeting so as to enable them to review the 
notices for accuracy and completeness. Filers may be asked to submit 
corrections or further information as necessary for compliance with the 
rules; and (11) Parties making permissible ex parte presentations in 
restricted proceedings must conform and clarify rule changes when 
filing an ex parte notice with the Commission.
    The information is used by parties to permit-but-disclose 
proceedings, including interested members of the public, to respond to 
the arguments made and data offered in the presentations. The responses 
may then be used by the Commission in its decision-making.
    The availability of the ex parte materials ensures that the 
Commission's decisional processes are fair, impartial, and comport with 
the concept of due process in that all interested parties can know of 
and respond to the arguments made to the decision-making officials.
    OMB Control Number: 3060-1202.
    Title: Improving 9-1-1 Reliability; Reliability and Continuity of 
Communications Networks, Including Broadband Technologies.
    Form Number: Not Applicable (annual on-line certification).
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Number of Respondents and Responses: 300 respondents; 305 
responses.
    Estimated Time per Response: 562 hours (average). Varies by 
respondent.
    Total Annual Burden: 168,651 hours.
    Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirement and 
recordkeeping requirement.
    Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. The statutory authority for this 
collection of information is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 
201(b), 214(d), 218, 251(e)(3), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 
309(a), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and 615c of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) & (o), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 
251(e)(3), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 316, 332, 403, 
615a-1, and 615c.
    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.
    Needs and Uses: This is a revision of a currently approved 
information collection necessary to ensure that all Americans have 
access to reliable and resilient 911 communications, particularly in 
times of emergency, by requiring certain 911 service providers to 
certify implementation of key best practices or reasonable alternative 
measures. The information will be collected in the form of an 
electronically-filed, annual certification from each covered 911 
service provider, as described in the Commission's 2013 Report and 
Order, in which the provider will indicate whether it has

[[Page 69929]]

implemented certain industry-backed best practices. Providers that are 
able to respond in the affirmative to all elements of the certification 
will be deemed to satisfy the ``reasonable measures'' requirement in 
Section 9.19(b) of the Commission's rules. If a provider does not 
certify in the affirmative with respect to one or more elements of the 
certification, it must provide a brief explanation of what alternative 
measures it has taken, in light of the provider's particular facts and 
circumstances, to ensure reliable 911 service with respect to that 
element(s). Similarly, a service provider may also respond by 
demonstrating that a particular certification element is not applicable 
to its networks and must include a brief explanation of why the 
element(s) does not apply. Providers are also required to notify the 
Commission in writing within 60 days of completely ceasing operations 
as a covered 911 service provider.
    The information will be collected by the Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau, FCC, for review and analysis, to verify that covered 
911 service providers are taking reasonable measures to maintain 
reliable 911 service. In certain cases, based on the information 
included in the certifications and subsequent coordination with the 
provider, the Commission may require remedial action to correct 
vulnerabilities in a service provider's 911 network if it determines 
that (a) the service provider has not, in fact, adhered to the best 
practices incorporated in the FCC's rules, or (b) in the case of 
providers employing alternative measures, that those measures were not 
reasonably sufficient to mitigate the associated risks of failure in 
these key areas. The Commission delegated authority to the Bureau to 
review certification information and follow up with service providers 
as appropriate to address deficiencies revealed by the certification 
process.
    The purpose of the collection of this information is to verify that 
covered 911 service providers are taking reasonable measures such that 
their networks comply with accepted best practices, and that, in the 
event they are not able to certify adherence to specific best 
practices, that they are taking reasonable alternative measures. The 
Commission adopted these rules in light of widespread 911 outages 
during the June 2012 derecho storm in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic 
states, which revealed that multiple service providers did not take 
adequate precautions to maintain reliable service.
    OMB Control Number: 3060-1279.
    Title: Connect America Fund--Eligible Locations Adjustment Process 
(ELAP).
    Form Number: N/A.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, Not-for-profit 
institutions, Individuals or Households, and State, Local or Tribal 
governments.
    Number of Respondents and Responses: 296 respondents; 962 
responses.
    Estimated Time per Response: 2-40 hours.
    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement.
    Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. Statutory authority for this 
information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 254.
    Total Annual Burden: 10,804 hours.
    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.
    Needs and Uses: This information collection addresses the 
requirements of a process (the eligible locations adjustment process 
(ELAP)) that the Commission used to facilitate the post-auction review 
of certain CAF Phase II Auction support recipients' defined deployment 
obligations (and associated support), on a state-by-state basis, in 
situations where the number of eligible locations within a state is 
less than the number of funded locations. Connect America Fund, WC 
Docket No. 10-90, Order, DA 23-117 (WCB 2023); Connect America Fund, WC 
Docket Nos. 10-90 et al., Order on Reconsideration, 33 FCC Rcd 1380, 
1390-92, paras. 23-28 (2018) (Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order); 
Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Order, 34 FCC Rcd 10395 (WCB 
2019) (adopting rules and requirements necessary to implement this 
process, consistent with the parameters set forth in the Phase II 
Auction Reconsideration Order and prior Commission guidance for 
adjusting defined deployment obligations) (ELAP Order). CAF Phase II 
Auction support recipients' participation in this process was 
voluntary.
    ELAP required the one-time collection of location information for 
eligible locations within the state where the participant sought an 
adjustment to its defined deployment obligation. Eligible locations 
included both locations that qualify for support (qualifying 
locations), which the ELAP participant was required to report, and any 
additional location(s) (prospective location(s)) within eligible areas 
of the state that the participant wanted to reserve as part of its 
defined deployment obligation. The total number of eligible locations 
reported by the participant could not exceed the participant's defined 
deployment obligation for the state.
    In addition, ELAP participants had to submit a description of the 
method(s) used to identify all qualifying locations, as well as some 
supporting evidence, such as copies of public records, aerial 
photography, location information for non-eligible locations, or 
similar evidence. Participants had to certify the truth and accuracy of 
this information.
    The Bureau announced which participants had met their prima facie 
evidentiary standard, and the Universal Service Administrative Company 
(USAC) used certain location information (address, geocoordinates, 
number of units) filed by these participants to populate a publicly 
available map (public ELAP Map), which was removed from public 
inspection at the conclusion of the ELAP process. WCB Announces CAF 
Phase II Support Recipients Meeting Standards for Continuing with the 
Eligible Locations Adjustment Process; the Opening of the Stakeholder 
Registration Period; Extension of Deadline for Stakeholders to File 
Challenges; Identification of Potentially Affected Tribal Authorities, 
WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 16493, 16494 (WCB 2021).
    Other interested parties deemed eligible to participate in ELAP 
(stakeholders) had the opportunity to challenge the accuracy and 
completeness of any relevant participant's eligible location 
information, although none did. To file such a challenge, stakeholders 
were required to submit alternative location information (of the same 
kind and in the same format as required of the participant), a brief 
description of the methods used to identify the location as an eligible 
location, and supporting evidence. Parties eligible to participate as 
stakeholders included government entities (state, local, and Tribal) as 
well as individuals or non-governmental entities with a legitimate and 
verifiable interest in ensuring broadband service in the relevant areas 
but excluded any entity or individual with a controlling interest in a 
competitor of the participant(s) being challenged.
    The Bureau committed to using a third-party commercial verifier to 
confirm the eligibility of any stakeholder who challenged a 
participant's location information. The Bureau required certification 
that the stakeholder (exclusive of governmental entities) did not hold 
a controlling interest in a direct competitor of the relevant 
participant. The Bureau also separately gathered certain limited

[[Page 69930]]

information about these stakeholders (e.g., name and contact 
information).
    All ELAP information was filed and is maintained in a new module 
within the High-Cost Universal Service Broadband Portal (HUBB) (OMB 
Control No. 3060-1228). The module had integrated instructions and 
guidance for submitting information. This module incorporated several 
features similar to those associated with the reporting of deployed 
location information in the HUBB. For example, the module had an 
automated validation system that generated error messages when the 
location information submitted by ELAP parties failed to meet reporting 
parameters (such as redundancies, required file type) as specified in 
the ELAP Order. The module also generated notices where correction, 
supplementation, or redaction of information is necessary. Participants 
and stakeholders could pre-file information and correct, update, add, 
or delete information prior to their respective filing deadline.
    Unlike deployed location information collected pursuant to OMB 
Control No. 3060-1228, all ELAP information, including the description 
of methods and supporting documentation as well as location data, 
except the location data published in the public ELAP Map, has been and 
will continue to be treated as presumptively confidential.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22427 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P