Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32255 

regulations and has fewer than 100 

beds. We are not preparing an analysis 

for section 1102(b) of the Act because 

we have determined, and the Secretary 

proposes to certify, that this proposed 

rule would not have a significant impact 

on the operations of a substantial 

number of small rural hospitals. 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also 

requires that agencies assess anticipated 

costs and benefits before issuing any 

rule whose mandates require spending 

in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 

dollars, updated annually for inflation. 

In 2018, that threshold is approximately 

$150 million. This rule will have no 

consequential effect on state, local, or 

tribal governments or on the private 

sector. 

Executive Order 13132 establishes 

certain requirements that an agency 

must meet when it promulgates a 

proposed rule (and subsequent final 

rule) that imposes substantial direct 

requirement costs on state and local 

governments, preempts state law, or 

otherwise has Federalism implications. 

Since this regulation does not impose 

any costs on state or local governments, 

the requirements of Executive Order 

13132 are not applicable. 

D. Alternatives Considered 

We considered issuing guidance to 

require states to formally document 

consent to reassign portions of a 

provider’s payment. We also considered 

limiting the items for which provider 

reassignment could be made. However, 

we are concerned that § 447.10(g)(4)) is 

overbroad, and insufficiently linked to 

the exceptions expressly permitted by 

the statute. Therefore, we believe 

removing the regulatory exception is the 

best course of action. 

E. Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

under Executive Order 12866 (available 

at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/ 

a-4.pdf) in Table 1, we have prepared an 

accounting statement showing the 

classification of transfers associated 

with the provisions in this proposed 

rule. The accounting statement is based 

on estimates provided in this regulatory 

impact analysis and omits categories of 

impacts for which partial quantification 

has not been possible. 

TABLE 1—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT

Category Low estimate High estimate 

Units 

Year dollars Discount rate 

(%) 

Period 

covered 

Transfers: 

Annualized Monetized $ millions/year .......................... 0 $71 2017 3 2019 

0 71 2017 7 2019 

From whom to whom? .................................................. From third parties to home health providers. 

F. Regulatory Reform Analysis Under 

E.O. 13771 

Executive Order 13771, entitled 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs,’’ was issued on 

January 30, 2017 and requires that the 

costs associated with significant new 

regulations ‘‘shall, to the extent 

permitted by law, be offset by the 

elimination of existing costs associated 

with at least two prior regulations.’’ 

This proposed rule is not expected to be 

subject to the requirements of E.O. 

13771 because this proposed rule is 

expected to result in no more than de 

minimis costs. 

G. Conclusion 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Executive Order 12866, this proposed 

rule was reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 447 

Accounting, Administrative practice 

and procedure, Drugs, Grant programs— 

health, Health facilities, Health 

professions, Medicaid, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rural 

areas. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services proposes to amend 

42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below: 

PART 447—PAYMENTS FOR 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 447 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security 

Act (42 U.S.C. 1302). 

§ 447.10 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 447.10 is amended by 

removing paragraph (g)(4). 

Dated: May 3, 2018. 

Seema Verma, 

Administrator, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services. 

Dated: May 7, 2018. 

Alex M. Azar II, 

Secretary, Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14786 Filed 7–10–18; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 18–184; FCC 18–69] 

New FM Radio Broadcast Class C4 and 

To Modify the Requirements for 

Designating Short-Spaced 

Assignments 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission adopted a Notice of Inquiry 

(NOI), based on a petition for 

rulemaking filed by SSR 

Communications, Inc., in which the 

Commission sought comment on a 

proposal to create a new class of FM 

radio stations, Class C4, and to establish 

a procedure for designating certain FM 

stations. 

DATES: Comments may be filed on or 

before August 13, 2018 and reply 

comments may be filed on or before 

September 10, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 18–184, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Website: http:// 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
32256 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: 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. 

• People With Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

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: 

Albert Shuldiner, Chief, Media Bureau, 

Audio Division, (202) 418–2721; James 

Bradshaw, Deputy Division Chief, 

Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 

418–2739. Direct press inquiries to 

Janice Wise at (202) 418–8165. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Inquiry, FCC 18–69, adopted June 4, 

2018, and released June 5, 2018. The 

full text of this document is available 

electronically via the FCC’s Electronic 

Document Management System 

(EDOCS) website at http://https://

www.fcc.gov/edocs or via the FCC’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS) website at http://https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. (Documents will be 

available electronically in ASCII, 

Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) 

This document is also available for 

public inspection and copying 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. Alternative formats 

are available for people with disabilities 

(braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), by sending an email to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry 

1. Introduction. In this Notice of 

Inquiry (NOI), the Commission explores 

the possibility of amending part 73 of 

the Commission’s Rules to create an 

intermediate class of FM broadcast 

stations in Zone II between Class A and 

Class C3, to be designated Class C4. 

Commission staff estimates that 127 

Class C3 stations, or 14 percent of the 

total number of Class C3 stations, are 

operating with facilities that are less 

than the proposed Class C3 minimums 

and thus could be subject to 

reclassification to Class C4. It also 

explores the possibility of establishing a 

procedure whereby an FM station in the 

non-reserved band (Channels 221–300), 

regardless of Zone or station class, could 

be designated as a Section 73.215 

facility, resulting in such station 

receiving interference protection based 

on its actual authorized operating 

parameters rather than the maximum 

permitted parameters for its station 

class. 

2. Class C4 proposal. This proceeding 

was initiated by a petition for 

rulemaking filed by SSR 

Communications, Inc. (SSR). SSR 

advocates the creation of a new Class C4 

with an effective radiated power (ERP) 

that must exceed 6 kilowatts, a 

maximum ERP of 12 kilowatts, and a 

reference HAAT of 100 meters. The ERP 

that Class C3 stations must exceed 

would increase from 6 kilowatts to 12 

kilowatts, but the maximum ERP would 

remain at 25 kilowatts. In addition, 

under the current rules, a station can 

operate below the minimum ERP for its 

class provided its HAAT allows it to 

exceed the class contour distance for the 

next lower class (for example, a Class C3 

station must exceed the Class A contour 

distance of 28 kilometers). Under the 

SSR proposal, the next lower class for 

a Class C3 station would be Class C4, 

with a contour distance of 33 

kilometers. SSR proposes amending 

Sections 73.207(b)(1), 73.210(a), 

73.210(b), 73.211(a)(1), 73.211(b), and 

73.215(e) of the Rules to implement 

these changes. SSR argues that a new 

Class C4 would provide upgrade 

opportunities for Class A facilities, 

particularly minority-owned stations, 

and create consistent ERP intervals 

between FM classes. 

3. Affected stations and their 

listeners. Would the creation of a Class 

C4 materially benefit existing Class A 

stations by providing them with an 

opportunity to upgrade that is not 

possible today based on the current 

Class C3 parameters? Would Class A 

stations and their listeners, particularly 

in rural or underserved areas, benefit 

from the new Class C4? Is there a 

significant demand for the rule changes 

proposed by SSR? How many stations 

are likely to be affected by such a rule 

change? As suggested by SSR, would the 

creation of a Class C4 be particularly 

beneficial for minority-owned Class A 

stations by providing them with an 

opportunity to upgrade? Would this 

action encourage diversity of ownership 

in the FM broadcast industry? Would 

there be a detrimental effect on existing 

stations and/or their listeners generally, 

either from increased interference or 

reclassification (upgrade or downgrade)? 

4. Secondary services. How would a 

new Class C4 affect secondary services 

(FM translators and LPFM stations), as 

well as AM primary stations that 

rebroadcast on FM translator stations? 

Are there lawful ways to mitigate or 

eliminate the impact of this proposal on 

secondary services, and, if so, what 

measures would be effective or 

appropriate? To what extent, if any, 

does the Local Community Radio Act of 

2010 (LCRA) impact the Commission’s 

ability to protect existing FM translator 

and LPFM stations? In particular, would 

such protections be consistent with the 

LCRA directive that the ‘‘Federal 

Communications Commission, when 

licensing new FM translators, FM 

booster stations, and low-power FM 

stations . . . ensure . . . that . . . (3) 

[these stations] remain equal in status 

and secondary to existing and modified 

full-service FM stations’’? In this 

respect, the Commission notes that it 

would be reluctant to adopt any 

proposal in this area that would have a 

significantly negative impact on FM 

translators and LPFM stations. 

5. Allocation goals. Given the 

maturity of the FM service, would an 

increased density of signals resulting 

from Class A stations upgrading to Class 

C4 provide improved FM service 

coverage, or merely contribute to a 

higher ‘‘noise floor’’ overall while only 

modestly benefiting individual stations? 

Would upgrades to Class C4 increase the 

overall number of radio stations 

available to listeners or create 

interference that would degrade 

reception for stations in areas where 

there is currently a listenable signal, 

resulting in fewer listening choices for 

listeners? More generally, is there a 

‘‘tipping point’’ at which increasingly 

granular station classifications are no 

longer conducive to efficient signal 

coverage and, if so, has that point been 

reached? 

6. Implementation procedures. What 

is the appropriate balance of interests 

between the anticipated benefit of 

creating a new class of FM stations and 

the disruption entailed in the 

reclassification of existing stations? If a 

new class is created, should the 

Commission implement a blanket 

reclassification process, as it did in 1983 

and 1989, by requiring existing Class C3 

stations to file for modification to meet 

the proposed revised minimum facility 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32257 

requirements for Class C3 stations 

within a set time frame or be reclassified 

based on their actual operating 

facilities? Should the mere filing for a 

modification be sufficient to avoid 

reclassification or should the 

Commission also require construction to 

be completed by a date certain? If a date 

certain is set for filing a modification or 

completing construction, what would be 

a reasonable amount of time for 

licensees to comply? Would a blanket 

reclassification provide more reliable 

and timely opportunities for upgrade 

than the show cause procedure outlined 

in the next paragraph? 

7. Alternatively, should the 

Commission adopt a show cause 

procedure similar to that currently in 

use for Class C0, whereby a Class C3 

station operating below the proposed 

revised minimum facility requirements 

for Class C3 stations would be 

reclassified only after the filing of a 

‘‘triggering’’ application that requires it 

to be reclassified to Class C4? Should 

the affected Class C3 station have the 

opportunity to preserve its Class C3 

status by filing a construction permit 

application to upgrade its facility to 

meet Class C3 minimums? The 

Commission notes that the 

Commission’s licensing staff has found 

that the Class C0 show cause procedure 

appears to incentivize delay and 

contention between the parties. Have 

licensees experienced delay or other 

difficulties using the Class C0 show 

cause procedure? Is the blanket 

reclassification process described in the 

preceding paragraph preferable for that 

reason? Are there other implementation 

approaches the Commission should 

consider that might address or avoid 

problems identified with this show 

cause procedure? 

8. Other issues. To what extent, if any, 

does the LCRA impact the 

Commission’s creation of a new class of 

FM stations or reclassification of 

existing FM stations; in particular, the 

provision that the Commission ‘‘shall 

not amend its rules to reduce the 

minimum co-channel and first- and 

second-adjacent channel distance 

separation requirements in effect on 

[January 4, 2011] between—(A) lowpower FM stations; and (B) full-service 

FM stations’’? Are there specific rule 

changes that would be necessary or 

advisable to implement any of the 

foregoing proposals? The Commission 

also invites commenters to make 

suggestions as to how the Commission’s 

forms and databases should be modified 

to implement the above proposals. 

9. Section 73.215 proposal. SSR 

argues that, by providing interference 

protection to a station’s contours based 

on maximum class facilities, as opposed 

to the actual facilities, the Commission’s 

rules overprotect stations operating with 

facilities below their class maximum. 

Accordingly, SSR proposes an 

amendment to Section 73.3573 of the 

Rules that would require such ‘‘submaximum’’ stations to be designated as 

Section 73.215 facilities using a 

procedure similar to the existing Class 

C0 show cause and reclassification 

procedure. Designation as a Section 

73.215 facility would result in the submaximum station receiving interference 

protection based on its actual 

authorized operating parameters rather 

than the maximum permitted 

parameters for its station class. Under 

SSR’s proposed procedure, stations not 

already authorized under Section 73.215 

that, for ten years prior to the filing of 

a triggering application, have 

continuously operated with a HAAT or 

ERP below that of the class maximum 

(or equivalent class maximum HAAT 

and ERP combination in the case of 

station operating with a HAAT 

exceeding its reference HAAT) would be 

given an opportunity to upgrade to 

maximum class facilities or be subject to 

designation as a Section 73.215 facility. 

10. SSR recommends a show cause 

procedure to implement its Section 

73.215 proposal. Specifically, the 

procedure would be initiated by the 

filing of a ‘‘triggering’’ application that 

specifies facilities that require the 

designation of the affected submaximum station as a Section 73.215 

facility. Triggering applications may 

utilize Section 73.215 and must certify 

that no alternative channel is available 

for the proposed service. Copies of a 

triggering application and related 

pleadings would be required to be 

served on the licensee of the affected 

sub-maximum station. If the staff 

concludes that a triggering application 

is acceptable for filing, it would issue an 

order to show cause why the affected 

sub-maximum station should not be 

designated as a Section 73.215 station. 

The order to show cause would provide 

the licensee of the sub-maximum station 

30 days to express in writing an 

intention to seek authority to modify its 

technical facilities to its maximum class 

HAAT and ERP (or equivalent 

combination thereof) or to otherwise 

challenge the triggering application. If 

no such intention is expressed and the 

triggering application is not challenged, 

the affected sub-maximum station 

would be designated as a Section 73.215 

station and processing of the triggering 

application would be completed. If such 

intention is expressed within the 30-day 

period, an additional 180-day period 

would be provided during which the 

licensee of the sub-maximum station 

would be required to file an acceptable 

construction permit application to 

increase HAAT and/or ERP to its class 

maximum values (or equivalent 

combination thereof). Upon grant of 

such a construction permit application, 

the triggering application would be 

dismissed. As with Class C0 

reclassifications, the licensee of the submaximum station would be required to 

serve on triggering applicants copies of 

any FAA submissions related to the 

application grant process. If the 

construction is not completed as 

authorized, the affected sub-maximum 

station would be automatically 

designated as a Section 73.215 facility. 

SSR’s proposal raises issues similar to 

those posed by the Class C4 proposal, 

and the Commission seeks comment 

generally on the costs and benefits of 

the proposal. 

11. Affected stations and their 

listeners. Would the proposed Section 

73.215 mechanism materially benefit 

stations seeking to upgrade and their 

listeners? What is the demand for such 

upgrades? Would there be a 

corresponding detrimental effect on 

listeners regarding loss of existing 

interference-free service provided by 

sub-maximum stations? The 

Commission has explained that its 

policy of protecting all stations as if 

they are operating at maximum 

permitted height or power for their 

class, even if they are in fact operating 

at or near the minimum permitted 

height and power for their class, 

‘‘permits stations to improve technical 

facilities over time and provides a 

certain degree of flexibility for 

transmitter relocations.’’ To what extent 

would adoption of the Section 73.215 

proposal undermine this policy? Is this 

policy still desirable in the mature FM 

service? What are the relevant factors 

that might affect the sub-maximum 

station’s ability to upgrade to the class 

maximums, and have those factors 

changed due to technological or other 

developments? If a station has operated 

below maximum facilities for a 

sufficient period of time, can the 

Commission conclude that the station is 

either unwilling or unable to operate at 

maximum facilities, thereby justifying 

protecting such station based on actual 

operating parameters and allowing for 

more efficient utilization of FM 

spectrum? Is ten years of continuous 

‘‘sub-maximum’’ operation the 

appropriate period of time before a 

station would be subject to involuntary 

Section 73.215 designation, as suggested 

by SSR, or is another period of time 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
32258 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

appropriate? To what extent should 

transfers of control or assignments of 

licensees impact the relevant time 

period? That is, should the time period 

apply per station or per licensee? For 

example, if the relevant time period is 

ten years and a station that has operated 

below class maximums for nine years is 

transferred or assigned to a third-party, 

should the new licensee have ten 

additional years to upgrade to class 

maximums free from potential 

designation as a Section 73.215 facility? 

12. Secondary services. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

likely impact of full service station 

upgrades using the proposed Section 

73.215 procedure on nearby secondary 

services or AM primary stations that 

rebroadcast on FM translator stations. 

Are there lawful ways to mitigate or 

eliminate the impact of this proposal on 

secondary services, and, if so, what 

measures would be effective or 

appropriate? 

13. Allocation goals. Would SSR’s 

Section 73.215 proposal, if adopted, 

result in increased interference levels in 

the FM band? In particular, would the 

increased density of signals resulting 

from upgraded stations provide 

improved FM service coverage, or 

merely contribute to a higher ‘‘noise 

floor’’ overall while only modestly 

benefiting individual stations? Is this 

proposal in tension with the original 

purpose of Section 73.215 to afford 

applicants greater flexibility in the 

selection of transmitter sites? Should 

the Commission significantly expand 

the applicability of Section 73.215 as 

proposed by SSR, and what would be 

the policy and legal justifications for 

doing so? Does the Commission’s long 

history of licensing thousands of 

stations in the reserved band—using a 

contour methodology based on stations’ 

authorized facilities—show that 

expanding eligibility for Section 73.215 

processing would result in increased or 

decreased services for listeners? 

14. Implementation procedures. If the 

Section 73.215 proposal is adopted, 

should the Commission follow SSR’s 

suggested procedures, which are based 

on those currently in use for Class C0? 

Should the triggering applicant be 

required to certify that no alternative 

channel is available for the proposed 

service? Should the Commission use a 

show cause procedure, and if so, what 

deadlines would be appropriate? 

15. Alternatively, should the 

Commission adopt a more streamlined 

procedure whereby all sub-maximum 

stations would be provided a date 

certain by which they must file an 

upgrade application or automatically 

become subject to immediate 

designation as a Section 73.215 facility 

upon the filing of an acceptable 

application from another licensee 

seeking to upgrade its facilities? What 

would be a reasonable amount of time 

to allow sub-maximum stations to file 

upgrade applications before becoming 

subject to automatic designation as a 

Section 73.215 facility? Would such a 

procedure avoid unnecessary delays in 

providing new FM service and 

incentivize more stations to upgrade to 

their class maximums? Would there be 

any disadvantages with this approach? 

Are there other streamlined 

implementation approaches the 

Commission should consider? 

16. Other issues. The Commission 

invites comment on other details of 

SSR’s Section 73.215 proposal. Which 

applicants should be permitted to use 

the proposed Section 73.215 procedure? 

Does ‘‘sub-maximum’’ include all 

stations operating at less than class 

maximums, or should the Commission 

establish a cutoff whereby a station 

would not be subject to designation as 

a Section 73.215 facility if it operates at 

a minimal distance below its class 

maximum contour distance, such as two 

kilometers? How would the proposal 

affect stations that are short-spaced 

under Section 73.213 of the Rules? Are 

there specific rule changes that would 

be necessary to implement the proposal? 

The Commission also invites 

commenters to make suggestions as to 

how its forms and databases should be 

modified to implement the Section 

73.215 proposal. 

17. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed 

Rule. None. 

Ex Parte Rules 

18. Permit But Disclose. The 

proceeding this NOI initiates shall be 

treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Ex parte 

presentations are permissible if 

disclosed in accordance with 

Commission rules, except during the 

Sunshine Agenda period when 

presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are 

generally prohibited. 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. Memoranda must contain 

a summary of the substance of the ex 

parte presentation and not merely a 

listing of the subjects discussed. More 

than a one or two sentence description 

of the views and arguments presented is 

generally required. 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 § 1.1206(b) 

of the rules. In proceedings governed by 

§ 1.49(f) of the rules or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

Filing Procedures 

19. Pursuant to §§ 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). Electronic Filers: Comments 

may be filed electronically using the 

internet by accessing the ECFS: http:// 

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 

D Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. 

D 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. 

D Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32259 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered 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. 

D 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. 

D U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington DC 20554. 

D People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Ordering Clause 

20. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to the authority contained in Sections 1, 

4(i), 4(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 

and 319 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 

154(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, and 

319, this Notice of Inquiry is adopted. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14880 Filed 7–11–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1