Rule2025-14704
Delete, Delete, Delete; Removal of Obsolete Regulations
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 4, 2025
Effective
October 3, 2025
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission acts to eliminate certain outdated, obsolete, and unnecessary rules.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 147 (Monday, August 4, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 147 (Monday, August 4, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36396-36399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-14704]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 24, 63, and 79
[GN Docket No. 25-133; FCC 25-40; FR ID 306663]
Delete, Delete, Delete; Removal of Obsolete Regulations
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission acts
to eliminate certain outdated, obsolete, and unnecessary rules.
DATES: This rule is effective October 3, 2025 without further action,
unless significant adverse comment is received August 14, 2025. In the
event the Commission receives significant adverse comments, the
Commission will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public the provisions of the rule(s) for which adverse
comment were received and will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 25-133,
electronically or on paper. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific
information and addresses for electronic or paper filings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcus Maher, Federal Communications
Commission, Office of General Counsel. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f321e0d1c0a0c51321e171a0d3f191c1c51181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cc81adbeafb9bfe281ada4a9be8caaafafe2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a>;
telephone: (202) 418-2339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the direct final rule
portion of the Commission's Direct Final Rule, GN Docket No. 25-133;
FCC 25-40, adopted on July 24, 2025, and released on July 28, 2025. The
full text of this document is available for public inspection and can
be downloaded at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-deletes-obsolete-telegraph-rabbit-ear-receiver-phone-booth-rules-0">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-deletes-obsolete-telegraph-rabbit-ear-receiver-phone-booth-rules-0</a>. Alternative formats
are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format) by sending an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#31575252040105715752521f565e47"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="573134346267631731343479303821">[email protected]</span></a>
or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Comment Period and Filing Procedures. Interested parties may file
comments on or before the dates provided in the DATES section of this
document. Comments must be filed in GN Docket No. 25-133. 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).
<bullet> All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Procedural Matters
Paperwork Reduction Act. This document does not contain new or
[[Page 36397]]
modified information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. In addition, therefore, it does not
contain any new or modified information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget concurs, that this rule is ``non-
major'' under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The
Commission will send a copy of this Direct Final Rule to Congress and
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Synopsis
I. Introduction
Today marks the next step in a bold initiative to modernize the
Commission's regulatory framework and pave the way for the next
generation of innovation. In this proceeding, we have launched a
sweeping review eventually aimed at eliminating outdated rules,
reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, accelerating infrastructure
deployment, promoting network modernization, and spurring innovation.
Our goal is clear: streamline, simplify, and smartly deregulate across
multiple fronts simultaneously to better serve the public and support
technological progress.
In initiating this proceeding, we generally sought to identify
rules that are outdated, obsolete, unlawful, anticompetitive, or
otherwise no longer in the public interest. In today's item, we
specifically focus on the repeal of certain rules for which prior
notice and comment are unnecessary, but for which we elect to provide
an opportunity for input on that assessment. Absent any significant
adverse comments in response to this Direct Final Rule, these rules
will be repealed. Pursuant to the framework established here, direct
final rule procedures also can be employed in the future in other
scenarios where prior notice and comment is unnecessary under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). We thus reject commenters'
unwarranted concerns that direct final rule procedures will be employed
by the Commission outside scenarios where prior notice and comment is
unnecessary under the APA. Where deregulation triggers the notice-and-
comment rulemaking process required by the APA, the Commission will
proceed in that manner, just as it is doing with respect to other
deregulatory items this month on which the full Commission will vote.
II. Discussion
Good Cause to Forgo Notice and Comment. Under the APA, when an
agency for ``good cause'' finds that notice and public comment ``are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,'' it
need not follow notice and comment procedures before modifying or
repealing rules. Prior notice and comment are ``unnecessary'' when
```the administrative rule is a routine determination, insignificant in
nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the
public.'''
We have identified 11 rule provisions--covering 39 regulatory
burdens, 7,194 words, and 16 pages--that plainly do not serve the
public interest any longer because they govern obsolete technology,
outdated marketplace conditions, expired deadlines, or repealed legal
obligations. Applying the ``good cause'' standard discussed above, we
conclude that prior notice and comment are unnecessary before repealing
the rules identified in this document.
Direct Final Rule Process. At times when the Commission has found
prior notice and comment unnecessary before modifying or repealing
rules, it simply adopted the relevant rule change without any
additional process. Although we reserve the right to proceed in that
manner, we elect in this decision to proceed using what commonly is
known as a ``direct final rule'' process. Although the FCC is not bound
by the Administrative Conference of the United States' (ACUS's) direct
final rule recommendations or the practices employed by other agencies,
we have considered them to the extent that they provided a useful point
of reference subject to tailoring appropriate to our specific
circumstances.
By proceeding through a direct final rule, the Commission chooses
to provide expanded opportunities for public comment when it is not
legally required to do so under the ``good cause'' standard. We thus
reject claims that our actions somehow seek to evade the APA or neglect
the proper importance of notice and comment. Further, although the
Commission has adopted specific rules codified in the Code of Federal
Regulations related to notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures, there
is no legal requirement that we adopt rules before employing processes
permitted by the APA and the Communications Act.
Under a direct final rule process, rule changes are adopted without
prior notice and comment, but accompanied by an opportunity for the
public to file comments--and if we conclude that significant adverse
comments have been filed, the relevant rule changes would not take
effect until after a full notice and comment process.
In particular, we will publish this item adopting direct final
rules in the Federal Register, and allow for comment from interested
parties within 10 days of Federal Register publication. Although some
commenters advocate for a longer comment period such as the 30 day
period reflected in ACUS's recommendations, we are not persuaded to
adopt such timeframes for this particular direct final rule. Under the
APA's good cause exception, we would have been justified proceeding
immediately to rule as we have in the past without providing an
opportunity for comment, but have elected to employ direct final rule
procedures to guide future action. An unnecessarily long comment period
would simply represent an unwarranted penalty on the Commission for
electing to pursue this approach. And given the discrete number of
rules and rationales for repeal implicated in this order, we are not
persuaded that a longer comment cycle is needed. That is particularly
true where, as here, advocates for groups that might be interested in
the rules at issue have shown themselves to already be well aware of
the contemplated changes even before adoption of the direct final rule,
let alone Federal Register publication. In different circumstances in
the future, such as where there is a significantly larger number of
rules at issue (many or all of which require more involved analyses in
support of repeal under the good cause exception), we remain able to
adopt longer comment periods if warranted.
Until 10 days after Federal Register publication, this shall be a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding for purposes of our ex parte rules.
Because this comment process is directed toward the discrete objective
of the direct final rule process, and to avoid unwarranted delay in
that process, we prohibit filings addressing the rule changes
contemplated in this Direct Final Rule more than 10 days after Federal
Register publication, absent further direction from the Commission
published in the Federal Register. Up until that date, we find it in
the public interest to continue to operate under permit-but-disclosure
procedures in this regard, consistent with the status of the In Re:
Delete,
[[Page 36398]]
Delete, Delete proceeding more generally. This both accords with the
purpose of the comment process for direct final rules, and is similar
(though not identical) to actions the Commission has taken in other
contexts to provide a defined end-point for public filings to enable
the Commission to focus its attention on the submissions already before
it. Although in this instance no filings will be permitted after 10
days from Federal Register publication, we create a limited carve-out
that allows a petition for reconsideration of this action to be filed
30 days after Federal Register publication, consistent with the
requirements of section 405(a) of the Communications Act. In the event
that a petition for reconsideration is filed, we will subsequently
specifically address any comment process associated with such a
petition.
The direct final rules will be effective 60 days after Federal
Register publication. To the extent that the Commission receives
comments on these direct final rules, we will evaluate whether they are
significant adverse comments that warrant further procedures before
changing the rules. In our assessment, we plan to be guided by ACUS's
recommendation that ``[a]n agency should consider any comment received
during direct final rulemaking to be a significant adverse comment if
the comment explains why: a. The [direct final] rule would be
inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or
approach; or b. The [direct final] rule would be ineffective or
unacceptable without a change.'' The touchstone for analysis is whether
a comment materially calls into question the conclusion that prior
notice and comment is unnecessary under the APA, which is the predicate
for use of direct final rule procedures. While we expect the
formulation provided by ACUS to be a useful guide for conducting that
analysis, our statutory determination of ``good cause'' to forgo notice
and comment ultimately represents the critical issue, rather than the
particular language used by ACUS.
In the event that we conclude that significant adverse comments
have been filed, the Bureaus and Offices responsible for the rules
subject to this Direct Final Rule will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register so that this Direct Final Rule does not become
effective until any appropriate additional procedures have been
followed. If significant adverse comments are filed only with respect
to a subset of the rule revision(s) addressed by this Direct Final
Rule, the pertinent Bureaus and Offices will withdraw the portions of
the Direct Final Rule that were subject to significant adverse
comments. For example, if a significant adverse comment is filed
regarding a single rule within a direct final rule addressing multiple
rules, we will publish a withdrawal addressing only that rule. We
disagree with any suggestion that the Commission may not evaluate what
procedural path to take after a particular rule change has been
withdrawn. It would be an unwarranted deterrent to the use of direct
final rule procedures if, after withdrawing a rule change that was
subject to a significant adverse comment, the agency was precluded from
relying on procedures that otherwise would have been available but for
its initial direct final rule--including not only notice and comment
rulemaking, but potentially other procedures such as a new direct final
rule, an interim final rule, or some other approach.
In the event that no comments are filed in response to this Direct
Final Rule, we do not anticipate publishing a confirmation of the
effective date in the Federal Register, but simply will allow the rule
changes to take effect as originally specified. We reject calls to
delay the effective date of the rule changes here simply because the
Commission does not plan to publish a confirmation notice that rule
changes will take effect as contemplated by the Direct Final Rule. ACUS
recommends merely that agencies ``consider'' a longer effective date
where no confirmation notice is published if the agency needs to ensure
it has adequate time to withdraw the rule in the event it receives
significant adverse comments. Thus, the additional time is for the
benefit of the agency, not the public. Particularly where we are
repealing rules--and thus no regulated entities will be required to
come into compliance with new duties--on grounds like those relied upon
here, we are not persuaded by generic requests for additional time that
a lengthier effective date actually is needed.
Where comments are filed, but none of the comments are significant
adverse comments, where warranted by the record the pertinent Bureaus
and Offices will issue a Public Notice that will briefly explain why
any comments filed were not determined to be significant adverse
comments. Although the PN is a document in a non-notice and comment
rulemaking proceeding, nothing in that document is required to be
published in the Federal Register by the Administrative Procedure Act
given that the PN is not itself adopting new or modified rules. As a
result, the Commission also need not publish the PN in the Federal
Register to establish the date of ``public notice'' for the PN under
Sec. 1.4(b)(1) of the rules--which is limited to documents in
rulemaking proceedings ``required by the Administrative Procedure Act,
5 U.S.C. 552, 553, to be published in the Federal Register''--and
instead the date of public notice of these PNs will be the release
date. Although some commenters suggest that the failure to publish this
Public Notice in the Federal Register stands in contrast to what ACUS
recommends, the ACUS recommendation does not contemplate such an
explanation being issued at all--let alone one published in the Federal
Register. Indeed, the ACUS recommendation recognizes even publication
of a confirmation notice in the Federal Register--let alone an
associated explanation--as optional. We thus are not persuaded that it
would serve the public interest--including the efficiency goals of this
proceeding--to voluntarily elect to publish such Public Notices in the
Federal Register.
Although the Commission has a history of seeking to eliminate
outdated, inappropriate, or otherwise unwarranted regulations,
including by actions on delegated authority, we elect to take this step
at the full Commission level.
Finally, in specifying the mechanics of the direct final rule
process as it will be used by the full Commission, we again rely on the
notice and comment exception for rules of ``agency organization,
procedure, or practice.'' The procedures to be followed in direct final
rulemaking bear simply on how parties will interact with the agency,
and not on any substantive duties or obligations. This fits comfortably
within the APA's notice and comment exception for rules of ``agency
organization, procedure, or practice.''
Although we do not foreclose the possibility of adopting codified
rules governing direct final rule procedures in the future, we believe
that whether any new procedures are needed to ``best conduce to the
proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice'' most
effectively can be discerned based on practical Commission experience,
rather than speculation. In the meantime, the use of direct final rule
procedures as established by this Direct Final Rule will provide a
useful tool to proceed with repealing outdated or unwarranted rules
where prior notice and comment is unnecessary under the APA.
III. Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j),
201(b),
[[Page 36399]]
and 303(r) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), (j), 201(b),
303(r), this Direct Final Rule is adopted. Except as specified below,
this Direct Final Rule shall be effective upon Federal Register
publication of the rule changes set forth in this document, which also
shall serve as the date of public notice of that action.
It is further ordered that the amendments of the Commission's rules
as set forth in this document shall be effective 60 days after Federal
Register publication. In the event that significant adverse comments
are filed, we direct the Bureaus and Offices responsible for the rules
subject to this Direct Final Rule to publish a timely document in the
Federal Register withdrawing the rule so that the rule change does not
become effective until any additional procedures have been followed. In
the event that significant adverse comments are filed with respect to
only a subset of the rule revisions, we direct the Bureau or Office
responsible for such rule revision to publish a timely document in the
Federal Register withdrawing only such rule so that the rule change
does not become effective until any additional procedures have been
followed.
It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing Director,
Performance Program Management, shall send a copy of this Direct Final
Rule in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure; Communications common
carriers; reporting and recordkeeping requirements; telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 24
Personal communications services; Radio.
47 CFR Part 63
Communications common carriers; radio; reporting and recordkeeping
requirements; telecommunications; telegraph and telephone.
47 CFR Part 79
Cable television operators, Communications equipment, Multichannel
video programming distributors (MVPDs), Satellite television service
providers, Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends parts 1, 24, 63 and 79 of Title 47 of
the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 47
U.S.C. 1754, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 1.789 [Removed and Reserved]
0
2. Remove and reserve Sec. 1.789.
PART 24--PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
0
3. The authority citation for part 24 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 309 and 332.
Sec. Sec. 24.239 through 24.253 [Removed and Reserved]
0
4. Remove the undesignated center heading ``Policies Governing
Microwave Relocation From the 1850-1990 MHz Band (Sec. Sec. 24.239-
24.253)'' before Sec. 24.239 and remove and reserve Sec. Sec. 24.239
through 24.253.
PART 63--EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES, AND DISCONTINUANCE,
REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND
GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS
0
5. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201-205, 214,
218, 403, 571, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 63.65 [Removed and Reserved]
0
6. Remove and reserve Sec. 63.65.
PART 79--ACCESSIBILITY OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING
0
7. The authority citation for part 79 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309, 310,
330, 544a, 613, 617.
Sec. 79.101 [Removed and Reserved]
0
8. Remove and reserve Sec. 79.101.
[FR Doc. 2025-14704 Filed 8-1-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 4, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.