Proposed Rule2024-02971
Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Leveraging the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric for High-Cost Support Mechanism Deployment Obligations
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
February 14, 2024
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB or the Bureau) seeks comment on using the data included in the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric (Fabric) to update and verify compliance with certain High-Cost program support recipients' deployment obligations.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11239-11246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02971]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 16-271, 18-143, 19-126; AU Docket No. 20-34; FCC
24-77; FR ID 201594]
Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Leveraging the
Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric for High-Cost Support Mechanism
Deployment Obligations
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB or the
Bureau) seeks comment on using the data included in the Broadband
Serviceable Location Fabric (Fabric) to update and verify compliance
with certain High-Cost program support recipients' deployment
obligations.
DATES: Comments are due on or before March 15, 2024, and reply comments
are due on or before April 1, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Instructions for Filing Comments. 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 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).
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/">http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent 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.
<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.
<bullet> Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788, 2788-89 (OS 2020).
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#33555050060307735550501d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7d1b1e1e484d493d1b1e1e531a120b">[email protected]</span></a> or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please
contact, Heidi Lankau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f0b895999499debc919e9b9185b0969393de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="baf2dfd3ded394f6dbd4d1dbcffadcd9d994ddd5cc">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 418-7400.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Bureau's Public
Notice in WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 16-271, 18-143, 19-126 and AU Docket
No. 20-34;
[[Page 11240]]
DA 24-77, released on January 25, 2024. The full text of this document
is available at the following internet address: <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-77A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-77A1.pdf</a>.
Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte
submissions will be available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications
Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will
also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically
in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
Filing Requirements. Comments and reply comments exceeding 10 pages
must include a short and concise summary of the substantive arguments
raised in the pleading. Comments and reply comments must also comply
with Sec. 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the Commission's
rules. The Bureau directs all interested parties to include the name of
the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their
comments and reply comments. All parties are encouraged to utilize a
table of contents, regardless of the length of their submission. The
Bureau also strongly encourages parties to track the organization set
forth in this document in order to facilitate its internal review
process.
Ex Parte Presentations--Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding this
document 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 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.
I. Introduction
1. In this document, the Bureau seeks comment on using the data
included in the Fabric to update and verify compliance with certain
High-Cost program support recipients' deployment obligations.
Generally, the Bureau proposes to leverage the Fabric to provide
support recipients a reliable data source for determining locations and
to maximize the number of consumers that are served by recipients of
various High-Cost support mechanisms.
II. Discussion
2. The Bureau proposes using the Fabric as the data source to
revise and verify deployment obligations for a number of the high-cost
support mechanisms, including Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF),
Alternative-Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) I and II, the Bringing
Puerto Rico Together Fund (Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund), the Connect
USVI Fund, and the Alaska Plan to promote universal access to broadband
across the areas funded by these programs. The Bureau seeks comment on
the proposal and on specific issues related to location total
adjustments or verifications for each program.
3. The Commission proposes to use the Fabric to identify the actual
number of residential and small business units in each relevant high-
cost support recipient's service area, i.e., the number of high cost-
eligible locations. Because the Broadband Data Act directs the
Commission to include in the Fabric ``all locations in the United
States where fixed broadband internet access service can be
installed,'' and to iteratively update the Fabric, including by
incorporating the results of challenges submitted by stakeholders,
improved and more updated data sets, and updates to reflect on-the-
ground changes, the Bureau expects the Fabric is and will continue to
be the most comprehensive and up-to-date source available to identify
all the high-cost eligible locations in the eligible census blocks
within a support recipient's service area. The Fabric identifies BSLs,
which are locations ``where fixed mass-market broadband internet access
service has, or could be, installed.'' Moreover, because the Fabric
must ``serve as the foundation upon which all data relating to the
availability of fixed broadband internet access service . . . shall be
reported and overlaid,'' the Fabric will help facilitate the Bureau's
future coordination with other agencies to avoid duplicative funding.
4. In identifying the high-cost eligible locations that are
relevant to a high-cost support recipient's service area, the Bureau
proposes to exclude group quarters locations, which are currently
included as BSLs in the Fabric, from revised locations totals to remain
consistent with its previous guidance to exclude such locations from
the Bureau's High-Cost support mechanism location counts. The Bureau
also proposes that if a portion of a parcel is inside an eligible
census block, but the BSL structure located on the parcel falls outside
of the census block, the BSL will not be counted towards a support
recipient's location total, consistent with its other High-Cost
programs. The Bureau notes that for support programs where the location
totals were determined by the Connect America Cost Model (CAM) or A-
CAM, these models assigned locations to census blocks using 2010 Census
data that was updated to 2011 counts using Census Bureau 2011 county
estimates. Because the Fabric incorporates 2020 Census data, the Bureau
plans to overlay 2010 census blocks over the Fabric locations to
determine updated location counts. Are there are any further
adjustments or implications the Bureau should consider in using this
approach?
5. The Bureau seeks comment on its proposal to use the Fabric as
the source for data on supported locations and on the adjustments it
proposes here. Should the Bureau use any sources to supplement its use
of the Fabric? If the Bureau does rely on the Fabric as a source, are
the adjustments it has identified appropriate? Are there other
adjustments the Bureau would need to make to ensure it is accurately
identifying the high cost-eligible locations located in the eligible
census blocks in each support recipient's service area? Commenters
suggesting that different sources should be used or that different
adjustments should be
[[Page 11241]]
made for one support mechanism and not another should explain the
characteristics of the particular support mechanism that require
different sources or adjustments.
6. As directed by the Commission, the Bureau seeks comment on how
to implement the Commission's framework for adjusting required location
totals based on an updated location data source for RDOF. Specifically,
the Bureau seeks comment on the timing for when it should announce new
location totals, how it should adjust support in certain circumstances
where there are significantly more or fewer locations in a service area
than estimated by the CAM, standards the Bureau should use for waivers
and determining whether requests for service are reasonable, and how it
should apply the framework to support recipients that have multiple
performance tiers associated with their winning bids.
7. Given the Commission's direction that WCB adopt revised location
totals by the end of the sixth calendar year, the Bureau seeks comment
on when it should consult the location data source to identify the
relevant residential and small business units and announce revised
location totals. If WCB adopts its proposal to use the Fabric as the
location source for RDOF, the Bureau proposes that it announce revised
location totals for each support recipient within a reasonable time
after the Fabric version expected to be released in June 2027 is made
available to licensees. The Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) typically releases an updated Fabric approximately every
six months, in around June and December. The Bureau expects that using
the version of the Fabric that is expected to be released in June 2027
would provide sufficient time for WCB to recalculate location totals
prior to December 31, 2027, which is the sixth year service milestone
for RDOF support recipients authorized in 2021.
8. The Bureau anticipates that using the version of the Fabric
expected to be released in June 2027 will balance its objectives of
ensuring that the revised location totals are based on the most up-to-
date location data and also giving support recipients notice of their
revised location totals prior to the sixth year service milestone.
Because support recipients will have the opportunity to access earlier
versions of the Fabric, they will be able to monitor the addition of
any locations to the Fabric and plan accordingly so they are prepared
to serve any new BSLs once revised location totals are announced. The
Bureau seeks comment on this proposal and on whether there are any
sound reasons for adopting and announcing revised location totals
earlier or later than proposed. Commenters proposing that WCB use
different location data sources for RDOF should address timing
considerations for their proposed sources.
9. The Bureau also proposes to adopt revised location totals for
all support recipients at the same time, rather than waiting to the
following year to adopt revised location totals for support recipients
authorized in 2022 and 2023. Such an approach may mean that locations
built after the Bureau announces revised location totals will not be
included in the new totals and that support recipients authorized in
2022 and 2023 will have an extra year to meet their eighth year service
milestone if they have newly identified locations when compared to
those authorized in 2021. However, the Bureau expects the benefits of
the administrative efficiency of determining and announcing all revised
location totals at once will outweigh any potential concerns this
approach may raise, particularly given that any locations built after
the revised location totals and prior the end of the eighth year of
support will be subject to the requirement that the support recipient
serve the location upon reasonable request. The Bureau seeks comment on
this rationale and on any other suggestions for how it can reconcile
the requirement to announce revised locations by the sixth year service
milestone with the fact that RDOF authorizations span multiple years.
10. The Bureau seeks comment on how to implement the Commission's
framework for support recipients that must deploy to additional
locations once WCB announces revised location totals. Specifically, the
Bureau seeks comment on implementing the Commission's decision to give
an opportunity for those support recipients to seek additional support
relief if their new location count exceeds the CAM locations within
their service area in each state by more than 35%. For such support
recipients, the Bureau proposes to increase support on a pro rata basis
for each location over the 35% threshold based on the average support
amount per location.
11. The Bureau also seeks comment on any alternatives. For example,
the Bureau could require a support recipient to seek a waiver of the
requirement to serve a certain number of locations, but it expects it
would be administratively burdensome to have to address such waivers on
a case-by-case basis. Further, such an approach would potentially leave
locations stranded without service and ineligible for other funding
programs. As another alternative, the Bureau could provide additional
time for locations above the 35% threshold to be served, but this would
further delay the provision of broadband to these locations.
12. Additionally, the Bureau seeks comment on whether WCB should
set any parameters for the flexibility support recipients have to seek
to have their new location counts adjusted to exclude additional
locations. Specifically, the Commission explained that support
recipients could seek to exclude additional locations that it
determines are ineligible, unreasonable to deploy to, or part of a
development newly built after year 6 for which the cost and/or time to
deploy would be unreasonable. Should the Bureau set up a process by
which support recipients must notify the Bureau that their new location
total includes locations that they would like to be excluded so that
those locations can become eligible for other funding programs? Should
the Bureau require that support recipients notify them in the relevant
docket by a specific date during the support term? Are there any
standards or procedures the Bureau could adopt to balance this
flexibility with the Commission's goal of ``seek[ing] to ensure the
availability of broadband and voice services to as many rural consumers
and small businesses . . . by the end of the ten-year term as
possible''?
13. For example, the Bureau proposes that if a support recipient
seeks to have its new location total adjusted to remove locations it
claims are ineligible, that support recipient must first successfully
challenge the location as part of the Broadband Data Collection's (BDC)
Fabric challenge process if the Bureau uses the Fabric to revise
location totals. This would enable the Bureau to conserve
administrative resources by leveraging the Commission's existing
process and would also help to maintain consistency between the Fabric
and the support recipient's obligations.
14. The Bureau also seeks comment on what criteria it should
consider when determining whether a location is unreasonable to serve.
Given the Commission's goal of maximizing RDOF support to serve as many
consumers and small businesses as possible, the Bureau expects that it
would not routinely grant requests to exclude locations from a support
recipient's new location total.
15. The Bureau seeks comment on how to implement the Commission's
framework for support recipients that have fewer actual locations in
the eligible census blocks in their service area than estimated by the
CAM.
[[Page 11242]]
16. Prior to the sixth year service milestone. First, the
Commission directed support recipients to notify WCB no later than
March 1st following the fifth year of deployment if there are fewer
locations than were included in the RDOF auction. The Bureau proposes
that if such a support recipient claims to have served all existing
locations in the eligible census blocks prior to WCB announcing revised
location totals, it would permit the support recipient to rely on the
latest version of the Fabric available to Fabric licensees to
demonstrate that there are no other locations left to serve and to
request a verification that it has served all the locations identified
in the Fabric. If a verification determines that the support recipient
has served all existing locations prior to the sixth year service
milestone, the Bureau proposes permitting the support recipient to
close out its letter of credit. The Bureau expects changes in the
Fabric will not be significant enough that it would be necessary for
support recipients to keep their letters of credit open to secure any
additional deployment that may be required after WCB revises location
totals. Moreover, any non-compliance issues can be handled pursuant to
the Commission's rules. The Bureau seeks comment on these assumptions
and on whether it would be more advantageous to take another approach
like requiring support recipients to wait until it announces the
revised support totals before closing out their letters of credit once
their deployment has been verified.
17. Because a support recipient with fewer locations than estimated
by the CAM must serve all of its initial, model-estimated locations by
the sixth year service milestone, the Bureau seeks comment on requiring
a support recipient that has already been verified to have served all
existing locations to serve any locations that are newly identified
prior to the sixth year service milestone, up to the CAM-estimated
location total. If the Bureau were to adopt this approach, should it
announce after each Fabric release whether there are any new locations
identified by the Fabric in the eligible census blocks served by a
support recipient which the Bureau already verified has served all
previously existing locations? If so, should WCB require that the
support recipient serve the newly identified locations by the sixth
year service milestone at the latest or by some other reasonable amount
of time after WCB announces the newly identified locations? The Bureau
seeks comment on the administrative challenges of monitoring the Fabric
to identify new locations on a rolling basis and on the burdens of
having to serve newly identified locations prior to the sixth year
service milestone.
18. As an alternative, should WCB instead wait until it officially
revises location totals for all support recipients to identify any
newly added locations for those support recipients that it has already
verified have served 100% of existing locations? If so, should such
support recipients have until the eighth year service milestone to
serve any of the newly identified locations? Are there any other
alternatives for how the Bureau can ensure that new locations are
timely served?
19. The Bureau seeks comment on, for added protection, whether and
how it should withhold a certain percentage of support for support
recipients if it permits them to close out their letters of credit
prior to sixth year service milestone because there are fewer existing
locations than estimated by the CAM and the Bureau has verified they
have served all existing locations. For example, should the Bureau
withhold support for all RDOF support recipients, or because WCB will
only reduce support once it announces revised location totals if the
revised location total is less than 65% of the CAM-estimated locations,
should it only withhold support in circumstances where the number of
locations the RDOF support recipient has served is less than 65% of the
CAM-estimated total? Should the Bureau withhold support on a pro rata
basis based on the gap between the CAM-estimated locations and the
locations that do exist? As an alternative, should the Bureau withhold
support on a pro rata basis for only the number of locations that bring
the location total below the 65% threshold, if applicable? Should the
support recipient be entitled to have all of its withheld support
restored and its support payments resumed for any newly added locations
once it has demonstrated that it is now offering the required service
to any newly added locations? Or, for administrative efficiency, should
support be restored and support payments resumed after the six year
service milestone once it has been verified how many locations the
support recipient has served? Given the Commission's rules provide
broad authority to take other non-compliance measures, is it even
necessary to withhold support to protect the public's funds under these
circumstances? The Bureau also seeks comment on any alternatives, with
a particular focus on how to balance administrative efficiency with its
responsibility to protect the public's funds.
20. If a support recipient is unable to meet interim service
milestones because there are significantly fewer existing locations
than estimated by the CAM, the Commission directed such support
recipients to seek a waiver of the relevant interim service milestones.
The Bureau proposes finding good cause exists to waive the relevant
interim service milestones if the support recipient demonstrates with
Fabric data that it has identified all existing locations in its
service area and USAC verifies that the support recipient offers
service meeting the relevant Commission requirements to all existing
locations. Generally, the Commission's rules may be waived for good
cause shown. Waiver of the Commission's rules is appropriate only if
both: (1) special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general
rule, and (2) such deviation will serve the public interest.
21. The Bureau proposes finding that the fact that the Fabric shows
that there are no more locations to serve in the relevant service area
would constitute special circumstances to warrant a waiver. Moreover,
the Bureau would find the waiver would serve the public interest
because the support recipient could use any resources tied up by
maintaining a letter of credit towards deploying more voice and
broadband service, and the Commission would still have the ability to
take further non-compliance measures if the support recipient does not
serve any newly added locations as required. The Bureau seeks comment
on its proposal and on any alternative approaches. For example, WCB
could handle waivers on a case-by-case basis, but it expects such an
approach to be unnecessarily onerous for both the petitioner and WCB
when there is already an objective data source that both can rely on to
confirm the existence of locations.
22. Post WCB's announcement of revised location totals. The Bureau
seeks comment on how to implement the requirement that it reduce
support for those support recipients for which the revised location
count is less than 65% of the CAM locations. The Bureau proposes
interpreting the Commission's direction that support be reduced on a
pro rata basis by the number of reduced locations to mean that WCB
would apply the pro rata support reduction to the number of locations
that bring the location total below the 65% threshold. This would avoid
the inequity of support recipients being subject to no support
reduction if their revised location total is 65% of the CAM-
[[Page 11243]]
estimated location total, but being subject to a pro rata support
reduction for all of the locations that make up the gap between the CAM
estimated location total and the revised location total if their
revised location total is 64% or less of the CAM estimated location
total.
23. A number of support recipients were authorized to receive
support for multiple performance tiers in a state. The Bureau proposes
that when revising the location totals for such support recipients, it
proportionally adjust their location totals for each performance tier
so that the Bureau maintains the same ratio of locations across all
performance tiers for the new location total as what was authorized
under the initial deployment obligation. This approach is consistent
with the Commission's direction that compliance with service milestones
be determined at the state level, so that a recipient will be in
compliance with service milestones if it offers service meeting the
relevant performance requirements to the required percentage of
locations across all of the relevant eligible census blocks in the
state. As an alternative, should the Bureau just require that the
support recipient serve more locations at the higher speed tier than
the lower speed tier without requiring the support recipient to serve a
set percentage of locations at each speed tier? The Bureau seeks
comment on these options and on whether any other approaches would
better align with such support recipients' deployment plans. For
example, WCB could assign any new locations the performance tier
associated with the census block where the location is located. This
approach could better reflect RDOF support recipients' initial plans
given a winning bidder had to assign a performance tier to each census
block group when bidding, but the approach would not account for the
flexibility the Commission afforded RDOF support recipients when
deciding to measure compliance on a state-level basis.
24. RDOF support recipients must offer the required service upon
reasonable request to any locations built after WCB announces revised
location totals and prior to the end of the eighth year of support,
excluding any locations that do not request service or that have
exclusive arrangements with other providers. The Bureau proposes to
rely on Fabric data to identify any new locations as of the end of the
eighth year of support and confirm compliance with this requirement.
The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal and on whether any other data
sources should be consulted.
25. The Bureau also seeks comment on criteria for determining
whether a request is reasonable. What kinds of parameters would
appropriately balance the burden on RDOF support recipients of serving
newly built locations with the Commission's goal of maximizing RDOF
support to serve as many consumers and small businesses as possible?
26. The Bureau proposes to leverage Fabric data to simplify the
location adjustment process for the Bringing Puerto Rico Together Fund
and the Connect USVI Fund. Specifically, the Bureau proposes to require
support recipients to submit a document in the relevant docket that
identifies when there is a discrepancy between estimated locations and
actual locations as shown by the Fabric. Rather than duplicate the map
data by requiring support recipients to submit individual geocodes for
each location shown by the Fabric, the Bureau proposes it is sufficient
for support recipients to incorporate the data from the Fabric in their
filings by reference and certify that the Fabric accurately depicts the
number of actual locations in their service area based on their
independent review of the relevant area. To the extent a carrier claims
that the Fabric does not accurately depict the number of locations, the
service recipient must submit challenges as part of the BDC location
challenge process to either add or remove locations from the Fabric.
The Bureau seeks comment on whether this proposal meets the
Commission's requirement that support recipients submit evidence of
existing locations and meets the Commission's objective of adequately
verifying the number of locations that exist in the Territories post-
hurricane.
27. Are there any alternatives that better achieve this objective?
For example, since the process is mandatory for all support recipients,
should WCB instead conduct an internal review of the Fabric data to
identify where there might be discrepancies rather than having the
support recipients conduct an independent review and file a
notification with the Commission? How would this approach be consistent
with the Commission's requirement that the support recipient submit
data as part of this process?
28. The Bureau proposes that rather than provide a separate
opportunity for stakeholders to comment on support recipients' filings,
it will rely on the BDC's location challenge process for administrative
efficiency. For example, once support recipients have notified the
Bureau that there is a location discrepancy based on Fabric data or WCB
alternatively conducts an internal review, it could wait a reasonable
amount of time for stakeholders to file challenges to the Fabric to
seek to have locations removed or added. The Commission seeks comment
on this approach and suggestions for how much time it should provide to
stakeholders to file challenges and for challenges to be resolved,
understanding that the Fabric is only updated twice each year. If the
Bureau adopts this approach, what would be a reasonable amount of time
to wait for challenges? Should the Bureau require stakeholders to
notify WCB if they are going to file challenges? Is it necessary to
wait for challenges from stakeholders if they have already had ample
opportunity to challenge the Fabric data prior to this process? That
is, rather than set aside a certain amount of time for challenges,
should the Bureau just rely on any challenges that have already been
incorporated into the data at the time WCB conducts its review of the
data?
29. Once any challenges to the Fabric from stakeholders have been
adjudicated, the Bureau proposes finding that the support recipient has
met its burden of proof to receive a downward adjustment in its
location total and a corresponding pro rata support reduction for the
number of locations reflected in the Fabric data. Are there any
alternative approaches that would better further the Commission's
objective of providing stakeholders with an opportunity to review and
comment on the existence of locations without duplicating existing
Commission processes?
30. When should WCB conduct the location readjustment process? The
Commission anticipated that the process would occur within one year of
the announcement of winning bidders, but later explained the process
had been delayed. How much time do service providers need to adjust to
any changes to their support and location totals so that they can meet
the 100% service milestone by December 31, 2027?
31. The Bureau also seeks comment on leveraging Fabric data if a
support recipient requests a reassessment of its obligations no later
than the beginning of the fifth year of support, i.e., 2026. Should the
Bureau adopt the same or similar process for the reassessment that it
adopts for the location adjustment process? What other information
might be instructive for WCB to collect from support recipients to
reassess their obligations? Given that the adjustment process has been
delayed, should the Bureau just combine this assessment with the
location adjustment process for administrative efficiency? Are there
any benefits or drawbacks for service
[[Page 11244]]
providers or the public in giving support recipients an opportunity to
have their obligations reassessed independently of the location
adjustment process?
32. The Bureau also seeks comment on how to adjust support if the
number of locations in a municipio or island is higher than what was
initially determined. Should WCB increase support on a pro rata basis
for any additional locations if the actual number of locations is
higher? Are there any other approaches the Bureau should use for
adjusting support? The Commission has reiterated that Bringing Puerto
Rico Together Fund and the Connect USVI Fund support recipients must
serve all locations in their supported areas.
33. The Bureau proposes to permit A-CAM I & A-CAM II recipients to
seek a downward adjustment in their location totals by using the Fabric
to demonstrate the actual number of locations in their service areas.
Should the Bureau adopt the same process it proposes in this document
for support recipients of the Bringing Puerto Rico Together Fund and
the Connect USVI Fund--i.e., requiring support recipients to request a
downward adjustment in the docket and incorporating Fabric data by
reference? If so, should the Bureau also provide an opportunity for
stakeholders to file challenges to the Fabric through the National
Broadband Map or in the BDC system in response to the notification or
should the Bureau rely on prior challenges that are already
incorporated into the data at the time of WCB's review? Should WCB
apply a preponderance of the evidence standard consistent with the
standard adopted for the Connect America Fund Phase II auction Eligible
Location Adjustment Process, The Bringing Puerto Rico Together Fund,
and the Connect USVI Fund? If so, should WCB find that the standard has
been met if it verifies that the Fabric data is consistent with the
support recipient's requested adjustment? The Bureau seeks comment on
these issues and on any alternatives.
34. Although A-CAM recipients have a variety of broadband speed
obligations within their service areas, they are able to meet their
obligations by deploying to any location within the eligible area.
Accordingly, if the Bureau grants a downward adjustment in the location
total, it proposes reducing the location total on a pro rata basis so
that it would reduce the number of locations proportionally across all
of the speed tiers. Similarly, the Bureau also proposes to reduce
support on a pro rata basis. The Bureau seeks comment on these
proposals and whether WCB should use any alternative approaches for
reducing location totals and support amounts.
35. The Bureau also seeks comment on the timing for when WCB should
give A-CAM recipients an opportunity to seek a downward adjustment. For
administrative efficiency, should the Bureau offer a one-time
opportunity for A-CAM recipients to seek a downward adjustment? If so,
when would it be an appropriate time to offer this opportunity so as to
maximize the number of locations that are identified, but also give
support recipients enough time to adjust their plans prior to the end
of the support term? For example, the Bureau could require that A-CAM
providers with support terms that end in 2028 to submit their request
for a downward adjustment based on the latest release of Fabric data
prior to end of the sixth year support, consistent with the
Commission's requirement that WCB make location adjustments for RDOF
recipients, which also have a 10-year support term, prior to the sixth
year of support.
36. It is the Bureau's expectation that Alaska Plan participants
will offer voice and broadband service to 100% of the locations in
remote communities, including those locations not connected to the road
system, at performance levels consistent with the type of middle mile
commercially available in the community. The rationale is that while
the communities are remote and isolated, the locations within the
communities are in relatively close proximity. To avoid stranding
locations in the Alask Plan participants' service areas without access
to broadband service, the Bureau proposes to use Fabric data to
identify all locations within each Alaska Plan participant's service
area and adjust the Alaska Plan recipient's required location total to
account for any locations not already included in the location total
pursuant to WCB's delegated authority to approve changes to deployment
obligations. The Bureau seeks comment on whether Fabric data is the
best source for identifying such locations, and whether other sources
should be used including submissions from the carrier.
37. Specifically, the Bureau could conclude that a comprehensive
source like the Fabric had not been released when deployment
obligations were reassessed in 2021 and that it would serve the public
interest to further revise deployment obligations to ensure they
accurately reflect the facts on the ground. If the Bureau were to take
this step, when would be an appropriate time to revise deployment
obligations so that Alaska Plan participants are able to complete
deployment to all relevant locations by the end of the support term,
i.e., December 31, 2026? Should stakeholders have a defined period of
time to make any final challenges to the Fabric through the National
Broadband Map or in the BDC system so that the revised obligations
incorporate any successful challenges? What other steps could WCB take
to make certain that all locations in Alaska Plan recipients' service
areas have access to voice and broadband service through the Alaska
Plan?
III. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act
38. This document contains proposed new or modified information
collection requirements. The Commission as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public and
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 seeks specific comment on how it might
further reduce the information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
39. Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Bureau
has prepared this Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(Supplemental IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on
small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this document. The
supplemental IRFA supplements the Commission's Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analyses (IRFAs) in connection with the USF/ICC
Transformation FNPRM, 76 FR 78384, December 16, 2011, April 2014
Connect America FNPRM, 79 FR 39196, July 9, 2014, 2018 Rate-of-Return
Reform NPRM, 83 FR 17968, April 25, 2018, and Rural Digital Opportunity
Fund NPRM (NPRMs and FNPRMs), 84 FR 43543, August 21, 2019, and Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (FRFAs) in connection with the USF/ICC
Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011, 2016 Rate-of-
Return Reform Order, 81 FR 24282, April 25, 2016, 2018 Rate-of-Return
Reform Order, 83 FR 18951, May 1, 2018, Alaska Plan Order, 81 FR 69696,
October 7, 2016, and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order, 85 FR 13773,
March 10, 2020. Written public comments are requested on this
[[Page 11245]]
Supplemental IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
Supplemental IRFA and must be filed by the same deadline for comments
specified in this document. The Commission will send a copy of the
document, including this Supplemental IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the
document and Supplemental IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published
in the Federal Register.
40. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. This document
proposes to leverage the Fabric, the ``common dataset of all locations
in the United States where fixed broadband internet access service can
be installed, as determined by the Commission,'' to provide recipients
with a reliable data source for determining locations and to maximize
the number of consumers that are served by recipients of various High-
Cost support mechanisms. This includes using the Fabric to identify the
actual number of residential and small businesses in each relevant
high-cost support recipient's service area. The Commission delegated to
WCB the authority to revise deployment obligations, and adjust funded
locations and funding levels for support recipients' service areas. For
RDOF, this document seeks to determine how to implement the
Commission's framework for adjusting required location totals based on
an updated location source. For the Bringing Puerto Rico Together Fund
and the Connect USVI Fund, this document proposes and seeks comment on
procedures for leveraging Fabric data to simplify the location
adjustment process for these programs. For A-CAM I & II, this document
considers permitting recipients to seek a downward adjustment in their
location totals by using the Fabric to demonstrate the actual number of
locations in their service areas. For the Alaska Plan, this document
seeks to determine whether and how to adjust participants' required
location totals to include all locations within each Alaska Plan
participants' service area as identified by the Fabric.
41. Legal Basis. The statutory basis for the Bureau's proposed
action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 5(c), 214, 254, 303(r),
and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C 154(i),
155(c), 214, 254, 303(r), and 403.
42. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and
policies, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term ``small
entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,''
``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A ``small
business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
43. As noted in this document, Regulatory Flexibility Analyses were
incorporated in the USF/ICC Transformation FNPRM, April 2014 Connect
America FNPRM, 2018 Rate-of-Return Reform NPRM, Rural Digital
Opportunity Fund NPRM, USF/ICC Transformation Order, 2016 Rate-of-
Return Reform Order, 2018 Rate-of-Return Reform Order, Alaska Plan
Order, and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order. In those analyses, the
Commission described in detail the small entities that might be
significantly affected. Accordingly, in the document, for the
Supplemental IRFA, the Bureau hereby adopts by reference the
descriptions and estimates of the number of small entities from these
previous Regulatory Flexibility Analyses.
44. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities. For the relevant High-Cost
programs, the Public Notice proposes and seeks comment on streamlined
procedures that will leverage existing processes for maintaining the
accuracy of the Fabric to minimize the burdens on support recipients,
including small businesses, in demonstrating how many actual locations
are within their service areas. These proposals may require
modifications to the current compliance obligations for small and other
providers based upon the proposed methodologies for adjusting support
for RDOF, A-CAM, Bringing Puerto Rico Together Fund, and Connect USVI
Fund providers based on the number of locations in their service areas
that may impact their ability to meet their service obligations.
Additionally, the compliance obligations for small and other providers
may be impacted by proposals on certain parameters for identifying the
locations that high-cost recipients are required to serve--for
generally identifying which Fabric locations are relevant to the high-
cost support obligations, and more specifically for identifying which
locations must be served after the Bureau conducts its recount for
RDOF--which may result in an increase or decrease in the number of
locations certain support recipients, including small businesses, are
required to serve. The Commission anticipates the proposals discussed
in the Public Notice will have minimal cost implications because they
impact recipients who are currently receiving support from the relevant
programs and much of the required information is already collected to
ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of support.
45. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an
agency to describe any significant, specifically small business,
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1)
the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for
such small entities.''
46. Among the alternatives considered that may impact small
entities is whether the Bureau should require RDOF support recipients
to seek a waiver of, or require additional time to meet, the
requirement to serve more locations when their new location count
exceeds the CAM locations within their service areas in each state by
more than 35%, though addressing such waivers on a case-by-case basis
may prove to be administratively burdensome and potentially leave
locations stranded without service and ineligible for other funding
programs. The Bureau also considers whether it should wait until the
Bureau officially revises location totals for all support recipients to
identify any newly added locations for those RDOF support recipients
that WCB has already verified serve 100% of existing locations, and if
so, whether these recipients should have until the eighth year service
milestone to serve any of the newly identified locations. Additionally,
in regards to multiple performance tier requirements, the Bureau
considers whether after the recount it should require that the RDOF
support recipients serve more locations at the higher speed tier than
the lower speed tier without requiring that the support recipient serve
a set percentage of locations at each speed tier, or instead whether
the Bureau should
[[Page 11246]]
assign locations the performance tier associated with the census block
where the location is located. When a carrier receiving Bringing Puerto
Rico Together Fund or Connect USVI Fund support claims that Fabric does
not accurately depict the number of locations, the Bureau considers
whether WCB should conduct an internal review of the Fabric data to
identify where there might be discrepancies instead of having the
support recipients conduct an independent review and file a
notification with the Commission. Before reaching any final conclusions
and taking any final actions however, the Bureau expects to review the
comments filed in response to this document and more fully consider the
economic impact and alternatives for small entities.
47. As noted in this document, the Bureau seeks comment on how the
proposals in the document could affect the IRFAs and FRFAs. Such
comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for
responses to this document and have a separate and distinct heading
designating them as responses to the IRFAs and FRFAs.
48. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent
with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law
118-9, a summary of this document will be available on <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-02971 Filed 2-13-24; 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 February 14, 2024.
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.