[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 47 (Monday, March 13, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13413-13418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04988]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 10-90, WT Docket No. 10-208; FCC 17-11]
Connect America Fund; Universal Service Reform--Mobility Fund
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the
parameters for the process in determining whether areas are eligible
for funding under the Mobility Fund Phase II. The Commission
established the framework for the Mobility Fund Phase II in a Report
and Order--adopted concurrently with the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Further Notice)--but had remaining questions regarding the
process in which entities may challenge the areas eligible for support.
Therefore, the Commission anticipates that additional comment will
allow it to make more informed decisions on the challenge process,
thereby making a more robust, targeted challenge process that
efficiently resolves disputes about areas eligible for MF-II support.
DATES: Comments are due on or before April 12, 2017, and reply comments
are due on or before April 27, 2017.
ADDRESSES: All filings in response to the Further Notice must refer to
WC Docket No. 10-90 and WT Docket No. 10-208. The Commission strongly
encourages parties to develop responses to the Further Notice that
adhere to the organization and structure of the Further Notice.
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 ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. Filers must submit two
additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All
[[Page 13414]]
filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. All hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must
be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street 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. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] 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: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
Auction and Spectrum Access Division, Mark Montano, at (202) 418-0660.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) in WC Docket No.
10-90, WT Docket No. 10-208, FCC 17-11, adopted on February 23, 2017,
and released on March 7, 2017. The proceeding related to this Further
Notice 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 section
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule section 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.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
The Further Notice contains proposed new or modified information
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific
comment on how it might further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
I. Introduction
1. In the Further Notice, the Commission seeks further comment on
the parameters for the process in determining whether areas are
eligible for funding under the Mobility Fund Phase II (MF-II). In the
months leading up to adoption of the MF-II Order, the Commission
received a number of specific record filings, including detailed,
technical proposals, regarding the process for challenging whether
areas will be eligible for MF-II funding. In order to make more
informed decisions on the challenge process, the Commission sought
further comment on the parameters for the challenge process for MF-II.
2. The Commission commits to a robust, targeted challenge process
that efficiently resolves disputes about areas eligible for MF-II
support. The Commission's overarching objective is to quickly
transition away from the legacy competitive eligible telecommunications
carrier (CETC) support system, where support was never awarded based on
the need to support the deployment of mobile broadband, to a system
directed to that policy goal. The Commission's commitment to fiscal
responsibility requires that it not fund areas that already have 4G LTE
from an unsubsidized provider. At the same time, the Commission wants
to ensure that areas that may require support for qualified 4G LTE are
eligible for, and potentially receive, MF-II support. The challenge
process is an integral part of that determination, to build upon and
improve provider-filed and -certified Form 477 data, which remain the
best available data source.
3. The Commission recognizes that any challenge process will
necessarily involve tradeoffs in terms of burdens imposed on interested
parties and the Commission, as well as the timeliness and accuracy. As
such, the Commission is committed to designing the challenge process so
that it is as efficient as possible. It does not want to unduly burden
challenging parties by creating so high an evidentiary standard that it
deters stakeholders from challenging even the most obviously mis-
categorized areas. Conversely, the Commission is cognizant of the
burdens imposed on parties whose coverage is challenged merely on the
basis of anecdotal, unsystematic claims--the burdens of having to spend
resources to defend coverage areas in Form 477 filings that they have
already certified as accurate. The Commission also will take into
account that smaller providers will have fewer resources available, and
therefore specifically seeks comment on ways in which the burden of the
challenge process can be reduced for smaller providers.
4. Additionally, the challenge process must be administratively
efficient. As discussed in the MF-II Order, there is a need to move
forward rapidly with MF-II to retarget universal service support being
provided to mobile carriers; the challenge process must not impede the
implementation of MF-II support. There is a demonstrated need for MF-II
support in many areas of the country where support is not provided
today, and that support must be disbursed to unserved areas without
unreasonable delay.
[[Page 13415]]
5. The Commission seeks comment on these guiding principles for the
challenge process and whether it should take into consideration
additional principles as it designs the process. In addition, the
Commission seeks comment on the extent to which these principles are
furthered by the specific parameters for the challenge process outlined
in the Further Notice.
6. In addition, the Commission recognizes that no matter how well
engineered, no wireless network has 100 percent reliability. Even in
areas of generally good coverage there may be small regions where
performance is less than desired, especially due to natural or
manufactured obstructions, areas far inside buildings, basements, and
so forth. In light of these network characteristics, the Commission
asks what standards and guidance will help staff in the Commission's
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau evaluate challenges and expedite
their resolution?
7. The Commission seeks general comment on a couple of potential
structures for the challenge process. While the Further Notice presents
them as separate options, the Commission makes clear that it is not
proposing to adopt either option wholesale. Rather, the Commission
intends to take the most effective parameters from these various
options, as well as possible additional alternatives, to assemble a
``best in class'' structure for the challenge process.
II. Option A
8. Initial Challenge. The challenge would consist of a
certification by the challenging party that in a specific area, the
party has a good faith belief, based on actual knowledge or past data
collection, that there is not 4G LTE with at least 5 Mbps download
speed coverage as depicted on Form 477. The specific area challenged
may be for a partial census block or full census block(s). In support
of such a challenge, the party would need to file a shapefile in a
standard format of the challenged area. What, if any, evidence should
be required in support of an initial challenge? What standards should
be required for the submission of an initial challenge?
9. A challenge of an area could be made by either a carrier that is
submitting a challenge within its licensed area or a state or local
government that is submitting a challenge within its jurisdiction,
potentially through a state public utilities commission (PUC). The
Commission seeks comment on whether additional parties (carriers that
are potential entrants, consumers, etc.) should be allowed to submit
challenges.
10. The Commission seeks comment regarding whether it should
require that the challenged area be at least a minimum size. Would
automatically dismissing de minimis challenges (e.g., challenges that
address a very small percentage of the square miles in a given census
block group or census tract) further administrative efficiency? If so,
what should the Commission set as the minimum size for a challenge?
11. Moreover, the Commission seeks comment regarding whether it
should permit challenges for areas that the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau and the Wireline Competition Bureau (the Bureaus) identify as
eligible (i.e., areas where the Form 477 data show no qualified 4G LTE
coverage from an unsubsidized carrier). The Commission anticipates that
there would be far fewer such challenges than for ineligible areas
since the challenging party would likely be the same carrier that
submitted--and certified--the Form 477 data that allegedly shows too
small a coverage area. Should the Commission's challenge process allow
what are in essence Form 477 corrections? Should those challenges be
limited to corrections in the Bureaus' processing of the Form 477 data
as filed?
12. Propagation Map Response. A challenged carrier may respond by
submitting an engineering (propagation) map that demonstrates expected
coverage for the challenged area. The submission must be substantiated
by the certification of a qualified engineer, under penalty of perjury.
The Commission seeks comment on the specific technical parameters for
the propagation model and the shapefile, and how much time challenged
carriers would require to respond. Should the Commission adopt a signal
strength threshold for the map? Should the measure be -90 dB (Received
Signal Strength Indicator or RSSI) or a different amount? One
commenter, for example, has proposed that a coverage map for the
challenge process use a -85 dB measure. Should any signal strength be
set based on RSSI or Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP)
measurements? Is there a particular resolution that the Commission
should require for the shapefile? Should the Commission specify any
other parameters?
13. The Commission seeks comment on the utility of such shapefiles
in the challenge process. It recognizes that such maps do not actually
portray the consumer's experience throughout the area at issue, given
in part that a consumer's experience depends on variables other than
signal strength. Nevertheless, such maps may be a reasonable step to
build into the challenge process for the purpose of narrowing the areas
requiring further evidence to resolve the challenge.
14. Submission of Evidence of Actual Speeds Being Provided to
Consumers. Once the challenged carrier has timely submitted a map that
shows the challenged area to be within the contour of coverage, the
original challenger may submit actual speed data (potentially with
supporting signal strength data) from hardware- or software-based drive
tests or app-based tests (e.g., such as those from established
companies such as Ookla, Rootmetrics, Nielsen, and Mosaik) that
spatially cover the challenged area. This submission must also be
substantiated by the certification of a qualified engineer, under
penalty of perjury. What parameters should be specified to ensure that
the evidence accurately reflects consumer experience in the challenged
area? For instance, should the number of test locations be
proportionate to the amount of area challenged? How many tests should
be done per location? What other parameters should be included in
specifying how these tests are done?
15. Once a challenger submits evidence of actual speeds, what
evidence of actual speeds should be accepted from the provider whose
coverage is being challenged? How much time should be allowed for the
submission of actual speed data?
16. Resolution of Challenge. A party seeking to challenge the
Bureaus' initial determination of eligibility for MF-II support would
have the burden of proving its claims by a preponderance of the
evidence (i.e., enough evidence to make it more likely than not that
the status the claimant seeks to prove is true). The Commission seeks
comment on this evidentiary standard. Should it require challengers to
meet a higher standard, such as clear and convincing evidence? Should
the submission of evidence of actual speeds be permitted, or required,
and how should that affect the resolution of challenges?
III. Option B
17. In a recent filing, a large, mid-sized, and small provider
submitted a joint proposal for how the Commission should structure the
challenge process. The following parameters are based on that joint
proposal.
18. Challenge. Under the joint proposal, challenging parties would
have 60 days following the Commission's release of a list of eligible
areas to submit evidence, which would be filed in the public record.
Parties would be permitted to challenge areas
[[Page 13416]]
that they claim are incorrectly identified as ineligible or eligible.
Service providers and governmental entities located in or near the
relevant areas would be only parties eligible to participate.
19. Also under the joint proposal, the evidence submitted in a
challenge must include a map(s) in shapefile format, of the challenged
area. In addition, challenging parties must report actual download
speed test data using either actual speed tests or transmitter
monitoring data. For the actual speed tests, data from app-based tests
(many of which are freely available on consumer devices), and both
hardware- and software-based drive tests would be permitted, so long as
they met certain standards. For example, with app-based tests and
software-based drive tests, late-model LTE devices compatible with a
particular carrier's LTE network could be used to measure the speed.
What requirements should the Commission adopt for speed tests to ensure
that they will be representative of coverage in a disputed area,
including those pertaining to time and distance between tests? In
considering these issues, the Commission will need to balance the
accuracy of any challenge, the burdens on affected parties, and the
timeliness of resolution. The challenge evidence must be certified
under penalty of perjury.
20. Response. Under the joint proposal, challenged parties would
have 30 days to file their certified responses. The responses must meet
the same requirements as those for challenging parties--i.e., coverage
shapefiles and speed test data.
21. The Commission seeks comment on the burden of requiring this
level of response from challenged parties. In particular, should the
Commission require the same or reduced evidence from those parties that
do not have the burden of proof? The Commission acknowledges that
requiring equivalent data from both parties is likely to assist the
Bureaus in resolving challenges more efficiently. However, are those
efficiency gains outweighed by the burden placed on the challenged
party?
22. Resolution. Under the joint proposal, the Commission would
reach decisions based on the weight of the evidence and determine
whether any changes to its initial list of eligible areas is warranted.
IV. Additional Options
23. The Commission seeks comment as well on any additional options
that parties may wish to propose. For example, one proposal would
require all Form 477 filers whose filings represent a basis for
declaring certain areas not eligible for MF-II support to (1)
supplement those filings within 60 days of the release of a preliminary
list of areas not eligible for MF-II support and (2) notify other
service providers in those areas of their supplemented Form 477 filings
and their declaration that they provide voice and LTE service in those
areas. Those other service providers would have 30 days to challenge
those declarations of service.
24. The Commission reiterates that it is not necessarily going to
adopt either of the options discussed in the Further Notice and
summarized above. Therefore, the Commission urges commenters to come up
with additional proposals, including consensus proposals that
accommodate the interests of multiple parties. This is particularly
important to the extent the options discussed above do not adequately
address issues that are essential to the structuring of an effective
and efficient challenge process.
V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
25. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities from the policies and rules
proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further
Notice). The Commission requests written public comment on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments provided in the Further Notice. The
Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, including this IRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA).
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
26. In the MF-II Order, the Commission adopted the framework for
moving forward with the Mobility Fund Phase II (MF-II) and Tribal
Mobility Fund Phase II, which will allocate up to $4.53 billion over
the next decade to advance the deployment of 4G LTE service to areas
that are so costly that the private sector has not yet deployed there
and to preserve such service where it might not otherwise exist. The
funding for this effort will come from the redirection of legacy
subsidies and distributed using a market-based, multi-round reverse
auction and will come with defined, concrete compliance requirements so
that rural consumers will be adequately served by the mobile carriers
receiving universal service support.
27. In the Further Notice, the Commission proposes a robust
challenge process to supplement the Commission's coverage maps and to
ensure that it is targeting support where it is most needed.
Specifically, because record filings have become more specific the past
several months, including detailed, technical proposals regarding the
challenge process in the past few weeks, the Commission seeks further
comment on the parameters for the challenge process for MF-II. The
Commission is committed to a robust, targeted challenge process that
efficiently resolves disputes about areas eligible for MF-II support.
Its overarching objective is to quickly transition away from the legacy
CETC support system, where support was never awarded based on the need
to support the deployment of mobile broadband, to a system directed to
that policy goal. The challenge process is an integral part of that
determination, to build upon and improve provider-filed and -certified
Form 477 data, which remain the best available data source. The
Commission, therefore, seeks general comment on a couple of potential
structures for the challenge process. While the Commission has
presented them in this Further Notice as separate options, it is not
proposing to adopt either option wholesale. Rather, the Commission
intends to take the most effective parameters from these various
options, as well as possible additional alternatives, to assemble a
``best in class'' structure for the challenge process.
B. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
28. 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, 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.
29. Small Entities, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission's proposed actions, over time, may affect
[[Page 13417]]
small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The
Commission therefore describe, at the outset, three comprehensive small
entity size standards that could be directly affected herein. As of
2014, according to the SBA, there were 28.2 million small businesses in
the U.S., which represented 99.7% of all businesses in the United
States. Additionally, a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-
for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is
not dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 2007, there were
approximately 1,621,215 small organizations. Finally, the term ``small
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of
cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census
Bureau data for 2012 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental
jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission estimates that, of
this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as ``small
governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, the Commission estimates that most
governmental jurisdictions are small.
30. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, census
data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus under
this category and the associated size standard, the Commission
estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers
(except satellite) are small entities. Similarly, according to
internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they
were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular
service, Personal Communications Service, and Specialized Mobile Radio
Telephony services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer
employees, and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using
available data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless
firms can be considered small.
31. Internet Service Providers. Since 2007, these services have
been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows:
``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text,
sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such firms
having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that
there were 3,117 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 3,083 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 34
firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small. In addition, while Internet Service Providers (broadband) are a
subcategory of the broader category of Wired Telecommunications
Carrier, there is Census Bureau data specific to Internet Service
Providers (broadband). For 2012, Census Bureau data shows there were a
total of 1,180 firms in the subcategory of Internet Service Providers
(broadband) that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,178
firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and two firms had
employment of 1000 employees or more. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may
be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the MF-II Order.
C. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
32. In the Further Notice, the Commission seeks further comment on
the parameters for the challenge process for MF-II. It seeks general
comment on a couple of potential structures for the challenge process:
(1) A proposal by one mobile provider (Option A); and (2) a joint
proposal by three providers (Option B). The Commission seeks comment as
well on any additional options that parties may wish to propose, such
as, for instance, a proposal that would require all Form 477 filers
whose filings represent a basis for declaring certain areas not
eligible for MF-II support to supplement those filings within 60 days
of the release of a preliminary list of areas not eligible for MF-II
support. The Commission urges commenters to come up with additional
proposals, including consensus proposals that accommodate the interests
of multiple parties.
33. Under Option A, the challenge would consist of a certification
by the challenging party that in a specific area, the party has a good
faith belief, based on actual knowledge or past data collection, that
there is not 4G LTE with at least 5 Mbps download speed coverage as
depicted on Form 477. In support of such a challenge, the party would
need to file a shapefile in a standard format of the challenged area. A
challenge of an area could be made by either a carrier that is
submitting a challenge within its license area or a state or local
government that is submitting a challenge within its jurisdiction,
potentially through a state PUC. A challenged carrier may respond by
submitting an engineering (propagation) map that demonstrates expected
coverage for the challenged area. The submission must be substantiated
by the certification of a qualified engineer, under penalty of perjury.
Once the challenged carrier has timely submitted a map that shows the
challenged area to be within the contour of coverage, the original
challenger may submit actual speed data (potentially with supporting
signal strength data) from hardware- or software-based drive tests or
app-based tests (e.g., such as those from established companies such as
Ookla, Rootmetrics, Nielsen, and Mosaik) that spatially cover the
challenged area. This submission must also be substantiated by the
certification of a qualified engineer, under penalty of perjury. A
party seeking to challenge the Bureaus' initial determination of
eligibility for MF-II support would have the burden of proving its
claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
34. Under Option B, challenging parties would have 60 days
following the Commission's release of a list of eligible areas to
submit evidence, which would be filed in the public record. Service
providers and governmental entities located in or near the relevant
areas would be only parties eligible to participate. The evidence
submitted in a challenge must include a map(s) in shapefile format, of
the challenged area. In addition, challenging parties must report
actual download speed test data using either actual speed tests or
transmitter monitoring data. For the actual speed tests, data from app-
based tests (many of which are freely available on consumer devices),
and both hardware- and software-based drive
[[Page 13418]]
tests would be permitted, so long as they met certain standards. The
challenge evidence must be certified under penalty of perjury.
Challenged parties would have 30 days to file their certified
responses. The responses must meet the same requirements as those for
challenging parties--i.e., coverage shapefiles and speed test data. The
Commission would reach decisions based on the weight of the evidence
and determine whether any changes to its initial list of eligible areas
is warranted.
D. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
35. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
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 or reporting requirements under the rule for 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 small
entities.'' The Commission expects to consider all these factors when
it has received substantive comment from the public and potentially
affected entities.
36. The Commission has made an effort to anticipate the challenges
faced by small entities in complying with its rules. For example, the
Commission specifically notes that smaller providers will have fewer
resources available, and therefore specifically seeks comment on ways
in which it can reduce the burden of the challenge process on smaller
providers. The Commission also seeks comment on specific principles of
the challenge proposals and ways to make them as efficient as possible
for all interested parties, including small entities.
37. Option A. In order to further administrative efficiency, the
Further Notice seeks comment on whether the Commission should require
that the challenged area be at least a minimum size and whether it
should automatically dismiss de minimis challenges (e.g., challenges
that address a very small percentage of the square miles in a given
census block group or census tract). The Further Notice also seeks
comment regarding whether the Commission should permit challenges for
areas that the Bureaus identify as eligible (i.e., areas where the Form
477 data show no qualified 4G LTE coverage from an unsubsidized
carrier), which could further promote efficiencies for all parties,
including small entities. The Commission emphasizes that there would be
far fewer such challenges than for ineligible areas since the
challenging party would likely be the same carrier that submitted--and
certified--the Form 477 data that allegedly shows too small a coverage
area. Recognizing the burden that may be placed on parties responding
to challenges and rebuttals, including small entities, the Further
Notice requests comment on the specific technical parameters that must
be provided and how much time challenged carriers, or original
challengers, would require to respond.
38. Option B. In addition to seeking comment on the proposals of
Option B, the Commission asks what requirements it should adopt for
speed tests to ensure that they will be representative of coverage in a
disputed area, including those pertaining to time and distance between
tests. The Commission notes that it will need to balance the accuracy
of any challenge with the burdens on affected parties, including small
entities, and the timeliness of resolution. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether the burden of proof should be the same or reduced
for challenged parties, including small entities, recognizing that
efficiency gains could be outweighed by the burden placed on the
challenged party.
39. More generally, the Commission expects to consider the economic
impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response
to the Further Notice and the IRFA contained therein, in reaching its
final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding. The proposals
and questions laid out in the Further Notice were designed to ensure
the Commission has a complete understanding of the benefits and
potential burdens associated with the different actions and methods.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-04988 Filed 3-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P