[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 195 (Friday, October 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69772-69774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23917]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 16-271; WT Docket No. 10-208; FCC 16-115]


Connect America Fund, Connect America Fund--Alaska Plan; 
Universal Service Reform--Mobility Fund

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) seeks comment on various specific issues involved in 
implementing a process of eliminating the provision of high-cost 
support to more than one competitive Eligible Telecommunications 
Carrier (ETC) in the same geographic area. The Commission specifically 
seeks comment on how best to eliminate duplicative funding consistent 
with our universal service goals, should the evaluation of Form 477 
data reveal areas where more than one carrier is receiving support for 
the provision of 4G LTE service. The Commission also seeks comment on 
how to address a carrier's performance obligations and support payments 
to the extent it loses funding eligibility as a consequence of the 
elimination of duplicative support.

DATES: Comments are due on or before December 6, 2016 and reply 
comments are due on or before January 5, 2017. If you anticipate that 
you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within 
the period of time allowed by this document, you should advise the 
contact listed below as soon as possible.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 10-90, 
WC Docket No. 16-271 and WT Docket No. 16-208, by any of the following 
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed 
electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy of each filing. Because more than one docket 
number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit 
two additional copies for each additional docket 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 filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [cir] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    [ssquf] 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.
    [ssquf] 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484, Matthew Warner of the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-2419, or Audra Hale-
Maddox of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0794.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 
16-271 and WT Docket No. 16-208; FCC 16-115, adopted on August 23, 2016 
and released on August 31, 2016. The full text of this document is 
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the 
FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th St. SW., Washington, DC 
20554 or at the following Internet address: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-115A1.docx.
    The Report and Order that was adopted concurrently with the FNPRM 
is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

I. Introduction

    1. In the concurrently adopted Report and Order, the Commission 
adopts an integrated plan to address both fixed and mobile voice and 
broadband service in high-cost areas of the state of Alaska,

[[Page 69773]]

building on a proposal submitted by the Alaska Telephone Association. 
In February 2015, the Alaska Telephone Association (ATA) proposed a 
consensus plan designed to maintain, extend, and upgrade broadband 
service across all areas of Alaska served by rate-of-return carriers 
and their wireless affiliates. Given the unique climate and geographic 
conditions of Alaska, the Commission finds that it is in the public 
interest to provide Alaskan carriers with the option of receiving fixed 
amounts of support over the next ten years to deploy and maintain their 
fixed and mobile networks. If each of the Alaska carriers elects this 
option, the Commission expects this plan to bring broadband to as many 
as 111,302 fixed locations and 133,788 mobile consumers at the end of 
this 10-year term.

II. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    2. The Commission's policy has been to eliminate the provision of 
high-cost support to more than one competitive ETC in the same 
geographic area. Although there currently is no duplicative support for 
4G LTE service in remote Alaska, the Commission has established a 
process in the Report and Order to identify the existence of any such 
overlap mid-way through the 10-year term, and to take steps to 
eliminate duplicative support levels in the second half of the 10-year 
term of the Plan. This FNPRM seeks comment on various specific issues 
involved in implementing that process.
    3. In the concurrently adopted Report and Order, the Commission 
adopts, for purposes of identifying where duplicative support is 
occurring, a definition that includes those areas where there is 
subsidized 4G LTE service provided by more than one carrier. The 
Commission will identify such areas and evaluate the extent of overlap, 
if any, based on the Form 477 data filed by the carriers in March, 
2021, which will represent deployment as of December 31, 2020.
    4. The Commission seeks comment on how best to eliminate 
duplicative funding consistent with our universal service goals, should 
the evaluation of that Form 477 data reveal areas where more than one 
carrier is receiving support for the provision of 4G LTE service. How 
should the Commission identify the relevant amount of support to 
attribute to any overlap area? Once the amount of support is 
identified, what mechanism should the Commission apply to eliminate the 
duplicative funding? For example, should the Commission eliminate 
support to all carriers receiving duplicative support in any given 
area? To the extent the Commission continues to provide support to one 
provider in any such area, how should the amount of support, and the 
recipient of that support, be determined? For example, should the 
Commission award support by auction in areas receiving duplicative 
support? Alternatively, should it award support to whichever provider 
serves the larger service area? If so, how should the relevant service 
area be defined? Should the Commission adopt an approach that would 
award support for any overlap area to the carrier that builds out 4G 
LTE in an area first? Are there other mechanisms the Commission could 
use to eliminate any identified overlap in 4G LTE supported service? If 
any of these or other proposals would result in an area being served by 
one subsidized provider and one unsubsidized provider, how should the 
Commission address that, consistent with our general policy of not 
providing funding where there is an unsubsidized provider?
    5. Given the distinct needs and unique nature of Alaska, and the 
extent to which it lags much of the rest of the Nation in 4G LTE 
deployment, the Commission proposes that any funds no longer provided 
as a result of the elimination of duplicative support be used to 
support other mobile services in high-cost areas of Alaska. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal and, more specifically, on 
how any affected funds should best be used.
    6. The Commission also seeks comment on how to address a carrier's 
performance obligations and support payments to the extent it loses 
funding eligibility as a consequence of the elimination of duplicative 
support. In such instances, the Commission proposes that a carrier 
amend its performance plan and that it should neither be required nor 
permitted to include the population in the relevant overlap area in 
order to meet its performance commitments. The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether, for carriers losing support, they should provide a 
phase down of support for such carriers, such as over two or three 
years.
    7. As discussed above, the Commission will not evaluate whether 
there is any duplicative support or make adjustments to support 
payments until year five of the Alaska Plan. Given the important role 
of high-cost support in bringing mobile broadband service to remote 
Alaska, however, the Commission thinks that it is critical to engage in 
this process now in order to ensure a smooth transition should any 
modifications to the Plan be necessary to address duplicative support. 
Commenters are invited to address the proposals set forth above. In 
addition, are there other issues or alternatives that the Commission 
should consider in defining or eliminating duplicative competitive ETC 
support in Alaska?

III. Procedural Matters

    8. The FNPRM contains proposed new information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment 
on the proposed information collection requirements contained in this 
document, as required by the PRA. In addition, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act, the Commission seeks specific comment on 
how they might further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    9. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. 
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed 
by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM provided on the first page 
of this document. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
    10. The FNPRM is needed to ensure fiscal responsibility and 
maximize limited support for the support going to ensure universal 
service in remote areas of Alaska. The FNPRM seeks comment about 
duplicative support under the Alaska Plan and how such support should 
be addressed. The FNPRM proposes that duplicative areas be defined as 
those areas where there is subsidized 4G LTE service provided by more 
than one carrier in a service area and proposes that this would be 
determined by using March 2021 Form 477 data. The FNPRM seeks comment 
on options for addressing this issue during the course of the 10-year 
support period under the Alaska Plan and seeks comment on eliminating 
duplicative support in years six through ten of the Alaska Plan, as 
adopted (e.g., from

[[Page 69774]]

January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2026).
    11. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to 
the FNPRM is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5, 201-206, 214, 218-
220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, and 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 155, 201-
206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, and 1302.
    12. 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.
    13. Total Small Entities. Our proposed action, if implemented, may, 
over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at 
present. The Commission therefore describes here, at the outset, three 
comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards. First, 
nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.2 million small 
businesses, according to the SBA, which represents 99.7% of all 
businesses in the United States. In addition, 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 2011 indicate that there were 
90,056 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. The 
Commission estimates that, of this total, as many as 89,327 entities 
may qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, the 
Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
    14. Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding that this Report and Order 
and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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.
    15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained 
in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 
303(r), 332, 403, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 
U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 155, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 
256, 303(r), 332, 403, and 1302 that this Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking is adopted.

Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23917 Filed 10-6-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P