[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49040-49046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21091]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 18-929]
Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Procedures To
Identify and Resolve Location Discrepancies in Eligible Census Blocks
Within Winning Bid Areas
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on
several proposals to implement a process for resolving location
discrepancies at issue for Phase II auction support recipients.
DATES: Comments are due on or before October 29, 2018 and reply
comments are due on or before November 13, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 10-90
by the following method:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
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: Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition
Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Wireline
Competition Bureau's document in WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 18-929,
released September
[[Page 49041]]
10, 2018. The complete text of this document is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554 or at the following internet address:
https://www.fcc.gov/document/wcb-seeks-comment-caf-phase-ii-location-discrepancy-procedures.
I. Introduction
1. In this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau)
seeks comment on several proposals to implement a process for resolving
location discrepancies at issue for Phase II auction support
recipients. Specifically, the Bureau seeks comment on approaches to
identify and resolve apparent discrepancies between the number of
model-determined funded locations that Phase II auction support
recipients are expected to serve (funded locations) and the actual
number of locations that support recipients can serve (actual
locations). The Bureau undertakes this action pursuant to the 2018
Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, 83 FR 15982, April 13, 2018,
which directed the Bureau to implement a review process to evaluate
requests by Phase II auction support recipients who might seek
adjustments in defined deployment obligations in exchange for
corresponding reductions in support in circumstances where there are
not enough actual locations for the provider to serve.
2. Pursuant to the process set forth by the Commission, the Bureau
must: (1) Collect probative evidence of actual locations from those
Phase II auction support recipients choosing to participate in this
process (participants) (including evidence demonstrating that the
participants could find no additional actual locations other than those
identified with location data); (2) make all such evidence available
for review by relevant stakeholders and specify the types of evidence
that such stakeholders should submit to challenge such evidence; (3)
adjudicate individual claims for relief based on a preponderance of the
evidence standard; (4) issue an order when appropriate to reduce
deployment obligations and authorized support (on a pro rata basis);
and, (5) conduct future audits of evidence submitted by participants.
While the Commission set some parameters for certain aspects of this
process, it also directed the Bureau to adopt requirements and issue
guidance necessary for implementation, consistent with prior Commission
direction regarding funded location adjustments. The Commission
directed the Bureau to ``release a public notice or order (following
its issuance of a notice and opportunity for comment) detailing
instructions, deadlines, and requirements for filing valid geolocation
data and evidence for both [participants] and commenters.''
II. Discussion
3. Definition of an Actual Location. The Bureau seeks comment on
how it should define an actual location for purposes of this review
process. In the CAM Inputs Order, 79 FR 29111, May 21, 2014, the Bureau
defined funded locations as residential and small business locations
and excluded enterprise locations assumed to be served with higher
bandwidth dedicated fiber, such as community anchor institutions,
certain large businesses, and wireless towers assumed to be served with
higher bandwidth dedicated fiber. In the Phase II Auction
Reconsideration Order, the Commission stressed that a CAM location is a
residential housing unit or small business served with mass market
services and rejected commenters' arguments in favor of a more
expansive definition. In addition, a location need not be occupied when
being reported as a served location, but it cannot be abandoned,
derelict, condemned, or otherwise uninhabitable.
4. In general, CAF support recipients cannot report unfinished
residential or business locations or ongoing or future real estate
developments as served locations in satisfaction of build-out
requirements. Given that this review process, however, will provide the
basis for a participant's deployment obligation over a 10-year support
term, the Bureau seeks comment on whether actual locations should
include prospective developments that have a reasonable certainty of
coming into existence within the support term. The Bureau seeks comment
on the potential evidentiary obstacles to implementing this
modification. How might participants learn of such prospective
developments and the number of future locations associated with them?
Do development plans routinely indicate the number of residential and
business units? Is such information available from local governments
and authorities, and does the amount and type of information available
from such entities vary to a degree that could provide an unfair
advantage or disadvantage to participants based on their geographic
areas? As an alternative, should the Bureau rely on relevant
stakeholders to submit evidence of such locations in their submissions?
5. Reliability and Validity of Data. In the Phase II Auction
Reconsideration Order, the Commission required participants not only to
submit location data but also to provide evidence demonstrating that
they could not find any additional actual locations in their eligible
areas within the state. In doing so, the Commission expressed concern
that participants would otherwise report only ``cherry pick[ed]''
locations, i.e., the easiest and least expensive locations to serve,
and omit all other locations. The Commission directed the Bureau to
identify the information that must be submitted to fulfill this
purpose. The Bureau expects that such information must demonstrate the
completeness, reliability, and validity of the actual location data
submitted by participants. Accordingly, the Bureau proposes that
participants in this review process submit a description in narrative
form of the methodologies used to identify structures within their
eligible areas and distinguishing actual locations from other kinds of
structures.
6. The Bureau seeks comment on whether to require that participants
use a particular method to identify the geocoordinates and addresses of
actual locations or permit carriers to choose their method(s) and
correct for inaccuracies. For purposes of reporting deployed locations,
USAC has published guidance on three generally accepted methods of
geolocation, i.e., (1) GPS in the field, (2) desktop geolocation using
web-based maps and imagery, and (3) automated address geocoding
(frequently reliant on third-party address data). Each of these methods
will produce variable levels of accuracy in terms of identifying the
specific situs of the location. For example, desktop geolocation and,
to an even greater extent, automated address geocoding may produce
interpolated geocoordinates and addresses that do not describe a situs
with the required level of granularity to produce accurate results.
Such inaccuracies, in turn, increase the likelihood that the list of
actual locations produced by participants will exclude certain
locations, such as those adjacent to ineligible areas or those that
include multiple dwelling units (MDUs). However, the potential
shortcomings of geolocation methods may be minimized through specific
practices.
7. The Bureau seeks comment on methodological and evidentiary
standards necessary to ensure that participants have used geolocation
method(s) consistently and comprehensively to accurately identify all
actual locations in eligible areas within the state. How would such
[[Page 49042]]
standards differ if the Bureau were to allow any of the three
geolocation methods or combinations of such methods? For example,
should the Bureau require participants submitting location data based
on GPS field research to also submit grid data, mileage receipts,
weekly logs, or some other kind of evidence to demonstrate that they
used GPS to identify every actual location? Should the Bureau require
participants relying on desktop geolocation or automated address
geocoding to use more than one application or source? Should the Bureau
require such participants to disclose details about the application/
source data, such as how and when such data were collected? Should the
Bureau require participants using such methods to test the reliability
and validity of the source/application data when applied to their
specific eligible areas? Should the Bureau require all participants
(regardless of geolocation method) to submit photographic evidence
demonstrating the reasons for excluding structures from their list? The
Bureau seeks comment on these proposals.
8. In the Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, the Commission
explained that as part of this review process, ``[r]elevant
stakeholders would have the opportunity to review and comment on the
information [submitted by participants] and to identify other locations
. . . .'' The Bureau seeks comment on how the Bureau should define
``relevant stakeholders.'' Specifically, the Bureau proposes that state
and local authorities and Tribal governments as representatives of
individuals residing in supported areas be allowed to file comments as
part of the process. Should the Bureau accept comments from individuals
as well? Should the Bureau accept comments from potential customers of
participants? If the Bureau were to adopt a broad definition of
``relevant stakeholder'' that includes all potential customers, how
does the Bureau verify that the commenter is a potential customer?
Should the Bureau avoid collecting personally identifiable information
(PII)? As further discussed below, would a protective order
sufficiently protect participants from the premature disclosure and/or
misuse of their data?
9. The Bureau seeks comment on the evidence that must be submitted
by relevant stakeholders to effectively rebut or refute the
participant's contentions. The Bureau expects that stakeholders will
identify specific locations that they assert are wrongfully omitted
from the participant's list of actual locations. The Bureau proposes
that stakeholders seeking to report specific locations omitted from the
participant's list must submit the same kind of location evidence that
the Bureau requires of participants, i.e., latitude and longitude
coordinates and addresses (or geographic markers if addresses are
unavailable), as well as some additional evidence supporting the
existence and placement of the location. The Bureau seeks comment on
other forms of evidence that could also prove the existence or situs of
individual locations. For example, should the Commission accept billing
statements, property records, images or pictures of houses at a
specific address or intersection? Should the Bureau accept screenshots
of houses from Google maps or other publicly available mapping
services? How would the Bureau evaluate and weigh such evidence?
10. The Bureau proposes to dismiss any challenge that lacks some
evidentiary showing. The Bureau also proposes not to allow stakeholders
to submit alternative evidence of locations based on public or private
data sources that the stakeholder cannot conclusively demonstrate to be
significantly more accurate than the recipient's data sources. The
Bureau seeks comment on these proposals.
11. The Bureau proposes that evidence of omitted locations from
relevant stakeholders be submitted in a similar format to the data on
actual locations submitted by Phase II auction support recipients. The
Bureau intends to review the information submitted by relevant
stakeholders and modify lists of actual locations as part of its final
adjudicatory decision.
12. HUBB Reporting of Location Evidence. The Bureau proposes that
participants report tabular data on actual locations, including
addresses and geographic coordinates. The Bureau proposes that
participants submit such data in the HUBB or a similar web-based data
submission application managed by USAC. There are several advantages to
this approach. First, the technology used in the HUBB is designed to
accept addresses and geographic coordinates for specific locations.
Second, the HUBB provides certain data validations, including checks to
ensure entries are not duplicates and are located within specific
census blocks. Thus, the HUBB facilitates timely correction of data
submission errors prior to the close of a filing deadline. Third, the
Bureau and USAC have released specific guidance for the reporting of
served locations, which may be adapted to the reporting of actual
location data for purposes of this review process. Fourth, the use of
the HUBB will help alleviate the burden associated with reporting data
on served locations (which all Phase II auction support recipients will
need to submit in future years) because such data should be readily
convertible to the served location evidence. In this regard, while
there is no specific requirement that participants deploy to their
reported actual locations in future years, the Bureau expects that, in
most instances and absent significant future demographic changes, there
will be an overlap between actual locations and served locations. As
further discussed below, this overlap should be useful for auditing
purposes. Finally, the HUBB permits controlled access to data, which
obviates the need to create a separate service for this purpose and
limits potential delays associated with such a service. As discussed
below, controlled access will also help the Bureau protect location
data that may implicate privacy concerns.
13. The Bureau seeks comment on these and other ways the web-based
functionality may be used to facilitate the submission of actual
location evidence and ways that the HUBB may be adapted to fulfill this
purpose. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether participants may face
specific obstacles or burdens in submitting location data
electronically into the HUBB or a similar system.
14. In the Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, the Commission
requires participants to file actual location data ``within a year'' of
the publication of the Phase II auction closing public notice. The
Bureau proposes applying this deadline to all evidence that the Bureau
ultimately requires of participants.
15. The Bureau proposes to open a window, 14 days before this
deadline and ending on the deadline, for participants to certify, under
penalty of perjury, the truth and accuracy of their location data and
associated petition. The certification will be mandatory and must be
signed by an individual with relevant knowledge (such as an officer of
the company), certifying under penalty of perjury that the participant
has engaged in due diligence to verify statements and evidence
presented in this challenge process and that such information is
accurate to the best of the certifying party's knowledge and belief. By
opening a filing window rather than permitting participants to certify
their data and information at any time during the first year, the
Bureau would help ensure that a participant's data reflects the most
recent facts on the ground and that the participant does not omit new
or prospective building developments
[[Page 49043]]
coming into being toward the end of the one-year time frame for
compiling and submitting such evidence.
16. Alternatively, the Bureau could permit certifications at any
time prior to the final deadline but would also require participants to
monitor their supported areas within the state, add any new locations
(or potential developments) or remove any locations determined to be
ineligible prior to the two-week time frame proposed above and
recertify their data. The Bureau emphasizes that regardless of when
participants submit their data and information, they will have a good
faith obligation to amend or correct data that they later discover to
be inaccurate or incomplete. Such obligation will extend until
completion of the 10-year funding term. The Bureau seeks comment on
these options.
17. The Bureau proposes that it reviews the actual location
evidence submitted by Phase II Auction support recipients and, within
60 days of their filing deadline, announce prima facie cases for
adjustment based on the submission of relevant and complete data. The
Bureau proposes that relevant stakeholders will then have 90 days to
submit evidence and rebuttals. Like the data and related filings of
participants in this review process, any submission by a relevant
stakeholder must be signed by an individual with relevant knowledge,
certifying under penalty of perjury, that the information presented is
accurate to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. Once this 90-
day timeframe expires, the participant will have 15 days to submit a
reply. The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed timeframes by which
relevant stakeholders must submit their evidence to challenge
participant's data and by which participants may reply to such
challenge. Specifically, the Bureau seeks comment on whether these
proposed timeframes adequately serve our goal of providing a meaningful
opportunity for challenge, while concluding this challenge process in a
reasonable timeframe. The Bureau proposes that strict adherence to
these deadlines is necessary to provide an adequate opportunity for
relevant stakeholders and participants to contest data and findings.
18. Consistent with standards of review adopted for similar review
processes, the Commission adopted a preponderance of the evidence
standard to evaluate the merits of participants' claims for adjustment
of their defined deployment obligations. The Bureau also proposes that
participants bear the burden of persuasion. Accordingly, if the Bureau
finds that the participant has failed to demonstrate that it is more
likely than not that the CAM-estimated number of funded locations do
not reflect the facts on the ground, the Bureau will not modify the
defined deployment obligation. The Bureau notes that placing the burden
of persuasion on the participant encourages the participant to fully
present its evidence and further tempers any incentive to ``cherry
pick'' locations.
19. The Commission has directed that, in circumstances where the
Bureau determines that modification of the participant's number of
funded locations is warranted, it must reduce the authorized support on
a pro rata basis. As part of its adjudicatory order, the Bureau will
re-authorize support at the new reduced amount. The Bureau proposes
that, given the timing of this review process, if the participant has
already been authorized to receive support, the Bureau will also order
a reduction in future payments for the remainder of the support term
proportionally to reflect the total amount of reduction. The Bureau
also proposes to allow participants to promptly adjust their letters of
credit to reflect the new authorized funding amount once the Bureau's
order modifying the authorized support is issued. The Bureau seeks
comment on these proposals.
20. The Bureau notes that the Commission treats location data for
served locations as non-confidential and has required the public
disclosure of such information. The public interest in accessing these
data to ensure transparency and oversight, however, is significantly
greater than in accessing evidence of actual locations, particularly
before the Bureau issues an order concluding its adjudication of the
individual merits of a participant's claim. Further, unlike evidence of
served locations, unverified lists of actual locations and related
evidence may indirectly reveal future deployment plans or other
information that could be used to the competitive disadvantage of
participants. The responsive comments of relevant stakeholders could
potentially link addresses or other information to specific
individuals. Such data, if published, could raise important privacy
concerns and trigger statutory protections against agency disclosures,
such as outlined in the Privacy Act of 1974.
21. The Bureau seeks comment on what steps it should take to ensure
that privacy and competitive interests are not compromised. Should the
Commission adopt a protective order to control stakeholders' use of
participants' information pending completion of the review process?
Should the Bureau require participants and/or relevant stakeholders to
seek confidential treatment of their information pursuant to section
0.459 of the Commission's rules or should the Bureau adopt a
presumption that such information is confidential, at least until the
adjudicatory process is complete? Should or must the Bureau review and
aggregate this evidence and release it for public consumption after the
Bureau adjudicates the request? Should or must the Bureau release such
evidence and findings for all participants at the same time, or can it
do so on a rolling basis as it resolves individual requests for relief?
The Bureau seeks comment on these issues.
22. Phase II auction support recipients, like all recipients of
high-cost support, are subject to compliance audits and other
investigations to ensure compliance with program rules and orders. As
USF administrator, USAC has the authority and responsibility to audit
USF payments. The Commission has designated the Managing Director as
the agency official responsible for ensuring ``that systems for audit
follow-up and resolution are documented and in place, that timely
responses are made to all audit reports, and that corrective actions
are taken.'' The Commission resolves contested audit recommendations
and findings, either on appeal from the Bureau or directly, if the
challenge raises novel questions of fact, law, or policy.
23. In the Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, the Commission
also specified that any data submitted by participants pursuant to this
review process is subject to potential future audit. The Commission
directed the Bureau to adopt parameters of such an audit process.
Accordingly, the Bureau seeks comment on this audit process.
Specifically, should the Bureau define circumstances that will trigger
an audit, such as defaulting on deployment obligations in subsequent
years? Should an audit be triggered if a participant frequently
misreports served locations evidence? Should an audit be triggered if,
at the end of the support term, the reported served locations differ
significantly from the reported actual locations--for instance, if 30
percent (or some higher percentage) of the reported served locations
are not included on the actual locations list? Should the Bureau audit
all participants within a set time frame, for instance, in the two
years following any modification to a defined deployment obligation?
24. Under section 54.320(b) of the Commission's rules, all
recipients of
[[Page 49044]]
high-cost support must maintain all records required to demonstrate to
auditors that the support received was consistent with the universal
service high-cost program rules and must maintain such records for a
minimum of 10 years from the receipt of funding. Are the current record
retention requirements adequate to facilitate audits of participants?
Are any additional measures necessary to ensure that participants
retain and provide the relevant and complete documentation to auditors
upon request?
25. If, during the audit, it is discovered that the participant
failed to report actual locations when it certified its data, what are
the appropriate consequences? Should the Bureau retroactively require
that the participant deploy to the CAM estimated number of locations
despite the reduction in support? If the participant then defaults by
failing to build to the CAM estimated number of locations, should the
participant be required to refund support in accordance with default
procedures? Should the Bureau treat the participant as if it has
defaulted on its deployment obligations in total and seek recovery of
all authorized support? Should consequences differ if it is determined
that the participant intentionally omitted actual locations or was
grossly negligent in researching locations? The Bureau notes that if it
determines that the participant intentionally or negligently
misrepresented actual locations, the filing may trigger possible
forfeiture penalties.
26. The Bureau seeks comment on these proposals and on any
alternatives. If commenters believe different procedures would better
serve the Commission's goals of granting Phase II auction support
recipients relief from defined deployment obligations that may be
impossible to fulfill (as opposed to merely difficult or more expensive
to fulfill), and providing funding recipients with some certainty about
their defined deployment obligations as they plan deployments for
future years (without prematurely excluding ongoing developments), they
should provide a detailed description of their preferred alternative.
The Bureau welcomes suggested alternatives that minimize the impact of
these proposals on small businesses, as well as comments regarding the
cost and benefits of implementing these proposals.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act
27. This document contains proposed 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.
28. 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 by the policies and rules
proposed in this Public Notice. Written 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 Public Notice. The
Commission will send a copy of the Public Notice, including this IRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA). In addition, the Public Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof)
will be published in the Federal Register.
29. The Bureau is implementing a process, adopted by the Commission
in its Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, for the modification of
defined deployment obligations where the number of locations within a
funding recipient's bid areas within the state (actual locations) fall
short of the CAM-estimated number of locations (funded locations). The
Commission directed the Bureau to gather evidence of, actual locations
from Phase II auction support recipients participating in this review
process (participants), included addresses and geocoded data (actual
location data) within one year of the release of the Phase II auction
closing public notice as well as additional evidence, as specified by
the Bureau, demonstrating no additional actual locations could be
found; to enable relevant stakeholders to challenge such evidence and
submit additional evidence of actual locations; to adjudicate
participants' claims for relief based on a preponderance of the
evidence standard; and, where such standard has been met, to reduce
participants' obligations and support on a pro rata basis. The
Commission also specified the data and information submitted by
participants in support of their claims for relief are subject to
future audit. The Commission directed the Bureau to adopt rules,
requirements, deadlines, and other measures necessary to implement its
review process after providing public notice and seeking public
comment.\7\
30. This Public Notice proposes that participants file actual
location data in the High Cost Broadband Portal (HUBB) maintained by
the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), and separately
file a narrative petition detailing the reliability and validity of
such data to demonstrate that no additional locations may be found.
This Public Notice seeks comment on the various forms of evidence that
should be considered for purposes of determining reliability and
validity as well as the kinds of evidence that relevant stakeholders
should submit to effectively challenge participants' evidence. The
Bureau emphasizes that it will not consider assertions about actual
locations that are offered without supporting evidence. The Bureau
clarifies the Commission's one-year deadline for the submission of
location data and proposes that participants file their associated
petitions by this deadline. The Bureau also proposes specific deadlines
for the filing of petitions by relevant stakeholders and the filing of
replies. The Bureau proposes that both participants and relevant
stakeholders certify, under penalty of perjury, the truth and accuracy
of all such submissions. In addition, the Bureau seeks comment on
various proposals relating to the adjudication of requests for support
modifications and future auditing processes relating to participants'
submissions.
31. 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 rule revisions, 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.
32. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. The Bureau therefore describes here, at
the outset, three comprehensive small entity size
[[Page 49045]]
standards that could be directly affected herein. First, while there
are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used
in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the
SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent
business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States which
translates to 28.8 million businesses.
33. Next, the type of small entity described as 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 August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
34. Finally, the small entity described as a ``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.'' U.S. Census Bureau data from
the 2012 Census of Governments indicate that there were 90,056 local
governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments
and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number
there were 37, 132 General purpose governments (county, municipal and
town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,184
Special purpose governments (independent school districts and special
districts) with populations of less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census
Bureau data for most types of governments in the local government
category show that the majority of these governments have populations
of less than 50,000. Based on this data the Bureau estimates that at
least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the category of
``small governmental jurisdictions.''
35. In this Public Notice, the Bureau seeks public comment on
procedures for implementing a review process for the modification of
funding awarded under the Connect America Phase II auction. Certain
proposals could result in additional reporting requirements.
36. If the Bureau implements the Phase II challenge process
articulated above, commenters, including small entities, wishing to
participate would be required to comply with the listed reporting and
evidentiary standards. This includes filing a challenge along with
supporting evidence and serving a copy of the challenge on any
challenged party within a specified timeframe.
37. 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 rules 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.''
38. The Public Notice seeks comment from all interested parties.
The Commission is aware that some of the proposals under consideration
may impact small entities. Small entities are encouraged to bring to
the Commission's attention any specific concerns they may have with the
proposals outlined in the Public Notice, and the Commission will
consider alternatives that reduce the burden on small entities.
39. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the Public
Notice, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this
proceeding. The reporting requirements in the Public Notice could have
an impact on both small and large entities. The Commission believes
that any impact of such requirements is outweighed by the accompanying
public benefits. Further, these requirements are necessary to ensure
that the statutory goals of Section 254 of the Act are met without
waste, fraud, or abuse.
40. In the Public Notice, the Commission seeks comment on several
issues and measures that may apply to small entities in a unique
fashion. Small entities may be more likely to seek relief from their
obligations to serve the CAM-estimated number of funded locations.
Small entities may also be more likely to challenge participants'
requests for relief. The Bureau will consider comments from small
entities as to whether a different standard should apply.
41. Permit but Disclose Ex Parte Contact. For the purposes of the
Commission's ex parte rules, information filed in this proceeding will
be treated as initiating a permit-but-disclose proceeding under the
Commission's 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.
IV. Filing Requirements
42. Comments and Replies. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
43. Paper Filings. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and one copy of each filing. 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 submitted to the FCC
must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Hand or Messenger Delivery. All hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must
be delivered to FCC
[[Page 49046]]
Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.
All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or
fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the
building. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Commercial Overnight Mail. 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.
U.S. Postal Service First-Class, Express, and Priority
Mail. U.S. Postal Service mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW,
Washington DC 20554.
44. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
45. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Nissa
Laughner at (202) 418-1358 or [email protected], of the Wireline
Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division.
Federal Communications Commission.
Ryan Palmer,
Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2018-21091 Filed 9-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P