[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66305-66327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-16989]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[WC Docket Nos. 19-195, 11-10; FCC 24-72; FR ID 233874]


Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection; Modernizing 
the FCC Form 477 Data Program

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission or FCC) seeks comment on proposed changes to the 
availability data filing and validation processes.

DATES: Comments are due on or before September 16, 2024, and reply 
comments are due on or before October 15, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 19-195 
and WC Docket No. 11-10, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: 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 courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be 
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. by 
the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701. 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 courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the 
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701.
     Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, 
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street 
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please 
contact, Will Holloway, Broadband Data Task Force, at 
[email protected] or (202) 418-2334.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fourth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket Nos. 19-195 and 11-
10, released on July 12, 2024. The full text of this document is 
available at the following internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-steps-update-broadband-data-collection-processes or 
by using the Commission's EDOCS web page at www.fcc.gov/edocs.
    Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act Statement.
    The Commission seeks comment on proposed changes to the Broadband 
Data Collection (BDC) availability data filing process that would limit 
publication of data on ``grandfathered'' services, collect terrestrial 
fixed wireless spectrum authorization information, and additional 
certifications and supporting data from satellite broadband providers. 
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on amendments and 
clarifications to several of its BDC data validation rules regarding 
data retention, sharing Fabric challenges with providers, the 
professional engineering certification requirement, audits and 
verification outcomes, restoring locations previously removed from the 
map, aligning reporting requirements for broadband availability and 
subscribership data, and adding a new rule section for Fabric 
challenges. Available at: https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
    Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding 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 
presenters 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 Sec.  1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In 
proceedings governed by Sec.  1.49(f) of the rules 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.

[[Page 66306]]

Synopsis

I. Summary of the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Modifications to the FCC's Availability Data Collection Requirements

1. Limiting Publication of Data on ``Grandfathered'' Services
    1. We seek comment on whether we should limit the publication of 
availability data to avoid the potential for releasing subscribership 
information, typically treated as confidential in other contexts, with 
respect to grandfathered services that providers are phasing out.
    2. Background. The Broadband DATA Act mandates that the Commission 
collect data on the availability of ``broadband internet access 
service'' which, for purposes of the Act, ``has the meaning given the 
term in Sec.  8.1(b) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any 
successor regulation.'' Under this rule, broadband internet access 
service is a ``mass-market retail service by wire or radio that 
provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all 
or substantially all internet endpoints, including any capabilities 
that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications 
service, but excluding dial-up internet access service.''
    3. In the Third Report and Order (86 FR 18124, April 7, 2021), the 
Commission clarified that all facilities-based providers of broadband 
internet access services are required to comply with the requirements 
of the BDC. Fixed broadband internet access service providers must 
report the maximum advertised download and upload speeds associated 
with the service available at a location. Accordingly, the BDC collects 
availability data from a wide array of service providers encompassing a 
broad range of technologies and service types. The data collection 
covers both new and novel services, as well as legacy services that 
providers are in the process of permanently discontinuing. In the 
latter case, a filer may provide facilities-based broadband internet 
access service to existing subscribers at particular locations, but no 
longer market or sell that service to potential or new customers in the 
area and would not continue offering the service to a location once the 
existing subscriber disconnects that service at the location. In such 
instances, the effect of the filing requirement is that the 
availability data submitted by the provider for this service could 
essentially be a list of current subscribers of the service. The 
Commission routinely treats subscribership data submitted as part of 
the FCC's Form 477 as confidential.
    4. Certain providers have expressed concern that publishing 
availability data for grandfathered services could reveal confidential 
subscribership information. For example, Verizon recently requested 
confidential treatment of its incumbent local exchange carriers' DSL 
service availability data submitted as part of its December 2023 BDC 
filing because the data reflect ``only those locations where [Verizon] 
currently provide[s] service to an existing customer, thereby resulting 
in the reporting of confidential customer-identifiable location and 
service information of those customers.'' Verizon noted that 
``[a]lthough the Commission generally favors disclosure of service 
availability information, the nature of the DSL availability 
information [Verizon is] required to report will reveal the precise 
number of [its] subscribers in an area, plus the customer address and 
type of service provided to each DSL customer and cannot be masked by 
non-customer locations where the service is no longer offered.'' We 
seek comment on whether publication of availability data for 
grandfathered services should be limited.
    5. Discussion. We propose to amend our rules to permit filers to 
indicate that the service offered at a location is a grandfathered 
service only. We further propose that in cases where a provider submits 
a request for confidential treatment of such data, and such a request 
is not denied, we would not publish such data as part of the location-
specific availability information in the National Broadband Map (NBM). 
We also propose that information on the availability of these services 
would only be disclosed by the Commission on an aggregated, redacted or 
otherwise de-identified, differentiated or masked basis. The Commission 
would afford those data the protections from disclosure already 
established for subscription data gathered via FCC Form 477, and 
treated as confidential.
    6. We believe there are multiple benefits to this approach. First, 
it would enable the Commission to collect and analyze more in-depth, 
useful information on the nature of fixed broadband services (whether 
they are grandfathered or not), thereby forming a more nuanced and 
comprehensive picture of broadband service availability. Second, it 
would better protect against potential disclosure of confidential 
customer information. Third, not showing on the NBM locations where a 
service has been discontinued and is available only to legacy 
subscribers (but not to any new or potential subscribers in the future) 
could provide more helpful information to consumers about broadband 
availability. We seek comment on these proposals. Are there any 
alternative approaches we should consider that would appropriately 
protect data that could constitute subscribership information and 
provide accurate information on the services that are actually 
available at a particular location? Are there alternatives we should 
consider for the types of information and format the Commission 
discloses about grandfathered services, or the protections afforded to 
this data?
    7. We seek comment on how to define a ``grandfathered'' service for 
purposes of reporting broadband availability and making data on such 
services potentially eligible for this differentiated treatment on the 
NBM. We propose to define a ``grandfathered'' service similar to the 
definition used in other areas of our rules: any broadband internet 
access service that is currently provided to an existing end user at a 
Broadband Serviceable Location, but that a facilities-based provider is 
discontinuing, has permanently ceased to advertise or market to new or 
potential subscribers, and would not make available to a new or 
potential subscriber at the Broadband Serviceable Location. We seek 
comment on this proposed definition. We note that this proposed 
definition would not encompass locations where the provider is willing 
to connect a new end user but the potential customer is ``waitlisted'' 
due to capacity constraints that exist on the as-of date of the 
biannual BDC submission; it would similarly not include locations where 
a provider is unable to conduct a standard broadband installation 
within 10 business days due to equipment unavailability, capacity 
constraints or other limitations. Under our proposal, service to 
locations in these circumstances would not be considered grandfathered. 
Would this proposed definition, if adopted, provide sufficient clarity 
to BDC filers to know whether or not a particular service would be 
considered a grandfathered service? Are there alternative definitions 
we should consider?
    8. We also seek comment on whether we should adopt any requirements 
pertaining to the size of the area where the service is no longer 
advertised or marketed in order to qualify as a ``grandfathered'' 
service. Must the provider cease marketing and selling the service 
throughout its entire footprint before it qualifies as a grandfathered 
service? How should the Commission treat a service provider with a 
multi-

[[Page 66307]]

state footprint who ceases marketing or selling the service in one or 
more states, but continues to offer the service in the other state(s) 
within its footprint? Should such a provider be permitted to claim 
``grandfathered'' status for the service in the state(s) or other 
remaining geographic area(s) where it no longer markets or sells the 
service (and would not make it available to new or potential 
subscribers)?
    9. We seek comment on whether we should adopt a process for a 
provider to ``undo'' a prior claim of grandfathered status. If we were 
to adopt such a process, what evidence, if any, should we require the 
provider to submit in support of a request to reverse a prior claim of 
grandfathered service status?
    10. What measures, if any, should we adopt to protect against 
potential gaming of the protections we propose for ``grandfathered'' 
services? For example, should we require a service provider to include 
with its request for confidential treatment an affidavit, declaration 
or other certification that it does not currently market or sell to new 
or potential subscribers, and will not market or sell to new or 
potential subscribers in the future, the service reported as a 
grandfathered service in the system? Should we require that any such 
certification or other attestation be executed by a corporate officer 
of the filer? Should we require the filer to submit evidence that it no 
longer markets or sells to new or potential subscribers the reported 
service, and, if so, what types of evidence would be acceptable? Are 
there other measures we could adopt to protect against possible gaming? 
Alternatively, should Commission staff instead rely upon existing 
tools, such as verifications, audits, and enforcement mechanisms, to 
investigate and validate claims of grandfathered services?
    11. We also seek comment on whether we should collect information 
on other attributes related to potential limitations on the 
availability of a particular broadband service. For example, should we 
have providers indicate that a service is made available to existing 
subscribers in an area, but is not marketed or sold in the area 
temporarily due to capacity constraints on the ``as-of'' date of the 
biannual BDC submission (though it will be marketed or sold in the area 
once those capacity constraints were alleviated)? In addition, while 
all broadband service transmission technologies are theoretically 
capacity constrained, certain services--such as spectrum-based 
terrestrial fixed wireless and satellite services--can be more affected 
by capacity considerations than traditional wireline services. In such 
cases, a provider may be able to connect service on a marginal basis to 
some, but not all, of the locations included in its availability data 
(if, theoretically, all the residents or businesses at such locations 
were to request service at the same time), or it may not be able to 
offer service to all of the locations at the reported maximum 
advertised speeds, due to network capacity constraints. Further, some 
providers have indicated that they offer certain broadband services 
only on a seasonal basis. Should we amend the BDC fixed availability 
reporting requirements so that the various circumstances or conditions 
mentioned above, as well as others, can be captured in the collected 
data? How should such circumstances, conditions, or factors be 
reported? What type of burden does distinguishing service attributes 
place upon facilities-based providers who file data in the BDC?
    12. We additionally propose to allow filers to request confidential 
treatment pursuant to 47 CFR 0.459 for broadband availability data in 
the limited circumstance where the services are marked as grandfathered 
and for other analogous situations where the filed data would 
inherently disclose the coverage information of existing customers. We 
propose that all other filed broadband availability data submitted in 
the BDC would be available to the public. The Broadband DATA Act 
requires the Commission both to collect data from each provider 
reporting the areas to which it can and does make broadband services 
available and to allow for consumers and entities to challenge the 
accuracy of ``any information submitted by a provider regarding the 
availability of broadband internet access services.'' The Commission 
has previously made clear that information filed in the BDC ``will be 
presumed to be non-confidential unless the Commission specifically 
directs that it be withheld'' and has otherwise been skeptical of filer 
arguments about the confidentiality of broadband availability data 
generally. We continue to conclude that, in most circumstances, the 
public interest in disclosure of BDC availability data outweighs any 
commercial or competitive harm to the provider. Clarifying the 
circumstances under which we would consider confidentiality requests 
for availability data would provide additional certainty to filers and 
challengers of broadband availability data alike, while further 
streamlining the process by which the Commission processes and 
publishes such data. To be clear, we do not propose to limit the 
circumstances under which filers may request confidential treatment of 
data other than broadband availability data that are submitted into the 
BDC, including subscription data or supporting data (including, e.g., 
link budget parameters or coverage methodology information). We seek 
comment on this proposal. Are there other categories of broadband 
availability data for which we should continue to entertain requests 
for confidential treatment? How can we best balance the goals of the 
Broadband DATA Act and our responsibilities in administering the BDC 
program with competing concerns about the sensitivity of required data?
    13. We propose requiring service providers to report attributes 
about the nature of service availability in their location- or area-
specific availability data submissions. We propose revising our Data 
Specifications for Biannual Submission of Subscription, Availability, 
and Supporting Data to enable filers to report, and the BDC system to 
collect, data reflecting services with a grandfathered status or any 
other attributes. We seek comment on these proposals.
2. Collecting Terrestrial Fixed Wireless Spectrum Authorization 
Information
    14. We next seek comment on changing our rules to require 
terrestrial fixed wireless providers to submit additional information 
that would allow the Commission to better verify terrestrial fixed 
wireless service availability data submitted in the BDC.
    15. Background. The Broadband DATA Act required the Commission to 
provide two methods for terrestrial fixed wireless broadband internet 
access service providers to file their availability data: (1) 
propagation maps and model details that ``satisfy standards that are 
similar to those applicable to providers of mobile broadband internet 
access service . . . , taking into account material differences between 
fixed wireless and mobile broadband internet access service'' or (2) as 
a list of locations that constitute the service area of the provider. 
The Commission implemented these requirements in the Second Report and 
Order (85 FR 50886, August 18, 2020). When submitting their 
availability data, fixed providers must disclose the details of how 
they generated their coverage polygons or list of locations. The Second 
Report and Order adopted categories of parameters and details that 
fixed wireless providers submitting availability coverage polygons 
based on propagation maps and model details

[[Page 66308]]

must disclose to the FCC as part of their BDC submissions. Examples of 
these requirements include base station information (such as the 
frequency band(s) used to provide service being mapped, carrier 
aggregation information, the radio technologies used on each spectrum 
band, and site information such as the elevation above ground level for 
each base station), height and power values for receivers or other 
customer premises equipment, and terrain and clutter information. The 
Commission did not specify comparable disclosure requirements for 
supporting data that terrestrial fixed wireless providers that file 
location lists must submit as part of their biannual BDC submission.
    16. In March 2022, prior to the opening of the initial BDC filing 
window, the Broadband Data Task Force released data specifications 
detailing the categories and format of data that broadband service 
providers must submit in the BDC system to satisfy their filing 
obligation. The data specifications originally included two technology 
codes to differentiate terrestrial fixed wireless services: technology 
code 70, used to report unlicensed terrestrial fixed wireless service, 
and technology code 71, used to report licensed terrestrial fixed 
wireless service. A third terrestrial fixed wireless technology code 
(72: Licensed-by-Rule Terrestrial Fixed Wireless) was added in January 
2023. The codes are intended to characterize the last-mile fixed 
wireless technology used to deliver internet access services to end 
users.
    17. The Commission has an affirmative obligation to verify 
providers' broadband availability data filed in the BDC. In verifying 
availability based on terrestrial fixed wireless service, we must also 
ensure that the reported availability is authorized based upon 
applicable FCC spectrum licenses or other forms of authorizations (as 
reported by technology category code), as a claim of terrestrial fixed 
wireless service availability would be invalid if the service 
provider's operations were unauthorized. There are three ways to be 
authorized to operate a terrestrial fixed wireless service in 
accordance with the FCC's rules: providers may possess a license; may 
be licensed-by-rule (LBR); or may operate via unlicensed spectrum in 
accordance with Part 15 of the Commission's rules.
    18. Discussion. We seek comment on proposed rule changes that will 
allow the Commission to better verify the terrestrial fixed wireless 
service availability data submitted in the BDC. First, we propose that 
fixed wireless filers reporting licensed service (i.e., technology code 
71--Licensed Terrestrial Fixed Wireless) in their biannual BDC filings 
be required to submit the following additional information: (1) all 
call signs and lease IDs (including the call sign(s) of the license(s) 
being leased) associated with the licenses held or leased by the filer 
that were (or could have been) used to provide broadband service as of 
the relevant BDC filing date (i.e., June 30 or December 31); and (2) 
the FCC Registration Number (FRN) of the entity holding the license or 
lease as recorded in the FCC's Universal Licensing System (ULS). 
Collecting this information will provide the most direct way to verify 
the permissibility of these operations, as it will allow staff to 
compare the reported coverage with the geographic areas associated with 
spectrum licenses or leases, as well as any transmitter locations, in 
ULS. If a BDC coverage area is found to be incongruous with the 
geographic area associated with the provisioning authorization(s) as 
assessed via call sign data, this may prompt further review by staff, 
form a credible basis for a verification request, or potentially 
trigger a future audit. We propose updating the BDC data specifications 
to implement this requirement. We seek comment on this approach, as 
well as on potential alternatives to verify coverage of providers 
offering licensed terrestrial fixed wireless service.
    19. We note that terrestrial fixed wireless services operating in 
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) may be authorized via 
either Priority Access Licenses or under General Authorized Access (LBR 
or GAA) rules, and therefore fall under either technology code 71 or 
72, respectively, in BDC filings. CBRS operators licensed under the 
former have associated call signs in ULS, and--as described above--we 
propose and seek comment on requiring them to report in their biannual 
BDC filings a comprehensive list of the call signs they use to provide 
the fixed broadband services reported in the BDC. Service providers 
authorized using LBR/GAA (i.e., technology code 72) do not receive call 
signs in ULS for that technology, but records of GAA registrations are 
maintained by automated frequency coordinators known as Spectrum Access 
Systems (SASs). Given that the Commission has an obligation to verify 
all reported broadband coverage, regardless of whether the service is 
offered using licensed or LBR spectrum, we propose requiring operators 
that claim LBR/GAA terrestrial fixed wireless service availability in 
the BDC using GAA-authorized base stations to provide proof of 
authorization by a SAS for the relevant BDC filing date. We propose 
collecting such data in structured formats to ease with its processing 
and evaluation, and seek comment on the most efficient way to do so. We 
also seek comment on whether there are other ways to verify the 
reported coverage of providers using GAA or any other LBR service.
    20. Finally, we note that providers offering broadband service 
using unlicensed terrestrial fixed wireless technology(ies) do not 
receive call signs in ULS and do not require authorization from a SAS 
to operate their base stations, though they may be subject to other 
regulatory requirements, such as static or automated frequency 
coordination. It therefore is not possible to compare the locations or 
geographic areas where they report service availability with call signs 
(as is possible for licensed services) or using SAS database records 
(as is possible for LBR services). In cases where filers are authorized 
on an unlicensed basis under part 15 of the FCC's rules, we propose 
requiring the provider to file the FCC ID(s) of all base station 
transmission equipment used, and seek comment on whether there are 
other methods for validating that the service is authorized under the 
Commission's part 15 rules. We seek comment on this proposal and any 
other ways, beyond those mentioned above, to verify coverage of 
terrestrial fixed wireless providers offering service using unlicensed 
fixed wireless technologies (i.e., technology code 70).
3. Additional Certifications and Supporting Data From Satellite 
Providers
    21. We also seek comment on requiring additional certifications and 
supporting data from satellite providers to improve the quality of data 
provided to the BDC and improve the Commission's data validation, 
verification, and audits of satellite availability data submitted in 
the BDC.
    22. Background. The nature of satellite services presents unique 
challenges for ensuring the accuracy of data concerning satellite 
broadband service availability in the BDC. In 2019, the Commission 
sought comment on how it could ``improve upon the existing [Form 477] 
satellite broadband data collection to reflect more accurately current 
satellite broadband service availability.'' At that time, the 
Commission ``recognized there are issues with the quality of the 
satellite broadband data that are currently

[[Page 66309]]

reported under the existing Form 477.'' The Commission sought comment 
on how to improve the satellite broadband availability data reported in 
its new data collection, including whether it should collect additional 
information from satellite service providers, such as the number and 
location of satellite beams and the capacity used to provide service by 
individual satellites to consumers at various speeds. The Commission 
also sought comment on ``[w]hat issues should be addressed for [non-
geostationary orbit] satellite services in the new data collection as 
they begin to be offered.''
    23. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission ``continue[d] to 
seek comment on how we could improve upon the existing satellite 
broadband data collection,'' including whether demand side data might 
assist the Commission in better ascertaining the availability of these 
services. The Commission determined in the Third Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (85 FR 50911, August 18, 2020) that, ``[i]f 
concrete proposals are not provided to more reasonably represent 
satellite broadband deployment, we would rely on other mechanisms . . . 
including standards for availability reporting, crowdsourced data 
checks, certifications, audits, and enforcement, potentially as well as 
currently reported subscriber data, in assessing the accuracy of 
satellite provider claims of broadband deployment.'' The Commission did 
not obtain concrete proposals in response to the Second Report and 
Order and, accordingly, in the Third Report and Order, it determined 
that it would rely upon verification measures to help ensure the 
accuracy of satellite broadband availability data. The Commission did, 
however, ``remind satellite providers that the standards for 
availability reporting that apply to all fixed services require that 
satellite providers include only locations that they are currently 
serving or meet the broadband installation standard. Satellite 
providers cannot report an ability to serve an area or location without 
a reasonable basis for claiming that deployment, taking into account 
current and expected locations of spot beams, capacity constraints, and 
other relevant factors.''
    24. To enable Commission staff to verify availability data as 
required by the Broadband DATA Act, Office of Economics and Analytics 
(OEA), and Space Bureau (SB) recently released updated verification 
data specifications that include common data fields for fixed broadband 
service providers, and include fields for satellite infrastructure data 
that satellite service providers use to estimate their service and 
coverage. The Broadband Data Task Force notified service providers 
(including satellite providers) that they must maintain these 
supporting data for each reporting period, and that the Commission may 
collect these data in the context of the Commission's statutory 
obligations to verify broadband service availability data.
    25. Discussion. According to the BDC submissions as of June 30, 
2023, satellite broadband service with speeds of at least 25 Mbps 
download and 3 Mbps upload is available to 164.7 million Broadband 
Serviceable Locations, or 99.95% of all Broadband Serviceable Locations 
in the United States. Satellite broadband service with speeds of at 
least 100/20 Mbps is available to 164.1 million Broadband Serviceable 
Locations, or 99.6% of all locations. In the context of recent reports 
under section 706 of the Communications Act, the Commission has found 
that both ``FCC Form 477 deployment data and BDC service availability 
data for satellite broadband service may overstate the extent to which 
satellite broadband service is available.'' Given this, and the 
relatively low subscription rate and capacity limitations for satellite 
services indicated by available FCC Form 477 data, the Commission 
declined to include in its analysis of fixed broadband service 
availability any data on satellite services.
    26. We propose that satellite providers must include, as a 
supporting data file accompanying their biannual availability 
submissions, the infrastructure data set forth in sections 2.3.1, 
2.3.2, and 2.3.4 of the BDC Infrastructure Data Specifications 
(including any subsequent modifications, amendments or successors to 
those sections). We seek comment on this proposal.
    27. Section 2.3.1 of the BDC Infrastructure Data Specifications 
specifies the format for the submission of records of general operating 
parameters of a satellite system. The data gathered pursuant to this 
section of the specifications include the network type (geostationary 
satellite orbit (GSO), non-geostationary satellite orbit, or other), 
the total number of satellites in the active constellation, the number 
of orbital shells deployed in the active constellation, the overall 
system downlink capacity and the overall system uplink capacity. 
Section 2.3.2 specifies the content and format for the submission of 
more detailed information for each constellation or orbital shell of 
space stations deployed by the satellite broadband service provider as 
of the applicable reporting period. The data gathered pursuant to this 
section include shell altitude, the orbital location (for GSO systems), 
inclination angle, orbital plane, number of satellites per orbital 
plane, shell orbital period, apogee, and perigee, among other data 
elements. Section 2.3.4 specifies the content and format for the 
submission of system capacity information for specific geographic 
regions of the country.
    28. We propose to require satellite providers to submit all of the 
information requested in sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of the BDC 
Infrastructure Data Specifications (as applicable, depending upon the 
satellite system type), as well as the capacity data in section 2.3.4 
for each state or territory for which the provider claims to make 
service available as part of its BDC filing. We do not propose 
requiring satellite providers to submit system capacity information on 
a county-by-county basis. Furthermore, we do not propose, at this time, 
that providers submit the detailed link budget parameters set forth in 
section 2.3.3 of the specification, but we seek comment on whether the 
Commission should collect link budget data from satellite providers as 
part of the availability data submission process, similar to data 
collected from mobile wireless service providers and terrestrial fixed 
wireless service providers who submit polygon coverage maps using 
propagation maps and model details. We seek comment on these proposals 
and any potential alternatives.
    29. We propose to (1) update the BDC Data Specifications for 
Biannual Submission of Subscription, Availability, and Supporting Data 
to include these categories of data from the BDC Infrastructure Data 
Specifications, and (2) publish these categories of data received from 
satellite providers in the Data Download section of the NBM platform, 
so that interested stakeholders may access the data (similar to 
supporting data published for other providers and technologies). We 
further propose that OEA and SB may analyze these data and use them for 
purposes of verifications and audits of satellite providers, consistent 
with our processes and procedures for conducting verifications and 
audits.
    30. We seek comment on whether this proposal would place additional 
burdens upon satellite providers by requiring them to submit this 
information on a biannual basis. We note that the information included 
in the satellite provider infrastructure portion of the data 
specifications is largely based upon categories of data that each 
provider is required to submit

[[Page 66310]]

as part of its FCC Form 312 (Application for Satellite Space and Earth 
Station Authorizations) and accompanying Schedule S (Technical and 
Operational Appendix). Are any additional burdens associated with this 
reporting outweighed by the benefits to the Commission, other federal 
agencies, state, local, and Tribal governments, researchers and 
academia, and the public from obtaining more detailed information on 
the assumptions and modeling parameters underlying satellite providers' 
coverage claims?
    31. Because the data sought through the BDC Infrastructure Data 
Specifications are based upon information included in a satellite 
provider's publicly available FCC Form 312 and Schedule S, we 
tentatively conclude that, should the Commission adopt the requirement 
that satellite providers include these data with their biannual 
availability submissions, the data would be presumptively public. 
Similar to our treatment of most categories of terrestrial fixed 
wireless infrastructure data, ``[w]e believe there is a strong public 
interest in having as much access to this information as possible in 
order to facilitate public review and input on its accuracy . . . .'' 
We invite comment on whether some of these data raise commercial 
sensitivities and, if so, whether some categories of the data should be 
treated as presumptively non-public. Alternatively, should we treat all 
of these data as presumptively public, and permit individual requests 
for confidential treatment pursuant to the Commission's existing rules?
    32. What other data could the Commission collect, or processes 
could the Commission adopt, to improve the accuracy of and insights 
into satellite providers' broadband availability data? What are the 
specific sources of such data, and who would be responsible for 
submitting those to the Commission? Are there additional standardized 
data specifications the Commission could or should release? What use 
restrictions or confidentiality concerns would apply to these data, if 
any? Commenters who advocate that the Commission adopt alternatives to 
our proposal to collect from satellite providers the existing 
information set forth in the pertinent sections of the BDC 
Infrastructure Data Specifications should provide detailed and specific 
information about their alternative proposals, how the Commission would 
administer them, and why any such alternative would yield better 
satellite availability data than gathering additional infrastructure 
information directly from satellite broadband service providers.

B. BDC Data Validation Processes

    33. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to verify the 
accuracy and reliability of data submitted in the BDC. We seek comment 
on several proposed changes to our rules to improve the Commission's 
validation, audit, and Fabric challenge processes, as well as 
facilitate provider certification of BDC submissions.
1. Data Retention Requirements
    34. We seek comment on establishing a set data-retention period for 
documentation supporting providers' BDC submissions to ensure the 
Commission has access to necessary documentation for purposes of 
conducting audits, verifications, and other reviews.
    35. Background. Broadband service providers are required to submit 
information on how they generated their availability data for each 
technology included in their biannual BDC filings. In particular, fixed 
service providers must include information on the methodology used to 
generate their availability data, along with an explanation of how the 
methodologies were implemented. Terrestrial fixed wireless providers 
who file their availability data as a coverage polygon are required to 
submit information about their propagation models, base stations, 
carriers, link budgets, and clutter categories. Similarly, mobile 
wireless service providers must include supporting data with their 
coverage maps, including propagation model details and link budget 
information.
    36. In addition to their biannual submission, service providers 
must submit data and information to the Commission in response to 
challenges, verification inquiries, and audits. As discussed above, the 
Commission has published data specifications detailing the types of 
infrastructure data, by service type and technology, that must be 
submitted in response to verification inquiries and audits (and 
challenges, in instances where mobile wireless service providers are 
able to respond to mobile challenges with infrastructure data). In the 
context of most cognizable challenges to mobile broadband coverage 
data, service providers submit on-the-ground speed test data into the 
BDC system to rebut the challenge.
    37. The Commission maintains these data in the BDC system and 
supplemental data storage infrastructure. All of the public (i.e., non-
confidential) data are made available for view and download from the 
NBM. However, the Commission has not adopted a set data-retention 
period for how long service providers must preserve their availability, 
subscription, and supporting data or data used to respond to 
challenges, verification inquiries or audits.
    38. Discussion. We propose that broadband service providers be 
required to retain the underlying data used to create their biannual 
submissions (including subscription data and supporting data) for at 
least three years from the applicable ``as-of'' date (e.g., data used 
to create a biannual submission for the June 30, 2024, reporting period 
would need to be retained until June 30, 2027). In addition, we propose 
that providers be required to retain the data used to respond to 
challenges, verification inquiries, and audits for a period of three 
years from the date the provider receives the challenge, verification 
inquiry, or notification of Commission initiation of an audit. These 
requirements, if adopted, would go into effect following the effective 
date of final rules implementing the new data retention periods. We 
seek comment on these proposals.
    39. The Commission requires entities to retain records for 
applicable data-retention periods in several of its programs. For 
example, entities that have equipment subject to the equipment 
authorization procedures must retain the records associated with the 
authorizations. For equipment that must be certified, ``records shall 
be retained for a one year period after the marketing of the associated 
equipment has been permanently discontinued.'' The equipment 
authorization rules require entities to retain all other records for a 
two-year period. The rules specify what data must be collected and 
maintained. Each of the Commission's Universal Service Fund programs 
also include record retention requirements ranging from three to 10 
years.
    40. Just as with entities who participate in these other FCC 
programs, broadband service providers must know for how long they 
should retain their biannual submissions and the underlying data used 
to create them. We seek comment on a three-year data retention rule for 
these data. We believe that the needs of the BDC program support a 
three-year retention period, based upon the timeline from the relevant 
as-of date of a biannual availability filing to collection and 
publication of the data, followed by challenge and verification efforts 
by Commission staff and, finally, the downstream uses of the data in 
various funding programs. Do commenters agree? What are the benefits 
and

[[Page 66311]]

burdens of retaining the data for three years? Should we adopt a 
different retention period, such as five years or possibly longer? 
Commenters advocating for a longer data-retention period should explain 
the benefits of a longer retention period and why the benefits outweigh 
the burdens on providers associated with a longer data-retention 
period. We propose to adopt a uniform data-retention period for all of 
the availability, subscription, and supporting data. Are there reasons 
to adopt different data-retention requirements for certain types of 
data or portions of the data collection and, if so, what would these 
be? Are the burdens on smaller providers disproportionately large 
compared to larger providers? Does the benefit of having uniform 
retention rules outweigh any such difference in burden on smaller 
providers?
    41. We also seek comment on whether a three-year retention period 
for data involving challenges, verification inquiries, and audits is 
sufficient. We propose to adopt the same data-retention period for 
challenge, verification, and audit response data as for underlying 
biannual submission data in order to avoid confusion and to provide 
administrative ease for filers. But should we adopt a longer (or 
shorter) retention period for these data? As in the case of 
availability data, we seek comment on whether we should adopt a uniform 
data-retention period for all types of challenge, verification, and 
audit response data or if different requirements should apply to 
certain portions of the data. For example, mobile wireless service 
providers that respond to challenges or verification inquiries with 
infrastructure data are required to submit cell-loading data in 15-
minute intervals for a one-week period. Should we be concerned that 
this amount of cell-loading data would be so voluminous to store and 
maintain that requiring their retention for three years would be unduly 
burdensome? We also propose to adopt the same retention rules for all 
providers given that our need to verify and audit data and resolve 
challenges extends across all industry segments. But are there reasons 
why we should adopt different standards for some providers or for 
different technologies? Should the Commission adopt any additional 
requirements related to challenge, verification or audit response data?
2. Sharing Fabric Challenges With Providers
    42. To facilitate the development of new versions of the Fabric, we 
seek comment on the processes and timing for sharing Fabric challenges 
with providers.
    43. Background. In September 2022, shortly after the close of the 
inaugural BDC filing window, the Broadband Data Task Force announced 
that Fabric licensees could begin submitting bulk Fabric challenges 
through the BDC system. The Broadband Data Task Force limited these 
initial Fabric challenge submissions to bulk submissions because the 
NBM interface was not yet publicly available. For the same reason, only 
entities who had access to location data through a Fabric license could 
submit bulk challenges given that the FCC had not yet published 
location data points on a publicly accessible version of the NBM. The 
Commission subsequently began accepting Fabric challenges from 
individual consumers and entities that had not executed a Fabric 
license agreement when the pre-production draft of the NBM was 
published. Using the NBM interface, consumers and other non-licensees 
were then able to submit data to challenge the information associated 
with Broadband Serviceable Locations (BSLs) reflected in the first 
version of the Fabric. The publication of the NBM also commenced the 
individual and bulk availability challenge processes.
    44. The Commission accepts Fabric challenges on an ongoing basis 
throughout the year, and a new version of the Fabric is released in 
connection with a biannual BDC submission round for the collection of 
fixed availability data (either as of June 30 or December 31 of each 
year). Creating the Fabric is a complex process that involves analyzing 
many data sources, including aerial and satellite imagery, address 
databases, land and local tax records; reconciling determinations 
against Fabric challenge adjudications; and preparing data files for 
Fabric licensees sufficiently in advance of the opening of a biannual 
BDC submission round. Successful challenges received early in the 
process of creating the new Fabric version are incorporated in the next 
Fabric release; those received too late to be incorporated into the 
process will be evaluated for inclusion in the following version of the 
Fabric. The Commission and CostQuest Associates, the Fabric data 
vendor, have processed Fabric challenges in this manner for each 
iteration of the Fabric.
    45. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA) 
amended the Broadband DATA Act to require that ``[t]he rules issued to 
establish the challenge process under subparagraph (A) shall include [ 
] a process for the speedy resolution of challenges, which shall 
require that the Commission resolve a challenge not later than 90 days 
after the date on which a final response by a provider to a challenge 
to the accuracy of a map or information described in subparagraph (A) 
is complete.'' Subparagraph (A) of section 642(b)(5) directs the 
Commission to ``establish a user-friendly challenge process . . . to 
challenge the accuracy of (i) the coverage maps; (ii) any information 
submitted by a provider regarding the availability of broadband 
internet access service; or (iii) the information included in the 
Fabric.'' In establishing the challenge processes, the Commission must 
both ``allow providers to respond to challenges submitted through the 
challenge process'' and ``develop an online mechanism, which . . . 
makes challenge data available in both geographic information system 
and non-geographic information system formats.''
    46. Discussion. Based on our experience with multiple cycles of 
Fabric challenges, allowing providers to directly respond to Fabric 
challenges while the most current Fabric is still being developed, 
rather than waiting until the next Fabric release, would require 
extensive resources and could lead to delays processing the Fabric. We 
therefore propose to amend our rules to eliminate the requirement that 
the BDC system alert a provider of accepted Fabric challenges and that 
service providers be afforded an opportunity to directly respond to 
Fabric challenges. Fabric challenge results are made available to 
providers upon final adjudication, and providers then have an 
opportunity to challenge any of the results with which they may 
disagree. Interposing a separate, in-cycle Fabric challenge process 
would, in most instances, require that the Commission and CostQuest 
delay the processing of the Fabric. We believe that any limited benefit 
of creating an in-cycle process for providers to directly respond to 
Fabric challenges does not outweigh the significant costs in terms of 
delaying the production of a subsequent iteration of the Fabric.
    47. As a practical matter, Fabric challenges do not dispute 
availability information submitted by providers but, rather, dispute 
information used by CostQuest to identify locations and the attributes 
of BSLs. Having now processed several rounds of Fabric challenges, data 
show that while some providers have submitted Fabric challenges that 
have resulted in updates to subsequent versions of the Fabric, it is 
unclear that providers (as a group) have better or more reliable 
geospatial data on BSL attributes than other groups (e.g., state, 
local, or Tribal governments,

[[Page 66312]]

consumers). Additionally, while it may be relatively straightforward to 
identify Fabric challenges to locations where a provider has previously 
reported making broadband service available, the vast majority of 
challenges to date have been to add a new BSL, which, by definition, 
does not implicate previously reported availability data (at least as 
to fixed service providers who report availability using a list of 
(preexisting) BSLs). Since providers have not previously analyzed 
whether broadband is available at these proposed locations, and 
Commission staff could only guess as to which providers it should 
notify of such challenges, it is also impractical to have providers 
directly respond to Fabric challenges. For these reasons, the 
information the Commission collects through the Fabric challenge 
process, along with the methods used to create the Fabric dataset, do 
not effectively allow for a process for service providers to directly 
respond to these challenges. Rather, we believe that the best way for 
internet service providers to ``respond'' to Fabric challenges within 
their availability footprints would be to continue to submit follow-on 
challenges to challenged or new Fabric locations in a subsequent 
version of the Fabric. We seek comment on this proposal.
    48. We believe that this proposed Fabric challenge process is 
consistent with the Congressional intent in the Broadband DATA Act that 
we ``allow providers to respond to challenges submitted through the 
challenge process . . . .'' In the first instance, we interpret this 
clause as primarily, if not exclusively, intended to apply to 
availability challenges filed against service providers. Nothing in our 
proposed changes would alter the ability of service providers to 
respond directly to challenges to their fixed (and mobile) availability 
data. Moreover, unlike with availability challenges, where it is the 
provider's data that are being challenged and where the provider has 
particular interest and specific knowledge, with Fabric challenges, it 
is unclear the extent to which providers have more or better 
information than local consumers or governments or others filing 
challenges to the location information in the Fabric. Finally (and 
importantly), the FCC publishes data on in-progress Fabric challenges 
monthly, and on resolved Fabric challenges through the information it 
makes available when it publishes a new version of the Fabric. 
Providers are thereby able to ``respond'' to these pending or resolved 
Fabric challenges by filing subsequent, follow-on challenges to such 
challenges. We seek comment on this interpretation of the Broadband 
DATA Act.
    49. We seek comment on potential alternatives to this proposed 
process and specific proposals on how they might be implemented. For 
example, should we allow providers to view and directly respond to 
customized lists of non-Type-1 Fabric challenges to existing BSLs that 
fall within their service footprints? If so, then how could the 
Commission facilitate such a process without delaying the processing of 
Fabric challenges and the production schedule for subsequent iterations 
of the Fabric data? Should we also attempt to identify the internet 
service providers (ISP(s)) that may have an interest in Type-1 Fabric 
challenges to add new BSLs to the Fabric? If so, then what process 
should the Commission use to identify ISP(s) interested in these 
challenges? In particular, how would staff identify areas of interest 
for non-polygon availability data filers? Could staff create a buffer 
around the to-be-added location point, and provide notice to all 
service providers who report service at locations within a certain 
distance from the point? How could such a process be implemented 
without delaying the processing of Fabric challenges and the production 
schedule for subsequent iterations of the Fabric? Should the Commission 
delay processing of any challenges presented to ISPs for response? 
Doing so would mean setting aside such challenges for, e.g., 60 days, 
for providers to respond. That delay would effectively require that any 
challenges be incorporated into the next version of the Fabric. 
Alternatively, if the Commission does not delay processing of Fabric 
challenges for providers to respond, challenges might already be in the 
process of adjudication--or already adjudicated--before the ISP 
responds. In such cases, any ISP response would need to be treated as 
an additional challenge to the same location. Is there any advantage to 
having an ISP-specific process for a response instead of allowing ISPs 
to file additional challenges (an option that is already available to 
ISPs today)? Are there any additional measures we could implement to 
avoid delays in the event we were to allow for ISPs to directly respond 
to Fabric challenges? For example, the Commission already creates 
Fabric challenge adjudication files and change logs for Fabric 
licensees indicating changes made to the Fabric as a result of the 
challenge process (as well as updates made by the Commission and 
CostQuest). Should (and, if so, then how could) the FCC and CostQuest 
prepare similar (but separate and distinct) data files to identify 
pending Fabric challenges for ISPs that they may want to respond to?
    50. Finally, we propose to interpret section 60102(h)(2)(E)(i) of 
the IIJA as inapplicable to Fabric challenges and revise our rules to 
make this clear. The statute requires the Commission to resolve 
challenges ``not later than 90 days after the date on which a final 
response by a provider . . . is complete.'' To the extent we amend our 
rules to provide that an ISP does not ``respond'' to an initial Fabric 
challenge (and instead the Commission would resolve such challenges as 
part of its publication of a subsequent version of the Fabric), the 
deadline required under the statute would not apply to Fabric 
challenges. Do commenters agree with our proposed interpretation of the 
IIJA? We believe this approach to the Fabric challenge process would 
facilitate efficient resolution of challenges, consistent with the 
requirements of the IIJA, while maintaining the Commission's 
flexibility to assess data that may be submitted by providers through a 
subsequent challenge to a later iteration of the Fabric. We note that 
the majority of Fabric challenges are processed and resolved well 
within 90 days of submission, particularly those that can be resolved 
based on the data submitted by filers without any need for manual or 
secondary review of satellite imagery. Challenges that are deemed 
successful based on such processing need to be reconciled with and 
incorporated into the next version of the Fabric, and are therefore 
tied to the biannual cadence of Fabric releases (i.e., a challenge is 
only fully accepted when incorporated into the next Fabric vintage). 
Moreover, the Broadband Data Task Force has historically announced 
target dates for submitting Fabric challenges that will be processed in 
time for inclusion in the next iteration of the Fabric. Given that 
challenges submitted by this date are adjudicated in advance of the 
creation of the next release of Fabric data, these challenges are 
usually resolved approximately 90 days from the date of their filing.
3. Professional Engineering Certification
    51. We next seek comment on whether we should eliminate the 
requirement in our rules that parties submitting verified broadband 
data in the BDC provide a certification by a licensed professional 
engineer if not submitted by a corporate engineering officer. To 
address concerns about licensed professional engineer shortages, 
Wireline Competition Bureau

[[Page 66313]]

(WCB), OEA, and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) have waived 
this requirement for several filing periods and instead relied on other 
measures to ensure we receive accurate coverage maps that are based on 
data that are consistent with professional engineering standards. 
Accordingly, we seek comment on whether this requirement should be 
eliminated and replaced with other measures.
    52. Background. The Broadband DATA Act requires that broadband 
service providers ``shall include in each [BDC] submission a 
certification from a corporate officer of the provider that the officer 
has examined the information contained in the submission and that, to 
the best of the officer's actual knowledge, information, and belief, 
all statements of fact contained in the submission are true and 
correct.'' In the Third Report and Order, the Commission expanded this 
requirement so that, in addition to a certification from a corporate 
officer, service providers must also submit a certification by a 
qualified engineer, who must be either a certified professional 
engineer or a corporate engineering officer. The Commission noted that 
this engineering certification requirement also applies to government 
entities and third parties that submit verified broadband data. The 
Commission explained that the purpose of the engineering certification 
is to ``ensur[e] the accuracy of coverage maps and that they be based 
on data that are consistent with professional engineering standards.''
    53. WCB, OEA, and WTB have waived this requirement several times 
over the past several years due to a shortage of professional 
engineers. In May 2022, the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) 
filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling or Limited Waiver, asking the 
Commission to clarify that BDC filings may be certified by either an 
engineer licensed by the relevant state licensure board (i.e., a 
Professional Engineer (PE)) or an ``otherwise qualified engineer.'' In 
its Petition, CCA noted that ``[t]he RF [radio frequency] engineering 
community is characterized by a scarcity of licensed PEs'' because 
``[s]tate professional licensing boards issue PE licenses based on the 
fulfillment of state-specific education, examination, and experience 
requirements [and] states have generally not required PE licensure for 
RF engineers.'' CCA went on to assert that ``[t]he experience and 
expertise developed by RF engineers through their work provides 
comprehensive skills relevant to broadband deployment [and] . . . 
provides skills comparable to, and perhaps more relevant than, general 
licensure through the PE . . . exam process.''
    54. WCB, OEA, and WTB subsequently issued the 2022 BDC PE Order in 
which they (1) clarified that when a fixed or mobile provider submits a 
certification from a corporate engineering officer, such corporate 
engineering officer does not need to be a certified PE; and (2) waived 
the requirement that a fixed or mobile provider submit a certification 
from a ``certified professional engineer,'' allowing instead the 
submission of a certification completed by an otherwise-qualified 
engineer. In issuing the waiver, WCB, OEA, and WTB found that ``the 
lack of certified professional engineers specializing in RF engineering 
and broadband network design constitutes `special circumstances' that 
warrant a deviation from the general rule that certified professional 
engineers must certify the accuracy of providers' biannual BDC 
broadband data submissions.'' The waiver specified that an ``otherwise-
qualified'' engineer must meet certain minimum qualifications in lieu 
of state PE licensure in order to certify a BDC filing; specifically, 
the engineer must ``possess either: (i) a bachelor's or postgraduate 
degree in electrical engineering, electronic technology, or another 
similar technical discipline, and at least seven years of relevant 
experience in broadband network design and/or performance; or (ii) 
specialized training relevant to broadband network engineering and 
design, deployment, and/or performance, and at least ten years of 
relevant experience in broadband network engineering, design, and/or 
performance.'' The waiver applied to all mobile and fixed broadband 
service providers for each of the first three BDC filing cycles (i.e., 
data as of June 30, 2022, December 31, 2022, and June 30, 2023).
    55. In August 2023, CCA and USTelecom-The Broadband Association 
jointly submitted a petition to extend the 2022 BDC PE Order. The 
Waiver Extension Petition reported that circumstances had not changed 
for the industry in the year since adoption of the 2022 BDC PE Order. 
It further asserted that the minimum qualifications adopted for 
``otherwise-qualified'' engineers in the 2022 BDC PE Order required 
experience that ``provides skills comparable to, and perhaps more 
relevant than, general PE licensure in the context of the BDC.'' On 
November 30, 2023, WCB, OEA, and WTB granted the Waiver Extension 
Petition for another three filing cycles (i.e., data as of December 31, 
2023, June 30, 2024, and December 31, 2024), subject to certain 
conditions.
    56. Discussion. As noted above, since the inception of the BDC, we 
have granted multiple waivers of the certified PE requirement. We 
propose to permanently eliminate the requirement under Sec.  1.7004(d) 
that an engineering certification, to the extent not submitted by a 
corporate engineering officer, must be submitted by a certified PE. In 
its place we propose to amend Sec.  1.7004(d) to state that all 
providers must submit a certification to the accuracy of their 
submissions by a ``qualified engineer,'' and we propose to define 
``qualified engineer'' consistent with the engineering qualifications 
that WCB, OEA, and WTB adopted in the 2022 BDC PE Order and the PE 
Waiver Extension Order. We seek comment on our proposal.
    57. Specifically, we propose to allow for the engineering 
certification to be submitted by (i) a corporate officer possessing a 
Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in engineering degree and who has direct 
knowledge of and responsibility for the carrier's network design and 
construction; (ii) an engineer possessing a bachelor's or postgraduate 
degree in electrical engineering, electronic technology, or another 
similar technical discipline, and at least seven years of relevant 
experience in broadband network design and/or performance; or (iii) an 
employee with specialized training relevant to broadband network 
engineering and design, deployment, and/or performance, and at least 10 
years of relevant experience in broadband network engineering, design, 
and/or performance.
    58. We further propose to modify the rule to clarify that a 
certifying engineer does not necessarily need to be a full-time 
employee of the broadband service provider but instead could be an 
independent contractor or third-party consultant. We do, however, 
propose to maintain the remaining requirements in Sec.  1.7004(d), 
including that the certifying engineer: (i) has direct knowledge of, or 
responsibility for, the generation of the provider's BDC filing; and 
(ii) has examined the information contained in the BDC submission and 
that, to the best of the engineer's actual knowledge, information, and 
belief, all statements of fact contained in the submission are true and 
correct, and in accordance with the service provider's ordinary course 
of network design and engineering.
    59. In light of the other mechanisms available to the Commission, 
such as system validations and the existing corporate officer 
certification, we do not believe that a certification by a certified

[[Page 66314]]

PE is necessary to ensure the submission of high-quality data as part 
of the BDC. Moreover, the Commission has other tools at its disposal to 
ensure the ongoing improvement in BDC data, including the challenge, 
verification, and audit processes. Given all of these other processes, 
we do not believe the certified professional engineer requirement--at 
least in its current form--is necessary. Rather, we believe that the 
potential costs and burdens of the certified PE requirement outweigh 
its potential benefits. We propose that, consistent with our actions in 
the PE Waiver Extension Order, all providers be required to retain 
their infrastructure data in support of their biannual submissions and 
produce those data upon request as part of the Commission's efforts to 
validate availability data. We seek comment on these proposals and 
conclusions.
    60. Does the limited availability of certified PE resources since 
the launch of the BDC support modifying the current requirement? Do 
commenters believe that state licensure requirements will change in the 
near term such that certified PEs with RF or fixed broadband network 
deployment experience will become more available? We seek updated data 
on the availability of licensed PEs. Commenters who assert that 
certified PEs will soon become available should provide evidence in 
support of their claims.
    61. Assuming that we eliminate the requirement that a certified PE 
complete the engineering certification, do commenters agree that the 
alternative qualifications adopted in the 2022 BDC PE Order and the PE 
Waiver Extension Order are sufficient to ensure reliable BDC data are 
submitted by service providers? If commenters believe we should adopt 
different qualifications, what should those qualifications be and why 
should we adopt these qualifications rather than the qualifications in 
the prior waiver orders?
4. Audit and Verification Determinations
    62. We next seek comment on our rule and procedures governing 
determinations made as a result of audits and verifications, including 
the removal of locations or areas if an audit or verification 
determines the data are deficient or unverifiable.
    63. Background. As discussed earlier, the Broadband DATA Act 
requires that the Commission conduct audits to ensure that providers 
are complying with their reporting requirements. The Act also requires 
the Commission to verify the accuracy and reliability of availability 
data submissions in accordance with measures established by the 
Commission. In the final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the 
Federal Register, we delegate authority to OEA, in coordination with 
WTB, WCB, and SB to continue to perform audits and verifications using 
the tools currently available, including authority to establish 
methodologies and procedures for selecting service providers and 
locations or areas subject to verification or audit. At the conclusion 
of a verification or an audit, a provider must submit revised 
availability data to align with the conclusions of the verification or 
audit. In the case of mobile wireless coverage subject to a 
verification inquiry, we have also made clear that ``we may treat any 
targeted [mobile wireless coverage] areas that . . . fail verification 
as a failure to file required data in a timely manner and that the 
Commission may make modifications to the data presented on the 
broadband map (i.e., by removing some or all of the targeted area from 
the provider's coverage maps).'' But we have not been as explicit in 
announcing that similar procedures and remedies would apply in response 
to determinations made as a result of verification of fixed 
availability data or in the case of audits (of both fixed and mobile 
data).
    64. Discussion. We seek comment on formalized procedures to govern 
determinations made as a result of audits and verifications of 
information submitted by fixed and mobile broadband service providers 
in their biannual BDC submissions. Specifically, we seek comment on 
whether we should amend Sec.  1.7009 of the Commission's rules to 
explicitly state that Commission staff may remove locations or areas 
from a provider's availability data should an audit or verification 
find that the data are deficient or unverifiable. While we seek comment 
on whether amendments to Sec.  1.7009 would help to clarify for 
broadband service providers the potential ramifications stemming from a 
verification or audit, we emphasize that our doing so does not diminish 
our existing authority to remove locations or areas from a provider's 
claimed availability data on a case-by-case basis as a result of a 
verification or an audit.
    65. Section 1.7009(d) requires that providers ``file corrected data 
when they discover inaccuracy, omission, or significant reporting error 
in the original data that they submitted, whether through self-
discovery, the crowdsource process, the challenge process, the 
Commission verification process, or otherwise.'' We tentatively 
conclude that it would be beneficial to clarify in our rule that, in 
the event a provider's response to a verification inquiry or an audit 
does not support its availability filing--whether due to an incomplete 
response or where the response demonstrates that service is not 
available--pursuant to Sec.  1.7009(d)(1), the provider must correct 
its availability data within 30 days of OEA or WTB, WCB, or SB (as 
relevant), notifying the provider of this finding. Consistent with our 
statutory obligations, and our processes for mobile wireless coverage 
verifications, in the event of an adverse audit or verification finding 
that is not appealed, or, in the event of an appeal, by a Commission 
decision resolving the appeal adversely to the provider, we propose 
that the failure to correct data within the 30-day timeframe may result 
in OEA, in coordination with WTB, WCB, or SB (as relevant), amending or 
removing from the NBM the provider's availability data. For example, an 
adverse audit determination would give the provider 30 days to either 
appeal the decision or to submit corrected data regarding specified 
areas; in the event the provider does not appeal the adverse audit 
decision, and does not submit corrected data within 30 days, OEA may 
remove the targeted areas subject to the audit from the NBM. 
Alternatively, OEA may determine that the provider's data are so 
unreliable as to warrant removal of all of the provider's availability 
data (not just for the targeted areas) from the NBM. In either 
scenario, the BDC will notify the provider in writing of either the 
alternation or removal of the provider's data. We find that this 
procedure is consistent with our statutory obligation to publish 
verified data and the current Commission process. We additionally note 
that the Commission already has established rules to submit an 
application for review of action taken pursuant to delegated authority, 
and a petition for reconsideration in a non-rulemaking proceeding that 
providers may avail themselves of in the event of an unfavorable 
bureau-level determination. We seek comment on this proposal.
5. Data Requirements for Restoration of Locations Lost or Conceded to 
Challenges
    66. We seek comment on the data requirements for restoring 
locations or areas where infrastructure data under the existing data 
specifications are not relevant to the underlying fixed challenge code, 
and also seek comment on using speed test data for restoration of 
mobile coverage areas.
    67. Background. In the Declaratory Ruling in the final rule 
published

[[Page 66315]]

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we clarify that in 
instances where a provider's claimed availability at a location or area 
was previously removed from the NBM as a result of a challenge, 
verification or audit, the provider may submit evidence in a subsequent 
BDC filing window demonstrating that it can make service available at 
that location or area and that the circumstances surrounding the 
previous removal no longer exist. As discussed in further detail above, 
this process is consistent with providers' obligations to report 
accurate data about the broadband services that they make available on 
a biannual basis, and is necessary to advance the Commission's goal of 
publishing accurate and precise data about where internet services are, 
and are not, available across the United States.
    68. Fixed Availability Challenges. As noted above, in the case of 
most types of fixed challenges, the Commission would evaluate 
infrastructure data, such as the information contained in the Data 
Specifications for Provider Infrastructure Data in the Challenge, 
Verification, and Audit Processes, to confirm that the provider makes 
the claimed service available and therefore to substantiate a location 
restoration. While infrastructure data is relevant to location 
restoration in most instances, there are specific fixed challenge 
reason codes where this type of data may not be as closely aligned with 
the reason for the challenge. For example, fixed service can be 
challenged based on a showing that the provider requested more than a 
standard installation fee to connect the location with service (i.e., 
Challenge Category Code 3), or the provider failed to schedule a 
service installation within 10 business days (Challenge Category Code 
1), or the provider did not install service at the agreed upon time 
(Challenge Category Code 2). In these instances, infrastructure data 
may not adequately demonstrate that the location presently warrants 
being restored to the NBM. This may be particularly so in the case of 
individual challenges, since they are more likely to capture unique 
attributes of a single location (such as a long driveway, a large hill, 
unique topography or building materials, etc.), as compared to bulk 
challenges that typically implicate several locations in a community 
and more often relate to a lack of infrastructure.
    69. We propose to implement these requirements through revisions 
and updates to the data specification to account for the information a 
provider must submit when seeking to restore a location lost or 
conceded to fixed Challenge Category Codes 1, 2, and 3 (or other cases 
where infrastructure data would not be informative of whether or not to 
restore the location). We seek comment on the types of data or evidence 
that should be considered to justify restoration of locations 
previously conceded or lost to fixed Challenge Category Codes 1, 2, and 
3 or other cases where infrastructure data would not be informative of 
whether or not to restore the location. What type of information would 
sufficiently demonstrate that a provider can make service available 
with a standard installation fee, or within 10 business days? Should 
different types of evidence be provided for individual as compared to 
bulk challenges submitted under these Challenge Category Codes? What 
type of information supports a provider's ability to schedule 
installation within 10 business days of a request for service when it 
previously could not do so at a particular location? Should we allow 
locations which were removed under these circumstances to be restored 
after a certain amount of time has passed? If so, what is the 
appropriate amount of time that must pass, and should we seek any 
supporting information to restore those locations aside from the 
passage of time?
    70. Mobile Availability Challenges. Similarly, the Commission will 
consider infrastructure data to confirm that a mobile provider makes 
the claimed service available and therefore to substantiate restoration 
of a Removed Area resulting from a successful mobile challenge (or 
verification inquiry or audit). In addition to infrastructure data, we 
seek comment on whether we should also allow mobile providers to 
restore an area by providing on-the-ground speed test data. Could speed 
test data sufficiently support restoration of a previously removed 
hexagon? Under what circumstances should we accept on-the-ground speed 
test data (either in lieu of, or in addition to, infrastructure data) 
when a mobile provider seeks to restore a Removed Area? In the event we 
were to allow for submission of speed test data, should we require 
mobile service providers to collect these data using the parameters 
adopted for submittal of mobile challenge rebuttal speed test data, or 
are there different parameters to the speed testing methodology that we 
should seek for this type of data to support restoration? For 
additional speed test data to support restoration, is it necessary that 
the tests are conducted after the challenge has been upheld, or could 
the tests be collected any time after the as-of date of the relevant 
BDC data vintage? If commenters believe that tests should be conducted 
after the challenge has been resolved, should we require a certain 
amount of time to pass before we find such data compelling? We propose 
to implement these requirements through revisions and updates to the 
data specification for the information a mobile wireless service 
provider must submit when seeking to restore a previously Removed Area, 
should we allow for submission of speed test data. We seek comment on 
these proposals.
6. Aligning Reporting Requirements for Broadband Availability and 
Subscribership Data
    71. Background. While broadband availability data are now gathered 
through the BDC, the Commission continues to collect counts of 
``broadband connections'' in service--broadband subscribership--using 
the FCC Form 477. Facilities-based entities providing internet access 
service currently submit information for both the BDC and Form 477 
within a common online filing application. The data about broadband 
availability collected pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act and BDC 
rules, as well as the data about broadband connections (i.e., 
subscriptions) collected under the Form 477 rules, are separately 
validated as they are ingested by the BDC system, and then checked 
against each other to ensure consistency and accuracy after individual 
files are ingested and prior to entities certifying and submitting 
their biannual submissions.
    72. The operational definition of ``broadband'' in the context of 
FCC Form 477 subscribership is slightly different than that used in the 
BDC for broadband availability. As noted above, the Broadband DATA Act 
defines ``broadband internet access service'' for purposes of the BDC 
as a ``mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the 
capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or 
substantially all internet endpoints, including any capabilities that 
are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications 
service, but excluding dial-up internet access service.'' The existing 
Form 477 rules define a ``broadband connection'' as a ``wired line, 
wireless channel, or satellite service that terminates at an end user 
location or mobile device and enables the end user to receive 
information from and/or send information to the internet at information 
transfer rates exceeding 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one 
direction.''

[[Page 66316]]

    73. Discussion. We propose to modify the definition of ``broadband 
connection'' used in Form 477 so that it aligns with the definition of 
``broadband internet access service'' used in the BDC. Specifically, we 
propose to require facilities-based providers of broadband internet 
access service to submit in Form 477 counts of ``broadband internet 
access service connections'' in service, with that term defined as 
connections that provide mass-market broadband internet access as 
defined and described in 47 CFR 8.1(b). This change would put the Form 
477 on the same definitional footing as the BDC, as well as Broadband 
Labeling. Taking this step would also be consistent with the Broadband 
DATA Act's direction to the Commission to ``harmonize reporting 
requirements and procedures regarding the deployment of broadband 
internet access service'' for the FCC Form 477 with those adopted for 
the BDC. We believe our proposal will allow the Commission to 
streamline its rules, reduce confusion among filers, and impose 
consistency on the broadband data it collects in the BDC and FCC Form 
477. We seek comment on this proposal.
    74. We believe the definition of broadband internet access service 
is, on net, narrower than the definition of a broadband connection. 
Broadband connections are not limited to include only ``mass-market 
retail'' services. Such connections therefore include those providing 
types of internet access services that are not sold on a standardized 
basis. These non-mass market connections are currently in scope for 
reporting on FCC Form 477 but not in the BDC. Changing the Form 477 
rules to focus solely on mass-market services would render custom 
internet access services out of scope for that collection, and 
providers specializing purely in such services would no longer be 
required to file. Within the Form 477, there is currently no way to 
determine the share of total reported broadband connections that are 
sold as non-mass market services, but our expectation is that it is 
small. In addition, such connections are arguably sold into a different 
market. Given that, we seek comment on whether no longer collecting 
data on such connections is worthwhile, particularly in light of the 
reduced filing burden to providers of such services and the benefits of 
data consistency.
    75. An alternative to conforming the scope of the Form 477 to meet 
the BDC, is to instead change the Form 477 to capture mass market and 
non-mass market connections separately. That is, in addition to the 
current requirement to separately report ``consumer'' and ``total'' 
broadband connections in service, the Commission could require filers 
to further parse consumer, and by extension, non-consumer, connections 
based on whether the connections are mass market or not. This would 
likely increase the burden on filers but would make it possible to 
compare the Form 477 data on mass-market broadband connections in 
service to the BDC availability data, as well as other broadband data 
collections, while leaving the scope of the Form 477 unchanged. We 
invite comment on this alternative approach.
7. New Rule Subsection for Fabric Challenge Process
    76. Finally, we seek comment on changes to our rules to better 
distinguish between fixed availability and Fabric challenge processes. 
The current rules for Fabric challenges are nested within a section of 
the BDC rules titled ``Fixed service challenge process'' (47 CFR 
1.7006(d)). This section largely addresses the rules for the submission 
and processing of fixed availability challenges. But the fixed 
availability and Fabric challenge processes are different, and many of 
the provisions in rule Sec.  1.7006(d) are either inapplicable or not 
well suited to the Fabric challenge process. Further, the reference in 
the first sentence of the rule to ``challenge[s to] the accuracy of the 
coverage maps at a particular location, any information submitted by a 
provider regarding the availability of broadband internet access 
service, or the Fabric'' creates a potential misconception that all 
provisions of the rule apply equally to both fixed availability and 
Fabric challenges.
    77. We propose amending Sec.  1.7006 of the Commission's rules to 
create a new subsection for the Fabric challenge process and to remove 
the Fabric challenge provisions in Sec.  1.7006(d) from those pertinent 
to the fixed availability challenge process. We seek comment on our 
proposal to create a new subsection in rule Sec.  1.7006 for Fabric 
challenges.
    78. Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion. The Commission, as part 
of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including 
people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural 
or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically 
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty 
or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations, 
and invites comment on any benefits (if any) that may be associated 
with the proposals and issues discussed herein. Specifically, we seek 
comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in 
diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well as the scope 
of the Commission's relevant legal authority.
    79. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The Fourth Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (Fourth FNPRM) may contain new and modified 
information collection requirements subject to the PRA, Public Law 104-
13. The Office of Management and Budget, the general public, and other 
Federal agencies are invited to comment on new or modified information 
collection requirements contained in the Fourth FNPRM.

II. Ordering Clauses

    80. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1 through 4, 
7, 201, 254, 301, 303, 309, 319, 332, 403, and 641 through 646 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 154, 157, 
201, 254, 301, 303, 309, 319, 332, 403, 641 through 646, the Fourth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.
    81. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures 
set forth in Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Fourth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before 30 days following 
publication in the Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 60 
days following publication in the Federal Register.
    82. It is further ordered that the Office of the Secretary shall 
send a copy of the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    83. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (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 the Fourth 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 Fourth FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of 
the Fourth FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Fourth 
FNPRM and IRFA

[[Page 66317]]

(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    84. The Commission continues its ongoing efforts to collect 
accurate and granular broadband deployment data so that we can bring 
broadband to those areas most in need of it. In the Fourth FNPRM, the 
Commission proposes targeted changes designed to either improve the 
processes for filers or to further ensure that we continue to receive 
high-quality data through our data collection efforts and seeks comment 
on additional steps we can take to obtain more reliable data on the 
availability and quality of service of broadband internet access. 
Specifically, we seek comment on proposed enhancements to the 
availability data filing process, as well as possible clarifications to 
several of our data-validation tools. This includes revising our 
definition of broadband availability to exclude legacy services, 
collecting terrestrial fixed wireless call sign data, obtaining 
supporting data from satellite service providers, data retention 
requirements, and audit rules and processes.

B. Legal Basis

    85. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1-5, 
201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 405, and 
641-646 of the Communications Act of 1934.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Would Apply

    86. 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 SBA.
Total Small Entities
    87. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the 
outset, three broad groups of small entities 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 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 33.2 million 
businesses.
    88. 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.'' 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for 
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were 
approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting 
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data 
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
    89. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 
90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose 
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of 
this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, 
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 
and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts) 
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on 
the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 
48,724 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
Broadband Internet Access Service Providers
    90. To ensure that this IRFA describes the universe of small 
entities that our action might affect, we discuss in turn several 
different types of entities that might be providing broadband internet 
access service.
    91. Wired Broadband Internet Access Service Providers (Wired ISPs). 
Providers of wired broadband internet access service include various 
types of providers except dial-up internet access providers. Wireline 
service that terminates at an end user location or mobile device and 
enables the end user to receive information from and/or send 
information to the internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 
kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction is classified as a 
broadband connection under the Commission's rules. Wired broadband 
internet services fall in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers 
industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry 
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in 
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated 
with fewer than 250 employees.
    92. Additionally, according to Commission data on internet access 
services as of June 30, 2019, nationwide there were approximately 2,747 
providers of connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction using 
various wireline technologies. The Commission does not collect data on 
the number of employees for providers of these services, therefore, at 
this time we are not able to estimate the number of providers that 
would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. 
However, in light of the general data on fixed technology service 
providers in the Commission's 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, 
we believe that the majority of wireline internet access service 
providers can be considered small entities.
    93. Internet Service Providers (Non-Broadband). Internet access 
service providers using client-supplied telecommunications connections 
(e.g., dial-up ISPs) as well as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 
service providers using client-supplied telecommunications connections 
fall in the industry classification of All Other Telecommunications. 
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms 
with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. For this 
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 
firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those 
firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Consequently, under 
the SBA size standard a majority of firms in this industry can be 
considered small.
Wireline Providers
    94. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating 
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure 
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of

[[Page 66318]]

voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to 
as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers.
    95. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers 
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    96. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services 
include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service 
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry 
with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local 
service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers 
that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have 
1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business 
size standard, most of these providers can be considered small 
entities.
    97. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small 
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 providers 
that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that 916 providers have 1,500 
or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size 
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local 
exchange carriers can be considered small entities.
    98. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small 
businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. 
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local 
exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this 
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, 
there were 3,378 providers that reported they were competitive local 
exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 3,230 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
    99. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for 
Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the 
closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA 
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers 
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in 
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated 
with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data 
in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 
2021, there were 127 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 109 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry 
can be considered small entities.
    100. Operator Service Providers (OSPs). Neither the Commission nor 
the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
operator service providers. The closest applicable industry with an SBA 
small business size standard is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The 
SBA small business size standard classifies a business as small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 
that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 20 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of operator 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that all 20 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, all of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    101. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to 
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not 
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service 
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, 
or toll resellers. Wired

[[Page 66319]]

Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small 
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 90 providers 
that reported they were engaged in the provision of other toll 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 87 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile
    102. The broadband internet access service provider category 
covered by the Fourth FNPRM may cover multiple wireless firms and 
categories of wireless services. Thus, to the extent the wireless 
services listed below are used by wireless firms for broadband internet 
access service, the proposed actions may have an impact on those small 
businesses as set forth above and further below. In addition, for those 
services subject to auctions, we note that, as a general matter, the 
number of winning bidders that claim to qualify as small businesses at 
the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of 
small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not 
generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of 
assignments and transfers or reportable eligibility events, unjust 
enrichment issues are implicated.
    103. 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 
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    104. Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications 
Services (WCS) can be used for a variety of fixed, mobile, 
radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite services. 
Wireless spectrum is made available and licensed for the provision of 
wireless communications services in several frequency bands subject to 
part 27 of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business 
size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size 
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire 
year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 
Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a 
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    105. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to 
WCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in 
the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in 
WCS. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in 
WCS frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of 
small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and 
entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in 
conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified 
in the designated entities section in part 27 of the Commission's rules 
for the specific WCS frequency bands.
    106. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    107. 1670-1675 MHz Services. These wireless communications services 
can be used for fixed and mobile uses, except aeronautical mobile. 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest 
industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to these 
services. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business 
as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this 
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed 
fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can 
be considered small.
    108. According to Commission data as of November 2021, there were 
three active licenses in this service. The Commission's small business 
size standards with respect to 1670-1675 MHz Services involve 
eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction 
of licenses for these services. For licenses in the 1670-1675 MHz 
service band, a ``small business'' is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, 
and a ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual 
gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. 
The 1670-1675 MHz service band auction's winning bidder did not claim 
small business status.
    109. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

[[Page 66320]]

    110. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, 
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio 
telephony carriers. The closest applicable industry with an SBA small 
business size standard is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite). The size standard for this industry under SBA rules is that 
a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this 
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 
firms that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms 
employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission 
data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 
31, 2021, there were 331 providers that reported they were engaged in 
the provision of cellular, personal communications services, and 
specialized mobile radio services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 255 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
    111. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband 
personal communications services (PCS) spectrum encompasses services in 
the 1850-1910 and 1930-1990 MHz bands. The closest industry with an SBA 
small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The SBA small business 
size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 
that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the 
entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates 
that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    112. Based on Commission data as of November 2021, there were 
approximately 5,060 active licenses in the Broadband PCS service. The 
Commission's small business size standards with respect to Broadband 
PCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in 
the auction of licenses for these services. In auctions for these 
licenses, the Commission defined ``small business'' as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, 
and a ``very small business'' as an entity that, together with its 
affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross 
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. 
Winning bidders claiming small business credits won Broadband PCS 
licenses in C, D, E, and F Blocks.
    113. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these, at this time we are not able to estimate the 
number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small 
under the SBA's small business size standard.
    114. Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses. Special Mobile Radio (SMR) 
licenses allow licensees to provide land mobile communications services 
(other than radiolocation services) in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz spectrum 
bands on a commercial basis including but not limited to services used 
for voice and data communications, paging, and facsimile services, to 
individuals, Federal Government entities, and other entities licensed 
under part 90 of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small 
business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA size 
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that 
operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, 
there were 95 providers that reported they were of SMR (dispatch) 
providers. Of this number, the Commission estimates that all 95 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, these 119 SMR licensees can be considered 
small entities.
    115. Based on Commission data as of December 2021, there were 3,924 
active SMR licenses. However, since the Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for licensees providing SMR services, 
at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with 
active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small 
business size standard. Nevertheless, for purposes of this analysis the 
Commission estimates that the majority of SMR licensees can be 
considered small entities using the SBA's small business size standard.
    116. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The lower 700 MHz band 
encompasses spectrum in the 698-746 MHz frequency bands. Permissible 
operations in these bands include flexible fixed, mobile, and broadcast 
uses, including mobile and other digital new broadcast operation; fixed 
and mobile wireless commercial services (including frequency division 
duplex (FDD)- and time division duplex (TDD)-based services); as well 
as fixed and mobile wireless uses for private, internal radio needs, 
two-way interactive, cellular, and mobile television broadcasting 
services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is 
the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard 
applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. The SBA small 
business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small 
if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 
show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the 
entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates 
that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    117. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 2,824 active Lower 700 MHz Band licenses. The 
Commission's small business size standards with respect to Lower 700 
MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and 
installment payments in the auction of licenses. For auctions of Lower 
700 MHz Band licenses the Commission adopted criteria for three groups 
of small businesses. A very small business was defined as an entity 
that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has 
average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the 
preceding three years, a small business was defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, 
and an entrepreneur was defined as an entity that, together with its 
affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not 
exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. In auctions for 
Lower 700 MHz Band licenses seventy-two winning bidders claiming a 
small business classification won 329 licenses, twenty-six winning 
bidders

[[Page 66321]]

claiming a small business classification won 214 licenses, and three 
winning bidders claiming a small business classification won all five 
auctioned licenses.
    118. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    119. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. The upper 700 MHz band 
encompasses spectrum in the 746-806 MHz bands. Upper 700 MHz D Block 
licenses are nationwide licenses associated with the 758-763 MHz and 
788-793 MHz bands. Permissible operations in these bands include 
flexible fixed, mobile, and broadcast uses, including mobile and other 
digital new broadcast operation; fixed and mobile wireless commercial 
services (including FDD- and TDD-based services); as well as fixed and 
mobile wireless uses for private, internal radio needs, two-way 
interactive, cellular, and mobile television broadcasting services. 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest 
industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to 
licenses providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size 
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire 
year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 
Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a 
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    120. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 152 active Upper 700 MHz Band licenses. The Commission's 
small business size standards with respect to Upper 700 MHz Band 
licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment 
payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses, 
the Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a 
``very small business'' an entity that, together with its affiliates 
and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not 
more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Pursuant to these 
definitions, three winning bidders claiming very small business status 
won five of the twelve available licenses.
    121. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    122. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. The 700 MHz Guard Band 
encompasses spectrum in 746-747/776-777 MHz and 762-764/792-794 MHz 
frequency bands. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size 
standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. The 
SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a 
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in 
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed 
fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can 
be considered small.
    123. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 224 active 700 MHz Guard Band licenses. The Commission's 
small business size standards with respect to 700 MHz Guard Band 
licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment 
payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses, 
the Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a 
``very small business'' an entity that, together with its affiliates 
and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not 
more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Pursuant to these 
definitions, five winning bidders claiming one of the small business 
status classifications won 26 licenses, and one winning bidder claiming 
small business won two licenses. None of the winning bidders claiming a 
small business status classification in these 700 MHz Guard Band 
license auctions had an active license as of December 2021.
    124. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    125. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. Air-Ground Radiotelephone 
Service is a wireless service in which licensees are authorized to 
offer and provide radio telecommunications service for hire to 
subscribers in aircraft. A licensee may provide any type of air-ground 
service (i.e., voice telephony, broadband internet, data, etc.) to 
aircraft of any type, and serve any or all aviation markets 
(commercial, government, and general). A licensee must provide service 
to aircraft and may not provide ancillary land mobile or fixed services 
in the 800 MHz air-ground spectrum.
    126. The closest industry with an SBA small business size standard 
applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite). The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this 
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the 
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of 
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    127. Based on Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately four licensees with 110 active licenses in the Air-Ground 
Radiotelephone Service. The

[[Page 66322]]

Commission's small business size standards with respect to Air-Ground 
Radiotelephone Service involve eligibility for bidding credits and 
installment payments in the auction of licenses. For purposes of 
auctions, the Commission defined ``small business'' as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, 
and a ``very small business'' as an entity that, together with its 
affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross 
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. In 
the auction of Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 800 
MHz band, neither of the two winning bidders claimed small business 
status.
    128. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, the Commission 
does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees 
providing these services therefore, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    129. Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)--(1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 
MHz bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 
2175-2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3); 2000-2020 MHz 
and 2180-2200 MHz (AWS-4)). Spectrum is made available and licensed in 
these bands for the provision of various wireless communications 
services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is 
the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard 
applicable to these services. The SBA small business size standard for 
this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this 
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the 
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of 
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    130. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 4,472 active AWS licenses. The Commission's small 
business size standards with respect to AWS involve eligibility for 
bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for 
these services. For the auction of AWS licenses, the Commission defined 
a ``small business'' as an entity with average annual gross revenues 
for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a ``very 
small business'' as an entity with average annual gross revenues for 
the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. Pursuant to these 
definitions, 57 winning bidders claiming status as small or very small 
businesses won 215 of 1,087 licenses. In the most recent auction of AWS 
licenses 15 of 37 bidders qualifying for status as small or very small 
businesses won licenses.
    131. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    132. 3650-3700 MHz band. Wireless broadband service licensing in 
the 3650-3700 MHz band provides for nationwide, non-exclusive licensing 
of terrestrial operations, utilizing contention-based technologies, in 
the 3650 MHz band (i.e., 3650-3700 MHz). Licensees are permitted to 
provide services on a non-common carrier and/or on a common carrier 
basis. Wireless broadband services in the 3650-3700 MHz band fall in 
the Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) industry 
with an SBA small business size standard that classifies a business as 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry 
for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 
250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission 
estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be 
considered small.
    133. The Commission has not developed a small business size 
standard applicable to 3650-3700 MHz band licensees. Based on the 
licenses that have been granted, however, we estimate that the majority 
of licensees in this service are small internet Access Service 
Providers (ISPs). As of November 2021, Commission data shows that there 
were 902 active licenses in the 3650-3700 MHz band. However, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    134. Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed microwave services include 
common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary 
radio services. They also include the Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
Service (UMFUS), Millimeter Wave Service (70/80/90 GHz), Local 
Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message 
Service (DEMS), 24 GHz Service, Multiple Address Systems (MAS), and 
Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS), where in some 
bands licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common 
carrier status. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) 
is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard 
applicable to these services. The SBA small size standard for this 
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this 
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the 
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of fixed 
microwave service licensees can be considered small.
    135. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to 
fixed microwave services involve eligibility for bidding credits and 
installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various 
frequency bands included in fixed microwave services. When bidding 
credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in fixed microwave 
services frequency bands, such credits may be available to several 
types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very 
small and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules 
adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as 
identified in part 101 of the Commission's rules for the specific fixed 
microwave services frequency bands.

[[Page 66323]]

    136. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    137. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. 
Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint 
Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution 
Service (MMDS) systems, and ``wireless cable,'' transmit video 
programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data 
operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio 
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously 
referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)). 
Wireless cable operators that use spectrum in the BRS often 
supplemented with leased channels from the EBS, provide a competitive 
alternative to wired cable and other multichannel video programming 
distributors. Wireless cable programming to subscribers resembles cable 
television, but instead of coaxial cable, wireless cable uses microwave 
channels.
    138. In light of the use of wireless frequencies by BRS and EBS 
services, the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard 
applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite). The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this 
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the 
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of 
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    139. According to Commission data as December 2021, there were 
approximately 5,869 active BRS and EBS licenses. The Commission's small 
business size standards with respect to BRS involves eligibility for 
bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for 
these services. For the auction of BRS licenses, the Commission adopted 
criteria for three groups of small businesses. A very small business is 
an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, 
has average annual gross revenues exceed $3 million and did not exceed 
$15 million for the preceding three years, a small business is an 
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, 
has average gross revenues exceed $15 million and did not exceed $40 
million for the preceding three years, and an entrepreneur is an entity 
that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has 
average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three 
years. Of the ten winning bidders for BRS licenses, two bidders 
claiming the small business status won 4 licenses, one bidder claiming 
the very small business status won three licenses and two bidders 
claiming entrepreneur status won six licenses. One of the winning 
bidders claiming a small business status classification in the BRS 
license auction has an active licenses as of December 2021.
    140. The Commission's small business size standards for EBS define 
a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates, its 
controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, 
has average gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the 
preceding five (5) years, and a very small business is an entity that, 
together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the 
affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues 
that are not more than $20 million for the preceding five (5) years. In 
frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission 
notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that 
qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not 
necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in 
service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
Satellite Service Providers
    141. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms 
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other 
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by 
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of 
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite 
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth 
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual 
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms 
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, a little more than half of these 
providers can be considered small entities.
    142. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of 
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of 
internet services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or VoIP services, via client-
supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this 
industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry 
classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in 
this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 
had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.

[[Page 66324]]

Cable Service Providers
    143. Because section 706 of the Act requires us to monitor the 
deployment of broadband using any technology, we anticipate that some 
broadband service providers may not provide telephone service. 
Accordingly, we describe below other types of firms that may provide 
broadband services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and 
utilities, among others.
    144. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. The U.S. Census 
Bureau defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in 
operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a 
subscription or fee basis. The broadcast programming is typically 
narrowcast in nature (e.g., limited format, such as news, sports, 
education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce programming 
in their own facilities or acquire programming from external sources. 
The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as 
cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to 
viewers. The SBA small business size standard for this industry 
classifies firms with annual receipts less than $41.5 million as small. 
Based on U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017, 378 firms operated in this 
industry during that year. Of that number, 149 firms operated with 
revenue of less than $25 million a year and 44 firms operated with 
revenue of $25 million or more. Based on this data, the Commission 
estimates that a majority of firms in this industry are small.
    145. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission 
has developed its own small business size standard for the purpose of 
cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable 
company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Based 
on industry data, there are about 420 cable companies in the U.S. Of 
these, only seven have more than 400,000 subscribers. In addition, 
under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system 
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Based on industry data, there are 
about 4,139 cable systems (headends) in the U.S. Of these, about 639 
have more than 15,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of cable companies and cable systems are 
small.
    146. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a 
``small cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or 
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of 
all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any 
entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the 
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer 
than 498,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will 
meet the definition of a small cable operator. Based on industry data, 
only six cable system operators have more than 498,000 subscribers. 
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable system 
operators are small under this size standard. We note however, that the 
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable 
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual 
revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, we are unable at this time to 
estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators 
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the 
Communications Act.
All Other Telecommunications
    147. Electric Power Generators, Transmitters, and Distributors. The 
U.S. Census Bureau defines the utilities sector industry as comprised 
of ``establishments, primarily engaged in generating, transmitting, 
and/or distributing electric power. Establishments in this industry 
group may perform one or more of the following activities: (1) operate 
generation facilities that produce electric energy; (2) operate 
transmission systems that convey the electricity from the generation 
facility to the distribution system; and (3) operate distribution 
systems that convey electric power received from the generation 
facility or the transmission system to the final consumer.'' This 
industry group is categorized based on fuel source and includes 
Hydroelectric Power Generation, Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation, 
Nuclear Electric Power Generation, Solar Electric Power Generation, 
Wind Electric Power Generation, Geothermal Electric Power Generation, 
Biomass Electric Power Generation, Other Electric Power Generation, 
Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control and Electric Power 
Distribution.
    148. The SBA has established a small business size standard for 
each of these groups based on the number of employees which ranges from 
having fewer than 250 employees to having fewer than 1,000 employees. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 indicate that for the Electric Power 
Generation, Transmission and Distribution industry there were 1,693 
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this 
number, 1,552 firms had less than 250 employees. Based on this data and 
the associated SBA size standards, the majority of firms in this 
industry can be considered small entities.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
    149. Certain potential modifications proposed in the Fourth FNPRM, 
if adopted, would impose new reporting, recordkeeping, or other 
compliance requirements on some small entities while others would 
reduce the burden on such entities. Specifically, in the Fourth FNPRM, 
we propose enhancements to the availability data collection 
requirements that, if adopted, would amend our rules to continue to 
collect availability data on legacy services but to not include such 
services in the location-specific availability information published on 
the National Broadband Map. Once broadband internet access service has 
actually been discontinued, the filer would not be required to submit 
broadband availability data for the service upon the next subsequent 
BDC filing period following the grant of the discontinuance petition.
    150. In addition, the Commission proposes that fixed wireless 
filers reporting licensed service in their biannual BDC filings also be 
required to provide call sign data. We also propose updates to the BDC 
reporting requirements, that if adopted, would improve the quality of 
satellite service provider availability data submitted as part of the 
biannual data submission process. Specifically, we propose that 
satellite service providers must include, as a supporting data file 
accompanied with their biannual availability submissions, the 
infrastructure data set forth in BDC Infrastructure Data Specification.
    151. In addition, as a means of improving the accuracy and 
reliability of broadband internet access service data, the Commission 
proposes a number of methods to verify the information in the 
providers' filings, including adoption of data retention requirements 
and more specific audit procedures. Specifically, we propose that 
broadband service providers retain the underlying data used to create 
their availability filings (including supporting data) for three years 
from the applicable ``as-of'' date. Data used to rebut challenges or 
respond to verifications inquiries or audits would be retained for 
three years as well. In response to a BDC

[[Page 66325]]

audit request, providers would have 60 days to submit the applicable 
supporting documentation. The adoption of any of these verification 
processes could subject small entities and other providers to 
additional submission, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements.
    152. In addition, we propose to eliminate the requirement under 
rule Sec.  1.7004(d) that an engineering certification, to the extent 
not submitted by a corporate engineering officer, must be submitted by 
a licensed PE. Instead, we propose to amend rule Sec.  1.7004(d) to 
require that providers submit certifications by a ``qualified 
engineer,'' as defined by the engineering qualifications the Broadband 
Data Task Force adopted in previous orders. This certifying engineer 
would not need to be a full time employee, but would be required to 
have direct knowledge and familiarity with the BDC filing. We believe 
that the potential costs and burdens of the licensed PE requirement 
outweigh its potential benefits, and thus propose to eliminate the 
requirement.
    153. The issues raised for consideration and comment in the Fourth 
FNPRM may require small entities to hire attorneys, engineers, 
consultants, or other professionals. At this time, however, the 
Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with any potential 
rule changes and compliance obligations for small entities that may 
result from the Fourth FNPRM. We expect our requests for information on 
potential burdens on small entities associated with matters raised in 
the Fourth FNPRM will provide us with information to assist with our 
evaluation of the cost of compliance on small entities of any 
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements we adopt.

D. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

    154. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that could minimize impacts 
to small entities that it has considered in reaching its proposed 
approach, which may include (among others) the following four 
alternatives: (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 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.
    155. As an initial matter, several of the proposals in the Fourth 
FNPRM are unlikely to negatively impact small businesses. For example, 
we propose to eliminate the licensed professional engineering 
certification and instead propose to require certifications by a 
``qualified engineer,'' as defined in previous BDC orders. This 
proposal, if adopted, will save some small entities from having to pay 
a professional engineer to certify their filings. The Fourth FNPRM 
additionally proposes to keep confidential certain legacy availability 
data to protect customers' identity while still enabling the Commission 
to continue to analyze availability on ``grandfathered'' services.
    156. To assist the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact 
on small entities as a result of actions that may result from proposals 
and issues raised for consideration in the Fourth FNPRM, and to better 
explore options and alternatives, the Commission has sought comment 
from the public on how best to implement the requirements in the 
Broadband DATA Act. More specifically, the Commission seeks comment on 
what additional burdens are associated with implementing more specific 
audit provisions, and seeks to balance our statutory obligation to 
ensure accurate data with minimizing the burden on providers. In 
addition, we sought comment on whether the proposed three-year data 
retention policy places a burden on smaller providers 
disproportionately compared to larger ISPs, and, alternatively, whether 
we should consider a five-year retention period. We also sought comment 
on the burdens that would be placed on satellite service providers by 
requiring them to submit additional infrastructure information on a 
biannual basis, and any additional or alternative data that we could 
collect to improve the accuracy and granularity of satellite providers' 
broadband availability data.
    157. More generally, the proposals and questions set forth in the 
Fourth FNPRM were designed to enable the Commission to understand the 
benefits, impact, and potential burdens associated with the different 
approaches that the Commission can pursue to achieve its objective of 
improving accuracy and reliability of its data collections. Before 
reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding, 
the Commission expects to review the comments filed in response to the 
Fourth FNPRM and more fully consider the economic impact on small 
entities and how any impact can be minimized.

E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    158. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Broadband, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 1 as follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 47 
U.S.C. 1754, unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  1.7001 by:
0
a. Removing the heading from paragraph (a);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(1); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (a)(21) and (g).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  1.7001  Scope and content of filed reports.

    (a) * * *
    (21) Grandfathered service. A broadband internet access service 
that is currently provided to an existing end user at a broadband 
serviceable location, but that a facilities-based provider has 
permanently ceased to advertise or market to new or potential 
subscribers and would not make available to a new or potential 
subscriber at the broadband serviceable location.
* * * * *
    (g) Facilities-based providers shall retain the underlying data 
used to create their biannual FCC Form 477 submissions (including 
supporting data) for at least three years after the applicable ``as-
of'' reporting date (i.e., June 30 or December 31).
0
3. Amend Sec.  1.7004 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(3) through (7) as paragraphs (c)(5) 
through (9);
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (c)(3) and (4); and
0
c. Revising and republishing paragraph (d).
    The additions and revision read as follows:

[[Page 66326]]

Sec.  1.7004  Scope, content, and frequency of Broadband Data 
Collection filings.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) Fixed wireless broadband internet access service providers must 
disclose the following spectrum authorization information related to 
their broadband availability data:
    (i) For broadband internet access services provided using licensed 
spectrum:
    (A) All call signs and lease IDs (including the call sign(s) of the 
license(s) being leased) associated with the licenses held or leased by 
the filer and were (or could have been) used to provide broadband 
service as of the relevant Broadband Data Collection (BDC) filing date; 
and
    (B) The FCC Registration Number of the entity holding the license 
or lease as recorded in the FCC's Universal Licensing System.
    (ii) For broadband internet access services provided using 
licensed-by-rule spectrum:
    (A) Proof of authorization by a Spectrum Access System pursuant to 
part 96 of this chapter as of the relevant BDC filing date.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (iii) For broadband internet access services provided using 
unlicensed operations pursuant to part 15 of this chapter:
    (A) The FCC ID(s) of all base station transmission equipment used 
to provide the service as of the relevant BDC filing date.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (4) Satellite broadband internet access service providers must 
disclose the following information related to their broadband 
availability data:
    (i) Information on the general operating parameters of the 
satellite system active as-of the relevant filing period, including 
network type, the total number of satellites in the active 
constellation, the number of orbital shells deployed in the active 
constellation, the overall system downlink capacity, and the overall 
system uplink capacity;
    (ii) Information on each constellation or orbital shell of space 
stations deployed by the satellite system active as-of the relevant 
filing period, including shell altitude, orbital location (for GSO 
systems), inclination angle, orbital plane, number of satellites per 
orbital plane, shell orbital period, apogee, and perigee; and
    (iii) For each state or territory for which the facilities-based 
provider of satellite broadband internet access service claims 
coverage, system capacity information for each state or territory.
* * * * *
    (d) Providers shall include in each Broadband Data Collection 
filing a certification signed by a corporate officer of the provider 
that the officer has examined the information contained in the 
submission and that, to the best of the officer's actual knowledge, 
information, and belief, all statements of fact contained in the 
submission are true and correct. All providers also shall submit a 
certification of the accuracy of its submissions by a qualified 
engineer. The engineering certification shall state that the qualified 
engineer is employed by the provider and has direct knowledge of, or 
responsibility for, the generation of the provider's Broadband Data 
Collection filing. The qualified engineer shall also certify that he or 
she has examined the information contained in the submission and that, 
to the best of the engineer's actual knowledge, information, and 
belief, all statements of fact contained in the submission are true and 
correct, and in accordance with the service provider's ordinary course 
of network design and engineering. If a corporate officer is also an 
engineer and has the requisite knowledge required under the Broadband 
DATA Act, a provider may submit a single certification that fulfills 
both requirements. A ``qualified engineer,'' for purposes of this 
certification, shall be:
    (1) A corporate officer possessing a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in 
engineering degree and who has direct knowledge of and responsibility 
for the carrier's network design and construction;
    (2) An engineer possessing a bachelor's or postgraduate degree in 
electrical engineering, electronic technology, or another similar 
technical discipline, and at least seven years of relevant experience 
in broadband network design and/or performance; or
    (3) An employee with specialized training relevant to broadband 
network engineering and design, deployment, and/or performance, and at 
least 10 years of relevant experience in broadband network engineering, 
design, and/or performance.
0
4. Amend Sec.  1.7005 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.7005  Disclosure of data in the Fabric and Broadband Data 
Collection filings.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Withholding from public inspection all data required to be kept 
confidential pursuant to Sec.  0.457 of this chapter, location-specific 
data on grandfathered services (though the Office of Economics and 
Analytics may make publicly available aggregated information or data 
related to such services), and all personally identifiable information 
submitted in connection with the information contained in the Fabric, 
the dataset supporting the Fabric, and availability data submitted 
pursuant to Sec.  1.7004; and
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  1.7006 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading and paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (d)(1)(vii) and (d)(9); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  1.7006  Data retention and verification.

* * * * *
    (d) Fixed service challenge process. State, local, and Tribal 
governmental entities, consumers, and other entities or individuals may 
submit data in an online portal to challenge the accuracy of the 
coverage maps at a particular location and any information submitted by 
a provider regarding the availability of broadband internet access 
service.
* * * * *
    (g) Broadband serviceable location Fabric challenge process. State, 
local, and Tribal governmental entities, consumers, and other entities 
or individuals may submit data in an online portal to challenge the 
accuracy of the information in the Fabric.
    (1) Fabric challengers must provide in their submissions:
    (i) Name and contact information (e.g., address, phone number, 
email);
    (ii) For a missing broadband-serviceable location, the geographic 
coordinates (latitude/longitude) of the location, along with an address 
for the location (if an address is available), a unit count, and the 
building type (selected from pre-established options on the portal);
    (iii) For an existing broadband-serviceable location, category of 
dispute, selected from pre-established options on the portal;
    (iv) Details and evidence about the challenged location; and
    (v) A certification from an individual or an authorized officer or 
signatory of a challenger that the person examined the information 
contained in the challenge and that, to the best of the person's actual 
knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact contained in 
the challenge are true and correct.
    (2) The Commission shall seek to resolve such challenges within 90 
days of receiving the challenge filing in the online portal.

[[Page 66327]]

    (3) Government entities or other entities may file challenges at 
multiple locations in a single challenge, but each challenge must 
contain all of the requirements set forth in paragraph (g)(1) of this 
section.
    (4) Once a challenge containing all the required elements is 
submitted in the online portal, the location shall be identified on the 
coverage maps as ``in dispute/pending resolution.'' The Commission 
shall make public information about the location that is the subject of 
the challenge, including the street address and/or coordinates 
(latitude and longitude) and any relevant details concerning the basis 
for the challenge.
    (h) Data retention. Facilities-based providers shall retain the 
underlying data used to create their biannual Broadband Data Collection 
submissions (including supporting data) for at least three years after 
the applicable ``as-of'' reporting date (i.e., June 30 or December 31). 
In addition, facilities-based providers shall also retain any and all 
data related to responses to the data verification efforts set forth in 
paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section for at least three years 
from the date the provider receives notice of a challenge, verification 
inquiry, or initiation of an audit.
0
6. Amend Sec.  1.7009 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.7009  Enforcement.

* * * * *
    (e) If, as a result of a verification inquiry or audit performed 
pursuant to Sec.  1.7006, Commission staff request that a provider 
submit corrected availability data, and the provider fails to submit 
corrected data by the required date, then the Office of Economics and 
Analytics (OEA), in coordination with the Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, Wireline Competition Bureau, or Space Bureau (as appropriate), 
may remove locations or areas from the availability data published in 
the National Broadband Map pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 642(c). In such an 
instance, the BDC system will notify the provider in writing that some 
or all of its availability data have been altered on or removed from 
the National Broadband Map. OEA will abstain from altering or removing 
locations or areas subject to an audit or verification for which the 
provider has filed an application for review or petition for 
reconsideration until such time as the Commission rules upon any such 
application or petition. During this period the locations or areas may 
be indicated as ``in dispute'' on the National Broadband Map.

[FR Doc. 2024-16989 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P