Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 66781 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[GN Docket No. 20–32; FCC 23–74; FR ID 

175020] 

Establishing a 5G Fund for Rural 

America 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission or FCC) makes proposals 

and seeks comment on a limited set of 

issues to refresh the record and continue 

its implementation of the 5G Fund for 

Rural America. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

October 23, 2023; reply comments are 

due on or before November 21, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. All comments 

must be filed in GN Docket No. 20–32. 

Comments may be filed using the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic 

Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). You 

may submit comments, identified by GN 

Docket No. 20–32, 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 commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

Æ Commercial Overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Dr., Annapolis Junction, 

Annapolis, MD 20701. 

Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

• People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format) 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelly Quinn of the Office of Economics 

and Analytics, Auction Division, at 

(202) 418–0660 or Kelly.Quinn@fcc.gov, 

Valerie Barrish of the Office of 

Economics and Analytics, Auction 

Division, at (202) 418–0354 or 

Valerie.Barrish@fcc.gov, or Mary 

Lovejoy of the Office of Economics and 

Analytics, Auction Division, at (202) 

418–2024 or Mary.Lovejoy@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM) in GN Docket No. 20–32, FCC 

23–74, adopted on September 21, 2023 

and released on September 22, 2023. 

The full text of this document is 

available for public inspection at the 

following internet address: https://

www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeksfurther-comment-5g-fund-rural-america. 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. Armed with the new, granular, and 

improved mobile coverage data obtained 

in the Broadband Data Collection (BDC) 

and reflected on its new National 

Broadband Map, the Commission 

continues the implementation of the 5G 

Fund for Rural America (5G Fund) and 

advance its efforts to ensure the 

deployment of high-speed, 5G mobile 

service in areas of the country where, 

absent subsidies, it will continue to be 

lacking. The Commission undertakes 

this effort in recognition that those 

living, working, and travelling in 

unserved areas must have access to 

high-speed, 5G mobile service. The need 

for high-speed mobile services has never 

been more critical, yet there are many 

areas of its country that continue to lack 

access to 5G service. In fact, some areas 

continue to lack access to any mobile 

broadband service at all. Moreover, 

moving forward with the 5G Fund will 

allow the Commission to proceed with 

its plan to transition from mobile legacy 

high-cost support, which continues to 

be distributed inefficiently. 

2. Accordingly, with this narrowly 

tailored Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission 

seeks to refresh the record and reignite 

the Commission’s plan to expand the 

deployment of 5G service to those rural 

communities that remain trapped on the 

wrong side of the digital divide. To that 

end, the Commission seeks comment on 

a limited set of issues that are critical to 

the 5G Fund’s success, namely: (1) 

defining the areas that will be eligible 

for 5G Fund support; (2) reassessing the 

budget for the 5G Fund; (3) potentially 

reconsidering the use of adjusted square 

kilometers as the metric for accepting 

bids and identifying winning bids in a 

5G Fund auction; (4) aggregating areas 

eligible for 5G Fund support to 

minimum geographic areas for bidding; 

(5) measuring a 5G Fund support 

recipient’s compliance with its public 

interest obligations and performance 

requirements based on any modified 

metric for accepting bids and 

identifying winning bids; (6) modifying 

the schedule for transitioning from 

mobile legacy high-cost support to 5G 

Fund support consistent with recent 

legislative amendments; (7) a proposal 

to require each 5G Fund Phase I auction 

applicant to certify, under penalty of 

perjury, that it has read the public 

notice adopting procedures for the 

auction, and that it has familiarized 

itself with those procedures and any 

requirements related to the support 

made available for bidding in the 

auction; (8) whether to require 5G Fund 

support recipients to implement 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management plans; and (9) determining 

whether and how this proceeding might 

create an opportunity to support further 

deployment of Open Radio Access 

Network (Open RAN) technologies. 

3. The entire country benefits when 

everyone, including those living and 

working in rural areas, can 

communicate and innovate equally 

through access to high-speed, mobile 

broadband services. Access to highspeed, mobile services allows 

connections to essential civic, 

economic, and social opportunities. It 

touches almost all aspects of daily life, 

including work and education, access to 

news and entertainment, public safety 

information and services, and 

healthcare, and allows interconnection 

in times of national crisis. The 

importance of expanding access to highspeed, 5G services in rural communities 

cannot be overstated. The Commission 

therefore issues this Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) mindful 

that full participation in American 

society requires us to make 5G service 

available to everyone, no matter where 

they live. 

II. Background 

4. In its October 2020 5G Fund Report 

and Order, 85 FR 75770 (Nov. 25, 2020), 

the Commission established the 5G 

Fund as a replacement for Mobility 

Fund Phase II. The 5G Fund would use 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66782 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

multi-round reverse auctions to 

distribute up to $9 billion, in two 

phases, to retarget mobile universal 

service in the high-cost program to bring 

voice and 5G broadband service to rural 

areas of the country unlikely to 

otherwise see unsubsidized deployment 

of 5G-capable networks. The 

Commission decided that it would use 

new, more precise, verified mobile 

coverage data gathered through the BDC 

to determine the areas eligible for 

support in a 5G Fund auction. The 

Commission defined the areas eligible 

for support in the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction as those that lack unsubsidized 

4G LTE and 5G broadband service by at 

least one service provider based on BDC 

data. The Commission also decided that 

it would accept bids and identify 

winning bids in a 5G Fund auction 

using a support price per adjusted 

square kilometer. Under this approach, 

each eligible area will have an 

associated number of square kilometers 

that will be adjusted by an adjustment 

factor that will assign a weight to each 

geographic area and apply that 

adjustment factor to bidding for support 

amounts, and support amounts for an 

area will be determined by multiplying 

an area’s associated adjusted square 

kilometers by the relevant price per 

square kilometer. For example, an area 

with 100 square kilometers and an 

adjustment factor of 1.2 would have 

100×1.2 or 120 adjusted square 

kilometers. 

5. The Commission recognized from 

the outset that waiting for the collection 

of new, more precise, verified mobile 

coverage data obtained in the BDC 

would not be the fastest path to holding 

a 5G Fund auction, but reasoned that 

this would allow the Commission to 

better target 5G Fund support to those 

areas of the country where support is 

most needed and where the funds could 

be spent most efficiently. The 

Commission explained that waiting for 

the development of a National 

Broadband Map was critical to the 

success of the 5G Fund, even though at 

the time it lacked the congressional 

appropriation necessary to implement 

the BDC. The Commission also reasoned 

that any risk of delay in holding a 5G 

Fund auction was further mitigated by 

the public interest obligations it was 

adopting for competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers (ETCs) to 

continue receiving legacy high-cost 

support for mobile wireless services. 

6. In this regard, the Commission 

adopted requirements for both 

competitive ETCs receiving legacy highcost support for mobile wireless service 

and 5G Fund auction support recipients 

to meet public interest obligations to 

provide voice and 5G broadband 

service, and to satisfy distinct, measured 

performance requirements as a 

condition of receiving support. Pursuant 

to the rules adopted in the 5G Fund 

Report and Order, recipients of both 

legacy mobile high-cost support and 5G 

Fund auction support are required to 

meet minimum baseline performance 

requirements for data speed, latency, 

and data allowance, including: (1) 

deploying 5G networks that meet at 

least the 5G–NR (New Radio) 

technology standards developed by the 

3rd Generation Partnership Project with 

Release 15 (or any successor release that 

may be adopted by the Office of 

Economics and Analytics (OEA) and 

Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) 

after appropriate notice and comment) 

with median download and upload 

speeds of at least 35 Mbps and 3 Mbps 

with minimum cell edge download and 

upload speeds of 7 Mbps and 1 Mbps; 

(2) meeting end-to-end round trip data 

latency measurements of 100 

milliseconds or below; and (3) offering 

at least one service plan that includes a 

minimum monthly data allowance that 

is equivalent to the average United 

States subscriber data usage. The 

Commission explained that these 

performance requirements, along with 

public interest obligations for 

reasonably comparable rates, 

collocation, and voice and data roaming, 

will ensure that rural areas receive 

service reasonably comparable to highspeed, mobile broadband service 

available in urban areas. 

7. To make certain that 5G Fund 

support recipients meet their public 

interest obligations and performance 

requirements in areas where they 

receive support, the Commission 

adopted interim and final service 

deployment milestones along with 

reporting requirements to monitor their 

progress. Specifically, the Commission 

adopted milestones requiring a 5G Fund 

support recipient to offer 5G service 

meeting established performance 

requirements to at least 40% of the total 

square kilometers associated with the 

eligible areas for which it is authorized 

to receive 5G Fund support in a state by 

the end of the third full calendar year 

following authorization of support, to at 

least 60% of the total square kilometers 

by the end of the fourth full calendar 

year, and to at least 80% of the total 

square kilometers by the end of the fifth 

full calendar year. Moreover, the 

Commission adopted a final service 

deployment milestone that would 

require a 5G Fund support recipient to 

offer 5G service that meets the 

established 5G Fund performance 

requirements to at least 85% of the total 

square kilometers associated with the 

eligible areas for which it is authorized 

to receive 5G Fund support in a state by 

the end of the sixth full calendar year 

following authorization of support. 

Additionally, a 5G Fund support 

recipient is required to demonstrate by 

the end of the sixth full calendar year 

following authorization of support that 

it provides service that meets the 

established 5G performance 

requirements to at least 75% of the total 

square kilometers within each of its 

individual biddable areas. 

8. In May 2023, the Commission 

released the latest version of its new 

National Broadband Map, which reflects 

the most granular and accurate mobile 

coverage data it has gathered through 

the BDC to date. The Commission will 

release major updates to this map twice 

a year, overlaying available data from 

service providers in these updates to 

ensure that the National Broadband Map 

is current. Based on the mobile coverage 

data the Commission has collected in 

the BDC, its understanding of where 

mobile service remains lacking has 

improved significantly, and therefore, 

the Commission is proceeding with its 

plans for the 5G Fund. Accordingly, the 

Commission seeks comment on a 

limited set of issues in the FNPRM to 

ensure that it meets its obligation of 

ensuring that those in rural America 

have access to services reasonably 

comparable to those provided in urban 

areas and to achieve its policy goal of 

ensuring that everyone who lives, 

works, and travels throughout the 

country experiences the benefits of 

high-speed, mobile 5G technology. 

III. Identifying Areas Eligible for 5G 

Fund Support 

A. Defining the Areas Eligible for 5G 

Fund Support 

9. In the 5G Fund Report and Order, 

the Commission decided to determine 

the areas eligible for support in the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction based on where 

new mobile coverage data submitted in 

the BDC show a lack of both 

unsubsidized 4G LTE and unsubsidized 

5G broadband service by at least one 

service provider. The Commission noted 

in the 5G Fund Report and Order that 

while most providers were then still in 

the early stages of deploying their 5G 

networks in rural areas, it expected that 

the data collected in the BDC would 

show significant 5G broadband 

deployments. The Commission 

concluded that consistent with its 

longstanding policy of avoiding 

overbuilding competitive networks, it 

would exclude areas with unsubsidized 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 66783 

5G broadband deployment from 

eligibility for 5G Fund support. At the 

time it established the 5G Fund, the 

Commission noted that because 

nationwide providers had already begun 

to deploy 5G service in more populated 

parts of the country, many urban and 

suburban areas had already benefitted 

from the evolution to 5G networks, and 

that even more widely-available 5G 

service was expected in the near future. 

The Commission also decided to 

exclude from eligibility for 5G Fund 

support those areas where BDC data 

show the deployment of unsubsidized 

4G LTE networks, reasoning that 

subsidizing 5G deployments where 

unsubsidized 4G LTE networks already 

have been deployed would be 

unnecessary and risk preempting 5G 

deployments the Commission expected 

in those areas. The Commission based 

this belief on the combination of the 

then-rapid state of competitive 

deployment in the marketplace and TMobile’s enforceable transaction 

commitments. Moreover, the 

Commission adopted restrictions on the 

use of 5G Fund support to fulfill 

enforceable commitments to deploy 5G, 

concluding that it would be inefficient 

to allow any provider with enforceable 

5G deployment obligations to use 

universal service support to fund those 

deployments. In light of T-Mobile’s 

extensive rural 5G deployment 

commitments relating to its acquisition 

of Sprint, the Commission said it would 

allow T Mobile to make binding preauction commitments to identify the 

areas in which it will deploy 5G to 

fulfill its transaction commitments so 

that such areas can be removed from the 

auction inventory. The Commission 

directed OEA and WCB to establish 

specific procedures for making such 

pre-auction binding commitments that 

would cover, as appropriate, 

qualifications and restrictions on 

participating in the pre-selection 

process. 

10. Throughout this proceeding, some 

parties have taken issue with the 

definition of areas eligible for 5G Fund 

support. These parties maintain that the 

Commission incorrectly presumed that 

an area that has unsubsidized 4G LTE 

service will see the deployment of 5G 

service without the need for subsidies, 

and/or ask the Commission to define the 

areas eligible for 5G Fund support as 

those where BDC mobile coverage data 

show a lack of unsubsidized 5G 

broadband service. Furthermore, the 

Commission received two petitions 

seeking reconsideration of its decision 

to exclude from eligibility for 5G Fund 

support areas where BDC mobile 

coverage data show the existence of 

unsubsidized 4G LTE or 5G broadband 

service by at least one provider, each of 

which asks us to instead define as 

eligible for 5G Fund support any area 

that lacks unsubsidized 5G broadband 

service. See 86 FR 6611 (Jan. 22, 2021). 

11. Today, the Commission’s new 

National Broadband Map reflects the 

most recently available data concerning 

mobile broadband service availability 

and provides the Commission with a 

substantially improved understanding 

of where service is available and where 

it remains lacking. The Updated 

National Broadband Map released on 

May 30, 2023, shows the Fabric Version 

2 location data and broadband 

availability data as of December 31, 

2022. The new map provides an 

improved picture of where mobile 

broadband service is available, the 

type(s) of service available, the speeds 

available, and the environment(s) in 

which service is available. Historically, 

mobile data collected in FCC Form 477 

suffered from a lack of any standardized 

parameters for the submission of 

propagation maps. The Commission 

remedied this issue in the BDC Second 

Report and Order, 85 FR 50886 (Aug. 

18, 2020), by adopting certain uniform 

minimum parameter values that it 

believed to be equally important for 

demonstrating 3G and 5G NR coverage 

as well as voice coverage, as 

recommended by the Rural Broadband 

Auctions Task Force in the Mobility 

Fund Phase II Coverage Maps 

Investigation Staff Report. The 

Commission stated that in addition to 

requiring mobile broadband providers to 

use propagation modeling to generate 

and to submit maps showing their 4G 

LTE coverage, such providers are 

additionally required to submit 

information, data, and coverage maps 

for existing 3G networks and nextgeneration 5G–NR networks. The new 

map allows the Commission to more 

accurately target universal service 

funding to expand broadband to 

unserved and underserved areas. 

12. Figure 1 in the FNPRM, titled 

‘‘Areas Without Unsubsidized Mobile 

Broadband Service,’’ shows areas where 

mobile coverage data submitted in the 

BDC show a lack of unsubsidized 5G 

mobile broadband service at speeds of at 

least 7/1 Mbps by at least one service 

provider, and areas where the data show 

a lack of unsubsidized 5/1 Mbps 4G LTE 

mobile broadband service or higher by 

at least one service provider. Figure 1 

was created using overlapping providerreported BDC mobile availability data as 

of December 31, 2022 (updated August 

16, 2023), depicting coverage based on 

an outdoor stationary environment. 

Figure 2 in the FNPRM, titled ‘‘USAC 

Mobile CETC Service Area Boundaries 

Map,’’ shows a picture of the USAC’s 

online map delineating the boundaries 

of the subsidized service areas of each 

competitive ETC receiving mobile 

legacy high-cost support used in 

determining which areas are subsidized 

for this purpose. The Commission stated 

in the 5G Fund Report and Order that 

it will use Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS) data from the USAC 

delineating the boundaries of the 

subsidized service areas of each 

competitive ETC receiving mobile 

legacy high-cost support in determining 

which areas are subsidized for this 

purpose. The FNPRM notes that 

California, Connecticut, Delaware, 

Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

Vermont, and Washington, DC do not 

have any mobile legacy high-cost 

support service areas. 

13. Figure 3 in the FNPRM, titled 

‘‘Percent of a State’s Total Area Within 

a Subsidized CETC Area and the Percent 

of Total High-Cost Subsidy Directed to 

That State,’’ and Figure 4 in the FNPRM, 

titled ‘‘Percent of a State’s Total Area 

Within the Subsidized Area of 1, 2, 3, 

or 4 CETCs,’’ provide more detail about 

the distribution of mobile legacy highcost support by state. 

14. With data collected in the BDC 

and currently reflected on the National 

Broadband Map, the Commission is 

better able to assess where mobile 

broadband services are—and are not— 

available. In the nearly three years since 

the adoption of the 5G Fund Report and 

Order, the deployment of high-speed 5G 

mobile services has significantly 

expanded. However, even with this 

expansion of 5G coverage, the digital 

divide remains, and numerous 

‘‘broadband deserts’’ continue to exist. 

Indeed, based on BDC data as of 

December 2022, the Commission 

estimates that there are over 14 million 

broadband serviceable locations 

(locations) that lack mobile 5G coverage 

at speed thresholds of at least 7/1 Mbps 

in an in-vehicle environment. This 

estimate is based on overlapping 

provider-reported BDC mobile 

availability data as of December 31, 

2022, depicting coverage based on invehicle, mobile environment, on 

broadband serviceable locations. The 

Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric 

(Fabric) is a dataset of all locations in 

the United States and its Territories 

where fixed broadband internet access 

service can be installed. Specifically, 

service providers express fixed 

broadband availability in the BDC in 

terms of which particular Fabric 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66784 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

locations can be served. The Fabric 

therefore represents the universe of 

locations to which fixed broadband 

service can be provided, and the semiannual BDC tells us which locations 

have fixed broadband service available, 

and which do not. Locations are treated 

as lacking coverage if they fall outside 

(the latitude/longitude coordinates are 

not covered by) the areas reported by 

providers as having coverage available 

with the relevant technology, speed, and 

environment. Mobile availability based 

on coverage in an outdoor stationary 

environment results in a smaller 

number of locations, 6 million, that lack 

5G coverage at speed thresholds of 7/1 

Mbps. Given how mobile broadband 

coverage has evolved over the past three 

years and the Commission’s improved 

understanding of mobile coverage based 

on data gathered through the BDC, the 

Commission seeks comment on how to 

ensure that the 5G Fund most efficiently 

promotes the deployment of 5G mobile 

broadband service in areas where it 

would not be offered absent subsidies. 

To that end, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether it should continue 

to use the definition adopted by the 

Commission in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order to determine areas eligible for the 

5G Fund Phase I auction, or whether it 

should modify the definition to base the 

determination of eligible areas on where 

mobile coverage data submitted in the 

BDC show a lack of unsubsidized 5G 

broadband service by at least one 

service provider. 

15. As the map in Figure 1 in the 

FNPRM shows, the Commission expects 

that using the definition of eligible areas 

adopted in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order would result in fewer areas being 

eligible for support in the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction than if the Commission 

modified the definition to be based on 

areas that lack unsubsidized 5G 

coverage. Given its objective of ensuring 

that it targets its finite budget to where 

it is most needed to promote the 

deployment of 5G mobile broadband 

service, the Commission seeks comment 

on whether using an eligible areas 

definition that is more likely to limit, or 

more likely to expand, the number of 

areas that would be eligible for support 

in the 5G Fund Phase I auction serves 

the public interest. If the Commission 

modifies the definition of eligible areas 

as discussed above, would 5G Fund 

support be more likely to end up in 

areas that do not have 5G service but do 

have unsubsidized 4G LTE service? 

16. The Commission seeks comment 

on what motivations there are for 

unsubsidized providers of 4G LTE 

service to upgrade their networks to 5G 

technology in rural areas. Does the 

provision of unsubsidized 4G LTE 

service in rural areas serve as an 

indicator that 5G mobile broadband 

service will be deployed in those areas 

absent subsidies? What metrics can the 

Commission consider to reliably 

identify rural areas that will not see 

unsubsidized 5G mobile broadband 

service? Over what time period should 

the Commission expect to see an 

unsubsidized 4G LTE network be 

replaced by 5G technology in rural 

areas, absent subsidies? Commenters 

should specifically address why 

subsidies are, or are not, necessary in 

areas that already have unsubsidized 4G 

LTE coverage. The Commission also 

seeks comment on how it can balance 

its objective to provide support for the 

provision of 5G mobile broadband 

service in all areas where people live, 

work, and travel with its obligation to be 

a fiscally responsible steward of its 

limited universal service funds and the 

Commission’s commitment to prevent 

overbuilding. What are the costs and 

benefits of deployment of 5G mobile 

broadband service in areas lacking both 

4G LTE and 5G mobile broadband 

service relative to deployment of 5G to 

areas lacking only 5G service? The 

Commission seeks comment on which 

definition of eligible areas best ensures 

that the Commission will not subsidize 

areas that will otherwise see 

competitive, market-based deployments 

of 5G mobile broadband networks. 

17. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the appropriate 4G LTE 

and 5G speed thresholds to use as the 

benchmark for determining areas 

eligible for support in the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction under either the 

previously adopted or a modified 

definition of eligible areas. Specifically, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

using speed thresholds of 5/1 Mbps 

with respect to 4G LTE service and 7/ 

1 Mbps for 5G service as the benchmark 

when determining areas eligible for 

support in the 5G Fund Phase I auction. 

The BDC collects 4G LTE coverage areas 

based on speed thresholds of 5/1 Mbps 

in accordance with the Broadband 

DATA Act, and collects 5G coverage 

areas based on speed thresholds of both 

7/1 Mbps and 35/3 Mbps. In the 5G 

Fund Report and Order, the 

Commission adopted a minimum 

baseline performance requirement for 

5G Fund support recipients to deploy 

5G–NR service with median speeds of at 

least 35/3 Mbps and speeds of 7/1 Mbps 

at the cell edge. Consistent with the 

Commission’s rationale in the Mobility 

Fund Phase II Report and Order with 

respect to determining eligible areas, the 

Commission does not believe it would 

be advisable to use the same 35/3 Mbps 

speed thresholds for determining areas 

eligible for 5G Fund support that it will 

require of 5G Fund support recipients 

for determining compliance with their 

performance requirements. Moreover, 

the Commission expects that a speed 

threshold of 7/1 Mbps reflects the 

minimum desired typical mobile user 

experience across broad 5G coverage 

areas. Under this approach, if the 

Commission continues to use the 

definition of eligible areas adopted in 

the 5G Fund Report and Order, it would 

exclude from eligibility for 5G Fund 

support areas where unsubsidized 4G 

LTE service and unsubsidized 5G 

service is available at speed thresholds 

of at least 5/1 Mbps and at least 7/1 

Mbps, respectively. Or, if the 

Commission modifies the definition of 

eligible areas to be those that lack 

unsubsidized 5G service, it would 

exclude from eligibility for 5G Fund 

support areas where unsubsidized 5G 

service is available at speed thresholds 

of at least 7/1 Mbps. The Commission 

seeks comment on using these speed 

thresholds. 

18. The Commission requires that the 

coverage maps submitted by providers 

in the BDC predict 4G LTE and 5G 

coverage based on both outdoor 

stationary and in-vehicle mobile 

environments. An outdoor stationary 

environment typically results in a larger 

coverage footprint than an in-vehicle 

mobile environment. The Commission 

seeks comment on which environment 

to use when determining the areas 

eligible for 5G Fund support under 

whichever definition it uses to 

determine areas eligible for the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction. 

19. Because it seeks to direct 5G Fund 

Phase I support to areas where people 

live, work, and travel, regardless of the 

definition used to identify the areas 

eligible for the 5G Fund Phase I auction, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

limiting eligible areas to those that 

contain locations and/or roads. The 

Commission would determine the areas 

that contain locations using the Fabric; 

having the Fabric through the BDC 

enables the Commission to do this at a 

granular level. The Commission seeks 

comment on limiting eligible areas to 

those that contain locations as identified 

through the BDC and/or roads. Under 

this approach, the Commission would 

use road data from OpenStreetMap, and 

seeks comment on which categories of 

roads should be considered in 

determining eligible areas. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether it should use an alternate 

source of road data and why. In order 

to limit eligible areas in this manner, the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 66785 

Commission would need to designate 

the geographic areas that contain 

locations and/or roads. 

20. Under this approach, the 

Commission would use the H3 

hexagonal geospatial indexing system 

(H3 system) to identify specific 

geographic areas eligible for 5G Fund 

support. H3 is an open-source GIS 

dataset developed by Uber 

Technologies, Inc., that overlays the 

globe with hexagonal cells of different 

sizes at various resolutions, from 0 to 

15. The smallest hexagonal cells are at 

resolution 15, in which the average 

hexagonal cell has an area of 

approximately 0.9 square meters, and 

the largest are at resolution 0, in which 

the average hexagonal cell has an area 

of approximately 4.25 million square 

kilometers. The H3 system is designed 

with a nested structure wherein a lower 

resolution cell (the ‘‘parent’’ hexagon) 

contains approximately seven hexagonal 

cells at the next higher resolution (its 

‘‘children’’ where each ‘‘child’’ is a 

smaller, nested hexagon), which fit 

approximately within the ‘‘parent’’ 

hexagon. In the BDC Mobile Technical 

Requirements Order, 87 FR 21476 (Apr. 

11, 2022), the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), 

OEA, and the Office of Engineering and 

Technology (OET) adopted the H3 

system to identify geographic areas 

where a challenge to a provider’s mobile 

BDC availability data can be created 

based on the point locations of on-theground challenger speed tests. The H3 

system has also been adapted to the 

Commission’s National Broadband Map 

to divide the map into specific 

geographic areas and show the 

percentage of a hexagon that is 

‘‘covered’’ (i.e., where a provider has 

claimed it can make broadband 

available) at different resolutions and 

levels of granularity as a user zooms in 

or out on the map. Mobile broadband 

coverage is displayed down to the 

resolution-9 hexagon level (hex-9) on 

the map, and data on such coverage is 

made available for download based on 

hex-9s. Because of its nested structure, 

using the H3 system allows the 

Commission to categorize geographic 

areas at multiple levels of granularity. 

21. The Commission would then 

convert the areas eligible for 5G Fund 

support to, and make them available in 

the form of, H3 hexagonal units, 

specifically as hexagons at resolution 9. 

As opposed to ‘‘raw’’ coverage 

footprints based on propagation model 

output, which do not conform to any 

defined boundary, hex-9s are 

standardized and can be clearly 

identified and referenced. Because hex9s are relatively small, with an average 

area of approximately 0.1 square 

kilometer, any reduction in map 

resolution when converting from raw 

propagation model output (as filed by 

providers) to hex-9s is minimal. The 

Commission believes the use of hex-9s 

can strike the appropriate balance 

between the benefits of their use and 

this loss in granularity, particularly 

given that the data as filed are based on 

models of coverage. As is the case with 

the data available on the National 

Broadband Map, if any part of the hex9 is overlapped by the relevant mobile 

coverage area, then the Commission 

would consider the entire hex-9 as 

covered or served by that coverage area 

for purposes of generating the areas 

eligible for 5G Fund support. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

approach, as well as the use of the H3 

geospatial indexing system generally, 

and the hex-9 resolution specifically, as 

the basis for identifying specific 

geographic areas that are eligible for 5G 

Fund support. 

22. The Commission also seeks 

comment on other factors it should 

consider in determining the areas 

eligible for 5G Fund support, such as 

whether to include Urbanized Areas, 

water-only areas, and/or inaccessible 

areas. 

23. Regardless of how the 

Commission defines eligible areas, it 

proposes to use as the basis for the final 

eligible areas the version of the mobile 

availability data published on the 

National Broadband Map no later than 

30 days prior to the start of bidding. 

This version will reflect updates filed by 

providers as the result of resolved 

challenges and other corrections and 

published on the map by that date. 

B. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands 

24. As a result of the devastation to 

the communication networks in Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands caused 

by Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 

September 2017, the Commission took 

immediate steps to make emergency 

funding available for the restoration of 

mobile communications on these 

islands, and subsequently adopted 

funding mechanisms to restore and 

rebuild mobile networks there. In the 5G 

Fund Report and Order, the 

Commission therefore excluded areas in 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

from eligibility for 5G Fund support 

because the Commission was already 

providing high-cost support, including 

support for 5G mobile broadband, 

through the Bringing Puerto Rico 

Together Fund and the Connect USVI 

Fund. 

25. In its 2019 PR–USVI Stage 2 

Order, 84 FR 59937 (Nov. 7, 2019), the 

Commission adopted a three-year 

funding period and budgets for Stage 2 

of the Bringing Puerto Rico Together 

Fund and the Connect USVI Fund 

pursuant to which carriers could elect to 

receive up to 75% of the support for 

which they are eligible to restore, 

harden, and expand their networks 

using 4G LTE or better technology 

capable of providing service at speeds of 

at least 10/1 Mbps, and up to 25% of the 

support for which they are eligible to 

deploy 5G mobile networks capable of 

providing service at speeds of at least 

35/3 Mbps. The Commission noted that 

it expected to establish a competitive 

funding mechanism for the long-term 

expansion of advanced 

telecommunications access and next 

generation wireless services for Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands by the 

conclusion of Stage 2. Stage 2 mobile 

support under the Bringing Puerto Rico 

Together Fund and the Connect USVI 

Fund was scheduled to conclude at the 

end of June 2023; however, in its April 

2023 Transitional Support Report and 

Order, 88 FR 28993 (May 5, 2023), the 

Commission adopted a transitional 

support period of up to 24 months to 

allow eligible mobile carriers currently 

receiving Stage 2 mobile support to 

continue receiving support to harden 

their networks as the Commission works 

to develop a long-term funding 

mechanism. The Commission stated in 

the Transitional Support Report and 

Order that transitional support would 

end sooner than 24 months if such a 

long-term funding mechanism were 

established before the transition period 

ends. 

26. At the time of Hurricanes Irma 

and Maria, the Mobility Fund Phase II 

auction had not yet taken place. 

Moreover, the Commission has since 

replaced Mobility Fund Phase II with 

the 5G Fund. Accordingly, now, as the 

Commission transitions from providing 

restorative support to mobile carriers in 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Island 

to repair and harden their networks to 

offering support to mobile carriers to 

deploy high-speed 5G mobile services in 

areas that that would otherwise not see 

such services absent subsidies, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to make 5G Fund support available to 

areas in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands meeting the eligible areas 

definition, subject to the same terms and 

conditions as 5G Fund support awarded 

in other eligible areas. Alternatively, 

should the Commission instead explore 

a dedicated long-term funding 

mechanism for support for mobile 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66786 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

services on these islands? Commenters 

should explicitly explain whether, 

having been provided support under a 

dedicated mechanism for the last 

several years, it is now appropriate to 

view the funding needs for support for 

mobile broadband services in Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands through 

the same lens as other areas eligible for 

mobile support. 

IV. 5G Fund Budget 

27. In the 5G Fund Report and Order, 

the Commission adopted a budget of $9 

billion for the 5G Fund, which 

incorporated and repurposed the $4.53 

billion originally budgeted for Mobility 

Fund Phase II. In establishing the 5G 

Fund budget, the Commission 

recognized that extending deployment 

of 5G networks would require 

significant expenditures. Nonetheless, 

the Commission was mindful of its 

obligation to balance the objectives of 

the 5G Fund with its obligation to 

exercise fiscal responsibility by 

avoiding excessive subsidization, 

recognizing that the cost of subsidies 

distributed under the 5G Fund would 

ultimately be borne by consumers and 

businesses. Accordingly, the 

Commission adopted a reverse auction 

mechanism to ensure that funds from 

the available budget would be spent as 

efficiently and effectively as possible. 

28. The Commission takes this 

opportunity to ask if there are 

significant reasons to modify the budget, 

and if so, by how much. The 

Commission notes that none of the 

parties that commented on the 5G Fund 

NPRM, 85 FR 31616 (May 26, 2020), 

proposed an alternative amount for the 

5G Fund budget, and no party sought 

reconsideration of the $9 billion budget 

that the Commission adopted. Some 

commenters, however, suggested that 

the 5G Fund budget should be increased 

to an amount that would be sufficient to 

deploy 5G networks to all eligible areas. 

Subsequently, other parties, in ex parte 

communications and other filings, 

echoed the assertion that the budget was 

insufficient, with several citing to a 5G 

mobility cost model placed in the record 

by the Competitive Carriers Association. 

29. The Commission asks those 

commenting on the budget to keep in 

mind the reasons underlying the 

Commission’s adoption of a reverse 

auction—the auction uses competition 

across areas and within areas to 

determine which areas will receive 

support, in what amounts, and which 

entities will receive that support, all 

within the available budget. This 

ensures that as many units as possible 

can be covered within the budget at 

prices the winning bidders have agreed 

to accept, consistent with the 

Commission’s fiscal responsibilities. As 

a threshold matter, basing the budget on 

the estimated cost of serving all areas 

(however estimated, according to a 

model such as that submitted in the 

record or any other method) conflicts 

with the rationale for using a reverse 

auction—that is, of spending available 

funds cost-effectively. Even if the 

Commission was willing to increase 

universal service contributions to raise 

such funds—and it is not—establishing 

a budget based on total estimated costs 

would not result in support amounts 

that are competitive but still acceptable 

to the providers, as a reverse auction 

does. With respect to using a cost model 

to determine reserve amounts, i.e., 

maximum bid amounts, also as 

suggested in the record, the Commission 

does not believe such a process is 

needed to determine a uniform starting 

clock price in dollars per adjusted 

square kilometer that would apply to all 

areas. Moreover, the Commission 

disagrees with the assertion in the 

record that a reverse auction without 

area-specific reserve prices is likely to 

provide excessive support in areas with 

few applicants. The reverse auction 

format previously used by the 

Commission and adopted for the 5G 

Fund incorporates competition across 

areas, which lowers the support price 

for all areas before assigning support to 

any areas. Further, even if there is only 

one other bidder for a given area, the 

support price will be lowered still 

further. That is, under the basic reverse 

auction format, the support clock price 

applicable to all areas would begin high 

and descend in discrete rounds. In each 

round, bidders will indicate their 

willingness to accept support for an area 

at iteratively lower clock prices. When 

the total amount of support requested by 

bidders (counting an area only once) 

falls to an amount that can be 

accommodated within the budget, the 

areas that still have bids will receive 

support. Areas with a single remaining 

bidder will be supported at the 

‘‘clearing price.’’ If there are areas where 

more than one bidder is still competing, 

the support clock price will continue 

descending until a single bidder 

remains, which will be supported at that 

price. 

30. In seeking comment on the 

budget, the Commission asks 

commenters to provide specific 

examples of any fundamental factors 

that have changed since the 5G Fund 

Report and Order was adopted. 

Commenters should also explain how 

any such factors are significant enough 

to warrant allocating more Universal 

Service Fund (USF) monies to the 5G 

Fund. Should any change in the budget 

affect both phases of the 5G Fund, and 

if so, how? The Commission also asks, 

if the budget is modified, whether the 

size of the Tribal reserve budget as 

previously adopted should also change, 

and if so, how. 

31. The Commission reminds those 

commenting on the 5G Fund budget that 

the Commission is obligated to 

distribute universal service funds in the 

most cost-efficient way possible and 

that arguments that focus solely on 

estimates do not take into account the 

Commission’s obligation to balance the 

cost of subsidies with the additional 

burden that such increased 

expenditures would impose on the 

consumers and businesses that fund the 

subsidies. Therefore, commenters 

advocating for an increased budget 

should consider and address the source 

of any funds potentially allocated to the 

5G Fund. 

32. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether any adjustments 

to the 5G Fund budget would be 

necessary if the 5G Fund were to 

become the long-term funding 

mechanism for Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands and areas in Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands meeting the 

eligible areas definition are eligible for 

5G Fund support. 

V. Accepting Bids and Identifying 

Winning Bids 

A. Metric for Accepting Winning Bids 

and Identifying Winning Bids 

33. In the 5G Fund Report and Order, 

the Commission decided that it would 

accept bids and identify winning bids in 

the 5G Fund auctions using a support 

price per adjusted square kilometer. 

Under this metric, each eligible area 

would be associated with a number of 

units equal to the square kilometers of 

the area multiplied by an adjustment 

factor based on a number of areaspecific characteristics, including 

terrain and elevation, and demandrelated factors, such as income, gross 

domestic product (GDP), and population 

density. Adjustment factor values 

adopted in the Adjustment Factor 

Values Public Notice, 86 FR 11149 (Feb. 

24. 2021), ranged from 1 to 3.8, with 

higher adjustment factors associated 

with more sparsely populated areas 

and/or forested and mountainous areas 

and lower average incomes. However, 

the Commission also determined that 

the 5G Fund auction would wait for the 

more precise data on ‘‘areas of the 

country where support is most needed 

and will be spent most efficiently’’ that 

would be forthcoming from the BDC. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 66787 

34. The Commission seeks comment 

in the FNPRM on limiting eligible areas 

to resolution-9 H3 hexagons that have 

locations and/or roads. If the 

Commission were to limit eligible areas 

to resolution-9 H3 hexagons that have 

locations and/or roads, it would use a 

bidding and support price metric based 

on dollars per square kilometer for those 

eligible areas. Accordingly, the support 

amount for an area would be 

determined as the number of square 

kilometers associated with the area 

times the price at which support is 

assigned. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether to use the 

adjustment factor as previously adopted. 

The adjustment factor was designed to 

equalize the cost of serving all areas, so 

that it would be equally likely that 

particularly costly areas (defined, in 

part, by low population density and 

difficult terrain) and areas that can be 

served more cost-effectively would win 

support. Moreover, he Commission 

seeks comment on whether a support 

unit in terms of square kilometers 

alone—absent the adjustment that 

would have given priority to areas with 

low incomes, low population density, 

and costly terrain—would, to the 

greatest extent possible, promote its goal 

of providing 5G coverage to places 

where people live, work, and travel. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether it should adopt an alternative 

approach that would provide some 

advantage to particularly costly areas 

that nonetheless are areas with a 

considerable number of homes, 

business, and other locations, and/or 

roads that are frequently travelled. 

Could parameters for an alternative 

approach be determined without unduly 

delaying the auction? 

35. As an alternative to using dollars 

per square kilometer as the bidding and 

support price metric, the Commission 

also seeks comment on using a bidding 

and support price metric based on the 

number of locations in the eligible areas. 

If the Commission were to adopt this 

metric, eligible areas would be 

associated with a number of such 

locations in the area; the clock would 

announce prices in terms of dollars per 

location; and support amounts would be 

calculated as the number of locations in 

the area times the support price per 

location. 

36. The Commission also seeks 

comment on potentially incorporating 

the number of unserved road miles in an 

area, as well as the number of locations, 

into the bidding and support price 

metric. What source of road data and 

which road categories should the 

Commission use? How could the 

Commission do so in a way that would 

appropriately balance unserved road 

miles and unserved locations in a single 

metric? For example, could the 

Commission adjust the number of 

locations upward by a fraction, e.g., 

25%, in an area with a moderate 

number of unserved road miles, and by 

a larger fraction, e.g., 40%, if the area 

has a large number of unserved road 

miles? Or, would a metric that is a 

weighted sum of unserved locations and 

unserved road miles be appropriate? For 

example, a metric might be the total of 

the number of unserved locations and 

one half of the number of unserved road 

miles. If the Commission were to use 

such a hybrid metric, would covering an 

unserved road mile be more or less 

preferred than covering a location? How 

would the Commission determine the 

appropriate weights? Commenters 

should keep in mind that the weights 

would not have to be precisely 

calculated, but simply represent the 

extent to which the auction mechanism 

would put a ‘‘finger on the scale.’’ 

37. Limiting eligible areas to those 

areas that have unserved road miles 

and/or unserved locations would reflect 

the Commission’s goal of providing 

support to areas where people live, 

work, and travel. If the Commission 

uses a bidding and support metric of 

dollars per square kilometer, are there 

other ways to incorporate incentives to 

bid for areas covering unserved 

locations and road miles, such as by 

requiring winning bidders’ support 

obligations to include unserved 

locations and road miles? A bidder 

would know the extent of its obligations 

in advance of the auction and could 

adjust accordingly the amount of 

support in terms of dollars per square 

kilometer that it is willing to accept. Are 

there other ways to encourage coverage 

of locations and road miles without 

explicitly incorporating them into the 

metric? Commenters should consider 

that a suggested approach should be 

transparent and straightforward to 

measure. 

38. The Commission also seeks 

comment on a possible metric based on 

predicted usage from serving eligible 

areas. This metric would consider all 

measurable factors that can affect 

mobile usage, such as unserved 

locations, road miles, and areas with 

parks or wilderness where devices are 

likely to be used. For such an approach, 

the Commission would need to consider 

what data are available that would 

enable us to make useful predictions of 

usage. If the Commission were to use 

this usage-based approach, how should 

usage be measured? One possible 

measure of usage would be the average 

number of connected 5G devices in 15- 

minute periods throughout the day. 

Another possible measure of usage 

would be total megabytes of data usage 

during a reporting period. Similar to the 

approaches used to generate the 

adjustment factor that was adopted in 

the 5G Fund Report and Order, such 

data could be used in a regression or 

another modeling approach to generate 

weights for each eligible area based on 

predicted usage. 

B. Minimum Geographic Area for 

Bidding 

39. In the 5G Fund Report and Order, 

the Commission concluded that ‘‘the 

minimum geographic area for bidding— 

i.e., the geographic area by which areas 

eligible for support for 5G Fund support 

will be grouped for bidding—in a 5G 

Fund auction will be no larger than a 

census tract and no smaller than a 

census block group, as designated by the 

U.S. Census Bureau.’’ Census tracts and 

census block groups are practical units 

for aggregation when starting with 

census blocks, as, for example, in the 

Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. As 

discussed in the FNPRM, the 

Commission would convert the areas 

eligible for the 5G Fund to, and make 

them available in the form of, hex-9s. 

The Commission could then group the 

eligible hex-9s into larger geographic 

areas for purposes of bidding. For 

example, the Commission could have 

the geographic bidding unit be all of the 

eligible hex-9s that overlap a census 

tract or census block group. 

Alternatively, eligible hex-9s could be 

aggregated to another geographic area, 

such as the H3 hexagonal geospatial 

indexing system resolution-5 hexagon 

level (hex-5s). The Commission seeks 

comment on what aggregation scheme 

would be an efficient and appropriate 

way to group eligible hex-9s for bidding. 

VI. Compliance With 5G Fund Public 

Interest Obligations and Performance 

Requirements 

A. Metric for Measuring Compliance 

With 5G Fund Public Interest 

Obligations and Performance 

Requirements 

40. The Commission adopted interim 

and final service deployment milestones 

for 5G Fund support recipients in the 

5G Fund Report and Order to ensure 

that they meet their public interest 

obligations and performance 

requirements in areas where they 

receive support. The Commission’s 

proposal to use dollars per square 

kilometer as the bidding and support 

price metric is consistent with this 

approach. If the Commission decides to 

modify the bidding and support price 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66788 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

metric for the 5G Fund auctions to use 

a metric that targets locations (and 

possibly road miles), as discussed 

above, the Commission would need to 

make corresponding modifications to 

the rules adopted in the 5G Fund Report 

and Order concerning the metric that 

would be used to measure a 5G Fund 

support recipient’s compliance with its 

public interest obligations and 

performance requirements. 

41. Under this approach, if the 

Commission adopts a different bidding 

and support price metric, it would 

likely adopt the same metric for 

measuring compliance. For example, if 

the Commission were to use a locationsbased metric without a road miles 

component, the Commission would 

measure compliance based on a support 

recipient deploying service that meets 

the 5G Fund performance requirements 

to a specified percentage of the total 

locations within the eligible areas for 

which it is authorized to receive 5G 

Fund support in a state by the relevant 

interim service milestone and the final 

service milestone. Or, if the Commission 

were to use a hybrid metric that 

incorporates locations and road miles, it 

would measure compliance based on a 

support recipient deploying service that 

meets the 5G Fund performance 

requirements to a specified percentage 

of the total unserved locations and a 

specified percentage of the total 

unserved road miles within the eligible 

areas for which it is authorized to 

receive 5G Fund support in a state by 

the relevant interim service milestone 

and the final service milestone. 

However, an exception to the approach 

of adopting the same metric for 

measuring compliance if the 

Commission adopts a different bidding 

and support price metric would be if the 

Commission were to adopt an 

alternative approach to encouraging 

coverage of unserved road miles by 

using a metric based on locations alone, 

but require coverage of road miles as 

well as locations as part of the winner’s 

obligations. 

42. The Commission seeks comment 

on its approach to harmonizing the 

metric it uses to measure a 5G Fund 

support recipient’s compliance with its 

public interest obligations and 

performance requirements should the 

Commission decide to modify the 

bidding and support price metric 

adopted in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order. 

43. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether, in determining 

the metric it uses to measure a 5G Fund 

support recipient’s compliance with its 

public interest obligations and 

performance requirements, the 

Commission should also consider how 

any such metric might allow us to 

account for the impact of the Broadband 

Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) 

Program and other Federal and state 

broadband infrastructure investments, if 

any, on the deployment of mobile 

broadband. Given that the BEAD 

Program does not provide funding for 

mobile broadband deployment, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

its proposals herein, together with the 

rules and procedures already adopted 

for the 5G Fund, are sufficient to ensure 

that the Commission efficiently and 

effectively facilitates the deployment of 

mobile broadband service to those areas 

where support is most needed. 

Furthermore, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the use of a metric 

that targets locations and/or road miles 

to measure a 5G Fund support 

recipient’s compliance with its public 

interest obligations and performance 

requirements provides us with the 

ability to determine if, and how, mobile 

broadband deployment supported 

through the 5G Fund complements 

other federally funded buildout efforts 

and investments in broadband 

infrastructure. Finally, the Commission 

seeks comment on steps it can take to 

ensure that any final decision here is 

taken in coordination and with due 

consideration for the other various 

broadband infrastructure funding 

initiatives underway. 

B. Methodologies for Demonstrating 

Compliance With 5G Fund Performance 

Requirements 

44. In the 5G Fund Report and Order, 

the Commission decided to generally 

align the framework for 5G Fund 

support recipients’ demonstration of 

compliance with their 5G Fund interim 

and final performance requirement 

milestones with the BDC, concluding 

that standardizing the data required for 

compliance reporting was likely to ease 

the burden on support recipients 

throughout universal service programs, 

while collecting sufficient data to 

confirm that the 5G Fund’s 

requirements have been met. To that 

end, the Commission adopted a 

requirement that 5G Fund support 

recipients certify at the established 

interim and final service deployment 

milestones that their 5G mobile 

broadband coverage data reflects 

deployments in the eligible areas for 

which they are authorized to received 

5G Fund support, and also adopted a 

requirement that 5G Fund support 

recipients conduct on-the-ground 

measurement tests to substantiate their 

5G broadband coverage data pursuant to 

methodologies for conducting such 

testing and validating the test results 

and file that data in the BDC portal. 

Rather than adopting customized 5G 

Fund testing requirements, the 

Commission decided to adopt test 

metrics, data specifications, and 

permitted testing applications that are at 

least as stringent as those adopted for 

governmental and third party challenges 

in the BDC as a minimum for the on-the 

ground tests required for the 5G Fund. 

With respect to the methodologies for 

conducting on-the-ground tests, the 

Commission decided that a 5G Fund 

support recipient must submit on-theground measurement tests with at least 

three tests conducted per square 

kilometer, measured by overlaying a 

uniform grid of one square kilometer (1 

km by 1 km) on its submitted 5G 

coverage maps within the area for which 

5G Fund support was awarded in a 

percentage of all drive-testable grid cells 

where the recipient reports deployment 

of 5G service by the applicable service 

deployment milestone. The minimum 

percentage of drive-testable grid cells 

tested must equal the minimum 

percentage of coverage required for each 

service buildout milestone (i.e., 40%, 

60%, 80%, 85%). 

45. The Commission proposes to 

modify the methodologies that support 

recipients would use to substantiate 

their 5G broadband coverage 

certifications in the areas for which they 

receive 5G Fund support in order to be 

consistent with both its proposal to use 

hexagonal areas as the basis for the areas 

eligible for 5G Fund support and the 

Commission’s decision in the 5G Fund 

Report and Order to generally align the 

framework for demonstrating 

compliance with 5G Fund performance 

requirement milestones with the BDC. 

Specifically, the Commission proposes 

requiring 5G Fund support recipients to 

use the methodologies adopted for the 

BDC mobile verification process as the 

basis for substantiating coverage and 

demonstrating compliance with the 5G 

Fund interim and final deployment 

milestones adopted in the 5G Fund 

Report and Order. Under the 

requirements for the BDC mobile 

verification process, mobile providers 

can submit either on-the-ground test 

data or infrastructure data to verify 

coverage in response to a mobile 

verification request from the 

Commission. The Commission may then 

use the infrastructure data to generate a 

predicted coverage area using 

propagation modeling software. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal and, in particular, whether 5G 

Fund support recipients should be 

required to submit on-the-ground test 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 66789 

data for areas that are accessible and 

infrastructure data for areas that are 

inaccessible. Should they submit 

infrastructure data sufficient to generate 

a ‘‘core coverage area,’’ as defined in the 

BDC mobile verification process, and 

on-the-ground test data for areas outside 

of such a core coverage area? 

Alternatively, should providers be 

allowed to submit either type of data 

regardless of the type of area in which 

they are deploying service? 

46. If a provider chooses to submit onthe-ground test data in response to a 

BDC mobile verification request, it must 

provide such data based on a sample of 

on-the-ground tests that is statistically 

appropriate for the area tested. The 

sampled area is based on H3 resolution8 hexagonal areas, and the provider 

must submit the results of at least two 

tests within each hexagon, and the time 

of the tests must be at least four hours 

apart, irrespective of date. The BDC 

rules provide that a provider must 

submit the results of at least two tests 

‘‘unless, for any sampled hexagon, the 

provider has and submits alongside its 

speed tests actual cell loading data for 

the cell(s) covering the hexagon 

sufficient to establish that median 

loading, measured in 15-minute 

intervals, did not exceed the modeled 

loading factor for the one-week period 

prior to the verification inquiry, in 

which case the provider is required to 

submit only a single test for the sampled 

hexagon.’’ See 47 CFR 1.7006(c). The 

tests are then evaluated to confirm, 

using a one-sided 95% statistical 

confidence interval, that the cell 

coverage is 90% or higher. The 

Commission proposes to use a 

methodology for support recipients to 

demonstrate compliance with their 5G 

Fund performance requirement 

milestones that is similar to that 

adopted for the BDC mobile verification 

process, except that 5G Fund support 

recipients would not submit speed data 

based on a sample of areas, but for all 

supported areas subject to the on-theground testing requirement, and the area 

would be hex-9 instead of a hex-8. 

Under this approach, a 5G Fund support 

recipient’s cumulative test data will be 

required to show that at least 90% of 

measurements report 5G service at 

download and upload speeds of at least 

7/1 Mbps and median download and 

upload speeds of at least 35/3 Mbps, 

and that at least 90% of tests record data 

latency of 100 milliseconds or less at the 

cell edge, as adopted in the 5G Fund 

Report and Order for each of the 

support recipient’s interim and final 

deployment milestones. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

approach. Do commenters believe that 

more tests or fewer tests should be 

required within a hexagonal area? 

Should the tests be spaced further than 

four hours apart or closer together? 

47. If a provider chooses to submit 

infrastructure data in response to a BDC 

mobile verification request, it must 

submit additional information beyond 

what is submitted as part of its biannual 

BDC availability data (propagation 

modeling details, as well as link budget 

and clutter data), including cell-site and 

antenna data for the targeted area. The 

Commission proposes to require 5G 

Fund support recipients to submit the 

same additional infrastructure data as is 

required in the BDC mobile verification 

process to substantiate coverage in the 

areas for which they receive 5G Fund 

support. The Commission seeks 

comment on this approach. 

VII. Schedule for Transitioning From 

Mobile Legacy High-Cost Support to 5G 

Fund Support 

48. In the 5G Fund Report and Order, 

as part of its determination that the 5G 

Fund constitutes a comprehensive 

mechanism for mobile high-cost support 

that would serve as the alternative to 

Mobility Fund Phase II, the Commission 

concluded that it would commence the 

phase down of legacy mobile high-cost 

support in areas that are ineligible for 

5G Fund support as soon as those areas 

were finalized. In the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2023, Public Law 

117–328, Div. E, Title VI 624, 136 Stat. 

4459, 4702, however, Congress amended 

the language that allowed the 

Commission to consider support 

mechanisms as alternatives to Mobility 

Fund Phase II to further provide that 

any such alternative mechanism 

maintain existing high-cost support to 

competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers until 

support under such mechanism 

commences. Accordingly, the 

Commission proposes to treat the 

release of the public notice announcing 

the close of the 5G Fund Phase I auction 

to be the point at which support under 

the 5G Fund commences. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the appropriations 

rider requires the Commission to modify 

or consider any other changes to aspects 

of its plan for transitioning from mobile 

legacy high-cost support to 5G Fund 

support. Commenters should provide 

support for any interpretation they offer 

and how the public interest is best 

served by any such interpretation. 

VIII. Certification of Notice of 5G Fund 

Phase I Auction Requirements and 

Procedures 

49. The Commission proposes to 

adopt a requirement for the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction that each auction 

applicant certify, under penalty of 

perjury, that it has read the public 

notice adopting procedures for the 

auction, and that it has familiarized 

itself with those procedures and any 

requirements, terms, and conditions 

associated with receipt of 5G Fund 

support. As with other required 

certifications, an auction applicant’s 

failure to make the required certification 

in its short-form application by the 

applicable filing deadline would render 

its application unacceptable for filing, 

and its application would be dismissed 

with prejudice. 

50. Prior to the deadline by which an 

interested party must submit a shortform application to participate in a 

given auction, a public notice is 

released announcing the procedures for 

the auction. This ‘‘Procedures Public 

Notice’’ describes in detail both the 

requirements for participating in the 

auction and the procedures that will be 

used to conduct all stages of the auction. 

The Commission has a longstanding 

policy that expressly places a burden 

upon each applicant to be thoroughly 

familiar with the procedures, terms, and 

conditions contained in the relevant 

Procedures Public Notice and any future 

public notices that may be released in 

the auction proceeding. In recent 

spectrum auctions the Commission and 

OEA, in conjunction with the WTB and 

the Media Bureau, have reinforced this 

policy by adopting, as part of the 

procedures for those auctions, a 

requirement that each auction 

participant certify, under penalty of 

perjury, that it has read the Procedures 

Public Notice for the auction in 

question, and that it has familiarized 

itself with the auction procedures and 

with the requirements related to the 

licenses made available for bidding. In 

adopting this certification requirement 

for prior Commission auctions, the 

Commission noted that it was intended 

to bolster applicants’ efforts to educate 

themselves to the greatest extent 

possible about the procedures for 

auction participation and to ensure that, 

prior to submitting their short-form 

applications, applicants understood 

their obligation to stay abreast of 

relevant, forthcoming information. The 

Commission further reasoned that 

familiarity with the Commission’s rules 

and procedures governing the auctions 

would help bidders avoid the 

consequences to them associated with 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66790 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

defaults, which also cause harm to other 

applicants and the public by reducing 

the efficiency of the auction process and 

reducing the likelihood that the license 

or construction permit will be assigned 

to the bidder that values it the most. The 

Commission has also previously 

expressed in the context of spectrum 

auctions that the certification 

requirement will help ensure that an 

auction applicant has investigated and 

evaluated those technical and 

marketplace factors that may have a 

bearing on its potential use of any 

licenses won at auction. 

51. The Commission believes that 

applicants for universal service support 

in the 5G Fund Phase I auction would 

benefit from a similar certification 

because, as is the case with its spectrum 

auctions, familiarity with the rules and 

procedures governing the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction would help bidders 

avoid the consequences to them 

associated with defaults, which also 

cause harm to other applicants and the 

public by reducing the efficiency of the 

auction process. The Commission also 

believes that such certification would 

promote the integrity of and public 

confidence in the Commission’s auction 

processes as well as ensure that 5G 

Fund Phase I support recipients are 

aware of and better prepared to comply 

with their public interest obligations 

and performance requirements. The 

Commission therefore proposes to adopt 

this requirement for the 5G Fund Phase 

I auction and seeks comment on this 

proposal. The Commission seeks 

comment on any alternative procedures 

that could be implemented that would 

better ensure that an applicant has 

thoroughly reviewed the auction’s 

procedures and considered all relevant 

factors that may affect its participation 

in the auction and use of any support 

for which it is the winning bidder. 

IX. Cybersecurity and Supply Chain 

Risk Management 

52. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether to require 5G Fund support 

recipients to implement cybersecurity 

and supply chain risk management 

plans as a condition of receiving 5G 

Fund support. In the Enhanced 

Alternative Connect America Cost 

Model Report and Order, 88 FR 55918 

(Aug. 17, 2023) (Enhanced A–CAM 

Report and Order), the Commission 

adopted a requirement that wireline 

providers receiving funds through the 

Enhanced Alternative Connect America 

Cost Model (Enhanced A–CAM) 

program implement such plans prior to 

the start of the program’s support term, 

and that they submit their plans to 

USAC and certify that they have done 

so by the established deadline; a failure 

to submit the plans and make the 

certification will result in 25% of 

monthly support being withheld until 

the carrier comes into compliance. The 

Commission sought comment in the 

Enhanced Alternative Connect America 

Cost Model Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 87 FR 36283 (June 16, 

2022), on whether to adopt 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management requirements for Enhanced 

A–CAM carriers or, alternatively, for all 

carriers receiving high-cost support, but 

decided the to adopt cybersecurity and 

supply chain risk management 

requirements only for Enhanced A– 

CAM carriers in the Enhanced A–CAM 

Report and Order because the record 

contained sparse comment on whether 

to extend these requirements to other 

high-cost programs. In adopting this 

requirement for Enhanced A–CAM 

carriers, the Commission stated that its 

actions emphasize the critical 

importance of cybersecurity and supply 

chain risk management in modern 

broadband networks, consistent with 

broader initiatives across the Federal 

Government, and reasoned that a risk 

management requirement was necessary 

to ensure that the program does not 

deprive rural consumers in high-cost 

areas of broadband service that is as 

secure as the service deployed pursuant 

to other Federal funding initiatives. 

Specifically, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether 5G Fund support 

recipients should be required to 

implement a cybersecurity risk 

management plan that reflects the latest 

version of the NIST Framework for 

Improving Critical Infrastructure 

Cybersecurity, and that reflects an 

established set of cybersecurity best 

practices, such as the standards and 

controls set forth in the Cybersecurity & 

Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) 

Cybersecurity Cross-sector Performance 

Goals and Objectives or the Center for 

internet Security Critical Security (CIS) 

Controls. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether these carriers 

should be required to implement supply 

chain risk management plans that 

incorporate the key practices discussed 

in NISTIR 8276, Key Practices in Cyber 

Supply Chain Risk Management 

Observations from Industry, and related 

supply chain risk management guidance 

from NIST 800–161. Would it be 

appropriate for 5G Fund recipients to 

submit to USAC their updated 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management plans within 30 days of 

making a substantive modification 

thereto, as Enhanced A–CAM recipients 

must? What are the differences (if any) 

between 5G Fund recipients and 

Enhanced A–CAM recipients that might 

warrant different approaches to 

ensuring cybersecurity? 

X. Use of Open Radio Access Network 

Technologies in 5G Fund Supported 

Networks 

53. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether it should use the 5G Fund 

to encourage the deployment of Open 

RAN, and if so, how. In its March 2021 

Open RAN NOI, 86 FR 16349 (Mar. 29, 

2021), the Commission sought input on 

whether, and if so, how, deployment of 

Open RAN-compliant networks could 

further the Commission’s policy goals 

and statutory obligations, advance 

legislative priorities, and benefit 

American consumers by making stateof-the-art wireless broadband available 

faster and to more people in additional 

parts of the country. Soon after the 

Open RAN NOI was adopted, the 

President signed Executive Order 14036, 

E.O. 14036, 86 FR 36987 (Jul. 14, 2021), 

which encouraged the Commission to 

consider providing support for the 

continued development and adoption of 

5G Open Radio Access Network 

protocols and software. The 

Commission has since sought comment 

in its Enhanced Competition Incentive 

Program Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 86 FR 74024 (Dec. 29, 

2021), on whether and how the 

Commission should factor the use of 

Open RAN technologies into the 

Enhanced Competition Incentive 

Program, noting that Open RAN has the 

potential to allow carriers to promote 

the security of their networks while 

driving innovation, in particular in 

next-generation technologies like 5G, 

lowering costs, increasing vendor 

diversity, and enabling more flexible 

network architecture. 

54. The Commission considers here 

whether and if so, how, this 5G Fund 

proceeding should promote the 

continued deployment of Open RAN 

technologies in networks built with 5G 

Fund support. The Radio Access 

Network (RAN) is the portion of the 

wireless telecommunication system that 

connects user devices (e.g., mobile 

phones) with the core network that 

performs routing or delivery of content. 

Open RAN is a term that describes a 

general disaggregation of RAN 

functionality built using open interface 

specifications between elements instead 

of proprietary specifications. Open RAN 

can be implemented in vendor-neutral 

hardware and software-defined 

technology based on open interfaces and 

community-developed standards 

providing a flexible and interoperable 

deployment architecture across multiple 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 66791 

vendors. As noted above, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should use the 5G Fund to encourage 

the deployment of Open RAN, and if so, 

how. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the 5G Fund could 

be an appropriate vehicle by which to 

further the goals outlined in Executive 

Order 14036 and if so, what the best 

mechanism(s) for doing so might be. For 

example, would deploying Open RAN 

networks require more time such that 

the Commission should afford a 5G 

Fund support recipient an extension of 

the interim and/or final service 

milestone deadlines if it demonstrates 

that it is using Open RAN in its network 

deployment? If the Commission does 

adopt such an incentive to encourage 

the use of Open RAN technologies, how 

would a support recipient demonstrate 

compliance with a requirement to 

implement those technologies, and how 

would the Commission measure a 

support recipient’s continued 

compliance with such a requirement? 

Would supporting the deployment of 

Open RAN be consistent with the 

Commission’s objective to efficiently 

and effectively distribute finite 

universal service support? 

XI. Promoting Digital Equity and 

Inclusion 

55. The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to advance digital 

equity for all, including for 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 

benefits (if any) that may be associated 

with the proposals and issues discussed 

herein. The term ‘‘equity’’ is used here 

consistent with Executive Order 13985, 

E.O. 13985 (Jan. 20, 2021), as the 

consistent and systematic fair, just, and 

impartial treatment of all individuals, 

including individuals who belong to 

underserved communities that have 

been denied such treatment, such as 

Black, Latino, and Indigenous and 

Native American persons, Asian 

Americans and Pacific Islanders and 

other persons of color; members of 

religious minorities; lesbian, gay, 

bisexual, transgender, and queer 

(LGBTQ+) persons; persons with 

disabilities; persons who live in rural 

areas; and persons otherwise adversely 

affected by persistent poverty or 

inequality. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on how its proposals 

may promote or inhibit advances in 

diversity, equity, inclusion, and 

accessibility, as well the scope of the 

Commission’s relevant legal authority to 

address any such issues. 

XII. Procedural Matters 

56. Paperwork Reduction Act. This 

FNPRM does not contain proposed new 

or modified information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, this 

FNPRM does not contain any new or 

modified information collection burden 

for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees, pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

57. Regulatory Flexibility Act. As 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 

603, the Commission has prepared a 

Supplemental Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental 

IRFA) of the possible significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities from the 

policies and rules proposed in the 

FNPRM to supplement the 

Commission’s Regulatory Flexibility 

Analyses completed in the 5G Fund 

NPRM and 5G Fund Report and Order. 

The Commission requests written public 

comment on this Supplemental IRFA. 

Comments must be identified as 

responses to the Supplemental IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments on the FNPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

FNPRM, including the Supplemental 

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

(SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and 

Supplemental IRFA (or summaries 

thereof) will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

58. The new, granular, and more 

accurate mobile coverage data obtained 

in the BDC and reflected on the 

Commission’s new National Broadband 

Map allows the Commission to continue 

the implementation of the 5G Fund and 

advance its efforts to ensure the 

deployment of high-speed 5G service in 

areas of the country where, absent 

subsidies, it will continue to be lacking. 

The Commission undertakes this effort 

in the FNPRM in recognition that those 

living, working, and travelling in 

unserved and underserved areas must 

have access to high-speed 5G service. 

Mobile services that may have once 

been considered a luxury by some have 

become a necessity for all Americans. 

The need for such services has never 

been more critical, yet not only are there 

people in many areas of the country that 

continue to lack access to 5G services, 

Americans in some rural areas still lack 

access to any broadband service at all. 

59. In its narrowly tailored FNPRM, 

the Commission seeks to refresh the 

record and reignite the Commission’s 

plan to expand the deployment of 5G 

service to those rural communities that 

remain trapped on the wrong side of the 

digital divide. The Commission seeks 

comment on a limited set of proposals 

and other issues that are critical to the 

5G Fund’s success, including: (1) 

defining the areas that will be eligible 

for 5G Fund support; (2) reassessing the 

budget for the 5G Fund; (3) potentially 

reconsidering the use of adjusted square 

kilometers as the metric for accepting 

bids and identifying winning bids in a 

5G Fund auction; (4) aggregating areas 

eligible for 5G Fund support to 

minimum geographic areas for bidding; 

(5) measuring a 5G Fund support 

recipient’s compliance with its public 

interest obligations and performance 

requirements based on any modified 

metric for accepting bids and 

identifying winning bids; (6) modifying 

the schedule for transitioning from 

mobile legacy high-cost support to 5G 

Fund support consistent with recent 

legislative amendments; (7) a proposal 

to require each 5G Fund Phase I auction 

applicant to certify, under penalty of 

perjury, that it has read the public 

notice adopting procedures for the 

auction, and that it has familiarized 

itself with those procedures and any 

requirements related to the support 

made available for bidding in the 

auction; (8) whether to require 5G Fund 

support recipients to implement 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management plans; and (9) determining 

whether and how this proceeding might 

create an opportunity to support further 

deployment of Open RAN technologies. 

60. Based on data obtained in the BDC 

and currently reflected on the National 

Broadband Map, the Commission’s 

understanding of where mobile service 

remains lacking has improved 

significantly and it now seeks comment 

on whether to modify the definition of 

eligible areas adopted in the 5G Fund 

Report and Order. Specifically, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should continue to use the definition 

adopted by the Commission in the 5G 

Fund Report and Order to determine 

areas eligible for the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction, or whether it should modify the 

definition to base the determination of 

eligible areas on where mobile coverage 

data submitted in the BDC show a lack 

of unsubsidized 5G broadband service 

by at least one service provider. 

Regardless of how the Commission 

defines the areas eligible for 5G Fund 

support, it proposes to use as the basis 

for the final eligible areas the version of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66792 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

the mobile availability data published 

on the National Broadband Map 

approximately 30 days prior to the start 

of bidding. Because the Commission 

seeks to direct 5G Fund support to areas 

where people live, work, and travel, 

regardless of the definition used to 

identify the areas eligible for the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction, it seeks comment 

on limiting eligible areas to those that 

contain locations and/or roads that lack 

unsubsidized 5G service. The 

Commission would then use the H3 

hexagonal geospatial indexing system 

(H3 system) to identify specific 

geographic areas eligible for 5G Fund 

support, limiting eligible areas to 

resolution-9 H3 hexagons that have 

locations and/or roads. If the 

Commission were to limit eligible areas 

to resolution-9 H3 hexagons that have 

locations and/or roads, it would use a 

bidding and support price metric based 

on dollars per square kilometer for those 

eligible areas and seek comment on 

whether to use the adjustment factor as 

previously adopted. 

61. The Commission also proposes to 

modify the methodologies that support 

recipients would use to substantiate 

their 5G broadband coverage 

certifications in the areas for which they 

receive 5G Fund by requiring 5G Fund 

support recipients to use the 

methodologies adopted for the BDC 

mobile verification process as the basis 

for substantiating coverage and 

demonstrating compliance with the 5G 

Fund interim and final deployment 

milestones. Finally, the Commission 

proposes to treat the release of the 

public notice announcing the close of 

the 5G Fund Phase I auction to be the 

point at which support under the 5G 

Fund commences. The Commission 

believes these proposals make the best 

use of its National Broadband Map and 

will facilitate its policy goals of 

achieving ubiquitous high-speed 

broadband coverage, providing rural 

areas with access to mobile services 

reasonably comparable to those 

provided in urban areas, and ensuring 

that all Americans have access to 5G 

service where they live, work, and 

travel. 

62. Additionally, the Commission 

proposes to require each 5G Fund Phase 

I auction applicant to certify, under 

penalty of perjury, that it has read the 

public notice adopting procedures for 

the auction, and that it has familiarized 

itself with those procedures and any 

requirements related to the support 

made available for bidding in the 

auction. The Commission believes that 

such a certification would promote the 

integrity of and public confidence in the 

Commission’s auction processes as well 

as ensure that 5G Fund Phase I support 

recipients are aware of and better 

prepared to comply with their public 

interest obligations and performance 

requirements. 

63. Access to high-speed, mobile 

services touches almost all aspects of 

daily life and is essential to civic, 

economic, and social opportunities for 

those living and working in rural areas 

as well as in big cities and suburban 

areas. The ability to communicate and 

innovate through access to high-speed, 

mobile broadband services is a necessity 

for work, education, healthcare, news 

and entertainment, public safety 

information and services, and 

communication during a national 

emergency or other crisis. Thus, the 

importance of expanding access to highspeed 5G services in rural communities 

cannot be overstated. With this in mind, 

the Commission issued the FNPRM 

cognizant that full participation in 

American society requires us to make 

5G service available to everyone no 

matter where they live. 

64. The legal basis for any action that 

may be taken pursuant to the FNPRM is 

authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 

214, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 214, 254, 

303(r), and 403, and §§ 1.1 and 1.421 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1 and 

1.421. 

65. 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 ‘‘smallbusiness concern’’ is one which: (1) is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

66. Regulatory Flexibility Analyses 

were incorporated into the 5G Fund 

NPRM and 5G Fund Report and Order. 

In those analyses, the Commission 

described in detail the small entities 

that might be significantly affected. In 

this Supplemental IRFA, the 

Commission hereby incorporates by 

reference the descriptions and estimates 

of the number of small entities from the 

previous Regulatory Flexibility 

Analyses in the 5G Fund NPRM and 5G 

Fund Report and Order. 

67. Possible modification to some of 

the compliance requirements adopted in 

the 5G Fund Report and Order that may 

be necessary based on the proposals 

and/or the other issues on which the 

Commission seeks comment in the 

FNPRM could impact the reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements for small and other 

providers that receive 5G Fund support. 

68. In the 5G Fund Report and Order, 

the Commission decided that it would 

accept bids and identify winning bids in 

the 5G Fund auctions using a support 

price per adjusted square kilometer, and 

adopted interim and final service 

deployment milestones for small and 

other 5G Fund support recipients to 

ensure that all support recipients meet 

their public interest obligations and 

performance requirements in areas 

where they receive support. If the 

Commission decides to modify the 

bidding and support price metric for the 

5G Fund auctions to use a metric other 

than square kilometers and makes 

corresponding modifications to the rules 

adopted in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order concerning the metric that would 

be used to measure a 5G Fund support 

recipient’s compliance with its public 

interest obligations and performance 

requirements, small and other providers 

that receive 5G Fund support will be 

required to use a different metric than 

what was adopted in the 5G Fund 

Report and Order for purposes of 

measuring and reporting compliance 

with the 5G Fund public interest 

obligations and performance 

requirements. 

69. The Commission decided to 

generally align the framework for 5G 

Fund support recipients’ demonstration 

of compliance with their 5G Fund 

interim and final performance 

requirement milestones with the BDC in 

the 5G Fund Report and Order, 

concluding that standardizing the data 

required for compliance reporting was 

likely to ease the burden on support 

recipients throughout universal service 

programs, while collecting sufficient 

data to confirm that the 5G Fund’s 

requirements have been met. With 

respect to the methodologies for 

conducting on-the-ground tests, the 

Commission decided in the 5G Fund 

Report and Order that a 5G Fund 

support recipient must submit on-theground measurement tests with at least 

three tests conducted per square 

kilometer, measured by overlaying a 

uniform grid of one square kilometer (1 

km by 1 km) on its submitted 5G 

coverage maps within the area for which 

5G Fund support was awarded in a 

percentage of all drive-testable grid cells 

where the recipient reports deployment 

of 5G service by the applicable service 

deployment milestone. The minimum 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 66793 

percentage of drive-testable grid cells 

tested must equal the minimum 

percentage of coverage required for each 

service buildout milestone (i.e., 40%, 

60%, 80%, 85%). In the FNPRM, the 

Commission proposes to modify the 

methodologies that support recipients 

would use to substantiate their 5G 

broadband coverage certifications in the 

areas for which they receive 5G Fund 

support in order to be consistent with 

both its proposal to use hexagonal areas 

as the basis for the areas eligible for 5G 

Fund support and the Commission’s 

decision in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order to generally align the framework 

for demonstrating compliance with 5G 

Fund performance requirement 

milestones with the BDC. If this 

proposal is adopted, small and other 

providers that receive 5G Fund support 

will be required to use different 

methodologies than were adopted in the 

5G Fund Report and Order for purposes 

of demonstrating compliance. 

70. The FNPRM also seeks comment 

on whether to adopt a requirement that 

each 5G Fund support recipient 

implement cybersecurity risk 

management and supply-chain risk 

management plans as a condition of 

receiving 5G Fund support, similar to 

the requirement adopted for the 

Enhanced Alternative Connect America 

Cost Model program. In that program, 

support recipients are required to 

implement such plans prior to the start 

of the program’s support term, and to 

submit the plans to the USAC and 

certify that they have done so. 

71. In assessing the cost of 

compliance for small entities, at this 

time the Commission is not in a position 

to determine whether small entities will 

be required to hire professionals, and 

cannot quantify the cost of compliance 

with its proposals related to the abovedescribed possible modifications to the 

metric and methodologies for 

demonstrating and reporting 

compliance with the 5G Fund public 

interest obligations and performance 

requirements. The Commission 

anticipates, however, that the comments 

it receives will discuss any potential 

changes to compliance costs and/or 

administrative burdens for small 

entities, and may help the Commission 

identify and evaluate other relevant 

issues for small entities associated with 

the matters discussed in the FNPRM. 

72. The FNPRM also seeks comment 

on a proposal to add to the existing 

certifications that are required under the 

Commission’s competitive bidding rules 

a requirement that each applicant in the 

5G Fund Phase I auction certify, under 

penalty of perjury, that it has read the 

public notice adopting procedures for 

the auction, which will be released in 

advance of the auction’s short-form 

deadline, and it has familiarized itself 

both with the auction procedures and 

with any requirements related to the 

authorizations or support made 

available for bidding in the auction. 

Consistent with other certifications 

required in an auction application, a 

failure to make these certifications 

would render an application 

unacceptable for filing, and the 

applicant will not be found qualified to 

bid. 

73. Typically, the auction procedures 

inform prospective applicants that they 

should familiarize themselves with the 

Commission’s general competitive 

bidding rules, Commission decisions 

regarding competitive bidding 

procedures, application requirements, 

obligations of Commission licensees, 

construction permit holders, and 

support recipients, and the 

Commission’s service rules for the 

frequency band available in the auction 

or for construction permits or universal 

service support, and that they must be 

thoroughly familiar with the 

procedures, terms, and conditions 

contained in the public notice adopting 

procedures for the auction. The 

Commission therefore does not expect 

that the certification requirement 

proposed in this FNPRM will increase 

the need for small entities to hire 

attorneys, engineers, consultants, or 

other professionals because it does not 

increase the level of education or due 

diligence beyond what was required of 

applicants prior to the adoption of the 

certification requirement, and thus it 

should not increase an applicant’s 

burden in complying with the 

additional certification requirement. 

Additional public notices adopting the 

procedures for any auction will be 

released before the auction’s short-form 

filing deadline and made publicly 

available on each auction’s web page. 

The Commission believes that this is 

sufficient to ensure that applicants in 

each auction can certify truthfully that 

they have read the auction procedures 

and familiarized themselves with the 

relevant rules and requirements. 

74. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include (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. 

75. The Commission believes that the 

proposed modification to the metric for 

measuring compliance that may be 

necessary depending on the metric that 

it will use to accept bids and identify 

winning bids will also benefit small 

entities as corresponding changes to the 

metric that will be used to measure 

compliance will ensure that small 

entities would not be required to 

undertake separate analyses to 

determine how, and where they wish to 

bid, to identify the areas for which they 

are awarded support, and to measure 

and report compliance with their public 

interest obligations. 

76. In the FNPRM, an alternative the 

Commission considered to its proposal 

to use dollars per square kilometer as 

the bidding and support price metric, 

which it seeks comment on, is whether 

to adopt an alternative approach that 

would provide some advantage to 

particularly costly areas that 

nonetheless are areas with a 

considerable number of homes, 

businesses, and other locations, and/or 

roads that are frequently travelled. The 

Commission inquires whether 

parameters for such an alternative 

approach could be determined without 

unduly delaying the auction. Another 

alternative considered is to use a 

bidding and support price metric based 

on the number of locations in the 

eligible areas. Additionally, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

potentially incorporating the number of 

unserved road miles in an area, as well 

as the number of locations, into the 

bidding and support price metric. The 

Commission inquires whether there is 

an approach that would appropriately 

balance unserved road miles and 

unserved locations in a single metric. 

For example, the Commission asks 

whether it could adjust the number of 

locations upward by a fraction, e.g., 

25%, in an area with a moderate 

number of unserved road miles, and by 

a larger fraction, e.g., 40%, if the area 

has a large number of unserved road 

miles, or whether a metric that is a 

weighted sum of unserved locations and 

unserved road miles would be 

appropriate, such as a metric that is the 

total of the number of unserved 

locations and one half of the number of 

unserved road miles. The Commission 

also considered and seeks comment on 

a possible metric based on predicted 

usage from serving eligible areas. This 

metric would consider all measurable 

factors that can affect mobile usage, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66794 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

such as unserved locations, road miles, 

and areas with parks or wilderness 

where devices are likely to be used. 

Possible options the Commission raises 

for discussion to measure usage are 

using the average number of connected 

5G devices in 15-minute periods 

throughout the day or the total 

megabytes of data usage during a 

reporting period. 

77. The discussion of the approach 

the Commission should take to 

harmonize the metric it uses to measure 

a 5G Fund support recipient’s 

compliance with its public interest 

obligations and performance 

requirements should the Commission 

decide to modify the bidding and 

support price metric adopted in the 5G 

Fund Report and Order looked at two 

potential options upon which the 

FNPRM seeks comment. If the 

Commission was to use a locationsbased metric without a road miles 

component, it would measure 

compliance based on a support recipient 

deploying service that meets the 5G 

Fund performance requirements to a 

specified percentage of the total 

locations within the eligible areas for 

which it is authorized to receive 5G 

Fund support in a state by the relevant 

interim service milestone and the final 

service milestone. Alternatively, if the 

Commission was to use a hybrid metric 

that incorporates locations and road 

miles, it would measure compliance 

based on a support recipient deploying 

service that meets the 5G Fund 

performance requirements to a specified 

percentage of the total unserved 

locations and a specified percentage of 

the total unserved road miles within the 

eligible areas for which it is authorized 

to receive 5G Fund support in a state by 

the relevant interim service milestone 

and the final service milestone. 

78. With respect to the proposed 

certification requirement for short-form 

auction applications, the Commission 

has taken steps to minimize any 

economic impact of the certification 

requirement on small entities through 

the many free resources the Commission 

provides to potential auction 

participants. The public notice adopting 

the procedures for each auction will be 

posted to the auction’s website prior to 

the opening of the application window, 

and other relevant orders are available 

through EDOCS, the Commission’s 

online document database 

(www.fcc.gov/edocs). The Commission 

believes that reading these materials 

will be sufficient for applicants to 

certify that they have familiarized 

themselves with the relevant auction 

procedures and other requirements. The 

Commission also makes available 

additional educational materials to help 

potential auction participants 

understand the auction process, 

including short-form filing instructions 

and a tutorial. The Commission makes 

this information publicly available and 

easily accessible and without charge to 

benefit all potential auction applicants, 

including small entities, thereby 

lowering their administrative costs to 

comply with the Commission’s 

competitive bidding rules. 

79. Small entities and other auction 

participants also may seek clarification 

of, or guidance regarding, auction 

procedures, the competitive bidding 

rules, and any requirements related to 

the authorizations or support to be made 

available through the auction from 

Commission staff prior to the auction’s 

application window. Additionally, an 

FCC Auctions Hotline provides small 

entities one-on-one access to 

Commission staff for information about 

the auction process and procedures. The 

FCC Auctions Technical Support 

Hotline is another resource that 

provides technical assistance to 

applicants, including small entities, on 

issues such as access to or navigation 

within the electronic short-form 

application and use of the bidding 

system. 

80. Additionally, in the FNPRM the 

Commission also considered and seeks 

comment whether, and to what extent, 

if any, it can or should use the 5G Fund 

to encourage the deployment of Open 

RAN, and if so, how. The Commission 

considered, as an example, whether 

deploying Open RAN networks requires 

more time such that it should afford a 

5G Fund support recipient an extension 

of the interim and/or final service 

milestone deadlines if it demonstrates 

that it is using Open RAN in its network 

deployment. This approach could 

benefit small providers by allowing 

them the flexibility to choose an option 

that may provide an extension of 

compliance deadlines. 

81. The issues on which the 

Commission seeks comment in the 

FNPRM are designed to ensure the 

Commission has a complete 

understanding of the costs, benefits, and 

potential burdens associated with the 

different actions and methods. The 

Commission seeks to continue to learn 

from the experience of small entities so 

that it can balance its responsibility to 

monitor the use of universal service 

funds with minimizing administrative 

and compliance costs and burdens on 

5G Fund participants. The Commission 

expects to more fully consider the 

economic impact on small entities, as 

identified in comments filed in response 

to the FNPRM and this Supplemental 

IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions 

and taking final action in this 

proceeding. 

82. There are no Federal rules that 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 

rules proposed herein. 

83. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-ButDisclose. 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 presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b), 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In 

proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f), 47 

CFR 1.49(f), or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

XIII. Ordering Clauses 

84. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 4(i), 214, 254, 303(r), and 403 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 214, 254, 

303(r), and 403, and §§ 1.1 and 1.421 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1 and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 66795 

1.421, that this Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is adopted. 

85. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to the authority contained in sections 

4(i), 214, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 214, 254, 

303(r), and 403, and §§ 1.1 and 1.421 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1 and 

1.421, notice is hereby given of the 

proposals described in this Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

86. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to applicable procedures set forth in 

§§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested 

parties may file comments on the 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

in the captioned docket on or before the 

date shown on the first page of this 

document, and reply comments on or 

before the date shown on the first page 

of this document. 

87. It is further ordered that the Office 

of the Secretary, Reference Information 

Center, shall send a copy of this Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Supplemental Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–21476 Filed 9–27–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

49 CFR Part 675 

[Docket No. FTA–2023–0018] 

RIN 2132–AB46 

Transit Worker Hours of Service and 

Fatigue Risk Management Listening 

Session; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of public listening 

session. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) announces that it 

will host a listening session concerning 

the topics of hours of service and fatigue 

risk management programs for transit 

workers. The listening session will 

allow interested persons to present 

comments, views, and relevant research 

on those topics. All comments will be 

summarized and placed in the 

rulemaking docket for FTA’s 

consideration. 

DATES: The listening session will be 

held on October 8, 2023, in Orlando, 

Florida, from 11:15 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. 

ET. 

ADDRESSES: The listening session will 

be held in person at the Hyatt Regency 

Orlando, 9801 International Drive, 

Orlando, FL 32819. The session will 

take place during the American Public 

Transportation Association’s 

TRANSform Conference and EXPO. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information on the listening session, 

contact Valerie Beck, Office of Transit 

Safety and Oversight, FTA, telephone at 

(202) 366–9178 or Valerie.Beck@

dot.gov. Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. 

to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

FTA plans to issue an Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) 

seeking public input in two areas: (1) 

hours of service; and (2) fatigue risk 

management programs. At present, there 

are no Federal minimum standards for 

hours of service and fatigue risk 

management programs in the transit 

industry. The listening session will 

allow interested persons to present 

comments, views, and relevant research 

on those topics. FTA would like to hear 

from members of the public on their 

views on transit worker fatigue and 

whether they would support FTA 

adopting mandatory federal hours of 

service and fatigue risk management 

requirements for transit workers. FTA 

seeks information to understand better 

current industry practices, priorities, 

requirements, and the costs and benefits 

of Federal requirements. 

II. Meeting Participation 

The listening session is open to the 

public. 

III. Future Meetings 

FTA plans to hold additional listening 

sessions in the future for those unable 

to attend this in-person listening 

session. The details of those listening 

sessions will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329; 49 CFR 1.91) 

Nuria I. Fernandez, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2023–21120 Filed 9–27–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1