[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66781-66795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21476]



[[Page 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 Sec. Sec.  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:
    <bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    <bullet> 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.
    [cir] 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.
    [cir] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> People with Disabilities: To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format) send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f3959090c6c3c7b3959090dd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="274144441217136741444409404851">[email protected]</span></a> 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7ecc2cbcbde89f6d2cec9c9e7c1c4c489c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84cfe1e8e8fdaad5f1edeaeac4e2e7e7aae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a>, Valerie Barrish of the Office of Economics and 
Analytics, Auction Division, at (202) 418-0354 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6137000d041308044f23001313081209210702024f060e17"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e4b2858881968d81caa68596968d978ca4828787ca838b92">[email protected]</span></a>, or Mary Lovejoy of the Office of Economics and 
Analytics, Auction Division, at (202) 418-2024 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#612c0013184f2d0e17040b0e18210702024f060e17"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f1bc908388dfbd9e87949b9e88b1979292df969e87">[email protected]</span></a>.

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-seeks-further-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 
high-speed, 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 high-speed, 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

[[Page 66782]]

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 100x1.2 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 high-cost 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 high-speed, 
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

[[Page 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 T-Mobile'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 pre-auction 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 next-generation 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 provider-reported 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 high-cost 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 in-vehicle, 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

[[Page 66784]]

locations can be served. The Fabric therefore represents the universe 
of locations to which fixed broadband service can be provided, and the 
semi-annual 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

[[Page 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-the-ground 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 hex-9s 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 hex-9 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

[[Page 66786]]

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 area-specific characteristics, including terrain 
and elevation, and demand-related 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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 66788]]

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 
locations-based 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-the-
ground 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

[[Page 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 on-the-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 
resolution-8 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-the-ground 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 short-form 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

[[Page 66790]]

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 state-of-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

[[Page 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

[[Page 66792]]

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 high-speed 
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 Sec. Sec.  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 ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    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-the-ground 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

[[Page 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 above-
described 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,

[[Page 66794]]

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 locations-based 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-But-Disclose. 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 
Sec. Sec.  1.1 and 1.421 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1 and

[[Page 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 
Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>