[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27528-27537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12625]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket Nos. 18-143, 10-90, 14-58; FCC 18-57]


The Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund, Connect 
America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) seeks comment on how best to structure the second stage of 
the Uniendo a Puerto Rico and Connect USVI Funds to speed longer-term 
efforts to rebuild fixed and mobile voice and broadband networks in the 
territories and harden them against future natural disasters. The 
Commission intends to target high-cost support over the next several 
years in a tailored and cost-effective manner, using competitive 
processes where appropriate.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 5, 2018 and reply comments 
are due on or before July 18, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be 
submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period 
of time allowed by this document, you should advise the contact listed 
in the following as soon as possible.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 18-
143, 10-90 and 14-58, by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> Federal Communications Commission's website: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
    <bullet> People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dd9b9e9ee8ede99dbbbebef3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="45030606707571052326266b222a33">[email protected]</span></a> or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) in WC Docket Nos. 18-143, 10-90, 
14-58; FCC 18-57, adopted on May 8, 2018 and released on May 29, 2018. 
The full text of this document is available for public inspection 
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-
A257, 445 12th St. SW, Washington, DC 20554 or at the following 
internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-57A1.pdf. The Order that was adopted concurrently with the Notice is 
published elsewhere in the Federal Register.

I. Introduction

    1. Through the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund, the Commission will make 
available up to $750 million of funding to carriers in Puerto Rico, 
including an immediate infusion of $51.2 million for restoration 
efforts in 2018. Of the remainder, the Commission proposes that about 
$444.5 million would be made available over a 10-year term for fixed 
voice and broadband (an $84 million increase over current funding 
levels) and that about $254 million would be made available over a 3-
year term for 4G Long-Term Evolution (LTE) mobile voice and broadband 
(a $16.8 million increase).
    2. Through the Connect USVI Fund, the Commission will make 
available up to $204 million of funding to carriers in the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, including an immediate infusion of $13 million for restoration 
efforts in 2018. Of the remainder, the Commission proposes that about 
$186.5 million would be made available over a 10-year term for fixed 
broadband (a $21 million increase) and that about $4.4 million would be 
made available over a 3-year term for 4G LTE mobile voice and broadband 
(a $4.2 million increase).
    3. As a result of these Funds, as well as the Commission's decision 
not to offset more than $65 million in advance payments it made to 
carriers last year, it will make available up to $256 million in 
additional high-cost support for rebuilding, improving, and expanding 
broadband-capable networks in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The 
Commission seeks comment on how best to structure the second stage of 
these Funds to speed longer-term efforts to rebuild fixed and mobile 
voice and broadband networks in the territories and harden them against 
future natural disasters. The Commission intends to target high-cost 
support over the next several years in a tailored and cost-effective 
manner, using competitive processes where appropriate.

II. Notice: Stage 2 Funding for Long-Term Rebuilding

    4. The Commission recognizes that a longer-term solution is needed 
to rebuild, improve, and expand service in Puerto Rico and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands given the widespread devastation to communications 
networks caused by the hurricanes. In this Notice, the Commission 
proposes to establish second stages for the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund 
and the Connect USVI Fund--one that would make available about $699 
million through the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and about $191 million 
through the Connect USVI Fund.
    5. As background, the USF currently directs approximately $36 
million each year to fixed services in Puerto Rico and $16 million each 
year to fixed services in the U.S. Virgin Islands, along with $79.2 
million each year to mobile services in Puerto Rico and only $67,000 
each year to mobile services in the U.S. Virgin Islands. However, none 
of this funding is tied to specific, accountable build-out targets. The 
Commission now seeks comment on revisiting that spending to ensure 
there is sufficient support for the long-term

[[Page 27529]]

rebuilding of the territories and that such support is distributed in a 
cost-efficient manner.
    6. Based on the Commission's analysis, it proposes to spend up to 
an additional $126 million through the second stages of the Uniendo a 
Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund. Specifically, the 
Commission would increase funding for fixed services by $10.5 million 
per year over ten years and for mobile services by $7 million per year 
over three years to ensure that carriers have sufficient funds to 
rebuild and improve the voice and broadband-capable networks, both 
where the hurricanes destroyed existing infrastructure and in rural 
areas that have not yet been served. As result, the Uniendo a Puerto 
Rico Fund would make available about $444.5 million over a decade for 
fixed broadband (an $84 million increase over current funding levels) 
and about $254 million over 3 years for 4G LTE mobile broadband (a 
$16.8 million increase). And the Connect USVI Fund would make available 
about $186.5 million over a decade for fixed broadband (a $21 million 
increase) and about $4.4 million over a 3-year term for 4G LTE mobile 
broadband (a $4.2 million increase).
    7. The Commission expects that this support will provide meaningful 
relief to carriers in the storm-ravaged territories in a targeted and 
cost-effective manner. The Commission seeks comment on whether this 
budget is appropriate and whether additional support beyond current 
levels of high-cost support is necessary to rebuild, improve, and 
expand service in these areas. Does the Commission's proposed 
allocation of additional high-cost support between fixed and mobile 
providers accurately reflect the costs that each will face in 
restoring, improving and expanding service? The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether and how to incorporate any unclaimed restoration 
funding into its long-term plan. Commenters are requested to provide 
specific information to substantiate their views.
    8. The proposal for different terms of support for fixed and mobile 
providers reflects the Commission's distinct goals of providing longer-
term support for fixed services and restoring a competitive environment 
for mobile providers. And because the Commission's proposed long-term 
plan treats fixed and mobile services in different ways, it seeks more 
detailed comment in the following on the particulars of the plan for 
each type of service.
    9. More generally, the Commission seeks comment on how to ensure 
that service is rebuilt quickly and efficiently, while improving 
networks where feasible and protecting critical communications networks 
against future natural disasters. Recognizing that access to reliable 
communications services is essential, particularly in times of 
emergency, the Commission also explores options to expand service to 
areas that were unserved prior to the hurricanes. The Commission 
invites comment on how to balance its competing objectives of 
rebuilding and improving service, ensuring network resiliency, and 
expanding coverage. At the same time, the Commission is mindful of its 
responsibility as stewards of the USF to ensure that support is spent 
efficiently and seek comment on appropriate safeguards to ensure 
accountability. Similar to Stage 1 funding, the Commission reminds 
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands that the Act prohibits the 
territories from adopting regulations related to Stage 2 funding that 
are ``inconsistent with the Commission's rules to preserve and advance 
universal service.''
    10. The long-term rebuilding, improvement, and hardening of fixed 
voice and broadband service is critical in helping Puerto Rico and the 
U.S. Virgin Islands recover from the devastation caused by the 
hurricanes. The Commission believes that authorizing up to $105 million 
in additional funds for rebuilding while distributing all high-cost 
funding for fixed networks through an incentive-based mechanism will 
best ensure that networks are rebuilt, improved, and expanded across 
the territories in an efficient manner.
    11. The Commission first notes that present circumstances require 
them to revisit the Commission's past treatment of high-cost support 
for fixed networks in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In the 
December 2014 Connect America Fund Order, 80 FR 4446, January 27, 2015, 
the Commission decided to allow price-cap carriers in insular areas to 
elect to continue receiving frozen high-cost support amounts in 
exchange for accepting tailored service obligations to be adopted at a 
later date. Although PRTC (in Puerto Rico) and Viya (in the U.S. Virgin 
Islands) elected to receive frozen support, the Commission has yet to 
establish specific service obligations for either carrier. Moreover, 
the hurricanes and their aftermath wrought havoc upon these existing 
networks--so much so that each of these carriers has claimed that 
multiples of their current annual support amounts are necessary for 
restoration and rebuilding. The Commission seeks comment on the view 
that changed circumstances require them to revisit funding for fixed 
networks in these territories. How does the fact that the Commission 
has not adopted specific CAF Phase II obligations for PRTC and Viya 
impact the reliance interests, if any, these carriers could reasonably 
have had in the status quo continuing through 2020? How should the need 
for extensive rebuilding factor into the Commission's decision? How 
should the fact that the Commission is considering the addition of 
$10.5 million in high-cost funding per year for rebuilding fixed 
networks in these territories affect its decision? And how should the 
Commission weigh the efficiency of more competitive approaches that 
could extend improved service more widely to consumers in Puerto Rico 
and the U.S. Virgin Islands against any reliance interests in 
continuing to administer frozen support as before?
    12. Given the changed circumstances, the Commission proposes to 
reconsider the existing frozen high-cost support mechanisms and replace 
them with a competitive mechanism that would allocate an additional 
$105 million to fixed networks in the territories over a decade. The 
Commission proposes to allocate these support amounts so that 
approximately 80 percent goes to the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and 
approximately 20 percent to the Connect USVI Fund. As a result, fixed 
network operators in Puerto Rico would have an opportunity to compete 
for $444.5 million over the next decade and fixed network operators in 
the U.S. Virgin Islands would have an opportunity to compete for $186.5 
million over the next decade.
    13. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. In the 
concurrently adopted Order, the Commission used the same 80-20 ratio to 
balance the difference in population between Puerto Rico and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, the significant financial challenges faced by carriers 
in both areas, the current level of high-cost support available to 
providers, and other relevant factors. Should the Commission maintain 
that ratio for the purpose of allocating additional support? Are the 
total funding amounts appropriate for each territory given the 
rebuilding required and the improvements need to harden networks 
against future natural disasters and the expansion needed in rural 
areas? Is a ten-year term of support, which the Commission has 
repeatedly used in other high-cost programs to ensure those building 
out had sufficient time to amortize and recover their costs, 
appropriate here? How should the Commission address differences in the

[[Page 27530]]

geographic or competitive landscape in evaluating its long-term plans? 
For example, Viya is currently the only fixed provider in the U.S. 
Virgin Islands. Does that argue for requiring inter-area competition as 
the Commission does in the Connect America Fund Phase II reverse 
auction? Or is a quasi-competitive process on the U.S. Virgin Islands 
nonetheless feasible? Or should the Commission pursue some alternative 
option?
    14. The Commission also invites comment on how to best promote its 
aim of providing support quickly and efficiently to speed the 
rebuilding, improvement, and expansion of service. How can the 
Commission ensure that people living in the territories have access to 
reasonably comparable, affordable fixed voice services and broadband-
capable networks? And as stewards of the USF, the Commission seeks 
comment on how best to fulfill its commitment to fiscal responsibility 
to ensure that funds are targeted efficiently.
    15. As detailed in the following, the Commission proposes to award 
high-cost support using a competitive proposal process, similar to a 
request for proposal process. The Commission also seeks comment on 
conducting an auction, negotiating directly with ETCs, and establishing 
build-out obligations while continuing to provide frozen high-cost 
support at current levels.
    16. The Commission proposes to award fixed support through the 
Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund by evaluating 
competitive proposals submitted by carriers. This approach could be 
completed quickly and efficiently, thereby avoiding lengthy delays in 
getting critical funding to carriers. A competitive proposal process is 
a more streamlined approach than the typical Commission auction, yet 
still requires carriers to compete for support. Moreover, this option 
may better enable the Commission to determine how best to award support 
for network-hardening purposes than the auction approach.
    17. The Commission proposes that accepted proposals will receive 
support for 10 years, beginning in January 2019 and running through 
December 2028. The Commission seeks comment on whether to transition 
support, through a phase-down process, in any geographic area where the 
incumbent carrier, i.e., PRTC or Viya, did not win support based on its 
proposal. The Commission provides additional details and seek comment 
on them in the following.
    18. Eligible Providers.--The Commission proposes that only a 
provider that, according to June 2017 FCC Form 477 data, had an 
existing fixed network and provided broadband service in Puerto Rico or 
the U.S. Virgin Islands prior to the hurricanes would be eligible to 
apply to participate. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
participation should be limited to fixed providers who served at least 
some residential locations or whether providers that served only 
business locations should also be permitted to participate. The 
Commission proposes to limit participation to providers who had 
provided services before the hurricane because it believes they would 
be better equipped to rebuild and expand service as quickly as 
possible. Relatedly, the Commission also believes that existing 
providers with established track records present a smaller risk of 
defaulting on their service obligations. However, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether new entrants should also be eligible. If so, what 
particular qualifications if any should the Commission impose on them?
    19. The Commission further proposes to evaluate the financial and 
technical capabilities of the applicants through a single-stage 
application process. Doing so would minimize the amount of time it 
takes to complete the competitive proposal process and begin awarding 
support. The Commission seeks comment on whether to use instead the 
two-phase application process of the competitive bidding rules for 
universal service in Part 1, Subpart AA of the Commission's rules, as 
it has done for the CAF Phase II auction.
    20. Consistent with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and 
the Commission's rules, a provider must be designated as an ETC before 
receiving support. To the extent necessary, the Commission proposes to 
allow providers to obtain ETC designations after winning support rather 
than before participating in the competitive proposal process, similar 
to the approach it followed for the CAF Phase II auction. The 
Commission seeks comment on this approach. What methods would be 
appropriate for selecting another carrier if the winner fails to timely 
obtain an ETC designation?
    21. Eligible Areas.--Given the unique circumstances presented by 
the widespread destruction of critical infrastructure, the Commission 
proposes to make eligible all of Puerto Rico. By making the entire 
territory eligible, the Commission would eliminate the need to 
establish a challenge process and thus enable a more expeditious 
completion of the process. Doing so would also encourage applicants to 
expand service to areas that were previously unserved, in addition to 
restoring service to areas that had service before the hurricanes. 
Further, the Commission anticipates that making all of Puerto Rico 
eligible for support will increase competition, driving down the 
support amounts proposed in lower-cost areas. The Commission seeks 
comment on this approach. Similarly, the Commission proposes to make 
eligible all of the U.S. Virgin Islands and seek comment on that 
approach.
    22. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on whether certain 
areas should be excluded. For example, are there areas where service 
has already been rebuilt (or will be rebuilt by the end of 2018)? Are 
there areas where providing high-cost support to one carrier would 
distort the competitive market and reduce potential competitors' 
incentives to rebuild service? How can the Commission ensure 
consistency with its policy against providing funding in areas where 
there is an unsubsidized competitor? Would the ability of other 
carriers to bid for such support reduce the funding in such areas to 
only what's needed to rebuild otherwise unserved areas? Are there areas 
where support levels would be so low as to be unnecessary to rebuild 
and improve service, such as census blocks in Puerto Rico identified by 
the model as having particularly low average monthly costs? How can the 
Commission best achieve its goal of maximizing the expansion of service 
to unserved areas in addition to restoring and improving service to 
areas that had it before the hurricanes?
    23. Minimum Geographic Area.--The Commission proposes to accept 
proposals for support to satisfy specific service obligations within 
each of Puerto Rico's 78 municipios. Using municipios as the basic 
geographic area for support may allow providers to achieve economies of 
scale that would not be available if the Commission used smaller areas, 
such as Puerto Rico's over 900 barrios. On the other hand, there may be 
some risk that municipios are too large to target funding in a 
competitively neutral manner--incumbent providers with large existing 
service territories are likely more amenable to providing service over 
a wider area. The Commission seeks comment on whether using municipios 
makes sense or whether it should instead provide support on a more 
granular basis, such as by barrios, census block groups, or some other 
geographic unit.
    24. The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate minimum 
geographic area for support in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Should the 
Commission treat

[[Page 27531]]

the entire territory as one geographic area to carry out this 
initiative? Or should the Commission treat each island in the U.S. 
Virgin Islands separately for this purpose? Or would using some other 
census-defined geography such as census tract, census block group, or 
census block be more appropriate?
    25. Number of Locations in Each Geographic Area.--The Commission 
proposes to identify the number of locations in each geographic area by 
using the Connect America Cost Model (the CAM). The Commission seeks 
comment on how it can best account for the fact that people may have 
migrated from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands since the storms. 
The Commission seeks comment on what other sources of data would more 
accurately model the number of locations in each area. The Commission 
also seeks comment on whether to provide support based on only certain 
locations within each geographic area, such as those that are more 
costly to serve, and whether to exclude certain other locations from 
bidding, such as those that are less costly and therefore may not 
require high-cost support. The Commission proposes, as a condition of 
receiving support for funded locations, that a winning bidder serve all 
locations within a geographic area, not just those funded (if the 
Commission decides to fund just a subset of locations). This proposal 
comports with the Commission's decision to focus on rebuilding all 
networks and make all of Puerto Rico eligible for bidding, rather than 
only discrete areas. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on 
limiting the obligation only to funded locations or locations in census 
blocks identified by the model as being above a certain funding 
benchmark?
    26. Given possible changes in the number of locations post-
hurricane and the difficulties in obtaining more recent, accurate data, 
the Commission also seeks comment on whether to instead evaluate 
proposals to serve all the locations in a municipio without determining 
exactly how many locations that represents. In other words, applicants 
would commit to serve all locations in a municipio rather than to serve 
a specific number. The Commission also seeks comment on whether 
differences in municipio characteristics, such as quantity of high cost 
locations or remoteness, should lead the Commission's to attach 
different obligations to funding so as to better ensure all parts of 
the territories are provided with service.
    27. Furthermore, if the data the Commission eventually adopts 
overestimates the number of locations in an area, it seeks comment on 
what flexibility to offer winning applicants. Should the Commission, 
for example, reduce support on a pro rata basis if it lowers the number 
of locations a provider must serve, and if so, what requirements and 
limitations should the Commission establish for such reductions? Should 
the Commission consider giving providers more flexibility here than it 
has in other contexts given the facilities lost and the recent 
emigration from the territories?
    28. Reserve Prices.--The Commission proposes to use a three-step 
process to set reserve prices. First, the Commission would employ the 
cost model used to establish support for price cap carriers (the CAM) 
to calculate the average cost per location of all locations in a census 
block. Second, the Commission would set separate high-cost and 
extremely high-cost thresholds for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands to ensure the full amount of funding available to each 
territory over the ten-year period is available for obligation. Third, 
the Commission would establish a reserve price for each minimum 
geographic area based on the sum of the support amounts calculated for 
each eligible census block in that municipio. Under the proposal, WCB 
would release the reserve price and number of locations for all 
eligible areas by public notice no later than 30 calendar days before 
the application deadline to submit competitive proposals.
    29. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, and particularly 
on the key second step. The Commission notes that the extremely high-
cost threshold here would be used to establish a per-location funding 
cap, similar to how the Commission offered rate-of-return carriers 
model-based support. How should the Commission establish the 
appropriate thresholds? The CAM established a high-cost threshold of 
$52.50 based on assumed take rates and potential average revenues per 
subscriber. Do those assumptions still hold in the context of Puerto 
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands after the hurricanes? If not, should 
the Commission lower the high-cost threshold and if so, by how much? By 
25 percent? By more? The CAM established a high-cost threshold of 
$198.60. Is that appropriate here? The Puerto Rico Telecommunications 
Regulatory Board has stated that more support needs to be directed to 
the rural parts of the island. Would that suggest setting a higher 
extremely high-cost threshold? The Commission also seeks comment on how 
to allocate funds between bringing service to locations that had never 
been served versus restoring service (potentially at a lower cost) to 
locations where service had been disrupted by the hurricanes. For 
example, the Commission has previously assigned zero support to 
locations below the high-cost threshold on the assumption that a 
business case nonetheless existed to serve such locations. Does the 
context of rebuilding networks on these islands suggest revisiting that 
assumption and assigning some funding--say 10 percent of cost--to cover 
the costs below the high-cost threshold? The Commission also seeks 
comment on how the CAM should be adjusted, if at all, to take into 
account the need for network hardening. For example, should the 
Commission assume the cost of above-ground plant will increase 10 
percent (or more) to account for such hardening before it determines 
the costs per location?
    30. Selection Process.--The Commission seeks comment on the 
appropriate time frame and format for submitting proposals. The 
Commission proposes to allow confidential proposals. Should the 
Commission unseal proposals after finishing the evaluations process for 
transparency reasons? The Commission seeks comment on whether to make 
public the submitted proposals after the evaluation process has been 
completed and winning applicants have been determined. The Commission 
seeks comment on prohibiting multiple carriers from submitting a 
proposal jointly.
    31. The Commission proposes to select winning proposals based 
primarily on price per-location served while adjusting the bids to 
consider factors including network resiliency, network deployment 
timing, and network performance. The Commission seeks comment on these 
factors and what other factors it should consider when evaluating 
proposals. Considering price as the primary factor responsibly manages 
the Fund, but the Commission recognizes the increased costs of 
deploying a storm-hardened network in Puerto Rico and the USVI. For 
instance, how should the Commission factor storm hardening proposals 
into the Commission's evaluation? Should the Commission require or 
increase the weight of bids that comply with resiliency standards like 
TIA-222-H, the most up-to-date standard for antenna supporting 
structures, with best practices promulgated by the FCC's Communications 
Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council, or with another 
industry used standard for network resiliency? Should the Commission 
establish weights to

[[Page 27532]]

account for the speed of deployment? What weight would be appropriate 
to balance costs against encouraging prompt deployment to the 
territories? Should the Commission establish weights to account for 
proposals offering ``higher speeds over lower speeds, higher usage 
allowances over lower usage allowances, and lower latency over higher 
latency''? If so, what weighting scheme would be appropriate for that 
purpose? Instead of using specific weights could the Commission define 
preferences for various characteristics in the proposals? If the 
Commission does not require proposals to identify a specific number of 
locations to serve, what factors should it consider in comparing 
proposals?
    32. How should the Commission address package bidding? For example, 
should the Commission allow package bidding? If so, what limits if any 
should the Commission put on packages (e.g., should the Commission 
require all packages to be contiguous or limit the number of minimum 
geographic areas included in the package)? If selecting two package 
bids would be the most efficient outcome even if they overlapped in a 
particular geographic area, should the Commission accept both (perhaps 
requiring the less efficient bidder to redirect support from the 
overlapped area to other unserved areas) or reject the less efficient 
package (perhaps leaving no bidder for some areas)?
    33. How should the Commission evaluate bids? Should the Commission 
direct USAC or WCB to evaluate bids? The Commission proposes directing 
the reviewer to evaluate the bids in accordance with the selection 
criteria, methodology and bidding process outlined above. Once that 
initial evaluation is complete, should the Commission make selections 
or offer feedback to applicants and allow them to return with best-and-
final offers? Or would that introduce undue discretion into the process 
or create additional administrative burdens or delays? If a 
dissatisfied applicant wants to challenge its non-selection, would 
existing appeals processes be sufficient?
    34. How should the Commission address areas without bids? One 
approach would be to invite a second round of competitive proposals, 
with the difference between bids and reserve prices in the first round 
being transferred to raise the reserve price of remaining areas (pro 
rata) in the second round. In other words, if the reserve price for 
areas won in the first round were $10 million and only $8 million was 
bid, then $2 million would be available to raise the reserve prices in 
areas remaining in the second round. The Commission seeks comment on 
this approach, including whether it would be vulnerable to potential 
gamesmanship by bidders.
    35. In addition, as a backstop, the Commission proposes to require 
the incumbent carrier to continue to provide service to any unawarded 
areas using frozen high-cost support--with corresponding service 
obligations to be determined by the Commission after the competitive 
proposal process is complete. The Commission notes that for this and 
other purposes (such as any transitional payments) it would allocate an 
incumbent carrier's existing frozen support across their service 
territory in proportion to the reserve prices the Commission initially 
set for the competitive proposal process. The Commission believes this 
backstop would place incumbent carriers in no worse a position then 
they are in today, with frozen support and accompanying service 
obligations to be determined by the Commission.
    36. Service Obligations.--In addition to voice service, the 
Commission proposes to require support recipients to offer broadband 
service meeting the following metrics: Download/upload speeds of at 
least 10/1 megabits per second (Mbps), roundtrip latency of no greater 
than 100 milliseconds (ms), and a minimum usage allowance of the higher 
of 170 GB per month or one that reflects the average usage of a 
majority of consumers, using Measuring Broadband America data or a 
similar data source.
    37. The Commission seeks comment on whether these obligations are 
appropriate. Should the Commission, for instance, require some portion 
of the areas served to receive 25/3 Mbps service? And, if so, what 
fraction would be appropriate? Should the Commission impose different 
requirements for areas based on the amount of support allocated?
    38. Further, the Commission proposes requiring each support 
recipient to offer broadband service in its supported area at rates 
that are reasonably comparable to rates offered for comparable services 
in urban areas. Rates will be considered reasonably comparable if they 
are ``at or below the applicable benchmark to be announced annually by 
public notice issued by the Wireline Competition Bureau.'' Based on the 
results of the Urban Rate Survey, the Commission sees no reason to 
adopt a different benchmark specific to Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin 
Islands. The Commission seeks comment on this approach.
    39. Deployment Milestones.--As with the CAF Phase II Auction, the 
Commission proposes that winning bidders must deploy to at least 40 
percent of locations after the third year of support, at least 60 
percent after the fourth, at least 80 percent after the fifth, and 100 
percent after the sixth year of support. The Commission seeks comment 
on whether this schedule is appropriate. The Commission also seeks 
comment on how it should track milestones if a particular number of 
locations, as already discussed, is not defined. Are there other ways 
to track progress without having to rely on location counts given the 
possible difficulty of establishing a number of locations?
    40. Oversight and Accountability Measures.--The Commission has an 
obligation to ensure that carriers receive support ``only for the 
provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and service for 
which the support is intended'' as required by section 254(e) of the 
Act. The Commission has exercised its oversight obligations in a 
variety of way since inception of the fund. In the following, the 
Commission proposes various oversight and accountability measures that, 
taken together, serve the public interest by enhancing the Commission's 
ability to monitor the use of USF and ensure its use for intended 
purposes.
    41. First, the Commission proposes that support recipients must 
satisfy all reporting and certification obligations of providers 
receiving CAF Phase II auction support, including as described in 
sections 54.313 and 54.316 of the Commission's rules. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
providers who win support must track their restoration expenditures. 
Should providers retain documentation on how much support was used for 
capital expenditures and operating expenditures? What are the 
associated burdens with retaining expenditure documentation? Would 
retention of this documentation be duplicative of records needed for 
deployment milestones?
    42. Second, the Commission proposes aligning the annual reporting 
obligations with the obligations of other rate-of-return carriers in 
the 2016 Rate-of-Return Order, 81 FR 24282, April 25, 2016, by 
requiring geocoded location reporting into the HUBB. This reporting 
obligation would require providers to submit information demonstrating 
locations the provider is reporting as broadband-enabled where the 
company is prepared to offer voice and broadband service meeting the 
requisite performance standards. Do carriers currently retain 
geolocation data for served locations? If not, what period of

[[Page 27533]]

time is needed to enable collection of geolocation data? Should the 
Commission require this data be reported for only newly deployed 
locations or all reported locations? Would annual reporting or a longer 
period more appropriately balance the reporting burden against the 
accuracy of the data? Additionally, the Commission proposes requiring 
awarded carriers to submit performance measurements in accordance with 
the requirements to be defined by the Commission. To the extent that 
awarded carriers have not participated in that proceeding, the 
Commission proposes requiring the same testing method options and 
parameters as price cap carriers.
    43. Third, the Commission proposes to carefully monitor and 
reassess the deployment obligations of the awarded support before the 
end of the fifth year. Understanding the deployment and operational 
realities of providing service in both Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, the Commission believes this reassessment would be prudent to 
address any changed circumstances within the territories, whether that 
be changes in subscribership expectations due to population changes or 
future disruptive natural disasters. As the current situation 
demonstrates, the long-term planning involved in any telecommunications 
deployment decision requires a number of assumptions that may change 
dramatically over time. Would providing an opportunity for the 
Commission to reassess deployment obligations be beneficial to 
providers or cause unneeded uncertainty? Should the reassessment be 
tied to deployment milestones? For example, the reassessment would not 
be triggered if a provider is 60 percent deployed after four years, but 
would occur if a provider failed to meet the deployment obligation. 
Would it be appropriate to alter the obligations by increasing or 
decreasing the number of locations or modifying the service 
obligations?
    44. Fourth, the Commission proposes to subject awarded carriers to 
the same compliance standards as any other carrier with defined 
obligations by defining specific obligations for the support. This may 
result in a carrier that failed to meet its milestones having support 
reduced until the carrier can meet its obligations or face recovery 
actions. The Commission seeks comment on this approach.
    45. The Commission also seeks comment on whether successful 
applicants must obtain a letter of credit by way of security, as must 
winning bidders in the CAF Phase II auction. If so, how should the 
letter of credit be structured? Should it be for the full amount 
awarded, or some lesser amount that will nevertheless protect the USF? 
Should an alternative to a letter of credit be considered, such as a 
performance or payment bond?
    46. Fifth, the Commission proposes to subject all awarded carriers 
in the territories to ongoing oversight by the Commission and USAC to 
ensure program integrity and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. The 
Commission has a longstanding audit program that is continually updated 
to respond to the Commission's needs inclusive of changes in program 
requirements, new guidance from GAO and OMB, and changes in law. 
Accordingly, the Commission proposes that all awarded carriers would be 
subject to random compliance audits and other investigations to ensure 
compliance with program rules and orders. The Commission seeks comment 
on what sorts of audit procedures the Commission should undertake to 
confirm that support has been spent on allowed restoration costs. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether there are specific 
circumstances facing carriers in the territories that require modifying 
the current audit practices.
    47. As an alternative to the competitive proposal process, the 
Commission seeks comment on using an auction for the second stages of 
the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund. The 
Commission notes that it cannot simply apply the same rules of the CAF 
Phase II Auction here because it seeks to achieve different goals. 
Among other differences, here the Commission wishes to rebuild 
networks, including in areas where a business case existed pre-
hurricane for providing service, whereas in the CAF Phase II context, 
the Commission aims to maintain and expand service where there is no 
such business case.
    48. Instead, the Commission seeks comment on using a single-round 
sealed bid auction to award support. Such an approach generally would 
award support on a per-location basis, based on the lowest price. 
Bidders would identify a per-location support price at which they are 
willing to meet Commission requirements to cover the locations in each 
eligible area they specify. Bids would then be ranked, lowest to 
highest, and support would be assigned to those areas with the lowest 
bid amounts submitted (and within each assigned area, to the lowest 
bidder), until no further bids can be accommodated under the budget. 
The terms of such an auction would otherwise largely track the terms 
for the competitive proposal process described above.
    49. The Commission seeks comment on whether the competitive 
environment in Puerto Rico is sufficiently robust to ensure an auction 
that distributes funds in a cost-effective way. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether to use an auction process to distribute funds in 
Puerto Rico, but not in the U.S. Virgin Islands, given that FCC Form 
477 data shows that Viya is currently the only fixed provider there.
    50. Are there any specific auction rules or procedures the 
Commission should consider so that an auction would not be overly 
complicated for the Commission to administer and would not overly 
burden potential bidders? Is there an auction design the Commission 
could use that would achieve its objective of maximizing consumer 
benefits? Would this approach afford the same flexibility as a 
competitive proposal process?
    51. The Commission seeks comment on whether to structure the second 
stages based on carrier-submitted proposals to rebuild, improve, and 
expand service in the territories. Such proposals would not be 
evaluated on a competitive basis, but would be the result of 
negotiation between the Commission and carriers. Given similarly unique 
circumstances, the Commission adopted a framework based on carrier 
commitments to maintain and expand the availability of service in 
Alaska.
    52. Like the competitive proposal option, through this process the 
Commission seeks to maximize the number of locations where fixed voice 
and broadband services would be available in a targeted and cost-
effective manner. As with any method of awarding of support, the 
Commission expects to hold providers accountable to use support for its 
intended purposes and to meet the deployment commitments it set.
    53. To the extent the Commission adopts this approach, it seeks 
comment on the process by which it would seek proposals, review them, 
and award support. The Commission anticipates establishing the specific 
criteria by which it would award support and measure compliance by 
Public Notice, along with a time frame for submitting proposals. The 
Commission invites comment on this approach.
    54. In the Universal Service Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830, 
November 29, 2011, the Commission allowed price cap carriers serving 
specific non-contiguous areas of the United States--including Puerto 
Rico

[[Page 27534]]

and the U.S. Virgin Islands--to maintain frozen support levels for 
those carriers if, in the Bureau's determination, certain conditions 
were met. Recognizing that these carriers faced different operating 
conditions and challenges compared to carriers in the contiguous 48 
states, the Bureau invoked its discretion. Both PRTC and Viya elected 
to continue receiving frozen support, with the Commission responsible 
for adopting specific service obligations tailored to the individual 
circumstances of each carrier.
    55. As the Commission has not yet adopted CAF II obligations for 
the frozen support that PRTC and Viya continue to receive, it seeks 
comment on whether to forego reconsidering the Commission's prior 
decisions and instead simply adopt specific service obligations to 
reflect the frozen-support amounts PRTC and Viya currently receive. If 
the Commission pursues this alternative, what obligations would be 
appropriate and feasible? Should the Commission establish particular 
expectations regarding expanding service to new areas or implementing 
more resilient networks?
    56. In the aftermath of the hurricanes, the rapid restoration of 
mobile service was critical in facilitating communications with public 
safety and civic officials and connecting families to loved ones. 
Building upon the significant restoration efforts that have taken place 
to date, the Commission seeks comment on how best to target high-cost 
support to rebuild, improve, harden, and expand mobile services in 
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Commission proposes to 
make $259 million in support available to eligible facilities-based 
mobile providers over the next three years through the Uniendo a Puerto 
Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund. The Commission's goal is to 
facilitate timely recovery of mobile services within these territories 
in a cost-effective manner.
    57. The Commission notes that it has previously targeted Puerto 
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands as potential areas eligible for the 
upcoming MF-II auction. However, the Commission recognized in December 
that conditions in the territories after the hurricanes made 
establishing reliable coverage of mobile networks infeasible in the 
near term. As such, the Commission waived the filing deadline for 
mobile providers to submit 4G LTE coverage information for a period of 
180 days or until the Commission took action addressing the appropriate 
approach, given the circumstances, for providing ongoing, high-cost 
support for mobile services in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
whichever occurred earlier.
    58. The Commission now proposes to extend that waiver, exempt these 
mobile providers from filing this coverage information, and carve 
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands out from the MF-II auction. 
Instead, the Commission proposes to supplement existing support over a 
three-year period by giving providers an additional $21 million to 
rebuild their networks after the destruction wrought by Hurricanes Irma 
and Maria and their aftermath. The Commission seeks comment on 
allocating these support amounts so that approximately 80 percent goes 
to the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and approximately 20 percent to the 
Connect USVI Fund. As a result, over the next three years, the Uniendo 
a Puerto Rico Fund would make available $254.4 million to mobile 
network operators and the Connect USVI Fund would make available $4.4 
million to mobile network operators. These territories currently face 
serious and continuing challenges in restoring their mobile 
communications capacity, and the Commission tentatively concludes that 
this additional funding will allow providers in these territories to 
repair the damage caused by the hurricanes to their wireless networks 
as well as make their networks more resilient to future natural 
disasters.
    59. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. In the 
concurrently adopted Order, the Commission used the same 80-20 ratio to 
balance the difference in population between Puerto Rico and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, the significant financial challenges faced by carriers 
in both areas, the current level of high-cost support available to 
providers, and other relevant factors. Should the Commission maintain 
that ratio for the purpose of allocating additional support? Are the 
total funding amounts appropriate for each territory given the 
rebuilding required and the improvements need to harden networks 
against future natural disasters and the expansion needed in rural 
areas? Is a three-year term of support appropriate here? How should the 
Commission address differences in historic universal service funding in 
evaluating its long-term plans? For example, mobile carriers in the 
U.S. Virgin Islands receive almost no funding today. Does that argue 
for allocating most of the new funding there? Or should the Commission 
redistribute all funding across both territories setting aside historic 
allocations?
    60. The Commission proposes that only providers that provided 
facilities-based mobile services in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands prior to the hurricane impacts, according to the June 2017 Form 
477 data, would be eligible to elect this new funding. The Commission 
proposes to allocate the new funding based on the number of subscribers 
(voice or broadband internet access service) each provider served as of 
June 30, 2017--similar to how the Commission calculates support in 
stage one. As an alternative, the Commission seeks comment on 
allocating all funding available for mobile network operators in the 
second stages of the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI 
Fund based on pre-hurricane subscribership. Such an approach would 
avoid any inefficiencies in the historic allocation of support among 
the islands and avoid the need for a decision ahead of time regarding 
how much in particular should go to Puerto Rico versus the U.S. Virgin 
Islands. If the Commission pursues this alternative approach, should 
the Commission set transitional funding amounts for existing recipients 
of high-cost support? In particular, should the Commission ensure that 
existing recipients receive at least two-thirds of their current mobile 
support in 2019 and at least one third in 2020?
    61. The Commission proposes that, in exchange for accepting 
additional support, each mobile provider must commit to, at minimum, a 
full restoration of its pre-hurricane coverage area, at a level of 
service that meets or exceeds the minimum standard required of 
recipients of MF-II support. Such a requirement aligns with the goal of 
MF-II to ``target universal service funding to support the deployment 
of the highest level of mobile service available today--4G LTE.'' The 
Commission tentatively concludes that, given the extent of damage in 
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, most providers will already be 
engaging in substantial rebuilding of towers and infrastructure, and 
will find it most economical to deploy 4G LTE during such restoration 
versus alternative technologies. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether this requirement is appropriate. Should the Commission instead 
require providers to rebuild their networks at a different standard? 
For example, should the Commission instead require deployment at the 
speed benchmark used to identify areas eligible for MF-II? Is there an 
alternative standard appropriate to ensure that residents of Puerto 
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have comparable service to other areas 
of the United States? Should the Commission restrict funding to support

[[Page 27535]]

operation, deployment, and enhancement only of 4G LTE?
    62. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Uniendo a 
Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund should include requirements 
to expand service. Are there areas, for instance, that lacked coverage 
before the hurricanes and that the Commission should nonetheless 
require providers to serve? How should such areas be identified and how 
should the Commission determine what carriers should be required to 
serve them? The Commission seeks comment on how quickly rebuilding 
could be accomplished and what milestones might be appropriate to 
complete build out. Is three years of funding for rebuilding 
appropriate? Why or why not?
    63. The Commission also seeks comment on the appropriate reporting 
requirements for support recipients. The Commission proposes to have 
any mobile providers receiving second-stage support via the Uniendo a 
Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund report twice per year on 
their coverage. Specifically, the Commission proposes that providers 
supply coverage maps using the buildout parameters the Commission will 
adopt for the MF-II auction. If the Commission adopts a different 
service requirement for funding recipients than the minimum standard 
required of recipients of MF-II support, it proposes to make 
appropriate adjustments to the reporting requirements. The Commission 
seeks comment on these proposals. The Commission also seeks comment on 
how this data should best be submitted to the Commission, such as 
through the regular Form 477 filings or some other process?
    64. As noted above, the Commission has an obligation to ensure that 
carriers receive support ``only for the provision, maintenance, and 
upgrading of facilities and service for which the support is intended'' 
as required by section 254(e) of the Act. The Commission seeks comment 
on appropriate oversight and accountability measures for carriers that 
receive additional high-cost support as proposed in this Notice. The 
Commission proposes that recipients of such funds conform to the annual 
reporting requirements the Commission adopted for MF-II. The Commission 
also proposes that all support recipients be subject generally to the 
same audit requirements as recipients of CAF-II support and all other 
high-cost support. The Commission seeks comment on whether any other 
oversight or accountability measures are appropriate. Should the 
Commission require carriers to submit one or more Milestone Reports to 
demonstrate progress on service restoration? Would it be beneficial for 
the Commission or USAC to make use of independent testing to determine 
service speed, quality, and reliability in these areas?
    65. The Commission proposes to use an auction to allocate funding 
following this three-year period, with any funding commitments 
resulting from such an auction to commence on the day following the end 
of the three-year period. The Commission seeks comment on whether the 
competitive environment in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands is 
sufficiently robust to ensure an auction that distributes funds in a 
cost-effective way and whether it makes sense from the perspective of 
administrative efficiency to hold such an auction. Can the Commission 
use the same general auction rules and same auction design for this 
auction as it will use for the MF-II auction? Are there any specific 
auction rules or procedures the Commission should consider so that an 
auction would not be overly complicated for the Commission to 
administer and would not overly burden potential bidders?
    66. If the Commission were to use an auction to allocate funding, 
how should it determine which areas would be eligible to win support in 
the auction? Should the Commission consider an area eligible if it does 
not meet the speed and technical parameters used to identify areas 
eligible for MF-II? Should the Commission adopt additional or 
alternative specifications for eligibility that would be more suitable 
for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands? For example, should an 
area be eligible if, despite meeting a certain download speed 
requirement, it does not meet certain network resiliency requirements, 
e.g. hardening to hurricane impacts? If so, what resiliency 
requirements would be appropriate? In this document, the Commission 
proposes that providers supply coverage maps using the technical 
parameters buildout parameters the Commission will adopt for the MF-II 
auction. Would that coverage information suffice for determining areas 
eligible for an auction, or is additional data required, such as a one-
time data collection using the MF-II Challenge process technical 
parameters? If so, when should the Commission collect that data to 
ensure that funding commitments can begin on schedule?
    67. Several parties have proposed that rebuilt networks be ``storm 
hardened.'' The Commission seeks comment on whether the Uniendo a 
Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund should require second-stage 
participants to improve the ability of their facilities and equipment 
to resist hurricanes and other natural disasters. If so, should the 
Commission require compliance with resiliency standards like TIA-222-H, 
the most up-to-date standard for antenna supporting structures or with 
best practices promulgated by the FCC's Communications Security, 
Reliability and Interoperability Council? Are there other industry 
standards that would help improve resistance to flooding, wind damage, 
and water damage? How should any such requirements be enforced? What 
are the expected costs of deploying a ``storm hardened'' network, and 
how should the Commission evaluate the costs and benefits of any such 
network? Should the Commission consider requiring hardening of certain 
key network assets, but not the entire network? If so, how should key 
assets be identified? Would requiring hardening only of assets 
sufficient to provide voice and basic data service be appropriate? What 
level of data service would be appropriate? Are costs associated with 
back-up power endurance, backhaul resiliency, physical infrastructure 
resiliency, recovery plans, and/or redundant or alternate network 
implementations appropriate in this context? Should the Commission 
instead allow carriers to include in their proposals how and to what 
degree they would harden their networks, and factor that information 
into the evaluation of proposals?
    68. The Commission also proposes to require second-stage 
participants to provide more detailed information to support tracking 
of recovery efforts. Although mobile carriers already provide 
information on coverage (but not signal strength, antenna alignment, 
and throughput) on a biannual basis through FCC Form 477, that 
information does not reveal the real-time status of communications 
systems in the aftermath of a disaster. Carriers currently have the 
option to provide information about the status of their infrastructure 
via the Commission's voluntary Disaster Information Reporting System 
(DIRS), and it proposes to require carriers who accept USF funding 
through the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund to 
participate in DIRS. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and 
on the data that DIRS should seek. Would it be appropriate to require 
mobile carriers to provide coverage maps, signal strength, antenna 
alignment, and throughput on a periodic basis in DIRS? How often should 
these reports be provided? Would it be

[[Page 27536]]

appropriate to require coverage maps at a more granular boundary value, 
for example -98 dBm to reflect indoor coverage for both voice and data? 
Would it be appropriate to require carriers to include information 
about disruptions to backhaul? Should the DIRS data contain more 
information about the customers' experience with their mobile service, 
for example by including more information about the condition of 
backhaul? If so, at what intervals? What are the costs and benefits of 
requiring additional reporting? When might it be appropriate to relieve 
carriers of any enhanced reporting requirements?
    69. The Commission anticipates that any second-stage mobile 
participants in the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI 
Fund would continue to adhere to the current post-disaster resiliency 
framework for some time and seek comment on when that framework should 
and should not apply. First, are there common metrics used across 
providers to determine whether and when to open roaming capabilities? 
Should the Commission no longer expect adherence to the framework when 
coverage has been rebuilt to pre-hurricane levels? If so, should there 
be a minimum level of service associated with such coverage? 
Alternatively, would a set time period for continued adherence, such as 
one year, be more appropriate and reduce administrative burden? If so, 
what time period would be appropriate? Finally, should a similar 
framework be adopted for fixed providers?
    70. The Commission also anticipates that any second-stage 
participants in the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI 
Fund would coordinate any construction and access issues with other 
carriers and state and federal agencies to minimize duplicative 
facilities, hardening, construction, digging, and other activity. The 
Commission believes that such coordination could help rebuild service 
in these areas more quickly and efficiently. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether voluntary coordination is sufficient or if it should 
adopt specific requirements. Commenters should identify specific 
carrier obligations and a framework for coordination. If the Commission 
adopted requirements, are there any reporting obligations that would be 
appropriate to ensure cooperation?
    71. Finally, the Commission understands that much of Puerto Rico 
still lacks electrical power. Communications networks require reliable 
power to operate. The Commission seeks comment on what obligations 
providers should bear to ensure that their networks can function even 
when the electrical power grid is down. For instance, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether carriers could run their networks using energy 
sources readily available in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 
that do not need to be shipped from elsewhere. The Commission seeks 
comment on the applicable costs of sustainable back-up power. What are 
the costs of maintaining generators on-site versus using portable 
generators? What are the costs and additional considerations of 
obtaining renewable back-up power versus traditional power methods?
    72. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on other alternatives.
    73. The Commission seeks comment on a petition filed by PRTC on 
January 19, 2018, asking the Commission to ``create a $200 million 
emergency Universal Service Fund designated to facilitate restoration 
of service in insular areas by [ETCs] in Puerto Rico.'' PRTC's request 
encompasses support for both fixed and mobile providers in Puerto Rico. 
It suggests the Commission distribute funds ``based on a percentage of 
the consumer service disruption credits provided by facilities-based 
ETCs to end user customers'' or ``in proportion to the total number of 
lines each facilities-based ETC restores during the next twelve 
months.'' The Commission seeks specific comment on whether additional 
short-term funding is necessary for Puerto Rico given the actions it 
takes in the concurrently adopted Order. If the Commission were to 
pursue such relief, how could it ensure that any funds are well spent? 
Do carriers regularly offer ``service disruption credits,'' or do 
different carriers offer different options to their consumers? And 
would such an emergency fund create a perverse incentive of rewarding 
those carriers that had greater service disruptions vis-[agrave]-vis 
those that recovered more quickly from the hurricanes?
    74. The Commission also seeks comment on the petition filed by Viya 
proposing a one-time infusion of $45 million in support to help it 
rebuild its fixed network in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the petition 
filed by Viya on October 5, 2017, that sought ``a supplemental, one-
time infusion of up to $50 million for carriers to rebuild wireless 
networks using hurricane-hardened facilities'' in the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, and the petition filed by Open Mobile seeking additional high-
cost support and an advance on its support payments. The Commission 
seeks specific comment on whether additional short-term funding is 
necessary for the U.S. Virgin Islands given the actions it takes in the 
concurrently adopted Order. If the Commission were to pursue such 
relief, how could it ensure that any funds are well spent?

III. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act

    75. This document contains proposed information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it 
might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    76. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980 as amended (RFA) requires that a regulatory 
flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the 
agency certifies that ``the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' The RFA generally 
defines ``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 Small Business 
Administration (SBA).
    77. This Notice proposes annual support to rebuild, improve, and 
expand fixed and mobile services in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands. The Notice proposes making support available to any fixed or 
mobile provider who obtains an ETC designation, using a competitive and 
subscriber-based process, respectively. Ten fixed and mobile carriers 
in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands currently receive high-cost 
support. Even assuming other carriers will obtain an ETC designation to 
receive part of the additional support proposed by the Notice, the 
Commission does not anticipate the proposed rule to affect more than 15 
providers out of the 737 providers currently receiving high-cost 
support. Accordingly, the Commission anticipates that this Notice

[[Page 27537]]

will not affect a substantial number of carriers, and so it does not 
anticipate that it will affect a substantial number of small entities. 
Therefore, the Commission certifies that this Notice will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    78. Comments. All comments to this Notice should be filed in WC 
Docket No. 18-143, The Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI 
Fund.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    79. 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 
sections 1.1, 1.3, and 1.412 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 
1.3, and 1.412, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted. The Notice is 
effective thirty (30) days after publication of the text or summary 
thereof in the Federal Register.
    80. It is further ordered that pursuant to applicable procedures 
set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Notice on or 
before July 5, 2018, and reply comments on or before July 18, 2018.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12625 Filed 6-12-18; 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>