27528 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

particular statute or statutes? If so, please 

provide examples. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

entitled Regulatory Planning and 

Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

because the action raises novel legal or 

policy issues. Accordingly, EPA has 

submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Order 12866 

and any changes made in response to 

OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. Because this action does not 

propose or impose any requirements, 

and instead seeks comments and 

suggestions for the agency to consider in 

possibly developing a subsequent 

proposed rule, the various statutes and 

Executive Orders that normally apply to 

rulemaking do not apply in this case. 

Should EPA subsequently determine to 

pursue a rulemaking, EPA will address 

the statues and Executive Orders as 

applicable to that rulemaking. 

Dated: June 7, 2018. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12707 Filed 6–12–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 costeffective 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: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s website: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

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/FCC18-57A1.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 LongTerm 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 27529 

rebuilding of the territories and that 

such support is distributed in a costefficient 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 broadbandcapable 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 costeffective manner. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether this budget 

is appropriate and whether additional 

support beyond current levels of highcost 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 incentivebased 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
27530 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 highcost 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 perlocation 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
27532 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 Rateof-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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 longterm 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 prehurricane 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
27534 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 facilitiesbased 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
27536 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 prehurricane 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 visa`-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, onetime 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 highcost support. Accordingly, the 

Commission anticipates that this Notice 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 18–153, RM–11801; DA 18– 

496] 

Television Broadcasting Services; 

Block Island and Newport, Rhode 

Island 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission has before it 

a petition for rulemaking filed by Ocean 

State Television, LLC (Petitioner or 

OST), licensee of television station 

WPXQ–TV, channel 17, Block Island, 

Rhode Island (WPXQ). WPXQ operates 

on channel 17 on a shared basis with 

commercial television station WLWC, 

New Bedford, Massachusetts, also 

licensed to OST. OST requests an 

amendment of the DTV Table of 

Allotments to delete channel 17 at Block 

Island, Rhode Island, and substitute 

channel 17 at Newport, Rhode Island. 

Petitioner also requests modification of 

WPXQ’s license to specify Newport as 

its community of license pursuant to 

agency rules. The Petitioner asserts that 

substantial public interests weigh 

heavily in favor of reallocating WPXQ to 

Newport. Newport has a population of 

24,027 while Block Island’s population 

consists of approximately 1,000. 

Petitioner asserts that the proposed 

reallotment will cause no public harm 

because Block Island will not only 

continue to be served by five full-power 

commercial and one full-power noncommercial television stations, but will 

also continue to receive the exact same 

over-the-air service from Petitioner that 

they are receiving currently. The 

proposal would result in a preferential 

allotment by providing Newport with its 

first local full-power television services 

in satisfaction of the Commission’s 

second allotment priority, which is also 

consistent with Commission precedent 

and consistent with the public interest. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before July 13, 2018, and reply 

comments on or before July 30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 

20554. In addition to filing comments 

with the FCC, interested parties should 

serve counsel for petitioner as follows: 

Ocean State Television, LLC, c/o Cooley 

LLP, John R. Feore, Jr., Esq., Jason 

Rademacher, Esq., 1299 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 

20004. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Darren Fernandez, Darren.Fernandez@

fcc.gov, phone 202–418–2769, Video 

Division, Media Bureau. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

18–153, adopted May 14, 2018, and 

released May 15, 2018. The full text of 

this document is available for public 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, CY– 

A257, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, 

DC 20554. This document will also be 

available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ 

or Adobe Acrobat.) To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an email to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

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

418–0432 (TTY). This document does 

not contain proposed information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. Members of the public 

should note that from the time a Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until 

the matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, all ex parte contacts (other than 

ex parte presentations exempt under 47 

CFR 1.1204(a)) are prohibited in 

Commission proceedings, such as this 

one, which involve channel allotments. 

See 47 CFR 1.1208 for rules governing 

restricted proceedings. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Barbara A. Kreisman, 

Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. 

Proposed rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, 

and 339. 

§ 73.622 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.622(i), the PostTransition Table of DTV Allotments 

under Rhode Island is amended by 

adding channel 17 at Newport and 

removing channel 17 at Block Island. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12657 Filed 6–12–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1