Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 169 / Thursday, August 30, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 44241 

PART 206—FEDERAL DISASTER 

ASSISTANCE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 206 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 

U.S.C. 5121 through 5207; Homeland 

Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

9001.1. 

§ 206.210 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 2. Remove § 206.210. 

Dated: August 23, 2018. 

Brock Long, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18796 Filed 8–29–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–11–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 10–90, WT Docket No. 10– 

208; FCC 18–124] 

Connect America Fund Universal 

Service Reform—Mobility Fund 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final action; extension of filing 

period; petitions for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This document addresses two 

applications for review regarding the 

procedures and parameters of the 

Mobility Fund II challenge process and 

grant in part and deny in part a related 

extension request. 

DATES: This Order is effective August 

30, 2018. The window for filing 

challenges to ineligible areas extended 

to November 26, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

Auctions and Spectrum Access 

Division, Audra Hale-Maddox, at (202) 

418–0660. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the final actions in the 

Federal Communications Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) Order, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and 

Memorandum Opinion and Order 

(Combined Order), FCC 18–124, 

adopted on August 14, 2018, and 

released on August 21, 2018. The 

complete text of this document is 

available for public inspection and 

copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern 

Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or 

from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays 

in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY– 

A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text is also available on the 

Commission’s website at http://

wireless.fcc.gov, or by using the search 

function on the ECFS web page at 

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. 

Alternative formats are available to 

persons with disabilities by sending an 

email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

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

418–0432 (TTY). 

I. Synposis 

On August 21, 2018, the Commission 

released an ‘‘Order, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, and Memorandum Opinion 

and Order’’ (August 21 Order). The 

Commission separately published the 

proposed modifications to the speed test 

data specifications regarding the 

relevant timeframes for valid speed tests 

for the August 21 Order elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register. In the 

August 21 Order, the Commission 

extended the previously announced 

deadline for the close of the Mobility 

Fund Phase II (MF–II) challenge 

window by an additional 90 days. 

Challengers were given until November 

26, 2018, to submit speed test data in 

support of a challenge. The Commission 

adopted this extension to ensure that 

interested parties can initiate and 

submit speed test data for areas they 

wish to challenge. In addition, given 

this extension, the Commission 

proposed to make modifications to the 

speed test data specifications regarding 

the relevant timeframes for valid speed 

tests. The Commission also addressed 

two applications for review regarding 

the procedures and parameters of the 

MF–II challenge process and granted in 

part and denied in part a related 

extension request. 

II. Order Extending the Challenge 

Window 

1. In February 2017, the Commission 

adopted rules to move forward on a 

reverse auction that will direct up to 

$4.53 billion of MF–II support over ten 

years to providers in geographic areas 

lacking unsubsidized 4G Long Term 

Evolution (LTE) services. The 

Commission also determined that it 

would compile a list of areas that were 

presumptively eligible for MF–II 

support and provide a limited 

timeframe before the auction during 

which interested parties could challenge 

areas that were not listed as 

presumptively eligible (i.e., 

‘‘presumptively ineligible’’ areas). In 

February 2018, the Rural Broadband 

Auctions Task Force, in conjunction 

with the Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau and the Wireline Competition 

Bureau (the Bureaus), published a map 

of areas presumptively eligible for MF– 

II support based on a one-time 

collection by the Commission of 4G LTE 

coverage data and subsidy data from the 

Universal Service Administrative 

Company (USAC). 

2. The MF–II Challenge Process Order, 

82 FR 42473, September 8, 2017, 

established the framework for a robust 

challenge process that will refine the 

map of areas presumptively eligible to 

receive MF–II support. This challenge 

process is designed to efficiently resolve 

disputes about areas that are 

presumptively ineligible through the 

submission, analysis, and validation of 

mobile network speed test data. The 

Commission initially established a 150- 

day challenge window for interested 

parties to contest the initial 

determination of areas deemed 

presumptively ineligible for MF–II 

support. The challenge window opened 

on March 29, 2018, and it was 

scheduled to close on August 27, 2018. 

3. As part of the challenge process 

framework, the Commission established 

various parameters for the acceptance of 

speed test data, including that such data 

would only be accepted if they were 

collected within six months of the 

scheduled close of the challenge 

window. That six-month period 

commenced on February 27, 2018. After 

the close of the challenge window, a 

respondent (i.e., a ‘‘challenged party’’) 

will have the opportunity to respond to 

challenges by submitting its own speed 

test data or certain technical 

information that is probative of the 

validity of the challenger’s speed tests. 

Speed test data submitted by 

respondents is subject to the same 

standards and requirements applicable 

to challengers, except that the 

Commission established in the MF–II 

Challenge Process Order that it would 

only accept data submitted by a 

respondent that was collected within six 

months of the scheduled close of the 

response window. 

4. After the Commission adopted the 

timeframe for the challenge window, the 

Rural Wireless Association (RWA) 

submitted data regarding estimated 

burdens of the challenge process, 

including specific estimates of the 

amount of time required to conduct 

speed tests in certain areas. 

5. The Commission extended the 

previously established deadline for 

challengers to submit data in the 

challenge process and provide an 

additional 90 days, until November 26, 

2018, for the submission and 

certification of challenges. The 

Commission direct USAC to implement 

this change in the challenge portal. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
44242 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 169 / Thursday, August 30, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

6. In light of new estimates and again 

out of an abundance of caution, the 

Commission concluded that while a 

150-day challenge window may still be 

sufficient for parties to conduct speed 

tests and submit challenges, providing 

an additional 90 days for this window 

will ensure that all interested parties 

have ample opportunity to conduct 

speed tests and submit speed test data 

for the areas they wish to challenge. 

Providing this additional time, for a 

total challenge window of 240 days, 

ultimately should result in a more 

efficient allocation of support funds, 

while still advancing the overall auction 

process to a timely conclusion, directing 

its limited funds to the unserved areas 

most in need, and completing the phase 

down of duplicative support that directs 

subsidies to areas already served by 

unsubsidized providers. Accordingly, 

the Commission makes a procedural 

change to the challenge process by 

extending the deadline for filing 

challenges to November 26, 2018. 

III. Memorandum Opinion and Order 

Addressing Applications for Review 

From RWA and Verizon 

7. In the MF–II Challenge Process 

Procedures Public Notice, 83 FR 13417, 

March 29, 2018, the Bureaus 

determined, consistent with the 

Commission’s decision in the MF–II 

Challenge Process Order, that speed test 

measurements submitted to support or 

respond to a challenge to an area that 

initially is deemed ineligible for MF–II 

support must be no more than one-half 

of one kilometer apart from one another. 

The Bureaus also decided to assess 

challenges using a uniform grid with 

cells of one square kilometer and a 

‘‘buffer’’ with a radius equal to one-half 

of the maximum distance parameter, 

i.e., one-quarter of one kilometer (250 

meters). 

8. On March 21, 2018, RWA 

submitted data regarding the burden a 

challenger would experience as a result 

of these decisions. On March 29, 2018, 

RWA filed an application for review in 

which it argued that the speed test 

buffer radius size should have been set 

at one-quarter mile and that the size of 

the uniform grid cells should have been 

one square mile. One party—Verizon— 

opposed RWA’s application for review 

and argued that the grid cell size and the 

buffer radius should not be increased. 

9. On April 30, 2018, RWA filed an 

ex parte letter indicating that increasing 

the speed test buffer to 400 meters 

(approximately one-quarter mile) and 

maintaining a grid cell size of one 

square kilometer would yield largely 

similar results to increasing the grid cell 

size to one square mile and the buffer 

size to one-quarter mile. On April 30, 

2018, the Bureaus, on their own motion, 

adopted an order on reconsideration 

that increased the buffer size to 400 

meters. AT&T, the Competitive Carriers 

Association (CCA), and U.S. Cellular 

filed replies to Verizon’s opposition to 

RWA’s AFR, in which they supported 

the Bureaus’ decision to implement a 

400-meter buffer radius. On the issue of 

the grid cell size, AT&T argued that the 

grid cells should not be resized. CCA 

and U.S. Cellular argued that the grid 

cells should be resized. 

10. On June 21, 2018, Verizon filed an 

application for review of the Bureaus’ 

order on reconsideration in which it 

sought reinstatement of the 250-meter 

buffer radius. NTCA, Smith Bagley, 

RWA, and Panhandle 

Telecommunication opposed Verizon’s 

application for review and argued that 

the 400-meter buffer should be 

maintained. CCA filed a reply to the 

oppositions supporting the 400-meter 

buffer radius, and Verizon filed a reply 

to the oppositions restating its support 

for a 250-meter buffer radius. 

11. RWA’s application for review 

seeks review of the Bureaus’ procedures 

adopted in the MF–II Challenge Process 

Procedures Public Notice establishing a 

one kilometer grid cell size and a onequarter kilometer ‘‘buffer’’ for assessing 

challenges to areas deemed ineligible for 

MF–II support. RWA advocates instead 

for a one square mile grid size and a 

one-quarter mile buffer. It argues that 

roads in certain areas of rural America 

have been laid out on square mile grids 

rather than square kilometer grids, 

which according to RWA means that 

using a square kilometer grid would 

yield more grid cells that cannot be fully 

tested by drive testing. RWA argues 

further that a 250-meter buffer for each 

test point would require needlessly 

dense testing points which would 

increase the cost and technical difficulty 

of submitting challenges. 

12. RWA’s subsequent ex parte on 

April 30, 2018, included additional 

information. In Alabama and the 

Oklahoma Panhandle, RWA found that 

increasing the buffer to 400 meters, 

while maintaining the one square 

kilometer grid cell size, would result in 

a significant reduction of the percentage 

of cells for which a challenger could not 

fully test by drive testing. Indeed, RWA 

found that changing the buffer size 

would provide better results in Alabama 

than if both the buffer and grid cell size 

were increased. In the area in Alabama 

that RWA studied, the number of grid 

cells requiring some off-road testing 

dropped by 26 percentage points when 

increasing the buffer to 400 meters, 

versus a decrease of 16 percentage 

points when increasing buffer size to 

400 meters and increasing the grid cell 

size to one square mile. 

13. In the Oklahoma Panhandle, RWA 

found that the results were largely the 

same if the buffer size was increased, 

regardless of whether the grid cell size 

was also increased. In both cases, RWA 

found that the grid cells requiring some 

off-road testing would decrease by 

nearly 40 percentage points, from 82.3 

percent to either 44.7 percent (buffer 

size alone) or 43.6 percent (buffer and 

grid cell size). Summarizing its analysis, 

RWA stated that it ‘‘recognizes the 

Bureaus’ desire to utilize a square 

kilometer grid cell scheme and believes 

that the use of a one square kilometer 

grid cell and accompanying longer 

buffer radius will give prospective 

challengers the ability to more 

meaningfully participate in the MF–II 

challenge process.’’ 

14. U.S. Cellular supports RWA’s 

AFR. The company estimated that the 

one-kilometer grid cell size in 

conjunction with the original 250-meter 

buffer radius size would make mounting 

a challenge by drive-testing alone 

impossible for as much as 78 percent of 

the areas involved. 

15. After considering the data RWA 

filed in its March 21, 2018 ex parte 

submission, the Bureaus decided to 

expand the buffer surrounding each test 

point from 250 meters to 400 meters 

(approximately equivalent to onequarter mile), explaining that the new 

data persuaded them that the previous 

buffer size and resulting number of test 

points required may be unduly 

burdensome to some challengers. The 

new evidence illustrated both the 

considerable increase in area that could 

be covered by drive-testing and the 

decrease in the number of speed test 

measurements typically needed per grid 

cell resulting from using a buffer radius 

of one-quarter of one mile rather than a 

radius of one-quarter of one kilometer. 

These modified parameters decreased 

the burden on challengers by reducing 

the number of speed test measurements 

needed to file a successful challenge. 

Accordingly, because the Bureaus have 

already effectively granted RWA’s 

request regarding buffer size, the 

Commission dismiss RWA’s application 

for review on these grounds as moot. 

16. In contrast, RWA has not shown 

that changing the grid cell size is 

warranted. The Commission finds that 

the expansion of the speed test point 

buffer to 400 meters (as supported by 

numerous commenters) while retaining 

the square kilometer grid cell size 

properly balances the measurements 

needed for meaningful testing with the 

burdens placed on challengers and 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 169 / Thursday, August 30, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 44243 

challenged parties. This decision also 

furthers the Commission’s goals of 

moving expeditiously to conduct the 

MF–II auction and of administrative 

efficiency. The Commission and the 

Bureaus have carefully considered the 

burdens on entities that choose to 

submit challenges and entities that 

choose to respond to challenges, the 

goals of administrative efficiency, and 

the record evidence. 

17. As Verizon and AT&T noted, to 

implement RWA’s proposed resizing of 

the grid, ‘‘the Commission would have 

to reprocess the carrier coverage maps 

using a one square mile grid, generate a 

new map of presumptively eligible 

areas, and finally direct USAC to modify 

its challenge process software to accept 

challenges based on one square mile 

grid cells.’’ AT&T argues that RWA’s 

proposed reconfiguration of the grid 

cells ‘‘would be too disruptive’’ and 

would ‘‘significantly delay the start’’ of 

the MF–II auction. Similarly, Verizon 

argues that ‘‘stopping the current 

challenge process and then starting over 

with a one square mile grid would 

extend the challenge process—and 

delay the start of the Mobility Fund 

auction—by many months.’’ 

18. Moreover, as AT&T notes, the 

benefit sought by RWA—an increase in 

the percentage of the area that can be 

drive tested—‘‘can effectively be 

addressed by modifying the buffer 

radius, as the Bureaus recently did, on 

their own motion.’’ As RWA admits in 

its various submissions, the buffer size 

is the key parameter affecting the 

percentage of cells that can be drive 

tested and the change made to the buffer 

size, by itself, would provide similar 

results—in terms of the increase in the 

percentage of cells that could be 

challenged by drive testing—to 

changing both the buffer size and the 

grid cell size. 

19. RWA, CCA, and U.S. Cellular 

argue that the one square kilometer grid 

cell size prevents challenges in less 

accessible areas. The Commission 

disagrees. Nothing in the challenge 

process framework prevents challenges 

in less accessible areas or in areas that 

require some off-road testing. As shown 

in RWA’s own submissions, the buffer 

radius is the key parameter affecting the 

percentage of area that can be fully 

tested by drive testing, and increasing 

the grid cell size in some areas increases 

the percentage of cells that require off 

road testing in certain areas. Indeed, 

U.S. Cellular concedes that the Bureau’s 

increase of the buffer radius to 400 

meters undermines its argument that it 

cannot use drive testing for much of the 

MF–II challenge process. 

20. The Commission appropriately 

balanced the competing interests of 

challengers and challenged parties in 

this proceeding with the need to 

efficiently administer the challenge 

process. Roads do not match perfectly 

with any uniform grid, regardless of the 

size of the grid cell. The Commission 

decided to conduct an auction based 

upon land area, not road miles, because 

of limited universal service funds on the 

unserved areas where people live, work, 

and travel. No commenter sought 

reconsideration of that decision. 

Similarly, the Commission decided to 

not make special accommodations for 

less accessible areas, and no commenter 

sought reconsideration of that decision. 

Any ineligible area may be challenged, 

and it is incumbent upon challengers 

and challenged parties to collect the 

required speed test points to 

substantiate or rebut a challenge. 

Indeed, as of July 31, 2018, challengers 

had already uploaded over 1.6 million 

speed tests, with a significant number of 

those tests taken in primarily rural 

areas. Accordingly, the Commission 

denies RWA’s application for review on 

the grid cell size. 

21. RWA submitted an extension 

request along with its application for 

review, requesting that the challenge 

window be open for 150 days after its 

application for review was addressed. 

The Commission granted a 90-day 

extension of the challenge window, 

which will extend the challenge 

window through November 26, 2018. 

This extension will mean that the 

challenge window now provides 200 

days after the Order on Reconsideration 

for submitting challenges under 

parameters that largely address RWA’s 

concerns regarding the percentage of 

areas that could be fully tested by drive 

testing. The Commission thus has 

already effectively granted RWA’s 

extension request insofar as it sought at 

least 150 days for the challenge window 

after the modifications to the challenge 

process that it sought were 

implemented. 

22. RWA has not demonstrated that a 

further extension of the window for 

filing challenges to areas deemed 

ineligible for MF–II support is in the 

public interest. The window has been 

extended to now provide a window of 

200 days with parameters that largely 

address RWA’s concerns, thus providing 

50 more days than RWA requested. 

Although parties may disagree with the 

specific rules promulgated to achieve 

the purposes of MF–II, the mere filing 

of an application for review does not 

alter the effective date of those rules; a 

party is not entitled to an extension of 

the challenge window on the hope that 

the Commission will act favorably on its 

application for review. Moreover, the 

Bureaus have already acted to make it 

easier to conduct speed tests. Thus, all 

affected parties must comply with the 

rules and the requirements of the 

challenge process, should they choose 

to participate in it, absent Commission 

grant of a stay (which RWA did not 

request). RWA has not cited any 

unanticipated circumstances that might 

explain its members’ need for an 

extension nor provided a reasonable 

justification for granting it. 

23. Moreover, granting a further 

extension as requested by RWA would 

work at cross-purposes with the goals of 

the MF–II proceeding. In the MF–II 

Report and Order, 82 FR 15422, March 

28, 2017, the Commission stated that the 

purpose of MF–II is ‘‘to allocate up to 

$4.53 billion . . . to advance the 

deployment of 4G LTE service to areas 

that are so costly that the private sector 

has not yet deployed there and to 

preserve such service where it might not 

otherwise exist.’’ The Commission also 

indicated that MF–II would redirect 

legacy subsidies away from areas that 

are fully covered by unsubsidized 4G 

LTE service. Further extension of the 

challenge window undermines the 

purpose of the MF–II proceeding by 

delaying the conclusion of the challenge 

process, the release of the final eligible 

areas map, the commencement of the 

MF–II auction, and the refocusing of its 

limited universal service funds to the 

primarily rural areas of the country that 

need the funds the most. Under these 

circumstances, the Commission finds 

that the now extended window will 

provide eligible parties with sufficient 

time to prepare and submit any 

challenges they intend to file and that 

RWA has failed to demonstrate that a 

further extension of the challenge 

window would serve the public interest. 

24. Accordingly, RWA’s extension 

request is granted in part and is 

otherwise denied. 

25. Verizon’s application for review 

requests that the Commission vacate the 

Bureaus’ decision to increase the 

maximum speed test distance parameter 

from 500 meters to 800 meters and the 

associated speed test buffer radius from 

250 meters to 400 meters. The thrust of 

Verizon’s application for review is that 

the Bureaus have shifted the balance of 

the MF–II challenge process too far in 

favor of challengers. The outcome, 

Verizon argues, will be to ‘‘allow 

challengers to successfully challenge a 

one square kilometer area with as few as 

two speed test points’’ and will ‘‘result 

in widespread false positives, i.e., 

presumptively successful challenges of 

large areas that are in fact well-served 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
44244 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 169 / Thursday, August 30, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

by 4G LTE, particularly if providers 

cherry-pick test points with an aim of 

minimizing actual coverage.’’ Several 

carriers and trade associations filed 

oppositions to Verizon’s arguments; no 

filers supported the Verizon AFR. The 

Commission rejects Verizon’s 

arguments, agrees with the unanimous 

opposition to Verizon’s AFR, and 

affirms the decision of the Bureaus to 

expand the maximum distance between 

speed tests to 800 meters and the buffer 

radius of speed tests to 400 meters. 

26. Verizon argues that the increased 

speed test buffer radius allows 

challengers to ‘‘cherry-pick’’ speed test 

data to challenge the unsubsidized 

providers’ coverage maps. The 

Commission disagrees. The Bureaus did 

not modify the other numerous and 

rigorous challenge process requirements 

in the MF–II Challenge Process 

Procedures Public Notice. Challengers 

must submit not only speed test data 

demonstrating throughput below 5 

Mbps, but also data collected 

demonstrating speeds equal to or greater 

than 5 Mbps. Thus, in grid cells well 

served by existing 4G LTE, the data 

submitted to the challenge portal are 

likely to reflect speed test results 

favoring incumbents. Moreover, 

contrary to Verizon’s argument, 

providing only two speed tests in a grid 

cell with high quality 4G LTE service 

will likely not be sufficient to 

successfully challenge the grid cell. 

Rather, the combined buffer areas of 

sub-5 Mbps speed tests in or adjacent to 

challengeable grid cells must cover 75 

percent of the challengeable areas of all 

carriers in the grid cell. Further, even 

where combined testing points do cover 

75 percent of the challengeable areas in 

a grid cell, the resulting presumptive 

challenge simply shifts the burden of 

production (though not the burden of 

persuasion) to the challenged carrier to 

produce evidence rebutting the 

presumption. A presumptive challenge 

does not automatically result in any 

change to eligibility; final adjudications 

of eligibility will occur after challenged 

parties have an opportunity to respond 

to challenges. 

27. Verizon also argues that increasing 

the speed test buffer radius to 400 

meters will increase the number of 

presumptively successful challenges in 

areas already served by 4G LTE—which 

Verizon terms ‘‘false positives’’—which 

will degrade the accuracy of the MF–II 

eligibility map. The Commission 

disagrees. The risk of so-called ‘‘false 

positives’’ from a 400-meter buffer is 

adequately addressed by the challenge 

process framework that the Commission 

adopted. While increasing the buffer 

radius to 400 meters can make 

challenges more feasible in areas where 

roads are less dense, it does not lead to 

the conclusion that more challenges will 

cause the accuracy of the final auction 

eligibility map to suffer. Verizon’s 

argument appears to conflate a 

presumptive challenge with the final 

disposition of a challenge. Challenged 

carriers will have an opportunity to 

provide evidence refuting a challenge in 

any challenged grid cell. And because 

speed test points submitted by 

challenged parties are buffered by the 

same distance as points submitted by 

challengers, increasing the buffer radius 

increases the ability of challenged 

carriers to respond to challenges. 

28. The Bureaus’ increase in the 

number of grid cells that may be fully 

tested by drive testing does not alter the 

network performance that is being 

tested, nor will it necessarily result in 

an increase in the number of valid 

challenges. Indeed, as several entities 

have noted, more opportunities for 

challengers to participate in the 

challenge process should improve the 

accuracy of the final eligibility map, 

insofar as it subjects more grid cells to 

confirmation testing. The Commission 

likewise agree with NTCA and SBI that 

the potential risks associated with 

increasing the buffer size for the 

challenge process to 400 meters—i.e., 

increased availability of challenges—are 

outweighed by the benefits of ensuring, 

through a process that does not unduly 

deter challenges, that all areas that lack 

unsubsidized 4G LTE mobile service are 

designated eligible for the auction and 

have an opportunity to compete for MF– 

II support. 

29. The Commission also rejected 

Verizon’s argument that the Bureaus 

exceeded their authority by increasing 

the maximum speed test distance 

parameter and buffer radius. In the MF– 

II Challenge Process Order, the 

Commission directed the Bureaus to 

establish the challenge process speed 

testing parameters. Specifically, the 

Commission directed Bureaus to 

establish a maximum distance between 

tests of up to one mile and to set a 

corresponding buffer around tests to 

balance the benefits to the MF–II 

process, the burdens on small carriers, 

and an administratively efficient 

adjudication of challenges regarding 

network deployment. The Bureaus 

could consider any maximum speed test 

distance parameter and buffer within 

the established one mile range, 

including the 800-meter distance 

parameter (approximately one-half of 

one mile) and corresponding 400-meter 

buffer radius selected. Thus, the 

Bureaus were well within their 

authority to consider newly available 

record evidence that supported their 

reconsideration of the maximum speed 

test distance and buffer radius. In any 

event, this argument is moot since the 

Commission has reviewed and upheld 

the Bureaus’ decision. 

30. Although Verizon argues that 

customer experience is likely to vary 

over those distances due to signal 

attenuation, and terrain and clutter 

variations, the Commission notes that 

the MF–II Challenge Process Order did 

not call for speed tests that mirror every 

customer experience within a speed 

tested area, but rather a reasonable 

balance of administrative and private 

burdens and costs in a tested area. The 

800-meter distance parameter and 400- 

meter buffer radius reflect such a 

balance. The parameters selected by the 

Bureaus also has received widespread 

support from other parties participating 

in this proceeding. All four of the 

parties opposing Verizon’s AFR, as well 

as a reply to the oppositions, supported 

expanding the buffer radius and 

maximum speed test distance. 

Similarly, in filings submitted in 

response to RWA’s AFR, AT&T, CCA, 

and U.S. Cellular all supported 

expanding the buffer radius. The 

Commission further note that, while 

Verizon objects to the Bureaus’ reliance 

on RWA’s evidence, it did not cite any 

other record evidence, new or 

otherwise, that undermines the Bureaus’ 

decision. 

31. For all these reasons, the 

Commission denies Verizon’s 

application for review. 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

32. Accordingly, it is ordered that 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 254, 303(r), and 

332 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, and section 706 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 

U.S.C. 151, 154(i), (j), 254, 303(r), 332, 

1302, and sections 1.1, 1.115, 1.412, and 

1.427 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.1, 1.115, 1.412, 1.427, this Order and 

Memorandum Opinion and Order is 

adopted. 

33. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to the authority contained in sections 1, 

4(i) and (j), 254, 303(r), and 332 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, and section 706 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 

U.S.C. 151, 154(i), (j), 254, 303(r), 332, 

1302, and sections 1.1 and 1.412 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.412, 

the deadline for challengers to submit 

information in connection with the MF– 

II challenge process is extended, to the 

extent described herein. 

34. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to authority contained in sections 4(i), 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 169 / Thursday, August 30, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 44245 

254, 303(r), and 332 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, and section 706 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 

U.S.C. 154(i), 254, 303(r), 332, 1302, and 

section 1.46 of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR 1.46, RWA’s Request for 

Extension of Challenge Window is 

granted in part, and is denied in part, 

to the extent described herein. 

35. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to section 5(c)(5) of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 

155(c)(5), and section 1.115(g) of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.115(g), 

the Application for Review filed by the 

Rural Wireless Association, Inc. on 

March 29, 2018, is granted in part, 

dismissed as moot in part, and denied 

in part to the extent described herein. 

36. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to section 5(c)(5) of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 

155(c)(5), and section 1.115(g) of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.115(g), 

the Application for Review filed by 

Verizon Communications, Inc. on June 

22, 2018, is denied. 

37. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to § 1.427(b) of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR 1.427(b), this Order shall be 

effective upon its publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18804 Filed 8–28–18; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 180209155–8750–03] 

RIN 0648–BH77 

International Fisheries; Western and 

Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly 

Migratory Species; Fishing Limits in 

Purse Seine and Longline Fisheries, 

Restrictions on the Use of Fish 

Aggregating Devices in Purse Seine 

Fisheries, and Transshipment 

Prohibitions 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; date of effectiveness 

for collection-of-information 

requirements. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces approval by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) of a collection-of-information 

requirement, which was contained in 

regulations implementing fishing limits 

in purse seine and longline fisheries, 

and other restrictions, for U.S. vessels 

used to fish for highly migratory species 

in the western and central Pacific Ocean 

(WCPO), in a final rule published on 

July 18, 2018. The intent of this final 

rule is to inform the public of the 

effectiveness of the collection-ofinformation requirement associated 

with daily purse seine fishing effort 

reports included in the final rule. 

DATES: This final rule is effective August 

30, 2018. The amendment to 50 CFR 

300.218(g), published at 83 FR 33851 

(July 18, 2018), is effective on August 

30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments 

regarding burden-hour estimates or 

other aspects of the collection-ofinformation requirements contained in 

this final rule may be submitted to 

Michael D. Tosatto, Regional 

Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands 

Regional Office (PIRO), 1845 Wasp 

Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818 

and by email to OIRA_Submission@

omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emily Crigler, NMFS, (808) 725–5036, 

or emily.crigler@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

authority of the Western and Central 

Pacific Fisheries Convention 

Implementation Act (WCPFC 

Implementation Act; 16 U.S.C. 6901 et 

seq.), NMFS implemented recent 

decisions of the Commission for the 

Conservation and Management of 

Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the 

Western and Central Pacific Ocean. 

Background 

NMFS issued a final rule to 

implement specific fishing limits in 

purse seine and longline fisheries, and 

other restrictions, for U.S. vessels used 

to fish for highly migratory species in 

the WCPO. The final rule was published 

in the Federal Register on July 18, 2018 

(83 FR 33851) and the associated 

regulations are found at 50 CFR part 

300. The requirements of that final rule, 

other than the collection-of-information 

requirements associated with the daily 

purse seine fishing effort reports, were 

effective on July 18, 2018. OMB 

approved the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in the final rule 

on August 3, 2018, under OMB Control 

Number 0648–0649. Accordingly, this 

final rule announces the approval and 

effective date of the daily purse seine 

fishing effort report requirements found 

at 50 CFR 300.218(g). 

Classification 

Administrative Procedure Act 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there 

is good cause to waive prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment for this 

action because notice and comment 

would be unnecessary and contrary to 

the public interest. This action simply 

provides notice of OMB’s approval of 

the reporting requirements at issue, 

which has already occurred, and 

renders those requirements effective. 

Thus this action does not involve any 

further exercise of agency discretion by 

NMFS or OMB. Moreover, the public 

has had prior notice and the 

opportunity to comment on the 

collection-of-information requirement. 

NMFS published a proposed rule 

including the collection-of-information 

requirement (83 FR 21748; published 

May 10, 2018), with comments accepted 

until May 25, 2018. The final rule (83 

FR 33851; published July 18, 2018), 

included a response to the one comment 

received on the reporting requirements, 

advised where to send any additional 

comments on aspects of the collection of 

information, and indicated that this 

final rule would be published 

announcing the effective date for the 

revised reporting requirements upon 

OMB approval. 

There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in 

effective date for the collection-ofinformation requirement. The reporting 

requirements included in this final rule 

are intended to allow NMFS to obtain 

better data, to more accurately track the 

purse seine fishing effort limits, 

specified at 50 CFR 300.223(a), and to 

predict when a fishing effort limit is 

expected to be reached with greater 

certainty. Delaying the effective date of 

this reporting requirement will limit 

NMFS’s ability to accurately track 

fishing effort and make timely 

predictions of when effort limits may be 

reached. Accordingly, waiver of the 30- 

day delay in effective date is necessary 

to comply with the requirements of the 

WCPFC Implementation Act, the failure 

of which would be contrary to the 

public interest. 

Executive Order 12866 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule contains a collectionof-information requirement subject to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and 

which OMB approved under OMB 

Control Number 0648–0649 on August 

3, 2018. Specifically, U.S. purse seine 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES