40398 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[WC Docket No. 19–195, DA 21–853; FR ID 

39982] 

Comment Sought on Technical 

Requirements for the Mobile 

Challenge, Verification, and 

Crowdsource Processes Required 

Under the Broadband Data Act 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

(WTB), the Office of Economics and 

Analytics (OEA), and the Office of 

Engineering and Technology (OET) 

(collectively, the Bureau and Offices) 

seek comment on proposed technical 

requirements to implement the mobile 

challenge, verification, and 

crowdsourcing processes required by 

the Broadband DATA Act. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

August 27, 2021; reply comments are 

due on or before September 13, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 19–195, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE. 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

People with Disabilities. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Government Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice, 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will 

Holloway, William.Holloway@fcc.gov, 

Competition & Infrastructure Policy 

Division, (WTB), Jonathan McCormack 

at Jonathan.McCormack@fcc.gov (OEA), 

or Martin Doczkat at Martin.Doczkat@

fcc.gov (OET). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

document, Public Notice, in WC Docket 

No 19–195, DA 21–853, released on July 

16, 2021. The full text of this document, 

including the Technical Appendix is 

available for public inspection and can 

be downloaded at https://www.fcc.gov/ 

document/input-sought-mobilechallenge-verification-technicalrequirements or by using the 

Commission’s ECFS web page at 

www.fcc.gov/ecfs. 

Ex Parte Rules 

This proceeding shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making ex parte 

presentations must file a copy of any 

written presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must: (1) List all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made; and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b) 

of the Commission’s rules. In 

proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) of the 

rules or for which the Commission has 

made available a method of electronic 

filing, written ex parte presentations 

and memoranda summarizing oral ex 

parte presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

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

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

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The rulemaking required under 

section 802(a)(1) of the Broadband 

DATA Act is exempt from review by 

OMB and from the requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13. As a result, 

the Public Notice will not be submitted 

to OMB for review under section 

3507(d) of the PRA. 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. With this Public Notice, the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

(WTB), the Office of Economics and 

Analytics (OEA), and the Office of 

Engineering and Technology (OET) 

(collectively, the Bureau and Offices) 

take the next step in implementing the 

requirements of the Broadband DATA 

Act and improving the Commission’s 

data on broadband availability as part of 

the Broadband Data Collection (BDC). 

To implement the Broadband DATA 

Act’s requirements and obtain better 

mobile broadband availability data, the 

Commission delegated to the Bureau 

and Offices the obligation to develop: 

(1) Technical requirements for a 

challenge process that will enable 

consumers and other third parties to 

dispute service providers’ coverage data; 

(2) a process to verify service providers’ 

coverage data; and (3) a process to 

accept crowdsourced information from 

third parties. These measures will 

enable the Commission, Congress, other 

federal and state policy makers, Tribal 

entities, consumers, and other third 

parties to verify and supplement the 

data collected by the Commission on the 

status of broadband availability 

throughout the United States. 

2. This Public Notice seeks comment 

on proposed technical requirements to 

implement the mobile challenge, 

verification, and crowdsourcing 

processes required by the Broadband 

DATA Act. These requirements include 

the metrics to be collected for on-theground test data and a methodology for 

determining the threshold for what 

constitutes a cognizable challenge 

requiring a provider response. The 

Public Notice also provides tentative 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40399 

views and seeks comment on the types 

of data that likely will be probative in 

different circumstances for validating 

broadband availability data submitted 

by mobile service providers. The Public 

Notice and the detailed Technical 

Appendix, Appendix A, propose 

detailed processes and metrics for 

challengers to use to contest providers’ 

broadband coverage availability, for 

providers to follow when responding to 

a Commission verification request, and 

for state, local, and Tribal governmental 

entities and other third parties to follow 

when submitting verified broadband 

coverage data. For purposes of this 

Public Notice, the Bureau and Offices 

generally refer to state, local, and Tribal 

entities as ‘‘government entities’’ or 

‘‘governmental entities.’’ The Public 

Notice seeks comment on the technical 

requirements for these complex issues 

to assure that the broadband availability 

data collected in the challenge and other 

data verification and crowdsource 

processes serves the important 

broadband data verification purposes 

envisioned in the Broadband DATA Act. 

3. The Broadband DATA Act requires 

the Commission to collect granular data 

from broadband internet access service 

providers on the availability and quality 

of broadband service and also to 

establish a challenge process, verify the 

accuracy and reliability of the 

broadband coverage data that providers 

are required to submit in their BDC 

filings, and improve data accuracy 

through a crowdsourcing process. The 

Broadband DATA Act also requires the 

Commission to develop ‘‘a process 

through which it can collect verified 

data for use in the coverage maps from: 

(1) [s]tate, local, and Tribal 

governmental entities that are primarily 

responsible for mapping or tracking 

broadband internet access service 

coverage for a [s]tate, unit of local 

government, or Indian Tribe, as 

applicable; (2) third parties . . . ; and 

(3) other Federal agencies.’’ In its 

Second Order and Third Further Notice, 

the Commission adopted some of the 

Broadband DATA Act’s requirements 

for collection and reporting broadband 

data from providers, developed the 

framework for the BDC, established a 

process for verifying the broadband data 

it receives from providers in their BDC 

filings, and adopted a basic framework 

for collecting crowdsourced 

information. While the challenge 

process, crowdsource data, and other 

FCC efforts will all serve to validate the 

data submitted by providers, for 

purposes of this Public Notice, 

‘‘verification’’ or ‘‘verification process’’ 

refers to the internal process the 

Commission sought comment on in 

section IV.D. of the Third Further Notice 

and adopted in section III.E. of the Third 

Order. In the Third Order, the 

Commission adopted additional 

requirements for collecting and 

verifying provider-submitted data and 

established the challenge process. The 

Commission directed the Bureau and 

Offices to design and develop the new 

BDC platform for mapping broadband 

availability, and to set forth the 

specifications and requirements for the 

mobile challenge, verification, and 

crowdsourcing processes. The 

Commission was able to begin 

development of the BDC systems and 

the proposed technical requirements to 

implement these processes after funding 

to implement the Act was appropriated 

in December 2020. 

4. In the Third Order, the Commission 

determined that it should aggregate 

speed test results received from 

multiple consumer challenges in the 

same general area in order to resolve 

challenges in an efficient manner, 

mitigate the time and expense involved, 

and ensure that the mobile coverage 

maps are reliable and useful. When 

these aggregated results reach an 

appropriate threshold, they will 

constitute a cognizable challenge 

requiring a provider response. While the 

Commission acknowledged that 

consumers are likely to submit 

challenges in distinct, localized areas 

instead of expending the time and 

resources to test in a broader area or for 

extended periods, it also recognized that 

providers should not be subject to the 

undue cost of responding to a large 

number of challenges in very small 

areas. In response to the Second Order 

and Third Further Notice, providers 

argued that a requirement to respond to 

every consumer challenge would be a 

substantial burden. The Commission 

directed OEA, in consultation with 

WTB, to determine the threshold 

number of mobile consumer challenges 

within a specified area that will 

constitute a cognizable challenge 

triggering a provider’s obligation to 

respond. In connection with that 

determination, the Commission also 

directed OEA, in consultation with 

WTB, to establish: (1) The methodology 

for determining this threshold; and (2) 

the methodology for determining the 

boundaries of a geographic area where 

the threshold for a cognizable challenge 

has been met. 

5. Consistent with the approach it 

adopted for consumer challenges, the 

Commission stated that it would also 

aggregate speed test evidence received 

from multiple government and thirdparty challengers in the same general 

area. The Commission directed OEA to 

determine the threshold number of 

mobile governmental and third-party 

challenges within the same general area 

that will constitute a cognizable 

challenge that requires a provider 

response. Similar to the consumer 

challenges, the Commission directed 

OEA, in consultation with WTB, to 

establish the methodology for this 

threshold and the methodology for 

determining the boundaries of an area 

where the threshold has been met. 

II. Discussion 

A. Mobile Service Challenge Process 

6. The Broadband DATA Act requires 

the Commission to ‘‘establish a userfriendly challenge process through 

which consumers, [s]tate, local, and 

Tribal governmental entities, and other 

entities or individuals may submit 

coverage data to the Commission to 

challenge the accuracy of— (i) the 

coverage maps; (ii) any information 

submitted by a provider regarding the 

availability of broadband internet access 

service; or (iii) the information included 

in the Fabric.’’ The Commission 

established requirements for challenges 

to mobile service coverage reporting in 

the Third Order and directed the Bureau 

and Offices to adopt additional 

implementation details. 

7. At the outset, the Bureau and 

Offices note that coverage maps 

generated using propagation modeling 

are probabilistic due to the variability of 

mobile wireless service. The BDC 

coverage maps will be based on 

specifications adopted by the 

Commission to reflect where a mobile 

service provider’s models predict a 

device has at least a 90% probability of 

achieving certain minimum speeds at 

the cell edge for the parameters and 

assumptions used in the modeling. But 

an individual speed test conducted in 

an area where a provider’s propagation 

model predicts adequate coverage may 

not, by itself, be sufficient to establish 

the on-the-ground reality of service in 

that area. Throughout this Public Notice 

the Bureau and Offices use the term 

‘‘adequate coverage’’ to refer to coverage 

where a device should achieve upload 

and download speeds meeting or 

exceeding the minimum values 

associated with the provider’s map for 

a given technology. The Bureau and 

Offices have therefore designed the 

mobile challenge process to evaluate the 

on-the-ground truth of whether devices 

are able to achieve particular minimum 

speeds at least 90% of the time, 

measured at any point within the 

covered area and at any time during 

typical usage hours. This approach 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40400 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

strives to collect sufficient 

measurements to ensure the process is 

statistically valid, while at the same 

time meeting the statutory obligation to 

keep the challenge process ‘‘userfriendly.’’ The Bureau and Offices 

acknowledge that on-the-ground service 

can be measured and analyzed in ways 

other than the approach set forth herein, 

but the Bureau and Offices believe that 

their approach has the benefit of being 

both straightforward and consistent 

with the framework adopted by the 

Commission. 

1. Cognizable Challenges 

8. To implement the Commission’s 

directives, the Bureau and Offices 

propose to evaluate the speed tests 

submitted by consumers in combination 

with the speed tests submitted by 

governmental and third-party 

challengers in the challenge process. 

Under this approach, the Bureau and 

Offices would combine such speed test 

evidence and apply a single 

methodology to determine whether the 

threshold for a cognizable challenge has 

been met and to establish the 

boundaries of the challenged area. Since 

the Bureau and Offices propose to 

require all entities submitting 

challenges to meet the same thresholds 

and follow similar procedures for 

submitting challenge data, the Bureau 

and Offices see little functional 

difference between consumer and 

governmental or third-party challenges. 

As such, the Bureau and Offices believe 

combining all challenges will result in 

more robust and accurate challenges. 

9. In addition to combining consumer 

speed tests and governmental and thirdparty speed tests, the Bureau and 

Offices propose to validate each 

submitted speed test and exclude tests 

that are outside the scope of the 

challenge process, do not conform to the 

data specifications, or do not otherwise 

present reliable evidence. The Bureau 

and Offices propose to accept as valid 

speed tests only those tests conducted 

between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 

10:00 p.m. local time, so that speed tests 

are reflective of the hours that 

consumers typically use mobile 

broadband networks. The Bureau and 

Offices acknowledge that their proposal 

departs slightly from the time range 

proposed by the Commission, which 

would allow for tests to be conducted 

between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. 

(midnight) local time. However, the 

Bureau and Offices believe that tests 

conducted after 10:00 p.m. may likely 

record network performance that is 

materially different than tests conducted 

earlier in the day due to reduced cell 

loading. The Bureau and Offices seek 

comment on this proposal and their 

assumptions about network traffic 

patterns. The Bureau and Offices also 

propose to compare each speed test 

against the relevant coverage map. 

Specifically, the Bureau and Offices 

propose to compare speed tests for a 

particular network technology (e.g., 3G, 

4G LTE, or 5G) to the coverage maps for 

the corresponding technology, to 

compare the environment of the speed 

test—stationary or in-vehicle mobile—to 

the coverage map of the corresponding 

modeled environment, and to treat as 

invalid and exclude any speed tests that 

fall outside the boundaries of the 

provider’s most recent coverage data for 

the relevant technology and modeled 

environment. Additionally, because the 

Bureau and Offices do not believe there 

is a reliable way to evaluate mobile 

voice coverage using the speed test data 

which the Commission requires for 

submitting challenges, the Bureau and 

Offices propose not to permit challenges 

to the voice coverage maps submitted by 

mobile service providers. The Bureau 

and Offices seek comment on these 

proposals. 

10. After excluding any speed tests 

that fail the validations proposed above, 

the Bureau and Offices propose to 

associate the location of each validated 

speed test with a particular underlying 

geography depicted as a specific 

hexagonal cell area based upon the H3 

geospatial indexing system. H3 is an 

open-source project developed by Uber 

Technologies, Inc. that overlays the 

globe with hexagonal cells of different 

sizes at various resolutions, from zero to 

15. The lower the resolution, the larger 

the area of the hexagonal cell. The H3 

system is designed with a nested 

structure in which each hexagonal cell 

can be further subdivided into seven 

‘‘child’’ hexagons at the next higher (i.e., 

finer) resolution that approximately fit 

within the ‘‘parent’’ hexagon. Because of 

this nested structure, using the H3 

system to group speed tests allows for 

challenges at multiple levels of 

granularity. The nested structure 

includes 16 total H3 resolutions of 

hexagons ranging in average area size 

from approximately 4.25 million square 

kilometers to 0.9 square meters. In the 

case where a test reports more than one 

pair of distinct geographic coordinates 

(e.g., because the device was in motion), 

the Bureau and Offices propose to 

associate the test with the midpoint of 

the reported coordinates. The Bureau 

and Offices propose to use a system 

based upon hexagonal shapes instead of 

squares or rectangles because hexagons 

better enable them to evaluate 

challenges across multiple levels of 

granularity which can cover a 

significant area. The Bureau and Offices 

further propose that the smallest 

cognizable challenge would be to a 

single resolution 8 hexagonal cell, 

which has an area of approximately 0.7 

square kilometers. The Bureau and 

Offices seek comment on this choice of 

geographical area, including their 

proposal to use the H3 geospatial 

indexing system, as well as the ideal 

resolution or minimum size of the area 

to consider a cognizable challenge. 

11. As part of the proposed 

methodology, the Bureau and Offices 

would evaluate all valid challenger 

speed tests for a given technology 

within each hexagon to determine 

whether to create a cognizable challenge 

to the coverage in that area. In so doing, 

the Bureau and Offices propose to 

categorize each speed test as either a 

‘‘positive’’ test or a ‘‘negative’’ test based 

upon whether the test is consistent or 

inconsistent with the provider’s 

modeled coverage. The Bureau and 

Offices would consider a negative test to 

be a speed test that does not meet the 

minimum predicted download or 

upload speed based on the providerreported technology-specific minimum 

speeds with the cell edge probability 

and cell loading factors modeled by the 

provider. The Bureau and Offices would 

consider a positive test to be a speed test 

that records speeds meeting or 

exceeding the minimum download and 

upload speeds the mobile service 

provider reports as available at the 

location where the test occurred. The 

Bureau and Offices seek comment on 

this proposal. Alternatively, rather than 

considering a speed test as ‘‘negative’’ 

when either the recorded download or 

upload speed fails to meet the minimum 

predicted speeds for that area, should 

the Bureau and Offices evaluate the 

download and upload portions of each 

test independently? The Bureau and 

Offices note that speed test applications 

(apps) typically measure download, 

upload, and latency metrics sequentially 

and not simultaneously, and thus 

evaluating these metrics independently 

may better account for geographic and/ 

or temporal variability at the expense of 

adding complexity to their proposed 

approach. The Bureau and Offices seek 

comment on this alternative and also on 

whether the Bureau and Offices should 

consider any other methodologies to 

address the probabilistic nature of 

mobile wireless coverage and the 

potential for test results ‘‘at the 

margins’’ (either on the download speed 

or the upload speed) to either 

overrepresent or underrepresent 

coverage. Commenters proposing any 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40401 

alternative methodologies should 

explain how their proposals are 

consistent with the requirements and 

standardized reporting parameters set 

forth by the Commission and in the 

Broadband DATA Act. By aggregating 

speed tests and requiring challenges to 

meet the thresholds described below, 

the Bureau and Offices tentatively 

conclude that the methodology the 

Bureau and Offices propose above 

would ensure that challenges are 

temporally and geographically diverse, 

and therefore reflect a robust and 

representative sample of user 

experience. As such, the Bureau and 

Offices anticipate that situations in 

which a mobile service provider has 

throttled speeds of consumers that 

exceed data limits will have little, if 

any, effect on the challenge process. The 

Bureau and Offices seek comment on 

their assumptions, tentative 

conclusions, and whether there are 

other ways to address the issue of 

throttling. 

12. The Bureau and Offices propose to 

consider a provider’s coverage for a 

given technology in a resolution 8 

hexagon to be challenged when the set 

of valid speed tests meets three 

thresholds: (1) A geographic threshold, 

(2) a temporal threshold, and (3) a 

testing threshold. For the geographic 

threshold, the Bureau and Offices 

propose to require that at least four 

child hexagons (or ‘‘point-hexes’’) 

within the resolution 8 hexagon include 

two or more tests taken within each 

point-hex, and that at least one of the 

tests in each point-hex be negative. The 

Bureau and Offices define a point-hex as 

a resolution 9 child hexagon for a given 

resolution 8 hexagon. A resolution 9 

hexagon has an area of approximately 

0.1 square kilometers. The Bureau and 

Offices propose to require fewer than 

four point-hexes to include tests when 

there are fewer than four of the seven 

point-hexes of a resolution 8 hexagon 

that are ‘‘accessible’’—that is, where at 

least 50% of the point-hex overlaps with 

the provider’s reported coverage data 

and a road runs through the point-hex. 

Setting these dual requirements will 

help to demonstrate that inadequate 

coverage occurs at multiple locations 

within the resolution 8 hexagon. For the 

temporal threshold, the Bureau and 

Offices propose to require at least two 

negative tests be conducted at different 

times of day, separated by at least four 

hours, to demonstrate persistent 

inadequate coverage. For the testing 

threshold, the Bureau and Offices 

propose to require at least five negative 

tests within the resolution 8 hexagon 

when 20 or fewer total challenge tests 

have been submitted within the 

hexagon. When more than 20 challenge 

tests have been submitted within the 

hexagon, the Bureau and Offices 

propose to require that the percentage of 

negative tests within the resolution 8 

hexagon statistically demonstrate, using 

a 0.95 statistical confidence level, that 

the probability of a test achieving the 

minimum speeds reported for the 

provider’s coverage is less than 90% 

and therefore warrants a challenge. The 

required percentage of negative tests 

would thus vary, from at least 24% 

when between 21 and 30 challenge tests 

have been submitted within the 

hexagon, to 16% when 100 or more tests 

have been submitted. The Bureau and 

Offices also propose that a larger, 

‘‘parent’’ hexagon (at resolutions 7 or 6) 

be considered challenged if at least four 

of its child hexagons are considered 

challenged. Consistent with the 

Commission’s direction to consider 

‘‘whether the tests were conducted in 

urban or rural areas,’’ the Bureau and 

Offices propose to allow challenges that 

account for differences in areas. The 

proposal sets forth a different 

geographic threshold depending on the 

road density of each resolution 8 

hexagon which the Bureau and Offices 

anticipate will make it easier for 

challengers to establish a challenge in 

less densely populated areas. 

Additionally, the proposal includes a 

process to trigger challenges to a parent 

or grandparent hexagon (at resolutions 7 

and 6, respectively) that likewise takes 

into account this different geographic 

threshold, thus more easily allowing for 

challenges over large rural areas. The 

Bureau and Offices seek comment on 

this proposed methodology and the 

associated thresholds. Specifically, the 

Bureau and Offices seek comment on 

whether these thresholds are sufficient 

to adequately reflect the actual coverage 

in an area while maintaining a userfriendly challenge process. Should 

additional tests and testing at additional 

times of day be required in order to 

overcome typical variability in mobile 

wireless coverage? Alternatively, 

instead of the Bureau and Offices 

proposed temporal threshold, should 

the Bureau and Offices categorize tests 

into different temporal ranges (e.g., 6:00 

to 10:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., 

2:00 to 6:00 p.m., and 6:00 to 10:00 

p.m.) and require tests in different time 

ranges to account for the temporal 

variability of mobile networks, such as 

variability due to cell loading? Should 

the Bureau and Offices consider other 

metrics that correlate with the 

availability of mobile broadband (e.g., 

signal strength or other radiofrequency 

metrics) or that provide an indication of 

real-world conditions that impact 

throughput, such as cell loading, when 

determining the temporal or testing 

thresholds, and if so, how should the 

Bureau and Offices adjust these 

thresholds in relation to such metrics? 

Once the challenge process has been 

implemented, the Bureau and Offices 

anticipate that the Bureau and Offices 

may revisit and modify these 

thresholds, after notice and comment, if 

they are not sufficient to provide a clear 

determination of actual coverage 

conditions. Appendix A of the Public 

Notice provides a more detailed 

technical descriptions of these proposed 

thresholds. 

13. Because mobile service providers 

are required to submit two sets of 

coverage data for a given technology— 

one map modeled to assume a device is 

in a stationary environment and one 

map modeled to assume a device is invehicle and in a mobile environment— 

the Bureau and Offices propose to 

evaluate all tests for a given technology 

against each map independently when 

determining whether to establish a 

cognizable challenge. That is, the 

Bureau and Offices would filter speed 

tests to exclude any stationary tests that 

fall outside of the provider’s stationary 

coverage map and exclude any invehicle mobile tests that fall outside of 

the provider’s in-vehicle mobile 

coverage map. The Bureau and Offices 

would then aggregate all of the 

remaining stationary and in-vehicle 

mobile tests and compare these tests 

against the coverage data for a given 

technology and modeled environment. 

If the aggregated tests in a resolution 8 

hexagon meet all three thresholds 

proposed above, the Bureau and Offices 

would consider that map’s coverage to 

be challenged for that hexagon. Because 

the two sets of coverage data may differ 

(especially at the edge of a provider’s 

network), tests submitted as challenges 

against the same provider within the 

same hexagon may be sufficient to 

create a challenge against one of the 

maps and insufficient to create a 

challenge against the other. The Bureau 

and Offices seek comment on this 

proposed approach to evaluating 

challenges against stationary and invehicle mobile maps. The Bureau and 

Offices acknowledge that stationary 

tests and in-vehicle mobile tests may 

not be entirely homogeneous 

measurements of an on-the-ground 

experience. However, the Bureau and 

Offices believe that aggregating such 

tests when evaluating challenges would 

more closely align with the Broadband 

DATA Act requirement to develop a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40402 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘user-friendly’’ challenge process and 

would thus outweigh any cost to 

accuracy in treating such tests as 

homogeneous. In the alternative, if the 

Bureau and Offices were to not 

aggregate such tests and only evaluate 

stationary tests against stationary maps 

and separately evaluate in-vehicle 

mobile tests against in-vehicle mobile 

maps, the Bureau and Offices anticipate 

that it may be significantly more 

difficult to establish a challenge to 

certain coverage data. For example, if 

most consumers conduct stationary tests 

while most government and third-party 

entities conduct in-vehicle mobile tests 

(i.e., drive tests), segregating such tests 

when evaluating challenges would 

likely result in tests meeting all three 

proposed thresholds in fewer resolution 

8 hexagons. Moreover, there is a higher 

likelihood that, after adjudicating the 

challenges, portions of a provider’s 

coverage data may show a lack of 

coverage for one type of map, due to 

successful challenges, yet still show 

robust coverage for the other type of 

map due solely to an absence of one 

type of test and in ways that are 

inconsistent with mobile wireless 

propagation. The Bureau and Offices 

seek comment on this view and on any 

alternatives to reconciling challenges to 

these two sets of coverage data. 

14. In the Third Order, the 

Commission required consumer 

challengers to use a speed test app 

approved by OET for use in the 

challenge process and provided the 

metrics that approved apps must collect 

for each speed test. The Commission 

directed OET, in consultation with OEA 

and WTB, to update the FCC Speed Test 

app as necessary or develop a new 

speed test app to collect the designated 

metrics, so that challengers may use it 

in the challenge process. For 

government and third-party entity 

challengers, the Commission did not 

require the use of a Commissionapproved speed test app but instead set 

forth the information that all submitted 

government and third-party challenger 

speed test data must contain and 

directed OEA, WTB, and OET to adopt 

additional testing requirements if they 

determine it is necessary to do so. The 

Bureau and Offices propose to update 

the metrics that approved apps must 

collect for consumer challenges and that 

government and third party entity 

challenger speed test data must contain. 

Specifically, the Bureau and Offices 

propose that on-the-ground test data 

submitted by challengers meet the 

following testing parameters: (1) A 

minimum test length of 5 seconds and 

a maximum test length of 30 seconds; 

(2) test measurement results that have 

been averaged over the duration of the 

test (i.e., total bits received divided by 

total test time); and (3) a restriction that 

tests must be conducted between the 

hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. local 

time. The Bureau and Offices also 

propose that on-the-ground challenge 

test data shall include the following 

metrics for each test: (1) App name and 

version; (2) timestamp and duration of 

each test metric; (3) geographic 

coordinates measured at the start and 

end of each test metric with typical 

Global Positioning System (GPS) 

Standard Positioning Service accuracy 

or better; (4) device make and model; (5) 

cellular operator name; (6) location (e.g., 

hostname or IP address) of server; (7) 

signal strength, signal quality, unique 

identifier, and radiofrequency (RF) 

metrics of each serving cell, if available; 

(8) download speed; (9) upload speed; 

(10) round-trip latency; (11) the velocity 

of the vehicle, if available, for in-vehicle 

tests; and (12) all other metrics required 

per the most-recent specification for 

mobile test data released by OEA and 

WTB. The Bureau and Offices propose 

to require challengers to collect these 

data using mobile devices running 

either a Commission-developed app 

(e.g., the FCC Speed Test app) or 

another speed test app approved by OET 

to submit challenges. For government 

and third-party entity challengers, the 

Bureau and Offices would also allow 

these data to be collected using other 

software and hardware. The Bureau and 

Offices anticipate that updating these 

parameters will provide the 

Commission with reliable challenges, 

while assuring a user-friendly challenge 

process by allowing consumers to use a 

readily-downloadable mobile app and 

preserving flexibility for government 

and third-party entities to use their own 

software and hardware. The Bureau and 

Offices note, however, that certain 

technical network information and RF 

metrics are not currently available on 

Apple iOS devices, thus limiting the 

conclusions that the Bureau and Offices 

can draw from on-the-ground tests 

conducted using such devices. The 

Bureau and Offices therefore propose to 

require that, until such time as such 

information and metrics are available on 

iOS devices, government and thirdparty entity challenges must use a 

device that is able to interface with 

drive test software and/or runs the 

Android operating system. However, the 

Bureau and Offices do not propose this 

same restriction for challenges 

submitted by consumers to ensure that 

the challenge process remains userfriendly and encourage public 

participation, including by consumers 

that may use a device running the iOS 

operating system. The Bureau and 

Offices seek comment on these 

proposals. 

2. Challenge Responses 

15. Providers must either submit a 

rebuttal to the challenge or concede the 

challenge within a 60-day period of 

being notified of the challenge. 

Providers may rebut a challenge by 

submitting to the Commission either onthe-ground test data and/or 

infrastructure data, so that Commission 

staff can examine the provider’s 

coverage in the challenged area and 

resolve the challenge, and may 

optionally include additional data or 

information in support of a response. 

When a mobile provider responds to a 

consumer challenge, the challengers 

who submitted the challenge data 

would be notified individually by the 

Bureau or Offices via the online portal 

and would be able to view the 

provider’s response. The Commission 

directed OEA to ‘‘develop a 

methodology and mechanism to 

determine if the data submitted by a 

provider constitute a successful rebuttal 

to all or some of the challenged service 

area and to establish procedures to 

notify challengers and providers of the 

results of the challenge.’’ The 

Commission ‘‘adopt[ed] the same 

challenge response process for 

government and third party-entities as 

[it] do[es] for consumer challenges in 

the mobile context,’’ therefore the 

Bureau and Offices infer the notification 

process will occur in the same way for 

challenges made by governmental and 

other entities as it does for challenges 

made by consumers. The Bureau and 

Offices propose for mobile service 

providers and challengers to be notified 

monthly of the status of challenged 

areas. Parties would be able to see a map 

of the challenged area, and a 

notification about whether or not a 

challenge has been successfully 

rebutted, whether a challenge was 

successful, and if a challenged area was 

restored based on insufficient evidence 

to sustain a challenge. The Bureau and 

Offices also propose that any area in 

which the provider does not overturn 

the challenge but is otherwise no longer 

challenged (e.g., because some 

challenger tests were subsequently 

considered to be invalid or unreliable 

evidence), the coverage area would be 

restored to its pre-challenge status and 

would be eligible for challenges against 

it in the future. The Bureau and Offices 

propose that any valid speed test in a 

hexagon that was challenged and then 

restored (but where the provider did not 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40403 

overturn the challenge by demonstrating 

adequate coverage) may still be used for 

a future challenge (up to a year from the 

date the test was conducted). The 

Bureau and Offices seek comment on 

these proposals. 

16. The Commission also directed 

OEA, in consultation with WTB, to 

establish procedures for notifying 

service providers of cognizable 

challenges filed against them. 

Accordingly, the Bureau and Offices 

propose that the challenged mobile 

service provider would be notified by 

the Bureau or Offices via the online 

portal of the challenged hexagons at the 

end of each calendar month. The Bureau 

and Offices seek comment on this 

proposal and note that this approach 

would allow challengers to submit 

additional evidence if desired and grant 

providers a standard set of deadlines 

rather than a rolling set of multiple 

deadlines. If the challenged provider 

concedes or fails to submit data 

sufficient to overturn the challenge 

within 60 days of notification, it must 

revise its coverage maps to reflect the 

lack of coverage in the successfully 

challenged areas. 

a. Rebutting Challenges With On-theGround Data 

17. The Commission directed OEA to 

resolve challenges based on a 

‘‘preponderance of the evidence’’ 

standard with the burden on the 

provider to verify their coverage maps 

in the challenged areas. When the 

challenged mobile service provider 

chooses to submit on-the-ground speed 

test data to rebut a challenge, the Bureau 

and Offices propose to require the 

provider to meet analogous thresholds 

to those required of challengers, 

adjusted to reflect the burden on 

providers to demonstrate that sufficient 

coverage exists at least 90% of the time 

in the challenged hexagons. The Bureau 

and Offices also propose that mobile 

providers submit on-the-ground data 

consistent with the specific testing 

parameters and methodologies outlined 

above that the Bureau and Offices 

propose challengers use when 

submitting speed test data. The Bureau 

and Offices propose to require providers 

to collect these data using mobile 

devices running either a Commissiondeveloped app (e.g., the FCC Speed Test 

app), another speed test app approved 

by OET to submit challenges, or other 

software and hardware if approved by 

staff. As noted above, certain technical 

network information and RF metrics are 

not currently available on Apple iOS 

devices. Accordingly, until such time as 

these data are available on iOS devices, 

the Bureau and Offices propose to 

require providers to use a device that is 

able to interface with drive test software 

and/or runs the Android operating 

system. The Bureau and Offices seek 

comment on their proposals. 

18. The Bureau and Offices propose 

that the test data that providers submit 

meet the same three thresholds required 

of challenger tests: (1) A geographic 

threshold; (2) a temporal threshold; and 

(3) a testing threshold. However, the 

Bureau and Offices propose somewhat 

different values (i.e., the number of tests 

and percentages) for test data for each 

threshold. For the geographic threshold, 

the Bureau and Offices propose to 

require at least four point-hexes of a 

resolution 8 hexagon to include two 

tests taken within them, at least one of 

which must be positive, to demonstrate 

that adequate coverage occurs at 

multiple locations within the resolution 

8 hexagon. Fewer point-hexes may be 

tested when not all seven point-hexes of 

a resolution 8 hexagon are within the 

coverage area or do not contain at least 

one road. For the temporal threshold, 

the Bureau and Offices also propose to 

require at least two positive tests be 

taken at times of day separated by at 

least four hours to demonstrate 

persistent adequate coverage. For the 

testing threshold, the Bureau and 

Offices propose to require at least 17 

positive tests within the resolution 8 

hexagon when 20 or fewer total 

response tests have been submitted 

within the hexagon. When more than 20 

response tests have been submitted 

within the hexagon, the Bureau and 

Offices propose to require that the 

percentage of negative tests within the 

resolution 8 hexagon statistically 

demonstrate, using a 0.95 statistical 

confidence level, that the probability of 

a test achieving the minimum speeds 

reported in the provider’s coverage is 

90% or greater and therefore the area 

has adequate coverage. The required 

percentage of positive tests would thus 

vary, from at least 82% when between 

21 and 34 response tests have been 

submitted within the hexagon to 88% 

when 100 or more tests have been 

submitted. As with the thresholds 

proposed for challengers, the Bureau 

and Offices seek comment on whether 

these thresholds are sufficient to 

adequately demonstrate the on-theground reality of coverage in an area 

while maintaining a user-friendly 

challenge process. The Bureau and 

Offices expect any future modifications 

to these thresholds would apply to both 

challengers and providers. The Bureau 

and Offices also propose that a provider 

may demonstrate sufficient coverage in 

a resolution 8 hexagon that was not 

challenged if that hexagon is the child 

of a lower resolution challenged 

hexagon. As discussed more fully in 

section 3.2.4 of the Technical Appendix 

of the Public Notice, for challenged 

hexagons at resolution 7 or 6, if the 

provider submits response data 

sufficient to demonstrate coverage in the 

hexagon’s child hexagons such that 

fewer than four child hexagons would 

still be challenged, then the resolution 

7 or 6 hexagon would no longer be 

challenged even if sufficient data were 

not submitted to rebut a challenge for 

the remaining child hexagons. If the 

provider can demonstrate sufficient 

coverage in a challenged hexagon, the 

provider would have successfully 

rebutted the challenge to that hexagon, 

and the challenge would be overturned. 

Conversely, if the provider is not able to 

demonstrate sufficient coverage in a 

challenged hexagon, the provider would 

be required to revise its coverage maps 

to reflect the lack of coverage in such 

areas. If the provider demonstrates 

sufficient coverage in some but not all 

child hexagons and the parent (or 

grandparent) hexagon remains 

challenged, we the Bureau and Offices 

propose that a provider would not be 

required to remove from its coverage 

map the portions of the challenged 

parent (or grandparent) hexagon where 

the provider demonstrated sufficient 

coverage in the child hexagons. 

However, the provider would be 

required to remove the remaining 

portion of the challenged parent (or 

grandparent) hexagon where it did not 

demonstrate sufficient coverage. The 

Bureau and Offices propose that any 

areas where the provider has 

demonstrated sufficient coverage would 

be ineligible for subsequent challenge 

until the first biannual BDC coverage 

data filing six months after the later of 

either the end of the 60-day response 

period or the resolution of the 

challenge. This is to avoid requiring a 

provider to repeatedly confirm the same 

area but also acknowledges that 

coverage may change over time due to 

changes in technology and 

infrastructure. The Bureau and Offices 

seek comment generally on this 

approach and as to whether this time 

period is too short or too long. 

19. The Bureau and Offices seek 

comment on this methodology and 

invite commenters to propose 

alternative approaches that would allow 

for staff to adjudicate most challenges 

through an automated process. AT&T 

submitted a preliminary proposal for 

defining a challenge area based on the 

test data submitted by the challenger(s), 

and the Bureau and Offices considered 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40404 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

this proposal while developing the 

proposed methodology. The Bureau and 

Offices tentatively conclude that their 

proposed methodology is preferable to 

that submitted by AT&T, because it 

ensures the challenge process is both 

user-friendly and supported by 

sufficient data, while also targeting a 

more precise geographic area where 

broadband coverage is disputed and 

limiting the burden on providers in 

responding to challenges. AT&T 

recommends the Bureau and Offices 

adopt an approach in which the 

geographic location of speed tests would 

determine the size and shape of a 

polygon that would serve as the 

challenged area. Moreover, AT&T 

proposes the Commission adopt a tiered 

structure in which challenges are filed 

and adjudicated in a manner 

proportional to their likelihood of 

success based on a percentage of valid 

speed tests in a polygon. This could 

lead to significant challenged areas with 

few or no speed tests. The Bureau and 

Offices’ approach differs in that 

challenged areas would be based on the 

H3 hexagonal indexing system. Under 

the Bureau and Offices proposed 

process, individual speed tests would be 

aggregated and evaluated collectively, 

and a hexagon would be classified as 

challenged once the aggregated speed 

tests have met geographic, temporal, 

and testing thresholds in that particular 

area. In addition to the on-the-ground 

data or infrastructure information 

submitted by mobile service providers, 

staff could also consider other relevant 

data submitted by challenged providers, 

request additional information from the 

challenged provider (including 

infrastructure data, if necessary), and 

take such other actions as may be 

necessary to ensure the reliability and 

accuracy of the rebuttal data. The 

Bureau and Offices propose such steps 

could include rejecting speed tests or 

requiring additional testing. The Bureau 

and Offices seek comment on these 

proposals. 

b. Rebutting Challenges With 

Infrastructure Data 

20. Providers may respond to 

challenges with infrastructure data 

rather than (or in addition to) on-theground speed test data. In cases where 

a challenged mobile service provider 

chooses to submit infrastructure data to 

rebut a challenge, the Bureau and 

Offices propose that the mobile service 

provider submit the same data as 

required when a mobile provider 

submits infrastructure information in 

response to a Commission verification 

request, which would include 

information on the cell sites and 

antennas used to provide service in the 

challenged area. Based on the Bureau 

and Offices’ tentative conclusion below 

that such data may not be as probative 

in certain circumstances as on-theground speed tests, the Bureau and 

Offices propose to use these data, on 

their own, to adjudicate challenges in 

only a limited set of circumstances. 

Specifically, a challenged provider may 

use infrastructure data to identify tests 

within a challenger’s speed test data 

that the provider claims are invalid or 

non-representative of network 

performance. Under the Bureau and 

Offices’ proposal, a provider could 

claim a speed test was invalid, or nonrepresentative, based on the following 

reasons: (1) Extenuating circumstances 

at the time and location of a given test 

(e.g., maintenance or temporary outage 

at the cell site) caused service to be 

abnormal; (2) the mobile device(s) with 

which the challenger(s) conducted their 

speed tests do not use or connect to the 

spectrum band(s) that the provider uses 

to serve the challenged area; (3) speed 

tests were taken during an uncommon 

special event (e.g., a professional 

sporting event) that increased traffic on 

the network; or (4) speed tests were 

taken during a period where cell loading 

exceeded the modeled cell loading 

factor. While providers may use 

infrastructure information with hourly 

cell loading data to rebut a challenge in 

this scenario to show sporadic or 

abnormally high cell loading, in the 

event a high number of challenges 

indicates persistent over-loading, the 

Bureau and Offices propose that staff 

may initiate a verification inquiry to 

investigate whether mobile providers 

have submitted coverage maps based on 

an accurate assumption of cell loading 

in a particular area. The Bureau and 

Offices propose to require that mobile 

providers respond to such a verification 

inquiry with on-the-ground data. Using 

this proposed approach, the Bureau and 

Offices would recalculate the 

challenged hexagons after removing any 

invalidated challenger speed tests and 

consider any challenged hexagons that 

no longer meet the thresholds required 

for a challenge to be restored to their 

status before the challenge was 

submitted. Challenged providers may 

also demonstrate sufficient coverage for 

any areas that remain challenged by 

submitting on-the-ground speed test 

data. The Bureau and Offices seek 

comment on this approach, including 

on whether there are other reasons or 

circumstances under which the Bureau 

and Offices should use infrastructure 

data alone to determine the outcome of 

a challenge. 

21. The Bureau and Offices seek 

comment generally on other ways that 

infrastructure data could be used to 

automatically evaluate or rebut speed 

test data submitted by challengers. 

Where a challenged provider’s 

submitted infrastructure data do not 

meet one of the processing rules 

proposed above, the Bureau and Offices 

propose that Commission staff consider 

any additional information submitted by 

the challenged provider or request 

additional information from the 

challenged provider. Such information 

would include on-the-ground speed test 

data, as specified in the Third Order, 

and staff would use this information to 

complete its adjudication of the 

challenge. The Bureau and Offices 

acknowledge there may be some 

scenarios in which a provider may not 

be able to respond to a challenge with 

on-the-ground test data due, for 

example, to the inability to collect onthe-ground data during certain months 

of the year or other unforeseen 

circumstances. The Bureau and Offices 

seek comment on the best approach to 

handle such situations. One approach 

would be to allow for providers to seek 

a waiver of the 60-day response 

deadline until the provider can make 

on-the-ground measurements, or a 

waiver of the requirement to submit 

either infrastructure or on-the-ground 

speed tests data in response to a 

challenge. Another approach would be 

to allow providers to submit 

infrastructure data, even if one of the 

four instances of particular probative 

value set forth above does not apply, 

with supplemental data that explain 

their inability to make on-the-ground 

measurements at that time. In such 

cases, the Commission could request 

that the on-the-ground test data be 

submitted at a time when such 

measurements would be more feasible, 

or that a possible substitute for such 

data—such as transmitter monitoring 

software data or third-party speed test 

data—be submitted instead. 

Commission staff could also use 

infrastructure data to do its own 

propagation modeling and generate its 

own predicted coverage maps using the 

data submitted by the provider 

including link budget parameters, cellsite infrastructure data, and the 

information provided by service 

providers about the types of propagation 

models they used, standard terrain and 

clutter data, as well as standard 

propagation models, to determine 

whether the provider should be required 

to update its maps. The Bureau and 

Offices seek comment on other 

approaches the Bureau and Offices 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40405 

should take where on-the-ground testing 

is temporarily infeasible. 

22. In instances where the 

Commission staff uses its own 

propagation modeling to adjudicate 

challenges, the Bureau and Offices seek 

comment on how staff should conduct 

such propagation modeling. What 

model or models should staff use in 

different conditions (e.g., for what 

combinations of spectrum band and 

terrain)? What inputs and parameters 

should staff use beyond those supplied 

by providers (e.g., what specific sources 

of terrain and clutter data in what 

areas)? What assumptions should the 

Commission make regarding carrier 

aggregation? How should staff calculate 

the throughput in a given area given 

propagation-model calculations for 

signal strength? Finally, how should the 

Commission calibrate its models or 

ensure their accuracy? 

23. The Bureau and Offices also seek 

comment about how staff should 

adjudicate instances where the on-theground test data and infrastructure data 

disagree or where the provider-filed 

coverage and Commission-modeled 

coverage differ. Under what conditions 

should staff determine that a given 

hexagon has network coverage? Would 

the results of the Commission 

propagation modeling always be 

dispositive? For example, should the 

Bureau and Offices always find that an 

area has network coverage if so 

indicated by the Commission 

propagation model, despite any number 

of on-the-ground tests that indicated a 

lack of service at the required speeds? 

Should the Bureau and Offices 

incorporate other, related metrics, such 

as signal strength or cell loading data, 

when considering how to treat 

infrastructure data in the adjudication of 

challenges? And should staff always 

require providers to update their filings 

or submit additional data if the 

Commission’s propagation modeling 

indicate a lack of network coverage? If 

the Commission propagation model 

indicates network coverage over part of 

a hexagon, how should staff adjudicate 

that area? Should the specific location 

of on-the-ground test measurements 

within a challenged hexagon, relative to 

the Commission-predicted coverage, 

matter? Are there other scenarios in 

which the Bureau and Offices should 

consider adjudicating challenges with 

only infrastructure data? 

c. Other Data 

24. In the Third Order, the 

Commission sought to adopt a flexible 

approach for providers to respond to 

challenges. Several commenters argued 

that the Commission should grant 

providers additional flexibility in 

responding to challenges, including 

allowing providers to respond with 

drive testing data collected in the 

ordinary course of business, third party 

testing data (such as speed test data 

from Ookla or other speed test app), 

and/or tower transmitter data collected 

from transmitter monitoring software. 

As discussed in the Third Order, 

providers may voluntarily submit these 

or other types of data to support their 

rebuttals, but they may not be used in 

lieu of on-the-ground testing or 

infrastructure data. Consistent with the 

Commission’s direction, OEA staff will 

review such data when voluntarily 

submitted by providers in response to 

consumer challenges, and if any of the 

data sources are found to be sufficiently 

reliable, the Bureau and Offices will 

specify appropriate standards and 

specifications for each type of data and 

add them to the alternatives available to 

providers to rebut a consumer challenge 

via public notice. 

25. The Bureau and Offices also seek 

comment regarding the conditions 

under which a provider’s transmitter 

monitoring software can be relied upon 

by staff in resolving challenges. For 

example, in what ways would 

transmitter monitoring software data 

augment or reinforce the probative value 

of infrastructure or other data to rebut 

challenger speed test data? How 

precisely do such systems measure the 

geographic coordinates (longitude and 

latitude) of the end-user devices, and 

how does that precision compare to the 

information collected from on-theground testing? Would such software 

record instances of end-user devices not 

being able to connect to the network at 

all? If not, would that exclusion make 

the data less reliable and probative in 

the rebuttal process? What other 

information would staff need to 

determine how to make use of such data 

in the challenge process? 

B. Collecting Verification Information 

From Mobile Providers 

26. The Broadband DATA Act 

requires the Commission to ‘‘verify the 

accuracy and reliability of the 

[broadband internet access service data 

that providers submit in their biannual 

BDC filings] in accordance with 

measures established by the 

Commission.’’ In the Third Order, the 

Commission determined that OEA and 

WTB may request and collect 

verification data from a provider on a 

case-by-case basis where staff have a 

credible basis for verifying the 

provider’s coverage data. The Third 

Order specifies that, in response to an 

OEA and WTB inquiry to verify a 

mobile service provider’s coverage data, 

the provider must submit either 

infrastructure information or on-theground test data for the specified area(s). 

A mobile provider has the option of 

submitting additional data, including 

but not limited to on-the-ground test 

data or infrastructure data (to the extent 

such data are not the primary option 

chosen by the provider), or other types 

of data that the provider believes 

support its reported coverage. The 

Commission further directed OEA and 

WTB to implement this data collection 

and adopt the methodologies, data 

specifications, and formatting 

requirements that providers must follow 

when collecting and reporting such 

data. Below, the Bureau and Offices 

propose processes and methodologies 

for determining areas subject to 

verification and for the collection of onthe-ground test data and infrastructure 

information, as well as information from 

transmitter monitoring systems and 

other data. The Bureau and Offices seek 

comment on each of these proposals, 

including the additional details and 

specifications set forth in the Technical 

Appendix of the Public Notice. 

1. Area Subject to Verification 

27. The Bureau and Offices propose to 

identify the portion(s) of a mobile 

provider’s coverage map for which the 

Bureau and Offices would require 

verification data—referred to as the 

targeted area(s)—based upon all 

available evidence, including submitted 

speed test data, infrastructure data, 

crowdsourced and other third-party 

data, as well as staff evaluation and 

knowledge of submitted coverage data 

(including maps, link budget 

parameters, and other credible 

information). The Bureau and Offices 

seek comment on this proposal and on 

any alternative methodologies for 

determining where staff have a credible 

basis for verifying a mobile provider’s 

coverage data. 

28. Within the targeted area, the 

Bureau and Offices propose to require 

verification data covering a statistically 

valid sample of areas for which the 

mobile service provider must 

demonstrate sufficient coverage in order 

to satisfy the verification request. The 

Bureau and Offices propose to start the 

sampling with the division of the 

targeted area into unique components 

called ‘‘units.’’ The complete list of 

units within the targeted area is called 

the ‘‘frame.’’ The Bureau and Offices 

propose to first subdivide the targeted 

area into units based upon the same 

hexagonal geography the Bureau and 

Offices propose to use for grouping 

challenger speed tests (i.e., H3 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40406 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

geospatial indexing system at resolution 

8). To create the frame, the Bureau and 

Offices propose to include all resolution 

8 hexagons that are within the targeted 

area or, for those resolution 8 hexagons 

that are only partially within the 

boundary of the targeted area, its 

centroid falls within or on the boundary 

of the targeted area. The Bureau and 

Offices next propose to group the 

hexagonal units that comprise the frame 

into non-overlapping, mutually 

exclusive groups (one ‘‘stratum’’ or 

multiple ‘‘strata’’). The Bureau and 

Offices propose to define each stratum 

based upon one or more variables that 

are correlated with a particular mobile 

broadband availability characteristic, 

such as population, road miles, and/or 

variation in terrain, and seek comment 

on what variables the Bureau and 

Offices should consider. The Bureau 

and Offices propose to exclude any 

hexagons that are not accessible by 

roads from the strata. If an area is unable 

to be sampled because there are too few 

hexagons accessible by road, the Bureau 

and Offices propose to include the 

minimum number of non-accessible 

hexagons within the strata as necessary 

to create a sufficient sample. The 

Bureau and Offices seek comment on 

these proposals, and on other methods 

that can be used to verify the part of the 

targeted area that cannot be drive tested. 

29. Next, the Bureau and Offices 

propose to select a random sample of 

hexagons independently within each 

stratum and to require that a service 

provider conduct on-the-ground testing 

within these randomly selected 

hexagons or else submit infrastructure 

data sufficient for staff to reproduce 

coverage for these randomly selected 

hexagons. When evaluating on-theground test data, the Bureau and Offices 

propose that a sample meet two of the 

three thresholds proposed for evaluating 

tests in a challenged hexagon in the 

challenge process, specifically the 

geographic and temporal thresholds. 

The Bureau and Offices also propose to 

require a minimum of five speed tests in 

each selected hexagon. The Bureau and 

Offices would then evaluate the entire 

set of speed tests to determine the 

probability that the targeted area has 

been successfully verified. Under the 

Bureau and Offices’ proposal, for the 

targeted area to be successfully verified, 

the probability of adequate coverage 

must be greater than or equal to 0.9 

assessed using a one sided 95% 

confidence interval. When evaluating 

infrastructure data, the Bureau and 

Offices propose that staff review all 

available data and staff propagation 

modeling to demonstrate adequate 

coverage for all hexagonal units in a 

sample for the targeted area to be 

successfully verified. Where the data 

submitted by the provider in response to 

a verification request are not by 

themselves sufficient to demonstrate 

adequate coverage, the Bureau and 

Offices may request additional 

information to complete the verification 

process. The Bureau and Offices seek 

comment on these proposals. 

30. Several commenters supported the 

Bureau and Offices’ proposal in the 

Second Order and Third Further Notice 

to verify broadband availability data by 

requiring providers to submit tests and 

information on sampled areas, and 

agreed that it would be an efficient and 

less burdensome approach than having 

providers perform annual drive tests or 

regularly submit infrastructure 

information. The Bureau and Offices 

agree that sampling will require lower 

costs and fewer resources than 

collecting data from a provider’s entire 

network coverage area. In particular, the 

proposed approach for sampling the 

targeted area is designed to minimize 

the cost and burden placed on service 

providers while ensuring staff have 

access to sufficient data to verify 

coverage in a reliable way. Without such 

a sampling plan, providers would need 

to submit substantially more data to 

demonstrate broadband availability. 

31. In response to the Second Order 

and Third Further Notice, some 

providers expressed concerns that 

sampling would not mitigate the costs 

associated with performing testing and 

would still be a burden on providers, as 

it would require a minimum number of 

tests at different locations. However, 

compared to requiring providers to 

regularly drive test their networks or 

submit large amounts of infrastructure 

data in response to a verification 

request, the Bureau and Offices 

anticipate that their proposal to require 

providers to submit speed test results or 

infrastructure information on a case-bycase basis would minimize the time and 

resources associated with responding to 

the Commission’s verification requests. 

The proposed stratification 

methodology would ensure that 

variation in broadband availability 

would be as small as possible within 

hexagons in the same stratum. The 

Bureau and Offices anticipate this 

methodology would reduce the sample 

size (e.g., the number of test locations), 

the cost of data collection, and the 

variance in the estimate of the variable 

interest (meaning the percentage, P-hat, 

of positive tests indicating broadband 

availability), and, in turn, would 

increase the precision of the final 

estimate. The Bureau and Offices seek 

comment on this proposed 

methodology. 

32. In addition, the Bureau and 

Offices seek comment on other variables 

which correlate with broadband 

availability and upon which 

stratification should be based. The 

Bureau and Offices also seek comment 

on the tradeoffs of setting a higher or 

lower confidence level for this 

verification process than the thresholds 

established for the challenge process. 

Under the Bureau and Offices’ proposed 

methodology, if the provider fails to 

verify its coverage data, the provider 

would be required to submit revised 

coverage maps that reflect the lack of 

coverage in targeted areas failing the 

verification. Where a provider fails to 

verify its coverage and submits revised 

coverage data, the Bureau and Offices 

propose to re-evaluate the data 

submitted by the provider during the 

verification process against its revised 

coverage data for the targeted area. If the 

targeted area still cannot be successfully 

verified, the Bureau and Offices propose 

to require the provider to submit 

additional verification data or further 

revise its coverage maps until the 

targeted area is successfully verified. 

The Bureau and Offices seek comment 

on this proposal and invite commenters 

to propose alternative methodologies for 

generating a statistically valid sample of 

areas for which the mobile service 

provider must demonstrate sufficient 

coverage in response to a verification 

request. 

33. Alternatively, the Bureau and 

Offices seek comment on the use of 

available spatial interpolation 

techniques, such as Kriging, that could 

be used to evaluate and verify the 

accuracy of coverage maps based on 

available measurements. Spatial 

interpolation techniques can be an 

alternative or complementary approach 

to specifying an exact testing threshold 

since spatial interpolation techniques 

require fewer data to compare with 

predictions using propagation models. 

Although spatial interpolation 

techniques can readily verify whether or 

not a hexagonal cell has coverage with 

speeds at or above the minimum values 

reported in the provider’s submitted 

coverage data, the incremental benefit 

over testing thresholds may be minimal 

because spatial interpolation techniques 

provide better results as more data is 

collected. The Bureau and Offices seek 

comment on the costs and benefits of 

using spatial interpolation techniques 

either in addition to or as an alternative 

to the testing thresholds proposed above 

for verifying the accuracy of coverage 

maps. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40407 

2. On-the-Ground Test Data 

34. To submit on-the-ground test data 

in response to a verification inquiry, the 

Bureau and Offices propose to require 

that mobile providers conduct on-theground tests consistent with the testing 

parameters and test metrics that the 

Bureau and Offices propose to require 

for provider-submitted test data in the 

challenge process. As described above, 

the Bureau and Offices propose to 

require verification data covering a 

statistically valid sample of areas for 

which the mobile service provider must 

demonstrate sufficient coverage in order 

to satisfy the verification request. To 

verify coverage with on-the-ground 

speed test data, the Bureau and Offices 

propose that the provider submit on-theground speed tests within a hexagonal 

area based upon the H3 geospatial 

indexing system at resolution 8. The 

Bureau and Offices would require that 

these tests meet a threshold percentage 

of positive tests (i.e., those recording 

download and upload speeds at or 

above the minimum speeds the provider 

reports in its BDC submission as 

available at the location where the test 

occurred). The tests would be evaluated 

to confirm, using a 95% statistical 

confidence interval, that the cell 

coverage percentage is 0.9 or higher. In 

addition, the Bureau and Offices 

propose to require that tests meet the 

same geographic, temporal, and testing 

thresholds as proposed for evaluating 

provider rebuttals to challenges. The 

Bureau and Offices envision that the 

specific thresholds and the confidence 

interval proposed would provide 

balance between the costs to providers 

associated with verifying maps and the 

need for the Commission to acquire a 

significant enough sample to accurately 

verify mobile broadband availability. 

The Bureau and Offices seek input from 

commenters on the costs and benefits 

associated with these proposed 

threshold numbers and confidence 

intervals. 

35. The Bureau and Offices propose 

that if the service provider is able to 

show sufficient coverage in the selected 

resolution 8 hexagon, the provider 

would have successfully demonstrated 

coverage to satisfy the verification 

request in that hexagon. The Bureau and 

Offices seek comment on this proposed 

methodology and invite commenters to 

propose alternative approaches that 

would allow for staff to automatically 

adjudicate speed test data submitted 

during the verification process. Staff 

may consider other relevant data 

submitted by providers, may request 

additional information from the 

provider (including infrastructure data, 

if necessary), and may take other actions 

as may be necessary to ensure the 

reliability and accuracy of the 

verification process. The Bureau and 

Offices seek comment on these 

proposals. 

3. Infrastructure Information 

36. In the Third Order, the 

Commission found that infrastructure 

information can provide an important 

means for the Commission to fulfill its 

obligation to independently verify the 

accuracy of provider coverage 

propagation models and maps and 

provided examples of the infrastructure 

information that mobile providers may 

be required to submit as part of a 

verification inquiry. The Commission 

further concluded that collecting such 

data will enable the Commission to 

satisfy the Broadband DATA Act’s 

requirement that the Commission verify 

the accuracy and reliability of submitted 

coverage data. 

37. If a mobile service provider 

chooses to submit infrastructure data in 

response to a verification request, the 

Bureau and Offices propose to require 

the provider to submit such data for all 

cell sites and antennas that provide 

service to the targeted area. The Bureau 

and Offices propose that the 

Commission staff then evaluate whether 

the provider has demonstrated sufficient 

coverage for each selected hexagon 

using standardized propagation 

modeling. Under this approach, staff 

engineers would generate their own 

predicted coverage maps using the data 

submitted by the provider (including 

link budget parameters, cell-site 

infrastructure data, and the information 

provided by service providers about the 

types of propagation models they used). 

Using these staff-generated maps, the 

Bureau and Offices would evaluate 

whether each selected hexagon has 

predicted coverage with speeds at or 

above the minimum values reported in 

the provider’s submitted coverage data. 

In generating the Bureau and Offices’ 

own coverage maps, they propose to use 

certain standard sets of clutter and 

terrain data. The Bureau and Offices 

seek comment on this proposal and seek 

comment generally on other ways that 

infrastructure data could be used to 

evaluate the sufficiency of coverage in 

their proposed verification process. Staff 

may also consider other relevant data 

submitted by providers during the 

verification process, may request 

additional information from the 

provider (including on-the-ground 

speed test data, if necessary), and may 

take steps to ensure the accuracy of the 

verification process. The Bureau and 

Offices seek comment on these 

proposals. 

38. Alternatively, the Bureau and 

Offices could use the submitted 

infrastructure and link budget data, 

along with available crowdsourced data, 

to perform initial verification of the 

claimed coverage within the selected 

hexagons using standard propagation 

models as well as appropriate terrain 

and clutter data. The Bureau and Offices 

could evaluate the provider’s link 

budgets and infrastructure data for 

accuracy against other available data, 

such as Antenna Structure Registration 

and spectrum licensing data. Under this 

approach, if the Bureau and Offices’ 

projection of speeds, along with the 

available crowdsourced data at the 

challenged locations, does not predict 

speeds at or above the minimum values 

reported in the provider’s submitted 

coverage data, the Bureau and Offices 

propose that Commission staff would 

consider any additional information 

submitted by the provider or request 

additional information from the 

provider. Such information would 

include on-the-ground speed test data 

and staff would use this information to 

complete its verification of the targeted 

area. The Commission could also 

leverage spatial interpolation techniques 

to evaluate and verify the accuracy of 

coverage maps based on available 

crowdsourcing and on-the-ground data. 

The Bureau and Offices seek comment 

on this approach and other ways that 

infrastructure data could be used to 

verify a provider’s coverage in the 

targeted area. 

39. Consistent with the authority the 

Commission delegated to OEA and WTB 

in the Third Order to ‘‘adopt the 

methodologies, data specifications, and 

formatting requirements’’ that providers 

must follow when collecting and 

reporting mobile infrastructure data, 

and to help ensure that infrastructure 

information submissions are useful, the 

Bureau and Offices seek comment on 

adding additional input fields to the list 

of infrastructure information providers 

should include when responding to a 

verification request. In addition to the 

types of infrastructure information 

listed as examples in the Third Order, 

the Bureau and Offices propose that 

providers submit the following 

additional parameters and fields: (1) 

Geographic coordinates of each 

transmitter; (2) per site classification 

(e.g., urban, suburban, or rural); (3) 

elevation above ground level for each 

base station antenna and other transmit 

antenna specifications, including the 

make and model, beamwidth, and 

orientation (i.e., azimuth and any 

electrical and/or mechanical down-tilt) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40408 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

at each cell site; (4) operate transmit 

power of the radio equipment at each 

cell site; (5) throughput and associated 

required signal strength and signal to 

noise ratio; (6) cell loading distribution; 

(7) areas enabled with carrier 

aggregation and a list of band 

combinations (including the percentage 

of handset population capable of using 

this band combination); and (8) all other 

metrics required per the most-recent 

specification for infrastructure data 

released by OEA and WTB. The Bureau 

and Offices anticipate the Bureau and 

Offices will need all of this 

infrastructure information to use as 

inputs for Commission engineers to 

generate their own predicted coverage 

maps. While the Bureau and Offices 

recognize that several commenters 

recommended limiting the scope of 

infrastructure data in response to the 

Second Order and Third Further Notice, 

the Bureau and Offices anticipate that 

collecting additional infrastructure data 

based on the data specifications listed 

above will be necessary in order for 

such data to be useful in verifying 

providers’ biannual data submissions. 

The Bureau and Offices seek comment 

on these proposals and tentative 

conclusions. 

4. Additional Data 

40. Mobile service providers may 

supplement their submission of 

infrastructure information or on-theground test data required by verification 

inquiry with ‘‘other types of data that 

the provider believes support its 

coverage.’’ In addition, OEA and WTB 

may require the submission of 

additional data when necessary to 

complete a verification inquiry. The 

Bureau and Offices seek comment on 

what types of other data, besides 

infrastructure information and on-theground test data, will be useful to 

verifying mobile service providers’ 

coverage data and whether such data 

should be submitted in a specific 

format. 

41. For example, in the Third Order, 

the Commission stated that it will allow 

mobile broadband service providers to 

supplement their submission of either 

infrastructure information or on-theground test data with additional data 

that the provider believes support its 

coverage, such as data collected from its 

transmitter monitoring systems and 

software. The Commission found that 

such data currently have not been 

shown to be a sufficient substitute for 

either on-the-ground testing or 

infrastructure data in response to a 

verification investigation. However, the 

Commission directed OEA and WTB to 

accept and review transmitter data to 

the extent they are voluntarily 

submitted by providers in response to 

verification requests from staff. These 

data could be especially helpful to the 

extent that they support potential 

reasons for service disruptions during 

the time interval in which 

measurements were performed, or to 

describe remedial improvements to 

network quality. To that end, the 

Commission delegated authority to OEA 

and WTB to specify appropriate 

standards and specifications for such 

data and add them to the alternatives 

available to providers to respond to 

verification requests if staff concludes 

that such methods are sufficiently 

reliable. 

42. In the absence of any experience 

with this process it is premature to 

propose specifications and standards to 

receive voluntary data collected from a 

provider’s transmitter monitoring 

systems and software. However, mobile 

service providers may submit 

transmitter data in addition to the 

infrastructure or on-the-ground data 

they submit in response to a verification 

investigation. The Bureau and Offices 

propose that OEA and WTB analyze 

transmitter data submitted by mobile 

service providers to determine whether 

such data accurately depict coverage by 

a mobile service provider. The Bureau 

and Offices seek comment on this 

proposal. 

C. Collecting Verified Broadband Data 

From Governmental Entities and Third 

Parties 

43. The Broadband DATA Act 

requires the Commission to develop a 

process through which it can collect 

verified data for use in the coverage 

maps from: (1) State, local, and Tribal 

government entities primarily 

responsible for mapping or tracking 

broadband internet access service 

coverage in their areas; (2) third parties, 

if the Commission determines it is in 

the public interest to use their data in 

the development of the coverage maps 

or in the verification of data submitted 

by providers; and (3) other federal 

agencies. In the Third Order, the 

Commission directed OEA to collect 

verified mobile on-the-ground data from 

governmental entities and third parties 

through a process similar to that 

established for providers making their 

semiannual Broadband Data Collection 

filings. 

44. In accordance with the 

Commission’s direction in the Third 

Order and to ensure the Commission 

receives verified and reliable data, the 

Bureau and Offices propose that 

governmental entities and third parties 

should submit on-the-ground test data 

using the same metrics and testing 

parameters as the Bureau and Offices 

propose above for mobile providers to 

use in submitting on-the-ground test 

data. While the Massachusetts 

Department of Telecommunications and 

Cable asks the Commission to adopt a 

‘‘minimum standard’’ and avoid ‘‘strict 

submission methodology guidelines’’ on 

data submissions by states and other 

third parties, the Bureau and Offices do 

not propose standards that are lower 

than or differ from those the Bureau and 

Offices propose for mobile providers. As 

discussed, these data can be used to 

verify service providers’ coverage maps, 

similar to the data submitted by mobile 

providers. The Bureau and Offices 

therefore anticipate that assigning 

consistent, standardized procedures for 

governmental entities and third parties 

to submit on-the-ground data will be 

both appropriate and necessary to 

ensure the broadband availability maps 

are as accurate and precise as possible. 

45. The Bureau and Offices also 

propose that, to the extent the 

Commission has verified on-the-ground 

data submitted by governmental entities 

and third parties, such data may be used 

when the Commission conducts 

analyses as part of the verification 

processes and would be treated as 

crowdsourced data. Governmental 

entities and third parties may also 

choose to use these data to submit a 

challenge, provided it meets the 

requirements for submission of a 

challenge under the Commission’s rules. 

The Bureau and Offices invite comment 

on both of these proposals and also on 

whether stakeholders would benefit 

from additional guidance regarding 

when the Commission will consider 

data from government entities and third 

parties. 

D. Probative Value 

46. The Commission directed OEA 

and WTB to provide guidance on the 

types of data that will likely be more 

probative in validating broadband 

availability data submitted by mobile 

service providers in different 

circumstances. The Bureau and Offices 

believe that on-the-ground test data that 

reflects actual on-the-ground tests as 

opposed to predictive modeling and 

other techniques will generally be more 

accurate reflections of user experience 

and thus more probative than 

infrastructure or other sources of 

information in most but not all 

circumstances. The Bureau and Offices 

recognize that on-the-ground test data 

can be more costly to obtain and may 

not be necessary in every instance, and 

therefore describe below at least four 

circumstances where the Bureau and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40409 

Offices tentatively conclude that 

infrastructure information will likely be 

of probative value comparable to on-theground data. The Bureau and Offices 

seek comment on these conclusions and 

whether there are any other 

circumstances where the Bureau and 

Offices can draw such a conclusion. The 

Bureau and Offices further seek 

comment on the probative value of 

potentially less burdensome testing 

techniques using aerial drones or other 

technologies for collecting test data. 

47. First, the Bureau and Offices 

propose to find that infrastructure 

information will be of comparable 

probative value when extenuating 

circumstances at the time and location 

of a given test (e.g., maintenance or 

temporary outage at the cell site) caused 

service to be abnormal. In such cases, 

the Bureau and Offices propose for 

providers to submit coverage or 

footprint data for the site or sectors that 

were affected and information about the 

outage, such as bands affected, duration, 

and whether the outage was reported to 

the Network Outage Reporting System 

(NORS), along with a certification about 

the submission’s accuracy. The Bureau 

and Offices would then remove 

measurements in the reported footprint 

in the relevant band(s) made during the 

outage and, as appropriate, recalculate 

the statistics. 

48. Second, the Bureau and Offices 

propose to find that infrastructure or 

other information will be of comparable 

probative value when measurements 

that led to the verification request or 

challenge rely on devices that lack a 

band that the provider uses to make 

coverage available in the area in 

question. In such cases, the Bureau and 

Offices propose for providers to submit 

band-specific coverage footprints and 

information about which specific 

device(s) lack the band. The Bureau and 

Offices would then remove 

measurements from the listed devices in 

the relevant footprint and recalculate 

the statistics. 

49. Third, the Bureau and Offices 

propose to find that infrastructure 

information will be of comparable 

probative value when speed tests were 

taken during an uncommon special 

event (e.g., a professional sporting 

event) that increased traffic on the 

network. The Bureau and Offices 

recognize that mobile service providers 

would not have the same throughput 

they would in normal circumstances 

given the high volume of traffic on 

networks during these types of events, 

so demonstrating the existence of 

coverage in the area by submitting 

infrastructure information would be 

persuasive for why speed tests were 

negative in such a scenario. 

50. Fourth, the Bureau and Offices 

propose to find that infrastructure 

information will be of comparable 

probative value when challenger speed 

tests were taken during a period where 

cell loading exceeded the modeled cell 

loading factor. The Bureau and Offices 

recognize speed tests taken during a 

period when cell loading is higher than 

usual can result in negative speed tests. 

However, as discussed, the Bureau and 

Offices anticipate infrastructure 

information will be useful to rebut 

challenges in this situation, but if a high 

number of challenges show persistent 

over-loading, the Bureau and Offices 

propose that staff may initiate a 

verification inquiry to investigate 

whether mobile providers have 

submitted coverage maps based on an 

accurate assumption of cell loading in a 

particular area, and mobile providers 

should respond to such a verification 

request with on-the-ground data in 

order to assess the experience of users 

in that area. 

E. Crowdsourced Data 

51. The Broadband DATA Act 

requires the Commission to ‘‘develop a 

process through which entities or 

individuals . . . may submit specific 

information about the deployment and 

availability of broadband internet access 

service . . . on an ongoing basis . . . to 

verify and supplement information 

provided by providers.’’ In the Second 

Order, the Commission adopted a 

crowdsourcing process to allow 

individuals and entities to submit such 

information. 

52. The Commission instructed OET, 

OEA, WTB, and the Wireline 

Competition Bureau (WCB) to develop a 

process to prioritize the consideration of 

crowdsourced data submitted through 

data collection apps used by consumers 

and other entities that are determined to 

be ‘‘highly reliable’’ and that ‘‘have 

proven methodologies for determining 

network coverage and network 

performance.’’ The Commission further 

directed OET, OEA, WCB, and WTB to 

consider ‘‘(1) whether the application 

uses metrics and methods that comply 

with current Bureau and Office 

requirements for submitting network 

coverage and speed data in the ordinary 

course; (2) whether the speed 

application has enough users that it 

produces a dataset to provide 

statistically significant results for a 

particular provider in a given area; and 

(3) whether the application is designed 

so as not to introduce bias into test 

results.’’ The Bureau and Offices 

propose to find that the Commission’s 

speed test app is a reliable and efficient 

method for entities to use in submitting 

crowdsourced mobile coverage data to 

the Commission. The Commission’s 

speed test app allows users to submit 

specific information about the 

deployment and availability of mobile 

broadband service and meets the 

requirements outlined in the 

Commission’s Second Order. To the 

extent that OET, in consultation with 

OEA and WTB, determines that other 

apps used by consumers or other 

entities are ‘‘highly reliable’’ and ‘‘have 

proven methodologies for determining 

mobile broadband network coverage and 

network performance,’’ the Bureau and 

Offices propose to allow consumers and 

other entities to use such an app to 

submit crowdsourced information. The 

Bureau and Offices also propose to 

consider as crowdsourced information 

speed tests taken with an authorized 

app that do not meet the criteria needed 

to create a cognizable challenge or are 

otherwise not intended to be used to 

challenge the accuracy of a mobile 

service providers’ map. 

53. To the extent consumers and 

governmental or other entities choose to 

submit on-the-ground crowdsourced 

mobile speed test data in the online 

portal, the Bureau and Offices propose 

that such data be collected using a 

similar measurement methodology as 

the Commission’s speed test app and 

submitted in a similar format to that 

which the Bureau and Offices propose 

for challengers and providers to use 

when submitting speed tests. However, 

because crowdsourced data will not 

automatically require a response from a 

provider, and Commission staff will use 

crowdsourced data for identifying 

individual instances or patterns of 

potentially inaccurate or incomplete 

deployment or availability data that 

warrants further review and will only 

initiate an inquiry when a ‘‘critical mass 

of’’ crowdsourced filings suggest that a 

provider has submitted inaccurate or 

incomplete data, the Bureau and Offices 

propose for some speed test metrics to 

be optional. For example, the Bureau 

and Offices propose to allow entities 

submitting crowdsourced data to submit 

tests that include any combination of 

the download speed, upload speed, or 

round-trip latency test metrics rather 

than requiring all three as with 

challenge data. The Bureau and Offices 

seek comment on their proposal. Should 

the Bureau and Offices adopt a more or 

less stringent standard for consumers 

and other entities to submit 

crowdsourced data? If so, what metrics 

and methods should consumers and 

other entities be required to meet when 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40410 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

submitting crowdsourced data? How 

should the Bureau and Offices ensure 

that a speed app has enough users to 

provide statistically significant results 

for a mobile provider in a specific 

geographic area? How should the 

Bureau and Offices ensure apps do not 

introduce bias into test results? 

54. In the Third Order, the 

Commission directed OET, in 

consultation with OEA and WTB, to 

update the FCC Speed Test app as 

necessary or develop a new speed test 

app to collect the metrics and include 

the requisite functionalities so that 

challengers may use it in the challenge 

process. The Commission also directed 

OET to approve additional third-party 

speed test apps that collect all necessary 

data and include these required 

functionalities for use in the challenge 

process. The Bureau and Offices 

propose that OET issue a public notice 

inviting proposals for designation of 

third-party speed test data collection 

apps as acceptable for use for 

submission of crowdsourced and 

challenge data. In submitting proposals, 

parties would be required to include 

information indicating how the app 

complies with the requirements for 

crowdsourced data collection and 

challenge data collection requirements 

as set forth in applicable Commission 

orders. OET would provide an 

opportunity for comments and replies 

regarding the proposals. OET would 

then review all of the proposals, 

comments, and replies, and evaluate the 

functionalities before designating apps 

as acceptable for use for submission of 

crowdsourced and challenge data. The 

Bureau and Offices also propose that 

OET would provide periodic review and 

offer guidance for designated third party 

apps to ensure continued compliance 

with all technical and program 

requirements. The Bureau and Offices 

seek comment on their proposed 

process. 

55. The Commission found it 

appropriate to establish and use an 

online portal for crowdsourced data 

filings and use the same portal for 

challenge filings. In adopting this 

approach, the Commission directed the 

Bureaus and Offices to implement the 

crowdsourced data collection and create 

a portal for the receipt of crowdsourced 

data. The Commission also directed 

OET, OEA, WCB, and WTB to ‘‘issue 

specific rules by which [the 

Commission] will prioritize the 

consideration of crowdsourced data in 

advance of the time that the online 

portal is available.’’ The Bureau and 

Offices seek comment on ways to 

implement this directive. Specifically, 

the Bureau and Offices ask commenters 

to recommend methodologies for 

submitting mobile crowdsourced data 

prior to the creation of the online portal 

that are efficient for consumers and 

other entities, protect consumers’ 

privacy, and are feasible for the Bureaus 

and Offices to implement. For example, 

data submitted by consumers and other 

entities that do not follow any specific 

metrics or methodologies may be less 

likely to yield effective analysis and 

review by the Commission of providers’ 

mobile broadband availability. 

Therefore, the Bureau and Offices 

propose to require consumers and other 

entities to submit any preliminary 

crowdsourced data using the same 

metrics that providers would use when 

submitting on-the-ground data in 

response to a Commission verification 

request. Do commenters agree? 

56. As discussed in the Second Order, 

the Commission declined to establish 

specific thresholds to use when 

deciding whether to evaluate providers’ 

filings where crowdsourced data suggest 

potential inaccuracies. Instead, the 

Commission found that staff should 

initiate inquiries when a ‘‘critical mass 

of’’ crowdsourced filings suggest that a 

provider has submitted inaccurate or 

incomplete information. The 

Commission directed OET, OEA, WCB, 

and WTB to provide guidance to 

providers when inquiries based on 

crowdsourced filings could be initiated. 

Commenters generally agreed that the 

crowdsourcing process could be used to 

highlight problems with the coverage 

maps’ accuracy and trigger further 

review by the Commission. The Bureau 

and Offices propose to evaluate mobile 

crowdsourced data through an 

automated process to identify potential 

areas that would trigger further review 

using a methodology similar to the 

mobile verification process proposed 

above, with certain simplifications. The 

Bureau and Offices propose that the 

outcome of this methodology may 

provide staff with a credible basis for 

verifying a provider’s coverage data. 

Under the Bureau and Offices proposed 

approach, they therefore propose that 

areas identified from crowdsourced data 

using this methodology would be 

subject to verification inquiry consistent 

with the proposed mobile verification 

process. The Bureau and Offices seek 

comment on this proposed framework 

for evaluating crowdsourced data. 

57. More specifically, the 

methodology the Bureau and Offices 

propose would first exclude any 

anomalous or otherwise unusable tests 

submitted as crowdsourced data, and 

the Bureau and Offices seek comment 

generally on how to identify such tests. 

From the remaining crowdsourced tests, 

the Bureau and Offices propose to use 

data clustering to identify potential 

targeted areas where crowdsourced tests 

indicate a provider’s coverage map is 

inaccurate. The Bureau and Offices seek 

comment on their proposal and on any 

alternative methods for determining 

when a ‘‘critical mass’’ of crowdsourced 

filings suggest a provider has submitted 

inaccurate or incomplete information. 

58. In the Second Order, the 

Commission determined that all 

information submitted as part of the 

crowdsourcing process will be made 

public, with the exception of personally 

identifiable information and any data 

required to be confidential under 

§ 0.457 of the Commission’s rules, and 

directed OEA to make crowdsourced 

data publicly available as soon as 

practicable after submission and to 

establish an appropriate method for 

doing so. Accordingly, the Bureau and 

Offices propose to make all 

crowdsourced data available via the 

Commission’s public-facing website. 

Such information will depict coverage 

data and other associated information 

and will not include any personally 

identifiable information. The Bureau 

and Offices propose to update the 

public crowdsourced data biannually. 

The Bureau and Offices seek comment 

on their proposals and on any 

alternative methods for making 

crowdsourced data available to the 

public. The Bureau and Offices also 

seek comment on ways to ensure 

personally identifiable and other 

sensitive information is kept secure and 

private. 

59. Finally, the Commission directed 

OET, OEA, WCB, and WTB to modify 

the process for the collection of fixed 

and mobile crowdsourced data over 

time as determined to be necessary by 

the Bureaus and Offices. The Bureaus 

and Offices seek comment on the 

proposals herein and will modify the 

process for collecting mobile 

crowdsourced data in the future as 

necessary. 

F. Supplemental Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis 

60. Supplemental Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 

amended (RFA), the Bureau and Offices 

have prepared this Supplemental Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(Supplemental IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the proposed rules and policies 

contained in this Public Notice to 

supplement the Commission’s Initial 

and Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analyses completed in the Digital 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40411 

Opportunity Data Collection Report and 

Order and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, Second Order and Third 

Further Notice, and Third Order. 

Written public comments are requested 

on this Supplemental IRFA. Comments 

must be identified as responses to the 

Supplemental IRFA and must be filed 

by the same deadline for comments 

specified on the first page of this Public 

Notice. The Commission will send a 

copy of this Public Notice, including 

this Supplemental IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, this Public Notice and 

Supplemental IRFA (or summaries 

thereof) will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

61. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules. In this Public Notice, 

WTB, OEA, and OET take the next step 

to obtain better coverage data and 

implement the requirements under the 

Broadband DATA Act which tasks the 

Commission with collection of granular 

data from providers on the availability 

and quality of broadband internet access 

service and verification of the accuracy 

and reliability of broadband coverage 

data submitted by providers. Following 

the December 27, 2020, Congressional 

appropriation of funding for the 

implementation of the Broadband 

DATA Act, the Commission began to 

implement challenge, verification, and 

crowdsourcing processes involving 

broadband data coverage submissions. 

62. The Commission has delegated to 

its staff the responsibility to develop 

technical requirements for verifying 

service providers’ coverage data, a 

challenge process that will enable 

consumers and other third parties to 

dispute service providers’ coverage data, 

and a process for third parties and other 

entities to submit crowdsourced data on 

mobile broadband availability. These 

measures will help the Commission, 

Congress, federal and state policy 

makers, and consumers to evaluate the 

status of broadband deployment 

throughout the United States. The 

Public Notice proposes and seeks 

comment on technical requirements to 

implement the mobile challenge, 

verification, and crowdsourcing 

processes required by the Broadband 

DATA Act, such as metrics for on-theground test data and a methodology for 

determining the threshold for what 

constitutes a cognizable challenge 

requiring a provider response. It also 

provides initial guidance and seeks 

comment on what types of data will 

likely be more probative in different 

circumstances. The Bureau and Offices 

propose detailed processes and metrics 

for providers to follow when responding 

to a Commission verification request, for 

government entities and other third 

parties to follow when submitting 

verified broadband coverage data, and 

for challengers to follow when 

contesting providers’ broadband 

coverage availability. The Bureau and 

Offices believe this level of detail is 

necessary to allow providers, consumers 

and other third parties with robust 

opportunities to comment, provide 

input and help formulate the processes 

and procedures to enable better 

evaluation of the status of broadband 

deployment throughout the United 

States. 

63. Legal Basis. The proposed action 

is authorized pursuant to sections 1–5, 

201–206, 214, 218–220, 251, 252, 254, 

256, 303(r), 332, 403, and 641–646 of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–155, 201–206, 

214, 218–220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 

332, 403, 641–646. 

64. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA 

directs agencies to provide a description 

of, and, where feasible, an estimate of 

the number of small entities that may be 

affected by the proposed rules and 

policies, if adopted. The RFA generally 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ 

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ 

has the same meaning as the term 

‘‘small business concern’’ under the 

Small Business Act. A ‘‘small business 

concern’’ is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

65. As noted above, Regulatory 

Flexibility Analyses were incorporated 

into the Digital Opportunity Data 

Collection Report and Order and 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

Second Order and Third Further Notice, 

and Third Order. In those analyses, the 

Bureau and Offices described in detail 

the small entities that might be affected. 

In this Public Notice, for the 

Supplemental IRFA, the Bureau and 

Offices hereby incorporate by reference 

the descriptions and estimates of the 

number of small entities from the 

previous Regulatory Flexibility 

Analyses in the Digital Opportunity 

Data Collection Report and Order and 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

Second Order and Third Further Notice, 

and Third Order. 

66. Description of Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements for Small 

Entities. The granular data collection for 

the challenge and verification processes 

proposed in the Public Notice would, if 

adopted, impose some new reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other compliance 

requirements on some small entities. 

Specifically, the Bureau and Offices 

propose that mobile providers of 

broadband internet access service 

submit coverage data in the form of onthe-ground test data or infrastructure 

information on a case-by-case basis in 

response to a Commission request to 

verify mobile broadband providers 

biannual BDC data submissions. 

Additionally, the Bureau and Offices 

propose a methodology for state, local, 

and Tribal government entities and 

third parties to follow when submitting 

verified mobile on-the-ground data to 

the Commission for use in the coverage 

maps. The Bureau and Offices also 

establish a methodology for mobile 

broadband providers to follow when 

responding to or rebutting consumer 

challenges of broadband availability. 

The Bureau and Offices also seek 

comment on other types of data that will 

likely have more probative value when 

used to either verify coverage maps or 

respond to a consumer challenge. 

Finally, the Bureau and Offices propose 

details and seek comment on how third 

parties and other entities may submit 

crowdsourced data and how this 

information may be put to best use. If 

adopted, any of these requirements 

could impose additional reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other compliance 

obligations on small entities. 

67. The challenge and verification 

process proposals and issues raised for 

consideration and comment in the 

Public Notice may require small entities 

to hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, 

or other professionals. At this time, 

however, the Commission cannot 

quantify the cost of compliance with 

any potential rule changes and 

compliance obligations for small entities 

that may result from the Public Notice. 

The Bureau and Offices expect their 

requests for information on potential 

burdens, costs and cost minimization 

and alternative approaches associated 

with matters raised in the Public Notice 

will provide them with information to 

assist with their evaluation of the cost 

of compliance for small entities of any 

reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

compliance requirements the Bureau 

and Offices adopt. 

68. Steps Taken to Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities and Significant Alternatives 

Considered. The RFA requires an 

agency to describe any significant, 

specifically small business, alternatives 

that it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40412 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’ 

69. The Bureau and Offices anticipate 

the proposals set forth in the Public 

Notice will balance the need for the 

Commission to generate more precise 

and granular mobile broadband 

availability maps with any associated 

costs and burdens on mobile broadband 

providers. In implementing the 

requirements of the Broadband DATA 

Act in orders preceding this Public 

Notice, the Commission sought 

comment on the burdens associated 

with the potential requirements 

discussed in collecting broadband 

internet access service data and how 

such burdens can be minimized for 

small entities. For example, in the 

Second Order and Third Further Notice, 

the Commission sought comment on the 

potential burdens on small providers 

associated with: (1) Requiring providers 

to submit on-the-ground data to validate 

mobile broadband coverage; and (2) 

encouraging small providers to 

participate in the challenge process. In 

part, the comments received in response 

to the Second Order and Third Further 

Notice helped shape the proposals, 

approaches and steps taken in this 

Public Notice. 

70. Consistent with the Commission’s 

recognition in the Third Order that 

providers should not be subject to the 

undue cost of responding to a large 

number of challenges to very small 

areas, for the mobile service challenge 

process, the Bureau and Offices have 

proposed in this Public Notice to jointly 

evaluate speed tests submitted by 

consumers and governmental and thirdparty challengers. The Bureau and 

Offices have also proposed data 

specifications that all submitted 

challenger speed test data must meet. 

After combining consumer speed tests 

and governmental and third-party speed 

tests, the Bureau and Offices propose to 

validate each speed test and exclude 

tests that do not present reliable 

evidence. Under the Bureau and Offices’ 

proposed approach, they would 

combine such speed test evidence and 

apply a single methodology to 

determine whether the threshold for a 

cognizable challenge has been met and 

to establish the boundaries of the 

challenged area. After determining the 

full set of combined, valid challenger 

speed tests, the Bureau and Offices 

would then associate each speed test 

with the proposed standardized 

geographical area discussed in the 

Public Notice. For each area that 

includes valid challenger speed tests, 

the Bureau and Offices would then 

evaluate whether several thresholds 

have been met in order to determine 

whether the challenger evidence 

demonstrates a cognizable challenge 

requiring a provider response. Adopting 

a process to determine whether there is 

a cognizable challenge to which a 

provider is required to respond rather 

than requiring a provider to respond to 

any and all submitted challenges will 

minimize the economic impact for small 

providers to the extent they are subject 

to challenges. 

71. The proposed mobile service 

challenge process metrics for mobile 

providers to follow when responding to 

a Commission verification request seek 

to balance the need for the Commission 

to establish valuable methods for 

verifying coverage data with the need to 

reduce the costs and burdens associated 

with requiring mobile providers to 

submit on-the-ground test data and 

infrastructure information. For example, 

in order to ensure the challenge process 

is user-friendly for challengers and 

workable for mobile providers to 

respond to and rebut challenges, the 

Bureau and Offices have proposed that 

challenged mobile service providers 

who choose to submit on-the-ground 

speed test data will be held to the same 

standard as the challengers to 

demonstrate that the challenged areas 

have sufficient coverage. Providers 

would be required to submit on-theground data consistent with the metrics 

the Bureau and Offices propose for 

verifying coverage with on-the-ground 

data and meet the same three threshold 

tests as the challengers. The Bureau and 

Offices considered but declined a 

proposal to define a challenge area 

based on the test data submitted by the 

challengers on their belief that the 

Bureau and Offices’ proposal is both 

user-friendly and supported by 

sufficient data while also targeting a 

more precise geographic area where 

broadband coverage is disputed and 

limits the burden on providers in 

responding to challenges. The Public 

Notice seeks comment on the specifics 

of the Bureau and Offices’ proposed 

methodology and invites commenters to 

propose alternative approaches that 

would allow for staff to automatically 

adjudicate most challenges. 

72. Our proposals for collection of 

verification information recognize that 

some types of test data such as on-theground test data can be more costly for 

small entities and others to obtain and 

therefore the Bureau and Offices have 

proposed to identify the portion of a 

provider’s coverage map (target area) for 

which the Bureau and Offices would 

require verification data based upon all 

available evidence, including submitted 

speed test data, infrastructure data, 

crowdsourced and other third-party 

data, as well as staff evaluation and 

knowledge of submitted coverage data 

(including maps, link budget 

parameters, and other credible 

information). Using all available 

evidence will enable providers to 

choose options in line with their 

specific economic situations. Further, to 

minimize the cost and burden placed on 

service providers, while ensuring 

Commission staff have access to 

sufficient data to demonstrate coverage, 

the Bureau and Offices have proposed to 

use sampling of the target area. Mobile 

service providers would be required to 

provide verification data which covers a 

statistically valid sampling of areas for 

which sufficient coverage must be 

demonstrated to satisfy the verification 

request. The sample would also be 

required to meet the same thresholds for 

adequate coverage as defined in the 

challenge process using either 

infrastructure data or on-the-ground 

speed tests for the targeted area to be 

successfully verified. The proposed use 

of a sampling plan to demonstrate 

broadband availability will allow small 

and other providers to avoid submission 

of considerably more data and the 

associated costs. 

73. In crafting the challenge and 

verification process proposals in the 

Public Notice, the Bureau and Offices 

also considered the appropriate 

verification data requirements for 

government entities and third parties 

and the probative value of other types 

of data. To ensure consistency, 

reliability, comparability, and 

verifiability of the data the Commission 

receives the Bureau and Offices 

declined to propose different or lower 

standards than those that would be 

applicable to providers. Requiring 

government entities and third parties to 

submit on-the-ground test data using the 

same metrics and testing parameters 

proposed for mobile providers will 

ensure that the Commission implements 

a standardized process resulting in the 

broadband availability maps that are as 

accurate and precise as possible. The 

Bureau and Offices’ consideration of 

appropriate verification data sources 

took into consideration both the 

usefulness and costs of on-the-ground 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40413 

test data which can be more costly to 

obtain and may not be needed in every 

situation versus the use of infrastructure 

information. Based on the Bureau and 

Offices’ analysis they propose to find 

that infrastructure information will 

likely be of comparable probative value 

to on-the-ground test data in situations 

when cell sites or sectors had a 

temporary malfunction during 

measurements, when measurements that 

led to a verification request or challenge 

rely on devices that lack a band that the 

provider uses to make coverage 

available in the area in question, when 

speed tests were taken during an 

uncommon special event (e.g., a 

professional sporting event) that 

increased traffic on the network, or 

when challenger speed tests were taken 

during a period where cell loading 

exceeded the modeled cell loading 

factor. The Public Notice seeks comment 

on this proposal, on whether there are 

any other circumstances where 

infrastructure data will be greater than, 

equal to, or comparable to, on-theground data, and on whether there are 

other types of data that will be probative 

in other circumstances. 

74. To assist in the further evaluation 

of the economic impact on small entities 

of proposals in this Public Notice, and 

to identify any additional options and 

alternatives for such entities that the 

Commission can pursue while also 

achieving its objectives of improving 

accuracy and reliability of its data 

collections, the Bureau and Offices have 

sought comment on these matters. 

Before reaching any final conclusions 

and taking final action in this 

proceeding, the Bureau and Offices 

expect to review the comments filed in 

response to the Public Notice and more 

fully consider the economic impact on 

small entities and how any impact can 

be minimized. 

75. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed 

Rules. None. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1 

Broadband, Broadband Mapping, 

Communications, internet, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Telecommunications. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Amy Brett, 

Acting Chief of Staff, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission, under delegated authority, 

proposes to amend 47 CFR part 1 as 

follows: 

PART 1—PRACTICE AND 

PROCEDURE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 

U.S.C. 2461 note, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 1.7001 by adding 

paragraph (a)(20) to read as follows: 

§ 1.7001 Scope and content of filed 

reports. 

(a) * * * 

(20) H3 standardized geospatial 

indexing system. A system developed by 

Uber that overlays the Earth with 

hexagonal cells of different sizes at 

various resolutions. The smallest 

hexagonal cells are at resolution 15, in 

which the average hexagonal cell has an 

area of approximately 0.9 square meters, 

and the largest are at resolution 0, in 

which the average hexagonal cell has an 

area of approximately 4.3 million square 

kilometers. Hexagonal cells across 

different resolutions are referred to as a 

‘‘hex-n’’ cell, where n is the resolution 

(e.g., ‘‘hex-15’’ for the smallest size 

hexagonal cell). The H3 geospatial 

indexing system employs a nested cell 

structure wherein a lower resolution 

hexagonal cell (the ‘‘parent’’) contains 

approximately contains seven hexagonal 

cells at the next highest resolution (its 

‘‘children’’). That is, a hex-1 cell is the 

‘‘parent’’ of seven hex-2 cells, each hex2 cell is the parent of seven hex-3 cells, 

and so on. 

■ 3. Amend § 1.7006 by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) 

through (4) as paragraphs (b)(3) through 

(5) and adding new paragraph (b)(2); 

■ b. Revising the newly redesignated 

paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(5); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (c); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(iii); 

■ e. Adding paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through 

(iii), 

■ f. Revising paragraphs (e)(4) and (e)(6); 

■ g. Adding paragraph (e)(7), and 

■ h. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) 

through (3) and (f)(5). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 1.7006 Data verification. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) On-the-ground crowdsourced data 

shall include the same metrics 

described in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section. 

(3) The online portal shall notify a 

provider of a crowdsourced data filing 

against it, but a provider is not required 

to respond to a crowdsourced data 

filing. 

(4) If, as a result of crowdsourced 

data, the Commission determines that a 

provider’s coverage information is not 

accurate, then the provider shall be 

subject to a verification inquiry 

consistent with the mobile verification 

process described in paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section. 

(5) All information submitted as part 

of the crowdsourcing process shall be 

made public via the Commission’s 

website, with the exception of 

personally identifiable information and 

any data required to be confidential 

under § 0.457 of this chapter. 

(c) Mobile service verification process 

for mobile providers. Mobile service 

providers shall submit either 

infrastructure information or on-theground test data in response to a request 

by Commission staff as part of its 

inquiry to independently verify the 

accuracy of the mobile provider’s 

coverage propagation models and maps. 

In addition to submitting either on-theground data or infrastructure data, a 

provider may also submit data collected 

from transmitter monitoring software. 

The Office of Economics and Analytics 

and the Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau may require the submission of 

additional data when necessary to 

complete a verification inquiry. A 

provider must submit its data, in the 

case of both infrastructure information 

and on-the-ground data, within 60 days 

of receiving a Commission staff request. 

Regarding on-the-ground data, a 

provider must submit evidence of 

network performance based on a sample 

of on-the-ground tests that is 

statistically appropriate for the area 

tested. 

(1) When a mobile service provider 

chooses to demonstrate mobile 

broadband coverage availability by 

submitting on-the-ground data, the 

mobile service provider shall provide 

valid on-the-ground tests within a 

Commission-identified statistically 

valid and unbiased sample of its 

network, and shall demonstrate that the 

sampled area meets a threshold 

percentage of positive tests, which are 

defined as tests that show speeds that 

meet or exceed the minimum download 

and upload speeds the mobile service 

provider reports as available at the 

location where the test occurred. 

(i) On-the-ground test data shall meet 

the following testing parameters: 

(A) A minimum test length of 5 

seconds and a maximum test length of 

30 seconds; 

(B) Reporting measurement results 

that have been averaged over the 

duration of the test (i.e., total bits 

received divided by total test time); and 

(C) Conducted outdoors between the 

hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. local 

time. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40414 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) On-the-ground test data shall 

include the following metrics for each 

test: 

(A) Testing app name and version; 

(B) Timestamp and duration of each 

test metric; 

(C) Geographic coordinates at the start 

and end of each test metric measured 

with typical Global Positioning System 

(GPS) Standard Positioning Service 

accuracy or better; 

(D) Velocity of vehicle, if applicable 

and available, for in-vehicle tests; 

(E) Device make and model; 

(F) Cellular operator name; 

(G) Location of server (e.g., hostname 

or IP address); 

(H) Available signal strength, signal 

quality, and radiofrequency metrics of 

each serving cell; 

(I) Download speed; 

(J) Upload speed; 

(K) Round-trip latency; and 

(L) All other metrics required per the 

most-recent specification for mobile test 

data released by the Office of Economics 

and Analytics and the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau. 

(2) When a mobile service provider 

chooses to demonstrate mobile 

broadband coverage availability by 

submitting infrastructure data, the 

mobile service provider must submit 

such data for all cell sites that provide 

service for the targeted area. 

(i) Infrastructure data shall include 

the following information for each cell 

site that the provider uses to provide 

service for the area subject to the 

verification inquiry: 

(A) Geographic coordinates of the site 

measured with typical GPS Standard 

Positioning Service accuracy or better; 

(B) A unique site ID for the site; 

(C) The ground elevation above mean 

sea level of the site; 

(D) Frequency band(s) used to provide 

service for each site being mapped 

including channel bandwidth (in 

megahertz); 

(E) Radio technologies used on each 

band for each site; 

(F) Capacity (Mbps) and type of 

backhaul used at each cell site; 

(G) Number of sectors at each cell site; 

(H) Effective Isotropic Radiated Power 

(EIRP); 

(I) Geographic coordinates of each 

transmitter; 

(J) Per site classification (e.g., urban, 

suburban, or rural); 

(K) Elevation above ground level for 

each base station antenna and other 

transmit antenna specifications (i.e., the 

make and model, beamwidth (in 

degrees), and orientation (azimuth and 

any electrical and/or mechanical downtilt in degrees) at each cell site); 

(L) Operate transmit power of the 

radio equipment at each cell site; 

(M) Throughput and associated 

required signal strength and signal to 

noise ratio; 

(N) Cell loading distribution; and 

(O) Areas enabled with carrier 

aggregation and a list of band 

combinations (including the percentage 

of handset population capable of using 

this band combination); 

(P) Any additional parameters and 

fields that are listed in the most-recent 

specifications for wireless infrastructure 

data released by the Office of Economics 

and Analytics and the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Speed test data. Consumer 

challenges shall include the test metrics 

described in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section, and shall: 

(A) Be performed outdoors; 

(B) Indicate whether each test was 

taken in an in-vehicle mobile or outdoor 

pedestrian environment; and 

(C) Be conducted using a speed test 

app that has been designated by the 

Office of Engineering and Technology, 

in consultation with the Office of 

Economics and Analytics and the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

for use in the challenge process; 

(2) * * * 

(i) A hexagon at resolution 8 from the 

H3 standardized geospatial indexing 

system shall be classified as challenged 

if it satisfies the following criteria. 

(A) Geographic threshold. At least two 

valid speed tests, at least one of which 

is a ‘‘negative’’ test, are recorded in a 

minimum number of ‘‘point-hexes’’ of 

the resolution 8 hexagon, where: 

(1) A test shall be defined as negative 

when the test does not meet the 

minimum predicted speeds based on the 

highest technology-specific minimum 

download and upload speeds reported 

for that area by the provider in its most 

recent coverage data; 

(2) A point-hex shall be defined as 

one of the seven nested hexagons at 

resolution 9 from the H3 standardized 

geospatial indexing system of a 

resolution 8 hexagon; 

(3) A point-hex shall be defined as 

accessible where at least 50% of the 

point-hex overlaps with the provider’s 

reported coverage data and the pointhex overlaps with any primary, 

secondary, or local road from the most 

recent U.S. Census Bureau’s road data; 

and 

(4) The minimum number of pointhexes in which tests must be recorded 

shall be equal to the number of 

accessible point-hexes or four, 

whichever number is lower. If there are 

no accessible point-hexes within a 

resolution 8 hexagon, the geographic 

threshold shall not need to be met. 

(B) Temporal threshold. The 

difference in time of day between two 

negative tests is at least four hours 

irrespective of calendar day; and 

(C) Testing threshold. At least five 

speed tests are negative within a hex-8 

cell when a challenger has submitted 20 

or fewer tests. When a challenger has 

submitted more than 20 tests, a certain 

minimum percentage of the total 

number of tests in the cell must be 

negative; 

(1) When a challenger has submitted 

21–29 tests, at least 24% must be 

negative; 

(2) When a challenger has submitted 

30–45 tests, at least 22% must be 

negative; 

(3) When a challenger has submitted 

46–60 tests, at least 20% must be 

negative; 

(4) When a challenger has submitted 

61–70 tests, at least 18% must be 

negative; 

(5) When a challenger has submitted 

71–99 tests, at least 17% must be 

negative; 

(6) When a challenger has submitted 

100 or more tests, at least 16% must be 

negative; 

(ii) In addition, a larger, ‘‘parent’’ 

hexagon (at resolutions 7 or 6) shall be 

considered challenged if at least four of 

its child hexagons are considered 

challenged. The smallest challengeable 

hexagonal cell is a hexagon at resolution 

8 from the H3 standardized geospatial 

indexing system. 

(iii) Mobile service providers shall be 

notified of all cognizable challenges to 

their mobile broadband coverage maps 

at the end of each month. Challengers 

shall be notified when a mobile 

provider responds to the challenge. 

Mobile service providers and 

challengers both shall be notified 

monthly of the status of challenged 

areas. 

* * * * * 

(4) To dispute a challenge, a mobile 

service provider must submit on-theground test data, consistent with the 

metrics and methods described in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, or 

infrastructure data to verify its coverage 

map(s) in the challenged area. To the 

extent that a mobile service provider 

believes it would be helpful to the 

Commission in resolving a challenge, it 

may choose to submit other data in 

addition to the data initially required, 

including but not limited to either 

infrastructure or on-the-ground testing 

(to the extent such data are not the 

primary option chosen by the provider) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40415 

or other types of data such as data 

collected from network transmitter 

monitoring systems or software, or 

spectrum band-specific coverage maps. 

Such other data must be submitted at 

the same time as the primary on-theground testing or infrastructure rebuttal 

data submitted by the provider. If 

needed to ensure an adequate review, 

the Office of Economics and Analytics 

may also require that the provider 

submit other data in addition to the data 

initially submitted, including but not 

limited to either infrastructure or onthe-ground testing data (to the extent 

not the option initially chosen by the 

provider) or data collected from network 

transmitter monitoring systems or 

software (to the extent available in the 

provider’s network). If a mobile 

provider is not able to demonstrate 

sufficient coverage in a challenged 

hexagon, the mobile provider shall 

revise its coverage maps to reflect the 

lack of coverage in such areas. 

(i) A mobile service provider that 

chooses to rebut a challenge to their 

mobile broadband coverage maps with 

on-the-ground speed test data shall 

confirm that a challenged area has 

sufficient coverage using speed tests 

that were conducted during the 12 

months prior to submitting a rebuttal. A 

provider may confirm coverage in any 

hex-8 cell within the challenged area. 

This includes any hex-8 cell that is 

challenged, and also any nonchallenged hex-8 cell that is a child of 

a challenged hex-7, hex-6, or hex-5 cell. 

Confirming non-challenged hex-8 cells 

can be used to confirm the challenged 

hex-7, hex-6, or hex-5 cell. To confirm 

a hex-8 cell, a provider must submit onthe ground speed test data that meets 

the following criteria: 

(A) Geographic threshold. Two speed 

tests, at least one of which is a positive 

test, are recorded within a minimum 

number of point-hexes within the 

challenged area, where: 

(1) A test shall be defined as positive 

when the test meets both the minimum 

predicted speeds based on the highest 

technology-specific minimum download 

and upload speeds reported for that area 

by the provider in its most recent 

coverage data; 

(2) A point-hex shall be defined as 

one of the seven nested hexagons at 

resolution 9 from the H3 standardized 

geospatial indexing system of a 

resolution 8 hexagon; 

(3) A point-hex shall be defined as 

accessible where at least 50% of the 

point-hex overlaps with the provider’s 

reported coverage data and the pointhex overlaps with any primary, 

secondary, or local road from the most 

recent U.S. Census Bureau’s road data; 

and 

(4) The minimum number of pointhexes in which tests must be recorded 

shall be equal to the number of 

accessible point-hexes or four, 

whichever number is lower. If there are 

no accessible point-hexes within a 

resolution 8 hexagon, the geographic 

threshold shall not need to be met. 

(B) Temporal threshold. The 

difference in time of day between at 

least two positive tests is at least 4 hours 

irrespective of calendar day; and 

(C) Testing threshold. At least 17 

positive tests within a hex-8 cell in the 

challenged area when the provider has 

submitted 20 or fewer tests. When the 

provider has submitted more than 20 

tests, a certain minimum percentage of 

the total number of tests in the cell must 

be positive; 

(1) When a provider has submitted 

21–34 tests, at least 82% must be 

positive; 

(2) When a provider has submitted 

35–49 tests, at least 84% must be 

positive; 

(3) When a provider has submitted 

50–70 tests, at least 86% must be 

positive; 

(4) When a provider has submitted 

71–99 tests, at least 87% must be 

positive; 

(5) When a provider has submitted 

100 or more tests, at least 88% must be 

positive; 

(D) Using a mobile device running 

either a Commission-developed app 

(e.g., the FCC Speed Test app), another 

speed test app approved by OET to 

submit challenges, or other software and 

hardware if approved by staff; 

(E) Using a device that is engineeringcapable and able to interface with drive 

test software and/or runs on the 

Android operating system. 

(ii) A mobile service provider that 

chooses to rebut a challenge to their 

mobile broadband coverage maps with 

infrastructure data may only do so in 

order to identify invalid, or nonrepresentative, speed tests within the 

challenged speed test data. A provider 

may claim challenge speed tests were 

invalid, or non-representative, if: 

(A) Extenuating circumstances at the 

time and location of a given test (e.g., 

maintenance or temporary outage at the 

cell site) caused service to be abnormal; 

(B) The mobile device(s) with which 

the challenger(s) conducted their speed 

tests do not use or connect to the 

spectrum band(s) that the provider uses 

to serve the challenged area; 

(C) The challenge speed tests were 

taken during an uncommon special 

event (e.g., professional sporting event) 

that increased traffic on the network; or 

(D) The challenge speed tests were 

taken during a period where cell loading 

exceeded the modeled cell loading 

factor. 

(iii) If the Commission determines, 

based on the infrastructure data 

submitted by providers, that challenge 

speed tests are invalid, such challenge 

speed tests shall be ruled void, and the 

Commission shall recalculate the 

challenged hexagons after removing any 

invalidated challenger speed tests and 

consider any challenged hexagons that 

no longer meet the challenge creation 

threshold to be restored to their status 

before the challenge was submitted. 

(iv) Aside from the scenarios 

discussed in paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(A)–(D), 

the Commission shall only use 

infrastructure data, on their own, to 

adjudicate a challenge upon a showing 

by the provider that collecting on-theground or other data (not in 

infrastructure information) would be 

infeasible or unlikely to show an 

accurate depiction of network coverage. 

In such a situation, the Commission 

shall evaluate infrastructure data using 

the same process the Commission uses 

to verify providers coverage maps. 

* * * * * 

(6) After a challenged provider 

submits all responses and Commission 

staff determines the result of a challenge 

and any subsequent rebuttal have been 

determined: 

(i) In such cases where a mobile 

service provider successfully rebuts a 

challenge, the area confirmed to have 

coverage shall be ineligible for challenge 

until the first time a mobile service 

provider files its biannual filing 

information six months after the end of 

the 60-day response period. 

(ii) A challenged area may be restored 

to an unchallenged state, if, as a result 

of data submitted by the provider, there 

is no longer sufficient evidence to 

sustain the challenge to that area, but 

the provider’s data fall short of 

confirming the area. A restored hexagon 

would be subject to challenge at any 

time in the future as challengers submit 

new speed test data. 

(iii) In cases where a mobile service 

provider concedes or loses a challenge, 

the provider must file, within 30 days, 

geospatial data depicting the challenged 

area that has been shown to lack 

sufficient service. Such data will 

constitute a correction layer to the 

provider’s original propagation modelbased coverage map, and Commission 

staff will use this layer to update the 

broadband coverage map. In addition, to 

the extent that a provider does not later 

improve coverage for the relevant 

technology in an area where it conceded 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40416 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

or lost a challenge, it must include this 

correction layer in its subsequent filings 

to indicate the areas shown to lack 

service. 

(7) Commission staff are permitted to 

consider other relevant data to support 

a mobile service provider’s rebuttal of 

challenges, including on-the-ground 

data or infrastructure data, to the extent 

it was not previously submitted by a 

mobile service provider. The Office of 

Economics and Analytics will review 

such data when voluntarily submitted 

by providers in response to consumer 

challenges, and if it concludes that any 

of the data sources are sufficiently 

reliable, it will specify appropriate 

standards and specifications for each 

type of data and add it to the 

alternatives available to providers to 

rebut a consumer challenge. 

(f) * * * 

(1) 

(i) Government and other entity 

challengers may use their own software 

to collect data for the challenge process. 

When they submit their data they must 

meet the test metrics described in 

paragraph (c)(1)(i)–(ii) of this section. 

Additionally, their data must contain 

the following metrics for each test: 

(2) Challengers must conduct speed 

tests using a device advertised by the 

challenged service provider as 

compatible with its network and must 

take all speed tests outdoors. 

Challengers must also use a device that 

is engineering-capable and able to 

interface with drive test software and/or 

runs on the Android operating system. 

(3) For a challenge to be considered a 

cognizable challenge, thus requiring a 

mobile service provider response, the 

challenge must meet the same threshold 

specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(5) To dispute a challenge, a mobile 

service provider must submit on-theground test data or infrastructure data to 

verify its coverage map(s) in the 

challenged area based on the 

methodology set forth in paragraph 

(e)(4) of this section. To the extent that 

a service provider believes it would be 

helpful to the Commission in resolving 

a challenge, it may choose to submit 

other data in addition to the data 

initially required, including but not 

limited to either infrastructure or onthe-ground testing (to the extent such 

data are not the primary option chosen 

by the provider) or other types of data 

such as data collected from network 

transmitter monitoring systems or 

software or spectrum band-specific 

coverage maps. Such other data must be 

submitted at the same time as the 

primary on-the-ground testing or 

infrastructure rebuttal data submitted by 

the provider. If needed to ensure an 

adequate review, the Office of 

Economics and Analytics may also 

require that the provider submit other 

data in addition to the data initially 

submitted, including but not limited to 

either infrastructure or on-the-ground 

testing data (to the extent not the option 

initially chosen by the provider) or data 

collected from network transmitter 

monitoring systems or software (to the 

extent available in the provider’s 

network). 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 1.7008 by revising 

paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 1.7008 Creation of broadband internet 

access service coverage maps. 

* * * * * 

(d)(1) * * * 

(2) To the extent government entities 

or third parties choose to file verified 

data, they shall follow the same filing 

process as providers submitting their 

broadband internet access service data 

in the data portal. Government entities 

and third parties that file on-the-ground 

test data shall submit such data using 

the same metrics and testing parameters 

the Commission requires of mobile 

service providers when responding to a 

Commission request to verify mobile 

providers’ broadband network coverage 

with on-the-ground data (see 47 CFR 

1.7006(c)(1)). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–16071 Filed 7–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[WC Docket No. 12–375, FCC 21–60; FRS 

35679] 

Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling 

Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this Fifth Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission 

seeks to obtain detailed comment to 

enable it to make further progress 

toward ensuring that the rates, charges, 

and practices for and in connection with 

interstate and international inmate 

calling services meet applicable 

statutory standards. The Commission 

seeks comment about the provision of 

functionally equivalent communications 

services to incarcerated people with 

hearing and speech disabilities and 

whether the Commission should expand 

inmate calling services providers’ 

reporting requirements to include all 

accessibility-related calls. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

issues regarding the setting permanent 

interstate and international rate caps for 

calling services to incarcerated people; 

potential reforms to the treatment of site 

commission payments, including 

whether the Commission should 

preempt state and local laws imposing 

legally-mandated site commission 

payments; on providers’ costs to serve 

different types of facilities; on how it 

should reform its rules permitting 

certain types of ancillary service charges 

in connection with interstate or 

international calling services and on 

how it should refine its methodology for 

setting international rate caps; on 

whether it should adopt an on-going 

periodic data collection and, if so, 

whether it should impose specific 

recordkeeping on providers; and on the 

characteristics of the bidding market for 

inmate calling services contracts and the 

optimal regulatory regime for inmate 

calling services in view of those 

characteristics. 

DATES: Comments are due August 27, 

2021. Reply Comments are due 

September 27, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Scott, Disability Rights Office 

of the Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418–1264 or via 

email at michael.scott@fcc.gov regarding 

portions of the Fifth Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking relating 

specifically to the provision of 

communications services to 

incarcerated people with hearing and 

speech disabilities and Katherine 

Morehead, Pricing Policy Division of the 

Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 

418–0696 or via email at 

katherine.morehead@fcc.gov regarding 

other portions of the Fifth Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Fifth 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

FCC 21–60, released May 24, 2021. This 

summary is based on the public 

redacted version of the document, the 

full text of which can be obtained from 

the following internet address: https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC21-60A1.pdf. 

I. Introduction 

1. Unlike virtually everyone else in 

the United States, incarcerated people 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS