30108 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Air pollution control, Aluminum, 

Beverages, Carbon monoxide, 

Chemicals, Coal, Electric power plants, 

Fluoride, Gasoline, Glass and glass 

products, Grains, Greenhouse gases, 

Hazardous substances, Household 

appliances, Industrial facilities, 

Insulation, Intergovernmental relations, 

Iron, Labeling, Lead, Lime, Metals, 

Motor vehicle pollution, Natural gas, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Petroleum, Phosphate, 

Plastics materials and synthetics, 

Polymers, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Rubber and rubber 

products, Sewage disposal, Steel, Sulfur 

oxides, Vinyl, Volatile organic 

compounds, Waste treatment and 

disposal, Zinc. 

40 CFR Part 61 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Arsenic, Asbestos, 

Benzene, Beryllium, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Mercury, Radioactive materials, Radon, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Uranium, Vinyl chloride. 

40 CFR Part 62 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Aluminum, 

Fertilizers, Fluoride, Industrial 

facilities, Intergovernmental relations, 

Methane, Ozone, Phosphate, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds, 

Waste treatment and disposal. 

40 CFR Part 70 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Title V. 

Dated: May 8, 2022. 

KC Becker, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR parts 60, 61, 62 and 70 are 

amended as follows: 

PART 60—STANDARDS OF 

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW 

STATIONARY SOURCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 42 U.S.C. 

7401–7601. 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

■ 2. In § 60.4, revise paragraph (b)(43) 

to read as follows: 

§ 60.4 Address. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(43) State of South Dakota, Air 

Quality Program, Department of 

Agriculture and Natural Resources, Joe 

Foss Building, 523 East Capitol, Pierre, 

SD 57501–3181. 

* * * * * 

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart A–General Provisions 

■ 4. In § 61.04, revise paragraph (b)(43) 

to read as follows: 

§ 61.04 Address. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(43) State of South Dakota, 

Department of Agriculture and Natural 

Resources, Air Quality Program, Joe 

Foss Building, 523 East Capitol, Pierre, 

SD 57501–3181. 

* * * * * 

PART 62—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS 

FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES AND 

POLLUTANTS 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 62 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart QQ—South Dakota 

■ 6. Revise § 62.10360 to read as 

follows: 

§ 62.10360 Identification of plan. 

The State of South Dakota submitted 

a letter on June 7, 2021, certifying that 

there are no designated facilities subject 

to the emissions guidelines for existing 

hospital medical infectious waste 

incinerators under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Ce, operating within the State’s 

jurisdiction. 

§§ 62.10361 and 62.10362 [Removed] 

■ 7. Remove §§ 62.10361 and 62.10362. 

PART 70—STATE OPERATING PERMIT 

PROGRAMS 

The authority citation for part 70 

continues to read as follows: 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 70 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

■ 9. In appendix A to part 70 the entry 

‘‘South Dakota’’ is amended by revising 

paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (d) 

to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval 

Status of State and Local Operating 

Permits Programs 

* * * * * 

South Dakota 

(a) South Dakota Department of Agriculture 

and Natural Resources: Submitted on 

November 12, 1993; full approval effective on 

February 28, 1996. 

* * * * * 

(d) The State of South Dakota submitted 

operating permit program revisions on 

January 3, 2020 and January 22, 2022. On 

January 3, 2020, South Dakota submitted for 

program approval revisions to the 

Administrative Rules of South Dakota, 

Chapters 74:36:05:04(2), 74:36:05:04(3), 

74:36:05:16.01(4), 74:36:05:16.01(8), 

74:36:05:16.01(9), 74:36:05:16.01(17), 

74:36:05:16.01(18), and 74:36:13:08. The state 

effective date of these revisions is November 

25, 2019. On January 22, 2022, South Dakota 

submitted for program approval revisions to 

Administrative Rules of South Dakota, 

Chapter 74:37:01:08. The state effective date 

is April 19, 2021. The revisions are effective 

on July 18, 2022. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–10224 Filed 5–17–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 16–271; DA 22–484; FR 

ID 86215] 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

Adopts Drive Test Parameters and 

Model for Alaska Plan Participants 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final order; Alaska Plan. 

SUMMARY: In the document, the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) of 

the Federal Communications 

Commission (Commission) adopts the 

drive test parameters and a drive test 

model required of two Alaska Plan 

mobile-provider participants: GCI 

Communication Corp (GCI) and Copper 

Valley Wireless (CVW). The Bureau also 

requests comment on requiring these 

mobile providers to submit new drivetest data if they fail to demonstrate 

compliance with their approved 

performance plan. 

DATES: The Order is adopted and 

effective on June 17, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Matthew Warner of 

the Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, Competition & Infrastructure 

Policy Division, Matthew.Warner@

fcc.gov, (202) 418–2419. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30109 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the ‘‘Order’’ portion of the 

Bureau’s Alaska Plan Drive Test Order 

and Request for Comment, adopted on 

May 5, 2022, and released on May 5. 

2022. The ‘‘Request for Comments’’ 

portion is published elsewhere in this 

issue of the Federal Register. The full 

text of this document is available for 

public inspection on the Commission’s 

website at: https://www.fcc.gov/ 

document/alaska-drive-test-order-andrequest-comment. 

I. Introduction 

1. In the Order portion of this 

document, the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) 

adopts a drive-test model and 

parameters for the drive tests that are 

required of certain mobile providers 

participating in the Alaska Plan. The 

Bureau will use these drive-test data to 

determine whether mobile providers 

that receive more than $5 million in 

annual support for the deployment of 

mobile voice and broadband service in 

remote areas of Alaska have met their 

performance commitments. In the 

Request for Comment portion of the 

document, we seek comment on a 

proposal to require mobile-provider 

participants subject to the drive-test 

requirement to submit new drive-test 

data consistent with the drive-test 

model and parameters if they fail to 

meet a buildout milestone and later seek 

to cure a compliance gap. 

II. Background 

2. Unique circumstances in Alaska 

make deploying communications 

infrastructure particularly challenging 

in that state. In the 2016 Alaska Plan 

Order, the Commission adopted an 

Alaska-specific, 10-year universal 

service plan to address these unique 

circumstances. The Alaska Plan Order 

froze mobile-wireless service-provider 

participants’ preexisting support at 

December 2014 levels (frozen support) 

and sought to have those providers 

commit to expand Fourth-Generation, 

Long-Term Evolution (4G LTE) service 

at speeds of at least 10/1 Mbps in 

eligible areas, subject to certain 

exceptions (such as where middle-mile 

infrastructure capability is limited). In 

areas with limited middle-mile 

infrastructure, providers were allowed 

to make a lesser commitment until 

better middle-mile infrastructure 

became available. 

3. Provider Commitments. Eight 

mobile providers chose to participate in 

the Alaska Plan and submitted for 

Bureau approval performance plans in 

which they committed to provide 

mobile voice and broadband services to 

delineated populations in remote 

eligible areas of Alaska. Providers, as 

part of their performance plans, were 

required to identify both the last-mile 

mobile technology (e.g., 3G, 4G LTE) 

that they would use to serve delineated 

populations and the type of middle-mile 

connectivity (e.g., fiber, satellite) on 

which they would rely to provide 

mobile services. Where Alaska Plan 

participants could provide fiber-based 

4G LTE, their speed commitments in 

those areas were greater than or equal to 

speed commitments with other 

technology combinations, consistent 

with the deployment standard set forth 

in the Alaska Plan Order (4G LTE at 

speeds of at least 10/1 Mbps). For those 

areas where the provider had to provide 

service over a performance-limiting 

satellite backhaul connection, the 

Bureau permitted providers to commit 

to previous-generation last-mile 

technologies and slower speeds. 

4. Each participating mobile provider 

committed to meet buildout 

requirements at the end of year five 

(ending December 31, 2021) and year 10 

(ending December 31, 2026) of the 

Alaska Plan and to certify that it met the 

obligations contained in the 

performance plan at each of these 

buildout milestones. The Commission 

stated that it would rely on participating 

providers’ FCC Form 477 data—which 

report inter alia mobile wireless 

broadband coverage by technology and 

minimum advertised or expected 

speed—in determining whether the 

providers’ five-year and 10-year 

milestones have been met. The 

Commission delegated authority to the 

Bureau to require additional 

information necessary to establish clear 

standards for determining whether 

providers have met their five and 10- 

year commitments. 

5. Drive Tests. Mobile participants 

that receive more than $5 million 

annually in Alaska Plan support must 

accompany their milestone 

certifications with drive-test data. The 

drive-test data must show mobile 

transmissions to and from the network 

that meet or exceed the minimum 

speeds set out in the approved 

performance plans in the areas where 

support was received. The Alaska Plan 

Order specifies that these participants 

‘‘may demonstrate coverage of an area 

with a statistically significant number of 

tests in the vicinity of residences being 

covered.’’ Given the unique terrain and 

lack of road networks in remote Alaska, 

providers may conduct drive tests by 

means other than automobiles (such as 

snow-mobiles or other vehicles 

appropriate to local conditions). Two of 

the eight mobile participants—GCI 

Communications Corp. (GCI) and 

Copper Valley Wireless (CVW)—exceed 

the $5 million annual support 

threshold, and accordingly, they must 

provide drive-test data supporting the 

speed certifications consistent with 

their performance plan commitments. 

6. Alaska Drive-Test Parameters and 

Model. In the Alaska Drive Test Public 

Notice, the Bureau proposed a model for 

conducting the drive testing (Alaska 

Drive-Test Model), which included the 

drive-test information to be submitted 

and the format in which it should be 

submitted. The parameters proposed in 

the Notice included, for example, the 

submission of latitude and longitude 

coordinates to identify the location of 

the test, a timestamp for the time the 

test was taken, the type of device and 

related software used for the test, lastmile technology tested, and recorded 

download and upload speeds. 

7. The proposed Alaska Drive-Test 

Model was designed to ensure that the 

service providers required to conduct 

drive testing would obtain a 

‘‘statistically significant number of tests 

in the vicinity of residences being 

covered.’’ The proposed Alaska DriveTest Model uses stratified random 

sampling to determine test locations 

within a grid system based on the 

service provider’s reported coverage 

area. Under the proposal, the 

Commission would begin with the 

populated areas contained in the 

performance plans for each type of 

technology and backhaul and then 

overlay a one-square kilometer grid 

system to create a frame around the 

covered populated area corresponding 

with the performance commitments. 

Staff would then stratify the frame into 

sets of grids determined by statistical 

formulae based on theoretical 

population of the grid cells (e.g., lowest 

population grid cells would be in the 

first stratum; highest population grid 

cells would be in the highest-numbered 

stratum) and would select a random 

sample of grid cells for testing from each 

stratum within the frame. The Bureau 

proposed that, within each grid cell, a 

service provider would conduct a 

minimum of 20 tests, consisting of 

download and upload components, no 

less than 50% of which would be 

conducted from a vehicle while inmotion. To be considered valid, each 

test would have to be conducted 

between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. 

within the selected grid cell, and the 

test data would have to report all 

relevant parameters. Staff would 

construct a confidence interval for the 

drive-test results that would be used to 

verify that a provider’s commitments 

have been met or to determine the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
30110 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

percentage by which the provider has 

failed to meet its commitments. 

8. The Bureau sought comment on the 

parameters and proposed Alaska DriveTest Model and on any alternatives that 

it should consider. GCI filed comments, 

and both GCI and CVW made ex parte 

presentations to staff about the proposed 

Alaska Drive-Test Model. No other party 

filed comments or made such 

presentations. Based on concerns that 

were expressed about the initial 

deadline, the Bureau extended the 

drive-test data-submission deadline, 

moving it from March 1, 2022 to 

September 30, 2022. The Commission 

will continue to monitor the situation 

and will remain flexible where 

warranted. 

III. Discussion 

9. We adopt the proposed parameters 

and the proposed Alaska Drive-Test 

Model with the modifications specified 

below. We will use data derived from 

these parameters, combined with FCC 

Form 477 coverage data and 

complementary middle-mile data, to 

verify that covered service providers 

have met their commitments. Upon 

submission of the drive test data that we 

discuss in this Order, a corporate officer 

of the mobile-provider participant must 

certify to the data’s accuracy, consistent 

with the obligations of 47 CFR 

54.321(a). When submitting the drive 

test data, a corporate officer of the 

mobile-provider participant must 

submit this certification: ‘‘I certify that 

I am an officer of the reporting carrier; 

my responsibilities include ensuring the 

accuracy of certifications which are 

required to be reported pursuant to 47 

CFR 54.321(a). The reporting carrier 

certifies that the data received or used 

from drive tests analyzing network 

coverage for mobile service pursuant to 

47 CFR 54.321(a) are complete, accurate, 

and free from misrepresentation.’’ The 

Commission staff will provide details to 

GCI and CVW on how to submit the 

drive test data. 

A. Drive-Test Parameters 

10. We adopt a modified version of 

the drive-test parameters proposed in 

the Alaska Drive Test Public Notice 

(attached as Appendix A). These 

parameters specify the categories of data 

to be collected as well as the data 

structure and format in which the data 

must be reported. In addition to the 

parameters the Bureau proposed, the 

Bureau adopts other changes to the 

parameters; most notably, we have 

altered the parameters in Appendix A 

with respect to the data to be collected 

for 2G/Voice. In the Notice, the Bureau 

proposed that, for 2G, a data rate of 22.8 

kbps or higher for download and upload 

tests would be appropriate because that 

should be a minimally sufficient speed 

to provide a serviceable voice call. GCI 

expressed concern that speed-test data 

would not accurately represent the 

ability to place a voice call over a 2G 

network, particularly for non-GSM 

standards such as CDMA or UMTS. GCI 

proposed that, instead, providers 

demonstrate voice coverage by placing 

voice calls between five and 30 seconds 

in duration to a telephone number 

established for test calls. 

11. We find GCI’s suggestion to be a 

reasonable approach, and therefore we 

will require it instead of the approach 

we proposed in the Notice. Because GCI 

is the only provider subject to drive 

testing that has a 2G commitment and 

GCI’s particular 2G requirement is voice 

only, we agree with GCI that a test 

assessing the availability of voice 

service would be appropriate. 

Accordingly, GCI must use voice calls to 

demonstrate its ‘‘Voice/2G’’ coverage in 

areas that it is required to drive test, and 

Appendix A now includes parameters 

for voice-only testing. This change from 

the original proposal enables GCI to 

enter information that records a 

successful call completion using 2G 

technology, regardless of data rate, 

consistent with the voice-only 

commitment. The new fields for GCI’s 

voice-only testing are the voice 

originating, voice terminating, rxlev, 

and rxqual fields. The voice originating 

field is a field for providing information 

for outbound calling and the voice 

terminating field is for receiving 

inbound calls for the testing. The rxlev 

and rxqual fields represent data 

elements that are necessary to determine 

the signal quality and strength and 

corresponding quality of the network for 

voice calls. 

12. We also adopt other modifications 

to the proposed data specifications for 

mobile speed tests. As set forth in more 

detail in Appendix A, we modify the 

proposed data specifications to add new 

drive-test parameters within existing 

categories—specifically, device Type 

Allocation Code (TAC), warmup 

duration, warmup bytes transferred, 

spectrum band, and success flag. Most 

of the parameters that we altered— 

device TAC, warmup duration, warmup 

bytes transferred, and spectrum band— 

resulted from the Bureau’s experience 

constructing the Broadband Data 

Collection but will also aid 

understanding of the data derived from 

the Alaska Plan drive tests. The device 

TAC provides the type of device used in 

the testing and helps us better 

understand the results, particularly if 

results indicate a problem with a 

network that may be attributable to the 

type of device. The warmup bytes and 

duration are the bits recorded during the 

testing ramp-up time, and collecting 

ramp-up bits as a separate field is 

required to ensure we are accurately 

measuring the network’s maximum 

transmission data rate. The spectrum 

band records the spectrum band or 

bands utilized during the drive test, 

which can affect wireless performance. 

Finally, because the drive tests need to 

exceed the minimum commitments in 

the mobile-provider participants’ 

performance plans, the success flag field 

was added to record where the data 

indicate that the tests were successful to 

that end (or not). 

B. Alaska Drive-Test Model 

13. We adopt the proposed Alaska 

Drive-Test Model (attached as Appendix 

B), with limited clarifications and 

modifications. The Alaska Drive-Test 

Model uses a stratified random sample 

of a frame. A frame consists of the 

complete set of units within a 

commitment eligible to be sampled, 

which for the purposes of the Alaska 

Plan drive testing are one-square 

kilometer grids in which a provider has 

at least 100,000 square meters of 

covered populated area. The 

construction of this frame is a multi-part 

process. First, we will create a set of 

‘‘eligible populated areas.’’ Census 

blocks eligible for frozen-support 

funding would be included, and these 

census blocks would be merged with the 

populated areas of the Alaska 

Population-Distribution Model. Second, 

staff will merge the FCC Form 477 

reported coverage areas (for which a 

provider committed to deploy and that 

are subject to testing) with the eligible 

populated areas to create a set of 

‘‘covered populated areas.’’ Third, 

Commission staff will overlay a grid of 

1 km x 1 km squares onto the covered 

populated areas. Lastly, any grid cell 

that contains fewer than 100,000 square 

meters of covered populated area, or 

10% of the grid cell, will be excluded 

from the frame. 

14. The frame is divided into subsets 

of similar characteristics, called strata. 

This methodology allows fewer grid 

cells to be selected for testing while 

producing a statistically equivalent level 

of accuracy as sampling the entire 

frame, thus reducing the burden of 

testing. We will use the cumulative 

square root of the frequency (CSRF) 

method to define the breaks between 

strata based on a scale along the 

cumulated square root of the frequency 

of grid cells belonging to equal intervals 

of the stratification variable. Using the 

CSRF method will help to ensure that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30111 

grid cells with low population are 

confined to a single stratum within each 

frame. The number of strata for a frame 

depends on the number of grid cells in 

that frame and the distribution of the 

populations within the frame. Two to 

eight strata are likely to be necessary per 

frame. 

1. Commitment-Based Frames 

15. Frames are based on providers’ 

commitments. In particular, 

Commission staff will create separate 

frames where a provider committed to 

different speeds based on different 

middle-mile or last-mile technologies in 

its Bureau-approved performance plan. 

CVW is subject to one frame because it 

committed to 10/3 Mbps 4G LTE in all 

of the areas where it receives Alaska 

Plan support. GCI is subject to five 

frames, as GCI committed to five 

different speeds based on various 

combinations of middle-mile and lastmile technologies: 

• Fiber-based 4G LTE at a minimum 

speed of 10/1 Mbps; 

• Microwave-based 4G LTE at a 

minimum speed of 2/.8 Mbps; 

• Satellite-based 4G LTE at a 

minimum speed of 1/.256 Mbps; 

• 3G or better at a minimum speed of 

.2/.05 Mbps; and 

• Voice/2G. 

16. GCI argues that, instead of basing 

frames on middle-mile and last-mile 

technologies, we should assign frames 

based only on the speeds a provider 

reports via its FCC Form 477 filings. GCI 

asserts that a speed-only approach better 

reflects the intent of the Alaska Plan 

Order and that the Commission 

intended to use information about 

middle-mile and last-mile technologies 

only to determine whether mobile 

carriers’ proposed speed commitments 

were reasonable. Pointing to language in 

the Alaska Plan Order, which states that 

drive tests must show mobile 

transmissions that meet or exceed ‘‘the 

speeds delineated in the approved 

performance plans,’’ GCI contends that 

the Bureau’s drive-test proposal 

‘‘changes the yardstick by which 

providers will be measured.’’ 

17. We disagree. The Alaska DriveTest Model’s integration of middle-mile 

and last-mile technologies is consistent 

with the Alaska Plan Order, the 

Commission’s rules, the provider 

performance plans that the Bureau 

approved, and the policy undergirding 

the Alaska Plan. In 2016, the 

Commission sought to advance, to the 

extent possible, the number of locations 

in Alaska that have access to at least 10/ 

1 Mbps 4G LTE. It permitted the Bureau 

to approve lesser commitments ‘‘in 

particular circumstances’’ if a provider’s 

ability to achieve 10/1 Mbps 4G LTE 

was limited, for example, by a lack of 

access to middle-mile infrastructure. In 

areas where such limitations did not 

exist, providers were expected to extend 

4G LTE service, which was the latest 

mass-market technology available at the 

time the Commission adopted the 

Alaska Plan. Additionally, if backhaul 

becomes newly available in an area 

where a provider has not committed to 

provide 10/1 Mbps 4G LTE, then that 

provider must submit revised 

commitments that take into account the 

new backhaul option. While GCI argues 

that the Commission only intended to 

use information about middle-mile and 

last-mile technologies to determine 

whether mobile providers’ proposed 

speed commitments were reasonable, 

GCI does not address how the 

Commission could determine whether a 

mobile provider has met those 

commitments without also collecting 

information about its speeds for each 

specified technology and middle-mile 

facility. 

18. Contrary to GCI’s assertions, we 

have not ‘‘change[d] the yardstick by 

which providers will be measured.’’ To 

implement the framework described 

above, the Commission required 

providers to identify in their 

performance plans the populations that 

they proposed to cover at the five- and 

10-year milestones, ‘‘broken down for 

each type of middle mile, and within 

each type of middle mile, for each level 

of data service offered.’’ This approach 

is mirrored in the Commission’s rules, 

which require mobile providers to build 

out to the ‘‘population covered by the 

specified technology, middle mile, and 

speed of service in the carrier’s 

approved performance plan, by the 

interim milestone.’’ In addition, every 

performance plan that providers 

submitted and the Bureau approved— 

including GCI’s original plan and 

updated plans—identifies the providers’ 

speed commitments based on available 

middle- and last-mile technology 

employed. 

19. The Alaska Drive-Test Model, by 

taking into account middle- and lastmile technologies, will allow CVW and 

GCI to show that they have met the 

speed commitments delineated in their 

approved performance plans. While GCI 

is correct that the drive-test data will 

demonstrate network throughput (i.e., 

speeds), the minimum speeds it is 

required to show are—and must be— 

‘‘delineated’’ in its approved plan in 

terms of populations covered by specific 

combinations of middle- and last-mile 

technologies. GCI’s suggested reading of 

the Commission’s rules, in contrast, 

would require us to ignore the rules’ 

repeated references to middle- and lastmile technologies in describing how 

providers are required to identify and 

meet their commitments. The 

Commission could have required in the 

Alaska Plan Order that providers base 

their commitments solely on speed 

criteria, but it explicitly required the 

inclusion of middle-mile and last-mile 

technology for the population served as 

part of the performance plans, 

consistent with the Commission’s goal 

of expanding Alaskans’ access to 10/1 

Mbps 4G LTE technology to the greatest 

extent possible, unless an exception was 

warranted. 

20. Moreover, failing to account for 

last-mile and middle-mile technologies 

in the Alaska Drive-Test Model could 

allow participants to skirt their 

commitments. For example, speed tests 

conducted in close proximity to a tower 

providing 3G service using microwave 

backhaul could produce test results of 

10/1 Mbps or better. If that grid cell’s 

population is credited toward a 

provider’s fiber-fed 4G LTE performance 

obligation, this would offset the need for 

the provider to demonstrate 10/1 Mbps 

4G LTE service in another area that 

should otherwise receive this level of 

service based on fiber-based middlemile facilities. 

21. Finally, we note that, under the 

Alaska Plan, approval of a provider’s 

plan to maintain lower levels of 

technology ‘‘in particular circumstances 

. . . to a subset of locations’’ is limited 

to those locations; it is not a fungible 

token to provide lower levels of service 

anywhere in the provider’s service area. 

In other words, a provider may not 

underperform in areas where it 

committed to 10/1 Mbps 4G LTE, even 

if it overperforms in areas where it was 

allowed a lesser commitment due to 

‘‘unique limitations’’ in those areas. To 

the extent ‘‘unique limitations’’ no 

longer prevent a provider from 

achieving 10/1 Mbps 4G LTE in an area, 

the appropriate course of action would 

be for the provider to update its 

performance plan, as required under the 

terms of the Alaska Plan Order. 

2. Grid Cells With No Roads 

22. Some parts of remote Alaska lack 

any roads, and some large areas have a 

low population density. Nonetheless, 

providers committed to serve many of 

these areas, and they receive support 

from the Alaska Plan to do so. As 

discussed further below, we cannot 

ignore these areas when evaluating 

CVW’s and GCI’s performance 

commitments, and thus we find it 

necessary to include in the testing 

sample grid cells with no roads as well 

as grid cells with low populations, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
30112 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

consistent with the Alaska Plan Order 

and our proposals in the Alaska Drive 

Test Public Notice. While we cannot 

ignore these areas when evaluating 

CVW’s and GCI’s performance 

commitments, we note that the Alaska 

Drive-Test Model includes a number of 

design features that should limit the 

areas without roads or with little 

population that the two providers must 

test, as we detail below. 

23. We acknowledge that remote 

Alaska has unique challenges, including 

roadless areas, and these unique 

challenges are the reason the 

Commission created a separate 

universal service support mechanism 

for Alaska. Some of the roadless remote 

areas, however, are in the vicinity of 

covered residences and must be tested 

to achieve statistically significant testing 

of each provider’s coverage sufficient to 

enable the Bureau to determine whether 

a provider has satisfied its 

commitments. A quality 

communications network is all the more 

essential where the local population 

lacks roads, and to the extent that 

providers have received universal 

service support to cover such populated 

areas, they are required to demonstrate 

their claimed coverage. 

24. We also find it necessary to 

include in the testing sample grid cells 

with a modeled population of less than 

one person—including such grid cells 

with no roads—consistent with the 

Alaska Plan Order and our proposals in 

the Alaska Drive Test Public Notice. 

Providers committed to cover delineated 

eligible populations in their 

performance plans, including some 

areas that are sparsely populated. While 

providers only test populated areas, in 

some instances, the number of grid cells 

within the populated area of a census 

block can outnumber the people. Where 

the aggregate number of grid cells in a 

covered populated area exceed the 

number of people in that area, such grid 

cells will appear to have less than one 

person. However, to ‘‘demonstrate 

coverage of an area with a statistically 

significant number of tests in the 

vicinity of residences being covered,’’ 

these areas are necessary to test as part 

of the coverage that the provider 

committed to and receives support to 

provide mobile service. 

25. GCI argues that it should not be 

required to test sparsely populated grid 

cells, and both GCI and CVW express 

concern that testing in grid cells with no 

roads will be extremely difficult. But the 

Alaska Drive-Test Model has design 

features that should help address 

concerns about these grid cells. The 

model stratifies each frame using CSRF 

based on grid-level estimates of covered 

population. This includes creating a 

single stratum within each frame of all 

grid cells with a population of less than 

one person. Further, the sample is 

apportioned across a frame using 

Neyman allocation, a technique that 

draws more samples from more highly 

populated strata relative to lower 

populated strata. Accordingly, the 

stratum containing grid cells with a 

population of one person or more will 

have a greater number of grid cells 

compared to strata containing grid cells 

of population less than one, and more 

samples will be drawn from the higher 

populated strata. This has a 

compounding effect that limits the 

number of grid cells with a population 

less than one that will be selected for 

testing. In addition, the Alaska 

Population-Distribution Model 

distributes population near roadways 

for census blocks that contain roads, 

making it more likely that areas near 

roads will be covered populated areas 

and selected for testing. 

26. GCI claims that many testable grid 

cells are too sparsely populated for 

worthwhile testing. GCI’s analysis of the 

Alaska Drive-Test Model claims that 

53% of the grid cells would have less 

than one person and that based on GCI’s 

analysis, 48% of grid cells would have 

less than one person per grid cell and 

no roads. GCI argues that grid cells with 

less than one person should be 

eliminated from testing and grid cells 

with no roads should be required 

sparingly, given the burdens of 

conducting drive testing. Similarly, 

CVW notes that some grid cells would 

be inaccessible mountains or islands 

with no public access. GCI evaluated the 

grid cells in its coverage areas and 

determined that 59% of the grid cells 

would have no roads, that 49% of the 

grid cells would be more than a mile 

from the nearest road, and that 12% of 

the grid cells would be more than ten 

miles from the nearest road. 

27. GCI has not presented its data or 

the methodology underlying its 

calculations, and we were not able to 

reproduce it. However, for several 

reasons, we believe that GCI’s 

calculations result in significant overestimates. First, the Alaska Drive-Test 

Model’s de minimis population 

standard has the effect of reducing the 

number of grid cells without roads that 

would otherwise be included in the 

testing frame. Second, as noted above, 

we designed the sample and 

stratification so that there would be 

substantially more grid cells that are 

populated compared with grid cells 

with population less than one in the 

sampling methodology to increase the 

probability that a populated grid cell 

would be selected for testing compared 

with a grid cell with population less 

than one. Third, because there is a high 

correlation between populated grid cells 

and grid cells with roads, our sampling 

methodology should not only increase 

the percentage of populated grid cells 

that are tested but also increase the 

percentage of tested grid cells that have 

roads. Accordingly, for all of these 

reasons, we believe that GCI’s 

calculations result in over-estimates. 

28. We also disagree with GCI that the 

burdens of testing in these areas 

outweigh the benefits of testing in areas 

where GCI is receiving universal service 

support. If we excluded such grid cells 

in the sampling, GCI would continue to 

receive Alaska Plan support in remote 

areas of Alaska without adequate means 

to verify coverage, which runs contrary 

to the principles outlined in the Alaska 

Plan Order. Low population density and 

areas with no roads are features in many 

parts of remote Alaska—a fact of which 

CVW and GCI were aware when they 

elected to participate in the Alaska 

Plan—yet these providers nonetheless 

committed to covering these remote 

areas using universal service support. 

For these reasons, we decline to 

eliminate testing for grid cells with no 

roads, including those grid cells with a 

population of less than one. Although 

CVW and GCI must drive test some grid 

cells that do not have roads, the 

Commission foresaw this potential issue 

and accounted for it by allowing drive 

tests to be conducted ‘‘by means other 

than in automobiles on roads.’’ We 

provide further relief for the providers 

by allowing use of unmanned aircraft 

systems (UASs), subject to the waivers 

we describe below. 

a. Grid Cells With No Roads and 

Population of One or Greater 

29. For the reasons described above, 

we find it necessary to require testing of 

grid cells with no roads and population 

of one or greater. To the extent a grid 

cell with a population of one or greater 

does not include an accessible road, the 

accommodation to use off-road vehicles 

should improve testability. If there are 

instances where a mobile-provider 

participant claims that it cannot use onthe-ground, off-road vehicles to test 

such a grid cell, it may seek a waiver 

from the Bureau to use a UAS to test 

that particular grid cell. This waiver 

request should provide a statement 

regarding why good cause exists to 

waive the on-the-ground testing 

requirement for that grid cell, contain 

evidence supporting that claim, and be 

filed in WC Docket No. 16–271. UASs 

should mirror on-the-ground vehicles to 

the extent possible, matching on-theVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:20 May 17, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MYR1.SGM 18MYR1

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30113 

ground vehicle speed (for example, 

matching nearby speed limits) and 

flying at the lowest, safest possible 

elevation, to best reflect on-the-ground 

usage. Additionally, UASs performing 

drive tests must: (1) At all times operate 

at less than 200 feet above ground in 

remote areas of Alaska where roadbased testing is impractical/impossible; 

(2) limit power to the minimum 

necessary to accomplish testing; and (3) 

upon receipt of a complaint of 

interference from a co-channel licensee, 

notify the Commission and either 

remedy the interference or cease 

operations. 

30. To the extent that a mobile 

provider seeks to use UASs to conduct 

testing, it may do so if the allocation 

and service rules permit airborne use of 

the spectrum that will be used to 

provide the mobile service to be tested 

as part of the drive tests. Otherwise, the 

provider must additionally obtain a 

waiver from the Commission (pursuant 

to Section 1.925) of any airborne 

limitations. 

b. Grid Cells With No Roads and 

Population of Less Than One 

31. For the reasons described above, 

we also find it necessary to require 

testing of certain grid cells with no 

roads and population of less than one. 

However, as an alternative to testing 

with an automobile or other terrestrial 

off-road vehicle (e.g., snowmobile or allterrain vehicle), we will allow use of 

UASs for the first, and least densely 

populated, stratum without requiring 

the waiver that we will require GCI and 

CVW to obtain to use UASs for testing 

grid cells with one or more people. GCI 

and CVW both express concern with 

drive testing where no roads exist. This 

additional UAS option is provided to 

address their concerns. Of the two to 

eight strata per frame, the first stratum 

contains the grid cells with less than 

one person per grid cell and no roads. 

As these grid cells are likely the most 

logistically difficult to test and may 

contain uninhabitable or untraversable 

terrain, the added flexibility offered by 

a UAS without a waiver should make 

the testing easier for these areas. UAS 

performing drive tests must: (1) At all 

times operate at less than 200 feet above 

ground in remote areas of Alaska where 

road-based testing is impractical/ 

impossible; (2) limit power to the 

minimum necessary to accomplish 

testing; and (3) upon receipt of a 

complaint of interference from a cochannel licensee, notify the Commission 

and either remedy the interference or 

cease operations. We note that while we 

will not require a waiver for use of 

UASs for testing these grid cells, we will 

require a waiver for use of any 

allocation or service rules that prohibit 

airborne use of the spectrum that will be 

used to provide the mobile service to be 

tested as part of the drive tests 

(consistent with the requirement we 

adopt above for use of UAS to test grid 

cells with no roads and a population of 

one or more people). 

3. Distant Communities 

32. GCI expresses concern that the 

number of ‘‘communities’’ that it needs 

to travel to is the biggest driver of its 

testing costs. GCI notes that there are 

205 communities within its footprint 

and that, while GCI may be able to drive 

to some communities, ‘‘given the 

distances between communities and the 

lack of interconnected roads, [GCI’s 

testing teams must] often [travel to these 

communities] by small aircraft.’’ To the 

extent GCI has to charter a flight to 

many of these communities, this would 

increase the costs and complexities 

associated with drive testing all of its 

assigned grid cells. 

33. To help reduce the burdens of 

traveling to many different 

communities, we have added an 

optimization to the sampling process 

that will likely reduce the number of 

incorporated and census designated 

places where GCI and CVW would have 

to travel. Given that GCI did not provide 

a definition of ‘‘communities,’’ we 

believe incorporated and census 

designated places are the closest proxy, 

as there are 284 incorporated and 

census designated places in GCI’s 

footprint, and incorporated and census 

designated places are integrated into 

census data, which are used throughout 

this modeling. We implement these 

additional steps in direct response to 

GCI’s concerns and describe this 

additional process in Appendix B, infra. 

4. In-Motion Testing Requirement 

34. We adopt the proposal to require 

at least 50% of drive tests to be 

conducted while in motion. Requiring 

that 50% of the drive tests be conducted 

while in motion strikes a balance of 

ensuring that the drive tests are a 

sufficient representation of how 

consumers use their mobile devices, 

which is both in a stationary and inmotion environment. Requiring some 

in-motion tests also helps ensure that 

tests are conducted in multiple 

locations within the grid cell. 

35. We disagree with GCI that the 

proposed in-motion requirement is 

unnecessary. The Alaska Plan Order 

referred to these as ‘‘drive tests,’’ which 

suggests some degree of motion 

consistent with a driving experience. 

The drive testing data to be submitted 

is to ‘‘show[ ] mobile transmissions to 

and from the network meeting or 

exceeding the speeds delineated in the 

approved performance plans.’’ Mobile 

service, as defined in the 

Communications Act and the 

Commission’s rules, supports an inmotion requirement for at least some 

drive tests. Moreover, requiring drive 

tests in motion is also consistent with 

the in-vehicle mobile propagation 

modeling that mobile broadband service 

providers must submit as part of the 

Broadband Data Collection, which 

providers could verify through on-theground data submitted in response to 

cognizable challenges and/or 

verification inquiries initiated by 

Commission staff. The Commission also 

explained for the Broadband Data 

Collection that it was important for 

consumers to be able to challenge 

mobile broadband service providers’ 

coverage in both stationary and invehicle (i.e., in-motion) environments. 

Because mobile service assumes a 

service that works with mobile stations 

that are designed to move and ordinarily 

do move, in-motion tests are necessary 

to ensure that mobile service is being 

provided. 

36. GCI contends that in-motion tests 

from a non-standard road or a trail 

could be hazardous with little daylight 

and winter weather. The concerns posed 

by drive testing during winter weather 

are no longer relevant because we have 

moved the deadline for the data from 

March 1, 2022, to September 30, 2022. 

GCI further argues that an in-motion 

requirement is unnecessary because 

many grid cells lack roads and may not 

reasonably accommodate in-motion 

tests and, similarly, that many grid cells 

with roads have small populated areas, 

which makes it difficult to conduct a 

sufficient number of in-motion tests. As 

noted previously, where roads are 

insufficient, the drive test model allows 

tests to be conducted by vehicles other 

than automobiles on roads. Further, we 

have limited the grid cells with small 

testing areas by removing from drive 

testing the de minimis grid cells with 

less than 100,000 square meters of 

covered populated area. 

5. Early Upgraded Areas 

37. Mobile service providers 

participating in the Alaska Plan are free 

to upgrade areas early with technologies 

beyond what they have committed to, 

notwithstanding the commitments set 

out in their performance plans. In the 

Alaska Drive Test Public Notice, the 

Bureau stated, for instance, that where 

providers have deployed 5G–NR, it 

would be included in the ‘‘LTE’’ frame. 

Moreover, GCI updated its performance 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
30114 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

plan twice based on commercial 

availability of new middle-mile 

infrastructure, consistent with the 

Alaska Plan Order requirements, but it 

did not commit to improve those areas 

by the five-year milestone (positioning 

itself to be able to upgrade those areas 

by the final, 10-year milestone instead). 

38. GCI has noted that, in some areas, 

it ‘‘has deployed a more advanced 

technology but does not yet provide the 

speed associated with that technology or 

frame. For example, ‘‘an area served 

with fiber may have LTE technology, 

but the locations more distant from the 

tower . . . do not receive 10/1 Mbps.’’ 

GCI claimed it ‘‘never expected that 

pops served with less than 10/1 Mbps 

would count toward the number of pops 

served at 10/1 Mbps but also never 

expected the Commission to disregard 

them completely for the purpose of 

assessing the number of pops served 

with 2/.8 Mbps or lower speeds.’’ GCI 

also claimed that, if it believed all fiber 

areas upgraded to 4G LTE were required 

to have 10/1 Mbps or better, it would 

have delayed some of its 4G LTE 

deployments until year six or later and 

excluded those areas as appearing on its 

FCC Form 477 submission as having 4G 

LTE. 

39. We agree with GCI that we should 

not punish providers for deploying 4G 

LTE to some areas earlier than they 

committed to in their performance plan 

at the five-year milestone. Accordingly, 

where 4G LTE is indicated on FCC Form 

477 at less than 10/1 Mbps in fiberbased areas, those areas will be included 

in the 3G frame (3G or better frame) and 

will be attributed to 3G commitments. If 

we were to include these areas (which 

may not yet be engineered to achieve 

10/1 Mbps) in the fiber-based 4G LTE 

frame, then it could lead to higher fail 

rates in the frame. These higher fail 

rates would make GCI appear as if it had 

not met its commitments in places 

where GCI actually met (or exceeded) its 

five-year commitments. The approach 

we adopt will therefore avoid punishing 

GCI where it deployed 4G LTE early but 

was not ready to add those areas to its 

five-year commitments of 10/1 Mbps 

fiber-based LTE service. We will follow 

a similar approach for 4G LTE areas that 

would be included in the microwave 

and satellite 4G LTE frames. For 

example, if GCI deployed 4G LTE to a 

microwave-based area, as indicated by 

FCC Form 477 and corresponding 

middle-mile data, but GCI’s FCC Form 

477 filing shows minimum expected 

speeds as less than 2/.8 Mbps for such 

areas, then those areas will be included 

in the 3G or better frame. This 

clarification should ensure that GCI is 

being held to its commitments while not 

being penalized for deploying more 

advanced technology ahead of schedule. 

6. Multiple Last-Mile Technologies in a 

Grid Cell 

40. When multiple technologies 

overlap within a grid cell, Commission 

staff will attribute the overlapped area 

to the frame with the more advanced 

technology. For example, in grid cells 

where fiber-based 4G LTE at 10/1 Mbps 

and 3G completely overlap in a grid 

cell, staff will attribute the grid cell to 

the fiber-based 4G LTE frame for 

satisfaction of the fiber-based 4G LTE 

commitments. Attribution to the more 

advanced technology allows the 

provider to receive due credit where it 

has built out consistent with its most 

rigorous performance requirements. 

Alternatively, in grid cells where fiberbased 4G LTE at 10/1 Mbps only 

partially overlaps 3G coverage, staff will 

attribute the grid cell portion covered by 

fiber-based 4G LTE to the fiber-based 4G 

LTE frame and the remaining covered 

area of the grid cell to the 3G frame. In 

this instance, a grid cell could be 

contained in multiple frames. 

41. GCI claimed that more than half 

of the cells within its covered populated 

areas have multiple or overlapping 

technologies. GCI argued that, where a 

grid cell is both in a 4G LTE and 3G 

frame, once it passes for 4G LTE, the 

grid cell should be removed from the 3G 

frame so that pops in the 3G frame are 

not attributed as a ‘‘fail.’’ 

42. We clarify that if a grid cell is 

selected for both 4G LTE and 3G testing, 

staff would evaluate both selections 

from the same drive tests. If the drive 

tests show that GCI passes the 4G LTE 

standard for that grid cell, then GCI will 

also receive credit for that grid cell 

passing the 3G standard; thus, GCI 

would not receive a ‘‘fail’’ for the 3G 

selection, obviating the need to remove 

the grid cell from the 3G frame. If, 

however, the testing threshold only 

passes for the 3G requirements, then the 

grid cell would be attributed as a ‘‘pass’’ 

to 3G but a ‘‘fail’’ as to 4G LTE, 

consistent with the pass/fail approach 

described below. 

7. Pass/Fail Approach 

43. We adopt the pass/fail approach to 

testing for the Alaska Drive-Test Model 

proposed in the Alaska Drive Test 

Public Notice. For each grid cell in the 

sampling frame, the results of the tests 

will establish whether the provider 

delivers coverage at the minimum 

speeds to which it committed. When 

replicated throughout all of the 

randomly selected grid cells that are 

required for testing, the Commission 

will evaluate the percentage of the 

provider’s coverage area where it has 

met its commitments. To demonstrate 

coverage in an area with a statistically 

significant number of tests, the Alaska 

Drive-Test Model requires the tests to 

pass at a rate capable of ensuring that 

the provider has met its milestones. 

a. Pass/Fail Testing 

44. We adopt the following pass/fail 

methodology for the Alaska Drive-Test 

Model: 85% of drive test results in a 

grid cell must show speeds that meet or 

are above the minimum committed-to 

speed for that frame in order for the 

service to be considered ‘‘available’’ in 

that grid cell. Successful tests measure 

whether a mobile-provider participant 

meets a minimum expected speed in a 

given grid cell, with ‘‘expected’’ defined 

as being available at least 85% of the 

time. It does not mean that 85% of the 

population of that grid cell can expect 

to receive the tested speed 100% of the 

time. Although the Alaska Plan Order 

required mobile-provider participants to 

commit to a minimum download and 

upload speed(s), we do not expect 

mobile-provider participants to meet the 

minimum speed requirements on every 

single test, given that the performance of 

wireless networks is highly variable. 

Accordingly, we have set the pass rate 

at 85% to account for this variability. 

45. To the extent that GCI may 

intimate that the 85% pass rate is too 

high, we do not alter it. The 85% pass 

rate we adopt for the Alaska Plan drive 

tests is similar to—but more lenient 

than—both the propagation modeling 

standard and the on-the-ground 

challenge data threshold adopted for the 

Broadband Data Collection. In the 

Second Report and Order in that 

proceeding, the Commission defined the 

parameters that service providers must 

use when modeling whether broadband 

is available using technology-specific 

minimum download and upload speeds 

with a cell edge probability of at least 

90% and assuming minimum 50% cell 

loading. Additionally, mobile providers 

that submit on-the-ground speed test 

data to rebut a challenge to their 

coverage data are required to meet 

analogous thresholds to those required 

of challengers and demonstrate that 

sufficient coverage exists at least 90% of 

the time through a challenged area. 

These defined parameters in the 

Broadband Data Collection are more 

stringent than the propagation coverage 

relied on for the Alaska Plan drive test 

methodology, which uses the providerdefined propagation coverage from 

Form 477. Given that the provider has 

more discretion to set coverage 

parameters more favorably for itself in 

its Form 477 filings, it would have 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30115 

actually been appropriate for us to adopt 

a higher pass rate percentage than the 

Broadband Data Collection; we 

nonetheless adopt the 85% pass rate 

here to eliminate all doubt about the 

fairness of the pass rate. Neither GCI nor 

CVW propose an alternative percentage 

as more appropriate for the pass rate as 

applied by the model. We find 

compelling reasons to adopt an 85% 

pass rate, as we proposed, for Alaska 

Plan drive test data. 

46. GCI argues that it should receive 

partial credit for the percentage of tests 

recorded above the minimum threshold 

when that percentage is below 85%. GCI 

states that ‘‘rather than applying the 85 

percent pass rate as an ‘all or nothing’ 

bar for allowing a cell to be deemed 

covered, pops could count toward the 

commitment levels in proportion to the 

speeds that the speed tests confirm.’’ 

GCI provides the example that, ‘‘if 50 

percent of the drive tests show speeds 

at or above 10/1 Mbps and 50 percent 

of the tests show speeds of .2/.05 Mbps, 

then 50 percent of the pops associated 

with that cell would count toward 

compliance with the 10/1 Mbps 

commitments, and 50 percent of the 

pops would count toward compliance 

with the <.2/.05 Mbps commitments.’’ 

47. We do not find GCI’s arguments 

persuasive. Our statistical framework is 

designed around grid cells being the 

smallest unit of testing and is not 

designed to measure partial grid cells. 

GCI’s example of counting a 50% pass 

rate as indicative of 50% of the 

population receiving service is an 

incorrect interpretation of what testing 

represents—rather, a 50% pass rate 

indicates that service is available 50% 

of the time. Further, GCI’s proposal to 

count failed tests toward a lesser 

standard is incompatible with random 

sampling as it would apply results to a 

standard that was not selected for 

testing in a given grid cell. This would 

mean that results are no longer random. 

48. Moreover, GCI and CVW 

committed to provide ‘‘minimum 

expected upload/download speeds’’ in 

their performance plans. In addition, 

GCI was the only provider to emphasize 

in its performance plans that it would 

be responsible for this minimum speed 

throughout all of its committed-to 

coverage area to the edge. Thus, GCI’s 

own commitments emphasize that it 

needs to provide the minimum speeds 

throughout the coverage area of the 

specified commitment and should not 

receive partial credit to the extent it did 

not provide its minimum committed-to 

speed to the edge of such coverage. 

49. In addition, GCI’s suggested 

‘‘partial credit’’ approach would require 

an alternative drive-test methodology 

with a corresponding assessment 

regarding how that methodology would 

be ‘‘statistically significant.’’ But GCI 

does not provide a usable alternative 

methodology to replace the proposed 

drive test model. GCI’s edit to the 

proposed drive-test methodology lacks a 

statistical basis from which, based on a 

limited set of tests, we could infer 

whether GCI had met its commitments. 

Partial credit also is inconsistent with 

the approach adopted in the Broadband 

Data Collection proceeding. 

50. Finally, while we acknowledge 

that service declines farther away from 

the cell site, this service quality 

deterioration can be addressed in a 

number of ways, including adding more 

cell sites. GCI receives support to meet 

its commitments, and if it does not meet 

them initially, the drive tests can help 

it understand where improvements are 

needed in its network, which will help 

it deliver the services it committed to 

Alaskans. 

b. No Lower Speed Tier Credit for 

Failed Grid Cells 

51. The Alaska Drive-Test Model’s use 

of frames will allow providers to 

separately test the areas where they 

committed to different minimum speeds 

based on middle-mile availability and 

last-mile technology used, consistent 

with how the providers delineated these 

speeds in their performance plans. In 

doing so, the Alaska Drive-Test Model 

will ensure that the drive tests yield 

data that allow Commission staff to 

assess whether the providers have met 

their commitments. 

52. GCI expressed concern that the 

Alaska Drive-Test Model disregards data 

that show improvement, if fewer than 

85% of tests in a grid cell are below the 

minimum speed threshold for a frame. 

GCI provided the example that, ‘‘if 80 

percent of tests in a cell reflect speeds 

of 10/1 Mbps, and 20 percent of tests 

reflect speeds of 9/1 Mbps, the cell is 

deemed unserved at any speed—even 

though all tests reported far faster 

speeds than required in the next lower 

speed tier (2/.8 Mbps.).’’ Where GCI fails 

a 4G LTE/3G grid cell for 4G LTE, GCI 

argued that, if the speeds are sufficiently 

above the 3G commitment, the grid cell 

should be a ‘‘pass’’ for the 3G frame. 

53. Where a grid cell is selected for 

only 4G LTE testing, we cannot credit 

the grid cell to 3G if it fails the 4G LTE 

speed tier. This suggestion, if adopted, 

would result in an under-sampling for 

the 4G LTE frame and an oversampling 

for the 3G frame. Further, this would 

have the effect of removing population 

from one frame and adding it to a 

different frame, thereby disturbing the 

original distribution of the grid cells 

across stratum as calculated prior to 

testing. For example, suppose there is a 

grid cell for which one of the providers 

has claimed 100 people are covered by 

4G LTE, but for which testing shows 

only 80% of the results exceed the 

minimum performance threshold. GCI’s 

proposal would reallocate the 

population from the 4G LTE frame (and 

the stratum within the 4G LTE frame to 

which that grid cell is assigned) to a 

different frame and stratum for which 

the testing would show that the 

performance benchmarks have been met 

(in this case, the 3G frame). However, as 

the stratification and sample allocation 

processes primarily consider 

population, this would mean that, after 

testing was completed, the total 

populations of the strata would have 

changed and, accordingly, the strata 

within each frame would no longer have 

the correct distribution of grid cells. 

Additionally, the number of samples 

optimally selected in each frame would 

also no longer be correct. This, in turn, 

would mean that the results could no 

longer be measured at the specified 90% 

confidence interval the Alaska DriveTest Model sets for statistical 

significance. 

c. Waterfall Model 

54. For the reasons described above, 

the Alaska Drive-Test Model does not 

allow for partial credit where a mobileprovider participant fails a test in a 

higher performance tier. Frames are 

created based on the population covered 

at a particular minimum speed by 

technology from FCC Form 477 data set 

plus additional middle-mile data. If, 

however, the FCC Form 477 data show 

population coverage beyond what is 

committed to at the five-year mark, then 

the testing of that frame could show that 

the mobile-provider participant covered 

more people than it committed to in its 

performance plan. Where this happens, 

the commitments for the next lower tier 

last-mile technology will be accredited 

with the excess covered population of 

the higher technology tier. 

55. GCI suggests that it should receive 

partial credit for providing service at 

lower speeds if it does not meet the 85% 

successful testing standard at the 

sampled technology, and for support, it 

cites to the Alternative Connect America 

Model (ACAM) waterfall methodology. 

For the ACAM waterfall methodology, a 

provider must satisfy a particular 

number of locations at a particular 

speed tier, and if a provider satisfies 

more than that, then the credit flows to 

the satisfaction of the next lower speed 

tier. For example, if 60 locations need 

to have 25/3 Mbps performance, 10 

locations must have 10/1 Mbps 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
30116 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

performance, and 30 locations must 

have 4/1 Mbps performance, and the 

provider supplies 80 locations with 25/ 

3 Mbps, then the 25/3 Mbps and 10/1 

Mbps speed tier commitments would be 

fully satisfied, and 4/1 Mbps speed tier 

would be partially satisfied. 

56. The ACAM waterfall methodology 

does not, as GCI suggests, support 

allowing failed performance at higher 

speed tiers and receiving credit for those 

failed tests in the lower speed tiers. The 

ACAM waterfall methodology requires 

complete satisfaction of the higher 

performance tier, and if the provider 

connects locations beyond the 

minimum required in the higher 

performance tier, the excess coverage 

would flow down to the next level tier. 

If the provider does not completely 

satisfy the higher tier, then no excess is 

present, and no ‘‘waterfall’’ occurs: The 

provider needed to deploy to more 

locations in that tier and does not 

receive credit in other tiers for this 

failure. GCI’s proposal is thus 

inconsistent with the ACAM waterfall 

methodology. 

57. The Alaska Drive-Test Model, as 

originally proposed and adopted here, 

includes a waterfall methodology 

similar to the one used in ACAM that 

is tailored to the drive-test requirement. 

Specifically, where a provider has 

committed to multiple tiers of 

technology (i.e., 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE), 

any excess coverage would be applied to 

the next lower tier of technology. In the 

Alaska Drive Test Public Notice, the 

Bureau provided the example: ‘‘if a 

provider has committed to cover 25,000 

people with 4G LTE and the upper limit 

of the confidence interval shows 

adequate coverage for 30,000 people, 

then the remaining 5,000 [population] 

coverage can be applied to its 3G 

commitment.’’ The Alaska Drive Test 

Public Notice further stated that ‘‘[t]his 

process is iterative, so any further 

excess coverage can be applied to its 2G 

commitment.’’ In other words, the 

Alaska Drive-Test Model includes a 

waterfall methodology that would credit 

lower tier commitments when there is 

excess performance of the higher tier 

commitments. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification 

58. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a 

regulatory flexibility analysis be 

prepared for notice-and-comment rule 

making proceedings, unless the agency 

certifies that ‘‘the rule will not, if 

promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.’’ 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 Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

59. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification (IRFC) was incorporated in 

the Notice in this proceeding. In the 

Notice, the Bureau observed that the 

drive testing proposals required by the 

Alaska Plan apply only to wireless 

participants receiving more than $5 

million in annual Alaska Plan support, 

excluding the smaller wireless 

participants that receive less than that 

amount in annual support. And, the 

proposals, if adopted, would apply to 

only two entities, one of which does not 

qualify as a small entity. Therefore, we 

certify that the requirements of the 

Order will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

60. The Commission will send a copy 

of the Order, including a copy of the 

Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification, in a report to Congress 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act. In addition, the Order and this final 

certification will be sent to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA and 

will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

B. Congressional Review Act 

61. The Commission has determined, 

and the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

concurs, that this rule is ‘‘non-major’’ 

under the Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will 

send a copy of this Order to Congress 

and the Government Accountability 

Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

V. Ordering Clauses 

62. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

Sections 1 through 4, 201, 254, 301, 303, 

307, 309, 332 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 

through 154, 201, 254, 301, 303, 307, 

309, 332 and Sections 0.91, 0.131, 0.291, 

0.311, 54.317, 54.320, and 54.321 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.131, 

0.291, 0.311, 54.317, 54.320, and 54.321, 

and the delegated authority contained in 

the Alaska Plan Order, 31 FCC Rcd 

10139, 10160, 10166 through 67, paras. 

67, 85, this Order is adopted, effective 

30 days after publication in the Federal 

Register, except that the deadline for 

filing updated coverage data shall be on 

10 days after the adoption of the Order 

in accordance with the Public Notice. 

63. It is further ordered that the Office 

of the Managing Director, Performance 

Evaluation and Records Management, 

shall send a copy of this Order in a 

report to be sent to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

64. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Order and Request for Comment, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Certification and the Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Amy Brett, 

Acting Chief of Staff Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau. 

Appendix A—Mobile Speed Test Data 

Specification 

1. Overview 

The Alaska Plan requires certain plan 

participants to conduct and report speed tests 

of their networks, as described in this Order 

and appendices. Appendix A describes the 

data to be collected and the format in which 

it is to be reported. 

2. Sample Data 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30117 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER18MY22.005</GPH>
30118 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER18MY22.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30119 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–C 3. Mobile Speed Test Data 

This section details the data structure 

common for all mobile speed test data in the 

Alaska Plan. This file contains records of 

each mobile speed test in JavaScript Object 

Notation (JSON) format matching the 

specification in the table and sections below: 

Field Data type Example Description/notes 

submission_type ....................... Enumerated ............................ Alaska Plan ............................ Type of data submission. 

—Value must be ‘‘Alaska Plan’’. 

submissions .............................. Array [Submission Object] ...... List of drive-test data submissions. 

Note: The specification for the Submission 

Object is described in Section a. 

a. Submission Object 

Field Data type Example Description/notes 

test_id ....................................... String ...................................... 1599236609 ............................ Unique identifier used by the app or entity to 

differentiate tests. 

—Value must be unique across all data submitted by the same entity. 

device_type .............................. Enumerated ............................ Android ................................... Type of device. 

—Value must be one of the following: 

{iOS/Android/Other}. 

manufacturer ............................ String ...................................... Google .................................... Name of the device manufacturer. 

model ........................................ String ...................................... PIXEL 6 .................................. Name of the device model. 

operating_system ..................... String ...................................... Android 12 .............................. Name and version of the device operating 

system. 

device_tac ................................ String ...................................... 35142059 ................................ 8-digit Type Allocation Code of the device. 

—Value is not available on iOS and may be 

null for these device types. 

—Value may be null if the device does not 

return a valid value or else returns a value 

of unknown. 

app_name ................................. String ...................................... FCC Speed Test app ............. Name of the mobile speed test app. 

app_version .............................. String ...................................... 2.0.4058 .................................. Version of the mobile speed test app. 

provider_name .......................... String ...................................... GCI ......................................... Name of the mobile service provider. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER18MY22.007</GPH>
30120 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Field Data type Example Description/notes 

tests .......................................... Test Object ............................. Information about the test metrics. 

Note: The specification for the Test Object is 

described in Section b. 

b. Test Object 

Field Data type Example Description/notes 

download .................................. Download Test Object ............ Information about the download test metric. 

Note: This object is only required for 3G, 4G 

LTE, and 5G–NR network generation 

speed tests and would be omitted for 2G 

network generation voice tests. 

Note: The specification for the Download 

Test Object is described in Section c. 

upload ....................................... Upload Test Object ................ Information about the upload test metric. 

Note: This object is only required for 3G, 4G 

LTE, and 5G–NR network generation 

speed tests and would be omitted for 2G 

network generation voice tests. 

Note: The specification for the Upload Test 

Object is described in Section d. 

voice_terminating ..................... Mobile Terminating Voice Test 

Object.

Information about the mobile terminating 

voice test metric. 

Note: This object is only required for 2G network generation voice tests and would be 

omitted for 3G, 4G LTE, and 5G–NR 

speed tests. 

Note: The specification for the Mobile Terminating Voice Test Object is described in 

Section e. 

voice_originating ....................... Mobile Originating Voice Test 

Object.

Information about the mobile originating voice 

test metric. 

Note: This object is only required for 2G network generation voice tests and would be 

omitted for 3G, 4G LTE, and 5G–NR 

speed tests. 

Note: The specification for the Mobile Originating Voice Test Object is described in 

Section f. 

c. Download Test Object 

Field Data type Example Description/notes 

timestamp ................................. Datetime ................................. 2021–07–08T09:02:42–08:00 Timestamp of the time at which the test metric commenced. 

—Value must match valid ISO–8601 format, 

including seconds and timezone offset, 

i.e.,: YYYY–MM–DD[T]hh:mm:ss±hh:mm. 

warmup_duration ...................... Integer .................................... 3000622 .................................. Duration in microseconds that connection 

took to stabilize (e.g., TCP slow start) before the test metric commenced. 

warmup_bytes_transferred ....... Integer .................................... 31900808 ................................ Measured total amount of data in bytes that 

were transferred during the period the connection took to stabilize (e.g., TCP slow 

start) before the test metric commenced. 

duration .................................... Integer .................................... 4997185 .................................. Duration that the test metric took to complete 

in microseconds. 

bytes_transferred ...................... Integer .................................... 97382448 ................................ Measured total amount of data in bytes that 

the test metric transferred. 

bytes_sec ................................. Integer .................................... 19487461 ................................ Measured number of bytes per second that 

the test metric transferred. 

locations ................................... Array [Location Object] ........... List of geographic coordinates of the locations measured during the speed test. 

Note: The specification for each Location Object element is described in Section g. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30121 

Field Data type Example Description/notes 

cells .......................................... Array [Cell Object] .................. List of cellular telephony information measured during the speed test. 

Note: The specification for each Cell Object 

element is described in Section h. 

success_flag ............................. Boolean .................................. true ......................................... Boolean flag indicating whether the test completed successfully and without a change 

in state or connectivity. 

d. Upload Test Object 

Field Data type Example Description/notes 

timestamp ................................. Datetime ................................. 2021–07–08T09:02:51–08:00 Timestamp of the time at which the test metric commenced. 

—Value must match valid ISO–8601 format, 

including seconds and timezone offset, 

i.e.,: YYYY–MM–DD[T]hh:mm:ss±hh:mm. 

warmup_duration ...................... Integer .................................... 3000213 .................................. Duration in microseconds that connection 

took to stabilize (e.g., TCP slow start) before the test metric commenced. 

warmup_bytes_transferred ....... Integer .................................... 8337402 .................................. Measured total amount of data in bytes that 

were transferred during the period the connection took to stabilize (e.g., TCP slow 

start) before the test metric commenced. 

duration .................................... Integer .................................... 5000085 .................................. Duration that the test metric took to complete 

in microseconds. 

bytes_transferred ...................... Integer .................................... 15129062 ................................ Measured total amount of data in bytes that 

the test metric transferred. 

bytes_sec ................................. Integer .................................... 3025761 .................................. Measured number of bytes per second that 

the test metric transferred. 

locations ................................... Array [Location Object] ........... List of geographic coordinates of the locations measured during the speed test. 

Note: The specification for each Location Object element is described in Section g. 

cells .......................................... Array [Cell Object] .................. List of cellular telephony information measured during the speed test. 

Note: The specification for each Cell Object 

element is described in Section h. 

success_flag ............................. Boolean .................................. true ......................................... Boolean flag indicating whether the test completed successfully and without a change 

in state or connectivity. 

e. Mobile Terminating Voice Test Object 

Field Data type Example Description/notes 

timestamp ................................. Datetime ................................. 2021–07–08T09:02:42–08:00 Timestamp of the time at which the test metric commenced. 

—Value must match valid ISO–8601 format, 

including seconds and timezone offset, i.e.: 

YYYY–MM–DD[T]hh:mm:ss±hh:mm. 

duration .................................... Integer .................................... 2001681 .................................. Duration that the test metric took to complete 

in microseconds. 

—Value must be between 5000000 and 

30000000 (i.e., between 5 and 30 seconds). 

locations ................................... Array [Location Objects] ......... List of geographic coordinates of the location(s) measured during the test. 

Note: The specification for each Location Object element is described in Section g. 

cells .......................................... Array [Cell Objects] ................ List of cellular telephony information measured during the test. 

Note: The specification for each Cell Object 

element is described in Section h. 

success_flag ............................. Boolean .................................. true ......................................... Boolean flag indicating whether the test completed successfully and without a change 

in state or connectivity. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
30122 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

f. Mobile Originating Voice Test Object 

Field Data type Example Description/notes 

timestamp ................................. Datetime ................................. 2021–07–08T09:02:42–08:00 Timestamp of the time at which the test metric commenced. 

—Value must match valid ISO–8601 format, 

including seconds and timezone offset, i.e.: 

YYYY–MM–DD[T]hh:mm:ss±hh:mm. 

duration .................................... Integer .................................... 2005309 .................................. Duration that the test metric took to complete 

in microseconds. 

—Value must be between 5000000 and 

30000000 (i.e., between 5 and 30 seconds). 

locations ................................... Array [Location Objects] ......... List of geographic coordinates of the location(s) measured during the test. 

Note: The specification for each Location Object element is described in Section g. 

cells .......................................... Array [Cell Objects] ................ List of cellular telephony information measured during the test. 

Note: the specification for each Cell Object 

element is described in Section h. 

success_flag ............................. Boolean .................................. true ......................................... Boolean flag indicating whether the test completed successfully and without a change 

in state or connectivity. 

g. Location Objects 

Each element of the ‘‘locations’’ array 

contains the geographic coordinates of the 

locations measured at the start and end of the 

speed test, as well as during the test (if 

measured). 

Field Data type Example Description/notes 

timestamp ................................. Datetime ................................. 2021–07–08T09:02:58–08:00 Timestamp of the time at which the location 

was recorded. 

—Value must match valid ISO–8601 format, 

including seconds and timezone offset, i.e.: 

YYYY–MM–DD[T]hh:mm:ss±hh:mm. 

latitude ...................................... Numeric .................................. 63.069168 ............................... Unprojected (WGS–84) geographic coordinate latitude in decimal degrees of the reported location where the test was conducted. 

—Value must have minimum precision of 6 

decimal places. 

longitude ................................... Numeric .................................. ¥153.248195 ......................... Unprojected (WGS–84) geographic coordinate longitude in decimal degrees of the 

reported location where the test was conducted. 

—Value must have minimum precision of 6 

decimal places. 

h. Cell Objects 

Each element of the ‘‘cells’’ array contains 

telephony information about the cell/carrier. 

Field Data type Example Description/notes 

timestamp ................................. Datetime ................................. 2021–07–08T09:02:42–08:00 Timestamp of the time at which the cell information was measured. 

—Value must match valid ISO–8601 format 

including seconds and timezone offset, i.e.: 

YYYY–MM–DD[T]hh:mm:ss±hh:mm. 

cell_id ....................................... Numeric .................................. 32193025 ................................ Measured cell identifier. 

—Value is not available on iOS and may be 

null for these device types. 

physical_cell_id ......................... Integer .................................... 192 .......................................... Measured Physical Cell Identity (PCI) of the 

cell. 

—Value is not available on iOS and may be 

null for these device types. 

—Value is only required for 4G LTE and 5G– 

NR tests and must be null for 2G or 3G 

tests. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30123 

Field Data type Example Description/notes 

cell_connection ......................... Enumerated ............................ 1 .............................................. Connection status of the cell. 

—Value must be one of the following codes: 

0—Not Serving. 

1—Primary Serving. 

2—Secondary Serving. 

—Value is not available on iOS and may be 

null for these device types. 

—Value may be null if the device does not 

return a valid value or else returns a value 

of unknown. 

network_generation .................. Enumerated ............................ 4G ........................................... String representing the network generation of 

the cell. 

—Value must be one of the following: 

{2G/3G/4G/5G/Other} 

network_subtype ...................... Enumerated ............................ LTE ......................................... String representing the network subtype of 

the cell. 

—Value must be one of the following: 

{1X/EVDO/WCDMA/GSM/HSPA/HSPA+/ 

LTE/NRSA/NRNSA}. 

rssi ............................................ Decimal ................................... ¥57.2 ..................................... Measured Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) in dBm of the cell. 

—Value is not available on iOS and may be 

null for these device types. 

—Value is required for all network generations and subtypes. 

rxlev .......................................... Decimal ................................... ¥80.2 ..................................... Measured Received Signal Level in dBm of 

the cell. 

—Value is not available on iOS and may be 

null for these device types. 

Value is only required for tests with a network generation and subtype of 2G—GSM, 

and must be null for all other network generations or subtypes. 

rsrp ........................................... Decimal ................................... -92.1 ....................................... Measured Reference Signal Received Power 

(RSRP) in dBm of the cell. 

—Value is not available on iOS and may be 

null for these device types. 

—Value must be null for 2G or 3G tests. 

—Note: This value represents the Synchronization Signal (SS) for 5G–NR tests and the 

Channel-specific Reference Signal (CRS) 

for 4G LTE tests. 

rsrq ........................................... Decimal ................................... ¥12.5 ..................................... Measured Reference Signal Received Quality 

(RSRQ) in dB of the cell. 

—Value must be null for 2G or 3G tests. 

—Note: This value represents the Synchronization Signal (SS) for 5G–NR tests and the 

Channel-specific Reference Signal (CRS) 

for 4G LTE tests. 

sinr ............................................ Decimal ................................... 21.3 ......................................... Measured Signal to Interference and Noise 

Ratio (SINR) in dB of the cell. 

—Value is not available on iOS and may be 

null for these device types. 

—Value may be null for 2G or 3G tests. 

—Note: This value represents the Synchronization Signal (SS) for 5G–NR tests and the 

Channel-specific Reference Signal (CRS) 

for 4G LTE tests. 

rxqual ........................................ Integer .................................... 3 .............................................. Measured Received Signal Quality of the cell. 

—Value is not available on iOS and may be 

null for these device types. 

—Value must be between 0 and 7. 

—Value is only required for tests with a network generation of 2G and network 

subtype of GSM, and must be null for all 

other network generations or network 

subtypes. 

ec_io ......................................... Decimal ................................... ¥8.3 ....................................... Measured Energy per Chip to Interference 

Power Ratio in dB of the cell. 

—Value is not available on iOS and may be 

null for these device types. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
30124 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1For clarification, the population of grid cells 

with a de minimis populated area will be credited 

towards the commitments represented by the 

frames from which the respective grid cells were 

removed. For example, a grid cell that was removed 

Field Data type Example Description/notes 

—Value is only required for CDMA 1X, 

EVDO, WCDMA, HSPA, and HSPA+ network subtypes, and must be null for all 

other network subtypes. 

rscp ........................................... Decimal ................................... ¥87.2 ..................................... Measured Received Signal Code Power in 

dBm of the cell. 

—Value is not available on iOS and may be 

null for these device types. 

—Value is only required for WCDMA, HSPA, 

and HSPA+ network subtypes, and may be 

null for all other network subtypes. 

cqi ............................................. Integer .................................... 11 ............................................ Measured Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) of 

the cell. 

—Value is not available on iOS and may be 

null for these device types. 

—Value is only required for WCDMA, HSPA, 

HSPA+, LTE, and NR network subtypes, 

and may be null for all other network 

subtypes. 

spectrum_band ......................... Integer .................................... 66 ............................................ Spectrum band used by the cell. 

—Value is not available on iOS and may be 

null for these device types. 

—Value may be null for 2G or 3G tests. 

—Value may be null if the device does not 

return a valid value or else returns a value 

of unknown. 

—Note: The reported band value corresponds to the Operating Bands tables as 

follows: 

—4G LTE: 3GPP TS 36.101 section 5.5 

—5G–NR: 3GPP TS 38.101 table 5.2–1 

spectrum_bandwidth ................ Numeric .................................. 15 ............................................ Total amount of spectral bandwidth used by 

the cell in MHz. 

—Value is not available on iOS and may be 

null for these device types. 

arfcn ......................................... Integer .................................... 66786 ...................................... Absolute radio-frequency channel number, 

measured absolute physical RF channel 

number of the cell. 

—Value is not available on iOS and may be 

null for these device types. 

Appendix B—Drive-Test Procedures for 

Alaska Drive-Test Model—Technical 

Appendix 

I. Introduction 

This technical appendix provides the 

process for Alaska Plan mobile service 

providers receiving more than $5 million 

annually in support to gather drive testing 

data to include with its performance plan 

milestone certifications. The Alaska Plan 

requires such testing to include ‘‘a 

statistically significant number of tests in the 

vicinity of residences being covered’’ to 

demonstrate that plan participants have met 

the commitments in the performance plans 

approved by the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau). 

Remote Alaska is extraordinarily sparsely 

populated; virtually all its county-level 

geographies have population densities of 

three or fewer people per square mile. 

Accordingly, testing every location for a 

provider’s coverage would be unduly 

burdensome, and testing a sample of 

locations is required. 

For the sampling required to implement 

the testing procedures under the Alaska Plan, 

the Alaska Drive-Test Model uses stratified 

random sampling. This sampling 

methodology balances between the statistical 

significance required by the Alaska Plan and 

the burden on providers to conduct tests 

from a sufficient number of locations. 

The following sections describe the details 

of the testing process. These technical details 

serve as a guide to both the Bureau and the 

providers doing the testing in determining: 

• Where, within the geographic boundaries 

of the coverage map, a provider should 

conduct testing; 

• how many locations a provider must test; 

• what speed test measurements will be 

accepted for staff analysis by the Bureau; and 

• how Bureau staff will evaluate the test 

data and adjudicate whether the provider has 

passed or failed the testing process. 

II. Sample Frame Construction 

To select locations for testing, one must 

first construct a list (known as a ‘‘sampling 

frame’’ or ‘‘frame’’) of possible locations to 

select from. The construction of this frame is 

a multi-part process. First, we will create a 

set of ‘‘eligible populated areas.’’ Census 

blocks eligible for frozen-support funding 

would be included, and these census blocks 

would be merged with the populated areas of 

the Alaska Population-Distribution Model. 

Second, staff will merge the FCC Form 477 

reported coverage areas (for which a provider 

committed to deploy and that are subject to 

testing) with the eligible populated areas to 

create a set of ‘‘covered populated areas.’’ 

Third, staff will overlay a grid of 1 km x 1 

km squares onto the covered populated areas. 

Due to the fact that the Alaska PopulationDistribution Model uniformly distributes 

population within the populated areas of a 

census block, the covered populated areas of 

a block likewise have a uniform population 

distribution. The total population of each 

grid cell is the sum of the populations of the 

covered populated areas contained within a 

given grid cell. For example, if a grid cell 

contains 25% of the covered populated area 

of a census block, that grid cell would be 

credited with 25% of that block’s covered 

population. That same grid cell might also 

contain 100% of a second census block’s 

covered populated area. So all of that census 

block’s covered population would be 

credited to that grid cell, and the grid cell’s 

total population will be the sum of these two 

populations. Lastly, any grid cell that 

contains fewer than 100,000 square meters of 

covered populated area, or 10% of the grid 

cell, will be excluded from the frame.1 This 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30125 

from a frame measuring fiber-based 4G LTE at 10/ 

1 Mbps because it had a testable area of less than 

100,000 square meters would have its population 

credited towards that provider’s fiber-based 4G LTE 

at 10/1 Mbps commitment. 

2 If a provider’s FCC Form 477 submissions show 

more than one level of speed for a given technology, 

then only the area of the submission with speeds 

equaling or exceeding the committed service will be 

included in that frame, with the rest of the area 

included in the frame of the lower last-mile 

technology. For example, if a provider has 

committed to LTE at 10/1 Mbps speeds, and shows 

in its FCC Form 477 LTE submission areas that have 

10/1 Mbps LTE speeds, and other areas with 5/1 

Mbps speeds, only the 10/1 Mbps areas would be 

included in the LTE frame, while the 5/1 Mbps 

areas would be instead included in the 3G frame, 

which could also be described as ‘‘3G or better.’’ 

This will prevent a provider who has begun 

upgrading an area’s service, but that has not yet 

finished the upgrade, from being penalized by 

having it tested against a standard of a fully 

upgraded service area. 

ensures that all grid cells have a reasonable 

testable area, reducing burden on providers. 

Grid cells with smaller levels of covered 

populated area are less likely to have areas 

that are publicly accessible or large enough 

to conduct mobile testing. Figures 1–4 below 

detail this process. 

For commitments that do not promise 

different speeds for different middle-mile 

technologies, staff will construct the frame 

based on the reported technology coverage 

from the provider’s FCC Form 477 

submission. For areas served by more than 

one technology, as reported on the FCC Form 

477, staff will only include the latest 

generation technology in the frame for any 

areas covered by multiple technologies. For 

example, if an area is covered by both 2G and 

3G, then the area will only be included in the 

3G frame. As no commitments were made for 

5G–NR service, any 5G–NR coverage would 

be included within the LTE frame.2 Where a 

provider has committed to different speeds in 

different areas due to different middle-mile 

technologies, the frame would rely on 

additional data submitted by the provider to 

differentiate the covered areas of a given 

technology (e.g., LTE) with multiple middlemile types. 

III. Frame Stratification 

Frame stratification is the process of 

dividing a frame into subsets of similar 

characteristics, called strata. This 

methodology allows fewer grid cells to be 

selected for testing while producing the 

statistically equivalent level of accuracy as 

sampling the entire frame, thus reducing 

testing burden. 

The number of strata for each frame 

depends on the number of grid cells in a 

given frame. To create the strata, the Bureau 

will use the cumulative square root of the 

frequency (CSRF) method, based on gridlevel estimates of covered population. CSRF 

is a standard stratification method used to 

define the breaks between strata. It creates 

equal intervals not on the scale along the 

stratification variable (in this case, covered 

population) scale, but rather on the scale 

along the cumulated square root of the count 

(frequency) of grid cells belonging to equal 

intervals of the stratification variable. The 

first stratum in each frame would contain all 

grid cells with a population of less than one. 

Based on the data staff currently have, each 

frame will likely contain between two and 

eight strata. Staff analysis has found that this 

stratification method produces strata of more 

equal sizes than other potential stratification 

methods (e.g., based on census tracts), which 

reduces the number of grid cells that need to 

be selected for testing. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER18MY22.008</GPH>

Fig. 1: Eligible Blocks and Populated Areas Fig. 2: Eligible Populated Areas and Coverage 

Fig. 3: Covered Populated Areas with Grid Fig 4: Grid Cells Eligible for Selection 
30126 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

3 If a grid cell that is in multiple frames is 

randomly selected for testing more than once, the 

provider only needs to conduct one set of tests for 

that grid cell. The results can be used for all frames 

for which the grid cell was selected. 

Further, staff will select certain grid cells 

with probability 1 (grid cells that are called 

certainties) within each stratum. This ensures 

that grid cells that have a high population 

within a given stratum are tested; this should 

prevent the testing results of the stratum from 

being skewed by outlier results from lowweighted grid cells. 

IV. Sample Size Calculation and Allocation 

and Sample Selection 

The Bureau will determine the number of 

grid cells that the provider has to test (that 

is, the sample size, n), based on two 

statistical assumptions. The first is that the 

variance of the desired estimate of average 

population served cannot exceed a specified 

value, V. The second is that the cost of drive 

testing is constant in every grid cell selected 

in the sample. Under these assumptions, a 

theoretical value for the sample size can be 

calculated as detailed below. 

Let L denote the number of strata in the 

frame and let the index h distinguish these 

L strata. Further, denote or define the 

following quantities: 

Guided by the allocation scheme from the 

previous section, staff will use geographic 

information systems (GIS) tools or statistical 

software to randomly select grid cells in each 

stratum. Staff will then conduct a four-step 

optimization analysis, as follows. 

First, we will draw a sample according to 

the adopted stratified random design. If there 

are multiple frames for a provider, we will 

sample independently from each frame. 

These multiple samples will be subjected to 

the rest of the optimization steps together as 

one set. We will then repeat this process at 

least one hundred times, each time yielding 

a sample, or group of samples, that are valid 

under the design. 

Second, from this set of valid samples, we 

will identify the sample or samples with grid 

cells that contain the least number of 

incorporated and census-designated places. 

Third, if there are multiple samples 

identified in the previous step, we will then 

determine which of the remaining samples 

contains the fewest number of selected grids 

that are located outside of incorporated and 

census-designated places. 

Fourth, if there remains more than one 

sample identified in the previous step, we 

will randomly pick one. 

The optimal sample so identified likely 

will result in a significant reduction in the 

number of communities that have to be 

visited for the required testing. The provider 

subject to testing will be notified of the 

sample grid cells in which it will be required 

to conduct on-the-ground speed tests.3

V. Drive-Testing Data Collection 

Within each selected grid cell, a carrier 

must conduct a minimum of 20 tests, no less 

than 50% of which are to be conducted while 

in motion from a vehicle. This is the 

minimum number of tests to support the use 

of the binomial distribution to approximate 

the normal distribution that is needed in 

calculating the gap in coverage based on a 

one-sided 90% confidence interval, as 

discussed later in Section VII. To be 

considered valid, each test must be 

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

and 10 p.m. local time, within the selected 

grid cell, and report all relevant parameters 

defined in Appendix A. Each component of 

a test (i.e., download and upload speeds) 

should have a duration between 5 and 30 

seconds. Mobile tests are considered to be 

located within the grid cell containing the 

starting location, as a tester has full control 

over the starting location of a test but may 

not always be able to control the ending 

location of a test. Testers should, however, 

attempt to conduct a mobile test within a 

single grid cell as much as is reasonably and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER18MY22.009</GPH>

• Number of grid cells in the stratum = Nh (thus, N = h Nh) 

• Weight ofthe stratum= Wh = Nh/N 

• Mean of X in the stratum = Xh = ~ 111:h i where Xh i is the value of committed population X in 

Nh ' ' 

the ith grid cell of stratum h 

• Variance of X in the stratum = V(Xh = («h,i-xh)2 

Nh-1 

Under our proposal, the theoretical minimum sample size is given by: 

( wh .j.-v (-X)--..h) 2 .. V 

n = V + (1/N) WhV(Xh as» 

Once determined, n would be allocated among the different strata. Specifically, if nh is the number of 

sample grid cells allocated to the stratum, then: 

This method of apportioning the sample among the various strata is called Neyman allocation. This 

method will assign a greater number of sampled grid cells to strata with higher populations rather than 

lower populations. Note that n = nh. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30127 

safely possible. A mobile test should initiate 

when moving away from the location of a 

stationary test after having reached the speed 

of the surrounding traffic, or a safe and 

reasonable operating speed in the event no 

traffic is present. 

VI. Statistical Analysis of Testing Results 

Upon receipt of drive-testing submissions, 

the Bureau will perform a statistical analysis 

of the data to estimate the desired total 

population covered. Because the sample is 

selected using stratified random sampling, 

estimation techniques appropriate for this 

particular sampling method must be used. 

Stratified random sampling requires an 

aggregate measurement from a sampled grid 

cell that will be combined with 

measurements from the other sampled grid 

cells to calculate stratum-level estimates of 

total covered population. These estimates 

will, in turn, be combined to produce an 

overall estimate of covered population. Drive 

tests conducted in a sample grid cell will be 

aggregated based on the following rule: 

Let p be the percentage of drive tests that 

meet or exceed the applicable minimum. If 

p is at least 85%, then the full population of 

the sample grid cell will be deemed as 

covered; otherwise, 0% will be deemed as 

covered. 

To calculate the stratum-level estimates 

and the overall estimate of the covered 

population, the Bureau will use the 

estimation method appropriate for stratified 

random sampling, described next. 

Combining these stratum-level estimates, 

we arrive at the overall covered population 

mean, calculated as: 

Finally, the overall covered population 

total, Xˆ , is estimated as Xˆ = NX. 

VII. Adjudication of the Outcome of the 

Testing Process 

Because the estimate of the total covered 

population comes from a sample, direct 

comparison of Xˆ against the committed 

covered population is not appropriate. 

Instead, staff will construct a confidence 

interval that takes into account the variability 

arising from the estimate Xˆ and use this 

confidence interval to adjudicate the 

outcome of the testing process. 

Because the Alaska Plan calls for a tiered 

approach in levying penalties for providers 

failing the testing process, the Bureau will 

use a one-sided 90% confidence interval for 

Xˆ to quantify the gap in coverage. In 

particular, the Bureau will use the upper 

limit of this confidence interval, which is 

calculated as Xˆ + 1.28n√V(x). This will be 

added to the population of grid cells with a 

de minimis populated area that had been 

previously removed from the tested frame. 

The compliance gap is then calculated as: 

Gap in Coverage = Total Population Coverage 

Commitment ¥ (1.28N√V(x) + De 

Minimis Grid Cells). 

If the gap in coverage is no more than 5% 

of the total population of a given 

commitment, no penalties will apply. 

Otherwise, penalties will apply according to 

the tiers adopted by the Commission. 

Additionally, it is possible to have a 

negative gap in coverage if the upper limit of 

the confidence interval is greater than the 

total committed population. If a provider has 

committed to multiple tiers of technology 

(i.e., 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE), then any excess 

coverage, as defined by a negative gap in 

coverage, can be applied to the next lowest 

tier of technology. For example, if a provider 

has committed to cover 25,000 people with 

4G LTE and the upper limit of the confidence 

interval shows adequate coverage for 30,000 

people, then the remaining 5,000 coverage 

can be applied to its 3G commitment. This 

process is iterative, so any further excess 

coverage can be applied to its 2G 

commitment. Accordingly, the formula above 

would be re-written as: 

Gap in Coverage = Total Population Coverage 

Commitment ¥ Xˆ + (1.28N√V(x) + De 

Minimis Grid Cells + Excess Coverage 

from Higher Technology). 

This methodology therefore will not 

punish carriers for improving coverage 

beyond what they committed. 

Appendix C—Current Performance 

Plans 

I. Copper Valley Wireless 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER18MY22.010</GPH> ER18MY22.011</GPH>

Let xh i be the (deemed) covered population in the ith grid cell of stratum h, where i = 1, %oU_, nh. 

Based on the rule above, xh i = Xh i if pMb.85, and xh i = 0 if p < 0.85. The stratum sample mean , , , 

covered population, xh, is calculated as xh = Kh,i /nh; the stratum sample total covered population is 

2 2 ~h,i-xh)2 Nhxh; and the stratum sample variance, sh , is calculated as sh = 

Ilh-1 

with variance: 
30128 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

II. GCI 

[FR Doc. 2022–10541 Filed 5–17–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER18MY22.012</GPH> ER18MY22.013</GPH>

_......,........,w: 

Middleltile D21110 Pc,p..-= Camus ('l77 

Code) 

PD]IWlltict l'Dpalatia 'lf,Jlae --Of 

D Sund D S'ernd T:ransmissiaa 

12131115 12/31/15 (477 Code] 

Mioimum 

E,q,ectad 

Upload/ 

-Speeds 

Nale 1: Poputatioa per .zmo 0!115US ill selVke area. ExdudesflOPlllmonserved by AT&T and/Cir verizon .t 4G LTE using dleir ama.stnlctla'e. 

Nllb!2: -olpopolalion,_at-madt...-asol12/llt/ll. 

Nale3: YmrJ.isZD17 

60 Ala.b Plan PemmnanoeCamnwnents• Updated July 1, 2020 

Note 1: Population per2010 CensusiD service area. Exdudes pop1ilation served by AT&T and/or V-erizonat4G LTE uslngtbeirmfrastruc:tnre. 

Note 2: Percentage of population served at benchmark speeds as of 12/31/15. 

Nob!3:.Yearlis2017. 

Note 4: 10 year figures reflect commitments as revised on July 1, 2019. 

10Yll!fll" 

Tato!ILIH 

l'DpalatiaD 

Sl!nod 

1GY.,...'lf, ~-T~ 

.... D Sernd (4 77 ,Code) 

Minimum ~-

Upload/ 

--lipNds