40118 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

§ 63.1413(a)(3); or following the 

procedures in § 63.1413(e)(2); or 

following the procedures in 

§ 63.1413(h)(3), shall submit a 

Precompliance Report according to the 

schedule described in paragraph (d)(1) 

of this section. The Precompliance 

Report shall contain the information 

specified in paragraphs (d)(2) through 

(11) of this section, as appropriate. 

* * * * * 

(8) If an owner or operator is 

complying with the mass emission limit 

specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i), the 

sample of production records specified 

in § 63.1413(h)(3) shall be submitted in 

the Precompliance Report. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) The results of any emission point 

applicability determinations, 

performance tests, design evaluations, 

inspections, continuous monitoring 

system performance evaluations, any 

other information used to demonstrate 

compliance, and any other information, 

as appropriate, required to be included 

in the Notification of Compliance Status 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and 

subpart WW, as referred to in § 63.1404 

for storage vessels; under 40 CFR part 

63, subpart SS, as referred to in 

§ 63.1405 for continuous process vents; 

under § 63.1416(f)(1) through (3), (5)(i) 

and (ii), and (6)(i) and (ii) for 

continuous process vents; under 

§ 63.1416(d)(1) for batch process vents; 

and under § 63.1416(e)(1) for aggregate 

batch vent streams. In addition, each 

owner or operator shall comply with 

paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(f) Periodic Reports. Except as 

specified in paragraph (f)(12) of this 

section, a report containing the 

information in paragraph (f)(2) of this 

section or containing the information in 

paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) 

through (15) of this section, as 

appropriate, shall be submitted 

semiannually no later than 60 days after 

the end of each 180 day period. In 

addition, for equipment leaks subject to 

§ 63.1410, the owner or operator shall 

submit the information specified in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart UU, and for heat 

exchange systems subject to § 63.1409, 

the owner or operator shall submit the 

information specified in § 63.1409. 

Section 63.1415 shall govern the use of 

monitoring data to determine 

compliance for emissions points 

required to apply controls by the 

provisions of this subpart. 

(1) Except as specified in paragraph 

(f)(12) of this section, a report 

containing the information in paragraph 

(f)(2) of this section or containing the 

information in paragraphs (f)(3) through 

(11) and (13) through (15) of this 

section, as appropriate, shall be 

submitted semiannually no later than 60 

days after the end of each 180 day 

period. The first report shall be 

submitted no later than 240 days after 

the date the Notification of Compliance 

Status is due and shall cover the 6- 

month period beginning on the date the 

Notification of Compliance Status is 

due. Subsequent reports shall cover 

each preceding 6-month period. 

(2) If none of the compliance 

exceptions specified in paragraphs (f)(3) 

through (11) and (13) through (15) of 

this section occurred during the 6- 

month period, the Periodic Report 

required by paragraph (f)(1) of this 

section shall be a statement that the 

affected source was in compliance for 

the preceding 6-month period and no 

activities specified in paragraphs (f)(3) 

through (11) and (13) through (15) of 

this section occurred during the 

preceding 6-month period. 

* * * * * 

(5) If there is a deviation from the 

mass emission limit specified in 

§ 63.1406(a)(1)(iii) or (a)(2)(iii), 

§ 63.1407(b)(2), or § 63.1408(b)(2), the 

following information, as appropriate, 

shall be included: 

* * * * * 

(12) * * * 

(ii) The quarterly reports shall include 

all information specified in paragraphs 

(f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (15) 

of this section applicable to the 

emission point for which quarterly 

reporting is required under paragraph 

(f)(12)(i) of this section. Information 

applicable to other emission points 

within the affected source shall be 

submitted in the semiannual reports 

required under paragraph (f)(1) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(14) If there is a deviation from the 

mass emission limit specified in 

§ 63.1405(b)(2)(i), the report shall 

include the daily average emission rate 

calculated for each operating day for 

which a deviation occurred. 

(15) If there is a deviation from the 

emission rate limit specified in 

§ 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), the report 

shall include the following information 

for each operating day for which a 

deviation occurred: 

(i) The calculated average hourly 

emission rate. 

(ii) The individual hourly emission 

rate data points making up the average 

hourly emission rate. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(7) Whenever a continuous process 

vent becomes subject to control 

requirements under § 63.1405, as a 

result of a process change, the owner or 

operator shall submit a report within 60 

days after the performance test or 

applicability assessment, whichever is 

sooner. The report may be submitted as 

part of the next Periodic Report required 

by paragraph (f) of this section. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–17514 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 20 and 43 

[WC Docket No. 11–10; FCC 17–103] 

Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data 

Program 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks comment on how to 

revise the current FCC Form 477 

collection of voice and broadband 

subscription and deployment data to 

increase its usefulness to the 

Commission, Congress, the industry, 

and the public. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

September 25, 2017 and reply 

comments are due on or before October 

10, 2017. If you anticipate that you will 

be submitting comments, but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this document, you 

should advise the contact listed below 

as soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 11–10, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Electronic Filers: 

Comments may be filed electronically 

using the Internet by accessing the 

ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40119 

Æ All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

D Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

D U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th St. SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• People With Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

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

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Parisi, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, (202) 418–1356 or TTY: (202) 

418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM or Further Notice) in WC 

Docket No. 11–10; FCC 17–103, adopted 

on August 3, 2017 and released on 

August 4, 2017. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 

Room CY–A257, 445 12th St. SW., 

Washington, DC 20554 or at the 

following Internet address: https://

www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposesimprovements-broadbandvoice-servicesdata-collection. 

I. Introduction 

1. The Commission initiates a further 

proceeding to take a focused look at the 

Commission’s Form 477—the principal 

tool used by the Commission to gather 

data on communications services, 

including broadband services, to help 

inform policymaking. The 

Commission’s goal in this Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is twopronged: To examine its experience 

based its current data collection in order 

to collect better and more accurate 

information on Form 477; and, to 

explore how the Commission can revise 

other aspects of the data collection to 

increase its usefulness to the 

Commission, Congress, the industry, 

and the public. These steps continue the 

Commission’s efforts to improve the 

value of the data the Commission 

continues to collect, while also 

identifying and eliminating unnecessary 

or overly burdensome filing 

requirements. 

II. Discussion 

2. Accurate and reliable data on fixed 

and mobile broadband and voice 

services are critical to the Commission’s 

ability to meet its goal of decisionmaking based on sound and rigorous 

data analysis. Others, including 

Congressional and state and Tribal 

policymakers, researchers, and 

consumers, also rely on the data the 

Commission collects for a variety of 

purposes. In support of these efforts, the 

Commission seeks comment first on 

ways in which it might change aspects 

of the Form 477 to increase the quality 

and accuracy of the information the 

Commission will continue to collect. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

ways in which the Commission might 

streamline its current Form 477 

requirements and thereby reduce the 

burdens on filers. The Commission 

begins below with its proposals for 

improving and streamlining the Form 

477 data collection for mobile services, 

before turning to a discussion of fixed 

services. 

3. In undertaking this examination of 

the Form 477 data collection, one of the 

primary objectives is to ensure that the 

data the Commission collects are closely 

aligned with the uses to which they will 

be put, both by the Commission and by 

outside stakeholders. As a preliminary 

issue, the Commission seeks comment 

on those uses to inform its analysis. For 

each of the issues considered below, the 

Commission asks for comment on the 

relationship between potential changes 

to the collection and the current or 

expected need for, and use of, the data. 

Specifically, the Commission asks for 

comment on whether and how revisions 

to the collection would better support 

an existing or expected use of data. In 

addition to the Commission’s many uses 

for the data, the Commission 

understands that external stakeholder 

uses of the data include state public 

utility commission regulatory and 

program analysis, academic research, 

and state and local broadband 

deployment and adoption analysis. Are 

there other external uses of the data for 

which the Commission should account 

if the Commission makes changes to the 

collection? Is the existing data 

collection well designed for 

Commission and stakeholder use? Will 

the revisions under consideration in the 

FNPRM better align the data the 

Commission collects with the use of 

those data? Are there elements of the 

collection not discussed below that 

should be considered for elimination 

because of redundancy or insufficient 

usefulness? 

4. Having accurate and reliable mobile 

broadband deployment data is critical to 

policymakers as well as to consumers. 

However, obtaining meaningful data in 

the mobile context is challenging. A 

user’s mobile service experience is 

inherently variable and is affected by 

various factors, such as terrain, location 

(e.g., whether the user is indoors or 

outdoors or distance from a tower), 

weather, congestion, and the type of 

connected device. In this Further 

Notice, the Commission seeks comment 

on the tradeoffs among the following 

possible approaches for improving the 

mobile broadband deployment data the 

Commission collects. The Commission 

also seeks input on whether the 

characteristics or properties of next 

generation mobile technologies such as 

5G may require modifications to the 

current Form 477 requirements. 

5. The current Form 477 data on 

deployment of mobile broadband 

services represents a significant 

improvement over the data that were 

previously available from earlier data 

sources. The 2013 Form 477 Order, 78 

FR 49126, August 13, 2013, which 

provides the framework for the current 

collection, required for the first time 

that facilities-based mobile broadband 

providers directly submit deployment 

data, representing nationwide coverage 

areas, as well as required minimum 

advertised or expected speeds for those 

coverage areas. Coverage areas are 

broken down by technology and 

spectrum band. The current data 

collection is intended to represent 

where consumers should expect to 

receive mobile broadband services at the 

minimum speeds set by the providers in 

their marketplace, and it was designed 

to minimize burdens and allow 

flexibility for providers. Providers, and 

not the Commission, decide the speeds 

of service they offer and may choose 

among different reasonable bases for 

substantiating their Form 477 filings. 

6. The Commission experience in 

analyzing and working with the Form 

477 data has shown, however, that the 

Form 477 data could be improved 

further to better understand the mobile 

broadband service that consumers 

actually experience. As noted above, 

service providers are required to file, 

and certify the accuracy of, shapefiles 

representing those areas where, for a 

specified technology, ‘‘users should 

expect the minimum advertised upload 

and download data speeds associated 

with that network technology.’’ 

Questions have arisen in various 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

40120 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

contexts regarding the bases for certain 

filings and the extent to which those 

filings reflect actual user experience. 

The Commission to date has not 

systematically examined the precise 

underlying methodologies that are used 

by service providers in generating their 

data nor has it investigated whether 

actual consumer experience has 

diverged substantially from the Form 

477 filings. Moreover, providers’ 

minimum advertised or expected speeds 

have, to date, been treated as 

confidential, limiting the ability of 

policymakers and consumers to 

compare offerings among service 

providers from this data collection. 

Also, because service providers select 

their own methodologies for 

determining the coverage and speeds 

provided, these methodologies tend to 

vary among providers. These varying 

methodologies make it difficult for the 

Commission to compare coverage areas 

and minimum reported speeds, as the 

underlying meanings of what the 

coverage and speed information depict 

may differ among service providers. 

Also, current Form 477 filings typically 

do not include meaningful information 

about the methodologies by which 

service providers are generating their 

coverage contours. 

7. Enhancing the Current Data 

Collection. The Commission seeks 

comment on the most appropriate way 

to retain the benefits of the current Form 

477 data collection while introducing 

certain improvements. Is there a way by 

which the Commission can improve its 

current data collection to better 

understand and evaluate the actual 

consumer experience? As part of this 

approach, the Commission proposes to 

make service providers’ minimum 

advertised or expected speeds publicly 

available (as described below in Section 

II.C.1.a.). Should the Commission 

require that filers submit their mobile 

deployment files as rasters (raster 

datasets ‘‘are commonly used for 

representing and managing imagery, 

digital elevation models,’’ or ‘‘as a way 

to represent point, line, and polygon 

features.’’), as well as, or instead of, 

shapefiles? Would the publication of the 

minimum advertised speed plus a more 

meaningful disclosure of the 

methodologies used by individual 

service providers allow a better 

reflection of actual consumer 

experience, and enhance the ability of 

policymakers and consumers to 

compare across service providers? 

8. Standardized Predictive 

Propagation Model. In addition, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

requiring the submission of 

standardized propagation models for 4G 

LTE and later-generational technologies. 

Should the Commission require filers to 

use predictive propagation models to 

prepare their Form 477 deployment 

filings? If so, the Commission seeks 

comment on the extent to which it 

should take additional steps to specify 

possible eligible models for this 

purpose, and to standardize to some 

extent the output of those models as 

well as certain input parameters, with 

the goal of allowing more meaningful 

comparisons among service providers’ 

mobile broadband deployment. For 

instance, should the Commission 

require that deployment shapefiles 

represent coverage at median speeds as 

well as speeds at the cell edge? If so, 

how should the Commission decide the 

specified speeds? Or, for instance, the 

Commission could specify a median 

download speed of 10 Mbps with an 

edge speed of 3 Mbps. Would this be 

appropriate, and if not, why not? 

Should the Commission also consider 

setting a cell edge upload speed such as 

a voice-over-LTE (VoLTE) requirement 

or an upload speed of 1 Mbps, or would 

an upload speed lower than 1 Mbps be 

appropriate, and if so, why? 

9. What input parameters would the 

Commission need to standardize to 

allow for meaningful comparison among 

providers’ LTE data submissions? As 

examples, should the Commission 

standardize, or specify reasonable 

ranges for, any of the following 

parameters, and, if so, why: (1) Location 

of cells in decimal latitude and 

longitude; (2) channel bandwidth in 

MHz; (3) signal strength; (4) signal 

quality with signal to noise ratio; (5) cell 

loading factors; or (6) terrain provided at 

a minimum resolution of three arcseconds? What is the minimum set of 

parameters the Commission would need 

to standardize to allow for meaningful 

comparisons among service providers? 

To what extent should the providers be 

free to determine their speeds? To what 

extent would these predictive models 

provide the most accurate predictions of 

actual consumer experience? Would 

submissions of standardized predictive 

propagation models with prescribed 

parameters be too burdensome on 

smaller service providers? If so, how 

could the Commission ensure it receives 

standardized submissions from all 

providers without unduly burdening 

small service providers? 

10. Supplement Data Collections with 

On-The-Ground Data. To better evaluate 

the actual consumer experience under 

the approaches above, the Commission 

also seeks comment on whether the 

Commission should require some ‘‘onthe-ground’’ data as part of any Form 

477 data collection. The previously 

discussed data collections would be 

based on the coverage and speeds that 

theoretically should be achieved based 

on the service provider’s decision on its 

own submitted propagation model, or 

some other reasonable methodology of 

its choosing, or a propagation model 

with standardized parameters as 

specified by the Commission. The 

collection of on-the-ground data would 

supplement the model-based data, 

improving the understanding of how the 

theoretical data relates to actual 

consumer experience. For instance, 

comparing results of theoretical 

propagation models and actual speed 

test data from Ookla indicate that 

propagation model parameters such as 

signal strength and speed may not be as 

closely correlated to the theoretical 

prediction when analyzing actual onthe-ground data in a particular 

geographic area. To more accurately 

reflect consumer experience, should 

some actual speed test data, aggregated 

up to a certain geographic level, be 

required? How could the Commission 

impose such a requirement without 

being unduly burdensome? Are there 

data of this kind that service providers 

already generate during the ordinary 

course of business which would be less 

burdensome to collect? 

11. Incorporation of New Mobile 

Wireless Technologies. The 2013 Form 

477 Order provided for reporting by 

various existing technologies but did 

not provide for the reporting of data for 

new wireless technologies, such as 5G. 

Should the Commission require separate 

reporting of 5G mobile broadband 

deployment? Are there any aspects of 

5G mobile broadband services that 

would suggest a need to represent 

deployment on Form 477 differently 

from 4G LTE and other mobile 

technologies? For instance, what are the 

specific use cases for mobile 5G service 

that the Commission should consider 

when collecting data to accurately 

represent 5G services being deployed to 

consumers? Should the Commission 

define 5G for the purposes of the Form 

477 data collection, and, if so, how? 

Further, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether and, if so, in what 

circumstances, should the Form 477 

take into account the deployment of 

facilities used in non-traditional ways in 

offering wireless services to consumers? 

For example, while Wi-Fi facilities 

traditionally have provided consumers 

with portable, not mobile, wireless 

connectivity, should the Form 477 track 

deployment of such facilities when 

offered to consumers in conjunction 

with resold mobile service? Might there 

develop other wireless services based 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40121 

exclusively on the integration of 

numerous unlicensed facilities, such as 

Wi-Fi routers, that might warrant 

tracking in Form 477? If so, under what 

circumstances, and how should any 

such facilities deployment be reported? 

12. Mobile Satellite Broadband 

Service. Satellite operators today may 

provide both fixed and mobile 

broadband service in the same 

spectrum. Considering the small but 

growing market for satellite mobile 

broadband, would it be appropriate to 

make additional modifications to Form 

477 to include satellite broadband data 

in the mobile broadband data collection, 

and, if so, how? 

13. The 2013 Form 477 Order, while 

modernizing the data collection 

generally, also ensured that, for the first 

time, the Form 477 data collection 

would require the submission of mobile 

broadband deployment data. 

Specifically, the 2013 Form 477 Order 

required that filers submit their mobile 

broadband deployment data by unique 

combinations of technology, spectrum 

band utilized, and minimum advertised 

or expected speed. 

14. Under the current Form 477 

reporting framework, facilities-based 

providers of mobile wireless broadband 

service are required to submit shapefiles 

depicting their broadband network 

coverage areas for each transmission 

technology deployed in each frequency 

band. Although the Commission in the 

2013 Form 477 Order concluded that 

collecting deployment information by 

spectrum band would enable it ‘‘to 

analyze deployment in different 

spectrum bands’’ and ‘‘facilitate the 

formulation of sound and informed 

spectrum policies,’’ to date the 

Commission has not used the spectrum 

band information from Form 477 in its 

mobile broadband coverage analysis. 

15. The Commission proposes to 

eliminate the requirement that mobile 

broadband providers submit their 

broadband deployment data by 

spectrum band. The Commission 

anticipates that eliminating the 

requirement to provide spectrum band 

information would greatly streamline 

and reduce the burdens on providers by 

reducing the number of shapefiles (and 

the amount of the associated underlying 

data processing) they are required to 

submit. For example, a provider 

currently providing LTE in four 

spectrum bands would only have to 

submit one shapefile representing its 

coverage rather than four shapefiles. 

Moreover, currently the Commission is 

not aware of any significant purpose for 

which these data might be used, 

although the Commission seeks 

comment on whether to continue to 

collect these data as they might be 

helpful for analysis in future 

proceedings. The Commission also 

seeks comment on any alternative 

approaches it should consider in lieu of 

adopting the streamlining proposal. For 

example, should the Commission 

consider adopting an alternative process 

under which providers might provide a 

list of bands and the associated amount 

of spectrum used to provision various 

mobile technologies by some geography, 

such as the CMA? Would this approach 

be less burdensome than the 

requirement to submit shapefiles for 

each spectrum band, particularly for 

smaller providers? Would this approach 

be beneficial by providing data that 

would allow the Commission to track 

more easily new spectrum 

deployments? Would it, for instance, 

provide a valuable source of information 

regarding the timing and provision of 

LTE on 3.5 GHz spectrum as well as the 

deployment of 5G services in the 

various low, mid, and high spectrum 

bands? 

16. Additionally, the Commission 

seeks comment about whether to 

eliminate or modify the requirement 

that mobile broadband providers report 

coverage information for each 

technology deployed in their networks. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether the Commission should 

simplify the filing process by requiring 

that coverage maps be provided for four 

categories of technology—3G, 4G nonLTE, 4G LTE, and 5G—rather than by 

each specific broadband technology, 

and how these categories should be 

defined. Are these categories defined 

and distinct enough to ensure accurate 

and meaningful reporting? Are the 

distinctions between categories, such as 

4G versus 5G, clear enough for the data 

to be meaningful and for respondents to 

accurately submit data? Will the 

Commission need to specify which 

technologies correspond to which 

category? Currently, the Form 477 

instructions set out specific technology 

codes for nine different mobile 

technologies. In the Commission’s 

experience, the separate reporting of 

coverage information by every one of 

these nine specific mobile technologies 

has not added useful information for the 

purposes of Commission decisionmaking, and such information is not 

currently used in its analysis of the data 

received. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether eliminating the 

requirement or modifying the 

information required to be reported in 

this manner would be a significant 

reduction in the filing burden. 

17. The Commission turns next to its 

consideration of mobile broadband 

service availability data. Currently, 

mobile broadband providers are 

required to submit data where their 

service is ‘‘available.’’ To comply with 

this requirement, mobile broadband 

providers must submit a comma 

separated values (CSV) file of all census 

tracts where the provider’s mobile 

wireless broadband service is advertised 

and available to actual and potential 

subscribers. This requirement was 

designed to identify those geographic 

areas where a service provider has 

coverage but is not affirmatively offering 

service to subscribers through a local 

retail presence. 

18. The Commission’s experience 

with the collection of this information, 

however, has shown that the mobile 

broadband service availability data that 

providers submit generally do not 

reflect their local retail presence. 

Instead, the Commission has found that 

filers claim that their service is available 

beyond where they may have a local 

retail presence. In view of its experience 

with these data, the Commission seeks 

comment about the continued 

significance of local retail presence 

information. The Commission proposes 

eliminating the requirement to submit 

mobile broadband service availability 

data, as it is not producing accurate 

information about where services are 

affirmatively available to American 

consumers. 

19. Next, the Commission seeks 

comment about how the Commission 

might revise its data collection on the 

deployment of mobile voice services. 

The 2013 Form 477 Order required filers 

to submit the voice coverage boundaries 

‘‘where providers expect to be able to 

make, maintain, and receive voice 

calls.’’ The Order also required that 

providers submit voice deployment 

shapefiles representing geographic 

coverage nationwide for each 

technology and frequency band. The 

Commission seeks comment about 

whether to revise these requirements. 

20. The Commission continues to 

view the collection of mobile voice 

deployment data as important for 

tracking changes in the mobile 

landscape and informing the 

Commission’s analysis of mobile voice 

services that are available to consumers. 

The Commission seeks comment, 

however, on whether there are ways that 

it may refine its collection of this 

information to reduce burdens for 

providers. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether to eliminate 

the requirement to submit voice 

coverage data by technology and 

spectrum band. Does the Commission 

still need these data to accurately 

evaluate the mobile voice services that 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

40122 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

are available to subscribers? Is the 

distinction between voice and 

broadband coverage significant, or do 

providers most often include mobile 

voice coverage wherever they have some 

form of broadband coverage? If 

providers include mobile voice coverage 

wherever they have broadband 

coverage, should the Commission revise 

its requirements to allow providers to 

simply check a box indicating that they 

provide voice coverage wherever they 

have a particular mobile broadband 

technology? How would the 

Commission account for areas in which 

a provider provides only mobile voice 

services? 

21. To the extent that the collection of 

mobile voice deployment data by 

technology is still necessary, should the 

Commission continue to collect GSM, 

CDMA and Analog voice data 

separately? Should the Commission 

collect separate voice deployment data 

for VoLTE and mobile switched voice? 

The Commission anticipates that 

revising the data collection in this 

manner would help the Commission 

assess where providers claim to have 

VoLTE coverage and assist efforts in the 

areas of emergency response. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

importance of collecting information 

about VoLTE coverage. 

22. The Commission seeks comment 

on how it can improve the data 

collected on mobile broadband and 

voice subscription. Form 477 currently 

requires that mobile voice and 

broadband subscriber information be 

submitted at the state level. Given the 

aggregate nature of the current data 

collection, the Commission currently 

uses telephone number-based Number 

Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) 

data for its subscriber and market share 

analysis in secondary market 

transaction review and other 

proceedings. The NRUF data, however, 

have certain limitations; for example, 

NRUF data are more a measure of the 

number of mobile wireless connections 

than subscribers. It is increasingly more 

difficult to determine the number of 

mobile subscribers through the use of 

NRUF data because consumers are more 

likely to use more than one mobile 

device that have been assigned 

telephone numbers—particularly nonvoice devices, such as Internet access 

devices (e.g., wireless modem cards and 

mobile Wi-Fi hotspots), e-readers, 

tablets, and telematics systems. Also, 

predicting the number of devices using 

this dataset is difficult as some mobile 

devices do not have telephone numbers 

assigned to them. Moreover, because a 

subscriber can move and retain the same 

mobile number, subscribers may not be 

attributed to the state in which the 

subscriber receives or pays for service in 

some cases (someone with an 812 

Southern Indiana area code may live in 

California, for example, but is attributed 

to Indiana for NRUF purposes.). 

23. With respect to the existing Form 

477 subscription data, because 

subscriber data are collected at the state 

level, they are not sufficiently granular 

for meaningful evaluation of mobile 

service subscribership, as noted. 

Subscription data at a more 

disaggregated geographic level would 

significantly improve the Commission’s 

ability to provide more accurate mobile 

competition analyses, particularly in the 

secondary market transactions review. 

24. While the Commission’s 2011 

Form 477 NPRM, 76 FR 10827, February 

28, 2011, raised the issue of requiring 

mobile subscribership reporting at a 

more granular level, the 2013 Form 477 

Order did not change the state-level 

reporting requirement. In this FNPRM, 

the Commission proposes requiring 

mobile providers to aggregate their 

subscribership data to the census tract 

level, based on each subscriber’s billing 

address. This information would be 

collected as CSV files and would 

provide a more granular understanding 

of where consumers are subscribing to 

service. 

25. Would collecting subscribership 

data at the census-tract level be 

sufficient to improve the quality of the 

Commission’s data on subscribership? 

Are subscribers’ billing addresses 

sufficiently correlated with the areas in 

which subscribers use their mobile 

wireless devices to be meaningful in the 

Commission’s competitive analyses, and 

if not, what else should the Commission 

consider? Does the answer differ for 

residential and business accounts? 

Should the Commission consider 

requiring subscribership data for a 

different geographic area? For example, 

while reporting subscribership at the 

census-tract level would parallel the 

requirement for fixed service, what are 

the costs and benefits of reporting at a 

different geographic level? Whatever the 

geographic level adopted, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

using the billing address to assign 

subscribers to a census tract would be 

appropriate or, in the alternative, 

whether using the customer place of 

primary use address would be 

preferable as it may be less burdensome 

for providers. How should filers assign 

resold lines and broadband-only lines to 

the more granular geographic level? 

How should the Commission consider 

subscribership with respect to 5G 

services and the IoT? What metrics 

might the Commission consider in 

measuring subscribership? 

26. For each census block in which 

providers submit fixed broadband 

deployment data, providers must report 

whether they deploy ‘‘mass market/ 

consumer’’ service and/or ‘‘business/ 

enterprise/government’’ service. All 

facilities-based fixed broadband 

providers, including cable operators, 

must report the census blocks where 

they make fixed broadband services 

available to residential and business 

customers at bandwidths exceeding 200 

kbps in at least one direction. The 

Commission currently requires 

providers offering business/enterprise/ 

government services to report the 

maximum downstream and upstream 

contractual or guaranteed data 

throughput rate (committed information 

rate (CIR)) available in each reported 

census block. If, in a particular block, 

providers offer business/enterprise/ 

government services that do not have a 

contractual or guaranteed data 

throughput rate (i.e., they are ‘‘best 

efforts’’ services), then the maximum 

downstream and upstream contractual 

or guaranteed data throughput rates 

should be reported as ‘‘zero.’’ 

27. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether to eliminate the separate 

reporting of available contractual or 

guaranteed data throughput rates for 

business/enterprise/government 

services, while maintaining separate 

indicators for mass market/consumer 

service and/or business/enterprise/ 

government deployment. The 

Commission uses the Form 477 data in 

connection with many of its 

proceedings and programs, including 

the Broadband Progress Report, 

Universal Service Fund proceedings, the 

2017 BDS Order, 82 FR 25660, June 2, 

2017, as well as mergers and other 

transactions. In the Commission’s 

experience, the information collected 

for consumer/residential/mass market 

data already provides the necessary 

bandwidth data in each of these cases. 

The added CIR data for business/ 

enterprise/government services do not 

appear to provide additional useful 

insight, while collecting these data as a 

separate category imposes an additional 

burden on filers. The Commission 

therefore proposes to discontinue the 

collection of CIR data and seeks 

comment on this proposal. The 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

best way to collect data reflecting the 

speeds offered to business/enterprise/ 

government end-users in the absence of 

CIR data. Will the maximum advertised 

down- and upload speeds used for 

mass-market work for business bestefforts data collection? How can the 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40123 

Commission capture speeds for 

business/enterprise/government endusers that are not best-efforts? 

28. In interactions with filers, staff 

also have found that filers may be 

reporting CIR data incorrectly in some 

cases. It is not unusual for filers to 

report speeds as contractually 

guaranteed, when in fact they are bestefforts services. As the technology for 

providing business/enterprise/ 

government services continues to 

evolve, along with the demand for them, 

providers increasingly use a variety of 

technologies in addition to TDM and 

fiber to serve customers, including mass 

market service, HFC, UNEs, and Dark 

Fiber—with and without contractual 

service level guarantees. If commenters 

believe that the Commission should 

continue to separately collect 

bandwidth information specific to 

contractually guaranteed business/ 

enterprise/government services, how 

can the Commission ensure that 

providers accurately characterize their 

offerings? Should the Commission 

require filers to report the maximum 

bandwidths of business service offered 

in a given census block and indicate 

whether the service is best efforts and/ 

or contractually guaranteed? 

Alternatively, should the Commission 

require fixed broadband providers to 

continue to report whether they offer 

business/enterprise/government 

services, but no longer report any speed 

data associated with such services? The 

Commission notes that this approach 

would lessen the burden on filers, but 

would it also help ensure more accurate 

reporting? Would information about 

business/enterprise/government 

services still be valuable in the absence 

of speed data, or would it be better to 

remove the requirement to report these 

data altogether? 

29. Facilities-based providers of fixed 

broadband must provide in their Form 

477 submissions a list of all census 

blocks where they make broadband 

connections available to end-user 

premises, along with the last-mile 

technology or technologies used. These 

deployment data represent the areas 

where a provider does, or could, 

without an extraordinary commitment 

of resources, provide service. Thus, the 

meaning of ‘‘availability’’ in each listed 

census block can be multifaceted, even 

within the data of a single filer. In a 

particular listed block, the provider may 

have subscribers or it may not. At the 

same time, the provider may be able to 

take on additional subscribers or it may 

not. The various combinations have 

varying implications that make it 

difficult to understand availability. 

Specifically, if a block was listed by a 

provider, it is impossible to tell whether 

residents of that block seeking service 

could turn to that provider for service or 

whether the provider would be unable 

or unwilling to take on additional 

subscribers. This may limit the value of 

these data to inform policy-making and 

as a tool for consumers and businesses 

to determine the universe of potential 

Internet service providers at their 

location. 

30. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether to require fixed broadband 

providers to indicate whether total 

customers served on a particular 

technology could be increased in each 

census block listed when they report 

deployment data. It seeks comment on 

whether all fixed broadband providers 

should be required to identify on Form 

477 three categories of service areas for 

each technology code: (1) Areas where 

there are both existing customers served 

by a particular last-mile technology, and 

total number of customers using that 

technology can, and would, be readily 

increased within a standard interval 

upon request; (2) areas where existing 

customers are served but no netadditional customers using that 

technology will be accommodated; and 

(3) areas where there are no existing 

customers for a particular technology 

but new customers will be added within 

a standard interval upon request. If it 

determines to add such a requirement, 

the Commission seeks comment on how 

providers would identify the relevant 

geographic units. For example, if a 

satellite provider could not increase the 

total number of new subscribers in a 

spot beam, would they be able to 

indicate the speed and/or the capacity 

to increase the total number of 

subscribers at various locations in the 

beam at the block or sub-block level? 

Would this modification to the current 

requirements elicit data that are more 

accurate and useful to the Commission, 

other policymakers, and the public than 

the deployment data currently 

collected? These distinctions could help 

policymakers understand which areas 

may be limited for service expansion 

using specific technologies and which 

areas may be capable of increasing the 

total number of subscribers using 

specific technologies. Doing so would 

offer the Commission, as well as other 

users of these data, a more nuanced 

picture of deployment. It would be 

possible to see, for example, where 

providers are building capacity, using 

which technologies, and similarly 

where they are not. 

31. The Commission seeks comment 

on the specific costs for fixed broadband 

providers to report such data, and how 

to ensure that reporting the data would 

be as minimally burdensome on filers as 

possible. Is it reasonable, for example, to 

assume that fixed broadband providers 

are aware of whether they have the 

capacity in place to make their service 

available and add new subscribers in a 

particular location? Do providers 

routinely maintain information about 

their service areas that would enable 

them to provide this information 

readily, or would this proposal require 

them to develop new information? The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

estimated time required to produce the 

data and ask commenters to provide the 

incremental costs of any new software 

development in addition to the average 

wage rate estimate. Commenters should 

also address whether technical or other 

features of particular transmission 

technologies would raise issues that 

would make this information more or 

less difficult to report. 

32. As previously stated, Form 477 

collects fixed broadband deployment 

data on the census-block level. In the 

2013 Form 477 Order, the Commission 

considered and rejected collecting the 

data on a more granular level. Although 

recognizing that more granularity may 

be beneficial in the context of many of 

its proceedings, the Commission 

concluded at that time that the 

administrative and data-quality 

challenges to collecting data below the 

census-block level likely would make 

such an endeavor impractical. 

33. More recently, the Commission 

has requested that specific providers 

involved in certain of its proceedings 

provide fixed broadband deployment 

data on a more granular basis than by 

census block. For example, the 

Commission currently collects locationlevel data from recipients of USF 

funding to assess whether they are 

meeting their buildout requirements. 

The Commission has found this more 

granular data to be extremely useful in 

understanding issues surrounding fixed 

broadband deployment in these contexts 

and believes that it could be useful if 

residential deployment data in 

particular were more generally available 

to the Commission. The Commission 

notes that stakeholders have 

recommended collecting and reporting 

deployment data at various sub-census 

block geographies, including at the 

street-address or parcel level. 

34. The Commission seeks comment 

on giving fixed-broadband providers the 

option of reporting their deployment 

data by filing geospatial data showing 

coverage areas (i.e., polygons of 

coverage filed via shapefiles or rasters) 

as providers of mobile broadband and 

voice service currently are required to 

do—instead of reporting a list of census 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

40124 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

blocks. This could reduce the burden on 

filers. Since the current Form 477 

interface can accept geospatial data, 

accepting similar data from fixed 

broadband providers should not present 

a significant technical burden for the 

Commission. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether providers of 

wired, fixed-terrestrial or fixed-satellite 

broadband routinely store their 

broadband footprints as geospatial 

coverage data. To the extent providers 

do not routinely store data in such a 

format, or to ensure comparability 

among different providers’ data, the 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how to specify a single methodology for 

determining the coverage area of a 

network. What burdens would be 

associated with creating such geospatial 

data? In addition, since the Commission 

lacks the locations of individual homes 

(or businesses), knowing the areas 

served does not provide information 

about the location or number of homes 

that have or lack service (i.e., it provides 

information on the areas that have or 

lack service, not the homes that lack 

service). Should the Commission 

assume that all homes within a block 

have service even if only a fraction of 

a block’s area has service? Should the 

Commission assume that the fraction of 

a partially served block with the service 

correlates with a fraction of homes 

within that block that have service? This 

would mean determining what fraction 

of people or homes (e.g., tenths or 

hundredths) have had broadband 

deployed. Over larger areas, such 

fractional people or homes would likely 

tend to reflect overall coverage; but over 

smaller areas would reflect a 

probabilistic estimate of coverage rather 

than an accurate count of people or 

homes lacking coverage. The 

Commission seeks comment about how 

it could make the best use of such 

geospatial data to find the number and 

location of the unserved, and the value 

of such data compared to the burden of 

such a filing. 

35. The Commission also seeks 

comment on collecting data at a subcensus-block level. While collection of 

data by street address, for example, 

could increase the complexity and 

burden of the collection for both the 

Commission and the filers, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

scope of this burden and potential 

corresponding benefits. For example, 

having national, granular broadband 

deployment data could greatly assist 

with any future disbursement of highcost funds or universal service reverse 

auctions, assist consumers with locating 

broadband competition in their area, 

and with other broad public policy 

goals. With more than 130 million 

housing units in the country, an 

address-level dataset could have as 

many as roughly 750 million records for 

each filing; based on the scale of this 

dataset, a household-level collection 

could require significant additional time 

and other resources to establish and 

carry out. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether there is a publicly 

available, nationwide data set 

containing the address and location 

(latitude and longitude; and for Multiple 

Dwelling Units (MDUs), possibly 

altitude information to distinguish data 

about units on different floors) for each 

housing unit in the country, such that 

filers, or the Commission could geocode 

street addresses. And, given that the 

number of housing units changes each 

year, the Commission is similarly 

unaware of a means to update such a 

data set or of publicly available and 

annually updated source of housing 

units or population counts in each block 

that is publicly available and updated 

annually. The Commission additionally 

seeks comment on whether the 

Commission should require providers to 

submit the service address for every 

housing unit at which service is 

available. While this approach would 

require the Commission to take on the 

cost of geocoding all the filings, it 

would potentially relieve burden on the 

industry. If the Commission requires 

service address reporting, the 

Commission seeks comment on ways it 

could make the reporting less 

burdensome on providers and the 

Commission. For example, should the 

Commission require specific formatting 

for submission of address-level data? In 

addition, how could Commission staff 

find latitude and longitude for addresses 

that do not provide a full match from a 

geocoding service? 

36. As an alternative, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether it should 

require providers to geocode all the 

addresses at which service is available. 

The Commission seeks comment on the 

costs and benefits associated with this 

approach, and on ways that the 

Commission could ease the burden on 

filers. For example, should the 

Commission specify a single geocoding 

methodology to be used by all providers 

(e.g., require all providers to use a single 

geocoding service, and specify how to 

handle any geocoding partial matches or 

failures), or require that providers file a 

latitude and longitude measured in the 

field? If the Commission accepts 

multiple geocoding methodologies, or a 

mix of geocoding and field geolocating, 

can Commission staff determine when 

two points filed by different providers 

represent the same location? Do 

providers typically know every address 

to which they could provision service? 

Are there ways that the Commission 

could improve its submission portal to 

make filing this kind of data less 

burdensome on providers? 

37. The Commission also seeks 

comment on other sub-census block 

alternatives, such as collecting data 

about what street segments providers 

cover. This approach could avoid some 

of the problems with address-level 

collections—providers would not need 

to know every address they cover, only 

the geographic areas; and there would 

be no need for geocoding. Such a 

collection would provide an indication 

of the road segments where service is 

available (or, perhaps, road segments 

along which facilities run), and by 

extension, road segments along which 

there is no service or facilities. 

However, without a data set of housingunit locations, this method would not 

yield information on how many homes 

are along road segments with service 

and how many are along road segments 

that lack service. Service might be 

concentrated in areas where people live 

in some blocks but not available to all 

homes in other blocks. A street-segment 

data collection would not allow the 

Commission to differentiate those two 

very different possibilities. In short, 

lacking a data set with the location of 

each housing unit, this approach would 

provide a map of roads that lack fixedbroadband service or facilities, not an 

indication of the number or location of 

homes or people that lack service. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

conclusions, and on suggestions for 

resolving these concerns. What are the 

costs and benefits of adopting a street 

segment approach for data collection? 

38. The Commission notes that NTIA 

collected sub-block level data for blocks 

larger than two square miles for the 

National Broadband Map, but also that 

such data did not provide an indication 

of where homes lacked broadband 

availability. For such large blocks, some 

providers filed data indicating road 

lengths along which they stated their 

service was available, others provided 

points where service was available, and 

fixed wireless providers supplied 

geospatial data indicating their coverage 

areas. However, because no database 

indicated where the housing units were 

actually located within these large 

blocks, the number of housing units that 

could actually receive service could not 

be determined. In other words, while 

the data indicated what areas did not 

have service available, the data did not 

provide information on whether any 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40125 

homes or people in the areas lacked 

service, or whether the parts of the 

census blocks with service available 

included all homes. The National 

Broadband Map took different 

approaches to dealing with this 

uncertainty over time, for example, 

treating partially served blocks as being 

half served plus-or-minus half (i.e., 

indicating a literal uncertainty); or 

creating a random distribution of 

housing units within a block and 

determining the fraction of those 

random points that were covered by the 

reported service (i.e., creating pseudodata to fill in for what was not known). 

In short, the sub-block level data 

provided a statistical estimate, at best, of 

coverage. 

39. Another approach to 

understanding sub-block coverage 

would be to require broadband 

providers to identify blocks that they 

can fully serve. Under this approach, in 

addition to filing data on technology 

and download and upload speed, 

providers would submit data indicating, 

for each block, whether they can make 

service available to all locations 

(residential and business) within the 

block. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether fixed broadband providers, 

particularly providers of wired 

broadband services, know whether any 

locations within each block are beyond 

the reach of their facilities, such that 

they could not make service available 

within a typical service interval. How 

burdensome would it be for providers to 

make such a determination for each 

block in their footprint? Would such 

data be more useful to the Commission 

than the fixed deployment data 

currently collected? If the Commission 

had information about fully covered 

blocks, it would also know, for each 

provider, which blocks are not fully 

covered. Should the Commission collect 

geocoded deployment data for blocks 

that are less-than-fully covered from 

each provider? Collecting sub-block 

geocoded data for only a subset of 

blocks would address some of the 

challenges outlined above simply by 

reducing the amount of data to be 

collected and filed, but would not 

address other challenges, such as the 

accuracy of geocoding, or the challenge 

of determining where locations lie along 

road segments. The Commission seeks 

comment on how to overcome the 

challenges identified in collecting subblock data, as well as the benefits and 

burdens of seeking more granular data 

for a subset of blocks. 

40. In sum, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether it should move to 

a more granular basis for reporting 

deployment data and, if so, what basis 

would be appropriate. For each basis 

they support, commenters should 

explain in detail the methodology or 

approach they propose for capturing the 

data in a sufficiently uniform format to 

facilitate processing (e.g., geocoding, 

latitude/longitude, address). 

Commenters also should address the 

expected burden to filers and to the 

Commission. Commenters should also 

articulate the relative benefits of each 

approach. For example, do filers 

routinely maintain the data needed to 

comply with the reporting requirements 

and, if not, what costs will be associated 

with obtaining them, both at the outset 

and on an ongoing basis? Are there 

other methodologies for collecting fixed 

broadband deployment data that have 

lower associated costs relative to the 

expected benefit? 

41. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should modify the Form 477 

requirements relating to satellite 

broadband deployment data to address 

issues unique to satellite broadband 

service. Since satellite providers 

initially reported that they could 

provide service to millions of census 

blocks, the Form 477 Instructions were 

amended to reduce burden on such 

filers by giving them the opportunity to 

streamline their data under certain 

circumstances. Specifically, the Form 

477 Instructions state that ‘‘[s]atellite 

providers that believe their deployment 

footprint can be best represented by 

every block in a particular state or set 

of states may abbreviate their upload file 

by submitting only one block-level 

record for each state included in the 

footprint and providing a note in the 

Explanations and Comments section.’’ 

Through the use of that method, one or 

more satellite providers have indicated 

on Form 477 that they deploy satellite 

broadband at certain speeds 

ubiquitously across the United States. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

how to minimize burdens for providers 

with large footprints to report while 

maintaining variation in the data. 

42. The Commission seeks comment 

specifically on eliminating the option to 

file abbreviated fixed broadband 

deployment data for each state. Will 

removing the option of filing 

abbreviated fixed broadband 

deployment data improve the accuracy 

of the data? Should satellite broadband 

providers instead report a list of all 

census blocks, similar to other fixed 

broadband providers? What if any 

incremental burden on satellite 

providers is likely to result from 

eliminating the abbreviated option? Are 

there any other options for satellite 

broadband providers? 

43. The Commission notes that 

satellite-based broadband networks, like 

all fixed-broadband networks, have 

capacity limits in some parts of the 

network, and that networks are not 

generally capable of serving all potential 

customers across a large footprint (such 

as the continental United States) at 

once. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether satellite’s unique 

characteristics (e.g., the relatively large 

area over which satellite providers state 

they provide coverage, the inherent 

flexibility of wide-area beams and spot 

beams, or the difficulty of adding new 

satellite capacity beyond current space 

station limits) make satellite coverage, 

in particular, more difficult for 

providers to characterize at the census 

block level. Would revising deployment 

reporting for all fixed providers, as 

discussed above, address issues that 

may affect the accuracy of satellite 

reporting? If the Commission 

determines not to revise the deployment 

reporting obligations for all fixed 

broadband providers, are there steps it 

should take to address specific issues 

relating to satellite deployment, such as 

capacity constraints in areas in which 

service is currently reported as 

‘‘available’’? If satellite does face unique 

challenges, how can the Commission 

change the data collection to improve 

data for satellite while maintaining 

comparability to other fixed-broadband 

data? In the future, the Commission will 

also need to account for large NonGeostationary Orbit (NGSO) satellite 

constellations that plan to provide 

broadband services. The Commission 

seeks comment on what steps it can take 

to achieve this. 

44. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether, if it does not 

revise deployment reporting 

requirements to allow all providers of 

fixed broadband service to file 

shapefiles or rasters in lieu of census 

blocks, it should allow satellite 

providers to do so. Would satellite 

providers face lower burdens and/or 

would the data quality improve if the 

Commission accepted geospatial data 

rather than block-level data from 

satellite providers? The Commission 

notes, as discussed in the 2013 Form 

477 Order, that satellite broadband 

providers already submit coverage-area 

information as part of a satellite 

application or letter of intent. While 

information submitted at the application 

phase is extremely useful to that 

process, the Commission continues to 

believe that it is essential to gather data 

regularly via Form 477 to reflect asbuilt, rather than as-planned, network 

deployment. Given satellite providers’ 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

40126 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

experience in developing geospatial 

data, the Commission seeks comment on 

whether requiring satellite deployment 

data to be filed in that format would 

significantly reduce filer burden. 

45. Are there other issues unique to 

satellite that affect the accuracy or 

utility of the data the Commission 

collects and, if so, what approaches 

could it take to address them? What are 

the costs and benefits of these 

approaches? 

46. Rate-of-return carriers currently 

submit their fixed voice subscription 

(FVS) counts by study area to USAC on 

an annual basis, and the FCC publishes 

those data. The Commission believes 

these data provide useful information to 

the public about the extent of voice 

subscriptions in each carrier’s study 

area. However, under a rule recently 

adopted in the CAF proceeding, rate-ofreturn carriers switching to the 

Alternative Connect America Cost 

Model and Alaska Plan carriers may no 

longer report such data to USAC for 

their legacy study area boundaries. In 

order to maintain the reporting of this 

information, the Commission proposes 

to use the Form 477 FVS data, in 

conjunction with Study Area Boundary 

data, to develop and publish aggregated 

voice line counts for every study area, 

to mirror the approach used to collect 

these data from price-cap carriers. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal and on the methodology for 

generating this metric. While the 

Commission has generally determined 

not to routinely release filer-specific 

data collected on Form 477, in this case, 

the information, collected via another 

source, has been routinely publicized. 

Accordingly, the Commission believes 

that the value of using the Form 477 

data for this purpose outweighs any 

associated confidentiality interest in the 

confidentiality of the data. The 

Commission seeks comment on this and 

on whether the use of Form 477 data is 

the most efficient and effective means 

for collecting data. 

47. The Commission proposes that 

certain collected data that are currently 

treated as confidential be made public. 

First, the Commission proposes that 

minimum advertised or expected speed 

data for mobile broadband services 

should not be treated as confidential 

and it proposes releasing such data for 

all subsequent Form 477 filings going 

forward. The Commission notes that, in 

the context of the Mobility Fund II 

proceeding, several parties have 

expressed opposition to a proposal to 

release minimum advertised or expected 

4G LTE speed data. Currently, the 

providers’ Form 477 minimum 

advertised speeds have been treated as 

confidential and consumers and policy 

makers have been limited in their ability 

to compare offerings from this 

collection. This information, however, 

is already available from other sources. 

For example, providers routinely make 

available on their Web sites information 

about the typical upload and download 

speeds their network offers in particular 

geographic areas. Because speed data 

information is publicly available, the 

Commission believes that it is not 

commercially sensitive, and its release 

will not cause competitive harm. In 

addition, the Commission expects that 

dissemination of minimum advertised 

or expected speed data to the public 

would promote a more informed, 

efficient market by providing 

information that can aid in independent 

analyses. Making such data available to 

the public provides consumers, states, 

and experts the opportunity to review 

the data to ensure the accuracy of the 

information. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. To the extent 

the Commission collects any other 

speed data that are currently treated as 

confidential, it seeks comment on 

whether such data should also be made 

available to the public, again to promote 

a more informed, efficient market and 

aid in independent competitive 

analyses. 

48. Similarly, the Commission 

proposes that, if detailed propagation 

model parameters are submitted in the 

Form 477 filings, some of these 

parameters should be treated as public 

information, as the Commission believes 

that such parameters are not 

competitively sensitive. For example, 

terrain resolution, signal strength, and 

the loading factor are higher-level 

aggregate parameters and should not be 

treated as confidential. The Commission 

seeks comment on this proposal. If filers 

believe that certain propagation model 

parameters should be treated as 

confidential for competitive reasons, 

then they should provide a list of those 

parameters, and explain the underlying 

reasons why. 

49. National-Level, Fixed Broadband 

Subscriber Counts. The Commission has 

historically determined not to make 

filer-specific broadband subscription 

data collected on Form 477 routinely 

available to the public. Consistent with 

this determination, the Commission has 

redacted and aggregated data as 

necessary to prevent indirect disclosure 

of filer-specific data. The Commission 

has noted, however, that increased 

public access to disaggregated 

subscription data could have significant 

benefits. The Commission believes that 

these benefits may outweigh any 

confidentiality interests for some 

disaggregated subscription data. In 

particular, the Commission believes that 

making public the number of 

subscribers at each reported speed on a 

national level would provide a 

meaningful metric of the state of 

broadband adoption in the U.S. 

Although this change would not involve 

expressly identifying the specific filers 

submitting the information, it might be 

possible to infer with reasonable 

certainty the provider or providers 

reporting subscribers at higher speeds, 

for which fewer providers offer service. 

The Commission believes however, that 

any competitive harm to the affected 

providers is likely to be slight, because 

the numbers would be aggregated to the 

national level and similar information is 

routinely made public by these entities 

through the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC) and other 

disclosures. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether disclosure of this 

information would be beneficial and, if 

so, whether any measures are necessary 

to ensure that the interests of the filers 

are protected. 

50. Release of Disaggregated 

Subscriber Data. As another avenue for 

realizing the potential benefits of greater 

public access to subscription data, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

certain types of disaggregated subscriber 

data should be made public after a 

certain period of time has passed. The 

Commission believes that, over time, the 

potential for competitive harm from the 

release of filer-specific subscription data 

likely diminishes. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether this is the 

case in connection with specific types of 

subscriber information collected on 

Form 477 and, if so, what period of time 

provides adequate protection from harm 

for each. What factors should be 

weighed in determining which 

categories of raw data files to release? 

What would be the public interest and 

legal justifications for releasing or not 

releasing different types of raw data 

files? 

51. Other Data. The Commission also 

seeks comment on whether there are 

other Form 477 data that the 

Commission should consider making 

public. While the Commission 

understands confidentiality concerns 

associated with making aspects of these 

data public, there are also significant 

potential benefits to consumers and 

public policy. The Commission invites 

comment on what data should be made 

publicly available, and how to mitigate 

competitive and other concerns. 

52. Form 477 is currently a semiannual collection. In the 2011 Form 477 

NPRM, the Commission sought 

comment on other time frames, and on 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40127 

different time frames for providers 

based upon size, but did not address 

those issues in the 2013 Report and 

Order. The Commission seeks to refresh 

the record on whether to shift to an 

annual collection for all filers, for 

certain filers (such as smaller filers), or 

for certain parts of the form. Are there 

some types of data (e.g., the speed of 

fixed-broadband-deployment 

subscriptions, or the coverage of mobile 

broadband deployment) that change so 

quickly that an annual filing would 

obscure significant developments that 

should be captured by the Commission’s 

reports? The Commission specifically 

seeks comment on the potential impacts 

of switching to annual, instead of semiannual, reporting for all Form 477 filers, 

both in terms of the utility of the data 

collected and the burden on filers. 

While the overall burden associated 

with Form 477 likely would decrease by 

switching to annual filing, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the per-round burden on an annual 

basis would increase to some degree and 

whether this would be manageable. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it is more efficient for a filer’s 

employees to undertake this collection 

once a year given employee turnover 

and the greater amount of change to the 

data on an annual basis compared to a 

more routine semi-annual filing with a 

smaller amount of change to the data. 

53. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether collecting on a 

twelve-month cycle would render the 

data less useful for its purposes, given 

the rate of broadband deployment and 

uptake, particularly at higher speeds, 

industrywide. For example, how would 

an annual collection affect Commission 

policymaking? Would it be more 

difficult to analyze industry trends— 

such as competition, entry/expansion, 

adoption of newer technologies and 

faster speeds—with only annual data? 

On a one-year cycle, the most recently 

filed data available for analysis may be 

up to six months older than it is now. 

Would the lack of more recent data 

unduly impair the Commission’s ability 

to carry out transaction review 

effectively or generate comprehensive 

and up-to-date Broadband Progress 

reports? 

54. As part of its examination of the 

Form 477 collection, the Commission 

also seeks input on how it make the 

Form 477 data available to the public 

and stakeholders. How would the 

proposals described in this FNPRM 

affect the Commission’s ability to 

process the data and make them 

available? Given current data and the 

proposals above, what approach should 

the Commission take with regard to the 

National Broadband Map (NBM) 

(www.broadbandmap.gov)? The 

Commission currently maintains access 

to the NBM, which relies on data 

collected by the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration via the State Broadband 

Initiative (SBI) for data as of June, 2014. 

In addition, the Commission makes a 

number of maps available to help 

visualize more recent Form 477 data 

and makes Form 477 data available for 

download in various formats. The 

Commission believes that a searchable 

national map of the most recently 

available Form 477 broadband 

deployment data can have significant 

value for the public, industry, 

researchers and others. Such a map 

could also provide significant support 

for the Commission’s own efforts in 

tracking broadband. The Commission 

therefore seeks input on whether, and 

how, it can use the Form 477 data most 

effectively to update the NBM. 

III. Procedural Matters 

55. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the 

Commission has prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

for this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities of the policies 

and rules addressed in this document. 

Written public comments are requested 

on this IRFA. Comments must be 

identified as responses to the IRFA and 

must be filed on or before the dates 

identified above. The Commission’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, Reference Information Center, 

will send a copy of this FNPRM, 

including the IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). 

56. With this FNPRM, the 

Commission initiates a further 

proceeding to examine the effectiveness 

of the Commission’s Form 477—the 

principal tool used by the Commission 

to gather data on communications 

services, including broadband services, 

to help inform policymaking. In 

establishing Form 477, the Commission 

envisioned that the data collected 

would help it better assess the 

availability of broadband services, such 

as high-speed Internet access service, 

and the development of competition for 

local telephone service, materially 

improving its policymaking in those 

areas. From the outset, the Commission 

sought to minimize the burden the 

collection requirements would impose 

on filers. The Commission’s goal in this 

FNPRM is to eliminate the collection of 

certain information on Form 477 that 

the Commission believes is not 

sufficiently useful when compared with 

the burden imposed on filers in 

providing it and to explore how the 

Commission can revise other aspects of 

the data collection to increase its 

usefulness to the Commission, Congress, 

the industry, and the public. These 

steps continue the Commission’s efforts 

since the creation of Form 477 to 

identify and eliminate unnecessary or 

overly-burdensome filing requirements 

while improving the value of the data 

the Commission continues to collect. 

This FNPRM proposes several ways to 

streamline the information collected in 

Form 477 as well as suggests ways to 

ensure Form 477 data are as accurate 

and reliable as possible. 

57. The legal basis for any action that 

may be taken pursuant to the FNPRM is 

contained in sections 3, 10, 201(b), 230, 

254(e), 303(r), and 332 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended 47 U.S.C. 153, 160, 201(b), 

254(e), 303(r), 332. 

58. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small-business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act. A smallbusiness concern’’ is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

59. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. The Commission’s actions, 

over time, may affect small entities that 

are not easily categorized at present. 

The Commission therefore describes 

here, at the outset, three comprehensive 

small entity size standards that could be 

directly affected herein. First, while 

there are industry specific size 

standards for small businesses that are 

used in the regulatory flexibility 

analysis, according to data from the 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy, in general a 

small business is an independent 

business having fewer than 500 

employees. These types of small 

businesses represent 99.9% of all 

businesses in the United States which 

translates to 28.8 million businesses. 

Next, the type of small entity described 

as a ‘‘small organization’’ is generally 

‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field.’’ 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

40128 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

Nationwide, as of 2007, there were 

approximately 1,621,215 small 

organizations. Finally, the small entity 

described as a ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction’’ is defined generally as 

‘‘governments of cities, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts, with a population of 

less than fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census 

Bureau data published in 2012 indicate 

that there were 89,476 local 

governmental jurisdictions in the 

United States. The Commission 

estimates that, of this total, as many as 

88,761 entities may qualify as ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ Thus, the 

Commission estimates that most 

governmental jurisdictions are small. 

60. The potential modifications 

proposed in this FNPRM if adopted, 

could, at least initially, impose some 

new reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

compliance requirements on some small 

entities. In order to evaluate any new or 

modified reporting, recordkeeping, or 

other compliance requirements that may 

result from the actions proposed in this 

FNPRM, the Commission has sought 

input from the parties on various 

matters. As indicated above, the FNPRM 

seeks comment on modifications to the 

Commission’s existing Form 477 to 

minimize burdens on carriers while 

enhancing the utility of the data the 

Commission collects. The proposals 

include removing some previous Form 

477 reporting requirements, altering 

some existing requirements, and 

supplementing the Form 477 collection 

with some additional, directed 

proposals to improve the data collected. 

For example, the Commission proposes 

to remove some requirements that do 

not appear to provide salient data, but 

the Commission also proposes 

collecting new or different data to 

ensure the data capture the most 

relevant new advances in service 

offerings and availability. Nevertheless, 

the Commission anticipates that the 

removal or modification of some Form 

477 reporting requirements will lead to 

a long-term reduction in reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other compliance 

requirements on some small entities. 

61. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

(among others) the following four 

alternatives: (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

62. To evaluate options and 

alternatives should there be a significant 

economic impact on small entities as a 

result of actions that have been 

proposed in this FNPRM, the 

Commission has sought comment from 

the parties. The FNPRM seeks comment 

on ways in which the Commission 

might streamline its current 

requirements and thereby reduce the 

burdens on small providers and other 

filers. The Commission also seeks 

comment on ways in which the 

Commission might improve the 

usefulness of other aspects of the Form 

477 to maximize the utility of the 

information the Commission continues 

to collect. For example, the Commission 

asks whether the Commission needs to 

collect mobile voice deployment data by 

technology and spectrum band, and 

whether the Commission should revise 

mobile voice deployment reporting 

requirements to allow a simple check 

instead of detailed information for some 

existing voice deployment reporting 

requirements. Steps such as these seek 

to reduce the types and amount of 

information the Commission collects, 

which results in more useful 

information, and also reduces burdens 

placed on small entities and others. In 

addition, other proposals the 

Commission outlines could, for 

example, limit the number of shapefiles 

(and the amount of the associated 

underlying data processing) providers 

are required to submit. 

63. The Commission expects to more 

fully consider the economic impact on 

small entities following its review of 

comments filed in response to the 

FNPRM and this IRFA. In particular, the 

Commission seeks comment herein on 

the effect the various proposals 

described in the FNPRM, and 

summarized above, will have on small 

entities, and on what effect alternative 

Form 477 reporting requirements would 

have on those entities. The Commission 

also seeks comment from interested 

parties on any potential additional 

methods of reducing compliance 

burdens for small providers and 

ensuring the most useful information 

based on the Form 477 collection. The 

Commission’s evaluation of the 

comments filed on these topics as well 

as on other proposals and questions in 

the FNPRM that seek to reduce the 

burdens placed on small providers in 

both the mobile and fixed contexts will 

shape the final conclusions the 

Commission reaches, the final 

significant alternatives the Commission 

considers, and the actions the 

Commission ultimately takes in this 

proceeding to minimize any significant 

economic impact that may occur on 

small entities. 

64. This document contains proposed 

modified information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

the Commission seeks specific comment 

on how it might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

65. Permit-But-Disclose. The 

proceeding this FNPRM initiates shall 

be treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making ex parte presentations must file 

a copy of any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40129 

available for that proceeding, and must 

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

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

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

66. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to sections 4(i), 201(b), 214, 

218–220, 251–252, 254, 303(r), 310, 332, 

403, and 706 of the Communications 

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

154(i), 201(b), 214, 218–220, 251–252, 

254, 303(r), 310, 332, 403, and 1302 this 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

is adopted. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17901 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS