Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42473 

[FR Doc. 2017–18768 Filed 9–7–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

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

208; FCC 17–102] 

Connect America Fund; Universal 

Service Reform—Mobility Fund 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; petition for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this Order on 

Reconsideration and Second Report and 

Order, the Commission adopts the 

parameters for the Mobility Fund Phase 

II challenge process, which will enable 

the Commission to resolve eligible-area 

disputes expeditiously. The challenge 

process will begin with a new, one-time 

collection of standardized, up-to-date 

4G LTE coverage data from mobile 

wireless providers. Interested parties 

will then have an opportunity to contest 

an initial determination that an area is 

ineligible for MF–II support, and 

providers will then have an opportunity 

to response to challenges. 

DATES: The Commission adopted this 

Order on Reconsideration and Second 

Report and Order on August 3, 2017, 

and the parameters set forth therein for 

the Mobility Fund Phase II challenge 

process, along with all associated 

requirements also set forth therein, go 

into effect October 10, 2017, except for 

the new or modified information 

collection requirements in the challenge 

process that require approval by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). The Commission will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing approval of those 

information collection requirements and 

the date they will become operative. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

Auction and Spectrum Access Division, 

Jonathan McCormack or Audra HaleMaddox, at (202) 418–0660. For further 

information concerning the Paperwork 

Reduction Act information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, contact Cathy Williams at 

(202) 418–2918 or via the Internet at 

PRA@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Order on 

Reconsideration and Second Report and 

Order (MF–II Challenge Process Order), 

WC Docket No. 10–90, WT Docket No. 

10–208, FCC 17–102, adopted on 

August 3, 2017 and released on August 

4, 2017. The complete text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday 

through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 

11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC 

Reference Information Center, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text is also available on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_

Business/2017/db0804/FCC-17- 

102A1.pdf. Alternative formats are 

available to persons with disabilities by 

sending an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or 

by calling the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, the Commission 

has prepared a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

small entities of the policies and rules 

adopted in this document. The FRFA is 

set forth in an appendix to the MF–II 

Challenge Process Order, and is 

summarized below. The Commission’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, Reference Information Center, 

will send a copy of this MF–II Challenge 

Process Order, including the FRFA, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The MF–II Challenge Process Order 

contains new and modified information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13. It will be 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the 

general public, and other Federal 

agencies will be invited to comment on 

the new and modified information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proceeding. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Commission will send a copy of 

this MF–II Challenge Process Order in a 

report to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

I. Introduction 

1. In the MF–II Challenge Process 

Order, the Commission takes the next 

step to extend mobile opportunities to 

rural America by fulfilling its 

commitment to design a robust 

challenge process that will direct 

Mobility Fund Phase II (MF–II) support 

to primarily rural areas that lack 

unsubsidized 4G Long Term Evolution 

(LTE) service. The MF–II challenge 

process the Commission establishes will 

be administratively efficient, fiscally 

responsible, and will enable it to resolve 

eligible area disputes quickly and 

expeditiously. This challenge process 

will begin with a new, one-time 

collection of standardized, up-to-date 

4G LTE coverage data from mobile 

wireless providers. Interested parties 

will then have an opportunity to contest 

an initial determination that an area is 

ineligible for MF–II support, and 

providers will then have an opportunity 

to respond to challenges. 

II. Background 

2. In February 2017, the Commission 

adopted rules to move forward 

expeditiously to an MF–II auction. The 

Commission established a budget of 

$4.53 billion over a term of ten years to 

provide ongoing support for the 

provision of service in areas that lack 

adequate mobile voice and broadband 

coverage absent subsidies. The 

Commission further decided that 

geographic areas lacking unsubsidized, 

qualified 4G LTE service would be 

deemed ‘‘eligible areas’’ for MF–II 

support, and that it would use a 

competitive bidding process 

(specifically, a reverse auction) to 

distribute funding to providers to serve 

those areas. For the purposes of MF–II, 

the Commission defined ‘‘qualified 4G 

LTE service’’ as mobile wireless service 

provided using 4G LTE technology with 

download speeds of at least 5 Mbps. The 

Commission also decided that, prior to 

an MF–II auction, it would compile a 

list of areas that were presumptively 

eligible for MF–II support based on 

information derived from the Form 477 

data submissions and high-cost support 

disbursement data available from the 

Universal Service Administrative 

Company (USAC), and it would provide 

a limited timeframe for challenges to 

those initial determinations during the 

pre-auction process. 

3. In order to make more informed 

decisions on the challenge process, the 

Commission deferred deciding the 

specific parameters of the challenge 

process and instead sought additional 

comment. Among other things, the 

Commission sought comment in the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42474 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

Mobility Fund II FNPRM, 82 FR 13413, 

March 13, 2017, on two potential 

options—called ‘‘Option A’’ and 

‘‘Option B’’—for a process to challenge 

the eligibility of areas for MF–II support. 

‘‘Option A’’ and ‘‘Option B’’ varied in 

terms of the initial burdens for filing a 

challenge and the parameters for 

evidence submitted during the 

challenge. The Commission also 

solicited comment on any additional 

options and parameters for the MF–II 

challenge process and made clear that it 

was not proposing to adopt either 

‘‘Option A’’ or ‘‘Option B’’ wholesale, 

intending instead to adopt the most 

effective approach and parameters to 

assemble a ‘‘best in class’’ structure for 

the challenge process. Seven petitions 

were filed seeking reconsideration of the 

Mobility Fund II Report & Order, 82 FR 

15422, March 28, 2017, five of which 

directly bear upon the framework and 

design of the MF–II challenge process. 

The Commission addresses in the MF– 

II Challenge Process Order the portions 

of the five petitions asking for 

reconsideration of the framework and 

design of the challenge process. At this 

time, the Commission defers addressing 

the petitions, or portions thereof, 

requesting reconsideration of aspects of 

the Mobility Fund II Report & Order 

outside of the challenge process. 

III. Order on Reconsideration 

4. As necessary starting points for the 

challenge process, the Commission first 

resolves certain issues raised in 

petitions for reconsideration of the 

Mobility Fund II Report & Order. 

Specifically, the Commission 

reconsiders its decision to use Form 477 

data as the basis for determining 

deployment of qualifying 4G LTE for the 

map of areas presumptively eligible for 

MF–II support, and instead grants, in 

part, a petition for reconsideration 

seeking a new, one-time collection of 

data to determine the deployment of 

qualified 4G LTE for the purposes of the 

MF–II challenge process. The 

Commission denies petitions to 

reconsider its adoption of a 5 Mbps 

download speed benchmark to identify 

areas eligible for MF–II support. The 

Commission also denies petitions for 

reconsideration that propose including 

technology choice or collocation as 

elements in such an eligibility 

determination. 

A. Source of Coverage Data 

5. The Commission reconsiders its 

decision to use Form 477 data as the 

basis for determining deployment of 

qualified 4G LTE for the map of areas 

presumptively eligible for MF–II. At the 

time of the Mobility Fund II Report & 

Order, the Commission noted that, 

despite criticism of using Form 477 

data, none of the commenters had 

identified a better available coverage 

data source to move forward 

expeditiously to implement MF–II. 

6. A trade association now seeks 

reconsideration of the Commission’s 

decision to use Form 477 data to 

determine what areas are covered by 

qualified 4G LTE for purposes of 

identifying areas presumptively eligible 

for MF–II support. The trade association 

instead offers an industry consensus 

proposal asking that the Commission 

undertakes a new, one-time data 

collection with specified data 

parameters tailored to MF–II, thus 

addressing the lack of a better-tailored 

data source than Form 477. 

7. After consideration of petitioner’s 

industry consensus proposal, as well as 

the record gathered in response to this 

issue, the Commission reconsiders its 

decision to use Form 477 data as the 

basis for determining deployment of 

qualified 4G LTE for the map of areas 

presumptively eligible for MF–II 

support. The Commission instead 

grants, in part, petitioner’s petition for 

reconsideration proposing a new, onetime collection of data to determine the 

deployment of qualified 4G LTE for the 

purposes of MF–II. 

8. The Commission observes at the 

outset that the mobile deployment data 

collected on Form 477 represent a 

dramatic improvement over the 

deployment data previously available 

on a national scale. On reconsideration, 

the Commission acknowledges the 

concerns of commenters, and finds that 

the use of Form 477 data as the baseline, 

as currently filed, is likely to result in 

a significantly longer MF–II challenge 

process than if the Commission 

collected data consistent with the 

petitioner’s consensus proposal as the 

baseline for establishing which areas are 

presumptively eligible for support. 

9. Given the negative impact that 

using Form 477 data could have in 

prolonging the MF–II challenge process, 

and after considering the possibility of 

quickly acquiring a better-tailored data 

source than Form 477, the Commission 

is persuaded by the weight of the record 

to adopt petitioner’s consensus proposal 

to undertake a new, one-time data 

collection of 4G LTE coverage maps 

based on the specific parameters the 

Commission adopts in the MF–II 

Challenge Process Order. For purposes 

of implementing MF–II expeditiously, 

this collection will provide the 

Commission and interested parties with 

the best available starting point for the 

challenge process. When combined with 

the high-cost subsidy disbursement data 

available from USAC, the new data will 

form the basis of the map of areas 

presumptively eligible for MF–II 

support. 

10. To reduce the burden on these 

providers, the Commission requires 

only those providers that have 

previously reported 4G LTE coverage in 

Form 477 and have qualified 4G LTE 

coverage based on the data specification 

described below to submit MF–II 

coverage data. Form 477 filers that do 

not provide qualified 4G LTE service at 

the speed benchmark and parameters for 

MF–II eligibility are not required to 

submit coverage data as part of the MF– 

II challenge process collection. Filers 

that provide service at the benchmark 

and parameters for MF–II eligibility 

must submit coverage data. The 

Commission will use these new 

coverage data, in conjunction with 

subsidy data from USAC, to create the 

map of areas presumptively eligible for 

MF–II support. 

11. In reaching its decision to 

undertake this effort, the Commission 

finds that on balance the new coverage 

data it is collecting should reduce the 

need for challengers to perform more indepth testing in certain areas or to file 

extensive challenges to large geographic 

areas. Thus, it should reduce the burden 

on challengers and providers that 

respond to challenges and allow the 

Commission to commence the MF–II 

auction more quickly. In addition, 

current 4G LTE providers have the best 

information concerning their coverage 

footprints based on their propagation 

models, spectrum, and network 

infrastructure, and thus are in the best 

position to provide the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau and the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (the 

Bureaus) with data already in their 

possession, tailored to the purposes of 

MF–II. This approach also allows the 

Commission to simplify the challenge 

process by allowing only challenges that 

qualified LTE coverage is overstated and 

not also challenges that such coverage is 

understated. This approach also permits 

the Commission to establish various 

bright line rules for evaluation of the 

new coverage submissions and of 

certain challenges that should expedite 

the final resolution of areas eligible for 

MF–II support. 

12. The Commission also wishes to 

make clear that only the extent of 

qualified 4G LTE coverage can be 

challenged in the challenge process; its 

decision in the Mobility Fund II Report 

& Order to rely on USAC high-cost 

support data for determinations of 

which areas with 4G LTE coverage are 

unsubsidized remains unchanged, and 

subsidy data or determinations are not 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42475 

subject to challenge. In sum, the 

required data should allow the 

Commission to achieve its policy goal of 

proceeding expeditiously to an MF–II 

auction. Compliance with the required 

data collection adopted in the MF–II 

Challenge Process Order is mandatory, 

and failure to comply may lead to 

enforcement action, including forfeiture 

penalties, pursuant to the 

Communications Act and other 

applicable law. 

B. 5 Mbps Download Speed Benchmark 

for Identifying Areas Eligible for MF–II 

Support 

13. The Commission affirms that it 

will use a 5 Mbps download speed 

benchmark to determine what coverage 

counts as qualified 4G LTE for the 

purpose of identifying areas eligible for 

MF–II support. Using a download speed 

benchmark of 5 Mbps supports the 

Commission’s primary policy goal of 

directing its limited MF–II funds to 

address 4G LTE coverage gaps and 

expanding 4G LTE coverage to areas that 

the private sector will not serve without 

government subsidies. 

14. Four petitioners seek 

reconsideration of some aspect of the 

Commission’s decision to use a 5 Mbps 

download speed as the benchmark to 

determine what coverage counts as 

qualified 4G LTE for the purpose of 

identifying areas eligible for MF–II 

support. 

15. Despite the fact that providers 

have used different standards and 

methodologies to report coverage in 

their Form 477 data, the nationwide 

carriers are all generally reporting 

minimum advertised download speeds 

of 5 Mbps for their 4G LTE network 

coverage. Carriers’ advertised speeds 

demonstrate that a consumer can 

reasonably expect to receive 4G LTE 

service at a download speed of 5 Mbps 

in both rural and urban areas. The 

Commission previously noted that 

‘‘commenters generally did not discuss 

the technical requirements of 4G LTE 

service’’ but did cite multiple comments 

on the performance requirement for 

MF–II recipients. Commenters 

consistently cited 5 Mbps download as 

consistent with 4G LTE service but 

differed on whether a 10/1 Mbps 

requirement was too aggressive. 

Similarly, the 2016 Broadband Progress 

Report found that, even in urban areas, 

119.3 million Americans (45 percent) 

still lack access to 4G LTE with a 

minimum advertised speed of 10/1 

Mbps. Thus, establishing a download 

speed of 10 Mbps for identifying areas 

eligible for MF–II support would not 

reflect the typical consumer experience 

in urban and rural areas and would 

direct the Commission’s limited funds 

to areas that are already being served at 

speeds that are reasonably comparable 

to what is available in urban areas. The 

Commission’s analysis of available data 

and the record reflects that consumers 

in urban areas generally have access to 

4G LTE service at a download speed of 

5 Mbps. Therefore, this benchmark, 

coupled with the parameters the 

Commission adopts in the MF–II 

Challenge Process Order, serves as a 

reasonable basis for its analysis of what 

areas are currently lacking unsubsidized 

service at an equivalent level. 

16. The purpose of the eligibility 

benchmark is to determine at the outset 

of MF–II which areas lack service 

reasonably comparable to current 

service because they are uneconomic to 

serve and require subsidies to achieve 

4G LTE service. In contrast, the 

performance benchmark for an MF–II 

recipient ensures that the Commission’s 

limited universal service funds are used 

in a fiscally responsible manner to 

assure that service in eligible areas is 

reasonably comparable to urban 

offerings in the future. Setting the 

eligibility benchmark the same as the 

performance benchmark would have the 

counterproductive effect of directing 

subsidies to areas that are already 

receiving high levels of service, and 

consequently providers in those areas 

could potentially achieve the 

performance objective in the first year of 

a ten-year support program. Different 

eligibility and buildout requirements are 

consistent with past Commission 

decisions in the universal service 

context, and they serve ‘‘our objective of 

ensuring that we target our finite budget 

to where it is most needed.’’ To 

accomplish this objective, the 

Commission must exercise its discretion 

to balance competing universal service 

principles of promoting nationwide 

deployment of high-speed mobile 

broadband and spending limited 

universal service funds in a costeffective manner. 

17. The Commission also rejects 

petitioners’ assertions that it did not 

provide sufficient analysis to justify 

using the 5 Mbps download speeds as 

the eligibility benchmark in light of its 

expectation that areas found to be 

ineligible for MF–II support are likely to 

see improvements in the coming years. 

The Commission’s objective in MF–II, in 

accordance with the USF/ICC 

Transformation Order, 76 FR 73829, 

November 29, 2011, is to subsidize 

reasonably comparable service in 

unserved areas, not to subsidize 

competition. The Commission 

anticipates that to the extent an area is 

served by an unsubsidized provider 

offering qualified 4G LTE service such 

that the area is not eligible for MF–II 

support, that unsubsidized service 

provider will have incentives to 

continue to invest in its network to 

maintain and expand its current market 

position. In addition, the Commission 

anticipates that as the infrastructure to 

support high levels of service develops 

over the ten-year term of MF–II support, 

the incremental costs of upgrades to 

service in ineligible areas will become 

lower, further facilitating improvements 

in those areas. Even if incentives to 

invest in unsubsidized areas were 

lower, with all things being equal, these 

lower upgrade costs would help offset 

that effect, and would incentivize 

service providers to increase their speed 

offerings in those areas. Furthermore, 

the Commission notes that the cost of 

upgrading service is significantly lower 

than the cost of building a new network 

in unserved areas or filling in coverage 

gaps in areas with significant coverage, 

and thus the Commission anticipates 

that incentives will continue to 

encourage upgrades to existing network 

deployments in unsubsidized areas. 

Accordingly, the Commission expects 

reasonable service improvements in 

ineligible areas because private actors 

have already demonstrated in the 

marketplace that they have an incentive 

to invest in those areas without federal 

support. 

18. Lastly, the Commission declines 

to adopt an upload speed benchmark to 

identify areas eligible for MF–II support. 

Given the nature of mobile wireless 

deployment and the interplay between 

download and upload speeds when 

designing and optimizing an LTE 

network, there is no single upload edge 

speed that corresponds to a 5 Mbps 

download speed. One party, however, 

has submitted recent LTE speed 

measurement results showing that with 

1 Mbps as the 10th percentile of the 

upload speed distribution, the standard 

national compliance, at the non-MSA 

(metropolitan statistical area) and MSA 

level, only ranges from approximately 5 

percent to 12 percent. This suggests that 

a cell edge 1 Mbps upload speed 

standard requirement would exceed the 

upload speeds of most current LTE 

service areas. Thus, including a 1 Mbps 

upload speed benchmark could make 

eligible for support most areas with 

current LTE service at download speeds 

of 5 Mbps. Finally, the Commission also 

finds that the additional upload speed 

standard would add unnecessary 

complexity to the already complex 

challenge process. The Commission 

concludes that including a 1 Mbps 

upload speed benchmark for 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42476 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

determining areas eligible for MF–II 

support would be contrary to its policy 

goal of directing its limited MF–II 

resources to areas of the country that 

lack sufficient services because such a 

benchmark would expand the areas 

eligible for support to include areas that 

already have 4G LTE service, without 

any countervailing benefit to 

consumers. 

C. Considering Incompatible 

Technologies in Determining Eligible 

Areas 

19. The Commission affirms the 

conclusion it reached in the Mobility 

Fund II Report & Order that areas with 

unsubsidized, qualified 4G LTE service 

are not at risk of losing service and 

therefore should be ineligible to receive 

support, regardless of whether the areas 

have networks that are compatible with 

both GSM and CDMA. The Commission 

further affirms its earlier finding that it 

should not condition limited MF–II 

support on a requirement that newly 

deployed 4G LTE networks be 

backwards compatible with GSM and 

CDMA network technologies that are 

being phased out by the marketplace. 

20. Two petitioners now seek 

reconsideration of this issue; they argue 

that areas that do not have both GSM 

and CDMA coverage by unsubsidized 

providers should be eligible for MF–II 

support. The Commission denies the 

petitions for reconsideration of this 

issue. Efficiently distributing MF–II 

funds and expanding coverage are the 

Commission’s priorities, and it must 

balance these policy goals against an 

issue that even one petitioner notes ‘‘is 

one that time and ubiquitous VoLTE 

deployment will eventually solve.’’ In 

the face of a diminishing technological 

issue, the Commission directs MF–II 

support in a fiscally-responsible manner 

by focusing on areas that lack 

unsubsidized, qualified 4G LTE 

coverage without considering whether 

older technologies are compatible. The 

Commission’s gradual phase down of 

legacy support will provide consumers 

and carriers with time to complete the 

transition to newer technologies. 

D. Considering Collocation in 

Determining Eligible Areas 

21. The Commission also denies a 

petitioner’s request that it reconsider the 

basis on which it determines whether 

qualified 4G LTE deployed in an area is 

subsidized or unsubsidized. Consistent 

with the Commission’s earlier 

conclusion, the Commission affirms that 

it will determine whether a provider 

that deploys qualified 4G LTE in an area 

is subsidized or unsubsidized based 

only on whether it receives high-cost 

support for that area using USAC highcost disbursement data, as described in 

the MF–II Challenge Process Order, and 

not based on whether that provider 

collocates equipment on a tower of 

another provider receiving universal 

service support. In addition, the 

Commission will not consider 

government subsidies other than legacy 

mobile wireless CETC high-cost support 

and MF–I support in determining 

whether a provider’s qualified 4G LTE 

is subsidized. 

22. The Commission also notes that 

the Commission has not collected and 

does not intend to collect the tower-bytower data that would be necessary to 

conduct the analysis proposed by the 

petitioner because the possible benefits 

of collecting that data appear small 

compared to the significant costs of 

collection and analysis. As part of their 

Form 477 data filings, mobile wireless 

carriers submit maps that depict 

coverage without distinguishing 

between carrier-owned and collocated 

facilities. As discussed in the MF–II 

Challenge Process Order, based on a 

new, one-time filing of coverage maps 

provided under standardized 

parameters, the Commission will 

determine 4G LTE coverage and 

establish the areas presumptively 

eligible for MF–II support. Determining 

whether coverage depicted in the 

standardized coverage maps is provided 

through collocation on an area-by-area 

basis would be inconsistent with the 

Commission’s decision to base MF–II 

eligibility strictly on the absence of 

unsubsidized, qualified 4G LTE, and 

doing so would impose a significant 

burden on both carriers and the 

Commission. 

IV. Second Report and Order 

23. Consistent with the Commission’s 

overarching objective to transition 

quickly away from the legacy CETC 

support system, it adopts a streamlined 

challenge process that will efficiently 

resolve disputes about areas deemed 

presumptively ineligible for MF–II 

support. Based on the Commission’s 

review of the record and its 

comprehensive evaluation of the 

advantages and disadvantages of the 

various proposals, the Commission 

concludes that the approach it adopts 

will both promote fairness and 

minimize burdens on interested parties. 

24. Under the adopted approach, the 

Commission will begin with a new, onetime collection of 4G LTE coverage data, 

which will be used to establish the map 

of areas presumptively eligible for MF– 

II support. Specifically, the Commission 

will require providers to file 

propagation maps and model details 

with the Commission indicating their 

current 4G LTE coverage, as defined by 

download speeds of 5 Mbps at the cell 

edge with 80 percent probability and a 

30 percent cell loading factor. 

25. An interested party (the 

challenger) will have 150 days to 

initiate a challenge of one or more of the 

areas initially deemed ineligible in the 

Commission’s map of areas 

presumptively eligible for MF–II 

support (the challenge window). Prior to 

the close of the challenge window, a 

challenger may use USAC’s online 

challenge portal (the USAC portal) to (1) 

access confidential provider-specific 

information for areas it wishes to 

challenge; (2) identify the area(s) it 

wants to challenge; (3) submit evidence 

supporting the challenge; and (4) certify 

its challenge for the specified area(s). 

After agreeing to treat the data as 

confidential, challengers will be able to 

access via the USAC portal (a) the 

underlying provider-specific coverage 

maps submitted as part of the new data 

collection; (b) the list of pre-approved 

provider-specified handsets with which 

to conduct speed measurements; and (c) 

any other propagation model details 

collected as part of the new data 

collection. To certify a challenge, a 

challenger will be required to identify 

the area(s) within each state that it 

wishes to challenge and submit actual 

outdoor speed test data collected using 

standardized parameters. Challengers 

will submit their challenges via the 

USAC portal. The Commission directs 

the Bureaus to work with USAC to 

establish the USAC portal through 

which a challenger will be able to access 

the confidential provider-specific 

information that is pertinent to the 

challenge, as well as submit its 

challenge, including all supporting 

evidence and required certifications. 

26. Once a challenger submits its 

evidence in the USAC portal, the system 

will conduct an automatic validation to 

determine whether the challenger 

provided sufficient evidence to justify 

proceeding with each submitted 

challenge. In the event the data fail 

automatic validation for an area, the 

system will flag the problem for the 

challenger. If the failure occurs while 

the challenge window is still open, the 

challenger may submit additional or 

modified data, or modify its challenged 

area contours, as required, to resolve the 

problem. Once the challenge window 

closes, however, the challenger will 

have no further opportunity to correct 

existing, or provide additional, data in 

support of its challenge. Only those 

challenges to areas that are certified by 

a challenger at the close of the window 

will proceed. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42477 

27. A challenged party will have an 

opportunity to submit additional data 

via the USAC portal in response to a 

certified challenge (the response 

window). If a challenged party does not 

oppose the challenge, it does not need 

to submit any information. After the 

response window closes, Commission 

staff will adjudicate certified challenges 

and responses. 

28. The Commission finds that, in 

conjunction with the new data 

collection, this framework for the MF– 

II challenge process appropriately 

balances the need for accuracy against 

the burdens imposed on interested 

parties. The Commission anticipates 

that using standardized new coverage 

data as the basis for its initial eligibility 

map will improve the accuracy and 

reliability of the information available to 

potential challengers, which should 

result in fewer, more targeted challenges 

and should reduce the administrative 

burdens on Commission staff, 

challengers, providers, and other 

stakeholders. Requiring challengers to 

submit proof of lack of unsubsidized, 

qualified 4G LTE coverage should deter 

frivolous challenges based on anecdotal 

evidence and, thereby, expedite the 

challenge process. Moreover, allowing, 

but not requiring, challenged parties to 

submit data in response to a challenge 

will both promote fairness and 

minimize burdens on interested parties. 

29. The Commission directs the 

Bureaus to issue a public notice or order 

(following the Bureaus’ issuance of a 

notice and opportunity for comment) 

detailing instructions, deadlines, and 

requirements for filing a valid challenge, 

including file formats, parameters, and 

other specifications for conducting 

speed tests. 

A. Parameters for Generating Initial 

Eligible Areas Map 

30. In the new, one-time MF–II data 

collection, the Commission will require 

providers to file propagation maps and 

model details with the Commission 

indicating their current 4G LTE 

coverage, as defined by download 

speeds of 5 Mbps at the cell edge with 

80 percent probability and a 30 percent 

cell loading factor. The Commission 

finds that a download speed of 5 Mbps 

with 80 percent cell edge probability, 

which is equivalent to approximately 92 

percent cell area probability, and a 30 

percent cell loading factor, strikes a 

reasonable balance between expanding 

LTE into unserved areas and enhancing 

existing suboptimal LTE service areas, 

which promotes the optimal use of 

limited public funds. 

31. The Commission acknowledges 

that the 80 percent cell edge probability 

and 30 percent cell loading factor 

parameters required for the data 

collection are lower than those 

proposed in the industry consensus 

proposal. Adopting the higher cell edge 

probability and cell loading factor 

parameters in the industry consensus 

proposal, however, would increase the 

likelihood that MF–II funds would be 

directed to areas that already meet the 

MF–II performance requirement of a 10 

Mbps median download speed. One 

wireless provider submitted recent LTE 

speed measurement data analysis based 

upon nationwide wireless provider 

performance in specific states. The 

analysis showed that in some cases less 

than 2 percent of the data points 

achieved a 5 Mbps download speed 90 

percent of the time. Indeed, the 

Commission estimates that the cell area 

median download speed in the cell 

areas associated with the industry 

consensus proposal’s proposed 

parameters would be significantly in 

excess of 10 Mbps and therefore higher 

than the MF–II performance 

requirement. In fact, the Commission 

estimates that areas larger than industry 

consensus proposal’s proposed cell 

areas would have median download 

speeds in excess of 10 Mbps. The 

Commission’s analysis shows that the 

80 percent cell edge probability it 

adopts corresponds with a 92 percent 

cell area probability, which means users 

would have a greater than 90 percent 

chance of achieving a download speed 

of at least 5 Mbps across the entire 

coverage area of a cell. In addition, these 

parameters exceed the parameters that 

wireless operators typically use when 

deploying networks into previouslyunserved areas (greenfield builds) of 75 

percent cell edge probability and 90 

percent cell area probability. In light of 

the difficulties of precisely determining 

the coverage areas where service with a 

minimum download speed of 5 Mbps is 

available, the Commission finds that a 

cell edge probability of 80 percent and 

a cell area probability of 92 percent 

appropriately balance the concern of 

misrepresenting coverage with its 

priority of directing its limited universal 

service funds on areas most in need of 

support. Further, adoption of the 

industry consensus proposal’s proposed 

parameters would likely result in MF– 

II support being used to upgrade or 

over-build current 4G LTE networks 

rather than to expand 4G LTE coverage 

to unserved areas. 

32. In addition, the Commission 

believes that a 30 percent cell loading 

factor in rural areas is more appropriate 

for MF–II purposes than the industry 

consensus proposal’s proposed 50 

percent cell loading factor, which is 

more typical in non-rural areas where 

there is more uniform traffic. Typical 

cell site density in rural areas is much 

lower than in urban areas, resulting in 

an overall lower interference 

environment. Additionally, when 

compared to urban and suburban areas, 

rural areas typically have lower 

amounts of uniform traffic among cells 

because of the varied population 

distribution across cells, lower numbers 

of simultaneous users, and lower overall 

demands on the network over time. As 

such, cell loading is typically lower in 

rural areas than in urban and suburban 

areas. The lower cell edge probability 

and cell loading factor parameters for 

the data collection will likely decrease 

the eligible areas and target the limited 

MF–II funds to more areas that are 

currently unserved or served by 4G LTE 

networks with a median download 

speed below 10 Mbps. If the 

Commission was to adopt a lower cell 

edge probability, it would unnecessarily 

risk focusing funds on the costliest to 

serve areas, thus decreasing the square 

miles receiving support in the auction 

and consequently reducing the cost 

effectiveness of the MF–II program. A 

lower cell edge probability requirement 

would likely decrease the eligible areas 

with marginal LTE coverage. Thus, 

using its predictive judgment, the 

Commission finds that these parameters 

meet its standards for the availability of 

coverage and are best suited to 

advancing its goals for MF–II. 

33. The Commission recognizes that 

some may have concerns about the 

effect of the parameters it adopts on the 

availability of certain mobile 

applications, for instance telemedicine 

and precision agriculture, in rural areas. 

The Commission believes those 

concerns are misplaced. Remote 

monitoring and diagnosing of medical 

conditions and precision agriculture, 

which uses satellite GPS positioning 

and remote sensors in farming 

operations, are typically lowerbandwidth, machine-to-machine 

applications and should not 

significantly increase the overall cell 

loading or require speeds greater than 5 

Mbps. Further, the Commission believes 

that focusing its limited funds on 

expanding service to the areas that 

currently lack 4G LTE service is the best 

way to increase the availability of these 

services in rural areas. Applying a 

higher cell loading factor more typical 

of an urban or suburban area or 

increasing the cell edge probability even 

further is more likely to direct funds to 

more areas that already have coverage 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42478 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

that can support telemedicine and 

precision agriculture applications. 

34. As one party proposed, filers shall 

report an outdoor level of coverage. The 

coverage boundaries shall have a 

resolution of 100 meters (approximately 

three arc-seconds) or better, and shall 

likewise use an appropriate clutter 

factor and terrain model with a 

resolution of 100 meters or better. In 

addition, filers shall use the optimized 

RF propagation models and parameters 

used in their normal course of business. 

The Commission directs the Bureaus to 

specify what other propagation model 

details and parameters must be filed 

alongside such propagation maps in a 

subsequent public notice. In addition to 

submitting propagation maps and model 

details of 4G LTE coverage, providers 

shall report the signal strength (RSRP) 

and clutter factor categories used to 

generate their coverage maps. If the 

signal strength in the coverage maps 

varies regionally, then such variations 

must be reported. The providers must 

report the loss value associated with 

each clutter factor category used in their 

coverage maps. Additionally, providers 

shall submit a list of at least three 

readily-available handsets that 

challengers can use to conduct speed 

tests, as well as a certification, under 

penalty of perjury, by a qualified 

engineer that the propagation maps and 

model details reflect the filer’s coverage 

as of the generation date of the map in 

accordance with all other parameters. 

The Commission clarifies that the 

handsets identified by providers must 

include at least one compatible with 

industry-standard drive test software. 

The Bureaus will issue further guidance 

or requirements on the handsets that 

may be used for speed tests in a 

subsequent public notice. 

35. The Commission finds that 

requiring a specific signal strength 

benchmark, as sought by several 

commenters, is not necessary for these 

propagation maps because the cell edge 

speed threshold requirement subsumes 

a specific signal strength value 

depending on specific operating signal 

bandwidth and the network deployment 

configurations. A 10 MHz bandwidth 

has double the noise power of the 5 

MHz bandwidth; thus, it requires higher 

signal strengths for the same signal 

quality (SNR) requirement. The thermal 

noise power equation indicates that 

noise power is directly proportional to 

the bandwidth. The Commission’s 

analysis comparing results of theoretical 

propagation models and actual speed 

test data indicates that the signal 

strength parameter in propagation 

models may not be closely correlated 

with actual on-the-ground data in a 

particular geographic area. As a result, 

and in light of the differing technical 

characteristics of service providers’ LTE 

deployments, the Commission decides 

to benchmark download speed, which is 

what the customer receives, rather than 

signal strength, to determine whether a 

particular geographic area is eligible or 

not for MF–II support. With this in 

mind, the Commission sets the 

download speed at 5 Mbps at 80 percent 

probability, and will evaluate challenges 

on the basis of measured download 

speeds. In other words, the topography 

of an area as well as summer foliage 

may lead to differences between 

expected signal strength and the actual 

experienced speed of consumers. Thus, 

the Commission’s cell edge speed 

threshold requirement should result in 

more accurate data in America’s deserts, 

prairies, rolling hills, mountains, and 

forests than an across-the-board signal 

strength parameter. The Commission is 

mindful, however, of the concerns of 

some providers regarding signal 

strengths, and the Commission will, as 

noted above, require providers to report 

signal strength with their coverage 

maps. The signal strength information 

will be available to challengers. When 

issuing filing instructions, the 

Commission directs the Bureaus to 

explain what additional parameters 

(such as signal strength and clutter 

categories) and information must be 

included with coverage map filings, and 

subsequently disclosed to challengers in 

the challenge process. 

36. In a public notice to be released 

later in the MF–II process, the 

Commission directs the Bureaus to 

provide instructions for how to file the 

data submission, including a data 

specification, formatting information, 

and any other technical parameters that 

may be necessary for such filings. In 

order to provide ample time for carriers 

to generate data in accordance with 

these parameters, the Commission 

directs the Bureaus to set the deadline 

for carriers to submit data for the onetime data collection at least 90 days 

after the release of the filing instructions 

public notice. 

B. Interested Parties Eligible To 

Participate 

37. Based on the Commission’s 

experience in the challenge processes 

for MF–I and CAF–II, and after carefully 

weighing the record on this issue, the 

Commission concludes that government 

entities (state, local, and Tribal) and all 

service providers required to file Form 

477 data with the Commission are best 

suited to participate as challengers in 

the MF–II challenge process. Allowing 

these interested parties to participate in 

the challenge process satisfies the 

Commission’s policy goal of 

administrative efficiency because they 

are most likely to be able to acquire the 

requisite data sufficient to support a 

valid challenge and, in many cases, are 

already familiar with filing data with 

USAC. Many Form 477 filers have a preexisting relationship (i.e., an account) 

with USAC because they are required to 

make filings on a regular basis with 

USAC. To the extent that any Form 477 

filer or government entity eligible to 

participate does not have an account 

with which to authenticate against the 

USAC single sign-on system by the time 

the USAC portal opens, such interested 

parties will be required to request an 

account. The Commission directs the 

Bureaus to detail this process along with 

other instructions to file a valid 

challenge in a subsequent public notice. 

38. As a practical matter, the 

Commission does not expect that an 

individual consumer would have the 

time, ability, or resources to file a valid 

challenge. Instead, the Commission 

anticipates that an individual consumer 

will be best served by participating in 

the MF–II challenge process through his 

or her state, local, or Tribal government 

entity. This expectation is supported by 

past practice before the agency, as 

individual consumers did not file 

challenges in either the MF–I or CAF 

proceedings. If, however, a consumer, 

organization, or business believes that 

its interests cannot be met through its 

state, local, or Tribal government entity, 

and it wishes to participate in the 

process as a challenger, it is free to file 

a waiver with the Commission for good 

cause shown, either on its own or with 

the assistance of an organization. 

Waivers may be submitted by email to 

auction904@fcc.gov or delivered in hard 

copy to Margaret W. Wiener, Chief, 

Auctions and Spectrum Access 

Division, Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, FCC, 445 12th Street SW., Room 

6–C217, Washington, DC 20554. The 

Commission anticipates granting 

waivers in cases in which an individual, 

organization, or business demonstrates a 

bona fide interest in the challenge 

process and a plausible ability to submit 

a valid challenge. And the Commission 

encourages state commissions, statelevel broadband deployment offices, 

county and municipal executives and 

councils, Tribal governments, and other 

governmental entities to participate 

robustly in the challenge process to 

ensure that the Commission’s 

information about where service is or is 

not available is as accurate as possible. 

39. Moreover, given the 

improvements the Commission expects 

to see in the standardized information 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42479 

that will be collected for MF–II 

purposes, it anticipates that there 

should be less concern associated with 

eligible area determinations, which, in 

turn, should reduce the likelihood that 

individual consumers should have to 

bear the burden of seeking to participate 

in the process. As the Commission 

explained in the Mobility Fund II 

FNPRM, ‘‘the challenge process must 

not impede the implementation of MF– 

II support.’’ The Commission’s decision 

therefore fosters its commitment to 

designing a challenge process that is as 

efficient and open as possible. 

C. Types of Challenges 

40. Because the Commission is 

undertaking a new collection of 

standardized, more reliable, and more 

recent 4G LTE coverage data, it will 

only permit challenges for areas that the 

Bureaus identify as ineligible for MF–II 

support. The Commission anticipates 

that a party that submits a challenge for 

an eligible area will likely be the 

unsubsidized service provider that 

submitted and certified the data used to 

make the initial eligibility 

determination for the challenged area. 

As such, the challenge would consist of 

nothing more than an update to or 

correction of the coverage data 

submitted by the unsubsidized service 

provider during the new data collection 

in compliance with the Commission’s 

new requirements. Since, under the 

framework the Commission adopts, 

service providers will be required to 

update their coverage data shortly 

before the start of the challenge process, 

permitting such ‘‘corrections’’ within 

the challenge process would be 

administratively inefficient and 

unnecessarily delay the deployment of 

MF–II support. The Commission is 

confident that the new data collection 

will give providers ample opportunity 

to correct and/or update the coverage 

data previously provided via Form 477. 

Therefore, the Commission will not 

permit challenges for areas that the 

Bureaus identify as eligible for MF–II 

support. 

D. Restricting De Minimis Challenges 

41. As part of the framework the 

Commission adopts for the MF–II 

challenge process, it will limit 

challenges to de minimis geographic 

areas to increase the efficiency of the 

challenge process and reduce the 

administrative complications of 

resolving challenges for very small 

coverage gaps. Challengers will not be 

required to match up challenged areas 

to census blocks or census block groups 

(CBGs). The Commission believes this 

change will ease the filing burden on 

challengers because the data required 

will align more closely with data 

already collected and maintained in the 

normal course of business. Consistent 

with this approach, the Commission 

will not link de minimis challenges to 

CBGs, because a significant portion of 

CBGs are small enough (less than 1 

square kilometer) that establishing a 

minimum area for challenges as a 

portion of a CBG would make the de 

minimis challenge area so small as to be 

inconsequential for improving 

efficiency in the challenge process. 

Accordingly, the Commission will 

require only that any challenged area be 

of a minimum size of at least one square 

kilometer. Ineligible areas of less than 

one square kilometer can be subject to 

challenge insofar as they are part of a 

challenge where the total size of areas 

being challenged exceeds the de 

minimis size requirement. This 

minimum size requirement will prevent 

challenges solely regarding minor, 

patchy areas often at the edge of a 

covered area, which aligns with the 

overall goal of using MF–II funds to 

expand service to unserved areas. 

E. Data Required for Submission of 

Challenge 

42. The Commission finds that a 

challenger must submit detailed proof of 

lack of unsubsidized, qualified 4G LTE 

coverage in support of its challenge. For 

each state, a challenger must identify 

the specific area(s) it wants to challenge 

and submit actual outdoor speed test 

data that satisfy the parameters the 

Commission adopts in the MF–II 

Challenge Process Order, as well as any 

other parameters that the Commission 

or Bureaus may implement. If the 

challenged area(s) extend across state 

borders, a challenger will need to 

initiate separate challenges for each 

state into which the challenged area(s) 

extend. The speed test data must be 

collected using the latest devices 

specifically authorized by the providers 

that submitted 4G LTE coverage data in 

response to the new, one-time data 

collection discussed above (i.e., 

provider-specified handsets). The 

Commission finds that such ‘‘on the 

ground’’ data collected using 

standardized parameters are a reliable 

form of evidence because they simulate 

consumers’ actual experience. 

43. These requirements strengthen the 

Commission’s ability to design an 

administratively efficient challenge 

process that does not impede 

implementation of MF–II. The 

Commission finds that requiring 

challengers to submit detailed proof of 

lack of unsubsidized, qualified 4G LTE 

coverage instead of ‘‘anecdotal 

evidence’’ is fair, minimizes the burden 

on providers and Commission staff, and 

should help deter excessive and 

unfounded challenges that could delay 

the deployment of MF–II support. The 

Commission agrees with several 

commenters that requiring actual speed 

test data will not impose an excessive 

burden on challengers, including small 

carriers. The Commission expects that 

challenged areas will be sufficiently 

circumscribed that challengers will not 

need to collect speed test data over 

unnecessarily large areas. Further, the 

Commission expects that small carriers 

are likely to already own drive test 

equipment. To the extent they do not, 

the Commission’s decision to allow 

application-based tests provides a less 

expensive and more mobile means of 

collecting data. Thus, the Commission 

declines to allow a challenger to initiate 

the challenge process with an 

unsubstantiated good-faith assertion of 

lack of unsubsidized, qualified 4G LTE 

coverage. 

1. Standard Parameters 

44. Although the Commission agrees 

with commenters that some flexibility 

with testing standards is warranted, it 

finds it necessary to adopt clear 

guidance and parameters on speed test 

data to ensure that the evidence 

submitted by challengers is reliable, 

accurately reflects consumer experience 

in the challenged area, and can be 

analyzed quickly and efficiently. As a 

preliminary matter, the Commission 

will allow challengers to submit speed 

data from hardware- or software-based 

drive tests or application-based tests 

that cover the challenged area. To 

minimize the burdens on challengers, 

the Commission will not require that an 

independent third party conduct the 

speed tests. The Commission will 

require that all speed tests be conducted 

pursuant to standard parameters using 

Commission-approved testing methods 

on pre-approved handset models. 

Accordingly, the Commission expects 

that it would be difficult to manipulate 

the data collected regardless of whether 

a challenger uses drive-based or 

application-based tests as both types of 

tests can automatically generate data 

reports that can conform to the 

specifications for the data submission. 

The Commission will, however, require 

that the speed test data be substantiated 

by the certification of a qualified 

engineer or official under penalty of 

perjury. For challengers that are 

governmental entities and do not have 

a qualified engineer available to certify, 

the Commission will allow certification 

by a government official authorized to 

act on behalf of the organization and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42480 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

with actual knowledge of the accuracy 

of the underlying data. 

45. A challenger must provide proof 

of lack of unsubsidized, qualified 4G 

LTE coverage in the form of measured 

download throughput test data for each 

of the unsubsidized providers claiming 

qualified 4G LTE coverage in the 

challenged area. As part of the new MF– 

II data collection, the Commission will 

require service providers with qualified 

4G LTE coverage to identify at least 

three readily available handset models 

appropriate for testing those providers’ 

coverage. The Commission will require 

providers to specify at least one handset 

that is compatible with industrystandard drive test software. The 

Commission directs the Bureaus to 

propose and adopt further guidance on 

the types of devices that may be used for 

speed tests in the subsequent public 

notices. Challengers electing to use 

application-based tests and softwarebased drive tests must use the 

applicable handsets specified by each 

unsubsidized service provider with 

coverage in the challenged area. In 

addition, to accurately reflect consumer 

experience in the challenged area, the 

challenger must purchase an 

appropriate service plan from each 

unsubsidized service provider in the 

challenged area. An appropriate service 

plan would allow for speed tests of full 

network performance, e.g., an unlimited 

high-speed data plan. If there are 

multiple unsubsidized service providers 

in the challenged area, the challenger 

must purchase service plans that are 

comparable (i.e., similar with respect to 

services provided). 

46. All speed tests must be conducted 

between the hours of 06:00 a.m. and 

12:00 a.m. local time, when consumers 

are most likely to use mobile broadband 

data. To ensure that the speed test data 

reflect consumer experience throughout 

the entire challenged area, a challenger 

must take speed measurements that are 

no more than a fixed distance apart from 

one another within the challenged area, 

and which substantially cover the entire 

area. The Commission directs the 

Bureaus to adopt the specific value for 

the maximum distance between speed 

tests after seeking comment in a 

subsequent public notice. This value 

will be no greater than one mile. This 

requirement serves as an upper bound, 

and a challenger will be free to submit 

measurements taken more frequently. 

While the Commission declines to adopt 

the specific parameter here, it is 

convinced that a value within this range 

will strike the correct balance between 

the benefits of increased accuracy, and 

the harms of burdens on small carriers 

and to the efficient administration of 

challenges. The Commission also agrees 

with one commenter that the data 

should reflect recent performance. 

However, given upcoming, expected 

deployment of new 4G LTE service in 

conjunction with the Commission’s 

decision to perform a new data 

collection, the Commission is concerned 

that speed measurements taken before 

the submission of updated coverage 

maps may not reflect the current 

consumer experience. Thus, the 

Commission will only accept data that 

were collected after the publication of 

the initial eligibility map and within six 

months of the scheduled close of the 

challenge window. 

47. The Commission directs the 

Bureaus to seek comment on and to 

implement any additional parameters 

and/or to require the submission of 

additional types of relevant data, such 

as signal strength tests, and then to 

implement any such parameters or 

requirements as appropriate to ensure 

that speed tests accurately reflect 

consumer experience in the challenged 

area, by issuing an order or public 

notice providing detailed instructions, 

guidance, and specifications for 

conducting speed tests. 

2. Validation of Challenger’s Data 

48. The Commission adopts a general 

framework for automatic system 

validation of a challenger’s evidence, 

and it directs the Bureaus to work with 

USAC to implement specific parameters 

for the validation process. Using an 

automated process is the most efficient 

way to evaluate the data submitted by 

a challenger because it ensures that the 

objective validation criteria are applied 

consistently across every challenge. 

49. Under this approach, at the outset 

the USAC system will superimpose each 

identified challenged area on the initial 

eligibility map and will remove any 

portions that overlap eligible areas. If a 

challenged area meets the de minimis 

area threshold, that challenge will 

proceed. If it does not meet the 

threshold, the system will flag the 

failure and will not accept that 

challenge for submission unless and 

until the challenger submits during the 

challenge window new data that meet 

the threshold. 

50. Next, the USAC system will 

analyze the geographic coordinates of 

the points at which the challenger 

conducted the speed tests and will 

validate that the data associated with 

each speed test point meet the 

specifications for speed tests. To be 

counted towards a valid challenge, the 

speed test must record a download 

speed less than 5 Mbps (counted speed 

tests) and meet all other standard 

parameters. In order to implement the 

requirement that the tests substantially 

cover the entire challenged area and that 

each point is no more than a fixed 

distance apart, the system will create a 

buffer (i.e., draw a circle of fixed size) 

around each counted speed test point 

and calculate the area of these buffered 

points (speed test buffer area). The 

system will apply a buffer with a radius 

equal to half of the maximum distance 

parameter, and will trim any portion of 

the buffer that is outside of the 

challenged area. In addition, where a 

challenged area overlaps the submitted 

coverage map of more than one 

incumbent provider, the system will 

require counted speed tests for each 

provider in order to calculate the speed 

test buffer area. For each challenged 

area, if the speed test buffer area covers 

at least 75 percent of the challenged 

area, the challenge will pass validation, 

and once certified, these challenged 

area(s) will be presented to the 

incumbent provider(s) for a response. 

The area of a circle with diameter 

superimposed on a square with width is 

approximately 78.5 percent, therefore 

setting the validation threshold at 75 

percent area coverage ensures that speed 

measurements conducted no more than 

a fixed distance apart from one another 

in a challenged area are sufficient to 

establish coverage of the entire area, 

when each measurement point is 

buffered by a radius of half of the fixed 

distance parameter. If the speed test 

buffer area does not cover at least 75 

percent of the challenged area, the 

challenge for that area will fail 

validation unless the challenger submits 

new evidence or modifies its challenge 

during the challenge window such that 

it meets the 75 percent threshold. 

51. The USAC system will require 

speed tests to substantially cover the 

entire challenged area (i.e., 75 percent) 

regardless of any characteristics of the 

area, including whether any part of the 

area is inaccessible due to terrain, 

private property, or other reason. The 

Commission declines to provide any 

special accommodations for a challenger 

to indicate that it was unable to access 

any part of the challenged area. 

Challengers have the burden of proving 

that an area deemed ineligible is, in fact, 

not covered by at least one carrier 

providing qualified, unsubsidized 4G 

LTE service. Providing special 

accommodations that would relieve 

challengers of the need to furnish actual 

evidence would be inconsistent with 

this decision, would be difficult to 

administer, and would increase the 

likelihood of gamesmanship, none of 

which further the Commission’s goal of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42481 

conducting a fair and efficient challenge 

process in a timely manner. The 

Commission notes that while the system 

will not provide any special 

accommodations, challengers may still 

include areas with inaccessible land in 

their challenges so long as the submitted 

speed measurements otherwise meet the 

validation threshold showing that 75 

percent of the area has insufficient 

coverage. Moreover, this decision is 

confined only to the challenge process; 

a bidder in the MF–II auction may still 

bid for support to serve eligible areas 

that include land that may be 

inaccessible. A bidder that ultimately 

wins support to serve an area with 

inaccessible lands will remain 

responsible for demonstrating its 

performance in serving that area. 

52. Each challenged area that meets 

the de minimis threshold will be 

considered individually. Challenged 

areas that meet the validations, 

including the 75 percent speed test 

buffer area overlap, will proceed once 

certified by the challenger. The USAC 

system will determine which portions of 

a challenged area overlap which 4G LTE 

providers, and respondents will see 

only those challenged areas and speed 

test buffer areas that overlap their 4G 

LTE coverage. 

F. Opportunity To Respond to 

Challenges 

53. The Commission will provide 

challenged parties a limited opportunity 

to submit additional data in response to 

a challenge. The Commission finds that 

this approach promotes its goals of a fair 

and fiscally responsible MF–II program 

while minimizing the burdens on 

challenged parties. Giving challenged 

parties an opportunity to contest a 

challenge and submit more detailed 

coverage data to supplement the 

information provided during the initial 

data collection will help to ensure that 

only areas truly lacking unsubsidized, 

qualified 4G LTE coverage will receive 

MF–II support. 

54. After the challenge window 

closes, the response window will open. 

Using the USAC portal, challenged 

parties will have 30 days after the 

opening of the response window to: (1) 

Access and review the data submitted 

by the challenger with respect to the 

challenged area; and (2) submit 

additional data/information to oppose 

the challenge (i.e., demonstrate that the 

challenger’s speed test data are invalid 

or do not accurately reflect network 

performance). If a respondent chooses to 

respond, it need only conduct speed 

tests of its own network (or gather its 

own geolocated, device-specific data 

from network monitoring software) in 

the disputed areas, which should 

require less time to complete than a 

challenger testing multiple networks in 

multiple areas for data to substantiate a 

valid challenge. Hence, the Commission 

agrees with commenters that propose 

that the response window does not need 

to be open for the same amount of time 

as the challenge window. If a challenged 

party does not oppose the challenge, it 

does not need to submit any additional 

data. A challenged party will not, 

however, have a further opportunity to 

submit any additional data for the 

Commission’s consideration after the 

response window closes. 

55. The Commission declines to 

require a specific level of response from 

challenged parties. The Commission 

will accept certain technical 

information that is probative regarding 

the validity of a challenger’s speed tests 

including speed test data and other 

device-specific data collected from 

transmitter monitoring software. If a 

challenged party chooses to submit its 

own speed test data, the data must 

conform to the same standards and 

requirements the Commission adopts in 

the MF–II Challenge Process Order for 

challengers, except that it will only 

accept data from challenged parties that 

were collected after the publication of 

the initial eligibility map and within six 

months of the scheduled close of the 

response window. Any evidence 

submitted by a challenged party in 

response to a challenge must be certified 

by a qualified engineer or official under 

penalty of perjury. Since the 

Commission is not requiring a specific 

level of response from challenged 

parties, the response data will not be 

subject to USAC’s automatic system 

validation process. 

56. Although the Commission is 

willing to accept certain technical data 

that are probative regarding the validity 

of a challenger’s speed tests, the data 

must be reliable and credible to be 

useful during the adjudication process. 

Specifically, technical data other than 

speed tests submitted by a challenged 

party, including data from transmitter 

monitoring software, should include 

geolocated, device-specific throughput 

measurements or other device-specific 

information (rather than generalized key 

performance indicator statistics for a 

cell-site) in order to be useful to help 

refute a challenge. The Commission 

agrees with commenters that ‘‘on the 

ground’’ data collected using 

standardized parameters are a reliable 

form of evidence because they simulate 

what consumers actually experience. 

Thus, the Commission expects that 

speed test data would be particularly 

persuasive evidence for challenged 

parties to submit to refute a challenge, 

especially since it will be easier for the 

Bureaus to compare equivalent data. 

While the system will not validate a 

challenged party’s response data, to be 

probative in order to refute a challenge, 

speed tests must record a download 

speed of at least 5 Mbps and meet all 

other standard parameters. 

57. The Commission directs the 

Bureaus to issue an order or public 

notice implementing any additional 

requirements that may be necessary or 

appropriate for data submitted by a 

challenged party in response to a 

challenge. Such order or notice will 

contain any further detailed 

instructions, guidance, and 

specifications for responding to a 

challenge. 

G. Adjudication of Challenges 

58. Consistent with the standard of 

review adopted in the Connect America 

Fund Report & Order, 78 FR 38227, June 

26, 2013, and the CAF II Challenge 

Process Order, 78 FR 32991, June 3, 

2013, the Commission adopts a 

preponderance of the evidence standard 

to evaluate the merits of any challenges. 

Additionally, the Commission adopts its 

proposal that the challenger shall bear 

the burden of persuasion. If, upon 

review of all the evidence submitted in 

the challenge, it appears that the 

challenger has not submitted sufficient 

evidence to demonstrate that it is more 

likely than not that the challenged area 

does not have qualified LTE coverage, 

the challenge will fail under this 

standard. Following the close of the 

response window, the Bureaus will 

adjudicate certified challenges based 

upon this standard and the evidence 

submitted by the challenger and 

challenged party(ies) to determine 

whether adjustments to the initial 

eligibility map are appropriate. The 

Bureaus will weigh the evidence 

submitted by challengers and 

challenged parties based on its 

reliability, giving more credence to data 

that were collected pursuant to the 

parameters established in the MF–II 

Challenge Process Order and any 

additional standards that the 

Commission or Bureaus may adopt. The 

Commission retains discretion to 

discount the weight of a challenger’s 

evidence if a challenge appears 

designed to undermine the goals of MF– 

II. Particularly in light of the steps the 

Commission has taken to address 

questions about the reliability of Form 

477 data in response to the comments, 

the Commission concludes that it is 

appropriate that the burden rest on the 

challenger. The Commission finds that 

placing the burden of proof on the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42482 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

challenger both incentivizes challengers 

to present a full evidentiary record as 

well as discourages frivolous filings, 

thus supporting its goal of 

administrative efficiency and allowing 

for disbursement of support to unserved 

areas without unreasonable delay. 

59. With respect to the evidentiary 

standard, comments submitted in the 

record support a preponderance of the 

evidence standard, and no commenters 

supported the higher standard of clear 

and convincing evidence. The 

preponderance of the evidence standard 

of review is consistent with the CAF 

challenge processes, as well as with a 

wide body of Commission precedent. A 

more demanding standard would 

impose an evidentiary burden that is in 

tension with the Commission’s overall 

goal of making the most accurate 

determinations based on the evidence of 

record. The Commission finds that 

applying a preponderance of the 

evidence standard strikes the 

appropriate balance, potentially 

reducing the number of disputed areas 

and ensuring that the Commission has 

the data necessary to evaluate the merits 

of any challenges, while not unduly 

burdening smaller providers. 

V. Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 

60. The MF–II Challenge Process 

Order contains new information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13. It will be 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the 

general public, and other Federal 

agencies are invited to comment on the 

new information collection 

requirements contained in this 

proceeding. In addition, the 

Commission notes that pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, it previously sought specific 

comment on how the Commission might 

further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

The Commission describes impacts that 

might affect small businesses, which 

include most businesses with fewer 

than 25 employees, in the Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

in Appendix A of the MF–II Challenge 

Process Order. 

B. Congressional Review Act 

61. The Commission will send a copy 

of the MF–II Challenge Process Order to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act. 

C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

62. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the 

Further Notice section of the Mobility 

Fund II FNPRM adopted in February 

2017. The Commission sought written 

public comment on the proposals in the 

Mobility Fund II FNPRM including 

comment on the IRFA. The Commission 

received three comments in response to 

the IRFA. The Commission also 

included a Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) in the Report and 

Order section of the February 2017 

Mobility Fund II Report and Order. 

Seven petitions for reconsideration, one 

comment in support of a petition for 

reconsideration, two oppositions to the 

petitions, and six replies to the 

oppositions were received by the 

Commission in response to the Mobility 

Fund II Report and Order. This FRFA 

addresses the comments on the IRFA 

and analyzes the modifications adopted 

in response to the petitions, comments, 

and responsive filings to the Mobility 

Fund II Report and Order. This FRFA 

conforms to the RFA. 

1. Need for, and Objectives of, This 

Order on Reconsideration and Second 

Report and Order 

63. Rural and high-cost areas of the 

United States trail significantly behind 

urban areas in the growth of 4G LTE 

service. The Mobility Fund Phase II 

(MF–II) will use a market-based, multiround reverse auction and allow the 

Commission to redirect its limited 

resources to those areas of the country 

lacking unsubsidized, qualified 4G LTE 

service. 

64. In the MF–II Challenge Process 

Order, the Commission adopts 

procedures for a challenge process to 

supplement its coverage maps by 

providing an opportunity for interested 

parties to provide up-to-date LTE 

coverage data to determine a map of 

areas presumptively eligible for MF–II 

support. Interested parties will have the 

ability to contest this initial 

determination that an area is ineligible 

for MF–II support because an 

unsubsidized service provider 

submitted data that demonstrates it is 

providing qualified 4G LTE service 

there. The challenge process adopted in 

the MF–II Challenge Process Order 

enables the Commission to resolve 

eligible-area disputes in an 

administratively efficient and fiscally 

responsible manner. 

2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA 

65. The Commission received one 

comment, one reply comment, and one 

written ex parte submission bearing on 

the IRFA. CCA and RWA believe that a 

challenge process without a required 

data collection would better fulfill the 

directive of the RFA. NTCA similarly 

expressed concern that requiring all 

providers, including small entities, to 

file new Form 477 data to determine 

eligibility for MF–II support by area 

would be unnecessary and contrary to 

the directive of the RFA. 

66. The Commission is sensitive to 

the burden on small entities and other 

providers associated with the new data 

collection. However, the benefits of 

standardized, reliable data on which to 

base eligibility determinations outweigh 

the costs associated with their 

collection. Moreover, the use of newly 

collected data enables the Commission 

to adopt a streamlined challenge process 

that will reduce the burden on 

challengers and providers that respond 

to challenges. Fewer small providers 

will be forced to bring a challenge, and 

challenges will be more directed, more 

accurate, and less onerous because the 

Commission will have the best-available 

starting point of standardized data. The 

Commission also eases the burden of the 

new data collection on small entities by 

limiting the one-time data collection to 

providers who have previously reported 

4G LTE coverage in Form 477 and have 

qualified 4G LTE coverage. The limited 

scope of the collection addresses the 

concerns of some of the smaller 

providers who objected to the potential 

burden of a universal new filing. The 

Commission has eased the burden of the 

collection by only requiring a filing 

from those who have easy access to the 

necessary data. Additional steps taken 

to minimize the burden of the challenge 

process on small entities are discussed 

below. 

3. Response to Comments by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration 

67. Pursuant to the Small Business 

Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the 

RFA, the Commission is required to 

respond to any comments filed by the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) in 

response to the proposed rule(s) and to 

provide a detailed statement of any 

change made to the proposed rule(s) as 

a result of those comments. 

68. The Chief Counsel did not file any 

comments in response to the proposed 

procedures in this proceeding. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42483 

4. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

69. 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 rules adopted herein. 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. 

70. Small Entities, 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 broad groups of 

small entities 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 percent 

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-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field.’’ Nationwide, as of 

2007, there were approximately 

1,621,215 small organizations. Finally, 

the term ‘‘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 for 2012 indicate that there 

were 89,476 local governmental 

jurisdictions in the United States. The 

Commission estimates that, of this total, 

as many as 88,715 entities may qualify 

as ‘‘small governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

Thus, the Commission estimates that 

most governmental jurisdictions are 

small. 

71. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). This industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

operating and maintaining switching 

and transmission facilities to provide 

communications via the airwaves. 

Establishments in this industry have 

spectrum licenses and provide services 

using that spectrum, such as cellular 

services, paging services, wireless 

internet access, and wireless video 

services. The appropriate size standard 

under SBA rules is that such a business 

is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. For this industry, U.S. 

Census data for 2012 show that there 

were 967 firms that operated for the 

entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had 

employment of 999 or fewer employees 

and 12 had employment of 1000 

employees or more. Thus under this 

category and the associated size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of wireless 

telecommunications carriers (except 

satellite) are small entities. 

72. The Commission’s own data— 

available in its Universal Licensing 

System—indicate that, as of October 25, 

2016, there are 280 Cellular licensees 

that will be affected by its actions. The 

Commission does not know how many 

of these licensees are small, as the 

Commission does not collect that 

information for these types of entities. 

Similarly, according to internally 

developed Commission data, 413 

carriers reported that they were engaged 

in the provision of wireless telephony, 

including cellular service, Personal 

Communications Service, and 

Specialized Mobile Radio Telephony 

services. Of this total, an estimated 261 

have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 

have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, 

using available data, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of wireless 

firms can be considered small. 

73. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines this industry as ‘‘establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 

consists of all such companies having 

1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 

data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 

firms that operated that year. Of this 

total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this size 

standard, the majority of firms in this 

industry can be considered small. 

5. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

74. In the MF–II Challenge Process 

Order, the Commission adopts 

parameters both for establishing an 

eligible area baseline prior to the MF– 

II challenge process and for a 

streamlined challenge process. The 

process will efficiently resolve disputes 

about areas shown as eligible for MF–II 

support on the initial eligibility map 

that will be generated based on the new 

collection of 4G LTE coverage data. The 

Commission summarizes the reporting 

and other obligations of the MF–II 

challenge process in the accompanying 

MF–II Challenge Process Order. 

Additional information on these 

requirements can be found in the MF– 

II Challenge Process Order at paragraphs 

27–63. 

75. To establish the map of areas 

presumptively eligible for MF–II 

support, all current Form 477 filers that 

have previously reported qualified 4G 

LTE coverage and have qualified 4G 

LTE coverage based on the data 

specification set forth in the MF–II 

Challenge Process Order will be 

required to submit to the Commission a 

one-time new data filing detailing 4G 

LTE coverage. Providers will be 

required to file propagation maps and 

model details indicating current 4G LTE 

coverage, as defined by download 

speeds of 5 Mbps at the cell edge with 

80 percent probability and a 30 percent 

cell loading factor. Filers should report 

an outdoor level of coverage. The 

coverage boundaries shall have a 

resolution of 100 meters (approximately 

three arc-seconds) or better and shall 

likewise use an appropriate clutter 

factor and terrain model with a 

resolution of 100 meters or better. 

Providers shall report the signal strength 

(RSRP) and clutter factor categories used 

to generate their coverage maps. If the 

signal strength in the coverage maps 

varies regionally, then such variations 

must be reported. The providers must 

report the loss value associated with 

each clutter factor category used in their 

coverage maps. In addition, filers 

should use the optimized RF 

propagation models and parameters that 

they have used in their normal course 

of business, subject to further 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42484 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements set forth in subsequent 

public notices. Carriers will be required 

to submit data for the one-time 

collection at least 90 days after the 

release of the filing instructions public 

notice. 

76. In conjunction with submitting 

propagation maps, model details, and 

signal strength of 4G LTE coverage, 

providers will submit a list of at least 

three readily-available handset models 

appropriate for challengers wishing to 

conduct a speed test of the providers’ 

coverage in a particular area, and a 

certification, under penalty of perjury, 

by a qualified engineer or government 

official that the propagation map and 

model details reflect the filer’s coverage 

as of the generation date of the map in 

accordance with all other parameters. 

For challengers that are governmental 

entities and do not have a qualified 

engineer available to certify, the 

Commission will allow certification by 

a government official authorized to act 

on behalf of the organization and with 

actual knowledge of the accuracy of the 

underlying data. 

77. To initiate a challenge, a 

challenger must, within the 150-day 

challenge window: (1) Access 

confidential, provider-specific 

information for areas it wishes to 

challenge; (2) identify the areas(s) it 

wishes to challenge; (3) submit evidence 

supporting the challenge; and (4) certify 

its challenge for the specified area(s). 

Only service providers required to file 

Form 477 data and government entities 

(state, local, and Tribal) have standing 

to initiate a challenge. Challengers other 

than government entities and service 

providers required to file Form 477 data 

with the Commission, who are not 

already represented by another 

interested party, may file a waiver 

request with the Commission to 

participate in the MF–II challenge 

process for good cause shown. Only 

challenges for areas that the Bureaus 

identify as presumptively ineligible for 

MF–II support will be permitted. 

78. Challengers must submit their 

challenges to areas identified as 

ineligible for support via an online 

challenge portal to be operated by the 

Universal Service Administrative 

Company (USAC). A challenger will be 

required to identify the area(s) that it 

wishes to challenge for each state. The 

Commission will require that any 

challenge be of a minimum size of at 

least one square kilometer. 

79. Challengers will also be required 

to submit actual outdoor speed test data 

that satisfy the parameters outlined 

below and any others the Commission 

or Bureaus may implement. Speed test 

data must be collected using providerspecified handsets, and substantiated by 

the certification of a qualified engineer 

or, in the case of a government entity, 

a government official under penalty of 

perjury. 

80. A challenger must provide 

detailed proof of lack of unsubsidized, 

qualified 4G LTE coverage in support of 

its challenge with speed test data for 

each of the providers claiming qualified 

4G LTE coverage in the challenged area. 

The Commission will allow challengers 

to submit speed data from hardware or 

software-based drive tests or 

application-based tests that spatially 

cover the challenged area. All speed 

tests must be conducted between the 

hours of 06:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. local 

time, when consumers are likely to use 

mobile broadband data. A challenger 

must take speed measurements that are 

no more than a fixed distance apart from 

one another within the challenged area, 

and which substantially cover the entire 

challenged area. This fixed distance 

parameter will be a value no greater 

than one mile, and will be set by the 

Bureaus in a subsequent public notice. 

The Commission will only accept data 

that were collected after the publication 

of the initial eligibility map and within 

six months of the scheduled close of the 

challenge window. 

81. Challengers electing to use 

application-based tests must use the 

applicable handsets specified by each 

service provider servicing any portion of 

the challenged area. The challenger 

must purchase a service plan from each 

unsubsidized service provider in the 

challenged area. If there are multiple 

unsubsidized service providers in the 

challenge area, the challenger must 

purchase service plans that are 

comparable (i.e., similar with respect to 

cost and services provided). 

82. Once a challenger has submitted 

its evidence in the USAC MF–II portal, 

the system will automatically conduct a 

validation to determine whether the 

evidence is sufficient to justify 

proceeding with the challenge. The 

USAC system will superimpose each 

challenger’s identified challenged area 

on the initial eligibility map and will 

remove any portions that overlap 

eligible areas. A challenged ineligible 

area must meet the de minimis area 

threshold to move forward in the 

challenge process. If the challenged area 

does not meet the threshold, the system 

will flag the failure and will not accept 

the challenge for submission unless and 

until the challenger submits during the 

challenge window new data that meet 

the threshold. Then, the USAC system 

will analyze the geographic coordinates 

of the points at which the challenger 

conducted the speed tests to validate 

whether the speed test data show 

measurements of download speed less 

than 5 Mbps (counted speed tests) and 

meet all other standard parameters. In 

order to implement the requirements 

that each point is no more than a fixed 

distance apart and that the 

measurements substantially cover the 

entire challenged area, the system will 

create a buffer around each counted 

speed test point and calculate the area 

of these buffered points (speed test 

buffer area). The system will apply a 

buffer with a radius equal to half of the 

maximum distance parameter and will 

trim any portions of the buffers that are 

outside the challenged area. Where a 

challenged area overlaps the submitted 

coverage map of more than one 

incumbent provider, the system will 

require counted speed tests for each 

provider in order to calculate the speed 

test buffer area. If the speed test buffer 

area within each challenged area covers 

at least 75 percent of the challenged 

area, the challenge will pass validation, 

and once certified, the challenged 

area(s) will be presented to the 

incumbent provider(s) for a response. If 

the speed test buffer area does not cover 

at least 75 percent of the challenged 

area, the challenge for that area will fail 

validation unless the challenger submits 

new evidence or modifies its challenge 

during the challenge window such that 

the challenge for that area meets the 75 

percent threshold. Each challenged area 

that meets the de minimis threshold will 

be considered individually. The USAC 

system will determine which portions of 

a challenged area overlap which 4G LTE 

providers, and respondents will see 

only those challenged areas and speed 

test buffer areas that overlap their 4G 

LTE coverage. 

83. Once the challenge window 

closes, challenged parties will have a 

limited opportunity to submit 

additional data in response to a 

challenge. Using the USAC portal, a 

challenged party will have 30 days after 

the opening of the response window to: 

(1) Access and review the data 

submitted by the challenger with 

respect to the challenged area; and (2) 

submit additional data/information to 

oppose the challenge. The Commission 

will accept certain technical 

information that is probative to the 

validity of a challenger’s speed tests, 

including, but not limited to speed test 

data and device-specific data collected 

from transmitter monitoring software. If 

a respondent chooses to respond, it 

need only conduct speed tests of its own 

network (or gather its own geolocated, 

device-specific data from network 

monitoring software) in the disputed 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42485 

areas. If a challenged party chooses to 

submit its own speed test data, the data 

must conform to the same standards and 

requirements the Commission adopts for 

challengers. Any evidence submitted by 

a challenged party in response to a 

challenge must be certified under 

penalty of perjury. Response data will 

not be subject to the USAC’s automatic 

system validation process. A challenged 

party may choose not to oppose the 

challenge in which case no additional 

information will be required. A 

challenger bears the burden of 

persuasion and the merits of any 

challenge will be evaluated under a 

preponderance of the evidence 

standard. 

6. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

84. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives, among 

others: ‘‘(1) the establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance, rather than 

design, standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for small entities.’’ 

85. The Commission has considered 

the economic impact on small entities 

in reaching its final conclusions and 

taking action through this proceeding. 

In the Mobility Fund II FNPRM, the 

Commission sought comment on the 

parameters for the challenge process for 

MF–II. The Commission acknowledged 

that any challenge process would 

necessarily involve tradeoffs between 

the burden on interested parties and the 

Commission and the timeliness and 

accuracy of final determinations. The 

Commission sought specific comment 

on the ways it could reduce the burden 

on smaller providers. 

86. In the MF–II Challenge Process 

Order, the Commission amends its 

decision to use a parties’ most recent 

Form 477 data and will instead 

supplement its coverage maps by 

providing an opportunity for interested 

parties to provide up-to-date LTE 

coverage data to determine an initial 

map of potentially eligible areas for MF– 

II support. This amended data baseline, 

in response to concerns regarding the 

lack of standardization and reliability of 

Form 477 data for the purpose of 

determining coverage meeting the MF– 

II eligibility benchmark, is intended to 

provide the Commission and interested 

parties with the best available starting 

point of standardized coverage data. In 

building on this baseline, the 

procedures the Commission adopts in 

the MF–II Challenge Process Order will 

provide greater certainty and 

transparency for entities participating in 

the MF–II challenge process, including 

small entities. In the Mobility Fund II 

FNPRM, the Commission sought 

comment on two options, ‘‘Option A’’ 

and ‘‘Option B’’ for the challenge 

process, and invited alternative options 

for the challenge process. 

87. ‘‘Option A’’ allowed a challenge to 

be made on a good-faith belief, based on 

actual knowledge or past data 

collection, that 4G LTE coverage was 

not available in an area as depicted by 

Form 477 filings. Carriers and state and 

local governments would be eligible to 

participate. The Commission sought 

comment on what evidence, if any, 

should be required in support of a 

challenge, whether or not it should 

require a challenged area to reach a 

minimum size threshold, whether 

challenges should be allowed for areas 

marked as eligible, and how and when 

challenged providers could respond and 

with what evidence of coverage. 

88. ‘‘Option B’’ gave challenging 

parties 60 days following the 

Commission’s release of a list of eligible 

areas to submit evidence, which would 

include speed test data and shapefile 

maps and be filed in the public record, 

contesting the eligibility status of an 

area. Service providers and 

governmental entities located in or near 

the relevant areas would be eligible to 

participate. Challenged providers would 

then have 30 days to respond with their 

own speed tests and shapefile maps. 

The Commission sought comment on 

what requirements should be imposed 

for speed tests and on the burden of 

requiring such a level of response from 

challenged providers. 

89. The Commission explained that it 

intended to assemble a ‘‘best in class 

structure’’ from the proposed options 

and made it clear the Commission did 

not intend to adopt either option 

wholesale. The Commission believes the 

challenge process procedures adopted 

today are the ‘‘best in class’’ and will 

both promote fairness and minimize 

burdens on small entities and other 

interested parties. 

90. Given the concerns voiced in the 

comments regarding the lack of 

standardization and the reliability of 

using Form 477 data for MF–II 

purposes, a collection of new data will 

ultimately lead to a less onerous and 

more efficient challenge process for 

small entities and other MF–II 

participants. The challenge process will 

be streamlined using universal, 

standardized coverage data. These data 

are already in the possession of current 

providers who are therefore in the best 

position to provide data to the Bureaus. 

Current providers of unsubsidized, 

qualified 4G LTE coverage, including 

small businesses, will benefit by filing 

their coverage data under the 

standardized parameters adopted in the 

MF–II Challenge Process Order because 

they can establish their coverage areas 

as initially ineligible to competitors 

seeking subsidies in the MF–II auction. 

91. Use of newly collected data 

enables the Commission to adopt a 

streamlined challenge process that will 

ease the burden of submission and 

resolution of challenges to the map of 

presumptively eligible areas. Because 

the map of presumptively eligible areas 

will be established using current, 

standardized data, challengers will be 

able to target fewer areas to challenge 

and reduce the need for more in-depth 

testing in certain areas. This in turn 

should reduce the burden on 

challengers and providers that respond 

to challenges. The Commission also 

limited the new, one-time data 

collection to providers who have 

previously reported 4G LTE coverage in 

Form 477 and have qualified 4G LTE 

coverage. The limited scope for the 

collection eases the burden by only 

requiring a filing from those who have 

easy access to the necessary data. 

92. The Commission has taken a 

number of steps to reduce the burden on 

small entities and other parties 

participating in the challenge process 

while also collecting the information 

required to target areas without 

qualified 4G LTE coverage. For example, 

the Commission limits the types of 

challenges and will only accept 

challenges for areas identified by the 

Bureaus as ineligible for MF–II support. 

Because the data for the map of 

presumptively eligible areas are 

supplied by service providers, the 

Commission believes a challenge to an 

eligible area would likely be a 

correction by the service provider who 

supplied the initial data. The 

Commission will not require challengers 

to match up their challenged areas to 

census blocks or census block groups as 

proposed in the Mobility Fund II 

FNPRM. The Commission will allow 

challenges from government entities 

(state, local, and Tribal) and all service 

providers required to file Form 477 data 

with the Commission, limiting the 

process to those parties with an 

adequate interest who are likely to have 

the knowledge and expertise to make 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42486 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

the requisite submission. The 

Commission does not include 

consumers as challengers in the MF–II 

process and believe consumers are best 

suited to participate in the MF–II 

challenge process through a state, local, 

or Tribal government entity. If a 

consumer, organization, or business 

believes that its interests cannot be met 

through its state, local, or Tribal 

government entity, and it wishes to 

participate in the process as a 

challenger, it is free to file a waiver with 

the Commission for good cause shown, 

either on its own or with the assistance 

of an organization. These limits promote 

an efficient challenge process and 

prevent unnecessary delay of the 

deployment of MF–II support. 

93. The Commission also requires that 

challenges be a minimum size of at least 

one square kilometer. By including a 

minimum size requirement for 

challenges, the Commission believe 

small businesses and all interested 

parties will benefit from a streamlined 

challenge process. The Commission 

rejected smaller alternatives to the size 

of the minimum challenge area. Making 

the minimum zone smaller than one 

square kilometer would make the area 

so small as to be inconsequential for 

improving efficiency for the challenge 

process. Ineligible areas of less than one 

square kilometer can be subject to 

challenge insofar as they are part of a 

challenge where the total size of the 

areas being challenged exceeds the de 

minimis size requirement. The 

minimum size requirement for a partial 

area challenge will prevent challenges 

solely regarding minor, patchy areas 

often at the edge of a covered area. 

94. The MF–II Challenge Process 

Order adopts specific types of data 

needed to support a challenge, 

including actual outdoor download 

speed test data. The MF–II Challenge 

Process Order also adopts parameters 

around the type and number of handsets 

tested, service plan types, hours during 

which the tests must be completed, 

frequency of tests, and timing of tests in 

relation to the submission of the 

challenge. Standardizing the datacollection parameters will lead to a 

more efficient and accurate process, 

deter excessive and unfounded 

challenges, and minimize the burden on 

small business challengers as well as 

other parties utilizing the challenge 

process. In requiring the submission of 

standardized data, the Commission 

allows challengers to use drive-based or 

application-based tests to generate the 

necessary data reports. In addition, the 

Commission is not requiring that an 

independent third party conduct the 

speed tests. Given the parameters for 

speed test data, along with the required 

certification, the Commission believes 

the flexibility afforded by allowing 

different testing methods limits the 

burden on small businesses. The MF–II 

Challenge Process Order also adopts an 

automatic system of validation of a 

challenger’s evidence. This automatic 

validation system ensures that the 

evidence is reliable and accurately 

reflects consumer experience in the 

challenged area, and can be analyzed 

quickly and efficiently. Challenged 

parties are also given a limited 

opportunity to respond to challenges. If 

a challenged party does not oppose the 

challenge, it does not need to submit 

any additional data. To reduce the 

burden on challenged parties, the 

Commission declines to require a 

specific level of response from 

challenged parties. 

95. The Commission will send a copy 

of the MF–II Challenge Process Order, 

including this FRFA, in a report to be 

sent to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act. In addition, 

the Commission will send a copy of the 

MF–II Challenge Process Order, 

including this FRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

VI. Ordering Clauses 

96. The Commission orders the 

following, pursuant to the authority 

contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5, 10, 

201–206, 214, 219–220, 251, 254, 256, 

303(r), 332, 403, 405, and 503 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, and section 706 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 

U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 155, 160, 201– 

206, 214, 219–220, 251, 254, 256, 303(r), 

332, 403, 405, 503, 1302, and sections 

1.1 and 1.429 of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR 1.1 and 1.429: 

• The Order on Reconsideration and 

Second Report and Order is adopted. It 

is the Commission’s intention in 

adopting these procedures that if any of 

the procedures that the Commission 

retains, modifies, or adopts herein, or 

the application thereof to any person or 

circumstance, are held to be unlawful, 

the remaining portions of the 

procedures not deemed unlawful, and 

the application of such procedures to 

other persons or circumstances, shall 

remain in effect to the fullest extent 

permitted by law. 

• The parameters set forth in the 

Order on Reconsideration and Second 

Report and Order for the Mobility Fund 

Phase II challenge process, along with 

all associated requirements also set forth 

therein, go into effect October 10, 2017, 

except for the new or modified 

information collection requirements in 

the challenge process that require 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). The Commission 

will publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the approval of 

those information collection 

requirements and the date they will 

become operative. 

• The Petition for Reconsideration 

and Comments filed by CTIA on April 

26, 2017, is granted in part to the extent 

described herein. 

• The Petition for Reconsideration 

and/or Clarification filed by the Rural 

Wireless Association, Inc. on April 12, 

2017, is denied as described herein. 

• The Petition for Reconsideration 

filed by Panhandle Telephone 

Cooperative, Inc. and Pine Belt Cellular, 

Inc. on April 27, 2017, is denied as 

described herein. 

• The Petition for Reconsideration 

and Clarification filed by Rural Wireless 

Carriers (i.e., United States Cellular 

Corporation, East Kentucky Network, 

LLC d/b/a Appalachian Wireless, 

Cellular Network Partnership d/b/a 

Pioneer Cellular, NE Colorado Cellular, 

Inc. d/b/a Viaero Wireless, Nex-Tech 

Wireless, LLC, and Smith Bagley, Inc.) 

on April 27, 2017, is denied as 

described herein. 

• The Petition for Reconsideration 

and/or Clarification filed by the 

Blooston Rural Carriers on April 27, 

2017, is denied as described herein. 

• The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

the Order on Reconsideration and 

Second Report and Order, including the 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17824 Filed 9–7–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES