[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 212 (Friday, November 3, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51180-51185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23936]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket No. 10-90, WT Docket No. 10-208; DA 17-1027]


Connect America Fund; Universal Service Reform--Mobility Fund

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force 
(Task Force), with the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau (the Bureaus), propose and seek comment on 
specific parameters and procedures to implement the Mobility Fund Phase 
II (MF-II) challenge process. This document describes the steps the 
Federal Communications Commission (Commission) intends to use to 
establish a map of areas presumptively eligible for MF-II support from 
the newly collected, standardized 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) coverage 
data and proposes specific parameters for the data that challengers and 
respondents will submit as part of the challenge process, as well as a 
process for validating challenges.

DATES: Comments are due on or before November 8, 2017 and reply 
comments are due on or before November 29, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 10-90 
and WT Docket No. 10-208, by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fcbabfbfc9ccc8bc9a9f9fd29b938a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eea8adaddbdedaae888d8dc0898198">[email protected]</span></a> or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 888-835-5322.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
Auction and Spectrum Access Division, Jonathan McCormack, at (202) 418-
0660.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Public 
Notice (MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice), WC Docket No. 
10-90, WT Docket No. 10-208, DA 17-1027, adopted on October 18, 2017 
and released on October 18, 2017. The MF-II Challenge Process Comment 
Public Notice includes as attachments the following appendices: 
Appendix A, Generating Initial Eligible Areas Map; Appendix B, 
Validating Challenge Evidence; Appendix C, Applying Subsidy Data; 
Appendix D, File Specifications and File Formats; and Appendix E, 
Relational Mapping of Form 477 Filers to Providers. The complete text 
of the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice, including all 
attachments, 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/db1018/DA-17-1027A1.pdf. Alternative formats are available to persons with 
disabilities by sending an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0e484d4d3b3e3a4e686d6d20696178"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5f3f6f6808581f5d3d6d69bd2dac3">[email protected]</span></a> or by calling the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 
418-0432 (TTY).
    Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated in the MF-II Challenge 
Process Comment Public Notice in WC Docket No. 10-90 and WT Docket No. 
10-208. Electronic Filing of

[[Page 51181]]

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998).
    The Bureaus strongly encourage interested parties to file comments 
electronically.
    <bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 
Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for 
submitting comments. In completing the transmittal screen, filers 
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, 
and the applicable docket numbers, WC Docket No. 10-90 and WT Docket 
No. 10-208.
    <bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    <bullet> All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
    <bullet> Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
    <bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e484d4d1b1e1a6e484d4d00494158">[email protected]</a> or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 888-
835-5322 (tty).

I. Introduction

    1. In the MF-II Challenge Process Order, 82 FR 42473, September 8, 
2017, the Commission established the framework for a robust and 
efficient challenge process to resolve disputes about areas 
presumptively ineligible for Mobility Fund Phase II (MF-II) support. 
Pursuant to the Commission's direction, the Rural Broadband Auctions 
Task Force (Task Force), with the Wireline Competition Bureau and the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (the Bureaus), now propose and seek 
comment on specific parameters and procedures to implement the MF-II 
challenge process.
    2. The challenge process will begin with a new, one-time collection 
of current, standardized coverage data on qualified 4G LTE service, 
defined by download speeds of 5 Mbps at the cell edge with 80 percent 
probability and a 30 percent cell loading factor. The coverage data 
will be used, in conjunction with subsidy data from the Universal 
Service Administrative Company (USAC), to establish the map of areas 
presumptively eligible for MF-II support. The MF-II Challenge Process 
Comment Public Notice describes the steps the Commission intends to use 
to process the coverage and subsidy data and create that map. The MF-II 
Challenge Process Comment Public Notice also proposes specific 
parameters for the data that challengers and respondents will submit as 
part of the challenge process, as well as a process for validating 
challenges.

II. Procedures for Generating the Initial Eligible Areas Map

    3. Appendix A and Appendix C of the MF-II Challenge Process Comment 
Public Notice describe in detail the methodology the Bureaus plan to 
use to generate the map of areas presumptively eligible for MF-II 
support. This map will form the baseline for the challenge process. In 
accordance with the MF-II Challenge Process Order, the methodology 
revises an earlier methodology for determining presumptively eligible 
areas. The revised methodology accounts for the new, one-time 4G LTE 
data collection as the initial source of coverage data. In this multi-
step process, Commission staff will first use the newly-collected 4G 
LTE coverage data and USAC subsidy data to determine the unsubsidized 
coverage for each provider. Consistent with the Commission's past 
practice in releasing Form 477 coverage data, and as discussed in 
Appendix C of the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice, the 
Bureaus plan to consolidate data from any attributable entities that 
file separately to a common provider name when generating provider-
specific maps to be used in the challenge process. Commission staff 
would then aggregate these data across all providers to determine the 
presumptively eligible areas, that is, those areas lacking unsubsidized 
qualifying coverage by any provider.
    4. Specifically, in order to generate a map of unsubsidized 
qualified 4G LTE coverage for each provider, Commission staff would: 
(1) Remove any subsidized areas from the provider's coverage map; (2) 
remove any water-only areas; (3) overlay a uniform grid with cells of 
one square kilometer (1 km by 1 km) on the provider's coverage map; and 
(4) remove grid cells with coverage of less than 50,625 square meters, 
or an area approximately equal to the minimum area that could be 
covered by a single speed test measurement when buffered. Consistent 
with past Commission practice, the Bureaus would treat a water-only 
census block (that is, a census block for which the entire area is 
categorized by the U.S. Census Bureau as water) as ineligible and not 
subject to challenge. The Bureaus seek comment on excluding all, some, 
or none of the water-only blocks, and specifically seek comment on: (1) 
Whether there is a feasible subset of water-only areas that the Bureaus 
should not exclude, e.g., coastal waters, inland lakes; (2) specific 
hydrographic data sources; and (3) specific methodologies to identify 
water-only areas that should or should not be excluded, as well as any 
administratively efficient alternatives.
    5. Using the maps that result from steps 1-4 of this process, staff 
would then generate the map of presumptively eligible areas for each 
state (or state equivalent) with the following steps: (5) merging the 
maps of unsubsidized coverage for all providers; (6) removing the 
merged unsubsidized coverage generated in step 5 (the ineligible areas) 
from the state's boundary to produce the eligible areas; and (7) 
removing any water-only areas from the eligible areas. In accordance 
with the Commission's adoption of the Alaska Plan to provide support 
for mobile service within Alaska and its decision to therefore exclude 
from MF-II support mobile service within Alaska, the map of 
presumptively eligible areas will include all states except Alaska, as 
well as the District of Columbia and the U.S. Territories of Guam, the 
Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin 
Islands, and American Samoa (collectively, state equivalents). State 
boundaries will be intersected with the grid. Grid cells along the 
state border may have portions that fall outside of the state boundary, 
and these portions would be ignored when generating data for the state. 
Such grid cells would therefore be smaller than one square kilometer in 
that state. The resulting map of presumptively eligible

[[Page 51182]]

areas (overlaid with the uniform grid) for each state or state 
equivalent would then be made available to the public. The maps of 
unsubsidized coverage for specific providers would only be made 
available to challengers through USAC's online challenge portal (the 
USAC portal) after challengers agree to keep such maps confidential. 
Although the Commission will treat provider-specific coverage maps as 
confidential information, the map of presumptively eligible areas will 
be released publicly. In areas where there is known to be only one or 
two providers, it may be possible to determine some otherwise-
confidential information from the publicly-released information in 
certain circumstances. The Bureaus seek comment on the proposed 
procedures for generating the initial map of presumptively eligible 
areas.

III. Procedures for MF-II Challenges

    6. As the Commission explained in the MF-II Challenge Process 
Order, adopting clear guidance and parameters on speed test data will 
help 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. The Bureaus propose and seek 
comment on the following requirements for the challenge process.

A. Specifying Provider Approved Handsets

    7. In the MF-II Challenge Process Order, the Commission specified 
that service providers with qualified 4G LTE coverage will be required 
to identify at least three readily available handset models appropriate 
for testing those providers' coverage. The Bureaus plan to consolidate 
coverage data from affiliated entities that file separately into a 
single common provider. The Bureaus propose to similarly consolidate 
submitted provider handset data for such entities to the extent that 
the lists of handsets differ. Challengers electing to use application-
based tests and software-based drive tests must use the applicable 
handsets specified by each service provider with coverage in the 
challenged area.
    8. In order to ensure that at least one device is drive test 
compatible, the Bureaus propose to require providers to identify at 
least one device that is either: (a) Officially supported by the latest 
versions of drive test software, such as JDSU, ZK-SAM, Rohde & 
Schwartz, TEMS, or Ookla; or (b) engineering-capable and able to be 
unlocked and put into diagnostic mode in order to interface with drive 
test software. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal, particularly 
on whether it is sufficient to allow challengers to conduct drive tests 
efficiently and effectively.

B. Requirements for Speed Test Measurements

    9. The Bureaus will require that speed test data meet the standard 
parameters adopted by the Commission, in particular that each test be 
conducted between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (midnight) local time, and 
that the date of the test be after the publication of the initial 
eligibility map and within six months of the close of the challenge 
window. The Bureaus propose to require challengers to submit all speed 
test measurements collected during these hours and during the relevant 
timeframe, including those that are above the speed threshold (i.e., 
showing speeds greater than or equal to 5 Mbps). Consistent with the 
validation framework adopted by the Commission however, only 
measurements showing download speeds below the 5 Mbps threshold will be 
considered as part of a valid challenge. All evidence submitted may be 
considered by Commission staff when adjudicating challenges using the 
preponderance of the evidence standard.
    10. The Commission adopted in the MF-II Challenge Process Order a 
requirement that challengers take measurements that: (1) Are no more 
than a fixed distance apart from one another in each challenged area, 
and (2) substantially cover the entire area. The Commission directed 
the Bureaus to adopt the specific value--no greater than one mile--for 
the maximum distance between speed tests. Consistent with this 
direction, the Bureaus propose to use a maximum distance value of one-
half of one kilometer. The Bureaus propose to use kilometers instead of 
miles in order to be consistent with the de minimis challenge size 
adopted by the Commission, as well as to be consistent with the units 
used for the ``equal area'' map projection that the Bureaus plan to use 
when processing geospatial data. Consistent with the framework adopted 
by the Commission, the maximum distance parameter would be validated as 
part of a multi-step geospatial-data-processing approach. Specifically, 
under this automated-validation framework, if a challenger submits 
speed test measurements less densely than the maximum distance 
parameter in a challenged area, its evidence may be insufficient to 
cover at least 75 percent of the challengeable area within a cell, and 
its challenge would presumptively fail. In order to implement this 
density requirement, the Bureaus will buffer each speed test point and 
calculate the buffered area, as explained by the Commission, then 
compare the area of the buffered points to the challengeable area 
within a grid cell. The Bureaus propose that a challenger have at least 
one speed test within the challengeable area of a grid cell in order to 
challenge an area within the grid cell. The Bureaus seek comment on the 
proposal and how this fixed distance would affect the collection and 
analysis of challenge data.
    11. The Bureaus propose to require challengers to provide other 
data parameters associated with a speed test. In addition to the 
parameters adopted by the Commission, which the Bureaus will require, 
the Bureaus propose to require that a challenger provide: Signal 
strength and latency; the service provider identity and device used 
(which must be from that provider's list of pre-approved handsets); the 
international mobile equipment identity (IMEI) of the tested device; 
the method of the test (i.e., software-based drive test or non-drive 
test app-based test); and, if an app was used to conduct the 
measurement, the identity and version of the app. In order to 
effectuate the Commission's decision to not permit challenges to the 
allocation of subsidy data, the Bureaus will not allow a challenger to 
submit speed test data of its own network. The complete file 
specification for challenger speed tests is detailed in Appendix D of 
the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice. The Bureaus seek 
comment on these additional proposed data parameter requirements.
    12. In the MF-II Challenge Process Order, the Commission explained 
that the evidence submitted by challenged parties must be reliable and 
credible to be useful during the adjudication process and indicated 
that submission of speed test data to refute a challenge would be 
particularly persuasive evidence. The Commission also required that, if 
a challenged party chooses to submit speed test data, the data must 
conform to the same standards and requirements it adopted for 
challengers, except for the recency of submitted data. The Bureaus 
would require the same additional parameters as they propose to require 
of challengers, except for the requirement to identify the service 
provider, as a challenged party may only provide speed tests of its own 
network in response to a challenge. The proposed file specification for 
respondent speed tests is detailed in Appendix D of the MF-II Challenge 
Process Comment Public Notice.

[[Page 51183]]

    13. Recognizing that some providers may reduce the speed of data on 
their networks for network management purposes (e.g., in the case of 
large data usage by particular users), the Bureaus propose to allow a 
challenged party to submit data that identify a particular device that 
a challenger used to conduct its speed tests as having been subjected 
to reduced speeds, along with the precise date and time the speed 
reductions were in effect on the challenger's device. The proposed 
specifications for submitting these data are detailed in Appendix D of 
the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice. The Bureaus seek 
comment on this proposal.
    14. Under the MF-II challenge process framework adopted by the 
Commission, challenged parties may submit device-specific data 
collected from transmitter monitoring software. The Bureaus propose to 
allow challenged parties to submit transmitter monitoring software data 
that is substantially similar in form and content to speed test data in 
order to facilitate comparison of such data during the adjudication 
process. In particular, if a challenged party wishes to submit such 
data, the Bureaus propose to require: The latitude and longitude to at 
least five decimals of the measured device; the date and time of the 
measurement; signal strength, latency, and recorded speeds; and the 
distance between the measured device and transmitter. The Bureaus seek 
comment on this proposal.
    15. The Bureaus propose to require that measurements from submitted 
transmitter monitoring software data conform to the standard parameters 
and requirements adopted by the Commission for speed test data 
submitted by a challenged party. The Bureaus propose to require that 
such measurements reflect device usage between the hours of 6:00 a.m. 
and 12:00 a.m. (midnight) local time and be collected after the 
publication of the initial eligibility map and within six months of the 
scheduled close of the response window. The Bureaus seek comment on 
these proposed requirements.

C. Automated Validation of Challenges

    16. The Bureaus plan to analyze geospatial data throughout the 
challenge process using a uniform grid based on cells of equal area, 
set at the de minimis challenged area threshold of one square 
kilometer. For each grid cell containing a speed test measurement 
submitted by a challenger, the system would consider the challengeable 
portion of the grid cell (i.e., the ineligible area, or any area that 
is neither eligible nor water-only) to constitute the challenged area. 
In order to allow for challenges in grid cells where the challengeable 
portion of the cell is less than this threshold, the Bureaus propose to 
validate that the sum of all challenged areas in a state is greater 
than or equal to one square kilometer. Consistent with the Commission's 
framework, if a challenge submitted for a state fails this validation, 
the system would reject the entire challenge.
    17. To implement step two of the validation framework, the Bureaus 
propose to require a challenger to submit speed test measurement data 
in a standard format on a state-by-state basis. This will permit the 
system to conduct an initial check for each speed test record to ensure 
that the data parameters are consistent with all adopted requirements 
and that the file matches the file specification. Any record that fails 
this initial check would be rejected, and the system would provide a 
warning message to the challenger with the reason for failing this 
step.
    18. For each speed test measurement passing step two (a counted 
speed test), the system would calculate the speed test buffer area, 
thereby determining the density of submitted speed tests and 
implementing step three of the validation framework. The Bureaus 
propose that the system determine the set of grid cells in which at 
least one counted speed test is contained. For each of these grid 
cells, the system would apply a buffer (i.e., draw a circle of fixed 
size) with a radius of one-quarter of one kilometer (one-half of the 
maximum distance allowed between tests) to each counted speed test and 
determine the total portion of this buffered area that overlaps with 
the coverage map of the challenged provider for whose network the speed 
test measurement was recorded (measured areas). Since a challenger has 
the burden of showing insufficient coverage by each provider of 
unsubsidized, qualified 4G LTE service, the system would also determine 
the unmeasured area for each such provider, that is, the portion of 
each provider's coverage in the grid cell falling outside of the 
buffered area.
    19. To implement step four of the validation framework, the system 
would merge the unmeasured area of all providers in a grid cell to 
determine the aggregated unmeasured area where the challenger has not 
submitted sufficient speed test evidence for every provider. Unmeasured 
area is the coverage area outside of the buffer area. If the calculated 
size of the aggregated unmeasured area in the grid cell is greater than 
25 percent of the total challengeable portion of the grid cell (the 
total area of the grid cell minus any water-only areas and any eligible 
areas), the challenge would be presumptively unsuccessful because it 
failed the requirement to include speed test measurements of sufficient 
density for all providers. The system would provide a warning to the 
challenger for any grid cells that fail this step. In other words, if a 
challenger has not submitted speed tests that, when buffered and 
aggregated across providers, dispute at least 75 percent of the 
coverage in that grid cell, the challenge would presumptively fail. 
This step would be performed after, and is unrelated to, the check in 
step one that a challenger has identified grid cells with challengeable 
areas that in sum meet the de minimis threshold of one square 
kilometer. In other words, the sufficiency of submitted evidence and 
whether a challenge is presumptively successful or not would be 
unrelated to whether a challenger has identified enough ineligible 
areas with its challenge.
    20. The Bureaus propose to allow challengers to certify their 
challenges notwithstanding this presumption. This would allow the 
system to consider all certified challenges in a particular grid cell 
across all challengers at the close of the challenge window. As a 
result, even if an individual challenger's submission is presumptively 
unsuccessful, the system may determine that, in the aggregate, 
challenges to an area are presumptively successful if, as a result of 
multiple certified challenges, the total aggregated unmeasured area 
across all challengers is less than 25 percent. While the Commission 
decided not to subject response data submitted by challenged parties to 
USAC's automatic system validation, the Bureaus propose to process any 
such data jointly at the close of the response window using a similar 
approach (i.e., applying a buffer with a fixed radius to submitted 
speed measurements) in order to help evaluate competing data during the 
adjudication process. This approach to processing data submitted by 
both challengers and challenged parties is detailed in Appendix B of 
the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice. Under the proposal, 
the system would process evidence submitted by both challengers (speed 
tests) and challenged parties (speed tests, transmitter monitoring 
software measurements, and/or data speed reduction reports) to 
facilitate the comparison of such data by staff. The Bureaus seek 
comment on this proposed implementation of the Commission's framework.

[[Page 51184]]

D. File Formats

    21. In the MF-II Challenge Process Order, the Commission directed 
the Bureaus to provide instructions for how to submit data to initiate 
or respond to a challenge, including file formats, parameters, and 
other specifications for conducting speed tests. The Bureaus propose 
that challengers and respondents submit speed test data in comma-
separated values (CSV) format matching the respective file 
specifications. The Bureaus also propose to require that data from 
transmitter monitoring software match a substantially similar file 
specification in CSV form. The Bureaus likewise propose to require that 
data submitted about speed reductions for devices match the proposed 
file specification in CSV form. Additional details about the attributes 
and the file formats that the Bureaus propose to require for 
challengers and respondents may be found in Appendix D of the MF-II 
Challenge Process Comment Public Notice. The Bureaus seek comment on 
this proposal generally.

IV. Other Important Challenge Process Information

A. Access to USAC Challenge Process Portal

    22. Unless a party otherwise contacts the Commission as explained 
in the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice, USAC will create 
accounts for all service providers, using contact information submitted 
by a filer in its Form 477 filing data as of June 30, 2017. Any service 
provider eligible to participate that for some reason did not file Form 
477 data in June 2017 would not have an account created unless it 
contacts the Commission as required for a filer that wishes to use a 
different contact in order to get access to the USAC portal. 
Additionally, as discussed in Appendix C of the MF-II Challenge Process 
Comment Public Notice, the Bureaus plan to consolidate any attributable 
entities that separately file Form 477 mobile broadband coverage data 
to a common provider. As a result, such entities would jointly have 
access to the USAC portal, and would submit or respond to challenges on 
behalf of a single provider. After creating the account, USAC will 
issue log-on information to access the portal via email. If a filer 
wants to use contact information other than the contact it submitted 
for its Form 477 for purposes of accessing the USAC portal, or if a 
filer wishes to add other users, the Bureaus propose that it email the 
Commission and provide its provider name, the first and last name of 
the user(s) it wishes to grant access to the portal, and the email 
address(es) of the user(s), up to a maximum of three users. The Bureaus 
propose that government entities eligible to participate in the process 
(e.g., local, state, or Tribal government entities) submit via email 
the name of the entity, its legal jurisdiction, the first and last name 
of the user(s) that should have access to the portal on its behalf, and 
the email address(es) of the user(s), up to a maximum of three users. 
Other parties that seek to participate in the MF-II challenge process 
must first file a waiver petition with the Commission, and the Bureaus 
propose requiring them to submit the first and last name of the user(s) 
that should have access to the portal on its behalf, and the email 
address(es) of the user(s), up to a maximum of three users, as part of 
their petition for waiver. The Bureaus seek comment on these proposals.
    23. In accordance with the procedures adopted in the MF-II 
Challenge Process Order, the Bureaus propose to make available in a 
downloadable format through the USAC portal the provider-specific data 
underlying the map of presumptively eligible areas. These baseline data 
would include geospatial data on a state-by-state basis in shapefile 
format for: (a) The boundaries of the state (or state equivalent) 
overlaid with the uniform grid; (b) the confidential coverage maps 
submitted by providers during the new, one-time data collection; and 
(c) the map of initial eligible areas. Additionally, the baseline data 
for each state would include tabular data in CSV format with the list 
of pre-approved handsets and the clutter information submitted during 
the new, one-time data collection for each provider.
    24. After Commission staff have adjudicated all challenges and 
responses, the Bureaus propose to make available to challengers and 
respondents data about their challenges or responses through the USAC 
portal. The Bureaus would provide to each challenger or respondent for 
each of the grid cells associated with their certified challenges or 
certified responses, respectively: (a) The outcome of the adjudication; 
(b) the confidential evidence submitted and certified by all 
challengers; and (c) the confidential evidence submitted and certified 
by all respondents. The Bureaus propose to make non-confidential 
information about the adjudication process available to the public on 
the Commission's Web site concurrent with an announcement of the map of 
final eligible areas via public notice. Specifically, the public data 
would include: (a) The outcome of the adjudication for each challenged 
cell; and (b) the map of final eligible areas.

B. Timing

    25. The Bureaus expect to make public a map of areas presumptively 
eligible for MF-II support no earlier than four weeks after the 
deadline for submission of the new, one-time 4G LTE provider coverage 
data. Providers are required to file new, one-time 4G LTE coverage data 
by January 4, 2018. Contemporaneous with the publication of the map of 
presumptively eligible areas, the Bureaus will announce via public 
notice the availability of this data and subsequent commencement of the 
challenge window. The Bureaus propose that the challenge process window 
open on the next business day following the release of the map. 
Eligible parties would be able to access the USAC portal and download 
the provider-specific confidential data necessary to begin conducting 
speed tests on that day. The challenge window will close 150 days 
later, consistent with the procedures adopted in the MF-II Challenge 
Process Order. Although challenges will be accepted until the close of 
the challenge window, the Bureaus encourage interested parties to file 
in advance of the closing date to allow ample time for data processing.
    26. Following the close of the challenge window, the USAC portal 
system will process the data submitted by challengers. The Bureaus 
propose to open the response window no earlier than five business days 
after the close of the challenge window to allow for this data 
processing. Once opened, the response window will close 30 days later. 
Although challenged parties will have an opportunity to submit 
additional data via the USAC portal in response to a certified 
challenge for the entire duration of the response window, challenged 
parties are similarly encouraged to file in advance of the deadline. A 
challenged party will not have a further opportunity to submit any 
additional data for the Commission's consideration after the response 
window closes and should therefore plan accordingly.
    27. Commission staff will adjudicate certified challenges and 
responses, consistent with the standard of review and evidentiary 
standards adopted in the MF-II Challenge Process Order. Following the 
adjudication process, the Commission will publicly release the final 
map of areas eligible for MF-II support.

[[Page 51185]]

V. Procedural Matters

A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    28. The MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice proposes and 
seeks comment on specific parameters and procedures to implement the 
MF-II challenge process that was established by the Commission in the 
MF-II Order, 82 FR 15422, March 28, 2017, and the MF-II Challenge 
Process Order, 82 FR 42473, September 8, 2017 (collectively, MF-II 
Orders). The Commission is currently seeking PRA approval for the 
information collection requirements related to the challenge process, 
as adopted in the MF-II Orders. Because the MF-II Challenge Process 
Comment Public Notice does not propose any additional proposed 
information collection requirements beyond those established in the MF-
II Orders, the proposals set out in the MF-II Challenge Process Comment 
Public Notice do not implicate the procedural requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, or those of 
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

B. Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    29. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 
the Commission prepared Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFAs) 
in connection with the USF/ICC Transformation FNPRM, 76 FR 78383, 
December 16, 2011, the 2014 CAF FNPRM, 79 FR 39195, July 9, 2014, and 
the MF-II FNPRM, 82 FR 13413, March 13, 2017 (collectively, MF-II 
FNPRMs), and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (FRFAs) in 
connection with the 2014 CAF Order, 79 FR 39163, July 9, 2014, and the 
MF-II Orders. The Commission sought written public comment on the 
proposals in the MF-II FNPRMs, including comments on the IRFAs. The 
Commission did not receive any comments in response to those Regulatory 
Flexibility Analyses.
    30. The IRFAs for the MF-II NPRMs and the FRFAs for the MF-II 
Orders set forth the need for and objectives of the Commission's rules 
for the MF-II auction and challenge process; the legal basis for those 
rules; a description and estimate of the number of small entities to 
which the rules apply; a description of projected reporting, 
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for small entities; 
steps taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small 
entities and significant alternatives considered; and a statement that 
there are no federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict 
with the rules. The IRFAs prepared with the MF-II FNPRMs and the FRFAs 
prepared with the MF-II Orders describe in detail the small entities 
that might be significantly affected by the proposed rules in those 
proceedings. The MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice proposes 
the procedures for implementing the rules adopted in the MF-II Orders; 
therefore, the Bureaus incorporate by reference the descriptions and 
estimates of the number of small entities that might be significantly 
affected from the MF-II FNPRMs IRFAs and the MF-II Orders FRFAs into 
the Supplemental IRFA. However, because the MF-II Challenge Process 
Comment Public Notice proposes specific procedures for implementing the 
rules proposed in the MF-II FNPRMs and adopted in the MF-II Orders, the 
Bureaus have prepared a supplemental IRFA seeking comment on how the 
proposals in the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice could 
affect those Regulatory Flexibility Analyses.
    31. The proposals in the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public 
Notice include procedures to allow interested parties the opportunity 
to contest an initial determination that an area is ineligible for MF-
II support and challenged parties the opportunity to respond to 
challenges. These proposals are necessary in order to give effect to 
the Commission's directive to propose and provide an opportunity for 
comment on detailed instructions, deadlines, and requirements for 
filing a valid challenge, including file formats, parameters, and other 
specifications for conducting speed tests. The proposals in the MF-II 
Challenge Process Comment Public Notice are designed to lead to a more 
efficient and accurate challenge process, deter excessive and unfounded 
challenges, and minimize the burden on small business challengers, as 
well as other parties utilizing the challenge process.
    32. To implement the rules and framework adopted by the Commission 
in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, the MF-II Challenge Process 
Comment Public Notice details the technical procedures the Bureaus plan 
to use when generating the initial eligible areas map and processing 
challenges or responses submitted by challengers and challenged 
parties, respectively. The Public Notice also proposes additional 
requirements and parameters, including file formats and specifications, 
for data submitted during the challenge process. The Bureaus have made 
an effort to anticipate the challenges faced by small entities (e.g., 
governmental entities or small mobile service providers) in complying 
with the implementation of the Commission's rules and the Bureaus' 
proposals. The Bureaus plan to perform all geospatial data analysis on 
a uniform grid, which would remove the need for a challenger to submit 
a map of the area(s) it wishes to challenge on top of its evidence, 
reducing burdens on small entities. The Bureaus propose to allow a 
challenged entity to submit evidence identifying devices that were 
subject to data speed reductions, alongside evidence from transmitter 
monitoring software and speed tests, which would allow for a small 
entity to more easily respond to a challenge. The Bureaus note that 
smaller providers will have fewer resources available, and they 
therefore specifically seek comment on the parameters and procedures of 
the challenge process and ways to make them as efficient as possible 
for all interested parties, including small entities.
    33. The Bureaus seek comment on how the proposals in the MF-II 
Challenge Process Comment Public Notice could affect the IRFAs in the 
MF-II FNPRMs or the FRFAs in the MF-II Orders. Such comments must be 
filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for responses to the 
MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice and have a separate and 
distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFAs and FRFAs.

C. Ex Parte Presentations

    34. This proceeding has been designated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that 
memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the 
substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects 
discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views 
and arguments presented is generally required. Other provisions 
pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-
disclose proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the 
Commission's rules.


Federal Communications Commission.

Gary D. Michaels,
Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, WTB.
[FR Doc. 2017-23936 Filed 11-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>