51180 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 212 / Friday, November 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: October 19, 2017. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23896 Filed 11–2–17; 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; 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: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

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

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 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 FCC504@fcc.gov 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 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 212 / Friday, November 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules 51181 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998). 

The Bureaus strongly encourage 

interested parties to file comments 

electronically. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

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

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
51182 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 212 / Friday, November 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 otherwiseconfidential 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) engineeringcapable 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 automatedvalidation 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. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 212 / Friday, November 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 MFII 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 devicespecific 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 onequarter 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. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
51184 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 212 / Friday, November 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 MFII 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 providerspecific 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 MFII 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. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 212 / Friday, November 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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 MFII 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 MFII 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 MFII 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 oneor 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 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS