[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66305-66327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-16989]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[WC Docket Nos. 19-195, 11-10; FCC 24-72; FR ID 233874]
Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection; Modernizing
the FCC Form 477 Data Program
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) seeks comment on proposed changes to the
availability data filing and validation processes.
DATES: Comments are due on or before September 16, 2024, and reply
comments are due on or before October 15, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 19-195
and WC Docket No. 11-10, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. by
the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. 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 courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, 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 [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please
contact, Will Holloway, Broadband Data Task Force, at
[email protected] or (202) 418-2334.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fourth
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket Nos. 19-195 and 11-
10, released on July 12, 2024. The full text of this document is
available at the following internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-steps-update-broadband-data-collection-processes or
by using the Commission's EDOCS web page at www.fcc.gov/edocs.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act Statement.
The Commission seeks comment on proposed changes to the Broadband
Data Collection (BDC) availability data filing process that would limit
publication of data on ``grandfathered'' services, collect terrestrial
fixed wireless spectrum authorization information, and additional
certifications and supporting data from satellite broadband providers.
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on amendments and
clarifications to several of its BDC data validation rules regarding
data retention, sharing Fabric challenges with providers, the
professional engineering certification requirement, audits and
verification outcomes, restoring locations previously removed from the
map, aligning reporting requirements for broadband availability and
subscribership data, and adding a new rule section for Fabric
challenges. Available at: https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must: (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenters written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In
proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) of the rules or for which the
Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml., .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
[[Page 66306]]
Synopsis
I. Summary of the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Modifications to the FCC's Availability Data Collection Requirements
1. Limiting Publication of Data on ``Grandfathered'' Services
1. We seek comment on whether we should limit the publication of
availability data to avoid the potential for releasing subscribership
information, typically treated as confidential in other contexts, with
respect to grandfathered services that providers are phasing out.
2. Background. The Broadband DATA Act mandates that the Commission
collect data on the availability of ``broadband internet access
service'' which, for purposes of the Act, ``has the meaning given the
term in Sec. 8.1(b) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any
successor regulation.'' Under this rule, broadband internet access
service is a ``mass-market retail service by wire or radio that
provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all
or substantially all internet endpoints, including any capabilities
that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications
service, but excluding dial-up internet access service.''
3. In the Third Report and Order (86 FR 18124, April 7, 2021), the
Commission clarified that all facilities-based providers of broadband
internet access services are required to comply with the requirements
of the BDC. Fixed broadband internet access service providers must
report the maximum advertised download and upload speeds associated
with the service available at a location. Accordingly, the BDC collects
availability data from a wide array of service providers encompassing a
broad range of technologies and service types. The data collection
covers both new and novel services, as well as legacy services that
providers are in the process of permanently discontinuing. In the
latter case, a filer may provide facilities-based broadband internet
access service to existing subscribers at particular locations, but no
longer market or sell that service to potential or new customers in the
area and would not continue offering the service to a location once the
existing subscriber disconnects that service at the location. In such
instances, the effect of the filing requirement is that the
availability data submitted by the provider for this service could
essentially be a list of current subscribers of the service. The
Commission routinely treats subscribership data submitted as part of
the FCC's Form 477 as confidential.
4. Certain providers have expressed concern that publishing
availability data for grandfathered services could reveal confidential
subscribership information. For example, Verizon recently requested
confidential treatment of its incumbent local exchange carriers' DSL
service availability data submitted as part of its December 2023 BDC
filing because the data reflect ``only those locations where [Verizon]
currently provide[s] service to an existing customer, thereby resulting
in the reporting of confidential customer-identifiable location and
service information of those customers.'' Verizon noted that
``[a]lthough the Commission generally favors disclosure of service
availability information, the nature of the DSL availability
information [Verizon is] required to report will reveal the precise
number of [its] subscribers in an area, plus the customer address and
type of service provided to each DSL customer and cannot be masked by
non-customer locations where the service is no longer offered.'' We
seek comment on whether publication of availability data for
grandfathered services should be limited.
5. Discussion. We propose to amend our rules to permit filers to
indicate that the service offered at a location is a grandfathered
service only. We further propose that in cases where a provider submits
a request for confidential treatment of such data, and such a request
is not denied, we would not publish such data as part of the location-
specific availability information in the National Broadband Map (NBM).
We also propose that information on the availability of these services
would only be disclosed by the Commission on an aggregated, redacted or
otherwise de-identified, differentiated or masked basis. The Commission
would afford those data the protections from disclosure already
established for subscription data gathered via FCC Form 477, and
treated as confidential.
6. We believe there are multiple benefits to this approach. First,
it would enable the Commission to collect and analyze more in-depth,
useful information on the nature of fixed broadband services (whether
they are grandfathered or not), thereby forming a more nuanced and
comprehensive picture of broadband service availability. Second, it
would better protect against potential disclosure of confidential
customer information. Third, not showing on the NBM locations where a
service has been discontinued and is available only to legacy
subscribers (but not to any new or potential subscribers in the future)
could provide more helpful information to consumers about broadband
availability. We seek comment on these proposals. Are there any
alternative approaches we should consider that would appropriately
protect data that could constitute subscribership information and
provide accurate information on the services that are actually
available at a particular location? Are there alternatives we should
consider for the types of information and format the Commission
discloses about grandfathered services, or the protections afforded to
this data?
7. We seek comment on how to define a ``grandfathered'' service for
purposes of reporting broadband availability and making data on such
services potentially eligible for this differentiated treatment on the
NBM. We propose to define a ``grandfathered'' service similar to the
definition used in other areas of our rules: any broadband internet
access service that is currently provided to an existing end user at a
Broadband Serviceable Location, but that a facilities-based provider is
discontinuing, has permanently ceased to advertise or market to new or
potential subscribers, and would not make available to a new or
potential subscriber at the Broadband Serviceable Location. We seek
comment on this proposed definition. We note that this proposed
definition would not encompass locations where the provider is willing
to connect a new end user but the potential customer is ``waitlisted''
due to capacity constraints that exist on the as-of date of the
biannual BDC submission; it would similarly not include locations where
a provider is unable to conduct a standard broadband installation
within 10 business days due to equipment unavailability, capacity
constraints or other limitations. Under our proposal, service to
locations in these circumstances would not be considered grandfathered.
Would this proposed definition, if adopted, provide sufficient clarity
to BDC filers to know whether or not a particular service would be
considered a grandfathered service? Are there alternative definitions
we should consider?
8. We also seek comment on whether we should adopt any requirements
pertaining to the size of the area where the service is no longer
advertised or marketed in order to qualify as a ``grandfathered''
service. Must the provider cease marketing and selling the service
throughout its entire footprint before it qualifies as a grandfathered
service? How should the Commission treat a service provider with a
multi-
[[Page 66307]]
state footprint who ceases marketing or selling the service in one or
more states, but continues to offer the service in the other state(s)
within its footprint? Should such a provider be permitted to claim
``grandfathered'' status for the service in the state(s) or other
remaining geographic area(s) where it no longer markets or sells the
service (and would not make it available to new or potential
subscribers)?
9. We seek comment on whether we should adopt a process for a
provider to ``undo'' a prior claim of grandfathered status. If we were
to adopt such a process, what evidence, if any, should we require the
provider to submit in support of a request to reverse a prior claim of
grandfathered service status?
10. What measures, if any, should we adopt to protect against
potential gaming of the protections we propose for ``grandfathered''
services? For example, should we require a service provider to include
with its request for confidential treatment an affidavit, declaration
or other certification that it does not currently market or sell to new
or potential subscribers, and will not market or sell to new or
potential subscribers in the future, the service reported as a
grandfathered service in the system? Should we require that any such
certification or other attestation be executed by a corporate officer
of the filer? Should we require the filer to submit evidence that it no
longer markets or sells to new or potential subscribers the reported
service, and, if so, what types of evidence would be acceptable? Are
there other measures we could adopt to protect against possible gaming?
Alternatively, should Commission staff instead rely upon existing
tools, such as verifications, audits, and enforcement mechanisms, to
investigate and validate claims of grandfathered services?
11. We also seek comment on whether we should collect information
on other attributes related to potential limitations on the
availability of a particular broadband service. For example, should we
have providers indicate that a service is made available to existing
subscribers in an area, but is not marketed or sold in the area
temporarily due to capacity constraints on the ``as-of'' date of the
biannual BDC submission (though it will be marketed or sold in the area
once those capacity constraints were alleviated)? In addition, while
all broadband service transmission technologies are theoretically
capacity constrained, certain services--such as spectrum-based
terrestrial fixed wireless and satellite services--can be more affected
by capacity considerations than traditional wireline services. In such
cases, a provider may be able to connect service on a marginal basis to
some, but not all, of the locations included in its availability data
(if, theoretically, all the residents or businesses at such locations
were to request service at the same time), or it may not be able to
offer service to all of the locations at the reported maximum
advertised speeds, due to network capacity constraints. Further, some
providers have indicated that they offer certain broadband services
only on a seasonal basis. Should we amend the BDC fixed availability
reporting requirements so that the various circumstances or conditions
mentioned above, as well as others, can be captured in the collected
data? How should such circumstances, conditions, or factors be
reported? What type of burden does distinguishing service attributes
place upon facilities-based providers who file data in the BDC?
12. We additionally propose to allow filers to request confidential
treatment pursuant to 47 CFR 0.459 for broadband availability data in
the limited circumstance where the services are marked as grandfathered
and for other analogous situations where the filed data would
inherently disclose the coverage information of existing customers. We
propose that all other filed broadband availability data submitted in
the BDC would be available to the public. The Broadband DATA Act
requires the Commission both to collect data from each provider
reporting the areas to which it can and does make broadband services
available and to allow for consumers and entities to challenge the
accuracy of ``any information submitted by a provider regarding the
availability of broadband internet access services.'' The Commission
has previously made clear that information filed in the BDC ``will be
presumed to be non-confidential unless the Commission specifically
directs that it be withheld'' and has otherwise been skeptical of filer
arguments about the confidentiality of broadband availability data
generally. We continue to conclude that, in most circumstances, the
public interest in disclosure of BDC availability data outweighs any
commercial or competitive harm to the provider. Clarifying the
circumstances under which we would consider confidentiality requests
for availability data would provide additional certainty to filers and
challengers of broadband availability data alike, while further
streamlining the process by which the Commission processes and
publishes such data. To be clear, we do not propose to limit the
circumstances under which filers may request confidential treatment of
data other than broadband availability data that are submitted into the
BDC, including subscription data or supporting data (including, e.g.,
link budget parameters or coverage methodology information). We seek
comment on this proposal. Are there other categories of broadband
availability data for which we should continue to entertain requests
for confidential treatment? How can we best balance the goals of the
Broadband DATA Act and our responsibilities in administering the BDC
program with competing concerns about the sensitivity of required data?
13. We propose requiring service providers to report attributes
about the nature of service availability in their location- or area-
specific availability data submissions. We propose revising our Data
Specifications for Biannual Submission of Subscription, Availability,
and Supporting Data to enable filers to report, and the BDC system to
collect, data reflecting services with a grandfathered status or any
other attributes. We seek comment on these proposals.
2. Collecting Terrestrial Fixed Wireless Spectrum Authorization
Information
14. We next seek comment on changing our rules to require
terrestrial fixed wireless providers to submit additional information
that would allow the Commission to better verify terrestrial fixed
wireless service availability data submitted in the BDC.
15. Background. The Broadband DATA Act required the Commission to
provide two methods for terrestrial fixed wireless broadband internet
access service providers to file their availability data: (1)
propagation maps and model details that ``satisfy standards that are
similar to those applicable to providers of mobile broadband internet
access service . . . , taking into account material differences between
fixed wireless and mobile broadband internet access service'' or (2) as
a list of locations that constitute the service area of the provider.
The Commission implemented these requirements in the Second Report and
Order (85 FR 50886, August 18, 2020). When submitting their
availability data, fixed providers must disclose the details of how
they generated their coverage polygons or list of locations. The Second
Report and Order adopted categories of parameters and details that
fixed wireless providers submitting availability coverage polygons
based on propagation maps and model details
[[Page 66308]]
must disclose to the FCC as part of their BDC submissions. Examples of
these requirements include base station information (such as the
frequency band(s) used to provide service being mapped, carrier
aggregation information, the radio technologies used on each spectrum
band, and site information such as the elevation above ground level for
each base station), height and power values for receivers or other
customer premises equipment, and terrain and clutter information. The
Commission did not specify comparable disclosure requirements for
supporting data that terrestrial fixed wireless providers that file
location lists must submit as part of their biannual BDC submission.
16. In March 2022, prior to the opening of the initial BDC filing
window, the Broadband Data Task Force released data specifications
detailing the categories and format of data that broadband service
providers must submit in the BDC system to satisfy their filing
obligation. The data specifications originally included two technology
codes to differentiate terrestrial fixed wireless services: technology
code 70, used to report unlicensed terrestrial fixed wireless service,
and technology code 71, used to report licensed terrestrial fixed
wireless service. A third terrestrial fixed wireless technology code
(72: Licensed-by-Rule Terrestrial Fixed Wireless) was added in January
2023. The codes are intended to characterize the last-mile fixed
wireless technology used to deliver internet access services to end
users.
17. The Commission has an affirmative obligation to verify
providers' broadband availability data filed in the BDC. In verifying
availability based on terrestrial fixed wireless service, we must also
ensure that the reported availability is authorized based upon
applicable FCC spectrum licenses or other forms of authorizations (as
reported by technology category code), as a claim of terrestrial fixed
wireless service availability would be invalid if the service
provider's operations were unauthorized. There are three ways to be
authorized to operate a terrestrial fixed wireless service in
accordance with the FCC's rules: providers may possess a license; may
be licensed-by-rule (LBR); or may operate via unlicensed spectrum in
accordance with Part 15 of the Commission's rules.
18. Discussion. We seek comment on proposed rule changes that will
allow the Commission to better verify the terrestrial fixed wireless
service availability data submitted in the BDC. First, we propose that
fixed wireless filers reporting licensed service (i.e., technology code
71--Licensed Terrestrial Fixed Wireless) in their biannual BDC filings
be required to submit the following additional information: (1) all
call signs and lease IDs (including the call sign(s) of the license(s)
being leased) associated with the licenses held or leased by the filer
that were (or could have been) used to provide broadband service as of
the relevant BDC filing date (i.e., June 30 or December 31); and (2)
the FCC Registration Number (FRN) of the entity holding the license or
lease as recorded in the FCC's Universal Licensing System (ULS).
Collecting this information will provide the most direct way to verify
the permissibility of these operations, as it will allow staff to
compare the reported coverage with the geographic areas associated with
spectrum licenses or leases, as well as any transmitter locations, in
ULS. If a BDC coverage area is found to be incongruous with the
geographic area associated with the provisioning authorization(s) as
assessed via call sign data, this may prompt further review by staff,
form a credible basis for a verification request, or potentially
trigger a future audit. We propose updating the BDC data specifications
to implement this requirement. We seek comment on this approach, as
well as on potential alternatives to verify coverage of providers
offering licensed terrestrial fixed wireless service.
19. We note that terrestrial fixed wireless services operating in
the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) may be authorized via
either Priority Access Licenses or under General Authorized Access (LBR
or GAA) rules, and therefore fall under either technology code 71 or
72, respectively, in BDC filings. CBRS operators licensed under the
former have associated call signs in ULS, and--as described above--we
propose and seek comment on requiring them to report in their biannual
BDC filings a comprehensive list of the call signs they use to provide
the fixed broadband services reported in the BDC. Service providers
authorized using LBR/GAA (i.e., technology code 72) do not receive call
signs in ULS for that technology, but records of GAA registrations are
maintained by automated frequency coordinators known as Spectrum Access
Systems (SASs). Given that the Commission has an obligation to verify
all reported broadband coverage, regardless of whether the service is
offered using licensed or LBR spectrum, we propose requiring operators
that claim LBR/GAA terrestrial fixed wireless service availability in
the BDC using GAA-authorized base stations to provide proof of
authorization by a SAS for the relevant BDC filing date. We propose
collecting such data in structured formats to ease with its processing
and evaluation, and seek comment on the most efficient way to do so. We
also seek comment on whether there are other ways to verify the
reported coverage of providers using GAA or any other LBR service.
20. Finally, we note that providers offering broadband service
using unlicensed terrestrial fixed wireless technology(ies) do not
receive call signs in ULS and do not require authorization from a SAS
to operate their base stations, though they may be subject to other
regulatory requirements, such as static or automated frequency
coordination. It therefore is not possible to compare the locations or
geographic areas where they report service availability with call signs
(as is possible for licensed services) or using SAS database records
(as is possible for LBR services). In cases where filers are authorized
on an unlicensed basis under part 15 of the FCC's rules, we propose
requiring the provider to file the FCC ID(s) of all base station
transmission equipment used, and seek comment on whether there are
other methods for validating that the service is authorized under the
Commission's part 15 rules. We seek comment on this proposal and any
other ways, beyond those mentioned above, to verify coverage of
terrestrial fixed wireless providers offering service using unlicensed
fixed wireless technologies (i.e., technology code 70).
3. Additional Certifications and Supporting Data From Satellite
Providers
21. We also seek comment on requiring additional certifications and
supporting data from satellite providers to improve the quality of data
provided to the BDC and improve the Commission's data validation,
verification, and audits of satellite availability data submitted in
the BDC.
22. Background. The nature of satellite services presents unique
challenges for ensuring the accuracy of data concerning satellite
broadband service availability in the BDC. In 2019, the Commission
sought comment on how it could ``improve upon the existing [Form 477]
satellite broadband data collection to reflect more accurately current
satellite broadband service availability.'' At that time, the
Commission ``recognized there are issues with the quality of the
satellite broadband data that are currently
[[Page 66309]]
reported under the existing Form 477.'' The Commission sought comment
on how to improve the satellite broadband availability data reported in
its new data collection, including whether it should collect additional
information from satellite service providers, such as the number and
location of satellite beams and the capacity used to provide service by
individual satellites to consumers at various speeds. The Commission
also sought comment on ``[w]hat issues should be addressed for [non-
geostationary orbit] satellite services in the new data collection as
they begin to be offered.''
23. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission ``continue[d] to
seek comment on how we could improve upon the existing satellite
broadband data collection,'' including whether demand side data might
assist the Commission in better ascertaining the availability of these
services. The Commission determined in the Third Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (85 FR 50911, August 18, 2020) that, ``[i]f
concrete proposals are not provided to more reasonably represent
satellite broadband deployment, we would rely on other mechanisms . . .
including standards for availability reporting, crowdsourced data
checks, certifications, audits, and enforcement, potentially as well as
currently reported subscriber data, in assessing the accuracy of
satellite provider claims of broadband deployment.'' The Commission did
not obtain concrete proposals in response to the Second Report and
Order and, accordingly, in the Third Report and Order, it determined
that it would rely upon verification measures to help ensure the
accuracy of satellite broadband availability data. The Commission did,
however, ``remind satellite providers that the standards for
availability reporting that apply to all fixed services require that
satellite providers include only locations that they are currently
serving or meet the broadband installation standard. Satellite
providers cannot report an ability to serve an area or location without
a reasonable basis for claiming that deployment, taking into account
current and expected locations of spot beams, capacity constraints, and
other relevant factors.''
24. To enable Commission staff to verify availability data as
required by the Broadband DATA Act, Office of Economics and Analytics
(OEA), and Space Bureau (SB) recently released updated verification
data specifications that include common data fields for fixed broadband
service providers, and include fields for satellite infrastructure data
that satellite service providers use to estimate their service and
coverage. The Broadband Data Task Force notified service providers
(including satellite providers) that they must maintain these
supporting data for each reporting period, and that the Commission may
collect these data in the context of the Commission's statutory
obligations to verify broadband service availability data.
25. Discussion. According to the BDC submissions as of June 30,
2023, satellite broadband service with speeds of at least 25 Mbps
download and 3 Mbps upload is available to 164.7 million Broadband
Serviceable Locations, or 99.95% of all Broadband Serviceable Locations
in the United States. Satellite broadband service with speeds of at
least 100/20 Mbps is available to 164.1 million Broadband Serviceable
Locations, or 99.6% of all locations. In the context of recent reports
under section 706 of the Communications Act, the Commission has found
that both ``FCC Form 477 deployment data and BDC service availability
data for satellite broadband service may overstate the extent to which
satellite broadband service is available.'' Given this, and the
relatively low subscription rate and capacity limitations for satellite
services indicated by available FCC Form 477 data, the Commission
declined to include in its analysis of fixed broadband service
availability any data on satellite services.
26. We propose that satellite providers must include, as a
supporting data file accompanying their biannual availability
submissions, the infrastructure data set forth in sections 2.3.1,
2.3.2, and 2.3.4 of the BDC Infrastructure Data Specifications
(including any subsequent modifications, amendments or successors to
those sections). We seek comment on this proposal.
27. Section 2.3.1 of the BDC Infrastructure Data Specifications
specifies the format for the submission of records of general operating
parameters of a satellite system. The data gathered pursuant to this
section of the specifications include the network type (geostationary
satellite orbit (GSO), non-geostationary satellite orbit, or other),
the total number of satellites in the active constellation, the number
of orbital shells deployed in the active constellation, the overall
system downlink capacity and the overall system uplink capacity.
Section 2.3.2 specifies the content and format for the submission of
more detailed information for each constellation or orbital shell of
space stations deployed by the satellite broadband service provider as
of the applicable reporting period. The data gathered pursuant to this
section include shell altitude, the orbital location (for GSO systems),
inclination angle, orbital plane, number of satellites per orbital
plane, shell orbital period, apogee, and perigee, among other data
elements. Section 2.3.4 specifies the content and format for the
submission of system capacity information for specific geographic
regions of the country.
28. We propose to require satellite providers to submit all of the
information requested in sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of the BDC
Infrastructure Data Specifications (as applicable, depending upon the
satellite system type), as well as the capacity data in section 2.3.4
for each state or territory for which the provider claims to make
service available as part of its BDC filing. We do not propose
requiring satellite providers to submit system capacity information on
a county-by-county basis. Furthermore, we do not propose, at this time,
that providers submit the detailed link budget parameters set forth in
section 2.3.3 of the specification, but we seek comment on whether the
Commission should collect link budget data from satellite providers as
part of the availability data submission process, similar to data
collected from mobile wireless service providers and terrestrial fixed
wireless service providers who submit polygon coverage maps using
propagation maps and model details. We seek comment on these proposals
and any potential alternatives.
29. We propose to (1) update the BDC Data Specifications for
Biannual Submission of Subscription, Availability, and Supporting Data
to include these categories of data from the BDC Infrastructure Data
Specifications, and (2) publish these categories of data received from
satellite providers in the Data Download section of the NBM platform,
so that interested stakeholders may access the data (similar to
supporting data published for other providers and technologies). We
further propose that OEA and SB may analyze these data and use them for
purposes of verifications and audits of satellite providers, consistent
with our processes and procedures for conducting verifications and
audits.
30. We seek comment on whether this proposal would place additional
burdens upon satellite providers by requiring them to submit this
information on a biannual basis. We note that the information included
in the satellite provider infrastructure portion of the data
specifications is largely based upon categories of data that each
provider is required to submit
[[Page 66310]]
as part of its FCC Form 312 (Application for Satellite Space and Earth
Station Authorizations) and accompanying Schedule S (Technical and
Operational Appendix). Are any additional burdens associated with this
reporting outweighed by the benefits to the Commission, other federal
agencies, state, local, and Tribal governments, researchers and
academia, and the public from obtaining more detailed information on
the assumptions and modeling parameters underlying satellite providers'
coverage claims?
31. Because the data sought through the BDC Infrastructure Data
Specifications are based upon information included in a satellite
provider's publicly available FCC Form 312 and Schedule S, we
tentatively conclude that, should the Commission adopt the requirement
that satellite providers include these data with their biannual
availability submissions, the data would be presumptively public.
Similar to our treatment of most categories of terrestrial fixed
wireless infrastructure data, ``[w]e believe there is a strong public
interest in having as much access to this information as possible in
order to facilitate public review and input on its accuracy . . . .''
We invite comment on whether some of these data raise commercial
sensitivities and, if so, whether some categories of the data should be
treated as presumptively non-public. Alternatively, should we treat all
of these data as presumptively public, and permit individual requests
for confidential treatment pursuant to the Commission's existing rules?
32. What other data could the Commission collect, or processes
could the Commission adopt, to improve the accuracy of and insights
into satellite providers' broadband availability data? What are the
specific sources of such data, and who would be responsible for
submitting those to the Commission? Are there additional standardized
data specifications the Commission could or should release? What use
restrictions or confidentiality concerns would apply to these data, if
any? Commenters who advocate that the Commission adopt alternatives to
our proposal to collect from satellite providers the existing
information set forth in the pertinent sections of the BDC
Infrastructure Data Specifications should provide detailed and specific
information about their alternative proposals, how the Commission would
administer them, and why any such alternative would yield better
satellite availability data than gathering additional infrastructure
information directly from satellite broadband service providers.
B. BDC Data Validation Processes
33. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to verify the
accuracy and reliability of data submitted in the BDC. We seek comment
on several proposed changes to our rules to improve the Commission's
validation, audit, and Fabric challenge processes, as well as
facilitate provider certification of BDC submissions.
1. Data Retention Requirements
34. We seek comment on establishing a set data-retention period for
documentation supporting providers' BDC submissions to ensure the
Commission has access to necessary documentation for purposes of
conducting audits, verifications, and other reviews.
35. Background. Broadband service providers are required to submit
information on how they generated their availability data for each
technology included in their biannual BDC filings. In particular, fixed
service providers must include information on the methodology used to
generate their availability data, along with an explanation of how the
methodologies were implemented. Terrestrial fixed wireless providers
who file their availability data as a coverage polygon are required to
submit information about their propagation models, base stations,
carriers, link budgets, and clutter categories. Similarly, mobile
wireless service providers must include supporting data with their
coverage maps, including propagation model details and link budget
information.
36. In addition to their biannual submission, service providers
must submit data and information to the Commission in response to
challenges, verification inquiries, and audits. As discussed above, the
Commission has published data specifications detailing the types of
infrastructure data, by service type and technology, that must be
submitted in response to verification inquiries and audits (and
challenges, in instances where mobile wireless service providers are
able to respond to mobile challenges with infrastructure data). In the
context of most cognizable challenges to mobile broadband coverage
data, service providers submit on-the-ground speed test data into the
BDC system to rebut the challenge.
37. The Commission maintains these data in the BDC system and
supplemental data storage infrastructure. All of the public (i.e., non-
confidential) data are made available for view and download from the
NBM. However, the Commission has not adopted a set data-retention
period for how long service providers must preserve their availability,
subscription, and supporting data or data used to respond to
challenges, verification inquiries or audits.
38. Discussion. We propose that broadband service providers be
required to retain the underlying data used to create their biannual
submissions (including subscription data and supporting data) for at
least three years from the applicable ``as-of'' date (e.g., data used
to create a biannual submission for the June 30, 2024, reporting period
would need to be retained until June 30, 2027). In addition, we propose
that providers be required to retain the data used to respond to
challenges, verification inquiries, and audits for a period of three
years from the date the provider receives the challenge, verification
inquiry, or notification of Commission initiation of an audit. These
requirements, if adopted, would go into effect following the effective
date of final rules implementing the new data retention periods. We
seek comment on these proposals.
39. The Commission requires entities to retain records for
applicable data-retention periods in several of its programs. For
example, entities that have equipment subject to the equipment
authorization procedures must retain the records associated with the
authorizations. For equipment that must be certified, ``records shall
be retained for a one year period after the marketing of the associated
equipment has been permanently discontinued.'' The equipment
authorization rules require entities to retain all other records for a
two-year period. The rules specify what data must be collected and
maintained. Each of the Commission's Universal Service Fund programs
also include record retention requirements ranging from three to 10
years.
40. Just as with entities who participate in these other FCC
programs, broadband service providers must know for how long they
should retain their biannual submissions and the underlying data used
to create them. We seek comment on a three-year data retention rule for
these data. We believe that the needs of the BDC program support a
three-year retention period, based upon the timeline from the relevant
as-of date of a biannual availability filing to collection and
publication of the data, followed by challenge and verification efforts
by Commission staff and, finally, the downstream uses of the data in
various funding programs. Do commenters agree? What are the benefits
and
[[Page 66311]]
burdens of retaining the data for three years? Should we adopt a
different retention period, such as five years or possibly longer?
Commenters advocating for a longer data-retention period should explain
the benefits of a longer retention period and why the benefits outweigh
the burdens on providers associated with a longer data-retention
period. We propose to adopt a uniform data-retention period for all of
the availability, subscription, and supporting data. Are there reasons
to adopt different data-retention requirements for certain types of
data or portions of the data collection and, if so, what would these
be? Are the burdens on smaller providers disproportionately large
compared to larger providers? Does the benefit of having uniform
retention rules outweigh any such difference in burden on smaller
providers?
41. We also seek comment on whether a three-year retention period
for data involving challenges, verification inquiries, and audits is
sufficient. We propose to adopt the same data-retention period for
challenge, verification, and audit response data as for underlying
biannual submission data in order to avoid confusion and to provide
administrative ease for filers. But should we adopt a longer (or
shorter) retention period for these data? As in the case of
availability data, we seek comment on whether we should adopt a uniform
data-retention period for all types of challenge, verification, and
audit response data or if different requirements should apply to
certain portions of the data. For example, mobile wireless service
providers that respond to challenges or verification inquiries with
infrastructure data are required to submit cell-loading data in 15-
minute intervals for a one-week period. Should we be concerned that
this amount of cell-loading data would be so voluminous to store and
maintain that requiring their retention for three years would be unduly
burdensome? We also propose to adopt the same retention rules for all
providers given that our need to verify and audit data and resolve
challenges extends across all industry segments. But are there reasons
why we should adopt different standards for some providers or for
different technologies? Should the Commission adopt any additional
requirements related to challenge, verification or audit response data?
2. Sharing Fabric Challenges With Providers
42. To facilitate the development of new versions of the Fabric, we
seek comment on the processes and timing for sharing Fabric challenges
with providers.
43. Background. In September 2022, shortly after the close of the
inaugural BDC filing window, the Broadband Data Task Force announced
that Fabric licensees could begin submitting bulk Fabric challenges
through the BDC system. The Broadband Data Task Force limited these
initial Fabric challenge submissions to bulk submissions because the
NBM interface was not yet publicly available. For the same reason, only
entities who had access to location data through a Fabric license could
submit bulk challenges given that the FCC had not yet published
location data points on a publicly accessible version of the NBM. The
Commission subsequently began accepting Fabric challenges from
individual consumers and entities that had not executed a Fabric
license agreement when the pre-production draft of the NBM was
published. Using the NBM interface, consumers and other non-licensees
were then able to submit data to challenge the information associated
with Broadband Serviceable Locations (BSLs) reflected in the first
version of the Fabric. The publication of the NBM also commenced the
individual and bulk availability challenge processes.
44. The Commission accepts Fabric challenges on an ongoing basis
throughout the year, and a new version of the Fabric is released in
connection with a biannual BDC submission round for the collection of
fixed availability data (either as of June 30 or December 31 of each
year). Creating the Fabric is a complex process that involves analyzing
many data sources, including aerial and satellite imagery, address
databases, land and local tax records; reconciling determinations
against Fabric challenge adjudications; and preparing data files for
Fabric licensees sufficiently in advance of the opening of a biannual
BDC submission round. Successful challenges received early in the
process of creating the new Fabric version are incorporated in the next
Fabric release; those received too late to be incorporated into the
process will be evaluated for inclusion in the following version of the
Fabric. The Commission and CostQuest Associates, the Fabric data
vendor, have processed Fabric challenges in this manner for each
iteration of the Fabric.
45. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA)
amended the Broadband DATA Act to require that ``[t]he rules issued to
establish the challenge process under subparagraph (A) shall include [
] a process for the speedy resolution of challenges, which shall
require that the Commission resolve a challenge not later than 90 days
after the date on which a final response by a provider to a challenge
to the accuracy of a map or information described in subparagraph (A)
is complete.'' Subparagraph (A) of section 642(b)(5) directs the
Commission to ``establish a user-friendly challenge process . . . to
challenge the accuracy of (i) the coverage maps; (ii) any information
submitted by a provider regarding the availability of broadband
internet access service; or (iii) the information included in the
Fabric.'' In establishing the challenge processes, the Commission must
both ``allow providers to respond to challenges submitted through the
challenge process'' and ``develop an online mechanism, which . . .
makes challenge data available in both geographic information system
and non-geographic information system formats.''
46. Discussion. Based on our experience with multiple cycles of
Fabric challenges, allowing providers to directly respond to Fabric
challenges while the most current Fabric is still being developed,
rather than waiting until the next Fabric release, would require
extensive resources and could lead to delays processing the Fabric. We
therefore propose to amend our rules to eliminate the requirement that
the BDC system alert a provider of accepted Fabric challenges and that
service providers be afforded an opportunity to directly respond to
Fabric challenges. Fabric challenge results are made available to
providers upon final adjudication, and providers then have an
opportunity to challenge any of the results with which they may
disagree. Interposing a separate, in-cycle Fabric challenge process
would, in most instances, require that the Commission and CostQuest
delay the processing of the Fabric. We believe that any limited benefit
of creating an in-cycle process for providers to directly respond to
Fabric challenges does not outweigh the significant costs in terms of
delaying the production of a subsequent iteration of the Fabric.
47. As a practical matter, Fabric challenges do not dispute
availability information submitted by providers but, rather, dispute
information used by CostQuest to identify locations and the attributes
of BSLs. Having now processed several rounds of Fabric challenges, data
show that while some providers have submitted Fabric challenges that
have resulted in updates to subsequent versions of the Fabric, it is
unclear that providers (as a group) have better or more reliable
geospatial data on BSL attributes than other groups (e.g., state,
local, or Tribal governments,
[[Page 66312]]
consumers). Additionally, while it may be relatively straightforward to
identify Fabric challenges to locations where a provider has previously
reported making broadband service available, the vast majority of
challenges to date have been to add a new BSL, which, by definition,
does not implicate previously reported availability data (at least as
to fixed service providers who report availability using a list of
(preexisting) BSLs). Since providers have not previously analyzed
whether broadband is available at these proposed locations, and
Commission staff could only guess as to which providers it should
notify of such challenges, it is also impractical to have providers
directly respond to Fabric challenges. For these reasons, the
information the Commission collects through the Fabric challenge
process, along with the methods used to create the Fabric dataset, do
not effectively allow for a process for service providers to directly
respond to these challenges. Rather, we believe that the best way for
internet service providers to ``respond'' to Fabric challenges within
their availability footprints would be to continue to submit follow-on
challenges to challenged or new Fabric locations in a subsequent
version of the Fabric. We seek comment on this proposal.
48. We believe that this proposed Fabric challenge process is
consistent with the Congressional intent in the Broadband DATA Act that
we ``allow providers to respond to challenges submitted through the
challenge process . . . .'' In the first instance, we interpret this
clause as primarily, if not exclusively, intended to apply to
availability challenges filed against service providers. Nothing in our
proposed changes would alter the ability of service providers to
respond directly to challenges to their fixed (and mobile) availability
data. Moreover, unlike with availability challenges, where it is the
provider's data that are being challenged and where the provider has
particular interest and specific knowledge, with Fabric challenges, it
is unclear the extent to which providers have more or better
information than local consumers or governments or others filing
challenges to the location information in the Fabric. Finally (and
importantly), the FCC publishes data on in-progress Fabric challenges
monthly, and on resolved Fabric challenges through the information it
makes available when it publishes a new version of the Fabric.
Providers are thereby able to ``respond'' to these pending or resolved
Fabric challenges by filing subsequent, follow-on challenges to such
challenges. We seek comment on this interpretation of the Broadband
DATA Act.
49. We seek comment on potential alternatives to this proposed
process and specific proposals on how they might be implemented. For
example, should we allow providers to view and directly respond to
customized lists of non-Type-1 Fabric challenges to existing BSLs that
fall within their service footprints? If so, then how could the
Commission facilitate such a process without delaying the processing of
Fabric challenges and the production schedule for subsequent iterations
of the Fabric data? Should we also attempt to identify the internet
service providers (ISP(s)) that may have an interest in Type-1 Fabric
challenges to add new BSLs to the Fabric? If so, then what process
should the Commission use to identify ISP(s) interested in these
challenges? In particular, how would staff identify areas of interest
for non-polygon availability data filers? Could staff create a buffer
around the to-be-added location point, and provide notice to all
service providers who report service at locations within a certain
distance from the point? How could such a process be implemented
without delaying the processing of Fabric challenges and the production
schedule for subsequent iterations of the Fabric? Should the Commission
delay processing of any challenges presented to ISPs for response?
Doing so would mean setting aside such challenges for, e.g., 60 days,
for providers to respond. That delay would effectively require that any
challenges be incorporated into the next version of the Fabric.
Alternatively, if the Commission does not delay processing of Fabric
challenges for providers to respond, challenges might already be in the
process of adjudication--or already adjudicated--before the ISP
responds. In such cases, any ISP response would need to be treated as
an additional challenge to the same location. Is there any advantage to
having an ISP-specific process for a response instead of allowing ISPs
to file additional challenges (an option that is already available to
ISPs today)? Are there any additional measures we could implement to
avoid delays in the event we were to allow for ISPs to directly respond
to Fabric challenges? For example, the Commission already creates
Fabric challenge adjudication files and change logs for Fabric
licensees indicating changes made to the Fabric as a result of the
challenge process (as well as updates made by the Commission and
CostQuest). Should (and, if so, then how could) the FCC and CostQuest
prepare similar (but separate and distinct) data files to identify
pending Fabric challenges for ISPs that they may want to respond to?
50. Finally, we propose to interpret section 60102(h)(2)(E)(i) of
the IIJA as inapplicable to Fabric challenges and revise our rules to
make this clear. The statute requires the Commission to resolve
challenges ``not later than 90 days after the date on which a final
response by a provider . . . is complete.'' To the extent we amend our
rules to provide that an ISP does not ``respond'' to an initial Fabric
challenge (and instead the Commission would resolve such challenges as
part of its publication of a subsequent version of the Fabric), the
deadline required under the statute would not apply to Fabric
challenges. Do commenters agree with our proposed interpretation of the
IIJA? We believe this approach to the Fabric challenge process would
facilitate efficient resolution of challenges, consistent with the
requirements of the IIJA, while maintaining the Commission's
flexibility to assess data that may be submitted by providers through a
subsequent challenge to a later iteration of the Fabric. We note that
the majority of Fabric challenges are processed and resolved well
within 90 days of submission, particularly those that can be resolved
based on the data submitted by filers without any need for manual or
secondary review of satellite imagery. Challenges that are deemed
successful based on such processing need to be reconciled with and
incorporated into the next version of the Fabric, and are therefore
tied to the biannual cadence of Fabric releases (i.e., a challenge is
only fully accepted when incorporated into the next Fabric vintage).
Moreover, the Broadband Data Task Force has historically announced
target dates for submitting Fabric challenges that will be processed in
time for inclusion in the next iteration of the Fabric. Given that
challenges submitted by this date are adjudicated in advance of the
creation of the next release of Fabric data, these challenges are
usually resolved approximately 90 days from the date of their filing.
3. Professional Engineering Certification
51. We next seek comment on whether we should eliminate the
requirement in our rules that parties submitting verified broadband
data in the BDC provide a certification by a licensed professional
engineer if not submitted by a corporate engineering officer. To
address concerns about licensed professional engineer shortages,
Wireline Competition Bureau
[[Page 66313]]
(WCB), OEA, and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) have waived
this requirement for several filing periods and instead relied on other
measures to ensure we receive accurate coverage maps that are based on
data that are consistent with professional engineering standards.
Accordingly, we seek comment on whether this requirement should be
eliminated and replaced with other measures.
52. Background. The Broadband DATA Act requires that broadband
service providers ``shall include in each [BDC] submission a
certification from a corporate officer of the provider that the officer
has examined the information contained in the submission and that, to
the best of the officer's actual knowledge, information, and belief,
all statements of fact contained in the submission are true and
correct.'' In the Third Report and Order, the Commission expanded this
requirement so that, in addition to a certification from a corporate
officer, service providers must also submit a certification by a
qualified engineer, who must be either a certified professional
engineer or a corporate engineering officer. The Commission noted that
this engineering certification requirement also applies to government
entities and third parties that submit verified broadband data. The
Commission explained that the purpose of the engineering certification
is to ``ensur[e] the accuracy of coverage maps and that they be based
on data that are consistent with professional engineering standards.''
53. WCB, OEA, and WTB have waived this requirement several times
over the past several years due to a shortage of professional
engineers. In May 2022, the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA)
filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling or Limited Waiver, asking the
Commission to clarify that BDC filings may be certified by either an
engineer licensed by the relevant state licensure board (i.e., a
Professional Engineer (PE)) or an ``otherwise qualified engineer.'' In
its Petition, CCA noted that ``[t]he RF [radio frequency] engineering
community is characterized by a scarcity of licensed PEs'' because
``[s]tate professional licensing boards issue PE licenses based on the
fulfillment of state-specific education, examination, and experience
requirements [and] states have generally not required PE licensure for
RF engineers.'' CCA went on to assert that ``[t]he experience and
expertise developed by RF engineers through their work provides
comprehensive skills relevant to broadband deployment [and] . . .
provides skills comparable to, and perhaps more relevant than, general
licensure through the PE . . . exam process.''
54. WCB, OEA, and WTB subsequently issued the 2022 BDC PE Order in
which they (1) clarified that when a fixed or mobile provider submits a
certification from a corporate engineering officer, such corporate
engineering officer does not need to be a certified PE; and (2) waived
the requirement that a fixed or mobile provider submit a certification
from a ``certified professional engineer,'' allowing instead the
submission of a certification completed by an otherwise-qualified
engineer. In issuing the waiver, WCB, OEA, and WTB found that ``the
lack of certified professional engineers specializing in RF engineering
and broadband network design constitutes `special circumstances' that
warrant a deviation from the general rule that certified professional
engineers must certify the accuracy of providers' biannual BDC
broadband data submissions.'' The waiver specified that an ``otherwise-
qualified'' engineer must meet certain minimum qualifications in lieu
of state PE licensure in order to certify a BDC filing; specifically,
the engineer must ``possess either: (i) a bachelor's or postgraduate
degree in electrical engineering, electronic technology, or another
similar technical discipline, and at least seven years of relevant
experience in broadband network design and/or performance; or (ii)
specialized training relevant to broadband network engineering and
design, deployment, and/or performance, and at least ten years of
relevant experience in broadband network engineering, design, and/or
performance.'' The waiver applied to all mobile and fixed broadband
service providers for each of the first three BDC filing cycles (i.e.,
data as of June 30, 2022, December 31, 2022, and June 30, 2023).
55. In August 2023, CCA and USTelecom-The Broadband Association
jointly submitted a petition to extend the 2022 BDC PE Order. The
Waiver Extension Petition reported that circumstances had not changed
for the industry in the year since adoption of the 2022 BDC PE Order.
It further asserted that the minimum qualifications adopted for
``otherwise-qualified'' engineers in the 2022 BDC PE Order required
experience that ``provides skills comparable to, and perhaps more
relevant than, general PE licensure in the context of the BDC.'' On
November 30, 2023, WCB, OEA, and WTB granted the Waiver Extension
Petition for another three filing cycles (i.e., data as of December 31,
2023, June 30, 2024, and December 31, 2024), subject to certain
conditions.
56. Discussion. As noted above, since the inception of the BDC, we
have granted multiple waivers of the certified PE requirement. We
propose to permanently eliminate the requirement under Sec. 1.7004(d)
that an engineering certification, to the extent not submitted by a
corporate engineering officer, must be submitted by a certified PE. In
its place we propose to amend Sec. 1.7004(d) to state that all
providers must submit a certification to the accuracy of their
submissions by a ``qualified engineer,'' and we propose to define
``qualified engineer'' consistent with the engineering qualifications
that WCB, OEA, and WTB adopted in the 2022 BDC PE Order and the PE
Waiver Extension Order. We seek comment on our proposal.
57. Specifically, we propose to allow for the engineering
certification to be submitted by (i) a corporate officer possessing a
Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in engineering degree and who has direct
knowledge of and responsibility for the carrier's network design and
construction; (ii) an engineer possessing a bachelor's or postgraduate
degree in electrical engineering, electronic technology, or another
similar technical discipline, and at least seven years of relevant
experience in broadband network design and/or performance; or (iii) an
employee with specialized training relevant to broadband network
engineering and design, deployment, and/or performance, and at least 10
years of relevant experience in broadband network engineering, design,
and/or performance.
58. We further propose to modify the rule to clarify that a
certifying engineer does not necessarily need to be a full-time
employee of the broadband service provider but instead could be an
independent contractor or third-party consultant. We do, however,
propose to maintain the remaining requirements in Sec. 1.7004(d),
including that the certifying engineer: (i) has direct knowledge of, or
responsibility for, the generation of the provider's BDC filing; and
(ii) has examined the information contained in the BDC submission and
that, to the best of the engineer's actual knowledge, information, and
belief, all statements of fact contained in the submission are true and
correct, and in accordance with the service provider's ordinary course
of network design and engineering.
59. In light of the other mechanisms available to the Commission,
such as system validations and the existing corporate officer
certification, we do not believe that a certification by a certified
[[Page 66314]]
PE is necessary to ensure the submission of high-quality data as part
of the BDC. Moreover, the Commission has other tools at its disposal to
ensure the ongoing improvement in BDC data, including the challenge,
verification, and audit processes. Given all of these other processes,
we do not believe the certified professional engineer requirement--at
least in its current form--is necessary. Rather, we believe that the
potential costs and burdens of the certified PE requirement outweigh
its potential benefits. We propose that, consistent with our actions in
the PE Waiver Extension Order, all providers be required to retain
their infrastructure data in support of their biannual submissions and
produce those data upon request as part of the Commission's efforts to
validate availability data. We seek comment on these proposals and
conclusions.
60. Does the limited availability of certified PE resources since
the launch of the BDC support modifying the current requirement? Do
commenters believe that state licensure requirements will change in the
near term such that certified PEs with RF or fixed broadband network
deployment experience will become more available? We seek updated data
on the availability of licensed PEs. Commenters who assert that
certified PEs will soon become available should provide evidence in
support of their claims.
61. Assuming that we eliminate the requirement that a certified PE
complete the engineering certification, do commenters agree that the
alternative qualifications adopted in the 2022 BDC PE Order and the PE
Waiver Extension Order are sufficient to ensure reliable BDC data are
submitted by service providers? If commenters believe we should adopt
different qualifications, what should those qualifications be and why
should we adopt these qualifications rather than the qualifications in
the prior waiver orders?
4. Audit and Verification Determinations
62. We next seek comment on our rule and procedures governing
determinations made as a result of audits and verifications, including
the removal of locations or areas if an audit or verification
determines the data are deficient or unverifiable.
63. Background. As discussed earlier, the Broadband DATA Act
requires that the Commission conduct audits to ensure that providers
are complying with their reporting requirements. The Act also requires
the Commission to verify the accuracy and reliability of availability
data submissions in accordance with measures established by the
Commission. In the final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, we delegate authority to OEA, in coordination with
WTB, WCB, and SB to continue to perform audits and verifications using
the tools currently available, including authority to establish
methodologies and procedures for selecting service providers and
locations or areas subject to verification or audit. At the conclusion
of a verification or an audit, a provider must submit revised
availability data to align with the conclusions of the verification or
audit. In the case of mobile wireless coverage subject to a
verification inquiry, we have also made clear that ``we may treat any
targeted [mobile wireless coverage] areas that . . . fail verification
as a failure to file required data in a timely manner and that the
Commission may make modifications to the data presented on the
broadband map (i.e., by removing some or all of the targeted area from
the provider's coverage maps).'' But we have not been as explicit in
announcing that similar procedures and remedies would apply in response
to determinations made as a result of verification of fixed
availability data or in the case of audits (of both fixed and mobile
data).
64. Discussion. We seek comment on formalized procedures to govern
determinations made as a result of audits and verifications of
information submitted by fixed and mobile broadband service providers
in their biannual BDC submissions. Specifically, we seek comment on
whether we should amend Sec. 1.7009 of the Commission's rules to
explicitly state that Commission staff may remove locations or areas
from a provider's availability data should an audit or verification
find that the data are deficient or unverifiable. While we seek comment
on whether amendments to Sec. 1.7009 would help to clarify for
broadband service providers the potential ramifications stemming from a
verification or audit, we emphasize that our doing so does not diminish
our existing authority to remove locations or areas from a provider's
claimed availability data on a case-by-case basis as a result of a
verification or an audit.
65. Section 1.7009(d) requires that providers ``file corrected data
when they discover inaccuracy, omission, or significant reporting error
in the original data that they submitted, whether through self-
discovery, the crowdsource process, the challenge process, the
Commission verification process, or otherwise.'' We tentatively
conclude that it would be beneficial to clarify in our rule that, in
the event a provider's response to a verification inquiry or an audit
does not support its availability filing--whether due to an incomplete
response or where the response demonstrates that service is not
available--pursuant to Sec. 1.7009(d)(1), the provider must correct
its availability data within 30 days of OEA or WTB, WCB, or SB (as
relevant), notifying the provider of this finding. Consistent with our
statutory obligations, and our processes for mobile wireless coverage
verifications, in the event of an adverse audit or verification finding
that is not appealed, or, in the event of an appeal, by a Commission
decision resolving the appeal adversely to the provider, we propose
that the failure to correct data within the 30-day timeframe may result
in OEA, in coordination with WTB, WCB, or SB (as relevant), amending or
removing from the NBM the provider's availability data. For example, an
adverse audit determination would give the provider 30 days to either
appeal the decision or to submit corrected data regarding specified
areas; in the event the provider does not appeal the adverse audit
decision, and does not submit corrected data within 30 days, OEA may
remove the targeted areas subject to the audit from the NBM.
Alternatively, OEA may determine that the provider's data are so
unreliable as to warrant removal of all of the provider's availability
data (not just for the targeted areas) from the NBM. In either
scenario, the BDC will notify the provider in writing of either the
alternation or removal of the provider's data. We find that this
procedure is consistent with our statutory obligation to publish
verified data and the current Commission process. We additionally note
that the Commission already has established rules to submit an
application for review of action taken pursuant to delegated authority,
and a petition for reconsideration in a non-rulemaking proceeding that
providers may avail themselves of in the event of an unfavorable
bureau-level determination. We seek comment on this proposal.
5. Data Requirements for Restoration of Locations Lost or Conceded to
Challenges
66. We seek comment on the data requirements for restoring
locations or areas where infrastructure data under the existing data
specifications are not relevant to the underlying fixed challenge code,
and also seek comment on using speed test data for restoration of
mobile coverage areas.
67. Background. In the Declaratory Ruling in the final rule
published
[[Page 66315]]
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we clarify that in
instances where a provider's claimed availability at a location or area
was previously removed from the NBM as a result of a challenge,
verification or audit, the provider may submit evidence in a subsequent
BDC filing window demonstrating that it can make service available at
that location or area and that the circumstances surrounding the
previous removal no longer exist. As discussed in further detail above,
this process is consistent with providers' obligations to report
accurate data about the broadband services that they make available on
a biannual basis, and is necessary to advance the Commission's goal of
publishing accurate and precise data about where internet services are,
and are not, available across the United States.
68. Fixed Availability Challenges. As noted above, in the case of
most types of fixed challenges, the Commission would evaluate
infrastructure data, such as the information contained in the Data
Specifications for Provider Infrastructure Data in the Challenge,
Verification, and Audit Processes, to confirm that the provider makes
the claimed service available and therefore to substantiate a location
restoration. While infrastructure data is relevant to location
restoration in most instances, there are specific fixed challenge
reason codes where this type of data may not be as closely aligned with
the reason for the challenge. For example, fixed service can be
challenged based on a showing that the provider requested more than a
standard installation fee to connect the location with service (i.e.,
Challenge Category Code 3), or the provider failed to schedule a
service installation within 10 business days (Challenge Category Code
1), or the provider did not install service at the agreed upon time
(Challenge Category Code 2). In these instances, infrastructure data
may not adequately demonstrate that the location presently warrants
being restored to the NBM. This may be particularly so in the case of
individual challenges, since they are more likely to capture unique
attributes of a single location (such as a long driveway, a large hill,
unique topography or building materials, etc.), as compared to bulk
challenges that typically implicate several locations in a community
and more often relate to a lack of infrastructure.
69. We propose to implement these requirements through revisions
and updates to the data specification to account for the information a
provider must submit when seeking to restore a location lost or
conceded to fixed Challenge Category Codes 1, 2, and 3 (or other cases
where infrastructure data would not be informative of whether or not to
restore the location). We seek comment on the types of data or evidence
that should be considered to justify restoration of locations
previously conceded or lost to fixed Challenge Category Codes 1, 2, and
3 or other cases where infrastructure data would not be informative of
whether or not to restore the location. What type of information would
sufficiently demonstrate that a provider can make service available
with a standard installation fee, or within 10 business days? Should
different types of evidence be provided for individual as compared to
bulk challenges submitted under these Challenge Category Codes? What
type of information supports a provider's ability to schedule
installation within 10 business days of a request for service when it
previously could not do so at a particular location? Should we allow
locations which were removed under these circumstances to be restored
after a certain amount of time has passed? If so, what is the
appropriate amount of time that must pass, and should we seek any
supporting information to restore those locations aside from the
passage of time?
70. Mobile Availability Challenges. Similarly, the Commission will
consider infrastructure data to confirm that a mobile provider makes
the claimed service available and therefore to substantiate restoration
of a Removed Area resulting from a successful mobile challenge (or
verification inquiry or audit). In addition to infrastructure data, we
seek comment on whether we should also allow mobile providers to
restore an area by providing on-the-ground speed test data. Could speed
test data sufficiently support restoration of a previously removed
hexagon? Under what circumstances should we accept on-the-ground speed
test data (either in lieu of, or in addition to, infrastructure data)
when a mobile provider seeks to restore a Removed Area? In the event we
were to allow for submission of speed test data, should we require
mobile service providers to collect these data using the parameters
adopted for submittal of mobile challenge rebuttal speed test data, or
are there different parameters to the speed testing methodology that we
should seek for this type of data to support restoration? For
additional speed test data to support restoration, is it necessary that
the tests are conducted after the challenge has been upheld, or could
the tests be collected any time after the as-of date of the relevant
BDC data vintage? If commenters believe that tests should be conducted
after the challenge has been resolved, should we require a certain
amount of time to pass before we find such data compelling? We propose
to implement these requirements through revisions and updates to the
data specification for the information a mobile wireless service
provider must submit when seeking to restore a previously Removed Area,
should we allow for submission of speed test data. We seek comment on
these proposals.
6. Aligning Reporting Requirements for Broadband Availability and
Subscribership Data
71. Background. While broadband availability data are now gathered
through the BDC, the Commission continues to collect counts of
``broadband connections'' in service--broadband subscribership--using
the FCC Form 477. Facilities-based entities providing internet access
service currently submit information for both the BDC and Form 477
within a common online filing application. The data about broadband
availability collected pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act and BDC
rules, as well as the data about broadband connections (i.e.,
subscriptions) collected under the Form 477 rules, are separately
validated as they are ingested by the BDC system, and then checked
against each other to ensure consistency and accuracy after individual
files are ingested and prior to entities certifying and submitting
their biannual submissions.
72. The operational definition of ``broadband'' in the context of
FCC Form 477 subscribership is slightly different than that used in the
BDC for broadband availability. As noted above, the Broadband DATA Act
defines ``broadband internet access service'' for purposes of the BDC
as a ``mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the
capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or
substantially all internet endpoints, including any capabilities that
are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications
service, but excluding dial-up internet access service.'' The existing
Form 477 rules define a ``broadband connection'' as a ``wired line,
wireless channel, or satellite service that terminates at an end user
location or mobile device and enables the end user to receive
information from and/or send information to the internet at information
transfer rates exceeding 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one
direction.''
[[Page 66316]]
73. Discussion. We propose to modify the definition of ``broadband
connection'' used in Form 477 so that it aligns with the definition of
``broadband internet access service'' used in the BDC. Specifically, we
propose to require facilities-based providers of broadband internet
access service to submit in Form 477 counts of ``broadband internet
access service connections'' in service, with that term defined as
connections that provide mass-market broadband internet access as
defined and described in 47 CFR 8.1(b). This change would put the Form
477 on the same definitional footing as the BDC, as well as Broadband
Labeling. Taking this step would also be consistent with the Broadband
DATA Act's direction to the Commission to ``harmonize reporting
requirements and procedures regarding the deployment of broadband
internet access service'' for the FCC Form 477 with those adopted for
the BDC. We believe our proposal will allow the Commission to
streamline its rules, reduce confusion among filers, and impose
consistency on the broadband data it collects in the BDC and FCC Form
477. We seek comment on this proposal.
74. We believe the definition of broadband internet access service
is, on net, narrower than the definition of a broadband connection.
Broadband connections are not limited to include only ``mass-market
retail'' services. Such connections therefore include those providing
types of internet access services that are not sold on a standardized
basis. These non-mass market connections are currently in scope for
reporting on FCC Form 477 but not in the BDC. Changing the Form 477
rules to focus solely on mass-market services would render custom
internet access services out of scope for that collection, and
providers specializing purely in such services would no longer be
required to file. Within the Form 477, there is currently no way to
determine the share of total reported broadband connections that are
sold as non-mass market services, but our expectation is that it is
small. In addition, such connections are arguably sold into a different
market. Given that, we seek comment on whether no longer collecting
data on such connections is worthwhile, particularly in light of the
reduced filing burden to providers of such services and the benefits of
data consistency.
75. An alternative to conforming the scope of the Form 477 to meet
the BDC, is to instead change the Form 477 to capture mass market and
non-mass market connections separately. That is, in addition to the
current requirement to separately report ``consumer'' and ``total''
broadband connections in service, the Commission could require filers
to further parse consumer, and by extension, non-consumer, connections
based on whether the connections are mass market or not. This would
likely increase the burden on filers but would make it possible to
compare the Form 477 data on mass-market broadband connections in
service to the BDC availability data, as well as other broadband data
collections, while leaving the scope of the Form 477 unchanged. We
invite comment on this alternative approach.
7. New Rule Subsection for Fabric Challenge Process
76. Finally, we seek comment on changes to our rules to better
distinguish between fixed availability and Fabric challenge processes.
The current rules for Fabric challenges are nested within a section of
the BDC rules titled ``Fixed service challenge process'' (47 CFR
1.7006(d)). This section largely addresses the rules for the submission
and processing of fixed availability challenges. But the fixed
availability and Fabric challenge processes are different, and many of
the provisions in rule Sec. 1.7006(d) are either inapplicable or not
well suited to the Fabric challenge process. Further, the reference in
the first sentence of the rule to ``challenge[s to] the accuracy of the
coverage maps at a particular location, any information submitted by a
provider regarding the availability of broadband internet access
service, or the Fabric'' creates a potential misconception that all
provisions of the rule apply equally to both fixed availability and
Fabric challenges.
77. We propose amending Sec. 1.7006 of the Commission's rules to
create a new subsection for the Fabric challenge process and to remove
the Fabric challenge provisions in Sec. 1.7006(d) from those pertinent
to the fixed availability challenge process. We seek comment on our
proposal to create a new subsection in rule Sec. 1.7006 for Fabric
challenges.
78. Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion. The Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including
people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural
or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty
or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations,
and invites comment on any benefits (if any) that may be associated
with the proposals and issues discussed herein. Specifically, we seek
comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in
diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well as the scope
of the Commission's relevant legal authority.
79. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The Fourth Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Fourth FNPRM) may contain new and modified
information collection requirements subject to the PRA, Public Law 104-
13. The Office of Management and Budget, the general public, and other
Federal agencies are invited to comment on new or modified information
collection requirements contained in the Fourth FNPRM.
II. Ordering Clauses
80. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1 through 4,
7, 201, 254, 301, 303, 309, 319, 332, 403, and 641 through 646 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 154, 157,
201, 254, 301, 303, 309, 319, 332, 403, 641 through 646, the Fourth
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.
81. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures
set forth in Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Fourth
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before 30 days following
publication in the Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 60
days following publication in the Federal Register.
82. It is further ordered that the Office of the Secretary shall
send a copy of the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
83. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has
prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities from the policies and rules proposed in the Fourth FNPRM.
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be
identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines
for comments on the Fourth FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of
the Fourth FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Fourth
FNPRM and IRFA
[[Page 66317]]
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
84. The Commission continues its ongoing efforts to collect
accurate and granular broadband deployment data so that we can bring
broadband to those areas most in need of it. In the Fourth FNPRM, the
Commission proposes targeted changes designed to either improve the
processes for filers or to further ensure that we continue to receive
high-quality data through our data collection efforts and seeks comment
on additional steps we can take to obtain more reliable data on the
availability and quality of service of broadband internet access.
Specifically, we seek comment on proposed enhancements to the
availability data filing process, as well as possible clarifications to
several of our data-validation tools. This includes revising our
definition of broadband availability to exclude legacy services,
collecting terrestrial fixed wireless call sign data, obtaining
supporting data from satellite service providers, data retention
requirements, and audit rules and processes.
B. Legal Basis
85. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1-5,
201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 405, and
641-646 of the Communications Act of 1934.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Would Apply
86. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by SBA.
Total Small Entities
87. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, 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 SBA's Office of Advocacy,
in general a small business is an independent business having fewer
than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of
all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 million
businesses.
88. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were
approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
89. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were
90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of
this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county,
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000
and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts)
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on
the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least
48,724 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
Broadband Internet Access Service Providers
90. To ensure that this IRFA describes the universe of small
entities that our action might affect, we discuss in turn several
different types of entities that might be providing broadband internet
access service.
91. Wired Broadband Internet Access Service Providers (Wired ISPs).
Providers of wired broadband internet access service include various
types of providers except dial-up internet access providers. Wireline
service that terminates at an end user location or mobile device and
enables the end user to receive information from and/or send
information to the internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200
kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction is classified as a
broadband connection under the Commission's rules. Wired broadband
internet services fall in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers
industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated
with fewer than 250 employees.
92. Additionally, according to Commission data on internet access
services as of June 30, 2019, nationwide there were approximately 2,747
providers of connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction using
various wireline technologies. The Commission does not collect data on
the number of employees for providers of these services, therefore, at
this time we are not able to estimate the number of providers that
would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
However, in light of the general data on fixed technology service
providers in the Commission's 2022 Communications Marketplace Report,
we believe that the majority of wireline internet access service
providers can be considered small entities.
93. Internet Service Providers (Non-Broadband). Internet access
service providers using client-supplied telecommunications connections
(e.g., dial-up ISPs) as well as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
service providers using client-supplied telecommunications connections
fall in the industry classification of All Other Telecommunications.
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms
with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. For this
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079
firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those
firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Consequently, under
the SBA size standard a majority of firms in this industry can be
considered small.
Wireline Providers
94. 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
[[Page 66318]]
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. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to
as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers.
95. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
96. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services
include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry
with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local
service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers
that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have
1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business
size standard, most of these providers can be considered small
entities.
97. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 providers
that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that 916 providers have 1,500
or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local
exchange carriers can be considered small entities.
98. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services.
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local
exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021,
there were 3,378 providers that reported they were competitive local
exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 3,230 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
99. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for
Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated
with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data
in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31,
2021, there were 127 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 109 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry
can be considered small entities.
100. Operator Service Providers (OSPs). Neither the Commission nor
the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
operator service providers. The closest applicable industry with an SBA
small business size standard is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The
SBA small business size standard classifies a business as small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the
entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 20
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of operator
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that all 20
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, all of these providers can be considered
small entities.
101. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers,
or toll resellers. Wired
[[Page 66319]]
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 90 providers
that reported they were engaged in the provision of other toll
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 87
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile
102. The broadband internet access service provider category
covered by the Fourth FNPRM may cover multiple wireless firms and
categories of wireless services. Thus, to the extent the wireless
services listed below are used by wireless firms for broadband internet
access service, the proposed actions may have an impact on those small
businesses as set forth above and further below. In addition, for those
services subject to auctions, we note that, as a general matter, the
number of winning bidders that claim to qualify as small businesses at
the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of
small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not
generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of
assignments and transfers or reportable eligibility events, unjust
enrichment issues are implicated.
103. 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
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
104. Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications
Services (WCS) can be used for a variety of fixed, mobile,
radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite services.
Wireless spectrum is made available and licensed for the provision of
wireless communications services in several frequency bands subject to
part 27 of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business
size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire
year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees.
Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
105. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to
WCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in
the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in
WCS. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in
WCS frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of
small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and
entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in
conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified
in the designated entities section in part 27 of the Commission's rules
for the specific WCS frequency bands.
106. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
107. 1670-1675 MHz Services. These wireless communications services
can be used for fixed and mobile uses, except aeronautical mobile.
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest
industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to these
services. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business
as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed
fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can
be considered small.
108. According to Commission data as of November 2021, there were
three active licenses in this service. The Commission's small business
size standards with respect to 1670-1675 MHz Services involve
eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction
of licenses for these services. For licenses in the 1670-1675 MHz
service band, a ``small business'' is defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years,
and a ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual
gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.
The 1670-1675 MHz service band auction's winning bidder did not claim
small business status.
109. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
[[Page 66320]]
110. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular,
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio
telephony carriers. The closest applicable industry with an SBA small
business size standard is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite). The size standard for this industry under SBA rules is that
a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893
firms that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms
employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission
data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December
31, 2021, there were 331 providers that reported they were engaged in
the provision of cellular, personal communications services, and
specialized mobile radio services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 255 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
111. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband
personal communications services (PCS) spectrum encompasses services in
the 1850-1910 and 1930-1990 MHz bands. The closest industry with an SBA
small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The SBA small business
size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the
entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250
employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates
that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
112. Based on Commission data as of November 2021, there were
approximately 5,060 active licenses in the Broadband PCS service. The
Commission's small business size standards with respect to Broadband
PCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in
the auction of licenses for these services. In auctions for these
licenses, the Commission defined ``small business'' as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years,
and a ``very small business'' as an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.
Winning bidders claiming small business credits won Broadband PCS
licenses in C, D, E, and F Blocks.
113. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these, at this time we are not able to estimate the
number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small
under the SBA's small business size standard.
114. Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses. Special Mobile Radio (SMR)
licenses allow licensees to provide land mobile communications services
(other than radiolocation services) in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz spectrum
bands on a commercial basis including but not limited to services used
for voice and data communications, paging, and facsimile services, to
individuals, Federal Government entities, and other entities licensed
under part 90 of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small
business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA size
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that
operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021,
there were 95 providers that reported they were of SMR (dispatch)
providers. Of this number, the Commission estimates that all 95
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, these 119 SMR licensees can be considered
small entities.
115. Based on Commission data as of December 2021, there were 3,924
active SMR licenses. However, since the Commission does not collect
data on the number of employees for licensees providing SMR services,
at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with
active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small
business size standard. Nevertheless, for purposes of this analysis the
Commission estimates that the majority of SMR licensees can be
considered small entities using the SBA's small business size standard.
116. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The lower 700 MHz band
encompasses spectrum in the 698-746 MHz frequency bands. Permissible
operations in these bands include flexible fixed, mobile, and broadcast
uses, including mobile and other digital new broadcast operation; fixed
and mobile wireless commercial services (including frequency division
duplex (FDD)- and time division duplex (TDD)-based services); as well
as fixed and mobile wireless uses for private, internal radio needs,
two-way interactive, cellular, and mobile television broadcasting
services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is
the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard
applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. The SBA small
business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small
if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017
show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the
entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250
employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates
that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
117. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were
approximately 2,824 active Lower 700 MHz Band licenses. The
Commission's small business size standards with respect to Lower 700
MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and
installment payments in the auction of licenses. For auctions of Lower
700 MHz Band licenses the Commission adopted criteria for three groups
of small businesses. A very small business was defined as an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has
average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the
preceding three years, a small business was defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years,
and an entrepreneur was defined as an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not
exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. In auctions for
Lower 700 MHz Band licenses seventy-two winning bidders claiming a
small business classification won 329 licenses, twenty-six winning
bidders
[[Page 66321]]
claiming a small business classification won 214 licenses, and three
winning bidders claiming a small business classification won all five
auctioned licenses.
118. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
119. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. The upper 700 MHz band
encompasses spectrum in the 746-806 MHz bands. Upper 700 MHz D Block
licenses are nationwide licenses associated with the 758-763 MHz and
788-793 MHz bands. Permissible operations in these bands include
flexible fixed, mobile, and broadcast uses, including mobile and other
digital new broadcast operation; fixed and mobile wireless commercial
services (including FDD- and TDD-based services); as well as fixed and
mobile wireless uses for private, internal radio needs, two-way
interactive, cellular, and mobile television broadcasting services.
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest
industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to
licenses providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire
year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees.
Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
120. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were
approximately 152 active Upper 700 MHz Band licenses. The Commission's
small business size standards with respect to Upper 700 MHz Band
licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment
payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses,
the Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a
``very small business'' an entity that, together with its affiliates
and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not
more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Pursuant to these
definitions, three winning bidders claiming very small business status
won five of the twelve available licenses.
121. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
122. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. The 700 MHz Guard Band
encompasses spectrum in 746-747/776-777 MHz and 762-764/792-794 MHz
frequency bands. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size
standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. The
SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed
fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can
be considered small.
123. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were
approximately 224 active 700 MHz Guard Band licenses. The Commission's
small business size standards with respect to 700 MHz Guard Band
licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment
payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses,
the Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a
``very small business'' an entity that, together with its affiliates
and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not
more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Pursuant to these
definitions, five winning bidders claiming one of the small business
status classifications won 26 licenses, and one winning bidder claiming
small business won two licenses. None of the winning bidders claiming a
small business status classification in these 700 MHz Guard Band
license auctions had an active license as of December 2021.
124. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
125. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Service is a wireless service in which licensees are authorized to
offer and provide radio telecommunications service for hire to
subscribers in aircraft. A licensee may provide any type of air-ground
service (i.e., voice telephony, broadband internet, data, etc.) to
aircraft of any type, and serve any or all aviation markets
(commercial, government, and general). A licensee must provide service
to aircraft and may not provide ancillary land mobile or fixed services
in the 800 MHz air-ground spectrum.
126. The closest industry with an SBA small business size standard
applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite). The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
127. Based on Commission data as of December 2021, there were
approximately four licensees with 110 active licenses in the Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Service. The
[[Page 66322]]
Commission's small business size standards with respect to Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Service involve eligibility for bidding credits and
installment payments in the auction of licenses. For purposes of
auctions, the Commission defined ``small business'' as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years,
and a ``very small business'' as an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. In
the auction of Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 800
MHz band, neither of the two winning bidders claimed small business
status.
128. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, the Commission
does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees
providing these services therefore, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
129. Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)--(1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155
MHz bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and
2175-2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3); 2000-2020 MHz
and 2180-2200 MHz (AWS-4)). Spectrum is made available and licensed in
these bands for the provision of various wireless communications
services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is
the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard
applicable to these services. The SBA small business size standard for
this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
130. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were
approximately 4,472 active AWS licenses. The Commission's small
business size standards with respect to AWS involve eligibility for
bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for
these services. For the auction of AWS licenses, the Commission defined
a ``small business'' as an entity with average annual gross revenues
for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a ``very
small business'' as an entity with average annual gross revenues for
the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. Pursuant to these
definitions, 57 winning bidders claiming status as small or very small
businesses won 215 of 1,087 licenses. In the most recent auction of AWS
licenses 15 of 37 bidders qualifying for status as small or very small
businesses won licenses.
131. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
132. 3650-3700 MHz band. Wireless broadband service licensing in
the 3650-3700 MHz band provides for nationwide, non-exclusive licensing
of terrestrial operations, utilizing contention-based technologies, in
the 3650 MHz band (i.e., 3650-3700 MHz). Licensees are permitted to
provide services on a non-common carrier and/or on a common carrier
basis. Wireless broadband services in the 3650-3700 MHz band fall in
the Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) industry
with an SBA small business size standard that classifies a business as
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry
for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than
250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission
estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be
considered small.
133. The Commission has not developed a small business size
standard applicable to 3650-3700 MHz band licensees. Based on the
licenses that have been granted, however, we estimate that the majority
of licensees in this service are small internet Access Service
Providers (ISPs). As of November 2021, Commission data shows that there
were 902 active licenses in the 3650-3700 MHz band. However, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
134. Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed microwave services include
common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary
radio services. They also include the Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service (UMFUS), Millimeter Wave Service (70/80/90 GHz), Local
Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message
Service (DEMS), 24 GHz Service, Multiple Address Systems (MAS), and
Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS), where in some
bands licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common
carrier status. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)
is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard
applicable to these services. The SBA small size standard for this
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of fixed
microwave service licensees can be considered small.
135. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to
fixed microwave services involve eligibility for bidding credits and
installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various
frequency bands included in fixed microwave services. When bidding
credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in fixed microwave
services frequency bands, such credits may be available to several
types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very
small and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules
adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as
identified in part 101 of the Commission's rules for the specific fixed
microwave services frequency bands.
[[Page 66323]]
136. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
137. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service.
Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint
Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution
Service (MMDS) systems, and ``wireless cable,'' transmit video
programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data
operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously
referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)).
Wireless cable operators that use spectrum in the BRS often
supplemented with leased channels from the EBS, provide a competitive
alternative to wired cable and other multichannel video programming
distributors. Wireless cable programming to subscribers resembles cable
television, but instead of coaxial cable, wireless cable uses microwave
channels.
138. In light of the use of wireless frequencies by BRS and EBS
services, the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard
applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite). The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
139. According to Commission data as December 2021, there were
approximately 5,869 active BRS and EBS licenses. The Commission's small
business size standards with respect to BRS involves eligibility for
bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for
these services. For the auction of BRS licenses, the Commission adopted
criteria for three groups of small businesses. A very small business is
an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests,
has average annual gross revenues exceed $3 million and did not exceed
$15 million for the preceding three years, a small business is an
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests,
has average gross revenues exceed $15 million and did not exceed $40
million for the preceding three years, and an entrepreneur is an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has
average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three
years. Of the ten winning bidders for BRS licenses, two bidders
claiming the small business status won 4 licenses, one bidder claiming
the very small business status won three licenses and two bidders
claiming entrepreneur status won six licenses. One of the winning
bidders claiming a small business status classification in the BRS
license auction has an active licenses as of December 2021.
140. The Commission's small business size standards for EBS define
a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates, its
controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests,
has average gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the
preceding five (5) years, and a very small business is an entity that,
together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the
affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues
that are not more than $20 million for the preceding five (5) years. In
frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission
notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that
qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not
necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in
service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
Satellite Service Providers
141. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, a little more than half of these
providers can be considered small entities.
142. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of
internet services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or VoIP services, via client-
supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this
industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry
classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in
this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039
had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the
Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
[[Page 66324]]
Cable Service Providers
143. Because section 706 of the Act requires us to monitor the
deployment of broadband using any technology, we anticipate that some
broadband service providers may not provide telephone service.
Accordingly, we describe below other types of firms that may provide
broadband services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and
utilities, among others.
144. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. The U.S. Census
Bureau defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in
operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a
subscription or fee basis. The broadcast programming is typically
narrowcast in nature (e.g., limited format, such as news, sports,
education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce programming
in their own facilities or acquire programming from external sources.
The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as
cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to
viewers. The SBA small business size standard for this industry
classifies firms with annual receipts less than $41.5 million as small.
Based on U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017, 378 firms operated in this
industry during that year. Of that number, 149 firms operated with
revenue of less than $25 million a year and 44 firms operated with
revenue of $25 million or more. Based on this data, the Commission
estimates that a majority of firms in this industry are small.
145. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission
has developed its own small business size standard for the purpose of
cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable
company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Based
on industry data, there are about 420 cable companies in the U.S. Of
these, only seven have more than 400,000 subscribers. In addition,
under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Based on industry data, there are
about 4,139 cable systems (headends) in the U.S. Of these, about 639
have more than 15,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission
estimates that the majority of cable companies and cable systems are
small.
146. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a
``small cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of
all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any
entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer
than 498,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will
meet the definition of a small cable operator. Based on industry data,
only six cable system operators have more than 498,000 subscribers.
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable system
operators are small under this size standard. We note however, that the
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual
revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, we are unable at this time to
estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the
Communications Act.
All Other Telecommunications
147. Electric Power Generators, Transmitters, and Distributors. The
U.S. Census Bureau defines the utilities sector industry as comprised
of ``establishments, primarily engaged in generating, transmitting,
and/or distributing electric power. Establishments in this industry
group may perform one or more of the following activities: (1) operate
generation facilities that produce electric energy; (2) operate
transmission systems that convey the electricity from the generation
facility to the distribution system; and (3) operate distribution
systems that convey electric power received from the generation
facility or the transmission system to the final consumer.'' This
industry group is categorized based on fuel source and includes
Hydroelectric Power Generation, Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation,
Nuclear Electric Power Generation, Solar Electric Power Generation,
Wind Electric Power Generation, Geothermal Electric Power Generation,
Biomass Electric Power Generation, Other Electric Power Generation,
Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control and Electric Power
Distribution.
148. The SBA has established a small business size standard for
each of these groups based on the number of employees which ranges from
having fewer than 250 employees to having fewer than 1,000 employees.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 indicate that for the Electric Power
Generation, Transmission and Distribution industry there were 1,693
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this
number, 1,552 firms had less than 250 employees. Based on this data and
the associated SBA size standards, the majority of firms in this
industry can be considered small entities.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
149. Certain potential modifications proposed in the Fourth FNPRM,
if adopted, would impose new reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements on some small entities while others would
reduce the burden on such entities. Specifically, in the Fourth FNPRM,
we propose enhancements to the availability data collection
requirements that, if adopted, would amend our rules to continue to
collect availability data on legacy services but to not include such
services in the location-specific availability information published on
the National Broadband Map. Once broadband internet access service has
actually been discontinued, the filer would not be required to submit
broadband availability data for the service upon the next subsequent
BDC filing period following the grant of the discontinuance petition.
150. In addition, the Commission proposes that fixed wireless
filers reporting licensed service in their biannual BDC filings also be
required to provide call sign data. We also propose updates to the BDC
reporting requirements, that if adopted, would improve the quality of
satellite service provider availability data submitted as part of the
biannual data submission process. Specifically, we propose that
satellite service providers must include, as a supporting data file
accompanied with their biannual availability submissions, the
infrastructure data set forth in BDC Infrastructure Data Specification.
151. In addition, as a means of improving the accuracy and
reliability of broadband internet access service data, the Commission
proposes a number of methods to verify the information in the
providers' filings, including adoption of data retention requirements
and more specific audit procedures. Specifically, we propose that
broadband service providers retain the underlying data used to create
their availability filings (including supporting data) for three years
from the applicable ``as-of'' date. Data used to rebut challenges or
respond to verifications inquiries or audits would be retained for
three years as well. In response to a BDC
[[Page 66325]]
audit request, providers would have 60 days to submit the applicable
supporting documentation. The adoption of any of these verification
processes could subject small entities and other providers to
additional submission, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements.
152. In addition, we propose to eliminate the requirement under
rule Sec. 1.7004(d) that an engineering certification, to the extent
not submitted by a corporate engineering officer, must be submitted by
a licensed PE. Instead, we propose to amend rule Sec. 1.7004(d) to
require that providers submit certifications by a ``qualified
engineer,'' as defined by the engineering qualifications the Broadband
Data Task Force adopted in previous orders. This certifying engineer
would not need to be a full time employee, but would be required to
have direct knowledge and familiarity with the BDC filing. We believe
that the potential costs and burdens of the licensed PE requirement
outweigh its potential benefits, and thus propose to eliminate the
requirement.
153. The issues raised for consideration and comment in the Fourth
FNPRM may require small entities to hire attorneys, engineers,
consultants, or other professionals. At this time, however, the
Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with any potential
rule changes and compliance obligations for small entities that may
result from the Fourth FNPRM. We expect our requests for information on
potential burdens on small entities associated with matters raised in
the Fourth FNPRM will provide us with information to assist with our
evaluation of the cost of compliance on small entities of any
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements we adopt.
D. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
154. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that could minimize impacts
to small entities that it has considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include (among others) the following four
alternatives: (1) the establishment of differing compliance or
reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting
requirements under the rule for 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 such small entities.
155. As an initial matter, several of the proposals in the Fourth
FNPRM are unlikely to negatively impact small businesses. For example,
we propose to eliminate the licensed professional engineering
certification and instead propose to require certifications by a
``qualified engineer,'' as defined in previous BDC orders. This
proposal, if adopted, will save some small entities from having to pay
a professional engineer to certify their filings. The Fourth FNPRM
additionally proposes to keep confidential certain legacy availability
data to protect customers' identity while still enabling the Commission
to continue to analyze availability on ``grandfathered'' services.
156. To assist the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact
on small entities as a result of actions that may result from proposals
and issues raised for consideration in the Fourth FNPRM, and to better
explore options and alternatives, the Commission has sought comment
from the public on how best to implement the requirements in the
Broadband DATA Act. More specifically, the Commission seeks comment on
what additional burdens are associated with implementing more specific
audit provisions, and seeks to balance our statutory obligation to
ensure accurate data with minimizing the burden on providers. In
addition, we sought comment on whether the proposed three-year data
retention policy places a burden on smaller providers
disproportionately compared to larger ISPs, and, alternatively, whether
we should consider a five-year retention period. We also sought comment
on the burdens that would be placed on satellite service providers by
requiring them to submit additional infrastructure information on a
biannual basis, and any additional or alternative data that we could
collect to improve the accuracy and granularity of satellite providers'
broadband availability data.
157. More generally, the proposals and questions set forth in the
Fourth FNPRM were designed to enable the Commission to understand the
benefits, impact, and potential burdens associated with the different
approaches that the Commission can pursue to achieve its objective of
improving accuracy and reliability of its data collections. Before
reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding,
the Commission expects to review the comments filed in response to the
Fourth FNPRM and more fully consider the economic impact on small
entities and how any impact can be minimized.
E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
158. None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Broadband, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 1 as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 47
U.S.C. 1754, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1.7001 by:
0
a. Removing the heading from paragraph (a);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(1); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (a)(21) and (g).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 1.7001 Scope and content of filed reports.
(a) * * *
(21) Grandfathered service. A broadband internet access service
that is currently provided to an existing end user at a broadband
serviceable location, but that a facilities-based provider has
permanently ceased to advertise or market to new or potential
subscribers and would not make available to a new or potential
subscriber at the broadband serviceable location.
* * * * *
(g) Facilities-based providers shall retain the underlying data
used to create their biannual FCC Form 477 submissions (including
supporting data) for at least three years after the applicable ``as-
of'' reporting date (i.e., June 30 or December 31).
0
3. Amend Sec. 1.7004 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(3) through (7) as paragraphs (c)(5)
through (9);
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (c)(3) and (4); and
0
c. Revising and republishing paragraph (d).
The additions and revision read as follows:
[[Page 66326]]
Sec. 1.7004 Scope, content, and frequency of Broadband Data
Collection filings.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Fixed wireless broadband internet access service providers must
disclose the following spectrum authorization information related to
their broadband availability data:
(i) For broadband internet access services provided using licensed
spectrum:
(A) All call signs and lease IDs (including the call sign(s) of the
license(s) being leased) associated with the licenses held or leased by
the filer and were (or could have been) used to provide broadband
service as of the relevant Broadband Data Collection (BDC) filing date;
and
(B) The FCC Registration Number of the entity holding the license
or lease as recorded in the FCC's Universal Licensing System.
(ii) For broadband internet access services provided using
licensed-by-rule spectrum:
(A) Proof of authorization by a Spectrum Access System pursuant to
part 96 of this chapter as of the relevant BDC filing date.
(B) [Reserved]
(iii) For broadband internet access services provided using
unlicensed operations pursuant to part 15 of this chapter:
(A) The FCC ID(s) of all base station transmission equipment used
to provide the service as of the relevant BDC filing date.
(B) [Reserved]
(4) Satellite broadband internet access service providers must
disclose the following information related to their broadband
availability data:
(i) Information on the general operating parameters of the
satellite system active as-of the relevant filing period, including
network type, the total number of satellites in the active
constellation, the number of orbital shells deployed in the active
constellation, the overall system downlink capacity, and the overall
system uplink capacity;
(ii) Information on each constellation or orbital shell of space
stations deployed by the satellite system active as-of the relevant
filing period, including shell altitude, orbital location (for GSO
systems), inclination angle, orbital plane, number of satellites per
orbital plane, shell orbital period, apogee, and perigee; and
(iii) For each state or territory for which the facilities-based
provider of satellite broadband internet access service claims
coverage, system capacity information for each state or territory.
* * * * *
(d) Providers shall include in each Broadband Data Collection
filing a certification signed by a corporate officer of the provider
that the officer has examined the information contained in the
submission and that, to the best of the officer's actual knowledge,
information, and belief, all statements of fact contained in the
submission are true and correct. All providers also shall submit a
certification of the accuracy of its submissions by a qualified
engineer. The engineering certification shall state that the qualified
engineer is employed by the provider and has direct knowledge of, or
responsibility for, the generation of the provider's Broadband Data
Collection filing. The qualified engineer shall also certify that he or
she has examined the information contained in the submission and that,
to the best of the engineer's actual knowledge, information, and
belief, all statements of fact contained in the submission are true and
correct, and in accordance with the service provider's ordinary course
of network design and engineering. If a corporate officer is also an
engineer and has the requisite knowledge required under the Broadband
DATA Act, a provider may submit a single certification that fulfills
both requirements. A ``qualified engineer,'' for purposes of this
certification, shall be:
(1) A corporate officer possessing a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in
engineering degree and who has direct knowledge of and responsibility
for the carrier's network design and construction;
(2) An engineer possessing a bachelor's or postgraduate degree in
electrical engineering, electronic technology, or another similar
technical discipline, and at least seven years of relevant experience
in broadband network design and/or performance; or
(3) An employee with specialized training relevant to broadband
network engineering and design, deployment, and/or performance, and at
least 10 years of relevant experience in broadband network engineering,
design, and/or performance.
0
4. Amend Sec. 1.7005 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.7005 Disclosure of data in the Fabric and Broadband Data
Collection filings.
(a) * * *
(1) Withholding from public inspection all data required to be kept
confidential pursuant to Sec. 0.457 of this chapter, location-specific
data on grandfathered services (though the Office of Economics and
Analytics may make publicly available aggregated information or data
related to such services), and all personally identifiable information
submitted in connection with the information contained in the Fabric,
the dataset supporting the Fabric, and availability data submitted
pursuant to Sec. 1.7004; and
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 1.7006 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading and paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (d)(1)(vii) and (d)(9); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 1.7006 Data retention and verification.
* * * * *
(d) Fixed service challenge process. State, local, and Tribal
governmental entities, consumers, and other entities or individuals may
submit data in an online portal to challenge the accuracy of the
coverage maps at a particular location and any information submitted by
a provider regarding the availability of broadband internet access
service.
* * * * *
(g) Broadband serviceable location Fabric challenge process. State,
local, and Tribal governmental entities, consumers, and other entities
or individuals may submit data in an online portal to challenge the
accuracy of the information in the Fabric.
(1) Fabric challengers must provide in their submissions:
(i) Name and contact information (e.g., address, phone number,
email);
(ii) For a missing broadband-serviceable location, the geographic
coordinates (latitude/longitude) of the location, along with an address
for the location (if an address is available), a unit count, and the
building type (selected from pre-established options on the portal);
(iii) For an existing broadband-serviceable location, category of
dispute, selected from pre-established options on the portal;
(iv) Details and evidence about the challenged location; and
(v) A certification from an individual or an authorized officer or
signatory of a challenger that the person examined the information
contained in the challenge and that, to the best of the person's actual
knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact contained in
the challenge are true and correct.
(2) The Commission shall seek to resolve such challenges within 90
days of receiving the challenge filing in the online portal.
[[Page 66327]]
(3) Government entities or other entities may file challenges at
multiple locations in a single challenge, but each challenge must
contain all of the requirements set forth in paragraph (g)(1) of this
section.
(4) Once a challenge containing all the required elements is
submitted in the online portal, the location shall be identified on the
coverage maps as ``in dispute/pending resolution.'' The Commission
shall make public information about the location that is the subject of
the challenge, including the street address and/or coordinates
(latitude and longitude) and any relevant details concerning the basis
for the challenge.
(h) Data retention. Facilities-based providers shall retain the
underlying data used to create their biannual Broadband Data Collection
submissions (including supporting data) for at least three years after
the applicable ``as-of'' reporting date (i.e., June 30 or December 31).
In addition, facilities-based providers shall also retain any and all
data related to responses to the data verification efforts set forth in
paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section for at least three years
from the date the provider receives notice of a challenge, verification
inquiry, or initiation of an audit.
0
6. Amend Sec. 1.7009 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.7009 Enforcement.
* * * * *
(e) If, as a result of a verification inquiry or audit performed
pursuant to Sec. 1.7006, Commission staff request that a provider
submit corrected availability data, and the provider fails to submit
corrected data by the required date, then the Office of Economics and
Analytics (OEA), in coordination with the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, Wireline Competition Bureau, or Space Bureau (as appropriate),
may remove locations or areas from the availability data published in
the National Broadband Map pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 642(c). In such an
instance, the BDC system will notify the provider in writing that some
or all of its availability data have been altered on or removed from
the National Broadband Map. OEA will abstain from altering or removing
locations or areas subject to an audit or verification for which the
provider has filed an application for review or petition for
reconsideration until such time as the Commission rules upon any such
application or petition. During this period the locations or areas may
be indicated as ``in dispute'' on the National Broadband Map.
[FR Doc. 2024-16989 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P