Further Inquiry Into Issues Related to Mobility Fund Phase II, 73586-73589 [2012-29879]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
73586
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule proposing to
approve West Virginia’s redesignation
request, maintenance plan, 2005 base
year emissions inventory, and
transportation conformity insignificance
determination for the Wheeling Area for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS does not
have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, PM2.5,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 21, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012–29866 Filed 12–10–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
47 CFR Part 1
[WC Docket No. 10–90; WT Docket No. 10–
208; DA 12–1853]
Further Inquiry Into Issues Related to
Mobility Fund Phase II
Federal Communications
Commission.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
The Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau and
Wireline Competition Bureau
(collectively, the Bureaus) seek further
comment on specific issues relating to
the implementation of Phase II of the
Mobility Fund. The Bureaus also seek to
develop a more comprehensive record
on certain issues relating to the award
of ongoing support for advanced mobile
services.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
December 21, 2012, and reply comments
are due on or before January 7, 2013.
ADDRESSES: All filings in response to
this public notice must refer to Docket
Numbers 10–90 and 10–208. The
Bureaus strongly encourage interested
parties to file comments electronically.
Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
D Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
D Federal Communications
Commission’s Web Site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. Filings can be
sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal
Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission’s
Secretary, Attn: WTB/ASAD, Office of
the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
D Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
D People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue
McNeil, Auctions and Spectrum Access
Division, Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau at (202) 418–0660.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Further
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Inquiry Into Issues Related to Mobility
Fund Phase II (Mobility Fund Phase II
Public Notice) released on November 27,
2012. The complete text of the Mobility
Fund Phase II Public Notice, as well as
related Commission documents, is
available for public inspection and
copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Eastern Time (ET) Monday through
Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference
Information Center, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
The Mobility Fund Phase II Public
Notice and related Commission
documents also may be purchased from
the Commission’s duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.
(BCPI), 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–
B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone
202–488–5300, fax 202–488–5563, or
you may contact BCPI at its Web site:
https://www.BCPIWEB.com. When
ordering documents from BCPI, please
provide the appropriate FCC document
number, for example, DA 12–1853.
I. Introduction
1. The Bureaus seek further comment
on a limited number of specific issues
relating to the implementation of Phase
II of the Mobility Fund. As established
in the USF/ICC Transformation Order
and FNPRM, 76 FC 78383, December 16,
2011, in Mobility Fund Phase II the
Commission will award $500 million
annually to ensure the availability of
mobile broadband and high quality
voice services in certain areas. Building
on the comments previously filed in
response to the USF/ICC
Transformation Order and FNPRM and
the Bureaus’ experience in
implementing a reverse auction to
award one-time Phase I support, the
Bureaus seek to develop a more
comprehensive record on certain issues
related to the award of ongoing support
for advanced mobile services. In
considering the issues related to
Mobility Fund Phase II, the Bureaus ask
commenters keep in mind that Phase II
support is not one-time support, but is
ongoing support aimed at expanding
and sustaining mobile services.
II. Background
2. In the USF/ICC Transformation
Order and FNPRM, the Commission
comprehensively reformed and
modernized the universal service highcost program. Among other things, for
the first time, the Commission explicitly
recognized the important benefits of and
demand for mobile services through the
creation of a two-phase Mobility Fund
within the high-cost program.
3. For Phase I, the Commission
allocated $300 million in one-time
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
support to expand the availability of
advanced mobile services, plus an
additional $50 million dedicated to
Tribal lands. For Phase II of the Mobility
Fund, the Commission dedicated $500
million annually (including up to $100
million dedicated to Tribal lands) and
proposed to make awards through a
reverse auction to support providers of
voice and mobile broadband service in
areas where such services cannot be
sustained or extended without ongoing
support. The Commission further
proposed to award support on the same
terms and conditions as it adopted for
Phase I, but sought comment on
whether any modifications were needed
to reflect the ongoing nature of support
in Phase II.
4. Under the Commission’s proposal,
a Mobility Fund Phase II reverse auction
would assign support to maximize
coverage of unserved road miles (or
other units) within the budget. To
implement an auction, the Commission
proposed a basic framework of auction
rules that would give the Bureaus
flexibility under delegated authority to
establish specific procedures for a
Mobility Fund Phase II auction.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
III. Overall Design
A. Identifying Areas Eligible for Support
5. In the USF/ICC Transformation
Order and FNPRM, the Commission
sought comment on various issues
associated with identifying the
geographic areas that would be eligible
for Phase II support. In light of
experience with Mobility Fund Phase I
and Auction 901, the Bureaus seek
further comment on certain of these
issues.
6. Identifying Areas Eligible for
Support. To target Phase II support to
only those areas where it is needed, the
Commission proposed to use Mosaik
Solutions (Mosaik) data to exclude all
census blocks where an unsubsidized
carrier is providing 3G or better service.
For purposes of determining areas with
unsubsidized service, the Commission
proposed in the USF/ICC
Transformation Order and FNPRM that
areas receiving one-time Mobility Fund
Phase I support would still be eligible
to receive Mobility Fund Phase II
support.
7. Some commenters express concern
about the accuracy of the Mosaik
database. The Bureaus now seek further
comment based on the use of Mosaik
data as a factor in determining eligible
areas for Phase I support. To the extent
that parties assert that Mosaik data
inaccurately reflects the availability of
service, the Bureaus seek comment on
whether there are any other data sources
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
that the Commission could use to better
identify eligible areas. The Bureaus
request that commenters provide
specific information on what makes
these alternate sources superior and
how they could be used instead of, or
in combination with, the Mosaik
database. The Bureaus also seek
comment on whether there are other
factors the Commission should consider
in addition to the availability of
unsubsidized service. For instance, how
should providers’ planned expansion of
unsubsidized service affect the
identification of areas eligible for
support? For example, in Mobility Fund
Phase I, the Commission excluded areas
from auction where a provider has made
a regulatory commitment to provide 3G
or better wireless service, or has
received a funding commitment from a
federal executive department or agency
in response to the carrier’s commitment
to provide 3G or better service. In
addition, the Commission required
applicants for Mobility Fund Phase I
support to certify that they were not
seeking support for any areas in which
they had made a public commitment to
deploy 3G or better wireless service by
December 31, 2012.
8. Use of the Centroid Method. In the
USF/ICC Transformation Order and
FNPRM, the Commission proposed to
determine the eligibility of a particular
census block for Phase II support based
on the absence of unsubsidized 3G or
better service at the centroid, which
refers to the internal point latitude/
longitude of a census block polygon.
Some commenters expressed concern
that the centroid method is an
ineffective measure to determine
whether large areas are unserved. The
Bureaus ask commenters for feedback
on the centroid method in light of their
experience in Phase I. Should the
Commission consider alternatives, such
as the proportional method? For
instance, should it consider unserved
any census block if the data indicates
more than 50 percent of the area is
unserved?
B. Prioritizing Areas Eligible for Support
9. In the USF/ICC Transformation
Order and FNPRM, the Commission
sought comment on whether to target
Phase II support to particular areas,
such as those that lack any mobile
service or ones that lack current
generation (3G) service. Some
commenters suggest prioritizing support
to rural carriers or carriers with 2G or
less capacity; another opposed
prioritization of funding to areas with
no service at all. Others suggested that
the Commission should take into
account additional factors, such as
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73587
poverty level or whether an area is
served by the National Highway System,
instead of, or in addition to, coverage
level. Despite this discussion in the
record, the Commission received little
input on implementation and specific
measures for prioritizing eligible areas.
10. The Bureaus seek additional
comment on whether and how the
Commission might implement priorities
for support among eligible areas. The
Bureaus ask commenters to address
whether the Commission should
prioritize ongoing support to areas that
lack coverage, a designated level of
coverage, or whether there are other
measurable factors that should be taken
into account. The Bureaus observe that,
in the USF/ICC Transformation Order
and FNPRM, the Commission suggested
that targeted areas could be prioritized
by making a bidding credit available.
The Bureaus seek additional specific
comment on how the Commission might
set an appropriate level(s) of bidding
credit(s) to prioritize areas based on the
existing level of coverage in a particular
area. The Bureaus seek comment on
whether and how the Commission
might assure that support goes to areas
that would lose service absent the
receipt of ongoing support. In this
regard, commenters are invited to
discuss how, if at all, the availability of
Remote Areas Fund support for the
highest cost areas should affect the areas
targeted for Mobility Fund Phase II.
C. Establishing Bidding and Coverage
Units
11. In the USF/ICC Transformation
Order and FNPRM, under its auction
proposal, the Commission proposed to
establish bidding units in each eligible
census block for purposes of comparing
bids and assessing performance, and to
base the number of bidding units on the
number of road miles in each eligible
area. Road miles directly reflect the
Mobility Fund’s goals of supporting
mobile services, and indirectly reflect
many other important factors, such as
business locations, recreation areas and
work sites, since roads are used to
access those areas. Several commenters
recommend that the Commission
consider other alternatives, including
population, terrain, workplaces, annual
revenues, and straight-line miles or
traditional river miles, instead of, or in
combination with, road miles. Some
commenters also suggest that the
Commission revisit the issue of bidding
and coverage units after the Phase I
auction before deciding on whether to
use road miles as the sole bidding unit.
12. Given the results of the Mobility
Fund Phase I auction, the Bureaus seek
further comment on the use of road
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
73588
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
miles to determine bidding units and
corresponding coverage requirements.
The Bureaus note that the Commission
concluded that, for Phase I of the Tribal
Mobility Funds, it would base bidding
units on population rather than road
miles. The Bureaus also invite
additional comment on how specifically
the Commission might measure or factor
various suggested alternatives, such as
terrain or topography, into its
determination of bidding units and ask
for input on the benefits or drawbacks
of any particular approach.
D. Public Interest Obligations
13. In the USF/ICC Transformation
Order and FNPRM, the Commission
proposed that recipients of Mobility
Fund Phase II support would be
required to provide mobile voice and
data services that meet or exceed a
minimum bandwidth or data rate of 768
kbps downstream and 200 kbps
upstream, consistent with the
capabilities offered by representative 4G
technologies. The Commission proposed
that these data rates should be
achievable in both fixed and mobile
conditions throughout the cell area,
including at the cell edge, at a high
probability, and with substantial sector
loading. The Commission further noted
that the proposed measurement
conditions may enable users to receive
much better service when accessing the
network from a fixed location or close
to a base station. The Commission
sought comment on whether, and in
what ways, these metrics should be
modified during the proposed 10-year
term of support to reflect anticipated
advances in technology. The
Commission also proposed that the
performance characteristics expected of
Mobility Fund Phase II recipients be
required to evolve over time, to keep
pace with mobile broadband service in
urban areas. Commenters generally
recommend periodic review and
modification of these requirements
through a rulemaking proceeding. The
Bureaus now seek to further develop the
record on how often, and through what
process, the Commission should modify
the performance metrics applicable to
Phase II support recipients. Commenters
should address the threshold question
of whether an evolving standard is
appropriate given the proposed term of
support and anticipated advances in
technology. For example, should the
Commission require that broadband
networks built with support be capable
of meeting increasing consumer demand
for capacity and over a specified time
period? If so, should the Commission
mandate any specific network
attributes?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
E. Term of Support
14. In the USF/ICC Transformation
Order and FNPRM, the Commission
proposed a fixed term of support of 10
years and sought comment on a shorter
term. In seeking comment on an optimal
term for ongoing support, the
Commission noted that it sought to
balance the need to provide certainty to
carriers to attract private investment and
deploy services, while taking into
account changing circumstances.
Commenters generally agreed that a 10year term was appropriate, noting that
the term reflects the economic realities
of network building, and need for
financial assurance to upgrade or extend
networks. The Bureaus seek additional
comment on establishing an appropriate
term of support, in light of the
timeframes for deployment and private
investment and the pace of new
technology and marketplace
developments. Further, the Bureaus
request comment on the tradeoffs
between using a 10-year term versus one
or more shorter terms and which
approach would provide the best
structure for dealing with dynamic
changes in the industry.
IV. Provider Eligibility
15. In the USF/ICC Transformation
Order and FNPRM, the Commission
proposed to require that parties seeking
Mobility Fund Phase II support satisfy
the same eligibility requirements that
were adopted with respect to Phase I.
Commenters generally support the
Commission’s proposal, though some
advocate size-based and other
restrictions. The Bureaus seek further
comment on certain of these issues.
16. Interplay with other universal
service mechanisms. The Bureaus seek
comment on the inter-relationship
between eligibility for Mobility Fund
Phase II support and other universal
service support mechanisms. The
Commission noted that a party may be
eligible to participate in both Connect
America Phase II and Mobility Fund
Phase II, but noted that carriers would
not be allowed to receive redundant
support for the same service in the same
areas. The Bureaus seek additional
comment on how to implement this
principle so as to provide advance
information to potential participants in
a Mobility Fund Phase II auction. In
particular, the Bureaus ask commenters
to provide input on how the
deployment of mobile service under
Mobility Fund Phase II could be
supplemented or modified for purposes
of meeting the public interest
obligations of Connect America Phase II.
The Bureaus also seek comment on any
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
interrelationship between eligibility for
Mobility Fund Phase II support and the
Remote Areas Fund that is to provide
support in the highest cost areas.
17. Small business participation. In
the USF/ICC Transformation Order and
FNPRM, the Commission sought
comment on whether small businesses
should be eligible for a bidding
preference in a Mobility Fund Phase II
auction. The Commission noted that in
a spectrum auction context, the
Commission typically awards small
business bidding credits ranging from
15 to 35 percent, depending on varying
small business size standards.
Commenters were asked to address the
effectiveness of a preference to help
smaller carriers compete at auction and
whether the Commission should adopt
a preference even if the bidding credit
would result in less coverage than
would occur without the bidding credit.
The Commission also sought comment
on how to define small businesses and
what size bidding credit may be
appropriate. Specifically, the
Commission sought comment on
whether a small business should be
defined as an entity with average gross
revenues not exceeding $40 million for
the preceding three years, or whether it
should use a larger size definition, such
as average gross revenues not exceeding
$125 million for the preceding three
years. Several commenters supported
the use of bidding credits to increase the
competitiveness of small and rural
carriers. The Bureaus now seek to
develop the record in light of
commenters’ experience in Phase I,
where bidding preferences were not
available, except for Tribally-owned or
controlled providers. Would the entities
that were successful bidders in Auction
901 qualify as small businesses under
the definitions the Commission asked
about? To what extent do commenters
continue to believe that a bidding credit
is important to smaller carriers’ ability
to effectively compete at auction for
support and how does that weigh
against other Commission objectives?
V. Accountability and Oversight
18. In the USF/ICC Transformation
Order and FNPRM, the Commission
proposed to generally apply to Mobility
Fund Phase II the same rules for
accountability and oversight that will
apply to all recipients of Connect
America Fund (CAF) support. Among
other things, the CAF accountability and
oversight proposals are intended to
create a process for the reasonable and
prudent disbursement of universal
service support. In Mobility Fund Phase
I, the Commission authorized
disbursement of funds in three equal
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
installments, linked to completion of
certain milestones. The Bureaus seek
comment on how to structure ongoing
support payments over the term of
support in a way that achieves the
Commission’s goals of providing
sufficient and predictable support
throughout the term of the Mobility
Fund Phase II, while ensuring
compliance with the Anti-Deficiency
Act. Should support be tied to
completion of certain milestones,
disbursed on a regular recurring basis,
or some combination of both?
VI. Tribal Priority Units
19. In the USF/ICC Transformation
Order and FNPRM, the Commission
proposed and sought comment on a
number of provisions targeted at the
specific connectivity challenges on
Tribal lands. Among other things, the
Commission sought comment on a
possible mechanism that would allocate
a specified number of ‘‘priority units’’ to
Tribal governments to afford Tribes an
opportunity to identify their own
priorities. As discussed in the USF/ICC
Transformation Order and FNPRM,
priority units for each Tribe could be
based upon a percentage, in the range of
20 to 30 percent, of the total population
in unserved blocks located within Tribal
boundaries. Tribal governments would
have the flexibility to allocate these
units in whatever manner they choose.
Tribal governments could elect to
allocate all of their priority units to one
geographic area that is particularly
important to them, or to divide the total
number of priority units among multiple
geographic units according to their
relative priority. The Commission
requested comment on whether this
approach should apply to both the
general and Tribal Mobility Fund Phase
II, and how such priority units should
be awarded in Alaska and Hawaii given
the unique conditions in those states.
The Commission also sought comment
on how this mechanism, if adopted,
would interact with the proposed 25
percent Tribal bidding credit.
20. Few parties offered comments
addressing the priority units mechanism
for Tribal governments, and those that
did generally focused on issues unique
to Alaska. In light of the relatively light
record the Commission received on this
issue and the results of Mobility Fund
Phase I, the Bureaus seek additional
comment on the Tribal priority units
proposal. In particular, the Bureaus seek
further comment on whether this
approach should apply to Tribal
governments participating in both the
general and Tribal Mobility Fund Phase
II, and, if so, how such priority units
should be awarded in Alaska and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Hawaii. Would the 25 percent Tribal
bidding credit and the Tribal
engagement obligation proposed in the
USF/ICC Transformation Order and
FNPRM be sufficient to ensure that
Tribal priorities are met with respect to
ongoing support under Phase II?
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
21. The USF/ICC Transformation
Order and FNPRM included an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the
potential impact on small entities of the
Commission’s proposal. The Bureaus
invite parties to file comments on the
IRFA in light of this additional notice.
VIII. Procedural Matters
22. This matter shall be treated as a
permit-but-disclose proceeding in
accordance with the ex parte rules.
Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentations must contain summaries
of the substance of the presentations
and not merely a listing of the subjects
discussed. More than a one- or twosentence description of the views and
arguments presented generally is
required. Other requirements pertaining
to oral and written presentations are set
forth in 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
Federal Communications Commission.
Gary D. Michaels,
Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access
Division, WTB.
[FR Doc. 2012–29879 Filed 12–10–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 234, 235, and 236
[Docket No. FRA–2011–0061, Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130–AC32
Positive Train Control Systems (RRR)
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
FRA proposes amendments to
regulations implementing a requirement
of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of
2008 that certain passenger and freight
railroads install positive train control
(PTC) systems. The proposal would
revise the regulatory provisions related
to the de minimis exception to the
installation of PTC systems generally,
and more specifically, its application to
yard-related movements. The proposal
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73589
would also revise the existing
regulations related to en route failures of
a PTC system and discontinuances of
signal systems once a PTC system is
installed and make additional technical
amendments to regulations governing
grade crossing warning systems and
signal systems, including PTC systems.
DATES: Comments: Written comments
must be received by February 11, 2013.
Comments received after that date will
be considered to the extent possible
without incurring additional expenses
or delays.
Hearing: FRA anticipates being able to
resolve this rulemaking without a public
hearing. However, if prior to January 10,
2013, FRA receives a specific request for
a public hearing, a hearing will be
scheduled and FRA will publish a
supplemental notice in the Federal
Register to inform interested parties of
the date, time, and location of such
hearing.
ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments
related to Docket No. FRA–2011–0061,
may be submitted by any of the
following methods:
• Web Site: Comments should be filed
at the Federal eRulemaking Portal,
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 on
the Ground level of the West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number or Regulatory Identification
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note
that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov including any
personal information. Please see the
Privacy Act heading in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document for Privacy Act
information related to any submitted
comments or materials.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov at any time or to
Room W12–140 on the Ground level of
the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas McFarlin, Office of Safety
E:\FR\FM\11DEP1.SGM
11DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 11, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73586-73589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29879]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[WC Docket No. 10-90; WT Docket No. 10-208; DA 12-1853]
Further Inquiry Into Issues Related to Mobility Fund Phase II
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Wireline
Competition Bureau (collectively, the Bureaus) seek further comment on
specific issues relating to the implementation of Phase II of the
Mobility Fund. The Bureaus also seek to develop a more comprehensive
record on certain issues relating to the award of ongoing support for
advanced mobile services.
DATES: Comments are due on or before December 21, 2012, and reply
comments are due on or before January 7, 2013.
ADDRESSES: All filings in response to this public notice must refer to
Docket Numbers 10-90 and 10-208. The Bureaus strongly encourage
interested parties to file comments electronically. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand
or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Attn: WTB/ASAD, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue McNeil, Auctions and Spectrum
Access Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at (202) 418-0660.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Inquiry Into Issues Related to Mobility Fund Phase II (Mobility
Fund Phase II Public Notice) released on November 27, 2012. The
complete text of the Mobility Fund Phase II Public Notice, as well as
related Commission documents, is available for public inspection and
copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through
Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC
Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554. The Mobility Fund Phase II Public Notice and
related Commission documents also may be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.
(BCPI), 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone 202-488-5300, fax 202-488-5563, or you may contact BCPI at
its Web site: https://www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering documents from
BCPI, please provide the appropriate FCC document number, for example,
DA 12-1853.
I. Introduction
1. The Bureaus seek further comment on a limited number of specific
issues relating to the implementation of Phase II of the Mobility Fund.
As established in the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, 76 FC
78383, December 16, 2011, in Mobility Fund Phase II the Commission will
award $500 million annually to ensure the availability of mobile
broadband and high quality voice services in certain areas. Building on
the comments previously filed in response to the USF/ICC Transformation
Order and FNPRM and the Bureaus' experience in implementing a reverse
auction to award one-time Phase I support, the Bureaus seek to develop
a more comprehensive record on certain issues related to the award of
ongoing support for advanced mobile services. In considering the issues
related to Mobility Fund Phase II, the Bureaus ask commenters keep in
mind that Phase II support is not one-time support, but is ongoing
support aimed at expanding and sustaining mobile services.
II. Background
2. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, the Commission
comprehensively reformed and modernized the universal service high-cost
program. Among other things, for the first time, the Commission
explicitly recognized the important benefits of and demand for mobile
services through the creation of a two-phase Mobility Fund within the
high-cost program.
3. For Phase I, the Commission allocated $300 million in one-time
[[Page 73587]]
support to expand the availability of advanced mobile services, plus an
additional $50 million dedicated to Tribal lands. For Phase II of the
Mobility Fund, the Commission dedicated $500 million annually
(including up to $100 million dedicated to Tribal lands) and proposed
to make awards through a reverse auction to support providers of voice
and mobile broadband service in areas where such services cannot be
sustained or extended without ongoing support. The Commission further
proposed to award support on the same terms and conditions as it
adopted for Phase I, but sought comment on whether any modifications
were needed to reflect the ongoing nature of support in Phase II.
4. Under the Commission's proposal, a Mobility Fund Phase II
reverse auction would assign support to maximize coverage of unserved
road miles (or other units) within the budget. To implement an auction,
the Commission proposed a basic framework of auction rules that would
give the Bureaus flexibility under delegated authority to establish
specific procedures for a Mobility Fund Phase II auction.
III. Overall Design
A. Identifying Areas Eligible for Support
5. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, the Commission
sought comment on various issues associated with identifying the
geographic areas that would be eligible for Phase II support. In light
of experience with Mobility Fund Phase I and Auction 901, the Bureaus
seek further comment on certain of these issues.
6. Identifying Areas Eligible for Support. To target Phase II
support to only those areas where it is needed, the Commission proposed
to use Mosaik Solutions (Mosaik) data to exclude all census blocks
where an unsubsidized carrier is providing 3G or better service. For
purposes of determining areas with unsubsidized service, the Commission
proposed in the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM that areas
receiving one-time Mobility Fund Phase I support would still be
eligible to receive Mobility Fund Phase II support.
7. Some commenters express concern about the accuracy of the Mosaik
database. The Bureaus now seek further comment based on the use of
Mosaik data as a factor in determining eligible areas for Phase I
support. To the extent that parties assert that Mosaik data
inaccurately reflects the availability of service, the Bureaus seek
comment on whether there are any other data sources that the Commission
could use to better identify eligible areas. The Bureaus request that
commenters provide specific information on what makes these alternate
sources superior and how they could be used instead of, or in
combination with, the Mosaik database. The Bureaus also seek comment on
whether there are other factors the Commission should consider in
addition to the availability of unsubsidized service. For instance, how
should providers' planned expansion of unsubsidized service affect the
identification of areas eligible for support? For example, in Mobility
Fund Phase I, the Commission excluded areas from auction where a
provider has made a regulatory commitment to provide 3G or better
wireless service, or has received a funding commitment from a federal
executive department or agency in response to the carrier's commitment
to provide 3G or better service. In addition, the Commission required
applicants for Mobility Fund Phase I support to certify that they were
not seeking support for any areas in which they had made a public
commitment to deploy 3G or better wireless service by December 31,
2012.
8. Use of the Centroid Method. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order
and FNPRM, the Commission proposed to determine the eligibility of a
particular census block for Phase II support based on the absence of
unsubsidized 3G or better service at the centroid, which refers to the
internal point latitude/longitude of a census block polygon. Some
commenters expressed concern that the centroid method is an ineffective
measure to determine whether large areas are unserved. The Bureaus ask
commenters for feedback on the centroid method in light of their
experience in Phase I. Should the Commission consider alternatives,
such as the proportional method? For instance, should it consider
unserved any census block if the data indicates more than 50 percent of
the area is unserved?
B. Prioritizing Areas Eligible for Support
9. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, the Commission
sought comment on whether to target Phase II support to particular
areas, such as those that lack any mobile service or ones that lack
current generation (3G) service. Some commenters suggest prioritizing
support to rural carriers or carriers with 2G or less capacity; another
opposed prioritization of funding to areas with no service at all.
Others suggested that the Commission should take into account
additional factors, such as poverty level or whether an area is served
by the National Highway System, instead of, or in addition to, coverage
level. Despite this discussion in the record, the Commission received
little input on implementation and specific measures for prioritizing
eligible areas.
10. The Bureaus seek additional comment on whether and how the
Commission might implement priorities for support among eligible areas.
The Bureaus ask commenters to address whether the Commission should
prioritize ongoing support to areas that lack coverage, a designated
level of coverage, or whether there are other measurable factors that
should be taken into account. The Bureaus observe that, in the USF/ICC
Transformation Order and FNPRM, the Commission suggested that targeted
areas could be prioritized by making a bidding credit available. The
Bureaus seek additional specific comment on how the Commission might
set an appropriate level(s) of bidding credit(s) to prioritize areas
based on the existing level of coverage in a particular area. The
Bureaus seek comment on whether and how the Commission might assure
that support goes to areas that would lose service absent the receipt
of ongoing support. In this regard, commenters are invited to discuss
how, if at all, the availability of Remote Areas Fund support for the
highest cost areas should affect the areas targeted for Mobility Fund
Phase II.
C. Establishing Bidding and Coverage Units
11. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, under its
auction proposal, the Commission proposed to establish bidding units in
each eligible census block for purposes of comparing bids and assessing
performance, and to base the number of bidding units on the number of
road miles in each eligible area. Road miles directly reflect the
Mobility Fund's goals of supporting mobile services, and indirectly
reflect many other important factors, such as business locations,
recreation areas and work sites, since roads are used to access those
areas. Several commenters recommend that the Commission consider other
alternatives, including population, terrain, workplaces, annual
revenues, and straight-line miles or traditional river miles, instead
of, or in combination with, road miles. Some commenters also suggest
that the Commission revisit the issue of bidding and coverage units
after the Phase I auction before deciding on whether to use road miles
as the sole bidding unit.
12. Given the results of the Mobility Fund Phase I auction, the
Bureaus seek further comment on the use of road
[[Page 73588]]
miles to determine bidding units and corresponding coverage
requirements. The Bureaus note that the Commission concluded that, for
Phase I of the Tribal Mobility Funds, it would base bidding units on
population rather than road miles. The Bureaus also invite additional
comment on how specifically the Commission might measure or factor
various suggested alternatives, such as terrain or topography, into its
determination of bidding units and ask for input on the benefits or
drawbacks of any particular approach.
D. Public Interest Obligations
13. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, the Commission
proposed that recipients of Mobility Fund Phase II support would be
required to provide mobile voice and data services that meet or exceed
a minimum bandwidth or data rate of 768 kbps downstream and 200 kbps
upstream, consistent with the capabilities offered by representative 4G
technologies. The Commission proposed that these data rates should be
achievable in both fixed and mobile conditions throughout the cell
area, including at the cell edge, at a high probability, and with
substantial sector loading. The Commission further noted that the
proposed measurement conditions may enable users to receive much better
service when accessing the network from a fixed location or close to a
base station. The Commission sought comment on whether, and in what
ways, these metrics should be modified during the proposed 10-year term
of support to reflect anticipated advances in technology. The
Commission also proposed that the performance characteristics expected
of Mobility Fund Phase II recipients be required to evolve over time,
to keep pace with mobile broadband service in urban areas. Commenters
generally recommend periodic review and modification of these
requirements through a rulemaking proceeding. The Bureaus now seek to
further develop the record on how often, and through what process, the
Commission should modify the performance metrics applicable to Phase II
support recipients. Commenters should address the threshold question of
whether an evolving standard is appropriate given the proposed term of
support and anticipated advances in technology. For example, should the
Commission require that broadband networks built with support be
capable of meeting increasing consumer demand for capacity and over a
specified time period? If so, should the Commission mandate any
specific network attributes?
E. Term of Support
14. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, the Commission
proposed a fixed term of support of 10 years and sought comment on a
shorter term. In seeking comment on an optimal term for ongoing
support, the Commission noted that it sought to balance the need to
provide certainty to carriers to attract private investment and deploy
services, while taking into account changing circumstances. Commenters
generally agreed that a 10-year term was appropriate, noting that the
term reflects the economic realities of network building, and need for
financial assurance to upgrade or extend networks. The Bureaus seek
additional comment on establishing an appropriate term of support, in
light of the timeframes for deployment and private investment and the
pace of new technology and marketplace developments. Further, the
Bureaus request comment on the tradeoffs between using a 10-year term
versus one or more shorter terms and which approach would provide the
best structure for dealing with dynamic changes in the industry.
IV. Provider Eligibility
15. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, the Commission
proposed to require that parties seeking Mobility Fund Phase II support
satisfy the same eligibility requirements that were adopted with
respect to Phase I. Commenters generally support the Commission's
proposal, though some advocate size-based and other restrictions. The
Bureaus seek further comment on certain of these issues.
16. Interplay with other universal service mechanisms. The Bureaus
seek comment on the inter-relationship between eligibility for Mobility
Fund Phase II support and other universal service support mechanisms.
The Commission noted that a party may be eligible to participate in
both Connect America Phase II and Mobility Fund Phase II, but noted
that carriers would not be allowed to receive redundant support for the
same service in the same areas. The Bureaus seek additional comment on
how to implement this principle so as to provide advance information to
potential participants in a Mobility Fund Phase II auction. In
particular, the Bureaus ask commenters to provide input on how the
deployment of mobile service under Mobility Fund Phase II could be
supplemented or modified for purposes of meeting the public interest
obligations of Connect America Phase II. The Bureaus also seek comment
on any interrelationship between eligibility for Mobility Fund Phase II
support and the Remote Areas Fund that is to provide support in the
highest cost areas.
17. Small business participation. In the USF/ICC Transformation
Order and FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether small
businesses should be eligible for a bidding preference in a Mobility
Fund Phase II auction. The Commission noted that in a spectrum auction
context, the Commission typically awards small business bidding credits
ranging from 15 to 35 percent, depending on varying small business size
standards. Commenters were asked to address the effectiveness of a
preference to help smaller carriers compete at auction and whether the
Commission should adopt a preference even if the bidding credit would
result in less coverage than would occur without the bidding credit.
The Commission also sought comment on how to define small businesses
and what size bidding credit may be appropriate. Specifically, the
Commission sought comment on whether a small business should be defined
as an entity with average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for
the preceding three years, or whether it should use a larger size
definition, such as average gross revenues not exceeding $125 million
for the preceding three years. Several commenters supported the use of
bidding credits to increase the competitiveness of small and rural
carriers. The Bureaus now seek to develop the record in light of
commenters' experience in Phase I, where bidding preferences were not
available, except for Tribally-owned or controlled providers. Would the
entities that were successful bidders in Auction 901 qualify as small
businesses under the definitions the Commission asked about? To what
extent do commenters continue to believe that a bidding credit is
important to smaller carriers' ability to effectively compete at
auction for support and how does that weigh against other Commission
objectives?
V. Accountability and Oversight
18. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, the Commission
proposed to generally apply to Mobility Fund Phase II the same rules
for accountability and oversight that will apply to all recipients of
Connect America Fund (CAF) support. Among other things, the CAF
accountability and oversight proposals are intended to create a process
for the reasonable and prudent disbursement of universal service
support. In Mobility Fund Phase I, the Commission authorized
disbursement of funds in three equal
[[Page 73589]]
installments, linked to completion of certain milestones. The Bureaus
seek comment on how to structure ongoing support payments over the term
of support in a way that achieves the Commission's goals of providing
sufficient and predictable support throughout the term of the Mobility
Fund Phase II, while ensuring compliance with the Anti-Deficiency Act.
Should support be tied to completion of certain milestones, disbursed
on a regular recurring basis, or some combination of both?
VI. Tribal Priority Units
19. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, the Commission
proposed and sought comment on a number of provisions targeted at the
specific connectivity challenges on Tribal lands. Among other things,
the Commission sought comment on a possible mechanism that would
allocate a specified number of ``priority units'' to Tribal governments
to afford Tribes an opportunity to identify their own priorities. As
discussed in the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, priority units
for each Tribe could be based upon a percentage, in the range of 20 to
30 percent, of the total population in unserved blocks located within
Tribal boundaries. Tribal governments would have the flexibility to
allocate these units in whatever manner they choose. Tribal governments
could elect to allocate all of their priority units to one geographic
area that is particularly important to them, or to divide the total
number of priority units among multiple geographic units according to
their relative priority. The Commission requested comment on whether
this approach should apply to both the general and Tribal Mobility Fund
Phase II, and how such priority units should be awarded in Alaska and
Hawaii given the unique conditions in those states. The Commission also
sought comment on how this mechanism, if adopted, would interact with
the proposed 25 percent Tribal bidding credit.
20. Few parties offered comments addressing the priority units
mechanism for Tribal governments, and those that did generally focused
on issues unique to Alaska. In light of the relatively light record the
Commission received on this issue and the results of Mobility Fund
Phase I, the Bureaus seek additional comment on the Tribal priority
units proposal. In particular, the Bureaus seek further comment on
whether this approach should apply to Tribal governments participating
in both the general and Tribal Mobility Fund Phase II, and, if so, how
such priority units should be awarded in Alaska and Hawaii. Would the
25 percent Tribal bidding credit and the Tribal engagement obligation
proposed in the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM be sufficient to
ensure that Tribal priorities are met with respect to ongoing support
under Phase II?
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
21. The USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM included an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603,
exploring the potential impact on small entities of the Commission's
proposal. The Bureaus invite parties to file comments on the IRFA in
light of this additional notice.
VIII. Procedural Matters
22. This matter shall be treated as a permit-but-disclose
proceeding in accordance with the ex parte rules. Persons making oral
ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the
presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More
than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and arguments
presented generally is required. Other requirements pertaining to oral
and written presentations are set forth in 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
Federal Communications Commission.
Gary D. Michaels,
Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, WTB.
[FR Doc. 2012-29879 Filed 12-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
