Connect America Fund-Alaska Plan, 12755-12758 [2018-05881]
Download as PDF
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2018 / Notices
assess risks to listed species from
registered uses of these pesticides.
These BEs were completed in
accordance with the joint Interim
Approaches developed to implement
the recommendations of the April 2013
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
report, Assessing Risks to Endangered
and Threatened Species from Pesticides.
The NAS report outlined
recommendations on specific scientific
and technical issues related to the
development of pesticide risk
assessments that EPA and the FWS and
NMFS must conduct to meet their
obligations under the ESA. In November
2013, the Services, EPA, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
released a white paper containing a
summary of their joint Interim
Approaches for assessing risks to listed
species from pesticides. Details of the
joint Interim Approaches are contained
in the November 1, 2013 white paper
Interim Approaches for National-Level
Pesticide Endangered Species Act
Assessments Based on the
Recommendations of the National
Academy of Sciences April 2013 Report.
The methods developed as part of the
joint Interim Approaches will continue
to be vetted before EPA utilizes these
methods broadly to meet its ESA
obligations. Additional information on
endangered species risk assessment and
the NAS report recommendations are
available at https://www.epa.gov/
endangered-species/implementing-nasreport-recommendations-ecologicalrisk-assessment-endangered-and.
On December 29, 2017, in response to
a court-ordered deadline in the case of
Nw. Coal. for Alternatives to Pesticides,
et al. v. NMFS, Stipulation and Order,
Dkt. 50, No. 07–1791–RSL (D. Wash.
May 21, 2014), NMFS transmitted to
EPA its final BiOp regarding the effects
of the registration review under section
3 of FIFRA of these pesticides on listed
species. The BiOp addressed the effects
of these three pesticides on 77 listed
species and 50 designated critical
habitats and, in sum, 38 different
species would likely be jeopardized
with extinction and 37 critical habitat
units would be destroyed or adversely
modified. NMFS had sought from the
court, but was not provided, additional
time to complete the BiOp. On January
8, 2018, EPA confirmed receipt of the
BiOp and informed NMFS of EPA’s
intention to reinitiate informal
consultation on the BiOp so that the
consultation on the pesticides could be
informed by (1) input from stakeholders,
(2) further interagency discussion and
agreement on the jeopardy
determination interim methods, and (3)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Mar 22, 2018
Jkt 244001
additional data and analysis, including
consideration of the best scientific and
commercial data available on use and
usage information. On February 21,
2018, EPA sent NMFS a letter requesting
informal consultation on the same
action. EPA will use the information
and analysis received and developed in
the course of the informal consultation
to inform whether formal reinitiation of
consultation on the BiOp is appropriate.
C. Public Involvement Process
As a result of the U.S. District Court
Western District of Washington at
Seattle’s failure to extend NMFS’s courtordered deadline, NMFS issued the final
BiOp without having received input
from the public and applicants
(pesticide registrants), which is at odds
with EPA’s 2013 public stakeholder
process for ESA consultations—an open
and transparent process supported by
the Services, EPA, and USDA. As
explained in the 2013 public
stakeholder document, stakeholder
input is critical to the development and
evaluation of any measures EPA may
implement to address risks to listed
species and designated critical habitat.
Accordingly, EPA is seeking comment
on the BiOp to receive stakeholder and
public input prior to either reinitiating
consultation on the BiOp or
implementing the measures of BiOp.
EPA will evaluate the input received in
determining how it will proceed with
respect to the final BiOp.
D. Public Comments Sought
The BiOp for chlorpyrifos, diazinon,
and malathion is being included in the
docket (EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0141) to
seek input on NMFS’s jeopardy
findings, RPMs and RPAs, and to solicit
additional use and usage information.
Specifically:
1. Comments on the scientific
approaches and data sources used to
support the BiOp and reach
determinations for the listed species and
critical habitat.
2. Comments on the RPAs and RPMs.
Can they be reasonably implemented? If
not, describe why not. Are there
different measures that may provide
equivalent protection to the ones in the
BiOp but result in less impact to
pesticide users?
3. Comments on national- and statelevel use and usage data and
information. In particular, EPA is
seeking usage data and information for
non-agricultural use sites (e.g.,
nurseries, managed forests, pasture,
rights-of-way, golf courses, and widearea mosquito control). If possible,
provide sources of data and information
that should be considered.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12755
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.
Dated: March 15, 2018.
Yu-Ting Guilaran,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2018–06026 Filed 3–22–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[WC Docket No. 16–271; DA 18–197]
Connect America Fund—Alaska Plan
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Wireline Competition Bureau and
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
grant in part and deny in part the Alaska
Telephone Association’s Petition for
Reconsideration of the Bureaus’ Map
Instructions PN and provide
clarification regarding Alaska Plan
carriers’ map data filing obligations
(map collection).
DATES: Applicable date announcement:
July 1, 2018 filing date.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jesse Jachman, Wireline Competition
Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or TTY: (202)
418–0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Order on
Reconsideration in WC Docket No. 16–
271; DA 18–197, adopted on February
28, 2018 and released on February 28,
2018. The full text of this document is
available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445
12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554,
or at the following internet address:
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_
Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0228/
DA-18-197A1.pdf.
SUMMARY:
I. Introduction
1. In this Order, the Wireline
Competition Bureau (WCB) and
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
(WTB) (collectively the Bureaus), grant
in part and deny in part the Alaska
Telephone Association’s (ATA) Petition
for Reconsideration of the Bureaus’ Map
Instructions PN and provide
clarification regarding Alaska Plan
carriers’ map data filing obligations
(map collection). The Bureaus grant the
Petition in part with respect to the
required data accuracy standard for the
E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM
23MRN1
12756
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2018 / Notices
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
map collection due to be filed in 2018
and extend the March 1, 2018
submission deadline until July 1, 2018.
The Bureaus also provide clarification
regarding the data to be filed regarding
‘‘community anchor institutions’’ (CAI
or anchor institutions). The Petition is
denied in all other respects.
II. Discussion
2. The Bureaus deny ATA’s Petition
with respect to its request for the
Bureaus to largely forgo the collection of
cell-site backhaul and CAI data.
Therefore, carriers must submit cell
sites and CAIs with their associated
links and update that data on a yearly
basis as described in the following.
3. As an initial matter, the Bureaus
conclude that ATA’s narrow
interpretation of the scope of the initial
map collection is contrary to the most
reasonable reading of the relevant
Commission rule, section 54.316(a)(6).
ATA does not address the meaning of
this rule in its Petition. The first
sentence of that rule does not
specifically restrict the map collection
to ‘‘middle-mile’’ or ‘‘backhaul’’
facilities and states that carriers ‘‘shall
submit fiber network maps or
microwave network maps covering
eligible areas.’’ The language in the
rule’s second sentence, by its terms,
states that carriers should provide map
updates for ‘‘middle-mile’’ facilities.
The rule language should be read in the
context of the Alaska Plan Order, 81 FR
69696, October 7, 2016 and its
discussion of the facilities that may
affect carriers’ ability to provide 10/1
Mbps service to end-users. Because the
Alaska Plan Order uses multiple terms
to describe such facilities, and, as
explained in the following, the presence
and quality of cell-site backhaul and
connections to many CAIs do in fact
affect carriers’ ability to meet their
current and future commitments over
last-mile facilities, the Commission
intended the rule requiring the
submission of ‘‘fiber network maps or
microwave network maps’’ and ‘‘middle
mile’’ data to be read broadly to include
cell-site backhaul and CAIs.
4. The Bureaus note that the WTB also
has the authority to collect this same
data upon request regardless of whether
those facilities fall within the scope of
the map collection in section
54.316(a)(6). Specifically, the WTB may
request ‘‘additional data’’ regarding
facilities relevant to ‘‘determining
whether or not [participating mobile
carriers] meet their five- and 10-year
commitments.’’ Carriers’ performance
commitments are broken down and
differentiated by the type of facilities
(satellite, fiber, fixed wireless)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Mar 22, 2018
Jkt 244001
supporting the committed speed and
technology (e.g., LTE) of the last-mile
connections serving particular end-user
populations. Information regarding the
location of cell-site backhaul, CAIs and
associated links may be collected by the
WTB upon request because they are
necessary to determining whether
carriers’ differentiated commitments are
or could be met.
5. Cell-Site Backhaul.
Notwithstanding the obligation of
carriers to submit cell-site backhaul data
pursuant to the plain meaning of section
54.316(a)(6), ATA’s position that the
map collection is restricted to ‘‘middlemile’’ facilities as defined in the CAM
rests on an incorrect reading of the
Alaska Plan Order. The Alaska Plan
Order does not, as ATA argues, define
‘‘middle-mile’’ and/or ‘‘backhaul’’ to
mean solely the connection between
central offices. Rather, these terms are
used to describe the entire connection
between the last mile and internet
gateway. A cell-site backhaul facility is
a subset of this connection.
6. The Commission adopted a more
expansive meaning of these terms in the
Alaska Plan Order to enable it to
identify the ‘‘weak-links’’ in carriers’
networks that affect carriers’ current and
future commitments. As noted in the
OBI Technical Paper #1 that ATA cites,
cell-site backhaul and connections
between central offices ‘‘can quickly
become the choke point’’ and ‘‘adequate
[cell-site] backhaul is one of the key
drivers for providing wireless
broadband.’’ The Bureaus agree with
ATA that high-capacity connections
between central offices are relevant to
an assessment of whether carriers can
meet their commitments to end-users
within the exchanges served by those
central offices. Such high capacity
connections are not, however, sufficient
for such an assessment.
7. ATA also does not explain why
cell-site backhaul should be considered
‘‘last mile’’ and therefore excluded from
the collection. Indeed, as ATA
acknowledges, the ordinary meaning of
‘‘backhaul,’’ in the wireless context
refers to the ‘‘connections that link a
mobile wireless service provider’s cell
sites to the mobile switching centers
. . . .’’ On the other hand, a ‘‘last mile’’
facility is the connection from the enduser’s handset or terminal to the ‘‘first
point of aggregation,’’ such as a
‘‘wireless tower location.’’ The Map
Instructions do not require the
submission of the ‘‘last-mile’’ wireless
end-users’ location data.
8. The Alaska Plan Order requirement
for carriers to submit data regarding
facilities that lie between the ‘‘last mile’’
and the ‘‘internet gateway’’ is also
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
consistent with the logical structure of
the Alaska Plan Order itself. The Alaska
Plan Order describes carriers’ networks
as a three-part model. Specifically, the
Alaska Plan Order separately describes
the (1) ‘‘last mile’’—reflected in the
bandwidth and price commitments
provided to consumers via wired and
wireless facilities and, for wireless
commitments, the last-mile wireless
technology to be deployed, such as
LTE—(2) ‘‘middle mile’’ and/or
‘‘backhaul’’ facilities which connect last
mile facilities to the internet gateway
and affect the ability of the carrier to
meet its last-mile commitments; and (3)
the internet gateway and the internet
beyond. Under this three-part model,
network components other than (1) or
(3) and which can affect the ability of
the carrier to meet its last mile
commitments are (2): ‘‘middle mile’’
and/or ‘‘backhaul.’’ As explained,
because cell-site backhaul is not
considered ‘‘last mile’’ for purposes of
this map filing requirement and is
clearly not the ‘‘internet gateway,’’ it
must be ‘‘middle mile’’ and/or
‘‘backhaul.’’
9. This broad meaning of ‘‘middle
mile’’ and ‘‘backhaul’’ is also consistent
with the common understanding of
these terms in the wireless industry and
has been adopted by the Petitioner in
other contexts. For example, ATA
member GCI, in providing a cost model
for wireless facilities in Alaska, used the
term ‘‘backhaul’’ to describe both (1)
‘‘cell-site backhaul’’ and (2) the
connection to central ‘‘hubs’’ in three
Alaskan cities. In that instance, GCI
stated that the quality of the last-mile
connection is dependent on the
robustness of both (1) and (2) and
argued that the cost of upgrading both
segments is a barrier to providing higher
speed last-mile services to Alaskan endusers.
10. The Bureaus grant the Petition in
part to the extent it seeks relief from the
March 1, 2018 deadline, and the 7.6meter accuracy requirement. By
providing this relief, the Bureaus allow
carriers limited flexibility and time to
submit data in a way that takes into
consideration the particular challenges
carriers in Alaska face (e.g., difficult
seasonal weather) while also ensuring
the Commission is provided with the
data it required for implementing the
Plan. The Bureaus also clarify the
obligation to report data with respect to
CAIs. The Petition is denied in all other
respects.
11. Deadline Extension. The Bureaus
grant the Petition to the extent that it
seeks a deadline extension and extend
the filing deadline for the initial map
data submission from March 1, 2018, to
E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM
23MRN1
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2018 / Notices
July 1, 2018. On February 1, 2018, the
Office of Management and Budget
approved the collection under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and the
rules became effective on February 15,
2018. The Bureaus find that an
extension of the deadline under section
54.316 is appropriate in this case
because a July 1, 2018 deadline will
ensure that carriers will have sufficient
time following the recent PRA approval
to finalize any data submitted into the
High Cost Universal Service Broadband
(HUBB) portal and aligns with the Form
481 filing deadline. Additionally,
carriers are submitting middle-mile data
to the HUBB portal for the first time,
and carriers and USAC may need
additional time to address any problems
or concerns that may arise at the time
of filing. This extension will also allow
carriers additional time to gather as
accurate data as possible in the first
filing cycle. Alaska Plan participants
will now have nearly ten months of
preparation time to gather and submit
the data from the release of the initial
Map Instructions. This extension does
not affect the filing deadline in
subsequent years or the March 1, 2018
deadline for the submission of Alaska
wireline location data.
12. Accuracy. The Bureaus grant in
part and deny in part ATA’s request to
collect and submit data at a lower level
of accuracy than 7.6 meters.
Specifically, the Bureaus permit carriers
to collect and submit ‘‘estimated’’ data
to within 50 meters of accuracy for the
filing due by July 1, 2018 where data at
7.6 meters is unavailable. This relief is
appropriate given the recent effective
date of the data collection in February
combined with the challenging weather
conditions in Alaska, and the fact that
‘‘estimated’’ data (in the limited cases
where 7.6-meter data is unavailable) for
the 2018 submission will not inhibit
efforts of the Bureaus to implement the
Plan.
13. The Bureaus have authority to set
an accuracy threshold in the
instructions. Indeed, ATA submitted its
own, alternative 1000-meter threshold.
The Commission delegated to the
Bureaus the authority to provide a
common format for map submissions,
which necessarily includes a mutually
understood accuracy standard. Maps
cannot be properly evaluated without a
mutually understood and agreed upon
accuracy standard. As explained in the
following, both the 50-meter and 7.6meter accuracy standards meet that test.
14. The Bureaus conclude that, on
balance, the overall benefit of the data
accuracy requirements, as modified
here, outweighs any burden on carriers.
While the Bureaus need to and will,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Mar 22, 2018
Jkt 244001
under these modified instructions,
obtain data accurate to 7.6 meters by
2019, the relief the Bureaus provide will
greatly reduce carriers’ burden to collect
that data. A one-year delay in providing
data at a 7.6-meter level of accuracy
should allow ATA members to collect
and submit estimated data using
desktop software while largely allowing
the collection of more accurate data
through site visits as necessary in the
normal course of business. Carrier
estimated data, combined with 7.6meter data already in the carriers’
possession, are sufficient for the
Bureaus to assess carriers’ compliance,
infrastructure limitations, and progress
at the initial stages of the first five-year
plan.
15. For the filings due in 2018,
carriers may provide an initial
‘‘estimate’’ for nodes and links based on
data generated by generally available
desktop software. Where a carrier lacks
sufficient internal digital data to comply
with the 7.6-meter accuracy requirement
for all or a portion of its filed network
facilities, that carrier may submit
estimated data at least as accurate as
Google Earth (i.e., accurate to within 50
meters) and denote as estimates the
relevant portion(s) of the network
submitted. Where the carrier chooses to
provide an estimate, it must certify in
the HUBB portal, at the time of filing,
that it does not possess data meeting the
7.6-meter requirement. Carriers must
update any such estimated data no later
than their filing due March 1, 2019,
with data meeting the 7.6-meter
requirement. Similarly, any new data
submitted starting in March 1, 2019 (i.e.,
for network facilities deployed in 2018)
and in subsequent filing years must
meet the 7.6-meter accuracy
requirement. If a carrier currently has
internal digital data in its possession for
facilities deployed in 2017 or earlier
that meet the accuracy requirement, it
must file that data by July 1, 2018.
16. The Bureaus reject ATA’s
contention that information at the 7.6meter level of accuracy is not necessary
for the purposes of the map collection.
The Bureaus’ review of revised
performance plans in 2020 alongside
maps accurate to 7.6 meters provides an
important backstop to ensure carriers
maximize their commitments and
service levels to Alaskans. The 7.6meter standard is critical for obtaining
a complete picture of facilities’ locations
in relation to other existing data. It is a
commonly-used mapping standard for
Commission high-cost data, is necessary
for the Bureaus to maintain
compatibility with census boundary and
road data for the census-block based
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12757
Alaska Plan, and will allow the Bureau
to fully identify duplicative facilities.
17. Even in the absence of the relief
provided here, the Bureaus reject ATA’s
argument that the burden of the 7.6meter standard outweighs the benefit
because ATA has not adequately
demonstrated the scope of its burden to
collect such information. ATA’s
evidence that the 7.6-meter level of
accuracy is too burdensome largely
relies on two carrier-employee
declarations, stating that not all of their
data is stored at the 7.6-meter accuracy
level. ATA also notes that the FAA
requires collection of some cell tower
information at a 6.1 meter accuracy
level. Moreover, all of Alaska has wide
area augmentation system (WAAS)
coverage 100 percent of the time with
the exception of the southwestern most
Aleutian Islands, which has this
coverage at least 95 percent of the time,
allowing use by non-expert personnel of
inexpensive handheld devices accurate
up to three meters.
18. For similar reasons, the Bureaus
also reject ATA’s counter-proposal that
the Bureaus collect data at the 1000meter accuracy level. ATA’s proposed
standard is far too inaccurate for the
map data collection, as two filers filing
the same node could show that node to
be more than a mile apart from each
other, which could significantly affect
Bureaus’ understanding of which census
blocks have what facilities and what
facilities are duplicates. Moreover, as
noted, generally available desktop
applications provide sufficient accuracy
to meet the 50-meter estimate standard
described above.
19. Community Anchor Institutions.
The Bureaus grant the Petition in part to
clarify the collection of CAI data. The
Bureaus clarify that carriers need only
submit those CAIs and associated links
that fall within the statutory definition
of a CAI. Furthermore, in the initial
collection due July 1, 2018, carriers
must submit all CAIs served by fiber or
wireless connections. In subsequent
years, carriers must submit any
additional CAIs and associated links
served by fiber or wireless connections
that are being used or will be used to
support their service in eligible areas.
To the extent that CAI data does not fall
under these limiting criteria, it is not
reportable. The Bureaus otherwise deny
the Petition with respect to ATA’s
request to limit the submission of CAI
data.
20. First, the Bureaus grant the
Petition in part to clarify that reportable
CAIs are limited to those CAIs that fall
within the definition of CAI in 47 U.S.C.
1305(b)(3)(A) that the Commission
adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation
E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM
23MRN1
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
12758
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2018 / Notices
Order, 76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011.
As such, this data collection is limited
to the type of CAIs that carriers would
report pursuant to 47 CFR
54.313(f)(1)(ii). Because rate-of-return
carriers are already reporting the
addresses of many of these CAIs on their
FCC Form 481, carriers may face a
reduced burden when submitting
latitude and longitude of these same
CAIs and the links connecting these
institutions to other nodes in their
networks for mapping purposes.
21. Second, consistent with the
Alaska Plan Order, the Bureaus make
clear that in the initial collection,
carriers must submit data regarding any
CAIs served by fiber or wireless
connections. This limitation is
consistent with the plain language of
section 54.316(a)(6), which states that
Alaska Plan participants ‘‘shall submit
fiber network maps or microwave
network maps covering eligible areas’’
for the purpose of tracking carriers’
access to these facilities that would
allow them to provide 10/1 Mbps for all
Alaskans. In subsequent years, carriers
must submit CAIs served by
connections that ‘‘are or will be used’’
to support service in their eligible areas.
This would include, at a minimum,
those instances where the carrier has
actual plans to use the CAI and links to
extend the network. CAIs served by
connections that ‘‘are or will be used’’
in this manner are in fact ‘‘middle mile’’
and/or ‘‘backhaul’’ within the meaning
of the Alaska Plan Order and are
therefore subject to collection. CAIs
connected to high-capacity links may be
used to expand service to underserved
and unserved communities.
Consequently, information regarding
CAIs connected by such facilities is
necessary for the Commission to
understand whether adequate facilities
exist to support additional last-mile
connections and for the evaluation of
carriers’ performance—consistent with
the purpose of the map collection.
22. The Bureaus deny ATA’s Petition
to the extent it seeks to exclude the
reporting of CAIs which meet these
criteria. ATA argues that all CAIs are
‘‘last-mile’’ facilities and therefore
should not be part of the map collection
except in limited circumstances. ATA’s
position is not consistent with the
Alaska Plan Order. ATA argues that the
Bureaus’ reliance on aggregation points
to justify reporting some nodes ‘‘proves
too much’’ because a ‘‘home’s or
business’s Wi-Fi router is an initial
aggregation point.’’ But ATA’s argument
contravenes its own cited precedent,
which separates the network based on
points of traffic aggregation with similar
network demand. In many instances,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Mar 22, 2018
Jkt 244001
CAIs’ position in carriers’ network
architecture is more akin to wireless
towers aggregating community-wide
traffic than a last-mile home or
smartphone user. Indeed, ATA provides
a conceptual network map in its Petition
equating schools with wireless towers.
This model and the ACAM are
consistent with the understanding that
both a CAI and a wireless tower can and
do aggregate community-wide multiuser traffic. In contrast, a home or small
business Wi-Fi router typically serves a
single end-user location with only a
handful of end-users, and it does not
aggregate community-wide multi-user
traffic.
23. In light of the foregoing
discussion, the Bureaus reject ATA’s
counter-proposal to limit the collection
of nodes to cell towers and CAIs that are
outside of the exchange but connect to
a central office in another exchange. In
part because of the vast size of many
exchanges in Alaska, knowing whether
the central office in an exchange is fiberfed does not provide a sufficiently
granular picture of the potential middlemile ‘‘weak points’’ or capabilities that
could affect the ability of a carrier to
meet its commitments or future
commitments.
Federal Communications Commission.
Kris A. Monteith,
Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2018–05881 Filed 3–22–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Notice of Change in Subject Matter of
Agency Meeting
Pursuant to the provisions of
subsection (e)(2) of the ‘‘Government in
the Sunshine Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(2)),
notice is hereby given that at its open
meeting held at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday,
March 20, 2018, the Corporation’s Board
of Directors determined, on motion of
Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig,
seconded by Director Joseph M. Otting
(Comptroller of the Currency),
concurred in by Director Mick
Mulvaney (Acting Director, Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau), and
Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that
Corporation business required the
addition to the agenda for consideration
at the meeting, on less than seven days’
notice to the public, of the following
matters:
Memorandum and resolution re: Final
Rule to Implement Increase in Appraisal
Threshold for Commercial Real Estate
Transactions.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Board further determined, by the
same majority vote, that no notice
earlier than March 20, 2018, of the
change in the subject matter of the
meeting was practicable.
Dated: March 20, 2018.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018–05933 Filed 3–22–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Proposed Agency Information
Collection Activities; Comment
Request
Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Notice, request for comment.
AGENCY:
The Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System (Board) invites
comment on a proposal to extend for
three years, with revision, the Bank
Holding Company Application and
Notification Forms (OMB No. 7100–
0121): The Application for Prior
Approval to Become a Bank Holding
Company or for a Bank Holding
Company to Acquire an Additional
Bank or Bank Holding Company (FR Y–
3), the Notification for Prior Approval to
Become a Bank Holding Company or for
a Bank Holding Company to Acquire an
Additional Bank or Bank Holding
Company (FR Y–3N), and the
Notification for Prior Approval to
Engage Directly or Indirectly in Certain
Nonbanking Activities (FR Y–4).
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before May 22, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by FR Y–3, FR Y–3N, or FR
Y–4, by any of the following methods:
• Agency website: https://
www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments at
https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/
foia/proposedregs.aspx.
• Email: regs.comments@
federalreserve.gov. Include OMB
number in the subject line of the
message.
• FAX: (202) 452–3819 or (202) 452–
3102.
• Mail: Ann E. Misback, Secretary,
Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, 20th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20551.
All public comments are available
from the Board’s website at https://
www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/
proposedregs.aspx as submitted, unless
modified for technical reasons.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM
23MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 57 (Friday, March 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12755-12758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05881]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[WC Docket No. 16-271; DA 18-197]
Connect America Fund--Alaska Plan
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau and Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, grant in part and deny in part the Alaska
Telephone Association's Petition for Reconsideration of the Bureaus'
Map Instructions PN and provide clarification regarding Alaska Plan
carriers' map data filing obligations (map collection).
DATES: Applicable date announcement: July 1, 2018 filing date.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jesse Jachman, Wireline Competition
Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order
on Reconsideration in WC Docket No. 16-271; DA 18-197, adopted on
February 28, 2018 and released on February 28, 2018. The full text of
this document is available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th
Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, or at the following internet address:
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0228/DA-18-197A1.pdf.
I. Introduction
1. In this Order, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) (collectively the Bureaus),
grant in part and deny in part the Alaska Telephone Association's (ATA)
Petition for Reconsideration of the Bureaus' Map Instructions PN and
provide clarification regarding Alaska Plan carriers' map data filing
obligations (map collection). The Bureaus grant the Petition in part
with respect to the required data accuracy standard for the
[[Page 12756]]
map collection due to be filed in 2018 and extend the March 1, 2018
submission deadline until July 1, 2018. The Bureaus also provide
clarification regarding the data to be filed regarding ``community
anchor institutions'' (CAI or anchor institutions). The Petition is
denied in all other respects.
II. Discussion
2. The Bureaus deny ATA's Petition with respect to its request for
the Bureaus to largely forgo the collection of cell-site backhaul and
CAI data. Therefore, carriers must submit cell sites and CAIs with
their associated links and update that data on a yearly basis as
described in the following.
3. As an initial matter, the Bureaus conclude that ATA's narrow
interpretation of the scope of the initial map collection is contrary
to the most reasonable reading of the relevant Commission rule, section
54.316(a)(6). ATA does not address the meaning of this rule in its
Petition. The first sentence of that rule does not specifically
restrict the map collection to ``middle-mile'' or ``backhaul''
facilities and states that carriers ``shall submit fiber network maps
or microwave network maps covering eligible areas.'' The language in
the rule's second sentence, by its terms, states that carriers should
provide map updates for ``middle-mile'' facilities. The rule language
should be read in the context of the Alaska Plan Order, 81 FR 69696,
October 7, 2016 and its discussion of the facilities that may affect
carriers' ability to provide 10/1 Mbps service to end-users. Because
the Alaska Plan Order uses multiple terms to describe such facilities,
and, as explained in the following, the presence and quality of cell-
site backhaul and connections to many CAIs do in fact affect carriers'
ability to meet their current and future commitments over last-mile
facilities, the Commission intended the rule requiring the submission
of ``fiber network maps or microwave network maps'' and ``middle mile''
data to be read broadly to include cell-site backhaul and CAIs.
4. The Bureaus note that the WTB also has the authority to collect
this same data upon request regardless of whether those facilities fall
within the scope of the map collection in section 54.316(a)(6).
Specifically, the WTB may request ``additional data'' regarding
facilities relevant to ``determining whether or not [participating
mobile carriers] meet their five- and 10-year commitments.'' Carriers'
performance commitments are broken down and differentiated by the type
of facilities (satellite, fiber, fixed wireless) supporting the
committed speed and technology (e.g., LTE) of the last-mile connections
serving particular end-user populations. Information regarding the
location of cell-site backhaul, CAIs and associated links may be
collected by the WTB upon request because they are necessary to
determining whether carriers' differentiated commitments are or could
be met.
5. Cell-Site Backhaul. Notwithstanding the obligation of carriers
to submit cell-site backhaul data pursuant to the plain meaning of
section 54.316(a)(6), ATA's position that the map collection is
restricted to ``middle-mile'' facilities as defined in the CAM rests on
an incorrect reading of the Alaska Plan Order. The Alaska Plan Order
does not, as ATA argues, define ``middle-mile'' and/or ``backhaul'' to
mean solely the connection between central offices. Rather, these terms
are used to describe the entire connection between the last mile and
internet gateway. A cell-site backhaul facility is a subset of this
connection.
6. The Commission adopted a more expansive meaning of these terms
in the Alaska Plan Order to enable it to identify the ``weak-links'' in
carriers' networks that affect carriers' current and future
commitments. As noted in the OBI Technical Paper #1 that ATA cites,
cell-site backhaul and connections between central offices ``can
quickly become the choke point'' and ``adequate [cell-site] backhaul is
one of the key drivers for providing wireless broadband.'' The Bureaus
agree with ATA that high-capacity connections between central offices
are relevant to an assessment of whether carriers can meet their
commitments to end-users within the exchanges served by those central
offices. Such high capacity connections are not, however, sufficient
for such an assessment.
7. ATA also does not explain why cell-site backhaul should be
considered ``last mile'' and therefore excluded from the collection.
Indeed, as ATA acknowledges, the ordinary meaning of ``backhaul,'' in
the wireless context refers to the ``connections that link a mobile
wireless service provider's cell sites to the mobile switching centers
. . . .'' On the other hand, a ``last mile'' facility is the connection
from the end-user's handset or terminal to the ``first point of
aggregation,'' such as a ``wireless tower location.'' The Map
Instructions do not require the submission of the ``last-mile''
wireless end-users' location data.
8. The Alaska Plan Order requirement for carriers to submit data
regarding facilities that lie between the ``last mile'' and the
``internet gateway'' is also consistent with the logical structure of
the Alaska Plan Order itself. The Alaska Plan Order describes carriers'
networks as a three-part model. Specifically, the Alaska Plan Order
separately describes the (1) ``last mile''--reflected in the bandwidth
and price commitments provided to consumers via wired and wireless
facilities and, for wireless commitments, the last-mile wireless
technology to be deployed, such as LTE--(2) ``middle mile'' and/or
``backhaul'' facilities which connect last mile facilities to the
internet gateway and affect the ability of the carrier to meet its
last-mile commitments; and (3) the internet gateway and the internet
beyond. Under this three-part model, network components other than (1)
or (3) and which can affect the ability of the carrier to meet its last
mile commitments are (2): ``middle mile'' and/or ``backhaul.'' As
explained, because cell-site backhaul is not considered ``last mile''
for purposes of this map filing requirement and is clearly not the
``internet gateway,'' it must be ``middle mile'' and/or ``backhaul.''
9. This broad meaning of ``middle mile'' and ``backhaul'' is also
consistent with the common understanding of these terms in the wireless
industry and has been adopted by the Petitioner in other contexts. For
example, ATA member GCI, in providing a cost model for wireless
facilities in Alaska, used the term ``backhaul'' to describe both (1)
``cell-site backhaul'' and (2) the connection to central ``hubs'' in
three Alaskan cities. In that instance, GCI stated that the quality of
the last-mile connection is dependent on the robustness of both (1) and
(2) and argued that the cost of upgrading both segments is a barrier to
providing higher speed last-mile services to Alaskan end-users.
10. The Bureaus grant the Petition in part to the extent it seeks
relief from the March 1, 2018 deadline, and the 7.6-meter accuracy
requirement. By providing this relief, the Bureaus allow carriers
limited flexibility and time to submit data in a way that takes into
consideration the particular challenges carriers in Alaska face (e.g.,
difficult seasonal weather) while also ensuring the Commission is
provided with the data it required for implementing the Plan. The
Bureaus also clarify the obligation to report data with respect to
CAIs. The Petition is denied in all other respects.
11. Deadline Extension. The Bureaus grant the Petition to the
extent that it seeks a deadline extension and extend the filing
deadline for the initial map data submission from March 1, 2018, to
[[Page 12757]]
July 1, 2018. On February 1, 2018, the Office of Management and Budget
approved the collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and the
rules became effective on February 15, 2018. The Bureaus find that an
extension of the deadline under section 54.316 is appropriate in this
case because a July 1, 2018 deadline will ensure that carriers will
have sufficient time following the recent PRA approval to finalize any
data submitted into the High Cost Universal Service Broadband (HUBB)
portal and aligns with the Form 481 filing deadline. Additionally,
carriers are submitting middle-mile data to the HUBB portal for the
first time, and carriers and USAC may need additional time to address
any problems or concerns that may arise at the time of filing. This
extension will also allow carriers additional time to gather as
accurate data as possible in the first filing cycle. Alaska Plan
participants will now have nearly ten months of preparation time to
gather and submit the data from the release of the initial Map
Instructions. This extension does not affect the filing deadline in
subsequent years or the March 1, 2018 deadline for the submission of
Alaska wireline location data.
12. Accuracy. The Bureaus grant in part and deny in part ATA's
request to collect and submit data at a lower level of accuracy than
7.6 meters. Specifically, the Bureaus permit carriers to collect and
submit ``estimated'' data to within 50 meters of accuracy for the
filing due by July 1, 2018 where data at 7.6 meters is unavailable.
This relief is appropriate given the recent effective date of the data
collection in February combined with the challenging weather conditions
in Alaska, and the fact that ``estimated'' data (in the limited cases
where 7.6-meter data is unavailable) for the 2018 submission will not
inhibit efforts of the Bureaus to implement the Plan.
13. The Bureaus have authority to set an accuracy threshold in the
instructions. Indeed, ATA submitted its own, alternative 1000-meter
threshold. The Commission delegated to the Bureaus the authority to
provide a common format for map submissions, which necessarily includes
a mutually understood accuracy standard. Maps cannot be properly
evaluated without a mutually understood and agreed upon accuracy
standard. As explained in the following, both the 50-meter and 7.6-
meter accuracy standards meet that test.
14. The Bureaus conclude that, on balance, the overall benefit of
the data accuracy requirements, as modified here, outweighs any burden
on carriers. While the Bureaus need to and will, under these modified
instructions, obtain data accurate to 7.6 meters by 2019, the relief
the Bureaus provide will greatly reduce carriers' burden to collect
that data. A one-year delay in providing data at a 7.6-meter level of
accuracy should allow ATA members to collect and submit estimated data
using desktop software while largely allowing the collection of more
accurate data through site visits as necessary in the normal course of
business. Carrier estimated data, combined with 7.6-meter data already
in the carriers' possession, are sufficient for the Bureaus to assess
carriers' compliance, infrastructure limitations, and progress at the
initial stages of the first five-year plan.
15. For the filings due in 2018, carriers may provide an initial
``estimate'' for nodes and links based on data generated by generally
available desktop software. Where a carrier lacks sufficient internal
digital data to comply with the 7.6-meter accuracy requirement for all
or a portion of its filed network facilities, that carrier may submit
estimated data at least as accurate as Google Earth (i.e., accurate to
within 50 meters) and denote as estimates the relevant portion(s) of
the network submitted. Where the carrier chooses to provide an
estimate, it must certify in the HUBB portal, at the time of filing,
that it does not possess data meeting the 7.6-meter requirement.
Carriers must update any such estimated data no later than their filing
due March 1, 2019, with data meeting the 7.6-meter requirement.
Similarly, any new data submitted starting in March 1, 2019 (i.e., for
network facilities deployed in 2018) and in subsequent filing years
must meet the 7.6-meter accuracy requirement. If a carrier currently
has internal digital data in its possession for facilities deployed in
2017 or earlier that meet the accuracy requirement, it must file that
data by July 1, 2018.
16. The Bureaus reject ATA's contention that information at the
7.6-meter level of accuracy is not necessary for the purposes of the
map collection. The Bureaus' review of revised performance plans in
2020 alongside maps accurate to 7.6 meters provides an important
backstop to ensure carriers maximize their commitments and service
levels to Alaskans. The 7.6-meter standard is critical for obtaining a
complete picture of facilities' locations in relation to other existing
data. It is a commonly-used mapping standard for Commission high-cost
data, is necessary for the Bureaus to maintain compatibility with
census boundary and road data for the census-block based Alaska Plan,
and will allow the Bureau to fully identify duplicative facilities.
17. Even in the absence of the relief provided here, the Bureaus
reject ATA's argument that the burden of the 7.6-meter standard
outweighs the benefit because ATA has not adequately demonstrated the
scope of its burden to collect such information. ATA's evidence that
the 7.6-meter level of accuracy is too burdensome largely relies on two
carrier-employee declarations, stating that not all of their data is
stored at the 7.6-meter accuracy level. ATA also notes that the FAA
requires collection of some cell tower information at a 6.1 meter
accuracy level. Moreover, all of Alaska has wide area augmentation
system (WAAS) coverage 100 percent of the time with the exception of
the southwestern most Aleutian Islands, which has this coverage at
least 95 percent of the time, allowing use by non-expert personnel of
inexpensive handheld devices accurate up to three meters.
18. For similar reasons, the Bureaus also reject ATA's counter-
proposal that the Bureaus collect data at the 1000-meter accuracy
level. ATA's proposed standard is far too inaccurate for the map data
collection, as two filers filing the same node could show that node to
be more than a mile apart from each other, which could significantly
affect Bureaus' understanding of which census blocks have what
facilities and what facilities are duplicates. Moreover, as noted,
generally available desktop applications provide sufficient accuracy to
meet the 50-meter estimate standard described above.
19. Community Anchor Institutions. The Bureaus grant the Petition
in part to clarify the collection of CAI data. The Bureaus clarify that
carriers need only submit those CAIs and associated links that fall
within the statutory definition of a CAI. Furthermore, in the initial
collection due July 1, 2018, carriers must submit all CAIs served by
fiber or wireless connections. In subsequent years, carriers must
submit any additional CAIs and associated links served by fiber or
wireless connections that are being used or will be used to support
their service in eligible areas. To the extent that CAI data does not
fall under these limiting criteria, it is not reportable. The Bureaus
otherwise deny the Petition with respect to ATA's request to limit the
submission of CAI data.
20. First, the Bureaus grant the Petition in part to clarify that
reportable CAIs are limited to those CAIs that fall within the
definition of CAI in 47 U.S.C. 1305(b)(3)(A) that the Commission
adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation
[[Page 12758]]
Order, 76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011. As such, this data collection is
limited to the type of CAIs that carriers would report pursuant to 47
CFR 54.313(f)(1)(ii). Because rate-of-return carriers are already
reporting the addresses of many of these CAIs on their FCC Form 481,
carriers may face a reduced burden when submitting latitude and
longitude of these same CAIs and the links connecting these
institutions to other nodes in their networks for mapping purposes.
21. Second, consistent with the Alaska Plan Order, the Bureaus make
clear that in the initial collection, carriers must submit data
regarding any CAIs served by fiber or wireless connections. This
limitation is consistent with the plain language of section
54.316(a)(6), which states that Alaska Plan participants ``shall submit
fiber network maps or microwave network maps covering eligible areas''
for the purpose of tracking carriers' access to these facilities that
would allow them to provide 10/1 Mbps for all Alaskans. In subsequent
years, carriers must submit CAIs served by connections that ``are or
will be used'' to support service in their eligible areas. This would
include, at a minimum, those instances where the carrier has actual
plans to use the CAI and links to extend the network. CAIs served by
connections that ``are or will be used'' in this manner are in fact
``middle mile'' and/or ``backhaul'' within the meaning of the Alaska
Plan Order and are therefore subject to collection. CAIs connected to
high-capacity links may be used to expand service to underserved and
unserved communities. Consequently, information regarding CAIs
connected by such facilities is necessary for the Commission to
understand whether adequate facilities exist to support additional
last-mile connections and for the evaluation of carriers' performance--
consistent with the purpose of the map collection.
22. The Bureaus deny ATA's Petition to the extent it seeks to
exclude the reporting of CAIs which meet these criteria. ATA argues
that all CAIs are ``last-mile'' facilities and therefore should not be
part of the map collection except in limited circumstances. ATA's
position is not consistent with the Alaska Plan Order. ATA argues that
the Bureaus' reliance on aggregation points to justify reporting some
nodes ``proves too much'' because a ``home's or business's Wi-Fi router
is an initial aggregation point.'' But ATA's argument contravenes its
own cited precedent, which separates the network based on points of
traffic aggregation with similar network demand. In many instances,
CAIs' position in carriers' network architecture is more akin to
wireless towers aggregating community-wide traffic than a last-mile
home or smartphone user. Indeed, ATA provides a conceptual network map
in its Petition equating schools with wireless towers. This model and
the ACAM are consistent with the understanding that both a CAI and a
wireless tower can and do aggregate community-wide multi-user traffic.
In contrast, a home or small business Wi-Fi router typically serves a
single end-user location with only a handful of end-users, and it does
not aggregate community-wide multi-user traffic.
23. In light of the foregoing discussion, the Bureaus reject ATA's
counter-proposal to limit the collection of nodes to cell towers and
CAIs that are outside of the exchange but connect to a central office
in another exchange. In part because of the vast size of many exchanges
in Alaska, knowing whether the central office in an exchange is fiber-
fed does not provide a sufficiently granular picture of the potential
middle-mile ``weak points'' or capabilities that could affect the
ability of a carrier to meet its commitments or future commitments.
Federal Communications Commission.
Kris A. Monteith,
Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2018-05881 Filed 3-22-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P