Procedures for the Mobility Fund Phase II Challenge Process, 13417-13426 [2018-06382]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13417-13426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06382]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket No. 10-90, WT Docket No. 10-208; DA 18-186]


Procedures for the Mobility Fund Phase II Challenge Process

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final action; requirements and procedures.

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

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

DATES: The challenge window will open March 29, 2018, and will remain 
open until August 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit waivers by email to [email protected] or by 
hard copy to Margaret W. Wiener, Chief,

[[Page 13418]]

Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, FCC, 445 12th Street SW, Room 6-C217, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions about the 
challenge process and the USAC portal, email 
[email protected] or contact Jonathan McCormack, 
[email protected], (202) 418-0660. For questions about the 
one-time, 4G LTE data collection, contact Ken Lynch, 
[email protected], (202) 418-7356, or Ben Freeman, 
[email protected], (202) 418-0628. Additional challenge process 
information is available at the Mobility Fund Phase II website (https://www.fcc.gov/mobility-fund-phase-2).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Public Notice (MF-
II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice), WC Docket No. 10-90, WT 
Docket No. 10-208, DA 18-186, adopted on February 27, 2018, and 
released on February 27, 2018. The MF-II Challenge Process Procedures 
Public Notice includes as attachments the following appendices: 
Appendix A, Generating Initial Eligible Areas Map; Appendix B, 
Validating Challenge Evidence; Appendix C, Applying Subsidy Data; 
Appendix D, File Specifications and File Formats; Appendix E, 
Relational Mapping of Form 477 Filers to Providers; and Appendix F, 
Challenge Data Certification Form. The complete text of the MF-II 
Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice, including all attachments, 
is available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 
11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 
12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text 
is also available on the Commission's website at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-18-186A1.pdf. Alternative formats are 
available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to 
[email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau 
at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

I. Introduction

    1. In the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice, the 
Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force (Task Force), with the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau and the Wireline Competition Bureau (the 
Bureaus), establishes the parameters and procedures to implement the 
Mobility Fund Phase II (MF-II) challenge process.
    2. In the MF-II Challenge Process Order, 82 FR 42473, September 8, 
2017, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) directed the 
Bureaus to provide more details regarding the procedures for generating 
the initial map of presumptively eligible areas and the procedures for 
the challenge process. In the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public 
Notice, 82 FR 51180, November 3, 2017, the Task Force and Bureaus 
proposed and sought comment on the procedures for processing the 
coverage and subsidy data and creating the initial eligible areas map, 
the specific parameters for the data that challengers and respondents 
will submit as part of the challenge process, and a process for 
validating challenges. The Bureaus now resolve these issues and 
describe the filing requirements and procedures related to the 
challenge process.

II. Procedures for Generating the Initial Eligible Areas Map

    3. The Bureaus adopt the proposed methodology for generating the 
initial map of areas presumptively eligible for MF-II support, i.e., 
those areas lacking unsubsidized qualifying coverage by any provider. 
In this multi-step approach, Commission staff first determines the 
unsubsidized coverage for each provider based on its submitted 
standardized coverage data of qualified 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE), 
and then aggregates these data across all providers; this aggregate 
area of unsubsidized coverage is then removed from the rest of the land 
area within each state to determine the presumptively eligible areas. 
This approach is consistent with the Commission's decision that areas 
lacking unsubsidized, qualifying 4G LTE service will be eligible for 
the auction, as well as its decision to create the map of areas 
presumptively eligible for MF-II support using a combination of the new 
4G LTE coverage data and subsidy data from USAC. Specifically, the 
methodology the Bureaus adopt produces a map of unsubsidized qualified 
4G LTE coverage for each provider by removing from that provider's 
submitted coverage any areas that the USAC subsidy data show are 
subsidized. The resulting maps of unsubsidized coverage are then merged 
across all providers to determine the areas ineligible for MF-II 
support. The initial eligible areas map shows all areas that are not 
ineligible for MF-II support.
    4. To generate a map of unsubsidized qualified 4G LTE coverage for 
each provider, Commission staff: (1) Removes any subsidized areas from 
the provider's coverage map; (2) removes any water-only areas; (3) 
overlays a uniform grid with cells of one square kilometer (1 km by 1 
km) on the provider's coverage map; and (4) removes grid cells with 
coverage of less than the minimum area that could be covered by a 
single speed test measurement when buffered. The term ``water-only 
area'' is defined as a water-only census block (that is, a census block 
for which the entire area is categorized by the U.S. Census Bureau as 
water).
    5. Using the maps that result from steps 1-4 of this process, staff 
then generates the map of presumptively eligible areas for each state 
(or state equivalent) by: (5) Merging the maps of unsubsidized coverage 
for all providers; (6) removing the merged unsubsidized coverage 
generated in step 5 (the ineligible areas) from the state's boundary to 
produce the eligible areas; and (7) removing any water-only areas from 
the eligible areas. Since the Bureaus waived the deadline for mobile 
wireless providers in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to submit 
information regarding 4G LTE coverage, the map of presumptively 
eligible areas does not include Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands.
    6. The Bureaus define a uniform grid with cells of equal area (1 km 
by 1 km) across the continental United States, and separate uniform 
grids with cells of equal area (1 km by 1 km) for overseas territories 
and Hawaii. These grids are defined using an ``equal area'' map 
projection so that the same number of speed tests will be required to 
challenge the cell regardless of the location of the grid cell. The 
USAC portal system will use the uniform grid system to validate and 
process data submitted during the challenge process.
    7. Commission staff is making available to the public the resulting 
map of presumptively eligible areas (overlaid with the uniform grid) 
for each state or state equivalent. The maps of unsubsidized coverage 
for specific providers will only be made available to a challenger 
through USAC's online challenge portal (the USAC portal) after the 
challenger agrees to keep such maps confidential.

III. Procedures for MF-II Challenges

A. Procedures for Challengers: Filing a Challenge

1. Timing for Availability of Initial Coverage Data and Challenge 
Window
    8. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to make public the map of areas 
presumptively eligible for MF-II support no earlier than four weeks 
after

[[Page 13419]]

the deadline for submission of the new, one-time 4G LTE provider 
coverage data. The challenge process window will open no sooner than 30 
days after the release of the map. Contemporaneously with the release 
of the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice, the Bureaus 
released the MF-II Challenge Process Initial Eligible Areas Map Public 
Notice, DA 18-187, on February 27, 2018, announcing the publication of 
the initial eligible areas map and that the challenge window will open 
30 days later, on March 29, 2018. Once the challenge window opens, an 
eligible party will be able to access the USAC portal and download the 
provider-specific confidential data necessary to begin conducting speed 
tests. If a consumer, organization, or business believes that its 
interests cannot be met through its state, local, or Tribal government 
entity and wishes to participate in the process as a challenger, the 
individual or entity may file a petition with the Commission requesting 
a waiver for good cause shown. The challenge window will close 150 days 
later, consistent with the procedures adopted in the MF-II Challenge 
Process Order. Although challengers will be able to submit speed test 
data until the close of the challenge window, the Commission determined 
that only those challenges to areas that are certified by a challenger 
at the close of the window will proceed. Since a challenger will not be 
able to certify a challenge until the submitted speed test data has 
been validated, the Bureaus strongly encourage challengers to submit 
data in advance of the closing date to allow ample time for validation 
processing. Each challenger is responsible for ensuring timely 
certification of its challenges.
    9. The Bureaus are providing 30 days' notice of the opening of the 
USAC portal and commencement of the challenge window.
2. Using the USAC Challenge Process Portal
a. Accessing the Portal
    10. Under the challenge process framework adopted by the 
Commission, a challenger must use the USAC portal to access the 
confidential provider-specific information that is pertinent to a 
challenge, as well as to submit its challenge, including all supporting 
evidence and required certifications. A challenger must log into the 
USAC portal using the account created pursuant to the procedures in the 
MF-II Handset and USAC Portal Access Public Notice, 83 FR 254, January 
3, 2018, and the MF-II Challenge Process Portal Access Request Form is 
Available Public Notice, DA 18-142, February 14, 2018.
    11. The Bureaus remind parties participating in the challenge 
process that it is each party's responsibility to ensure the security 
of its computer systems, user IDs, and passwords, and to ensure that 
only authorized persons access, download, or upload data into the 
challenge process portal on the party's behalf. The Commission assumes 
no responsibility or liability for these matters. To the extent a 
technical or security issue arises with the USAC portal, Commission 
staff will take all appropriate measures to resolve such issues quickly 
and equitably. Should an issue arise that is outside the USAC portal or 
attributable to a challenge process participant--including, but not 
limited to, a participant's hardware, software, or internet access 
problem--and which prevents the participant from accessing provider-
specific data or submitting a challenge prior to the close of the 
challenge window, the Commission shall have no obligation to resolve or 
remediate such an issue on behalf of the participant.
b. Access to Provider-Specific Data
    12. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to make available in a 
downloadable format through the USAC portal the provider-specific data 
underlying the map of presumptively eligible areas. Among other 
geographic data, a challenger will be able to access the following data 
in shapefile format on a state-by-state basis: (a) The boundaries of 
the state (or state equivalent) overlaid with the uniform grid; (b) the 
confidential coverage maps submitted by providers for the one-time 4G 
LTE data collection; and (c) the map of initial eligible areas. In 
addition, as proposed, challengers will be able to access, for each 
state, the confidential provider-specific data on the list of pre-
approved handsets and the clutter information submitted for the one-
time 4G LTE data collection. These data will be available for download 
in a tabular comma-separated value (CSV) format. A challenger will not 
have access to confidential provider-specific information unless and 
until it agrees to treat the data as confidential. Specifically, a 
challenger must agree to only use confidential provider-specific 
information for the purpose of submitting an MF-II challenge in the 
USAC portal before a challenger may download these data.
3. Evidentiary Requirements for Challenge Data
a. General Requirements Adopted by the Commission for Speed Test 
Measurements
    13. In the MF-II Challenge Process Order, the Commission decided 
that a challenger must submit detailed proof of lack of unsubsidized, 
qualified 4G LTE coverage in support of its challenge in the form of 
actual outdoor speed test data showing measured download throughput. A 
challenger must submit speed data from hardware- or software-based 
drive tests or application-based tests that overlap the challenged 
area. Each speed test must be conducted between the hours of 6:00 a.m. 
and 12:00 a.m. (midnight) local time, and the date of the test must be 
after the publication of the initial eligibility map but not more than 
six months before the scheduled close of the challenge window. Speed 
test data must be certified under penalty of perjury by a qualified 
engineer or government official.
    14. When collecting speed data, a challenger must use at least one 
of the three handsets identified by each provider whose coverage is the 
subject of the specific challenge. A challenger must purchase an 
appropriate service plan from each unsubsidized service provider in the 
challenged area. The Commission explained in the MF-II Challenge 
Process Order that ``[a]n appropriate service plan would allow for 
speed tests of full network performance, e.g., an unlimited high-speed 
data plan.'' A challenger should be cognizant of the limitations under 
the service plan(s) it purchases and that respondents have the ability 
to respond to challenger speed tests with evidence of speed reductions. 
Depending on the size of the area being challenged and the terms of the 
plans offered by a challenged provider, a challenger may determine that 
it should purchase more than one service plan for the handset(s) it 
uses to test a provider's coverage in the challenged area. The Bureaus 
are not requiring a challenger to purchase multiple service plans from 
a challenged carrier; it is a challenger's decision what type of 
service plan and how many plans to purchase in order to collect speed 
test data that support a challenge.
b. Substantial Coverage of the Challenged Area
    15. The Commission decided in the MF-II Challenge Process Order 
that a challenger must submit actual outdoor speed test measurements 
with sufficient density to reflect actual consumer

[[Page 13420]]

experience throughout the entire challenged area. Specifically, the 
Commission adopted a requirement that a challenger must take 
measurements that: (1) Are no more than a fixed distance apart from one 
another in each challenged area; and (2) substantially cover the entire 
area.
    16. The density of submitted speed points will be validated as part 
of a multi-step geospatial-data-processing approach. Consistent with 
the Commission's decision in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, the 
Bureaus will determine whether a challenger's speed test points 
substantially cover a challenged area (i.e., cover at least 75 percent 
of the challenged area) by buffering each speed test point that reports 
a downstream speed less than 5 Mbps, calculating the buffered area, and 
then comparing the area of the buffered points to the challengeable 
area within a 1 km by 1 km grid cell. The Commission determined in the 
MF-II Challenge Process Order that the radius of the buffer will equal 
``half of the maximum distance parameter.'' Under this validation 
process, if a challenger submits speed test measurements that are 
further apart than the maximum distance parameter in a challenged area, 
its evidence may be insufficient to cover at least 75 percent of the 
challengeable area within a cell, and its challenge would presumptively 
fail.
    17. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to use kilometers instead of 
miles to be consistent with the de minimis challenge size adopted by 
the Commission, as well as to be consistent with the units used for the 
``equal area'' map projection that we will use when processing 
geospatial data. Consistent with the Commission's direction to adopt a 
maximum distance value, the Bureaus adopt the proposal that speed test 
measurements must be no more than one-half of one kilometer apart from 
one another. As a result, the buffer radius will equal one-quarter of 
one kilometer. The Bureaus also adopt the proposal to require a 
challenger to submit data for at least one speed test within the 
challengeable area of a grid cell in order to challenge an area within 
the grid cell. The requirement that measurements be taken no more than 
one-half of one kilometer apart from one another serves as an upper 
bound (i.e., maximum distance apart), and a challenger will be free to 
and, in some circumstances, may be required to submit measurements 
taken more densely in order to sufficiently prove its challenge.
    18. Under the challenge process framework that the Commission 
adopted, all ineligible areas may be challenged and challengers have 
the option to conduct speed tests that cover the areas they wish to 
challenge. Similarly, responding providers have the option to submit 
speed tests that demonstrate their coverage. These options will not be 
diminished or otherwise modified by the relative accessibility of an 
area.
c. Additional Parameters and Specifications for Speed Test Measurements
    19. In addition to the general requirements for speed tests, the 
Commission directed the Bureaus to implement any additional parameters 
to ensure that speed tests accurately reflect the consumer experience 
in the challenged area. Consistent with this direction, the Bureaus 
adopt the proposal to require a challenger to submit all speed test 
measurements collected during the relevant time frame, including those 
that show speeds greater than or equal to 5 Mbps. While a challenger is 
able to delete speed tests from the USAC portal, this function should 
only be used to correct errors in submissions or add information to 
previous submissions. The Commission will have the ability to review 
all submitted data, including deleted submissions and speed test data 
points that show speeds equal to or greater than 5 Mbps.
    20. In addition, the Bureaus adopt the proposal to require a 
challenger to provide data that is commonly collected by speed test 
software and speed test apps. Specifically, a challenger must provide: 
Signal strength and latency; the service provider's identity; the make 
and model of the device used (which must be from that provider's list 
of pre-approved handsets); the international mobile equipment identity 
(IMEI) of the tested device; the method of the test (i.e., hardware- or 
software-based drive test or non-drive test app-based test); and, if an 
app was used to conduct the measurement, the identity and version of 
the app. The Bureaus will not allow a challenger to submit speed test 
data of its own network.
    21. The Bureaus also adopt a requirement that a challenger report 
information about the server used for speed and latency testing. 
Specifically, a challenger is required to submit the identity and 
location of the server used for speed and latency testing.
    22. The complete list of data required for a challenge may be found 
in Appendix D.
d. File Formats
    23. The Bureaus adopt the proposal that a challenger must submit 
speed test data in CSV format matching the respective file 
specifications. A challenger is required to submit a CSV file that 
contains entries for each speed test run by the challenger to provide 
evidence in support of its challenge. A challenger can create this file 
using a template provided in the USAC portal.
    24. The Bureaus require a challenger to report information about 
the server used for speed and latency testing. As a result, the Bureaus 
have modified the speed test data template proposed in the MF-II 
Challenge Process Comment Public Notice to include the identity and 
location of the server used for testing.
    25. Additional details about the file formats required for 
challengers may be found in Appendix D.
4. Validation of Challenges
    26. The Bureaus adopt and explain the detailed procedures for 
implementing system validation of evidence submitted by a challenger, 
as directed by the Commission in the MF-II Challenge Process Order. 
Consistent with the Bureaus' decision to use the uniform grid system to 
validate and process data submitted by a challenger, the USAC system 
will use a uniform grid of one square kilometer cells to perform 
geospatial analysis of a challenger's speed test data. The first step 
in the validation process requires the USAC system to determine whether 
a particular challenged area meets the de minimis threshold of one 
square kilometer. For each grid cell containing a speed test 
measurement submitted by a challenger, the challenged area will equal 
the challengeable portion of the grid cell (i.e., the ineligible area, 
or any area that is neither eligible nor water-only). The USAC system 
will superimpose each challenged area onto the initial eligibility map 
and remove any portions that overlap eligible areas. Since the USAC 
portal will use a uniform grid of one square kilometer cells to perform 
geospatial analysis, a challenge for a grid cell that is entirely 
challengeable will inherently meet the de minimis size threshold. In 
areas where the challengeable portion of the grid cell is less than 
this threshold, the Bureaus adopt the proposal to have the system 
validate that the sum of all areas challenged by a challenger in a 
state is greater than or equal to one square kilometer. If a challenge 
does not meet the de minimis area threshold, the challenge would fail 
step one of the validation process. If a challenge meets the de minimis 
area threshold, the USAC system will proceed to the second step of the 
validation process.

[[Page 13421]]

    27. In the second step of the system validation process, the USAC 
system will analyze each speed test record to ensure it meets all 
standard parameters, other than the maximum distance and substantial 
coverage requirement. Consistent with the Bureau's proposal, a 
challenger must submit speed test data in a standard format on a state-
by-state basis. If the challenge speed test data meet all standard 
parameters, the USAC system, as proposed, will determine the set of 
grid cells in which at least one counted speed test is contained (the 
challenged grid cells) and will proceed to the third step of the 
validation process.
    28. In step three, the USAC system creates a buffer (i.e., draws a 
circle of fixed size) around each counted speed test (i.e., each speed 
test point that passes steps one and two) using a radius of one quarter 
of one kilometer, which is equal to half of the maximum distance 
allowed between tests. For each challenged grid cell, the system will 
then determine how much of the total buffered area overlaps with the 
coverage map of the challenged provider for whose network the speed 
test measurement was recorded; this overlapping portion is the measured 
area. Since a challenger has the burden of showing insufficient 
coverage by each provider of unsubsidized, qualified 4G LTE service, 
the system will also determine the unmeasured area for each such 
provider, that is, the portion of each provider's coverage in the grid 
cell falling outside of the buffered area.
    29. In the last step of the validation process, the USAC system 
determines whether the buffered area of all counted speed tests covers 
at least 75 percent of the challengeable area in a grid cell. The 
system will merge the unmeasured area of all providers in a grid cell 
to determine the aggregated unmeasured area where the challenger has 
not submitted sufficient speed test evidence for every provider. If the 
calculated size of the aggregated unmeasured area in the grid cell is 
greater than 25 percent of the total challengeable area of the grid 
cell (i.e., the total area of the grid cell minus any water-only areas 
and any eligible areas), the challenge will be presumptively 
unsuccessful because it failed the requirement to include speed test 
measurements of sufficient density for all providers. The system will 
provide a warning to the challenger for any grid cells that fail this 
step. The system will consider all certified challenges in a particular 
grid cell across all challengers at the close of the challenge window.
5. Certifying a Challenge
a. Qualified Engineer/Government Official Certification
    30. The Commission decided in the MF-II Challenge Process Order 
that all submitted speed tests must be substantiated by the 
certification of a qualified engineer or government official to be 
considered during the adjudication phase of the challenge process. The 
Bureaus clarify that a qualified engineer may be an employee of the 
challenger or a third-party vendor, so long as the individual: (1) 
Possesses a sufficient degree of technical knowledge and experience to 
validate the accuracy of submitted speed test data; and (2) has actual 
knowledge of the accuracy of the submitted data. For purposes of 
certification, a qualified engineer need not meet state professional 
licensing requirements, such as may be required for a licensed 
Professional Engineer, so long as the individual possesses the 
requisite technical knowledge, engineering training, and relevant 
experience to validate the accuracy of the submitted data. Using the 
Challenge Data Certification form in Attachment F, the qualified 
engineer or government official shall certify under penalty of perjury 
that: (a) He/she has examined the information prepared for submission; 
and (b) all data and statements contained therein were generated in 
accordance with the parameters specified by the Commission and are 
true, accurate, and complete to the best of his/her knowledge, 
information, and belief. The challenger must possess an executed 
Challenge Data Certification form in order to have all of the 
information it needs to certify a challenge. Persons making willful 
false statements in any part of a speed data submission may be subject 
to punishment by fine or imprisonment.
b. Challenger Certification
    31. A challenger must certify its challenge(s) before the challenge 
window closes in order for the challenge to proceed. Through the USAC 
portal, a challenger will be able to electronically certify its counted 
speed test measurements on a grid cell by grid cell basis, since the 
system will consider each challenged grid cell as a separate challenge, 
or to certify some or all of its challenged grid cells on an aggregated 
basis. To certify a challenged grid cell, an authorized representative 
of the challenger must: (1) Provide the name and title of the 
certifying engineer or government official who substantiated the speed 
test data; and (2) certify under penalty of perjury that: (a) The 
qualified engineer or government official has examined the information 
submitted; and (b) the qualified engineer or government official has 
certified that all data and statements contained in the submission were 
generated in accordance with the parameters specified by the Commission 
and are true, accurate, and complete to the best of his or her 
knowledge, information, and belief. The Bureaus will not require a 
challenger to submit an executed Challenge Data Certification form when 
it certifies a challenge, though the Bureaus reserve the right to 
request a copy of the executed form. The Bureaus caution challengers 
that they will not be legally capable of making the required challenge 
certification in the USAC portal unless a qualified engineer or 
government official has substantiated the challenge speed test data by 
executing the Challenge Data Certification form.
    32. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to allow a challenger to certify 
a presumptively unsuccessful challenge in a grid cell that fails 
validation solely because the challenger did not include speed test 
measurements of sufficient density for all providers. This will allow 
the system to consider all certified challenges in a particular grid 
cell across all challengers at the close of the challenge window, even 
if the individual challenges would fail the density requirement on 
their own.
    33. During the challenge window, each challenger will be able to 
review its certified challenges on a grid cell by grid cell basis and 
may modify data submitted in support of a challenge after certifying 
(e.g., to correct or submit additional data). A challenger will be 
required to re-certify any challenges for which it submits additional 
or modified data; however, any new or modified data must also be 
substantiated by the certification of a qualified engineer or 
government official. At the close of the challenge window, only those 
challenges that are certified will proceed to adjudication; however, 
all data entered into the USAC portal may be considered in determining 
the weight of the evidence.

B. Procedures for Challenged Parties: Responding to a Challenge

1. Timing for Availability of Challenge Data and Response Window
    34. Following the close of the challenge window, the USAC portal 
system will process the data submitted by challengers. The type of 
processing that occurs after the challenge window closes is different 
from the automatic validation processing that takes place

[[Page 13422]]

before the window closes. Specifically, once the challenge window 
closes, the system will aggregate all certified challenges and 
recalculate density for each challenged grid cell to determine whether 
the combined challenges cover at least 75 percent of the challenged 
area. Only those challenges that are certified at the close of the 
challenge window will undergo this post-window processing; any 
challenges that have not completed automatic validation processing and/
or have not been certified by the close of the challenge window will 
not proceed. The Bureaus will provide challenged parties 30 days to 
review challenges and supporting data in the USAC portal prior to 
opening the response window. The response window will open no sooner 
than 30 days after the USAC system finishes processing the data 
submitted by challengers.
    35. Once opened, the response window will close 30 days later. 
Although a challenged party will have an opportunity to submit 
additional data via the USAC portal in response to a certified 
challenge for the entire duration of the response window, challenged 
parties are encouraged to file in advance of the deadline. A challenged 
party will not have an opportunity to submit additional data for the 
Commission's consideration after the response window closes.
2. Using the USAC Challenge Process Portal
a. Accessing the Portal
    36. A challenged provider must use the USAC portal if it chooses 
to: (1) access and review the data submitted by the challenger with 
respect to a challenge within the provider's service area; and/or (2) 
submit additional data/information to oppose the challenge (i.e., 
demonstrate that the challenger's speed test data are invalid or do not 
accurately reflect network performance). A challenged provider must log 
into the USAC portal using the account created pursuant to the 
procedures in the MF-II Handset and USAC Portal Public Notice.
    37. The Bureaus again remind parties participating in the challenge 
process that it is each party's responsibility to ensure the security 
of its computer systems, user IDs, and passwords, and to ensure that 
only authorized persons access, download, or upload data into the 
challenge process portal on the party's behalf. The Commission assumes 
no responsibility or liability for these matters. To the extent a 
technical or security issue arises with the USAC portal, Commission 
staff will take all appropriate measures to resolve such issues quickly 
and equitably. Should an issue arise that is outside the USAC portal or 
attributable to a challenge process participant--including, but not 
limited to, a participant's hardware, software, or internet access 
problem--and which prevents the participant from accessing challenge 
information or submitting response data prior to the close of the 
response window, the Commission shall have no obligation to resolve or 
remediate such an issue on behalf of the participant.
b. Challenge Information
    38. Each challenged provider will be able to access and download 
through the USAC portal all speed test data associated with certified 
challenges on that provider's network. Specifically, after the USAC 
system finishes processing challenger data, a challenged party will be 
able to view and download the counted speed test data associated with a 
certified challenge that disputes the challenged party's coverage, 
i.e., counted speed tests conducted by a challenger on the challenged 
party's network. In addition, each challenged provider will be able to 
view and download speed test measurements that failed validation solely 
because the measurement was greater than or equal to 5 Mbps. USAC will 
not make available to a challenged party any speed tests that receive 
error codes other than for being above the 5 Mbps download speed 
threshold (e.g., tests that failed because they were not conducted 
during the required time period). The Bureaus note that, since the USAC 
system will not fully process the failed speed test data, these data 
will only be available in a downloadable format. Also, the Bureaus 
remind parties that challenger speed test data for speed tests above 5 
Mbps are not certified to, as they did not make it all the way through 
the challenger validation process.
3. Evidentiary Requirements for Response Data
a. General Requirements Adopted by the Commission
    39. A challenged party is not required to respond to a challenge 
within its service area. If a challenged provider chooses to respond to 
a challenge, the Commission will accept as response data certain 
technical information that is probative regarding the validity of a 
challenger's speed tests, including speed test data, information 
regarding speed reductions that affected specific challenger speed 
tests, and other device-specific data collected from transmitter 
monitoring software. If a challenged party submits its own speed test 
data, the data must conform to the same standards and requirements 
adopted for the challengers, except for the recency of the submitted 
data. Parties submitting technical data other than speed tests, 
including data from transmitter monitoring software, are required to 
include ``geolocated, device-specific throughput measurements and other 
device-specific information (rather than generalized key performance 
indicator statistics for a cell-site).'' Only data collected after the 
publication of the initial eligibility map and within six months of the 
scheduled close of the response window will be accepted from challenged 
parties. Response data must be reliable and credible to be useful 
during the adjudication process. Any evidence submitted by a challenged 
party in response to a challenge must be substantiated by the 
certification of a qualified engineer or official under penalty of 
perjury.
b. Additional Requirements for Speed Test Measurements
    40. Consistent with the Commission's decision in the MF-II 
Challenge Process Order, if a challenged party chooses to submit its 
own speed test data, the data must conform to the same additional 
parameters adopted for challengers, except for the requirement to 
identify the service provider. A challenged party may only provide 
speed tests of its own network in response to a challenge. In addition 
to the parameters adopted by the Commission in the MF-II Challenge 
Process Order, a challenged party's speed data must include: Signal 
strength and latency; the device used (which must be from that 
provider's list of pre-approved handsets); the IMEI of the tested 
device; the method of the test (i.e., hardware or software-based drive 
test or non-drive test app-based test); if an app was used to conduct 
the measurement, the identity and version of the app; and the identity 
and location of the server used for testing. As with challenger data, a 
challenged party's speed test measurements may be no further than one-
half kilometer apart from one another. While the system will not 
validate a challenged party's response data, response speed tests must 
record a download speed of at least 5 Mbps and meet all other standard 
parameters. A challenged party must submit all speed test measurements 
collected during the relevant time frame, including those that show 
speeds less than or equal to 5 Mbps. The complete file specification 
for respondent speed tests is detailed in Appendix D.

[[Page 13423]]

    41. While data submitted by a challenged party will not be subject 
to the identical system validation process used for challenger speed 
test data, the system will process any submitted speed data using a 
similar approach. The USAC system will analyze each speed test record 
to ensure it meets all standard parameters and apply a buffer with a 
fixed radius to each counted speed measurement.
c. Additional Requirements for Speed Reduction Data
    42. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to allow a challenged party to 
submit data identifying a particular device that a challenger used to 
conduct its speed tests as having been subjected to reduced speeds, 
along with the precise date and time the speed reductions were in 
effect on the challenger's device (speed reduction data). As the 
Commission explained in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, the Bureaus 
expect that speed test data will be particularly persuasive evidence to 
rebut a challenge. The Bureaus do not expect a challenged provider to 
submit challenger speed tests as part of its rebuttal because the 
challenged provider would need actual knowledge of the conditions under 
which the challenger speed tests were conducted to be able to certify 
to the accuracy of the challenger's speed tests.
    43. The Bureaus acknowledge that a provider may reduce data speed 
for various reasons, and expect that evidence of user-specific speed 
reductions will be more probative and given more weight during 
adjudication than evidence of common network practices affecting all 
subscribers independent of the service plan used. Speed reduction data 
will be most probative of the validity of challenger speed tests when 
those data show that specific test results were caused by the 
challenger's chosen rate plan or the challenger's data usage in the 
relevant billing period. While the Bureaus will not require a 
challenger and challenged party to coordinate before speed test data 
are recorded, interested parties will not be prohibited from 
coordinating with one another regarding speed tests if they choose to 
do so.
d. Requirements for Data From Transmitter Monitoring Software
    44. Under the MF-II challenge process framework adopted by the 
Commission, a challenged party may submit device-specific data 
collected from transmitter monitoring software in responding to a 
challenge. As stated in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, these data 
``should include geolocated, device-specific throughput measurements or 
other device-specific information (rather than generalized key 
performance indicator statistics for a cell-site) in order to help 
refute a challenge.'' The Bureaus adopt the proposal to allow 
challenged parties to submit transmitter monitoring software data that 
is substantially similar in form and content to speed test data in 
order to facilitate comparison of such data during the adjudication 
process. In particular, challenged parties wishing to submit such data 
must include: The latitude and longitude to at least five decimals of 
the measured device; the date and time of the measurement; and signal 
strength, latency, and recorded speeds. The Bureaus will not require 
challenged parties submitting data from transmitter monitoring software 
to provide the measured distance between the device and transmitter.
    45. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to require that measurements 
from submitted transmitter monitoring software data conform to the 
standard parameters and requirements adopted by the Commission for 
speed test data submitted by a challenged party. The Bureaus will 
require that such measurements reflect device usage between the hours 
of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (midnight) local time and be collected 
after the publication of the initial eligibility map and within six 
months of the scheduled close of the response window. The Bureaus will 
not require challenged parties to submit all transmitter monitoring 
software data collected over the relevant time period due to the 
potential massive volume of data that could be collected over six 
months. The complete file specifications for respondent transmitter 
monitoring software data is detailed in Appendix D. The Bureaus caution 
that triangulated data with large inaccuracies may not be precise 
enough to constitute device-specific geolocated measurements because an 
engineer would not be able to certify to the accuracy of a particular 
speed test occurring at a particular location.
e. File Formats
    46. The Bureaus adopt the proposal that challenged parties submit 
speed test data in CSV format matching the respective file 
specifications. Challenged parties are required to submit a CSV file 
that contains entries for each speed test run by the challenged party 
to provide evidence in support of its response. A challenged party can 
create this file using a template provided in the USAC portal. The 
Bureaus will also require that data from transmitter monitoring 
software be submitted using this same template. A challenged party may 
leave the device IMEI and device ID fields blank when submitting data 
from transmitter monitoring software.
    47. The Bureaus also adopt the proposal to require challenged 
parties that file speed reduction data to file the data in CSV format 
matching the respective file specifications. This file can be created 
using a template provided in the USAC portal. The Bureaus will permit 
challenged parties to leave the device download speed data field blank 
if that provider's plan does not reduce speeds to a fixed value. In 
order to be useful when evaluating challenges, the Bureaus conclude 
that the data captured in the speed reduction data template must 
reflect when a particular device was known to have actually experienced 
reduced speeds.
    48. The Bureaus expect that speed reduction data would need to show 
that a specific speed test result was affected by a speed reduction--
not merely that the challenger was eligible for (i.e., potentially 
subject to) reduced speeds sometimes under the terms of its service 
plan (because of the amount of recent data usage or not). Accordingly, 
the Bureaus expect that, for speed data submitted by challengers that 
chose appropriate rate plans (those that allowed for testing of full 
network performance), a challenged party's data showing that a specific 
speed reduction occurred over a very limited time period, such as a few 
minutes, would be more probative of the validity of challenger speed 
tests taken during that time than data alleging that a speed reduction 
occurred over several hours or several days. If, however, the 
challenger chose an inappropriate rate plan or the challenger's data 
usage triggered a constant and extended speed reduction, for example by 
the challenger going over a high-speed data allotment in a billing 
period, the Bureaus expect that a challenged party's speed reduction 
data would be useful if it showed the entire period that challenger 
speed tests were taken under such conditions.
    49. The Bureaus' decision to require that response speed test data, 
transmitter monitoring software data, and speed reduction data be 
submitted in a certain format is consistent with the Commission's 
direction that the Bureaus implement ``any additional requirements that 
may be necessary or appropriate for data submitted by a challenged 
party in response to a challenge.'' To the extent response data 
requires further explanation that does not fit into the templates, a 
challenged party may additionally provide a descriptive narrative in a 
text box

[[Page 13424]]

accessible via the USAC portal; however, speed test data, transmitter 
monitoring data, or speed reduction data submitted by challenged 
parties must otherwise conform to the required templates in order to be 
considered.
    50. Additional details about the attributes and the file formats 
that we will require for respondents may be found in Appendix D.
4. Certifying a Response
a. Qualified Engineer Certification
    51. The Commission decided in the MF-II Challenge Process Order 
that all response evidence must be certified by a qualified engineer to 
be considered during the adjudication phase of the challenge process. 
The Bureaus again clarify that a qualified engineer may be an employee 
of the challenged party or a third-party vendor so long as the 
individual: (1) Possesses a sufficient degree of technical knowledge 
and experience to validate the accuracy of submitted data; and (2) has 
actual knowledge of the accuracy of the submitted data. For purposes of 
certification, a qualified engineer need not meet state professional 
licensing requirements, such as may be required for a licensed 
Professional Engineer, so long as the individual possesses the 
requisite technical knowledge, engineering training, and relevant 
experience to validate the accuracy of the submitted data. Using the 
Challenge Data Certification form in Attachment F, the qualified 
engineer shall certify under penalty of perjury that: (a) He/she has 
examined the information prepared for submission; and (b) all data and 
statements contained therein were generated in accordance with the 
parameters specified by the Commission and are true, accurate, and 
complete to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief. The 
Bureaus will not require a challenged party to submit an executed 
Challenge Data Certification form when it certifies a response, though 
the Bureaus reserve the right to request a copy of the form. The 
Bureaus caution challenged parties that they will not be legally 
capable of making the required response certification unless a 
qualified engineer has substantiated the response data by executing the 
Challenge Data Certification form. The challenged party must possess an 
executed Challenge Data Certification form in order to have all of the 
information it needs to certify a response. Persons making willful 
false statements in any part of a speed data submission may be subject 
to punishment by fine or imprisonment.
b. Challenged Party Certification
    52. Only those responses that have been certified by the close of 
the response window will be considered during the adjudication phase. A 
challenged party will be able to electronically certify its submitted 
response data for each challenged grid cell via the USAC portal. To 
certify a response, an authorized representative of the challenged 
party must: (1) Provide the name and title of the certifying engineer 
that substantiated the data; and (2) certify under penalty of perjury 
that: (a) The qualified engineer has examined the information 
submitted; and (b) the qualified engineer has certified that all data 
and statements contained in the submission were generated in accordance 
with the parameters specified by the Commission and are true, accurate, 
and complete to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and 
belief.
    53. During the response window, a challenged party will also be 
able to review, modify, and delete any certified response data it no 
longer wishes to submit, and will be required to re-certify any 
responses for which it submits additional or modified data or deletes 
data; however, any new or modified data must also be certified by a 
qualified engineer. A challenged party will not have an opportunity to 
amend submitted data, submit additional data, or certify any response 
after the response window has closed.

C. Adjudication of Challenges

1. Standard of Review
    54. As the Commission determined in the MF-II Challenge Process 
Order, the Bureaus will adjudicate the merits of certified challenges 
based upon a preponderance of the evidence standard of review, and the 
challenger will bear the burden of persuasion.
2. Announcing Results
    55. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to make available to challengers 
and respondents data about their challenges and responses through the 
USAC portal after Commission staff have adjudicated all challenges and 
responses. In particular, the Bureaus will provide to each challenger 
or respondent for each of the grid cells associated with their 
certified challenges or certified responses, respectively: (a) The 
outcome of the adjudication; (b) the evidence submitted and certified 
by all challengers; and (c) the evidence submitted and certified by all 
respondents. Additionally, the Bureaus will make public on the 
Commission's website, concurrent with the publication of the final 
eligibility map, the outcome of the adjudication for each challenged 
cell and the non-confidential components of the data submitted by 
challengers and respondents.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Congressional Review Act

    56. The Commission will send a copy of this Public Notice to 
Congress and the Government Accountability Office, pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    57. The MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice implements 
the information collection requirements adopted in the MF-II Challenge 
Process Order, 82 FR 42473, September 8, 2017, and does not contain any 
additional information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The Commission received 
PRA approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the 
information collection requirements related to the challenge process, 
as adopted in the MF-II Challenge Process Order. See 83 FR 6562 (Feb. 
14, 2018). Because this Public Notice does not adopt any additional 
information collection requirements beyond those adopted in the MF-II 
Challenge Process Order and approved by OMB, the MF-II Challenge 
Process Procedures Public Notice does not implicate the procedural 
requirements of the PRA or the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-198.

C. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    58. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission prepared Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analyses (IRFAs) in connection with the USF/ICC Transformation FNPRM 
(76 FR 78383, December 16, 2011), the 2014 CAF FNPRM (80 FR 4445, 
January 27, 2015), and the MF-II FNPRM (82 FR 13413, March 13, 2017) 
(collectively, MF-II FNPRMs). A Supplemental Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental IRFA) was also filed in the MF-II 
Challenge Process Comment Public Notice in this proceeding. The 
Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the MF-II 
FNPRMs and in the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice, 
including comments on the IRFAs and Supplemental IRFA. The Commission 
received three comments in response to the MF-II FNPRM IRFA. No 
comments were filed addressing the other IRFAs or

[[Page 13425]]

the Supplemental IRFA. The Commission included Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analyses (FRFAs) in connection with the 2014 CAF Order, the 
MF-II Order, and the MF-II Challenge Process Order (collectively, the 
MF-II Orders). This Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(Supplemental FRFA) supplements the FRFAs in the MF-II Orders to 
reflect the actions taken in the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures 
Public Notice and conforms to the RFA.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, This Public Notice
    59. The MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice 
establishes the parameters and procedures to implement the MF-II 
challenge process. Following the release of the MF-II Orders, the 
Commission released the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice. 
The MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice proposed and sought 
comment on specific parameters and procedures to implement the MF-II 
challenge process.
    60. More specifically, the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures 
Public Notice establishes the technical procedures for generating the 
initial eligible areas map and processing challenges or responses 
submitted by challengers and challenged parties, respectively. The MF-
II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice also establishes 
additional requirements and parameters, including file formats and 
specifications, for data submitted during the challenge process.
    61. Finally, the challenge procedures established in the MF-II 
Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice are designed to anticipate 
the challenges faced by small entities (e.g., governmental entities or 
small mobile service providers) in complying with the implementation of 
the Commission's rules and the Bureau's proposals. For example, the 
Commission will perform all geospatial data analysis on a uniform grid, 
which will remove the need for a challenger to submit a map of the 
area(s) it wishes to challenge on top of its evidence, reducing burdens 
on small entities. Additionally, the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures 
Public Notice adopts procedures to allow a challenged entity to submit 
evidence identifying devices that were subject to data speed 
regulations, alongside evidence from transmitter monitoring software 
and speed tests, which would allow for a small entity to more easily 
respond to a challenge. Challenged parties will also be given 30 days 
to review challenges and supporting data before the response window 
opens, further reducing the burden on small entities of responding to a 
challenge.
2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA
    62. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the 
proposed procedures and policies presented in the Supplemental IRFA.
3. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration
    63. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended 
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rule(s) as a result of those comments.
    64. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the 
proposed procedures in this proceeding.
4. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Business Entities to 
Which Procedures Will Apply
    65. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules adopted herein. The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
    66. FRFAs were incorporated into the MF-II Orders. In those 
analyses, the Commission described in detail the small entities that 
might be significantly affected. In the MF-II Challenge Process 
Procedures Public Notice, the Bureaus incorporate by reference the 
descriptions and estimates of the number of small entities from the 
previous FRFAs in the MF-II Orders.
5. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
    67. The data, information, and document collection required by the 
MF-II Orders, as described in the previous FRFAs and the SIRFA in the 
MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice in this proceeding, are 
hereby incorporated by reference. The MF-II Challenge Process 
Procedures Public Notice describes certain additional parameters for 
the data submitted by challengers and challenged parties during the 
challenge process. Specifically, the Bureaus require a challenger to 
submit all speed test measurements collected during the relevant time 
frame, including those that show speeds greater than or equal to 5 
Mbps. Each submitted speed test measurement must include: Signal 
strength and latency; the service provider's identity; the make and 
model of the device used (which must be from that provider's list of 
pre-approved handsets); the international mobile equipment identity 
(IMEI) of the tested device; the method of the test (i.e., hardware- or 
software-based drive test or non-drive test app-based test); if an app 
was used to conduct the measurement, the identity and version of the 
app; and the identity and location of the server used for speed and 
latency testing.
    68. If a challenged party chooses to submit its own speed test data 
in response to a challenge, the data must conform to the additional 
parameters that are required for challengers, except for the 
requirement to identify the service provider. A challenged party may 
also submit data identifying a particular device that a challenger used 
to conduct its speed tests as having been subjected to reduced speeds, 
along with the precise date and time the speed reductions were in 
effect on the challenger's device. If a challenged party chooses to 
submit data collected from transmitter monitoring software, the data 
should include geolocated, device-specific throughput measurements or 
other device-specific information (rather than generalized key 
performance indicator statistics for a cell-site). Measurements from 
submitted transmitter monitoring software data must conform to the 
standard parameters and requirements for speed test data submitted by a 
challenged party, and must include: The latitude and longitude to at 
least five decimals of the measured device; the date and time of the 
measurement; and signal strength, latency, and recorded speeds. The 
Bureaus also clarify that such geolocated data be accurate to within 
7.8 meters of the actual device location 95 percent of the time.
6. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    69. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its

[[Page 13426]]

proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives 
(among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing compliance or 
reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the 
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting 
requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of 
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
    70. The challenge procedures established in the MF-II Challenge 
Process Procedures Public Notice are intended to remove the need for a 
challenger to submit a map of the area(s) it wishes to challenge on top 
of its evidence by having the Commission perform all geospatial data 
analysis on a uniform grid, which will benefit small entities. The 
challenge procedures also allow a challenged entity to submit evidence 
identifying devices that were subject to data speed reductions, 
alongside evidence from transmitter monitoring software and speed 
tests, thereby minimizing the significant economic impact on small 
entities. Challenged parties will also be given 30 days to review 
challenges and supporting data before the response window opens. In 
addition, the Bureaus note that the challenge processes and procedures 
adopted in the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice will 
only apply to small entities who participate in the challenge process. 
The Bureaus also note that to the extent a challenged party is a small 
entity, since a challenged party is not required to respond to 
challenges within their service area(s) the processes and procedures 
associated with responding to challenges adopted in the MF-II Challenge 
Process Procedures Public Notice are only applicable should a small 
entity choose to submit responsive evidence.
7. Report to Congress
    71. The Commission will send a copy of the MF-II Challenge Process 
Procedures Public Notice, including this Supplemental FRFA, in a report 
to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the 
Commission will send a copy of the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures 
Public Notice, including this Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the MF-II Challenge Process 
Procedures Public Notice and Supplemental FRFA (or summaries thereof) 
will also be published in the Federal Register.

Federal Communications Commission.

Gary D. Michaels,
Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, WTB.
[FR Doc. 2018-06382 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P