Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Procedures To Identify and Resolve Location Discrepancies in Eligible Census Blocks Within Winning Bid Areas, 49040-49046 [2018-21091]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49040-49046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21091]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 18-929]


Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Procedures To 
Identify and Resolve Location Discrepancies in Eligible Census Blocks 
Within Winning Bid Areas

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on 
several proposals to implement a process for resolving location 
discrepancies at issue for Phase II auction support recipients.

DATES: Comments are due on or before October 29, 2018 and reply 
comments are due on or before November 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 10-90 
by the following method:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition 
Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Wireline 
Competition Bureau's document in WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 18-929, 
released September

[[Page 49041]]

10, 2018. The complete text of this document is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554 or at the following internet address: 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/wcb-seeks-comment-caf-phase-ii-location-discrepancy-procedures.

I. Introduction

    1. In this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 
seeks comment on several proposals to implement a process for resolving 
location discrepancies at issue for Phase II auction support 
recipients. Specifically, the Bureau seeks comment on approaches to 
identify and resolve apparent discrepancies between the number of 
model-determined funded locations that Phase II auction support 
recipients are expected to serve (funded locations) and the actual 
number of locations that support recipients can serve (actual 
locations). The Bureau undertakes this action pursuant to the 2018 
Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, 83 FR 15982, April 13, 2018, 
which directed the Bureau to implement a review process to evaluate 
requests by Phase II auction support recipients who might seek 
adjustments in defined deployment obligations in exchange for 
corresponding reductions in support in circumstances where there are 
not enough actual locations for the provider to serve.
    2. Pursuant to the process set forth by the Commission, the Bureau 
must: (1) Collect probative evidence of actual locations from those 
Phase II auction support recipients choosing to participate in this 
process (participants) (including evidence demonstrating that the 
participants could find no additional actual locations other than those 
identified with location data); (2) make all such evidence available 
for review by relevant stakeholders and specify the types of evidence 
that such stakeholders should submit to challenge such evidence; (3) 
adjudicate individual claims for relief based on a preponderance of the 
evidence standard; (4) issue an order when appropriate to reduce 
deployment obligations and authorized support (on a pro rata basis); 
and, (5) conduct future audits of evidence submitted by participants. 
While the Commission set some parameters for certain aspects of this 
process, it also directed the Bureau to adopt requirements and issue 
guidance necessary for implementation, consistent with prior Commission 
direction regarding funded location adjustments. The Commission 
directed the Bureau to ``release a public notice or order (following 
its issuance of a notice and opportunity for comment) detailing 
instructions, deadlines, and requirements for filing valid geolocation 
data and evidence for both [participants] and commenters.''

II. Discussion

    3. Definition of an Actual Location. The Bureau seeks comment on 
how it should define an actual location for purposes of this review 
process. In the CAM Inputs Order, 79 FR 29111, May 21, 2014, the Bureau 
defined funded locations as residential and small business locations 
and excluded enterprise locations assumed to be served with higher 
bandwidth dedicated fiber, such as community anchor institutions, 
certain large businesses, and wireless towers assumed to be served with 
higher bandwidth dedicated fiber. In the Phase II Auction 
Reconsideration Order, the Commission stressed that a CAM location is a 
residential housing unit or small business served with mass market 
services and rejected commenters' arguments in favor of a more 
expansive definition. In addition, a location need not be occupied when 
being reported as a served location, but it cannot be abandoned, 
derelict, condemned, or otherwise uninhabitable.
    4. In general, CAF support recipients cannot report unfinished 
residential or business locations or ongoing or future real estate 
developments as served locations in satisfaction of build-out 
requirements. Given that this review process, however, will provide the 
basis for a participant's deployment obligation over a 10-year support 
term, the Bureau seeks comment on whether actual locations should 
include prospective developments that have a reasonable certainty of 
coming into existence within the support term. The Bureau seeks comment 
on the potential evidentiary obstacles to implementing this 
modification. How might participants learn of such prospective 
developments and the number of future locations associated with them? 
Do development plans routinely indicate the number of residential and 
business units? Is such information available from local governments 
and authorities, and does the amount and type of information available 
from such entities vary to a degree that could provide an unfair 
advantage or disadvantage to participants based on their geographic 
areas? As an alternative, should the Bureau rely on relevant 
stakeholders to submit evidence of such locations in their submissions?
    5. Reliability and Validity of Data. In the Phase II Auction 
Reconsideration Order, the Commission required participants not only to 
submit location data but also to provide evidence demonstrating that 
they could not find any additional actual locations in their eligible 
areas within the state. In doing so, the Commission expressed concern 
that participants would otherwise report only ``cherry pick[ed]'' 
locations, i.e., the easiest and least expensive locations to serve, 
and omit all other locations. The Commission directed the Bureau to 
identify the information that must be submitted to fulfill this 
purpose. The Bureau expects that such information must demonstrate the 
completeness, reliability, and validity of the actual location data 
submitted by participants. Accordingly, the Bureau proposes that 
participants in this review process submit a description in narrative 
form of the methodologies used to identify structures within their 
eligible areas and distinguishing actual locations from other kinds of 
structures.
    6. The Bureau seeks comment on whether to require that participants 
use a particular method to identify the geocoordinates and addresses of 
actual locations or permit carriers to choose their method(s) and 
correct for inaccuracies. For purposes of reporting deployed locations, 
USAC has published guidance on three generally accepted methods of 
geolocation, i.e., (1) GPS in the field, (2) desktop geolocation using 
web-based maps and imagery, and (3) automated address geocoding 
(frequently reliant on third-party address data). Each of these methods 
will produce variable levels of accuracy in terms of identifying the 
specific situs of the location. For example, desktop geolocation and, 
to an even greater extent, automated address geocoding may produce 
interpolated geocoordinates and addresses that do not describe a situs 
with the required level of granularity to produce accurate results. 
Such inaccuracies, in turn, increase the likelihood that the list of 
actual locations produced by participants will exclude certain 
locations, such as those adjacent to ineligible areas or those that 
include multiple dwelling units (MDUs). However, the potential 
shortcomings of geolocation methods may be minimized through specific 
practices.
    7. The Bureau seeks comment on methodological and evidentiary 
standards necessary to ensure that participants have used geolocation 
method(s) consistently and comprehensively to accurately identify all 
actual locations in eligible areas within the state. How would such

[[Page 49042]]

standards differ if the Bureau were to allow any of the three 
geolocation methods or combinations of such methods? For example, 
should the Bureau require participants submitting location data based 
on GPS field research to also submit grid data, mileage receipts, 
weekly logs, or some other kind of evidence to demonstrate that they 
used GPS to identify every actual location? Should the Bureau require 
participants relying on desktop geolocation or automated address 
geocoding to use more than one application or source? Should the Bureau 
require such participants to disclose details about the application/
source data, such as how and when such data were collected? Should the 
Bureau require participants using such methods to test the reliability 
and validity of the source/application data when applied to their 
specific eligible areas? Should the Bureau require all participants 
(regardless of geolocation method) to submit photographic evidence 
demonstrating the reasons for excluding structures from their list? The 
Bureau seeks comment on these proposals.
    8. In the Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, the Commission 
explained that as part of this review process, ``[r]elevant 
stakeholders would have the opportunity to review and comment on the 
information [submitted by participants] and to identify other locations 
. . . .'' The Bureau seeks comment on how the Bureau should define 
``relevant stakeholders.'' Specifically, the Bureau proposes that state 
and local authorities and Tribal governments as representatives of 
individuals residing in supported areas be allowed to file comments as 
part of the process. Should the Bureau accept comments from individuals 
as well? Should the Bureau accept comments from potential customers of 
participants? If the Bureau were to adopt a broad definition of 
``relevant stakeholder'' that includes all potential customers, how 
does the Bureau verify that the commenter is a potential customer? 
Should the Bureau avoid collecting personally identifiable information 
(PII)? As further discussed below, would a protective order 
sufficiently protect participants from the premature disclosure and/or 
misuse of their data?
    9. The Bureau seeks comment on the evidence that must be submitted 
by relevant stakeholders to effectively rebut or refute the 
participant's contentions. The Bureau expects that stakeholders will 
identify specific locations that they assert are wrongfully omitted 
from the participant's list of actual locations. The Bureau proposes 
that stakeholders seeking to report specific locations omitted from the 
participant's list must submit the same kind of location evidence that 
the Bureau requires of participants, i.e., latitude and longitude 
coordinates and addresses (or geographic markers if addresses are 
unavailable), as well as some additional evidence supporting the 
existence and placement of the location. The Bureau seeks comment on 
other forms of evidence that could also prove the existence or situs of 
individual locations. For example, should the Commission accept billing 
statements, property records, images or pictures of houses at a 
specific address or intersection? Should the Bureau accept screenshots 
of houses from Google maps or other publicly available mapping 
services? How would the Bureau evaluate and weigh such evidence?
    10. The Bureau proposes to dismiss any challenge that lacks some 
evidentiary showing. The Bureau also proposes not to allow stakeholders 
to submit alternative evidence of locations based on public or private 
data sources that the stakeholder cannot conclusively demonstrate to be 
significantly more accurate than the recipient's data sources. The 
Bureau seeks comment on these proposals.
    11. The Bureau proposes that evidence of omitted locations from 
relevant stakeholders be submitted in a similar format to the data on 
actual locations submitted by Phase II auction support recipients. The 
Bureau intends to review the information submitted by relevant 
stakeholders and modify lists of actual locations as part of its final 
adjudicatory decision.
    12. HUBB Reporting of Location Evidence. The Bureau proposes that 
participants report tabular data on actual locations, including 
addresses and geographic coordinates. The Bureau proposes that 
participants submit such data in the HUBB or a similar web-based data 
submission application managed by USAC. There are several advantages to 
this approach. First, the technology used in the HUBB is designed to 
accept addresses and geographic coordinates for specific locations. 
Second, the HUBB provides certain data validations, including checks to 
ensure entries are not duplicates and are located within specific 
census blocks. Thus, the HUBB facilitates timely correction of data 
submission errors prior to the close of a filing deadline. Third, the 
Bureau and USAC have released specific guidance for the reporting of 
served locations, which may be adapted to the reporting of actual 
location data for purposes of this review process. Fourth, the use of 
the HUBB will help alleviate the burden associated with reporting data 
on served locations (which all Phase II auction support recipients will 
need to submit in future years) because such data should be readily 
convertible to the served location evidence. In this regard, while 
there is no specific requirement that participants deploy to their 
reported actual locations in future years, the Bureau expects that, in 
most instances and absent significant future demographic changes, there 
will be an overlap between actual locations and served locations. As 
further discussed below, this overlap should be useful for auditing 
purposes. Finally, the HUBB permits controlled access to data, which 
obviates the need to create a separate service for this purpose and 
limits potential delays associated with such a service. As discussed 
below, controlled access will also help the Bureau protect location 
data that may implicate privacy concerns.
    13. The Bureau seeks comment on these and other ways the web-based 
functionality may be used to facilitate the submission of actual 
location evidence and ways that the HUBB may be adapted to fulfill this 
purpose. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether participants may face 
specific obstacles or burdens in submitting location data 
electronically into the HUBB or a similar system.
    14. In the Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, the Commission 
requires participants to file actual location data ``within a year'' of 
the publication of the Phase II auction closing public notice. The 
Bureau proposes applying this deadline to all evidence that the Bureau 
ultimately requires of participants.
    15. The Bureau proposes to open a window, 14 days before this 
deadline and ending on the deadline, for participants to certify, under 
penalty of perjury, the truth and accuracy of their location data and 
associated petition. The certification will be mandatory and must be 
signed by an individual with relevant knowledge (such as an officer of 
the company), certifying under penalty of perjury that the participant 
has engaged in due diligence to verify statements and evidence 
presented in this challenge process and that such information is 
accurate to the best of the certifying party's knowledge and belief. By 
opening a filing window rather than permitting participants to certify 
their data and information at any time during the first year, the 
Bureau would help ensure that a participant's data reflects the most 
recent facts on the ground and that the participant does not omit new 
or prospective building developments

[[Page 49043]]

coming into being toward the end of the one-year time frame for 
compiling and submitting such evidence.
    16. Alternatively, the Bureau could permit certifications at any 
time prior to the final deadline but would also require participants to 
monitor their supported areas within the state, add any new locations 
(or potential developments) or remove any locations determined to be 
ineligible prior to the two-week time frame proposed above and 
recertify their data. The Bureau emphasizes that regardless of when 
participants submit their data and information, they will have a good 
faith obligation to amend or correct data that they later discover to 
be inaccurate or incomplete. Such obligation will extend until 
completion of the 10-year funding term. The Bureau seeks comment on 
these options.
    17. The Bureau proposes that it reviews the actual location 
evidence submitted by Phase II Auction support recipients and, within 
60 days of their filing deadline, announce prima facie cases for 
adjustment based on the submission of relevant and complete data. The 
Bureau proposes that relevant stakeholders will then have 90 days to 
submit evidence and rebuttals. Like the data and related filings of 
participants in this review process, any submission by a relevant 
stakeholder must be signed by an individual with relevant knowledge, 
certifying under penalty of perjury, that the information presented is 
accurate to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. Once this 90-
day timeframe expires, the participant will have 15 days to submit a 
reply. The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed timeframes by which 
relevant stakeholders must submit their evidence to challenge 
participant's data and by which participants may reply to such 
challenge. Specifically, the Bureau seeks comment on whether these 
proposed timeframes adequately serve our goal of providing a meaningful 
opportunity for challenge, while concluding this challenge process in a 
reasonable timeframe. The Bureau proposes that strict adherence to 
these deadlines is necessary to provide an adequate opportunity for 
relevant stakeholders and participants to contest data and findings.
    18. Consistent with standards of review adopted for similar review 
processes, the Commission adopted a preponderance of the evidence 
standard to evaluate the merits of participants' claims for adjustment 
of their defined deployment obligations. The Bureau also proposes that 
participants bear the burden of persuasion. Accordingly, if the Bureau 
finds that the participant has failed to demonstrate that it is more 
likely than not that the CAM-estimated number of funded locations do 
not reflect the facts on the ground, the Bureau will not modify the 
defined deployment obligation. The Bureau notes that placing the burden 
of persuasion on the participant encourages the participant to fully 
present its evidence and further tempers any incentive to ``cherry 
pick'' locations.
    19. The Commission has directed that, in circumstances where the 
Bureau determines that modification of the participant's number of 
funded locations is warranted, it must reduce the authorized support on 
a pro rata basis. As part of its adjudicatory order, the Bureau will 
re-authorize support at the new reduced amount. The Bureau proposes 
that, given the timing of this review process, if the participant has 
already been authorized to receive support, the Bureau will also order 
a reduction in future payments for the remainder of the support term 
proportionally to reflect the total amount of reduction. The Bureau 
also proposes to allow participants to promptly adjust their letters of 
credit to reflect the new authorized funding amount once the Bureau's 
order modifying the authorized support is issued. The Bureau seeks 
comment on these proposals.
    20. The Bureau notes that the Commission treats location data for 
served locations as non-confidential and has required the public 
disclosure of such information. The public interest in accessing these 
data to ensure transparency and oversight, however, is significantly 
greater than in accessing evidence of actual locations, particularly 
before the Bureau issues an order concluding its adjudication of the 
individual merits of a participant's claim. Further, unlike evidence of 
served locations, unverified lists of actual locations and related 
evidence may indirectly reveal future deployment plans or other 
information that could be used to the competitive disadvantage of 
participants. The responsive comments of relevant stakeholders could 
potentially link addresses or other information to specific 
individuals. Such data, if published, could raise important privacy 
concerns and trigger statutory protections against agency disclosures, 
such as outlined in the Privacy Act of 1974.
    21. The Bureau seeks comment on what steps it should take to ensure 
that privacy and competitive interests are not compromised. Should the 
Commission adopt a protective order to control stakeholders' use of 
participants' information pending completion of the review process? 
Should the Bureau require participants and/or relevant stakeholders to 
seek confidential treatment of their information pursuant to section 
0.459 of the Commission's rules or should the Bureau adopt a 
presumption that such information is confidential, at least until the 
adjudicatory process is complete? Should or must the Bureau review and 
aggregate this evidence and release it for public consumption after the 
Bureau adjudicates the request? Should or must the Bureau release such 
evidence and findings for all participants at the same time, or can it 
do so on a rolling basis as it resolves individual requests for relief? 
The Bureau seeks comment on these issues.
    22. Phase II auction support recipients, like all recipients of 
high-cost support, are subject to compliance audits and other 
investigations to ensure compliance with program rules and orders. As 
USF administrator, USAC has the authority and responsibility to audit 
USF payments. The Commission has designated the Managing Director as 
the agency official responsible for ensuring ``that systems for audit 
follow-up and resolution are documented and in place, that timely 
responses are made to all audit reports, and that corrective actions 
are taken.'' The Commission resolves contested audit recommendations 
and findings, either on appeal from the Bureau or directly, if the 
challenge raises novel questions of fact, law, or policy.
    23. In the Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, the Commission 
also specified that any data submitted by participants pursuant to this 
review process is subject to potential future audit. The Commission 
directed the Bureau to adopt parameters of such an audit process. 
Accordingly, the Bureau seeks comment on this audit process. 
Specifically, should the Bureau define circumstances that will trigger 
an audit, such as defaulting on deployment obligations in subsequent 
years? Should an audit be triggered if a participant frequently 
misreports served locations evidence? Should an audit be triggered if, 
at the end of the support term, the reported served locations differ 
significantly from the reported actual locations--for instance, if 30 
percent (or some higher percentage) of the reported served locations 
are not included on the actual locations list? Should the Bureau audit 
all participants within a set time frame, for instance, in the two 
years following any modification to a defined deployment obligation?
    24. Under section 54.320(b) of the Commission's rules, all 
recipients of

[[Page 49044]]

high-cost support must maintain all records required to demonstrate to 
auditors that the support received was consistent with the universal 
service high-cost program rules and must maintain such records for a 
minimum of 10 years from the receipt of funding. Are the current record 
retention requirements adequate to facilitate audits of participants? 
Are any additional measures necessary to ensure that participants 
retain and provide the relevant and complete documentation to auditors 
upon request?
    25. If, during the audit, it is discovered that the participant 
failed to report actual locations when it certified its data, what are 
the appropriate consequences? Should the Bureau retroactively require 
that the participant deploy to the CAM estimated number of locations 
despite the reduction in support? If the participant then defaults by 
failing to build to the CAM estimated number of locations, should the 
participant be required to refund support in accordance with default 
procedures? Should the Bureau treat the participant as if it has 
defaulted on its deployment obligations in total and seek recovery of 
all authorized support? Should consequences differ if it is determined 
that the participant intentionally omitted actual locations or was 
grossly negligent in researching locations? The Bureau notes that if it 
determines that the participant intentionally or negligently 
misrepresented actual locations, the filing may trigger possible 
forfeiture penalties.
    26. The Bureau seeks comment on these proposals and on any 
alternatives. If commenters believe different procedures would better 
serve the Commission's goals of granting Phase II auction support 
recipients relief from defined deployment obligations that may be 
impossible to fulfill (as opposed to merely difficult or more expensive 
to fulfill), and providing funding recipients with some certainty about 
their defined deployment obligations as they plan deployments for 
future years (without prematurely excluding ongoing developments), they 
should provide a detailed description of their preferred alternative. 
The Bureau welcomes suggested alternatives that minimize the impact of 
these proposals on small businesses, as well as comments regarding the 
cost and benefits of implementing these proposals.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act

    27. This document contains proposed modified information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it 
might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    28. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in this Public Notice. Written comments are requested on this 
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be 
filed by the deadlines for comments on the Public Notice. The 
Commission will send a copy of the Public Notice, including this IRFA, 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA). In addition, the Public Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) 
will be published in the Federal Register.
    29. The Bureau is implementing a process, adopted by the Commission 
in its Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, for the modification of 
defined deployment obligations where the number of locations within a 
funding recipient's bid areas within the state (actual locations) fall 
short of the CAM-estimated number of locations (funded locations). The 
Commission directed the Bureau to gather evidence of, actual locations 
from Phase II auction support recipients participating in this review 
process (participants), included addresses and geocoded data (actual 
location data) within one year of the release of the Phase II auction 
closing public notice as well as additional evidence, as specified by 
the Bureau, demonstrating no additional actual locations could be 
found; to enable relevant stakeholders to challenge such evidence and 
submit additional evidence of actual locations; to adjudicate 
participants' claims for relief based on a preponderance of the 
evidence standard; and, where such standard has been met, to reduce 
participants' obligations and support on a pro rata basis. The 
Commission also specified the data and information submitted by 
participants in support of their claims for relief are subject to 
future audit. The Commission directed the Bureau to adopt rules, 
requirements, deadlines, and other measures necessary to implement its 
review process after providing public notice and seeking public 
comment.\7\
    30. This Public Notice proposes that participants file actual 
location data in the High Cost Broadband Portal (HUBB) maintained by 
the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), and separately 
file a narrative petition detailing the reliability and validity of 
such data to demonstrate that no additional locations may be found. 
This Public Notice seeks comment on the various forms of evidence that 
should be considered for purposes of determining reliability and 
validity as well as the kinds of evidence that relevant stakeholders 
should submit to effectively challenge participants' evidence. The 
Bureau emphasizes that it will not consider assertions about actual 
locations that are offered without supporting evidence. The Bureau 
clarifies the Commission's one-year deadline for the submission of 
location data and proposes that participants file their associated 
petitions by this deadline. The Bureau also proposes specific deadlines 
for the filing of petitions by relevant stakeholders and the filing of 
replies. The Bureau proposes that both participants and relevant 
stakeholders certify, under penalty of perjury, the truth and accuracy 
of all such submissions. In addition, the Bureau seeks comment on 
various proposals relating to the adjudication of requests for support 
modifications and future auditing processes relating to participants' 
submissions.
    31. 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 rule revisions, if adopted. The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
    32. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not 
easily categorized at present. The Bureau therefore describes here, at 
the outset, three comprehensive small entity size

[[Page 49045]]

standards that could be directly affected herein. First, while there 
are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used 
in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the 
SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent 
business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small 
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States which 
translates to 28.8 million businesses.
    33. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small 
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits 
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
    34. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, towns, 
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a 
population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census Bureau data from 
the 2012 Census of Governments indicate that there were 90,056 local 
governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments 
and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number 
there were 37, 132 General purpose governments (county, municipal and 
town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,184 
Special purpose governments (independent school districts and special 
districts) with populations of less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census 
Bureau data for most types of governments in the local government 
category show that the majority of these governments have populations 
of less than 50,000. Based on this data the Bureau estimates that at 
least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the category of 
``small governmental jurisdictions.''
    35. In this Public Notice, the Bureau seeks public comment on 
procedures for implementing a review process for the modification of 
funding awarded under the Connect America Phase II auction. Certain 
proposals could result in additional reporting requirements.
    36. If the Bureau implements the Phase II challenge process 
articulated above, commenters, including small entities, wishing to 
participate would be required to comply with the listed reporting and 
evidentiary standards. This includes filing a challenge along with 
supporting evidence and serving a copy of the challenge on any 
challenged party within a specified timeframe.
    37. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its 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 and 
reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    38. The Public Notice seeks comment from all interested parties. 
The Commission is aware that some of the proposals under consideration 
may impact small entities. Small entities are encouraged to bring to 
the Commission's attention any specific concerns they may have with the 
proposals outlined in the Public Notice, and the Commission will 
consider alternatives that reduce the burden on small entities.
    39. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small 
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the Public 
Notice, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this 
proceeding. The reporting requirements in the Public Notice could have 
an impact on both small and large entities. The Commission believes 
that any impact of such requirements is outweighed by the accompanying 
public benefits. Further, these requirements are necessary to ensure 
that the statutory goals of Section 254 of the Act are met without 
waste, fraud, or abuse.
    40. In the Public Notice, the Commission seeks comment on several 
issues and measures that may apply to small entities in a unique 
fashion. Small entities may be more likely to seek relief from their 
obligations to serve the CAM-estimated number of funded locations. 
Small entities may also be more likely to challenge participants' 
requests for relief. The Bureau will consider comments from small 
entities as to whether a different standard should apply.
    41. Permit but Disclose Ex Parte Contact. For the purposes of the 
Commission's ex parte rules, information filed in this proceeding will 
be treated as initiating a permit-but-disclose proceeding under the 
Commission's rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a 
copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable.pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

IV. Filing Requirements

    42. Comments and Replies. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of 
the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS), https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    43. Paper Filings. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or 
messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class 
or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings submitted to the FCC 
must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     Hand or Messenger Delivery. All hand-delivered or 
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must 
be delivered to FCC

[[Page 49046]]

Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. 
All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or 
fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the 
building. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
     Commercial Overnight Mail. Commercial overnight mail 
(other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be 
sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service First-Class, Express, and Priority 
Mail. U.S. Postal Service mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, 
Washington DC 20554.
    44. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    45. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Nissa 
Laughner at (202) 418-1358 or [email protected], of the Wireline 
Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division.

Federal Communications Commission.
Ryan Palmer,
Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2018-21091 Filed 9-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P