Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission, 51315-51317 [2023-16590]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 148 (Thursday, August 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51315-51317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16590]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[OMB 3060-1202, OMB 3060-1279; FR ID 159845]


Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal 
Communications Commission

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 
and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the 
general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to 
comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested 
concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary 
for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, 
including whether the information shall have practical utility; the 
accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the 
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the 
information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees.

DATES: Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before October 2, 
2023. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find 
it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, 
you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email 
[email protected] and to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the 
information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control 
number. No person shall be subject to any penalty

[[Page 51316]]

for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the 
PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
control number.
    OMB Control Number: 3060-1202.
    Title: Improving 9-1-1 Reliability; Reliability and Continuity of 
Communications Networks, Including Broadband Technologies.
    Form Number: Not Applicable (annual on-line certification).
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Number of Respondents and Responses: 300 respondents; 305 
responses.
    Estimated Time per Response: 562 hours (average). Varies by 
respondent.
    Total Annual Burden: 168,651 hours.
    Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirement and 
recordkeeping requirement.
    Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. The statutory authority for this 
collection of information is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 
201(b), 214(d), 218, 251(e)(3), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 
309(a), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and 615c of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) & (o), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 
251(e)(3),301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 316, 332, 403, 
615a-1, and 615c.
    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.
    Needs and Uses: This is a revision of a currently approved 
information collection necessary to ensure that all Americans have 
access to reliable and resilient 911 communications, particularly in 
times of emergency, by requiring certain 911 service providers to 
certify implementation of key best practices or reasonable alternative 
measures. The information will be collected in the form of an 
electronically-filed, annual certification from each covered 911 
service provider, as described in the Commission's 2013 Report and 
Order, in which the provider will indicate whether it has implemented 
certain industry-backed best practices. Providers that are able to 
respond in the affirmative to all elements of the certification will be 
deemed to satisfy the ``reasonable measures'' requirement in Section 
9.19(b) of the Commission's rules. If a provider does not certify in 
the affirmative with respect to one or more elements of the 
certification, it must provide a brief explanation of what alternative 
measures it has taken, in light of the provider's particular facts and 
circumstances, to ensure reliable 911 service with respect to that 
element(s). Similarly, a service provider may also respond by 
demonstrating that a particular certification element is not applicable 
to its networks and must include a brief explanation of why the 
element(s) does not apply. Providers are also required to notify the 
Commission in writing within 60 days of completely ceasing operations 
as a covered 911 service provider.
    The information will be collected by the Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau, FCC, for review and analysis, to verify that covered 
911 service providers are taking reasonable measures to maintain 
reliable 911 service. In certain cases, based on the information 
included in the certifications and subsequent coordination with the 
provider, the Commission may require remedial action to correct 
vulnerabilities in a service provider's 911 network if it determines 
that (a) the service provider has not, in fact, adhered to the best 
practices incorporated in the FCC's rules, or (b) in the case of 
providers employing alternative measures, that those measures were not 
reasonably sufficient to mitigate the associated risks of failure in 
these key areas. The Commission delegated authority to the Bureau to 
review certification information and follow up with service providers 
as appropriate to address deficiencies revealed by the certification 
process.
    The purpose of the collection of this information is to verify that 
covered 911 service providers are taking reasonable measures such that 
their networks comply with accepted best practices, and that, in the 
event they are not able to certify adherence to specific best 
practices, that they are taking reasonable alternative measures. The 
Commission adopted these rules in light of widespread 911 outages 
during the June 2012 derecho storm in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic 
states, which revealed that multiple service providers did not take 
adequate precautions to maintain reliable service.
    OMB Control Number: 3060-1279.
    Title: Connect America Fund--Eligible Locations Adjustment Process 
(ELAP).
    Form Number: N/A.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit 
institutions, individuals or households, and state, local or tribal 
governments.
    Number of Respondents and Responses: 296 respondents; 962 
responses.
    Estimated Time per Response: 2-40 hours.
    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement.
    Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. Statutory authority for this 
information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 254.
    Total Annual Burden: 10,804 hours.
    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.
    Needs and Uses: This information collection addresses the 
requirements of a process (the eligible locations adjustment process 
(ELAP)) that the Commission used to facilitate the post-auction review 
of certain CAF Phase II Auction support recipients' defined deployment 
obligations (and associated support), on a state-by-state basis, in 
situations where the number of eligible locations within a state is 
less than the number of funded locations. Connect America Fund, WC 
Docket No. 10-90, Order, DA 23-117 (WCB 2023); Connect America Fund, WC 
Docket Nos. 10-90 et al., Order on Reconsideration, 33 FCC Rcd 1380, 
1390-92, paras. 23-28 (2018) (Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order); 
Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Order, 34 FCC Rcd 10395 (WCB 
2019) (adopting rules and requirements necessary to implement this 
process, consistent with the parameters set forth in the Phase II 
Auction Reconsideration Order and prior Commission guidance for 
adjusting defined deployment obligations) (ELAP Order). CAF Phase II 
Auction support recipients' participation in this process was 
voluntary.
    ELAP required the one-time collection of location information for 
eligible locations within the state where the participant sought an 
adjustment to its defined deployment obligation. Eligible locations 
included both locations that qualify for support (qualifying 
locations), which the ELAP participant was required to report, and any 
additional location(s) (prospective location(s)) within eligible areas 
of the state that the participant wanted to reserve as part of its 
defined deployment obligation. The total number of eligible locations 
reported by the participant could not exceed the participant's defined 
deployment obligation for the state.
    In addition, ELAP participants had to submit a description of the 
method(s) used to identify all qualifying locations, as well as some 
supporting evidence, such as copies of public records, aerial 
photography, location information for non-eligible locations, or 
similar evidence. Participants had to certify the truth and accuracy of 
this information.
    The Bureau announced which participants had met their prima facie 
evidentiary standard, and the Universal

[[Page 51317]]

Service Administrative Company (USAC) used certain location information 
(address, geocoordinates, number of units) filed by these participants 
to populate a publicly available map (public ELAP Map), which was 
removed from public inspection at the conclusion of the ELAP process. 
WCB Announces CAF Phase II Support Recipients Meeting Standards for 
Continuing with the Eligible Locations Adjustment Process; the Opening 
of the Stakeholder Registration Period; Extension of Deadline for 
Stakeholders to File Challenges; Identification of Potentially Affected 
Tribal Authorities, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 
16493, 16494 (WCB 2021).
    Other interested parties deemed eligible to participate in ELAP 
(stakeholders) had the opportunity to challenge the accuracy and 
completeness of any relevant participant's eligible location 
information, although none did. To file such a challenge, stakeholders 
were required to submit alternative location information (of the same 
kind and in the same format as required of the participant), a brief 
description of the methods used to identify the location as an eligible 
location, and supporting evidence. Parties eligible to participate as 
stakeholders included government entities (state, local, and Tribal) as 
well as individuals or non-governmental entities with a legitimate and 
verifiable interest in ensuring broadband service in the relevant areas 
but excluded any entity or individual with a controlling interest in a 
competitor of the participant(s) being challenged.
    The Bureau committed to using a third-party commercial verifier to 
confirm the eligibility of any stakeholder who challenged a 
participant's location information. The Bureau required certification 
that the stakeholder (exclusive of governmental entities) did not hold 
a controlling interest in a direct competitor of the relevant 
participant. The Bureau also separately gathered certain limited 
information about these stakeholders (e.g., name and contact 
information).
    All ELAP information was filed and is maintained in a new module 
within the High-Cost Universal Service Broadband Portal (HUBB) (OMB 
Control No. 3060-1228). The module had integrated instructions and 
guidance for submitting information. This module incorporated several 
features similar to those associated with the reporting of deployed 
location information in the HUBB. For example, the module had an 
automated validation system that generated error messages when the 
location information submitted by ELAP parties failed to meet reporting 
parameters (such as redundancies, required file type) as specified in 
the ELAP Order. The module also generated notices where correction, 
supplementation, or redaction of information is necessary. Participants 
and stakeholders could pre-file information and correct, update, add, 
or delete information prior to their respective filing deadline.
    Unlike deployed location information collected pursuant to OMB 
Control No. 3060-1228, all ELAP information, including the description 
of methods and supporting documentation as well as location data, 
except the location data published in the public ELAP Map, has been and 
will continue to be treated as presumptively confidential.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-16590 Filed 8-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P