83 FR 12755 - Connect America Fund-Alaska Plan
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 57 (March 23, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 57 (March 23, 2018)
| Page Range | 12755-12758 | |
| FR Document | 2018-05881 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 57 (Friday, March 23, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 12755-12758] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-05881] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [WC Docket No. 16-271; DA 18-197] Connect America Fund--Alaska Plan AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, grant in part and deny in part the Alaska Telephone Association's Petition for Reconsideration of the Bureaus' Map Instructions PN and provide clarification regarding Alaska Plan carriers' map data filing obligations (map collection). DATES: Applicable date announcement: July 1, 2018 filing date. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jesse Jachman, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order on Reconsideration in WC Docket No. 16-271; DA 18-197, adopted on February 28, 2018 and released on February 28, 2018. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, or at the following internet address: https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0228/DA-18-197A1.pdf. I. Introduction 1. In this Order, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) (collectively the Bureaus), grant in part and deny in part the Alaska Telephone Association's (ATA) Petition for Reconsideration of the Bureaus' Map Instructions PN and provide clarification regarding Alaska Plan carriers' map data filing obligations (map collection). The Bureaus grant the Petition in part with respect to the required data accuracy standard for the [[Page 12756]] map collection due to be filed in 2018 and extend the March 1, 2018 submission deadline until July 1, 2018. The Bureaus also provide clarification regarding the data to be filed regarding ``community anchor institutions'' (CAI or anchor institutions). The Petition is denied in all other respects. II. Discussion 2. The Bureaus deny ATA's Petition with respect to its request for the Bureaus to largely forgo the collection of cell-site backhaul and CAI data. Therefore, carriers must submit cell sites and CAIs with their associated links and update that data on a yearly basis as described in the following. 3. As an initial matter, the Bureaus conclude that ATA's narrow interpretation of the scope of the initial map collection is contrary to the most reasonable reading of the relevant Commission rule, section 54.316(a)(6). ATA does not address the meaning of this rule in its Petition. The first sentence of that rule does not specifically restrict the map collection to ``middle-mile'' or ``backhaul'' facilities and states that carriers ``shall submit fiber network maps or microwave network maps covering eligible areas.'' The language in the rule's second sentence, by its terms, states that carriers should provide map updates for ``middle-mile'' facilities. The rule language should be read in the context of the Alaska Plan Order, 81 FR 69696, October 7, 2016 and its discussion of the facilities that may affect carriers' ability to provide 10/1 Mbps service to end-users. Because the Alaska Plan Order uses multiple terms to describe such facilities, and, as explained in the following, the presence and quality of cell- site backhaul and connections to many CAIs do in fact affect carriers' ability to meet their current and future commitments over last-mile facilities, the Commission intended the rule requiring the submission of ``fiber network maps or microwave network maps'' and ``middle mile'' data to be read broadly to include cell-site backhaul and CAIs. 4. The Bureaus note that the WTB also has the authority to collect this same data upon request regardless of whether those facilities fall within the scope of the map collection in section 54.316(a)(6). Specifically, the WTB may request ``additional data'' regarding facilities relevant to ``determining whether or not [participating mobile carriers] meet their five- and 10-year commitments.'' Carriers' performance commitments are broken down and differentiated by the type of facilities (satellite, fiber, fixed wireless) supporting the committed speed and technology (e.g., LTE) of the last-mile connections serving particular end-user populations. Information regarding the location of cell-site backhaul, CAIs and associated links may be collected by the WTB upon request because they are necessary to determining whether carriers' differentiated commitments are or could be met. 5. Cell-Site Backhaul. Notwithstanding the obligation of carriers to submit cell-site backhaul data pursuant to the plain meaning of section 54.316(a)(6), ATA's position that the map collection is restricted to ``middle-mile'' facilities as defined in the CAM rests on an incorrect reading of the Alaska Plan Order. The Alaska Plan Order does not, as ATA argues, define ``middle-mile'' and/or ``backhaul'' to mean solely the connection between central offices. Rather, these terms are used to describe the entire connection between the last mile and internet gateway. A cell-site backhaul facility is a subset of this connection. 6. The Commission adopted a more expansive meaning of these terms in the Alaska Plan Order to enable it to identify the ``weak-links'' in carriers' networks that affect carriers' current and future commitments. As noted in the OBI Technical Paper #1 that ATA cites, cell-site backhaul and connections between central offices ``can quickly become the choke point'' and ``adequate [cell-site] backhaul is one of the key drivers for providing wireless broadband.'' The Bureaus agree with ATA that high-capacity connections between central offices are relevant to an assessment of whether carriers can meet their commitments to end-users within the exchanges served by those central offices. Such high capacity connections are not, however, sufficient for such an assessment. 7. ATA also does not explain why cell-site backhaul should be considered ``last mile'' and therefore excluded from the collection. Indeed, as ATA acknowledges, the ordinary meaning of ``backhaul,'' in the wireless context refers to the ``connections that link a mobile wireless service provider's cell sites to the mobile switching centers . . . .'' On the other hand, a ``last mile'' facility is the connection from the end-user's handset or terminal to the ``first point of aggregation,'' such as a ``wireless tower location.'' The Map Instructions do not require the submission of the ``last-mile'' wireless end-users' location data. 8. The Alaska Plan Order requirement for carriers to submit data regarding facilities that lie between the ``last mile'' and the ``internet gateway'' is also consistent with the logical structure of the Alaska Plan Order itself. The Alaska Plan Order describes carriers' networks as a three-part model. Specifically, the Alaska Plan Order separately describes the (1) ``last mile''--reflected in the bandwidth and price commitments provided to consumers via wired and wireless facilities and, for wireless commitments, the last-mile wireless technology to be deployed, such as LTE--(2) ``middle mile'' and/or ``backhaul'' facilities which connect last mile facilities to the internet gateway and affect the ability of the carrier to meet its last-mile commitments; and (3) the internet gateway and the internet beyond. Under this three-part model, network components other than (1) or (3) and which can affect the ability of the carrier to meet its last mile commitments are (2): ``middle mile'' and/or ``backhaul.'' As explained, because cell-site backhaul is not considered ``last mile'' for purposes of this map filing requirement and is clearly not the ``internet gateway,'' it must be ``middle mile'' and/or ``backhaul.'' 9. This broad meaning of ``middle mile'' and ``backhaul'' is also consistent with the common understanding of these terms in the wireless industry and has been adopted by the Petitioner in other contexts. For example, ATA member GCI, in providing a cost model for wireless facilities in Alaska, used the term ``backhaul'' to describe both (1) ``cell-site backhaul'' and (2) the connection to central ``hubs'' in three Alaskan cities. In that instance, GCI stated that the quality of the last-mile connection is dependent on the robustness of both (1) and (2) and argued that the cost of upgrading both segments is a barrier to providing higher speed last-mile services to Alaskan end-users. 10. The Bureaus grant the Petition in part to the extent it seeks relief from the March 1, 2018 deadline, and the 7.6-meter accuracy requirement. By providing this relief, the Bureaus allow carriers limited flexibility and time to submit data in a way that takes into consideration the particular challenges carriers in Alaska face (e.g., difficult seasonal weather) while also ensuring the Commission is provided with the data it required for implementing the Plan. The Bureaus also clarify the obligation to report data with respect to CAIs. The Petition is denied in all other respects. 11. Deadline Extension. The Bureaus grant the Petition to the extent that it seeks a deadline extension and extend the filing deadline for the initial map data submission from March 1, 2018, to [[Page 12757]] July 1, 2018. On February 1, 2018, the Office of Management and Budget approved the collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and the rules became effective on February 15, 2018. The Bureaus find that an extension of the deadline under section 54.316 is appropriate in this case because a July 1, 2018 deadline will ensure that carriers will have sufficient time following the recent PRA approval to finalize any data submitted into the High Cost Universal Service Broadband (HUBB) portal and aligns with the Form 481 filing deadline. Additionally, carriers are submitting middle-mile data to the HUBB portal for the first time, and carriers and USAC may need additional time to address any problems or concerns that may arise at the time of filing. This extension will also allow carriers additional time to gather as accurate data as possible in the first filing cycle. Alaska Plan participants will now have nearly ten months of preparation time to gather and submit the data from the release of the initial Map Instructions. This extension does not affect the filing deadline in subsequent years or the March 1, 2018 deadline for the submission of Alaska wireline location data. 12. Accuracy. The Bureaus grant in part and deny in part ATA's request to collect and submit data at a lower level of accuracy than 7.6 meters. Specifically, the Bureaus permit carriers to collect and submit ``estimated'' data to within 50 meters of accuracy for the filing due by July 1, 2018 where data at 7.6 meters is unavailable. This relief is appropriate given the recent effective date of the data collection in February combined with the challenging weather conditions in Alaska, and the fact that ``estimated'' data (in the limited cases where 7.6-meter data is unavailable) for the 2018 submission will not inhibit efforts of the Bureaus to implement the Plan. 13. The Bureaus have authority to set an accuracy threshold in the instructions. Indeed, ATA submitted its own, alternative 1000-meter threshold. The Commission delegated to the Bureaus the authority to provide a common format for map submissions, which necessarily includes a mutually understood accuracy standard. Maps cannot be properly evaluated without a mutually understood and agreed upon accuracy standard. As explained in the following, both the 50-meter and 7.6- meter accuracy standards meet that test. 14. The Bureaus conclude that, on balance, the overall benefit of the data accuracy requirements, as modified here, outweighs any burden on carriers. While the Bureaus need to and will, under these modified instructions, obtain data accurate to 7.6 meters by 2019, the relief the Bureaus provide will greatly reduce carriers' burden to collect that data. A one-year delay in providing data at a 7.6-meter level of accuracy should allow ATA members to collect and submit estimated data using desktop software while largely allowing the collection of more accurate data through site visits as necessary in the normal course of business. Carrier estimated data, combined with 7.6-meter data already in the carriers' possession, are sufficient for the Bureaus to assess carriers' compliance, infrastructure limitations, and progress at the initial stages of the first five-year plan. 15. For the filings due in 2018, carriers may provide an initial ``estimate'' for nodes and links based on data generated by generally available desktop software. Where a carrier lacks sufficient internal digital data to comply with the 7.6-meter accuracy requirement for all or a portion of its filed network facilities, that carrier may submit estimated data at least as accurate as Google Earth (i.e., accurate to within 50 meters) and denote as estimates the relevant portion(s) of the network submitted. Where the carrier chooses to provide an estimate, it must certify in the HUBB portal, at the time of filing, that it does not possess data meeting the 7.6-meter requirement. Carriers must update any such estimated data no later than their filing due March 1, 2019, with data meeting the 7.6-meter requirement. Similarly, any new data submitted starting in March 1, 2019 (i.e., for network facilities deployed in 2018) and in subsequent filing years must meet the 7.6-meter accuracy requirement. If a carrier currently has internal digital data in its possession for facilities deployed in 2017 or earlier that meet the accuracy requirement, it must file that data by July 1, 2018. 16. The Bureaus reject ATA's contention that information at the 7.6-meter level of accuracy is not necessary for the purposes of the map collection. The Bureaus' review of revised performance plans in 2020 alongside maps accurate to 7.6 meters provides an important backstop to ensure carriers maximize their commitments and service levels to Alaskans. The 7.6-meter standard is critical for obtaining a complete picture of facilities' locations in relation to other existing data. It is a commonly-used mapping standard for Commission high-cost data, is necessary for the Bureaus to maintain compatibility with census boundary and road data for the census-block based Alaska Plan, and will allow the Bureau to fully identify duplicative facilities. 17. Even in the absence of the relief provided here, the Bureaus reject ATA's argument that the burden of the 7.6-meter standard outweighs the benefit because ATA has not adequately demonstrated the scope of its burden to collect such information. ATA's evidence that the 7.6-meter level of accuracy is too burdensome largely relies on two carrier-employee declarations, stating that not all of their data is stored at the 7.6-meter accuracy level. ATA also notes that the FAA requires collection of some cell tower information at a 6.1 meter accuracy level. Moreover, all of Alaska has wide area augmentation system (WAAS) coverage 100 percent of the time with the exception of the southwestern most Aleutian Islands, which has this coverage at least 95 percent of the time, allowing use by non-expert personnel of inexpensive handheld devices accurate up to three meters. 18. For similar reasons, the Bureaus also reject ATA's counter- proposal that the Bureaus collect data at the 1000-meter accuracy level. ATA's proposed standard is far too inaccurate for the map data collection, as two filers filing the same node could show that node to be more than a mile apart from each other, which could significantly affect Bureaus' understanding of which census blocks have what facilities and what facilities are duplicates. Moreover, as noted, generally available desktop applications provide sufficient accuracy to meet the 50-meter estimate standard described above. 19. Community Anchor Institutions. The Bureaus grant the Petition in part to clarify the collection of CAI data. The Bureaus clarify that carriers need only submit those CAIs and associated links that fall within the statutory definition of a CAI. Furthermore, in the initial collection due July 1, 2018, carriers must submit all CAIs served by fiber or wireless connections. In subsequent years, carriers must submit any additional CAIs and associated links served by fiber or wireless connections that are being used or will be used to support their service in eligible areas. To the extent that CAI data does not fall under these limiting criteria, it is not reportable. The Bureaus otherwise deny the Petition with respect to ATA's request to limit the submission of CAI data. 20. First, the Bureaus grant the Petition in part to clarify that reportable CAIs are limited to those CAIs that fall within the definition of CAI in 47 U.S.C. 1305(b)(3)(A) that the Commission adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation [[Page 12758]] Order, 76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011. As such, this data collection is limited to the type of CAIs that carriers would report pursuant to 47 CFR 54.313(f)(1)(ii). Because rate-of-return carriers are already reporting the addresses of many of these CAIs on their FCC Form 481, carriers may face a reduced burden when submitting latitude and longitude of these same CAIs and the links connecting these institutions to other nodes in their networks for mapping purposes. 21. Second, consistent with the Alaska Plan Order, the Bureaus make clear that in the initial collection, carriers must submit data regarding any CAIs served by fiber or wireless connections. This limitation is consistent with the plain language of section 54.316(a)(6), which states that Alaska Plan participants ``shall submit fiber network maps or microwave network maps covering eligible areas'' for the purpose of tracking carriers' access to these facilities that would allow them to provide 10/1 Mbps for all Alaskans. In subsequent years, carriers must submit CAIs served by connections that ``are or will be used'' to support service in their eligible areas. This would include, at a minimum, those instances where the carrier has actual plans to use the CAI and links to extend the network. CAIs served by connections that ``are or will be used'' in this manner are in fact ``middle mile'' and/or ``backhaul'' within the meaning of the Alaska Plan Order and are therefore subject to collection. CAIs connected to high-capacity links may be used to expand service to underserved and unserved communities. Consequently, information regarding CAIs connected by such facilities is necessary for the Commission to understand whether adequate facilities exist to support additional last-mile connections and for the evaluation of carriers' performance-- consistent with the purpose of the map collection. 22. The Bureaus deny ATA's Petition to the extent it seeks to exclude the reporting of CAIs which meet these criteria. ATA argues that all CAIs are ``last-mile'' facilities and therefore should not be part of the map collection except in limited circumstances. ATA's position is not consistent with the Alaska Plan Order. ATA argues that the Bureaus' reliance on aggregation points to justify reporting some nodes ``proves too much'' because a ``home's or business's Wi-Fi router is an initial aggregation point.'' But ATA's argument contravenes its own cited precedent, which separates the network based on points of traffic aggregation with similar network demand. In many instances, CAIs' position in carriers' network architecture is more akin to wireless towers aggregating community-wide traffic than a last-mile home or smartphone user. Indeed, ATA provides a conceptual network map in its Petition equating schools with wireless towers. This model and the ACAM are consistent with the understanding that both a CAI and a wireless tower can and do aggregate community-wide multi-user traffic. In contrast, a home or small business Wi-Fi router typically serves a single end-user location with only a handful of end-users, and it does not aggregate community-wide multi-user traffic. 23. In light of the foregoing discussion, the Bureaus reject ATA's counter-proposal to limit the collection of nodes to cell towers and CAIs that are outside of the exchange but connect to a central office in another exchange. In part because of the vast size of many exchanges in Alaska, knowing whether the central office in an exchange is fiber- fed does not provide a sufficiently granular picture of the potential middle-mile ``weak points'' or capabilities that could affect the ability of a carrier to meet its commitments or future commitments. Federal Communications Commission. Kris A. Monteith, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. [FR Doc. 2018-05881 Filed 3-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2018 / Notices 12755
assess risks to listed species from additional data and analysis, including Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.
registered uses of these pesticides. consideration of the best scientific and Dated: March 15, 2018.
These BEs were completed in commercial data available on use and Yu-Ting Guilaran,
accordance with the joint Interim usage information. On February 21, Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division,
Approaches developed to implement 2018, EPA sent NMFS a letter requesting Office of Pesticide Programs.
the recommendations of the April 2013 informal consultation on the same
[FR Doc. 2018–06026 Filed 3–22–18; 8:45 am]
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) action. EPA will use the information
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
report, Assessing Risks to Endangered and analysis received and developed in
and Threatened Species from Pesticides. the course of the informal consultation
The NAS report outlined to inform whether formal reinitiation of
recommendations on specific scientific consultation on the BiOp is appropriate. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
and technical issues related to the COMMISSION
C. Public Involvement Process
development of pesticide risk [WC Docket No. 16–271; DA 18–197]
assessments that EPA and the FWS and As a result of the U.S. District Court
NMFS must conduct to meet their Western District of Washington at Connect America Fund—Alaska Plan
obligations under the ESA. In November Seattle’s failure to extend NMFS’s court-
2013, the Services, EPA, and the U.S. ordered deadline, NMFS issued the final AGENCY: Federal Communications
Department of Agriculture (USDA) BiOp without having received input Commission.
released a white paper containing a from the public and applicants ACTION: Notice.
summary of their joint Interim (pesticide registrants), which is at odds
with EPA’s 2013 public stakeholder SUMMARY: In this document, the
Approaches for assessing risks to listed
process for ESA consultations—an open Wireline Competition Bureau and
species from pesticides. Details of the
and transparent process supported by Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
joint Interim Approaches are contained
the Services, EPA, and USDA. As grant in part and deny in part the Alaska
in the November 1, 2013 white paper
explained in the 2013 public Telephone Association’s Petition for
Interim Approaches for National-Level
stakeholder document, stakeholder Reconsideration of the Bureaus’ Map
Pesticide Endangered Species Act
input is critical to the development and Instructions PN and provide
Assessments Based on the
evaluation of any measures EPA may clarification regarding Alaska Plan
Recommendations of the National
implement to address risks to listed carriers’ map data filing obligations
Academy of Sciences April 2013 Report.
species and designated critical habitat. (map collection).
The methods developed as part of the
joint Interim Approaches will continue Accordingly, EPA is seeking comment DATES: Applicable date announcement:
to be vetted before EPA utilizes these on the BiOp to receive stakeholder and July 1, 2018 filing date.
methods broadly to meet its ESA public input prior to either reinitiating ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
obligations. Additional information on consultation on the BiOp or Commission, 445 12th Street SW,
endangered species risk assessment and implementing the measures of BiOp. Washington, DC 20554.
the NAS report recommendations are EPA will evaluate the input received in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
available at https://www.epa.gov/ determining how it will proceed with
Jesse Jachman, Wireline Competition
endangered-species/implementing-nas- respect to the final BiOp.
Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or TTY: (202)
report-recommendations-ecological- D. Public Comments Sought 418–0484.
risk-assessment-endangered-and. The BiOp for chlorpyrifos, diazinon, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
On December 29, 2017, in response to and malathion is being included in the summary of the Commission’s Order on
a court-ordered deadline in the case of docket (EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0141) to Reconsideration in WC Docket No. 16–
Nw. Coal. for Alternatives to Pesticides, seek input on NMFS’s jeopardy 271; DA 18–197, adopted on February
et al. v. NMFS, Stipulation and Order, findings, RPMs and RPAs, and to solicit 28, 2018 and released on February 28,
Dkt. 50, No. 07–1791–RSL (D. Wash. additional use and usage information. 2018. The full text of this document is
May 21, 2014), NMFS transmitted to Specifically: available for public inspection during
EPA its final BiOp regarding the effects 1. Comments on the scientific regular business hours in the FCC
of the registration review under section approaches and data sources used to Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445
3 of FIFRA of these pesticides on listed support the BiOp and reach 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554,
species. The BiOp addressed the effects determinations for the listed species and or at the following internet address:
of these three pesticides on 77 listed critical habitat. https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_
species and 50 designated critical 2. Comments on the RPAs and RPMs. Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0228/
habitats and, in sum, 38 different Can they be reasonably implemented? If DA-18-197A1.pdf.
species would likely be jeopardized not, describe why not. Are there
with extinction and 37 critical habitat I. Introduction
different measures that may provide
units would be destroyed or adversely equivalent protection to the ones in the 1. In this Order, the Wireline
modified. NMFS had sought from the BiOp but result in less impact to Competition Bureau (WCB) and
court, but was not provided, additional pesticide users? Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
time to complete the BiOp. On January 3. Comments on national- and state- (WTB) (collectively the Bureaus), grant
8, 2018, EPA confirmed receipt of the level use and usage data and in part and deny in part the Alaska
BiOp and informed NMFS of EPA’s information. In particular, EPA is Telephone Association’s (ATA) Petition
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
intention to reinitiate informal seeking usage data and information for for Reconsideration of the Bureaus’ Map
consultation on the BiOp so that the non-agricultural use sites (e.g., Instructions PN and provide
consultation on the pesticides could be nurseries, managed forests, pasture, clarification regarding Alaska Plan
informed by (1) input from stakeholders, rights-of-way, golf courses, and wide- carriers’ map data filing obligations
(2) further interagency discussion and area mosquito control). If possible, (map collection). The Bureaus grant the
agreement on the jeopardy provide sources of data and information Petition in part with respect to the
determination interim methods, and (3) that should be considered. required data accuracy standard for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:54 Mar 22, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_12812/page/1.svg)
![12756 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2018 / Notices
map collection due to be filed in 2018 supporting the committed speed and consistent with the logical structure of
and extend the March 1, 2018 technology (e.g., LTE) of the last-mile the Alaska Plan Order itself. The Alaska
submission deadline until July 1, 2018. connections serving particular end-user Plan Order describes carriers’ networks
The Bureaus also provide clarification populations. Information regarding the as a three-part model. Specifically, the
regarding the data to be filed regarding location of cell-site backhaul, CAIs and Alaska Plan Order separately describes
‘‘community anchor institutions’’ (CAI associated links may be collected by the the (1) ‘‘last mile’’—reflected in the
or anchor institutions). The Petition is WTB upon request because they are bandwidth and price commitments
denied in all other respects. necessary to determining whether provided to consumers via wired and
carriers’ differentiated commitments are wireless facilities and, for wireless
II. Discussion
or could be met. commitments, the last-mile wireless
2. The Bureaus deny ATA’s Petition 5. Cell-Site Backhaul. technology to be deployed, such as
with respect to its request for the Notwithstanding the obligation of LTE—(2) ‘‘middle mile’’ and/or
Bureaus to largely forgo the collection of carriers to submit cell-site backhaul data ‘‘backhaul’’ facilities which connect last
cell-site backhaul and CAI data. pursuant to the plain meaning of section mile facilities to the internet gateway
Therefore, carriers must submit cell 54.316(a)(6), ATA’s position that the and affect the ability of the carrier to
sites and CAIs with their associated map collection is restricted to ‘‘middle- meet its last-mile commitments; and (3)
links and update that data on a yearly mile’’ facilities as defined in the CAM the internet gateway and the internet
basis as described in the following. rests on an incorrect reading of the beyond. Under this three-part model,
3. As an initial matter, the Bureaus Alaska Plan Order. The Alaska Plan network components other than (1) or
conclude that ATA’s narrow Order does not, as ATA argues, define (3) and which can affect the ability of
interpretation of the scope of the initial ‘‘middle-mile’’ and/or ‘‘backhaul’’ to the carrier to meet its last mile
map collection is contrary to the most mean solely the connection between commitments are (2): ‘‘middle mile’’
reasonable reading of the relevant central offices. Rather, these terms are and/or ‘‘backhaul.’’ As explained,
Commission rule, section 54.316(a)(6). used to describe the entire connection because cell-site backhaul is not
ATA does not address the meaning of between the last mile and internet considered ‘‘last mile’’ for purposes of
this rule in its Petition. The first gateway. A cell-site backhaul facility is this map filing requirement and is
sentence of that rule does not a subset of this connection. clearly not the ‘‘internet gateway,’’ it
specifically restrict the map collection 6. The Commission adopted a more must be ‘‘middle mile’’ and/or
to ‘‘middle-mile’’ or ‘‘backhaul’’ expansive meaning of these terms in the ‘‘backhaul.’’
facilities and states that carriers ‘‘shall Alaska Plan Order to enable it to 9. This broad meaning of ‘‘middle
submit fiber network maps or identify the ‘‘weak-links’’ in carriers’ mile’’ and ‘‘backhaul’’ is also consistent
microwave network maps covering networks that affect carriers’ current and with the common understanding of
eligible areas.’’ The language in the future commitments. As noted in the these terms in the wireless industry and
rule’s second sentence, by its terms, OBI Technical Paper #1 that ATA cites, has been adopted by the Petitioner in
states that carriers should provide map cell-site backhaul and connections other contexts. For example, ATA
updates for ‘‘middle-mile’’ facilities. between central offices ‘‘can quickly member GCI, in providing a cost model
The rule language should be read in the become the choke point’’ and ‘‘adequate for wireless facilities in Alaska, used the
context of the Alaska Plan Order, 81 FR [cell-site] backhaul is one of the key term ‘‘backhaul’’ to describe both (1)
69696, October 7, 2016 and its drivers for providing wireless ‘‘cell-site backhaul’’ and (2) the
discussion of the facilities that may broadband.’’ The Bureaus agree with connection to central ‘‘hubs’’ in three
affect carriers’ ability to provide 10/1 ATA that high-capacity connections Alaskan cities. In that instance, GCI
Mbps service to end-users. Because the between central offices are relevant to stated that the quality of the last-mile
Alaska Plan Order uses multiple terms an assessment of whether carriers can connection is dependent on the
to describe such facilities, and, as meet their commitments to end-users robustness of both (1) and (2) and
explained in the following, the presence within the exchanges served by those argued that the cost of upgrading both
and quality of cell-site backhaul and central offices. Such high capacity segments is a barrier to providing higher
connections to many CAIs do in fact connections are not, however, sufficient speed last-mile services to Alaskan end-
affect carriers’ ability to meet their for such an assessment. users.
current and future commitments over 7. ATA also does not explain why 10. The Bureaus grant the Petition in
last-mile facilities, the Commission cell-site backhaul should be considered part to the extent it seeks relief from the
intended the rule requiring the ‘‘last mile’’ and therefore excluded from March 1, 2018 deadline, and the 7.6-
submission of ‘‘fiber network maps or the collection. Indeed, as ATA meter accuracy requirement. By
microwave network maps’’ and ‘‘middle acknowledges, the ordinary meaning of providing this relief, the Bureaus allow
mile’’ data to be read broadly to include ‘‘backhaul,’’ in the wireless context carriers limited flexibility and time to
cell-site backhaul and CAIs. refers to the ‘‘connections that link a submit data in a way that takes into
4. The Bureaus note that the WTB also mobile wireless service provider’s cell consideration the particular challenges
has the authority to collect this same sites to the mobile switching centers carriers in Alaska face (e.g., difficult
data upon request regardless of whether . . . .’’ On the other hand, a ‘‘last mile’’ seasonal weather) while also ensuring
those facilities fall within the scope of facility is the connection from the end- the Commission is provided with the
the map collection in section user’s handset or terminal to the ‘‘first data it required for implementing the
54.316(a)(6). Specifically, the WTB may point of aggregation,’’ such as a Plan. The Bureaus also clarify the
request ‘‘additional data’’ regarding ‘‘wireless tower location.’’ The Map obligation to report data with respect to
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
facilities relevant to ‘‘determining Instructions do not require the CAIs. The Petition is denied in all other
whether or not [participating mobile submission of the ‘‘last-mile’’ wireless respects.
carriers] meet their five- and 10-year end-users’ location data. 11. Deadline Extension. The Bureaus
commitments.’’ Carriers’ performance 8. The Alaska Plan Order requirement grant the Petition to the extent that it
commitments are broken down and for carriers to submit data regarding seeks a deadline extension and extend
differentiated by the type of facilities facilities that lie between the ‘‘last mile’’ the filing deadline for the initial map
(satellite, fiber, fixed wireless) and the ‘‘internet gateway’’ is also data submission from March 1, 2018, to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:54 Mar 22, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_12812/page/2.svg)
![12758 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2018 / Notices
Order, 76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011. CAIs’ position in carriers’ network The Board further determined, by the
As such, this data collection is limited architecture is more akin to wireless same majority vote, that no notice
to the type of CAIs that carriers would towers aggregating community-wide earlier than March 20, 2018, of the
report pursuant to 47 CFR traffic than a last-mile home or change in the subject matter of the
54.313(f)(1)(ii). Because rate-of-return smartphone user. Indeed, ATA provides meeting was practicable.
carriers are already reporting the a conceptual network map in its Petition Dated: March 20, 2018.
addresses of many of these CAIs on their equating schools with wireless towers. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
FCC Form 481, carriers may face a This model and the ACAM are
Robert E. Feldman,
reduced burden when submitting consistent with the understanding that
latitude and longitude of these same both a CAI and a wireless tower can and Executive Secretary.
CAIs and the links connecting these do aggregate community-wide multi- [FR Doc. 2018–05933 Filed 3–22–18; 8:45 am]
institutions to other nodes in their user traffic. In contrast, a home or small BILLING CODE P
networks for mapping purposes. business Wi-Fi router typically serves a
21. Second, consistent with the single end-user location with only a
Alaska Plan Order, the Bureaus make handful of end-users, and it does not FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
clear that in the initial collection, aggregate community-wide multi-user
carriers must submit data regarding any traffic. Proposed Agency Information
CAIs served by fiber or wireless 23. In light of the foregoing Collection Activities; Comment
connections. This limitation is discussion, the Bureaus reject ATA’s Request
consistent with the plain language of counter-proposal to limit the collection AGENCY: Board of Governors of the
section 54.316(a)(6), which states that of nodes to cell towers and CAIs that are Federal Reserve System.
Alaska Plan participants ‘‘shall submit outside of the exchange but connect to
fiber network maps or microwave ACTION: Notice, request for comment.
a central office in another exchange. In
network maps covering eligible areas’’ part because of the vast size of many SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the
for the purpose of tracking carriers’ exchanges in Alaska, knowing whether Federal Reserve System (Board) invites
access to these facilities that would the central office in an exchange is fiber- comment on a proposal to extend for
allow them to provide 10/1 Mbps for all fed does not provide a sufficiently three years, with revision, the Bank
Alaskans. In subsequent years, carriers granular picture of the potential middle- Holding Company Application and
must submit CAIs served by mile ‘‘weak points’’ or capabilities that Notification Forms (OMB No. 7100–
connections that ‘‘are or will be used’’ could affect the ability of a carrier to 0121): The Application for Prior
to support service in their eligible areas. meet its commitments or future Approval to Become a Bank Holding
This would include, at a minimum, commitments. Company or for a Bank Holding
those instances where the carrier has
Federal Communications Commission. Company to Acquire an Additional
actual plans to use the CAI and links to
Kris A. Monteith, Bank or Bank Holding Company (FR Y–
extend the network. CAIs served by
Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
3), the Notification for Prior Approval to
connections that ‘‘are or will be used’’
Become a Bank Holding Company or for
in this manner are in fact ‘‘middle mile’’ [FR Doc. 2018–05881 Filed 3–22–18; 8:45 am]
a Bank Holding Company to Acquire an
and/or ‘‘backhaul’’ within the meaning BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
Additional Bank or Bank Holding
of the Alaska Plan Order and are
Company (FR Y–3N), and the
therefore subject to collection. CAIs
Notification for Prior Approval to
connected to high-capacity links may be FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
used to expand service to underserved Engage Directly or Indirectly in Certain
CORPORATION Nonbanking Activities (FR Y–4).
and unserved communities.
Consequently, information regarding Notice of Change in Subject Matter of DATES: Comments must be submitted on
CAIs connected by such facilities is Agency Meeting or before May 22, 2018.
necessary for the Commission to ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
understand whether adequate facilities Pursuant to the provisions of identified by FR Y–3, FR Y–3N, or FR
exist to support additional last-mile subsection (e)(2) of the ‘‘Government in Y–4, by any of the following methods:
connections and for the evaluation of the Sunshine Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(2)), • Agency website: http://
carriers’ performance—consistent with notice is hereby given that at its open www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the
the purpose of the map collection. meeting held at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, instructions for submitting comments at
22. The Bureaus deny ATA’s Petition March 20, 2018, the Corporation’s Board http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/
to the extent it seeks to exclude the of Directors determined, on motion of foia/proposedregs.aspx.
reporting of CAIs which meet these Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, • Email: regs.comments@
criteria. ATA argues that all CAIs are seconded by Director Joseph M. Otting federalreserve.gov. Include OMB
‘‘last-mile’’ facilities and therefore (Comptroller of the Currency), number in the subject line of the
should not be part of the map collection concurred in by Director Mick message.
except in limited circumstances. ATA’s Mulvaney (Acting Director, Consumer • FAX: (202) 452–3819 or (202) 452–
position is not consistent with the Financial Protection Bureau), and 3102.
Alaska Plan Order. ATA argues that the Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that • Mail: Ann E. Misback, Secretary,
Bureaus’ reliance on aggregation points Corporation business required the Board of Governors of the Federal
to justify reporting some nodes ‘‘proves addition to the agenda for consideration Reserve System, 20th Street and
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
too much’’ because a ‘‘home’s or at the meeting, on less than seven days’ Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
business’s Wi-Fi router is an initial notice to the public, of the following DC 20551.
aggregation point.’’ But ATA’s argument matters: All public comments are available
contravenes its own cited precedent, Memorandum and resolution re: Final from the Board’s website at http://
which separates the network based on Rule to Implement Increase in Appraisal www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/
points of traffic aggregation with similar Threshold for Commercial Real Estate proposedregs.aspx as submitted, unless
network demand. In many instances, Transactions. modified for technical reasons.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:54 Mar 22, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM 23MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_12812/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-01 08:53:33
Document Modified: 2018-11-01 08:53:33
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice. | |
| Dates | Applicable date announcement: July 1, 2018 filing date. | |
| Contact | Jesse Jachman, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 12755 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR