83 FR 49040 - Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Procedures To Identify and Resolve Location Discrepancies in Eligible Census Blocks Within Winning Bid Areas
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 189 (September 28, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 189 (September 28, 2018)
| Page Range | 49040-49046 | |
| FR Document | 2018-21091 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 49040-49046] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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: http://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), http://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
![49040 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 189 / Friday, September 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules
requirements, definitions, and Comprehensive Centers program grant documents of this Department
performance measures would not be a include the potential receipt of a grant published in the Federal Register, in
significant burden for any eligible as well as other benefits that may accrue text or Portable Document Format
applicant, including a small entity. to an entity through its development of (PDF). To use PDF you must have
Elsewhere in this section under an application, such as the use of such Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we application to create partnerships with available free at the site.
identify and explain burdens other entities in order to assist SEAs. You may also access documents of the
specifically associated with information The Secretary believes that the Department published in the Federal
collection requirements. proposed priorities, requirements, Register by using the article search
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 definitions, and performance measures feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
(PRA): These proposed priorities, would not impose any additional Specifically, through the advanced
requirements, definitions, and burden on a small entity applying for a search feature at this site, you can limit
performance measures do not contain grant than the entity would face in the your search to documents published by
any information collection absence of the proposed action. That is, the Department.
requirements. the length of the applications those
Regulatory Flexibility Act Dated: September 24, 2018.
entities would submit in the absence of
Certification: The Secretary certifies that the proposed regulatory action and the Frank Brogan,
this proposed regulatory action would time needed to prepare an application Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
not have a significant economic impact would likely be the same. Secondary Education.
on a substantial number of small Further, this proposed regulatory [FR Doc. 2018–21089 Filed 9–27–18; 8:45 am]
entities. The U.S. Small Business action could help a small entity BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
Administration Size Standards define determine whether it has the interest,
‘‘small entities’’ as for-profit or need, or capacity to implement
nonprofit institutions with total annual activities under the program and, thus, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are prevent a small entity that does not have COMMISSION
institutions controlled by small such an interest, need, or capacity from
governmental jurisdictions (that are absorbing the burden of applying. 47 CFR Part 54
comprised of cities, counties, towns, This proposed regulatory action
[WC Docket No. 10–90; DA 18–929]
townships, villages, school districts, or would not have a significant economic
special districts), with a population of impact on a small entity once it receives Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks
less than 50,000. a grant because it would be able to meet Comment on Procedures To Identify
The small entities that this proposed the costs of compliance using the funds and Resolve Location Discrepancies in
regulatory action could affect are provided under this program. The Eligible Census Blocks Within Winning
eligible research organizations, agencies, Secretary invites comments from small Bid Areas
institutions of higher education, or eligible entities as to whether they
partnerships among such entities, or believe this proposed regulatory action AGENCY: Federal Communications
individuals. The Secretary believes that would have a significant economic Commission.
the costs imposed on an applicant by impact on them and, if so, requests ACTION: Proposed rule.
the proposed priorities, requirements, evidence to support that belief.
definitions, and performance measures Intergovernmental Review: This SUMMARY: In this document, Wireline
would be limited to paperwork burden program is subject to Executive Order Competition Bureau seeks comment on
related to preparing an application and 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR several proposals to implement a
that the benefits of implementing these part 79. One of the objectives of the process for resolving location
proposals would outweigh any costs Executive order is to foster an discrepancies at issue for Phase II
incurred by the applicant. intergovernmental partnership and a auction support recipients.
Participation in the Comprehensive strengthened federalism. The Executive DATES: Comments are due on or before
Centers program is voluntary. For this order relies on processes developed by October 29, 2018 and reply comments
reason, the proposed priorities, State and local governments for are due on or before November 13, 2018.
requirements, definitions, and coordination and review of proposed ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
performance measures would impose no Federal financial assistance.
burden on small entities unless they identified by WC Docket No. 10–90 by
This document provides early the following method:
applied for funding under the notification of our specific plans and
Comprehensive Centers program using • Electronic Filers: Comments may be
actions for this program. filed electronically using the internet by
the proposed priorities, requirements, Accessible Format: Individuals with
definitions, and performance measures. accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.
disabilities can obtain this document in
We expect that in determining whether fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
to apply for Comprehensive Center For detailed instructions for
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
funds, an eligible entity would evaluate submitting comments and additional
request to the program contact person
the requirements of preparing an information on the rulemaking process,
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
application and implementing a see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Comprehensive Center, and any Electronic Access to This Document: section of this document.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
associated costs, and weigh them The official version of this document is FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
against the benefits likely to be achieved the document published in the Federal Alexander Minard, Wireline
by implementing a Center. An eligible Register. You may access the official Competition Bureau at (202) 418–7400
entity would probably apply only if it edition of the Federal Register and the or TTY (202) 418–0484.
determines that the likely benefits Code of Federal Regulations via the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
exceed the costs of preparing an Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/ synopsis of the Wireline Competition
application and implementing a project. fdsys. At this site you can view this Bureau’s document in WC Docket No.
The likely benefits of applying for a document, as well as all other 10–90; DA 18–929, released September
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:53 Sep 27, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM 28SEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_49229/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 189 / Friday, September 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules 49041
10, 2018. The complete text of this the Bureau to ‘‘release a public notice or 5. Reliability and Validity of Data. In
document is available for inspection order (following its issuance of a notice the Phase II Auction Reconsideration
and copying during normal business and opportunity for comment) detailing Order, the Commission required
hours in the FCC Reference Information instructions, deadlines, and participants not only to submit location
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, requirements for filing valid geolocation data but also to provide evidence
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554 data and evidence for both [participants] demonstrating that they could not find
or at the following internet address: and commenters.’’ any additional actual locations in their
https://www.fcc.gov/document/wcb- eligible areas within the state. In doing
seeks-comment-caf-phase-ii-location- II. Discussion so, the Commission expressed concern
discrepancy-procedures. 3. Definition of an Actual Location. that participants would otherwise report
The Bureau seeks comment on how it only ‘‘cherry pick[ed]’’ locations, i.e.,
I. Introduction
should define an actual location for the easiest and least expensive locations
1. In this Public Notice, the Wireline purposes of this review process. In the to serve, and omit all other locations.
Competition Bureau (Bureau) seeks CAM Inputs Order, 79 FR 29111, May The Commission directed the Bureau to
comment on several proposals to 21, 2014, the Bureau defined funded identify the information that must be
implement a process for resolving locations as residential and small submitted to fulfill this purpose. The
location discrepancies at issue for Phase business locations and excluded Bureau expects that such information
II auction support recipients. enterprise locations assumed to be must demonstrate the completeness,
Specifically, the Bureau seeks comment served with higher bandwidth dedicated reliability, and validity of the actual
on approaches to identify and resolve fiber, such as community anchor location data submitted by participants.
apparent discrepancies between the institutions, certain large businesses, Accordingly, the Bureau proposes that
number of model-determined funded and wireless towers assumed to be participants in this review process
locations that Phase II auction support served with higher bandwidth dedicated submit a description in narrative form of
recipients are expected to serve (funded fiber. In the Phase II Auction the methodologies used to identify
locations) and the actual number of structures within their eligible areas and
Reconsideration Order, the Commission
locations that support recipients can distinguishing actual locations from
stressed that a CAM location is a
serve (actual locations). The Bureau other kinds of structures.
residential housing unit or small
undertakes this action pursuant to the 6. The Bureau seeks comment on
business served with mass market
2018 Phase II Auction Reconsideration whether to require that participants use
services and rejected commenters’
Order, 83 FR 15982, April 13, 2018, a particular method to identify the
arguments in favor of a more expansive
which directed the Bureau to implement geocoordinates and addresses of actual
definition. In addition, a location need
a review process to evaluate requests by locations or permit carriers to choose
not be occupied when being reported as
Phase II auction support recipients who their method(s) and correct for
a served location, but it cannot be
might seek adjustments in defined inaccuracies. For purposes of reporting
deployment obligations in exchange for abandoned, derelict, condemned, or
deployed locations, USAC has
corresponding reductions in support in otherwise uninhabitable.
published guidance on three generally
circumstances where there are not 4. In general, CAF support recipients accepted methods of geolocation, i.e.,
enough actual locations for the provider cannot report unfinished residential or (1) GPS in the field, (2) desktop
to serve. business locations or ongoing or future geolocation using web-based maps and
2. Pursuant to the process set forth by real estate developments as served imagery, and (3) automated address
the Commission, the Bureau must: (1) locations in satisfaction of build-out geocoding (frequently reliant on third-
Collect probative evidence of actual requirements. Given that this review party address data). Each of these
locations from those Phase II auction process, however, will provide the basis methods will produce variable levels of
support recipients choosing to for a participant’s deployment accuracy in terms of identifying the
participate in this process (participants) obligation over a 10-year support term, specific situs of the location. For
(including evidence demonstrating that the Bureau seeks comment on whether example, desktop geolocation and, to an
the participants could find no actual locations should include even greater extent, automated address
additional actual locations other than prospective developments that have a geocoding may produce interpolated
those identified with location data); (2) reasonable certainty of coming into geocoordinates and addresses that do
make all such evidence available for existence within the support term. The not describe a situs with the required
review by relevant stakeholders and Bureau seeks comment on the potential level of granularity to produce accurate
specify the types of evidence that such evidentiary obstacles to implementing results. Such inaccuracies, in turn,
stakeholders should submit to challenge this modification. How might increase the likelihood that the list of
such evidence; (3) adjudicate individual participants learn of such prospective actual locations produced by
claims for relief based on a developments and the number of future participants will exclude certain
preponderance of the evidence locations associated with them? Do locations, such as those adjacent to
standard; (4) issue an order when development plans routinely indicate ineligible areas or those that include
appropriate to reduce deployment the number of residential and business multiple dwelling units (MDUs).
obligations and authorized support (on units? Is such information available However, the potential shortcomings of
a pro rata basis); and, (5) conduct future from local governments and authorities, geolocation methods may be minimized
audits of evidence submitted by and does the amount and type of through specific practices.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
participants. While the Commission set information available from such entities 7. The Bureau seeks comment on
some parameters for certain aspects of vary to a degree that could provide an methodological and evidentiary
this process, it also directed the Bureau unfair advantage or disadvantage to standards necessary to ensure that
to adopt requirements and issue participants based on their geographic participants have used geolocation
guidance necessary for implementation, areas? As an alternative, should the method(s) consistently and
consistent with prior Commission Bureau rely on relevant stakeholders to comprehensively to accurately identify
direction regarding funded location submit evidence of such locations in all actual locations in eligible areas
adjustments. The Commission directed their submissions? within the state. How would such
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:53 Sep 27, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM 28SEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_49229/page/2.svg)
![49042 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 189 / Friday, September 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules
standards differ if the Bureau were to Bureau proposes that stakeholders the HUBB will help alleviate the burden
allow any of the three geolocation seeking to report specific locations associated with reporting data on served
methods or combinations of such omitted from the participant’s list must locations (which all Phase II auction
methods? For example, should the submit the same kind of location support recipients will need to submit
Bureau require participants submitting evidence that the Bureau requires of in future years) because such data
location data based on GPS field participants, i.e., latitude and longitude should be readily convertible to the
research to also submit grid data, coordinates and addresses (or served location evidence. In this regard,
mileage receipts, weekly logs, or some geographic markers if addresses are while there is no specific requirement
other kind of evidence to demonstrate unavailable), as well as some additional that participants deploy to their
that they used GPS to identify every evidence supporting the existence and reported actual locations in future years,
actual location? Should the Bureau placement of the location. The Bureau the Bureau expects that, in most
require participants relying on desktop seeks comment on other forms of instances and absent significant future
geolocation or automated address evidence that could also prove the demographic changes, there will be an
geocoding to use more than one existence or situs of individual overlap between actual locations and
application or source? Should the locations. For example, should the served locations. As further discussed
Bureau require such participants to Commission accept billing statements, below, this overlap should be useful for
disclose details about the application/ property records, images or pictures of auditing purposes. Finally, the HUBB
source data, such as how and when houses at a specific address or permits controlled access to data, which
such data were collected? Should the intersection? Should the Bureau accept obviates the need to create a separate
Bureau require participants using such screenshots of houses from Google maps service for this purpose and limits
methods to test the reliability and or other publicly available mapping potential delays associated with such a
validity of the source/application data services? How would the Bureau service. As discussed below, controlled
when applied to their specific eligible evaluate and weigh such evidence? access will also help the Bureau protect
areas? Should the Bureau require all 10. The Bureau proposes to dismiss location data that may implicate privacy
participants (regardless of geolocation any challenge that lacks some concerns.
method) to submit photographic evidentiary showing. The Bureau also 13. The Bureau seeks comment on
evidence demonstrating the reasons for proposes not to allow stakeholders to these and other ways the web-based
excluding structures from their list? The submit alternative evidence of locations functionality may be used to facilitate
Bureau seeks comment on these based on public or private data sources the submission of actual location
proposals. that the stakeholder cannot conclusively evidence and ways that the HUBB may
8. In the Phase II Auction demonstrate to be significantly more be adapted to fulfill this purpose. The
Reconsideration Order, the Commission accurate than the recipient’s data Bureau also seeks comment on whether
explained that as part of this review sources. The Bureau seeks comment on participants may face specific obstacles
process, ‘‘[r]elevant stakeholders would these proposals. or burdens in submitting location data
have the opportunity to review and 11. The Bureau proposes that electronically into the HUBB or a
comment on the information [submitted evidence of omitted locations from similar system.
by participants] and to identify other relevant stakeholders be submitted in a 14. In the Phase II Auction
locations . . . .’’ The Bureau seeks similar format to the data on actual Reconsideration Order, the Commission
comment on how the Bureau should locations submitted by Phase II auction requires participants to file actual
define ‘‘relevant stakeholders.’’ support recipients. The Bureau intends location data ‘‘within a year’’ of the
Specifically, the Bureau proposes that to review the information submitted by publication of the Phase II auction
state and local authorities and Tribal relevant stakeholders and modify lists of closing public notice. The Bureau
governments as representatives of actual locations as part of its final proposes applying this deadline to all
individuals residing in supported areas adjudicatory decision. evidence that the Bureau ultimately
be allowed to file comments as part of 12. HUBB Reporting of Location requires of participants.
the process. Should the Bureau accept Evidence. The Bureau proposes that 15. The Bureau proposes to open a
comments from individuals as well? participants report tabular data on window, 14 days before this deadline
Should the Bureau accept comments actual locations, including addresses and ending on the deadline, for
from potential customers of and geographic coordinates. The Bureau participants to certify, under penalty of
participants? If the Bureau were to proposes that participants submit such perjury, the truth and accuracy of their
adopt a broad definition of ‘‘relevant data in the HUBB or a similar web-based location data and associated petition.
stakeholder’’ that includes all potential data submission application managed The certification will be mandatory and
customers, how does the Bureau verify by USAC. There are several advantages must be signed by an individual with
that the commenter is a potential to this approach. First, the technology relevant knowledge (such as an officer
customer? Should the Bureau avoid used in the HUBB is designed to accept of the company), certifying under
collecting personally identifiable addresses and geographic coordinates penalty of perjury that the participant
information (PII)? As further discussed for specific locations. Second, the HUBB has engaged in due diligence to verify
below, would a protective order provides certain data validations, statements and evidence presented in
sufficiently protect participants from the including checks to ensure entries are this challenge process and that such
premature disclosure and/or misuse of not duplicates and are located within information is accurate to the best of the
their data? specific census blocks. Thus, the HUBB certifying party’s knowledge and belief.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
9. The Bureau seeks comment on the facilitates timely correction of data By opening a filing window rather than
evidence that must be submitted by submission errors prior to the close of permitting participants to certify their
relevant stakeholders to effectively rebut a filing deadline. Third, the Bureau and data and information at any time during
or refute the participant’s contentions. USAC have released specific guidance the first year, the Bureau would help
The Bureau expects that stakeholders for the reporting of served locations, ensure that a participant’s data reflects
will identify specific locations that they which may be adapted to the reporting the most recent facts on the ground and
assert are wrongfully omitted from the of actual location data for purposes of that the participant does not omit new
participant’s list of actual locations. The this review process. Fourth, the use of or prospective building developments
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:53 Sep 27, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM 28SEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_49229/page/3.svg)
![49046 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 189 / Friday, September 28, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW, retrieval. NMFS is requesting comments whales (Eubalaena glacialis), the Gulf of
Room TW–A325, Washington, DC on this possible action including Maine stock of humpback whales
20554. All hand deliveries must be held whether opening these areas that are (Megaptera novaeangliea), and the
together with rubber bands or fasteners. currently closed to trap/pot fishing Western North Atlantic stock of fin
Any envelopes must be disposed of would provide an economic benefit or whales (Balaenoptera physalus)—
before entering the building. The filing incentive for buoy-lineless fishing incidentally taken in commercial
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. development and to assess interest from fisheries to below the potential
• Commercial Overnight Mail. industry for buoy-lineless fishing in biological removal level for each stock.
Commercial overnight mail (other than these areas. Currently the Atlantic Large Whale
U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and DATES: Information related to this Take Reduction Plan (Plan) has two
Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 document must be received by close of seasonal trap/pot closures:
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD business on October 29, 2018. Massachusetts Restricted Area (50 CFR
20701. 229.32(c)(3)) and the Great South
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
• U.S. Postal Service First-Class, Channel Trap/Pot Closure (50 CFR
by any of the following methods:
Express, and Priority Mail. U.S. Postal 229.32(c)(4)). Massachusetts Restricted
Electronic Submission: Submit all
Service mail must be addressed to 445 Area prohibits fishing with, setting, or
electronic public comments via the
12th Street SW, Washington DC 20554. possessing trap/pot gear in this area
Federal e-rulemaking Portal.
44. People with Disabilities. To unless stowed in accordance with
1. Go to www.regulations.gov/
request materials in accessible formats § 229.2 from February 1 to April 30.
#!docketDetail;D=www.regulations.gov/
for people with disabilities (braille, Great South Channel Trap/Pot Closure
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-
large print, electronic files, audio prohibits fishing with, setting, or
0082.
format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov possessing trap/pot gear in this area
2. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
or call the Consumer & Governmental unless stowed in accordance with
complete the required fields.
Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), § 229.2 from April 1 through June 30.
3. Enter or attach your comments.
202–418–0432 (tty). In 2003, the Atlantic Large Whale
45. For additional information on this -OR- Take Reduction Team (Team) agreed to
proceeding, contact Nissa Laughner at Mail: Submit written comments to manage entanglement risk by first
(202) 418–1358 or Nissa.Laughner@ Michael Pentony, Regional reducing the risk associated with
fcc.gov, of the Wireline Competition Administrator, National Marine groundlines and then reducing the risk
Bureau, Telecommunications Access associated with vertical lines in
Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic
Policy Division. commercial trap/pot and gillnet gear.
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Instructions: Comments sent by any Risk reduction of groundlines was
Federal Communications Commission.
addressed in October 2007 with the
Ryan Palmer, other method, to any other address or
implementation of the sinking
Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy individual, or received after the end of
groundline requirement for all fisheries
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau. the comment period, may not be
throughout the east coast (72 FR 57104,
[FR Doc. 2018–21091 Filed 9–27–18; 8:45 am] considered by NMFS. All comments
October 5, 2007). In 2009, at the request
received are part of the public record
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P of the Team, NMFS also investigated the
and will generally be posted for public
feasibility of opening a buoy-lineless (or
viewing on www.regulations.gov
ropeless) fishing gear testing site in the
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE without change. All personal identifying
Great South Channel trap/pot and
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
gillnet closure area. At the time, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric confidential business information, or Agency determined that technological
Administration other sensitive information submitted and economic incentives were not
voluntarily by the sender will be sufficient for this to be successful, and
50 CFR Part 229 publicly accessible. NMFS will accept that other management actions to reduce
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in entanglement risks caused by vertical
[Docket No. 180702603–8603–01] the required fields if you wish to remain lines should be prioritized.
RIN 0648–BH98 anonymous). In 2014, the Plan was amended (79 FR
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 36586, June 27, 2014) to address large
Advance Notice of Proposed Allison Rosner NMFS Protected whale entanglement risks associated
Rulemaking; Request for Information Resources Division, Greater Atlantic with vertical line (or buoy lines) from
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Region, 978–282–8462, allison.rosner@ commercial trap/pot fisheries. This
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and noaa.gov or Kristy Long, NMFS Office of amendment included gear
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Protected Resources, 301–427–8402, modifications, gear setting
Commerce. kristy.long@noaa.gov. requirements, an expanded seasonal
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: trap/pot closure (Massachusetts
rulemaking. Restricted Area) and gear marking for
Background both trap/pot and gillnet fisheries. The
SUMMARY: NMFS hereby publishes an Large whale entanglements resulting original Massachusetts Restricted Area
advance notice of proposed rulemaking in mortalities and serious injuries still was a seasonal closure from January 1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
to solicit comments on modifying the occur at levels that, for North Atlantic through April 30 for all trap/pot
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction right whales, exceed the allowable fisheries. In a subsequent Plan
Plan’s Massachusetts Trap/Pot levels established by the Marine amendment, the boundary for the
Restricted Area and the Great South Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Under Massachusetts Restricted Area was
Channel Trap/Pot Restricted Area to the MMPA, NMFS is required to reduce expanded by 900 square miles (2.59
allow trap/pot fishing that does not use the mortality and serious injury to three square kilometers), and the start date
vertical buoy lines (referred to as buoy- strategic large whale stocks—the changed to February 1 (79 FR 73848,
lineless or ropeless gear) prior to gear Western Stock of North Atlantic right December 12, 2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:53 Sep 27, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM 28SEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_49229/page/7.svg)
Document Created: 2018-09-28 01:22:51
Document Modified: 2018-09-28 01:22:51
| 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 | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments are due on or before October 29, 2018 and reply comments are due on or before November 13, 2018. | |
| Contact | Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 49040 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR