[Federal Register: November 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 219)]
[Notices]
[Page 58940-58944]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16no09-22]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Utilities Service
RIN: 0572-ZA01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Docket Number: 0907141137-91375-05
RIN: 0660-ZA28
Broadband Initiatives Program and Broadband Technology
Opportunities Program
AGENCIES: Rural Utilities Service (RUS), Department of Agriculture, and
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA),
Department of Commerce.s
ACTION: Joint Request for Information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: RUS and NTIA announce the release of a joint Request for
Information (RFI) seeking public comment on certain issues relating to
the implementation of the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) and the
Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP). This is the second
joint RFI that the agencies have issued since the enactment of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), which
established these broadband initiatives. The input the agencies expect
to receive from this process is intended to inform the second round of
funding. In particular, the agencies seek to gather information that
will help them improve the broadband programs by enhancing the
applicant experience and making targeted revisions to the first Notice
of Funds Availability (NOFA), if necessary.
DATES: Comments must be received by November 30, 2009 at 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are encouraged to file comments
electronically via e-mail to broadbandrfi@ntia.doc.gov. Paper comments
should be sent to: Broadband Initiatives Program, Rural Utilities
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW,
Stop 1599, Washington, DC 20250, and Broadband Technology Opportunities
Program, National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, HCHB Room 4887, 1401 Constitution Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC 20230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general inquiries regarding BIP,
contact David J. Villano, Assistant Administrator, Telecommunications
Program, Rural Utilities Service, email: bip@wdc.usda.gov, telephone:
(202) 690-0525. For general inquiries regarding BTOP, contact Anthony
Wilhelm, Deputy Associate Administrator, Infrastructure Division,
Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, email:
btop@ntia.doc.gov, telephone: (202) 482-2048.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed
the Recovery Act into law.\1\ The Recovery Act establishes five
statutory purposes: to preserve and create jobs and promote economic
recovery; to assist those most impacted by the recession; to provide
investments needed to increase economic efficiency
[[Page 58941]]
by spurring technological advances in science and health; to invest in
transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that
will provide long-term economic benefits; and to stabilize state and
local government budgets.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No.
111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009).
\2\ Recovery Act Sec. 3(a), 123 Stat. at 115-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with these statutory purposes, the Recovery Act provides
RUS and NTIA with $7.2 billion to expand access to broadband services
in the United States. In so doing, it recognizes the growing importance
of access to broadband services to economic development and to the
quality of life of all Americans. Specifically, the Recovery Act
expands RUS's existing authority to make loans and provides new
authority to make grants for the deployment and construction of
broadband systems in rural America. The purpose of the expanded RUS
broadband authority is to improve access to broadband in rural areas
without service or that lack sufficient access to high-speed broadband
service, and to facilitate economic development. In addition, the
Recovery Act requires NTIA to establish BTOP, which makes available
grants for deploying broadband infrastructure in unserved and
underserved areas in the United States, enhancing broadband capacity at
public computer centers, and promoting sustainable broadband adoption.
In facilitating the expansion of broadband communications services and
infrastructure, both programs will advance the objectives of the
Recovery Act by spurring job creation and stimulating long-term
economic growth and opportunity.
On March 9, 2009, RUS and NTIA jointly issued an initial RFI
seeking public comment on issues relating to the implementation of
these programs. More than 1,000 public comments were received in
response to the RFI and these comments were used to develop the NOFA,
which was published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2009. The NOFA
allocated up to $4 billion in funding for BIP and BTOP projects,
including Broadband Infrastructure projects, Public Computer Center
projects, and Sustainable Broadband Adoption projects. It also set
forth key definitions that are used in the programs, established basic
eligibility requirements and evaluation criteria, and provided
additional information for applicants on how to obtain funding. In
response to the NOFA, RUS and NTIA received over 2,200 applications
requesting nearly $28 billion in funding, with projects reaching across
all 50 states, five territories, and the District of Columbia.
Before initiating the second round of funding, RUS and NTIA are
requesting additional public comment on certain aspects of BIP and
BTOP. RUS and NTIA seek to improve the applicant experience and
strengthen the program impact of BIP and BTOP in achieving Recovery Act
objectives. Please note that topics discussed in this request for
information will not apply to the initial funding round, but will apply
only to the second round.
Matters To Be Considered: Information is being sought on the topics
discussed herein. Interested parties are invited to submit comments for
the record on these topics. Comments must be received by November 30,
2009 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
I. The Application and Review Process
A. Streamlining the Applications.
For the first round of funding, applicants were required to
complete a broadband infrastructure application, public computer center
application, or sustainable broadband adoption application, depending
on the type of project being proposed. For each application, the NOFA
required applicants to respond to a number of questions and submit
certain data. Those applicants considered highly qualified after
completion of step one of the review process were required to submit
additional information during a step two ``due diligence'' phase to
substantiate the representations provided in the application.\3\ Some
stakeholders, especially applicants completing the broadband
infrastructure application, stated during the first round application
process that completing the initial application was overly burdensome
based on the questions asked and the number of attachments required.
RUS and NTIA tentatively conclude that the application process should
be streamlined. In what ways should RUS and NTIA streamline the
applications to reduce the burden on applicants, while still obtaining
the requisite information to fulfill the statutory requirements set
forth in the Recovery Act? Should the agencies modify the two-step
review process, and if so, how? Should certain attachments be
eliminated, and if so, which ones? Should the agencies re-examine the
use of a single application for applicants applying to both BIP and
BTOP to fund infrastructure projects? How should NTIA link broadband
infrastructure, public computer center and sustainable adoption
projects through the application process?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 74 Fed. Reg. at 33107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. New Entities.
What type of information should RUS and NTIA request from new
businesses, particularly those that have been newly created for the
purpose of applying for grants under the BIP and BTOP programs? For
example, should the agencies eliminate the requirement to provide
historical financial statements for recently-created entities?
2. Consortiums and Public-Private Partnerships.
Similarly, how should the application be revised to reflect the
participation of consortiums or public-private partnerships in the
application process? Should certain critical information be requested
from all members of such groups, in addition to the designated lead
applicant, to sufficiently evaluate the application? If so, what type
of information should RUS and NTIA request?
3. Specification of Service Areas.
The broadband infrastructure application required applicants to
submit data on a census block level in order to delineate the proposed
funded service areas. Some applicants found this requirement
burdensome. What level of data collection and documentation should be
required of applicants to establish the boundaries of the proposed
funded service areas?
4. Relationship between BIP and BTOP.
The Recovery Act prohibits a project from receiving funding from
NTIA in areas where RUS has funded a project.\4\ Section VI.C.1.a.i of
the NOFA required that infrastructure applications consisting of
proposed funded service areas which are at least 75 percent rural be
submitted to and considered under BIP, with the option of additional
consideration under BTOP.\5\ According to the NOFA, NTIA will not fund
such an application unless RUS has declined to fund it.\6\ RUS and NTIA
are presently reviewing joint applications consistent with the process
set forth in the NOFA. Should these kinds of rural infrastructure
applications continue to be required to be submitted to RUS or should
the agencies permit rural applications to be submitted directly to
NTIA, without having to be submitted to RUS as well, and if so, how
should NTIA and RUS proceed in a manner that
[[Page 58942]]
rewards the leveraging of resources and the most efficient use of
Federal funds? Are there situations where it is better to give a loan
to an applicant as opposed to a grant? Are there applicants for which a
loan would not be acceptable, and if so, how should the programs
consider them?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Recovery Act, div. A, tit. I, 123 Stat. at 118-19.
\5\ 74 Fed. Reg. at 33113.
\6\ Id. at 33105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Transparency and Confidentiality.
Consistent with the Administration's policy and the Recovery Act's
objective to ensure greater transparency in government operations, RUS
and NTIA are considering whether they should permit greater access,
consistent with applicable Federal laws and regulations, to certain
applicant information to other applicants, policymakers, and the
public, including state and tribal governments. Should the public be
given greater access to application data submitted to BIP and BTOP?
Which data should be made publicly available and which data should be
considered confidential or proprietary? For example, RUS and NTIA
tentatively conclude that the application's executive summary should be
made publicly available for the second round of funding.
C. Outreach and Support.
For the initial round of funding, RUS and NTIA provided multiple
means of applicant support and outreach, including hosting national
workshops and minority outreach seminars, publicly releasing an
application guidance manual, posting responses to Frequently Asked
Questions on www.broadbandusa.gov, and establishing a Help Desk that
fielded thousands of telephone and e-mail inquiries. What method of
support and outreach was most effective? What should be done
differently in the next round of funding to best assist applicants?
D. NTIA Expert Review Process.
During the first round of funding, NTIA utilized panels of at least
three independent reviewers to evaluate BTOP applications.\7\ A number
of stakeholders have questioned whether this is the most effective
approach to evaluating BTOP applications. To further the efficient and
expeditious disbursement of BTOP funds, should NTIA continue to rely on
unpaid experts as reviewers? Or, should we consider using solely
Federal or contractor staff?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id. at 33107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Policy Issues Addressed in the NOFA
A. Funding Priorities and Objectives.
Section IV.B of the NOFA establishes the funding limits for the
first round of BIP and BTOP funding.\8\ In particular, RUS set aside
approximately $2.4 billion in funding, with up to $1.2 billion
available for last mile projects, up to $800 million available for
middle mile projects and up to $325 million available for a national
reserve. NTIA allocated up to $1.2 billion for broadband infrastructure
projects, up to $50 million for public computer center projects, up to
$150 million for sustainable broadband adoption projects, and up to
$200 million as a national reserve. Many parties have publicly made
suggestions as to how the NOFA could be modified to ensure that the
Recovery Act funds make the greatest impact possible. RUS and NTIA
welcome suggestions for targeted funding proposals and seek comment on
how they can better target their remaining funds to achieve the goals
of the Recovery Act. Below we set forth some examples of types of
projects we could specifically target. We seek comment on these
proposals as well as any others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. at 33110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUS and NTIA request commenters that are proposing a more targeted
approach for round 2 projects to support their proposal with
quantitative estimates of the projected benefits of adopting such an
approach. For example, commenters should quantify the impact of their
proposal based on such metrics as the number of community anchor
institutions committing to service, the number of last mile providers
committing to utilize middle mile projects, the number of end users
reached by the proposal, the number of new jobs created, directly and
indirectly, and the projected increase in broadband adoption rates, as
well as any other metrics necessary to justify the adoption of their
proposal and ensure that the benefits of the Recovery Act are being
realized. Commenters should explain the basis and method of calculation
for the quantifications they provide.
1. Middle Mile ``Comprehensive Community'' Projects.
Should RUS and/or NTIA focus on or limit round 2 funding on
projects that will deliver middle mile infrastructure facilities into a
group of communities and connect key anchor institutions within those
communities? Ensuring that anchor institutions, such as community
colleges, schools, libraries, health care facilities, and public safety
organizations, have high-speed connectivity to the Internet can
contribute to sustainable community growth and prosperity. Such
projects also have the potential to stimulate the development of last
mile services that would directly reach end users in unserved and
underserved areas. Additionally, installing such middle mile facilities
could have a transformative impact on community development by driving
economic growth.
Should we give priority to those middle mile projects in which
there are commitments from last mile service providers to use the
middle mile network to serve end users in the community? Should the
agencies' goal be to fund middle mile projects that provide new
coverage of the greatest population and geography so that we can be
assured that the benefits of broadband are reaching the greatest number
of people? Should we target projects that create ``comprehensive
communities'' by installing high capacity middle mile facilities
between anchor institutions that bring essential health, medical, and
educational services to citizens that they may not have today? Should
certain institutions, such as educational facilities, be given greater
weight to reflect their impact on economic development or a greater
need or use for broadband services? If so, what specific information
should RUS and NTIA request from these institutions?
To the extent that RUS and NTIA do focus the remaining funds on
``comprehensive community'' projects, what attributes should the
agencies be looking for in such projects? For example, are they most
sustainable to the extent that they are public-private partnerships
through which the interests of the community are fully represented?
Should we consider the number of existing community anchor institutions
that intend to connect to the middle mile network as well as the number
of unserved and underserved communities and vulnerable populations
(i.e., elderly, low-income, minority) that it will cover? How should
RUS and NTIA encourage appropriate levels of non-Federal (State, local,
and private) matching funds to be contributed so that the potential
impact of Federal funds is maximized? In addition, should we consider
the extent of the geographic footprint as well as any overlap with
existing service providers?
[[Page 58943]]
2. Economic Development.
Should RUS and/or NTIA allocate a portion of the remaining funds
available under the BIP and BTOP programs to promote a regional
economic development approach to broadband deployment? This option
would focus the Federal broadband investment on communities that have
worked together on a regional basis to develop an economic development
plan. It would encompass a strategy for broadband deployment, and would
link how various economic sectors benefit from broadband opportunities.
Such a regional approach would seek to ensure that communities have the
``buy-in,'' and the capacity, and the long-term vision to maximize the
benefits of broadband deployment. Using this option, NTIA and RUS could
target funding toward both the short term stimulus of project
construction and the region's longer term development of sustainable
growth and quality jobs. For instance, rather than look at broadband
investments in both rural and urban communities as stand-alone actions,
should RUS and NTIA seek applications for projects that would
systematically link broadband deployment to a variety of complementary
economic actions, such as workforce training or entrepreneurial
development, through targeted regional economic development strategic
plans? Should funds be targeted toward areas, either urban or rural,
with innovative economic strategies, or those suffering exceptional
economic hardship? Should states or regions with high unemployment
rates be specifically targeted for funding?
3. Targeted Populations.
Should RUS and NTIA allocate a portion of the remaining funds to
specific population groups? For example, should the agencies revise
elements of the BIP and BTOP programs to ensure that tribal entities,
or entities proposing to serve tribal lands, have sufficient resources
to provide these historically unserved and underserved areas with
access to broadband service? Similarly, should public housing
authorities be specifically targeted for funding as entities serving
low-income populations that have traditionally been unserved or
underserved by broadband service? How can funds for Public Computer
Centers and Sustainable Broadband Adoption projects be targeted to
increase broadband access and use among vulnerable populations? Should
NTIA shift more BTOP funds into public computer centers than is
required by the Recovery Act? In what ways would this type of targeted
allocation of funding resources best be accomplished under the
statutory requirements of each program? Should libraries be targeted as
sites for public computer access, and if so, how would BTOP funding
interact with e-Rate funding provided through the Schools and Libraries
program?
4. Other Changes.
To the extent that we do target the funds to a particular type of
project or funding proposal, how if at all, should we modify our
evaluation criteria? How should we modify the application to
accommodate these types of targeted funding proposals? For example,
should any steps be undertaken to adjust applications for satellite
systems that provide nationwide service, but are primarily intended to
provide access in remote areas and other places not served by landline
or wireless systems? Are there any other mechanisms the agencies should
be exploring to ensure remaining funds have the broadest benefit? How
might the agencies best leverage existing broadband infrastructure to
reach currently unserved and underserved areas? Are there practical
means to ensure that subsidies are appropriately tailored to each
business case? For example, should the agencies examine applicant cost
and revenue estimates, and adjust the required match accordingly? Could
elements of an auction-like approach be developed for a particular
class of applications or region? If so, how would the agencies
implement such an approach in a manner that is practical within program
constraints and timeliness?
B. Program Definitions.
Section III of the NOFA describes several key definitions
applicable to BIP and BTOP, such as ``unserved area,'' ``underserved
area,'' and ``broadband.''\9\ These definitions were among the most
commented upon aspects of the NOFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. at 33108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, a number of applicants have suggested that the
definitions of unserved and underserved are unclear and overly
restrictive; that they kept many worthy projects, particularly those in
urban areas, from being eligible for support; that there was
insufficient time to conduct the surveys or market analyses needed to
determine the status of a particular census block area; and that they
discouraged applicants from leveraging private investment for
infrastructure projects. In what ways should these definitions be
revised? Should they be modified to include a specific factor relating
to the affordability of broadband service or the socioeconomic makeup
of a given defined service area, and, if so, how should such factors be
measured? Should the agencies adopt more objective and readily
verifiable measures, and if so, what would they be? How should
satellite-based proposals be evaluated against these criteria?
With respect to the definition of broadband, some stakeholders
criticized the speed thresholds that were adopted and some argued that
they were inadequate to support many advanced broadband applications,
especially the needs of large institutional users. Should the
definition of broadband include a higher speed and should the speeds
relate to the types of projects? Should the agencies incorporate actual
speeds into the definition of broadband and forego using advertised
speeds? If so, how should actual speeds be reliably and consistently
measured?
The NOFA defines ``remote area'' as an unserved, rural area 50
miles from the limits of a non-rural area.\10\ The rural remote concept
aims to address the prohibitive costs associated with broadband
deployment in communities that are small in size and substantially
distant from urban areas and their resources. The definition adopted in
the NOFA was intended to ensure that the most isolated, highest-cost to
serve, unserved communities could receive the benefit of up to 100
percent grant financing. The geographic factor upon which an area was
determined to be eligible was its distance from a non-rural area; in
this case, 50 miles. RUS heard from many interested parties, including
members of Congress, on this definition. Many believed it was overly
restrictive, thereby eliminating too many areas that were not 50 miles
or more from a non-rural area but were nonetheless a fair distance away
and unserved. Comment is requested on the definition of remote area, as
well as whether this concept should be a factor in determining award
decisions. Should factors other than distance be considered, such as
income levels, geographic barriers, and population densities?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. at 33109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Public Notice of Service Areas.
Section VII.B of the NOFA allowed for existing broadband service
providers to comment on the applicants' assertions that their proposed
funded service areas are unserved or underserved.\11\ Some stakeholders
have suggested that this rule may reduce incentives for
[[Page 58944]]
applicants to participate in the BIP and BTOP programs because of the
risk that their applications may be disqualified from funding on the
basis of information submitted by existing broadband service providers
that they have no means to substantiate or rebut. How should the public
notice process be refined to address this concern? What alternative
verification methods could be established that would be fair to the
applicant and the entity questioning the applicant's service area?
Should the public notice process be superseded where data becomes
available through the State Broadband Data and Development Grant
Program that may be used to verify unserved and underserved areas? What
type of information should be collected from the entity questioning the
service area and what should be publicly disclosed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id. at 33122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Interconnection and Nondiscrimination Requirements.
Section V.C.2.c of the NOFA establishes the nondiscrimination and
interconnection requirements.\12\ These requirements generated a
substantial amount of debate among applicants and other stakeholders.
Although RUS and NTIA are not inclined to make significant changes to
the interconnection and nondiscrimination requirements, are any minor
adjustments to these requirements necessary? In particular, should they
continue to be applied to all types of infrastructure projects
regardless of the nature of the entity? Should the scope of the
reasonable network management and managed services exceptions be
modified, and if so, in what way? Is it necessary to clarify the term
``interconnection'' or the extent of the interconnection obligation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id. at 33110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Sale of Project Assets.
Section IX.C.2 of the NOFA generally prohibits the sale or lease of
award-funded broadband facilities, unless the sale or lease meets
certain conditions.\13\ Specifically, the agencies may approve a sale
or lease if it is for adequate consideration, the purchaser agrees to
fulfill the terms and conditions relating to the project, and either
the applicant includes the proposed sale or lease in its application as
part of its original request for grant funds or the agencies waive this
provision for any sale or lease occurring after the tenth year from the
date the grant, loan, or loan/grant award is issued. Some stakeholders
have suggested that this rule is overly restrictive and is a barrier to
participation in BIP and BTOP. Should this section be revised to adopt
a more flexible approach toward awardee mergers, consistent with USDA
and DOC regulations, while still ensuring that awardees are not
receiving unjust enrichment from the sale of award-funded assets for
profit?\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id. at 33123.
\14\ See, e.g., 15 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 14.32-37; 7 C.F.R. Part
3015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Cost Effectiveness.
How should NTIA and RUS assess the cost effectiveness or cost
reasonableness of a particular project? For example, in the context of
infrastructure projects, how should we consider whether the costs of
deploying broadband facilities are excessive? In BTOP, one of the
Project Benefits that NTIA considers is ``cost effectiveness,'' when
scoring an application. This is measured based on the ratio of the
total cost of the project to households passed. However, such costs
will necessarily vary based on the particular circumstances of a
proposed project. For example, extremely rural companies typically have
much higher construction costs than more densely populated ones. Also,
geographic areas that experience extreme weather or are characterized
by difficult terrain will dictate higher per household costs.
Similarly, the technology that is chosen to provide the service (e.g.,
fiber vs. wireless) would influence the costs. And finally, smaller
companies as measured by subscriber count would necessarily have a
higher cost per subscriber than larger companies. How should the
agencies take these various factors into consideration when evaluating
broadband infrastructure projects? What evidence should we require from
applicants to ensure that unnecessary costs have not been added to the
project?
G. Other.
What other substantive changes to the NOFA should RUS and NTIA
consider that would encourage applicant participation, enhance the
programs, and satisfy the goals of the Recovery Act?
III. Status
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Written
comments that exceed five pages should include a one-page executive
summary. Submissions containing ten (10) or more pages of text must
include a table of contents and an executive summary. Interested
parties are encouraged to file comments electronically via e-mail to
broadbandrfi@ntia.doc.gov. Parties submitting documents containing ten
(10) or more pages are strongly encouraged to submit them
electronically. Comments provided via e-mail may be submitted in one or
more of the formats specified below. Comments must be received by
November 30, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
Paper comments should be sent to: Broadband Initiatives Program,
Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW, Stop 1599, Washington, DC 20250, and Broadband
Technology Opportunities Program, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, HCHB Room
4887, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Please note
that all material sent via the U.S. Postal Service (including
``Overnight'' or ``Express Mail'') is subject to delivery delays of up
to two weeks due to mail security procedures. All written comments
received will be posted at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/
commentsround2.cfm. Paper submissions should also include a CD or DVD
in HTML, ASCII, or Word format (please specify version). CDs or DVDs
should be labeled with the name and organizational affiliation of the
filer, and the name of the word processing program used to create the
document.
Jonathan S. Adelstein,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
Dated: November 9, 2009.
Lawrence E. Strickling,
Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information.
[FR Doc. E9-27359 Filed 11-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-60-S