[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22340-22342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9860]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[WT Docket No. 10-208; DA 11-702]
Further Inquiry Into Tribal Issues Relating to Establishment of a
Mobility Fund
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document seeks comment on particular issues for
consideration by the Federal Communication Commission in connection
with the proposed creation of a new Mobility Fund to make available
one-time support to significantly improve coverage of current-
generation or better mobile voice and Internet service for consumers in
areas where such coverage is currently missing. Specifically, comment
is sought on developing a more tailored approach that provides at least
some Mobility Fund support for Tribal lands.
DATES: Comments are due on or before May 4, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 10-208,
by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies 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 must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St., 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.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
[[Page 22341]]
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or telephone: 202-
418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
Auctions and Spectrum Access Division: Scott Mackoul, Attorney Advisor,
at (202) 418-7498.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Inquiry into Tribal Issues Relating to Establishment of a
Mobility Fund Public Notice (Tribal Issues for Mobility Fund Public
Notice) adopted and released on April 18, 2011, in WT Docket No. 10-
208. The complete text of the Tribal Issues for Mobility Fund Public
Notice is available for public inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on
Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The Tribal Issues for Mobility Fund
Public Notice may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, fax 202-
488-5563, or you may contact BCPI at its Web site: http://www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering documents from BCPI, please provide the
appropriate FCC document number, for example, DA 11-702. The Tribal
Issues for Mobility Fund Public Notice is also available on the
Internet at the Commission's Web site or by using the search function
for WT Docket No. 10-208 on the ECFS Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
Synopsis of Public Notice
1. The Commission recently received comments on a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, Universal Service Reform Mobility Fund, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 75 FR 67060, November 1, 2010 (Mobility Fund
NPRM), to use reserves accumulated in the Universal Service Fund (USF)
to create a Mobility Fund which would employ a market-based, reverse
auction mechanism to award one-time support to providers to extend
mobile voice coverage over current-generation 3G or 4G networks in
areas where such networks are lacking.
2. In proposing the Mobility Fund, the Commission acknowledged the
relatively low level of telecommunications deployment on and the
distinct challenges in bringing connectivity to Tribal lands. The
Commission further noted that, in light of the United States' unique
government-to-government trust relationship with American Indian Tribes
and Alaska Native Villages, and to address the particular challenges in
advancing deployment on Tribal lands, a more tailored approach that
provides at least some Mobility Fund support for Tribal lands on a
separate track may be beneficial. The Commission sought broad comment
on whether to reserve funds for developing a Mobility Fund program to
target USF support separately to Tribal lands that trail national 3G
coverage rates. Commenters to the proceeding generally support the
adoption of a mechanism or program within the Mobility Fund focused on
Tribal areas and provided input on a number of elements important to
establishing a separate fund. There are particular issues related to
the establishment of such a mechanism, however, for which additional
comment may benefit the Commission as it considers how to proceed.
1. Possible Mechanism To Reflect Tribal Priorities for Competitive
Bidding
3. The Commission acknowledges and respects the sovereignty and
self-determination of Tribal governments, and recognizes their rights
to establish their own communications priorities and goals. Commenters
have suggested that Tribal governments are best positioned to identify
what the needs of their members and communities are and to target
resources to best achieve those goals. At the same time, the Commission
has proposed that scarce USF resources may best be awarded through a
competitive, market-based mechanism to maximize their impact. In
considering whether to establish a program within the Mobility Fund
focused on Tribal areas, the Commission seeks comment on how it might
tailor its competitive bidding and other procedures to best meet Tribal
needs. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on ways to afford
Tribal governments an opportunity to identify their own priorities
within the context of a reverse auction mechanism for Mobility Fund
support.
4. By way of background, the reverse auction as proposed in the
Mobility Fund NPRM would determine winning bidders support based on the
lowest per-unit bids to cover designated unserved census blocks, using
the population or some other metric such as road miles in the unserved
areas as units and taking into account a requirement that there be no
more than one Mobility Fund recipient in any particular unserved area.
The auction mechanism would compare all per-unit bids across all areas
(that is, compare all bids against all other bids throughout the
eligible areas of the county, rather than compare all bids for a single
area against each other), and rank all the submitted bids from lowest
per-unit amount to highest. The bidder making the lowest per-unit bid
would first be assigned support in an amount equal to the amount needed
to cover the units deemed unserved in the specific area at the per-unit
amount that was bid. Support would continue to be assigned to the
bidders with the next lowest per-unit bids in turn, as long as support
had not already been assigned for that area, until the sum of funds
requested by the winning bidders was such that no further winning bids
could be funded by the money available in the Mobility Fund. Support
amounts would be based on the per-unit bids of the winning bidders
times the number of unserved units associated with a particular
geographic area.
5. The Commission seeks comment here on the possibility of
providing to Tribal governments an additional specified number of
``priority units'' to ensure that Mobility Fund support for Tribal
areas best serves Tribal needs. The priority units could be based upon
the total number of units, however defined, in unserved blocks located
within their Tribal lands boundaries. Tribes would have the flexibility
to allocate these units in whatever manner they choose. Under this
mechanism, Tribes could elect to allocate all of their priority units
to one census block that is particularly important to them (for
instance, because of the presence of an anchor institution, large
numbers of unserved residents, etc.), or to divide the total number of
priority units among multiple census blocks according to their relative
priority. By giving Tribes an opportunity to allocate additional units
to particular unserved census blocks within the boundaries of their
Tribal land, a bidder could increase the number of units covered by its
bid to cover those Unserved census blocks and therefore reduce its per-
unit bid amount. This would increase the likelihood that the unserved
census blocks assigned priority units would receive funding through the
proposed competitive bidding process. If such bids were to be among
those selected to receive support, support amounts would be based on
the per-unit bid amount times the total of regular units and priority
units for the area. The Commission invites comment on this proposal. In
particular, the Commission invites comment on whether this
[[Page 22342]]
mechanism would help to ensure that Tribal priorities are met in
providing USF support for the extension of mobile voice service. To the
extent other options may be preferable, commenters are requested to
discuss alternatives in detail and explain how these options would work
in the context of the proposed competitive bidding mechanism.
Commenters are also invited to provide information about what factors
are most important in targeting limited support for mobile wireless
service within Tribal lands.
2. Possible Requirement for Engagement With Tribal Governments Prior to
Auction
6. Several commenters suggest that parties participating in a
Mobility Fund auction seeking support to serve Tribal lands be required
to demonstrate that Tribal governments have been formally and
effectively engaged in the planning process and that the service to be
provided will advance the goals established by the Tribal government.
The Commission seeks comment on those proposals. What issues should
receive priority in a flow of information and exchange of ideas with
Tribal governments? What subjects of discussion will increase the
potential for sustainability and adoption of the contemplated service?
Among other things, the Commission believes the topics of engagement
with Tribal governments could include: (1) Needs assessment, deployment
planning and inclusion of Tribal anchor institutions and communities;
(2) feasibility and sustainability planning; (3) marketing supported
services in a culturally sensitive manner; (4) rights-of-way processes,
land use permitting, facilities siting and cultural preservation review
processes; and, (5) compliance with Tribal business and licensing
requirements. At what point in time should any such engagement
requirement apply (e.g., at the short-form or long-form application
stage)? Commenters are invited to address the appropriate scope and
timing of a potential consultation requirement.
3. Possible Preference for Tribally-Owned and -Controlled Providers
7. At least one comment to the Mobility Fund NPRM suggested a
preference for Tribally-owned and -controlled providers. Specifically,
the Commission seeks comment on a proposal that would provide a form of
bidding credit to qualified Tribally-owned and -controlled providers.
If a provider qualified for this bidding credit, its per-unit bid
amount would be reduced by a designated percentage for purposes of
comparing it to other bids made--although if the bid were to win,
support would be calculated at the full, undiscounted bid amount. That
is, the ``reduced'' bid would fall lower in the ranking of bids from
lowest to highest, making it more likely that a Tribally-owned and -
controlled entity would be among the winning bidders eligible to
receive funding, but the bidding credit would not reduce the amount of
funding that the entity would receive if it were to be awarded support.
The Commission seeks comment on this approach. The Commission also
invites comment on whether a Tribal preference is appropriate in the
context of awarding universal service funds. To the extent the
Commission wishes to adopt such a bidding credit for Tribally-owned and
-controlled providers, what percentage would be appropriate? Are there
other methods the Commission should consider to provide a preference to
Tribally-owned and -controlled providers? The Commission notes that the
establishment of an absolute Tribal priority, as proposed in the mobile
spectrum context and adopted in the context of the Tribal Priority for
radio broadcast licensing, may not be appropriate here. This is because
in the reverse auction mechanism proposed for the Mobility Fund, an
award would not be made for each area, but instead support would be
granted only for those areas where the per-unit bids are lowest.
8. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should employ
both a priority unit mechanism and a bidding preference for Tribal
entities at the same time. And, if not, which of these mechanisms may
work more effectively in a Mobility Fund auction to target support
consistent with Tribal needs?
4. Timing of a Tribal Mobility Fund Auction
9. In the Mobility Fund NPRM, the Commission noted that addressing
Mobility Fund support for Tribal lands on a separate track could be
beneficial in providing adequate time to consult with Tribal
governments and seek their input. While commenters generally supported
creation of a separate Tribal Mobility Fund, they cautioned that
addressing Tribal issues on a ``separate track'' should not put them on
a ``slow track.'' The Commission agrees that Tribal issues are a
priority and should be resolved expeditiously in order to speed the
provision of services on Tribal lands. The Commission observes,
however, that there are pending proposals regarding utilization of
spectrum over Tribal lands that could benefit from the support that may
be available through a Tribal Mobility Fund auction. In particular, the
Improving Communications Services for Native Nations by Promoting
Greater Utilization of Spectrum Over Tribal Lands, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 76 FR 18476, April 4, 2011, proposes a variety of options
for Tribal entities to access spectrum over Tribal lands. The
Commission seeks comment on the extent to which these open issues
should influence the timing of a possible Tribal Mobility Fund auction.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Mobility
Fund NPRM included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the potential impact on small
entities of the Commission's proposal. The Commission invites parties
to file comments on the IRFA in light of this additional notice.
Procedural Matters
Ex Parte Presentations. This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-
but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the ex parte rules.
Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance
of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects
discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views
and arguments presented generally is required. Other requirements
pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Margaret W. Wiener,
Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-9860 Filed 4-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P