Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

11604

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 37 / Friday, February 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
fulfill their responsibilities which resulted in RUS not adhering to the requirements to not fund networks where at least 10/1 mbps service exists.
The comment lists two specific scenarios. Respondent recommends that RUS avoid using contractors, but if they must be used, better training is needed.
Agency GFRs should work more closely with contractors to ensure that they fulfill their duties to accurately verify whether service exists.
Agency response: Starting with Round 2, GFRs now have the lead role in completing field reviews to determine if sufficient access to broadband exists in an area.
RUS should make any area where the Federal Communication Commission FCC is, at the time of application consideration, committing funding to build a terrestrial network ineligible for Rural eConnectivity Program Awards.
This should include funding from ACAM, CAFBLS, Alaska Plan, CAF II
Auction, and RDOF USF High Cost Program funding streams. The one exception is areas funded by the Universal Service Fund USF high cost program where most of the area has 25/
3 mpbs which some have less. The Agency should allow USF recipients to apply for funding to bring higher speeds that the FCC has mandated to the areas they already serve.
Agency response: The proposed regulation allows the Agency to establish what areas are to be protected when new application windows are opened through a notice in the Federal Register. The Agency continues to work with the FCC to identify areas where they are providing funds and where RUS is providing funds.
Respondent recommends that RUS
allow applicants, working with Tribal entities, to certify fisheries in the same way the Rural eConnectivity Program allows farms to be certified. In some parts of the country, fisheries are key to economic development and broadband is just as important at sea for both safety and efficiency of production as it is on land. Placing fishing on equal footing with farming will provide additional geographical diversity to the applicant pool and ensure economically important coastal areas get the broadband they need.
Agency response: The proposed regulation allows for scoring criteria to be established each time an application window is opened. If farms are used for scoring criteria in future application windows, we will consider counting fisheries as farms.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:49 Feb 25, 2021

Jkt 253001

Respondent Two The following comments apply to the application process:
Limit required data submissions to the corporate entity applying and the geographic area and/or project affected.
Agency response: The information requested in the application is the minimal amount that is needed to determine if the company can adequately address the needs of the proposed project and remain a viable operation.
Limit information requests to reduce the amount of data sought from the applicants parents and affiliates that is not critical to determining whether an award should be made and to information about the affected geographical area.
Agency response: Each application is unique. RUS only requests information about parents and affiliates that is needed in order to make a sound financial decision about the project.
Clarify that an applicant need only submit information about non-funded service areas NFSA that are related to the proposed funded service area PFSA, rather than all of the applications NFSAs.
Agency response: The purpose of the NFSA is to provide sufficient information to evaluate the viability of an operation. Publicly traded companies with a sufficient bond rating have publicly demonstrated this and there is no need for the NFSA. The proposed regulation does allow publicly traded companies an option where they do not have to submit their NFSAs. However, all other applicants will need to submit all of the service areas in the NFSAs and PFSAs.
Permit subleasing rights so that an applicant is not required to own the facilities used to provide broadband, so long as the entity owning the facilities is an affiliated entity that gives RUS
sufficient financial security.
Agency response: To ensure that the project is completed, the entity applying for the award must own the facilities.
Additionally, so that the agency retains its security in the collateral, legal documents must be entered into with entity that controls such assets.
However, the agency has been amenable to entering into co-awardee agreements where assets must be held by an affiliate.
Publicly traded companies cannot share the forward-looking data RUS
requires.
Agency response: The proposed regulation has options that publicly traded companies can elect, where they would not have to submit forwardlooking projections.

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Allow providers alternate ways to establish their project capabilities, such as demonstrating financial viability through publicly available Securities and Exchange Commission filings, replacing the first lien on assets requirement with alternatives for security options, and implementing a budgeting methodology that is more flexible than the Capital Investment Workbook.
Agency response: The Agency will consider substitute collateral options;
however, any solution must take into consideration that deviating from the agencys standard security arrangements will require significant time and legal resources, which may not be available.
The capital investment workbook is set up to ensure that adequate funds are considered to ensure the project is properly funded.
Defer network design and environmental showings until later in the RUS funding process and allow inhouse engineers to certify projects.
Agency response: Network designs must be completed in order to identify all resources that are needed for the project.
Enable the widest possible participation by eliminating the ban on applications from broadband providers organized as partnerships or joint ventures.
Agency response: The proposed regulation now includes language to clarify specifically what types of partnerships are eligible and which types are still considered ineligible.
Partnerships that do not involve individuals are now eligible entities.
The following comments apply to the award process:
Take stronger steps to ensure that funded areas are truly unserved, including: i Undertaking better coordination of maps and data with the FCC to avoid granting duplicative funding to the same area; ii considering an area to be served once a provider has built a broadband network there, regardless of whether it has yet secured customers in that area;
and iii considering an area to be served if federal or state broadband funding has been committed to that area, or a provider has a binding commitment to build a broadband network there, regardless of whether those networks are yet built out as long as the provider is meeting applicable build-out deadlines.
Agency response: We continue to work with the FCC to ensure that their program and RUS programs are complementary of each other. The proposed regulation allows the Agency to establish what areas are eligible for
E:FRFM26FER1.SGM

26FER1