Tag Archives: BEAD

HF5242: Transportation supplemental budget bill is referred to Rules and Administration

Posted on by
Reply

HF5242: Transportation supplemental budget bill is Rules and Administration for comparison with SF5284. I noticed the move today because there was a section added that would impact broadband workers…

Page 2, line 10, after “disabilities” insert “. In no case shall the workforce on a grant-funded broadband project include an illegal or undocumented worker. If an illegal or undocumented worker is found to be working on a project without employment authorization, the employer, general contractor, or foreman on the project shall be subject to the misclassification fines and penalties under section 181.723, subdivision 7, and section 326B.082, subdivisions 6, 7, 10, 11, and 13, as applicable”

Reports on incident rates of underground digging and utility installation

Posted on by
Reply

Public News Service reports on some background supporting HF4659, a bill that sets safety standards for broadband industry installers…

Government leaders are acting with urgency to get underserved communities connected with high speed internet but in Minnesota, underground digging for broadband installation is emerging as a safety concern.
This spring, the think tank North Star Policy Action issued a report noting over the past three years, such installations were the leading cause of damage to buried infrastructure in the state.
Aaron Rosenthal, research director for the North Star Policy Action, said telecommunications crews are coming in contact with a maze of electric lines and natural gas pipes, with the drilling averaging more than 1.25 strikes a day.
“That’s a level of damage that we think is very concerning,” Rosenthal asserted. “It stands out from other industries and we believe needs to be addressed. Minnesotans should not have to choose between high speed internet and their own safety.”
The data is from a trade organization and Rosenthal warned because it is provided voluntarily, the full scope of damage is unclear. The authors contended workers receive inadequate training and a bill in the Legislature would beef up standards. Skeptics worry about effects such as derailing progress on broadband goals with a wave of federal funding spurring projects.
But the researchers and labor leaders predicted the accelerated pace of installations will result in more incidents.
Octavio Chung Bustamante, Minnesota and North Dakota field organizer and marketing representative for the Laborers’ International Union of North America, said the workers, many of whom are immigrants, are putting their lives at risk without getting a prevailing wage.
“When you talk about underground work — electric, or gas, or water and sewers — a lot of those workers, you know, they earn a good living,” Bustamante observed. “But it’s a different game for broadband work.”

The legislative push also includes provisions to set fair wages for broadband installation workers. As for the data, a key state agency notes overall damage from utility excavation has trended downward. The researchers said it is a symptom of reporting requirement issues, underscoring their argument the information is incomplete.

NTIA addresses common BEAD misconceptions for non-traditional broadband providers

Posted on by
Reply

In response to my post on Common complaints about BEAD in Broadband Breakfast the other day, someone sent me a similar page from the NTIA website. I thought I’d share it too…

Established through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, BEAD is a grants program like no other—differing from prior federal broadband funding programs in a number of material ways. Most notably, it is the first program to require that awardees (i.e., states and territories) ensure universal availability of high-speed Internet access, including to those locations that have not been addressed by prior programs because they have proven to be the most difficult and expensive to serve. This unprecedented effort will require that each awardee maximize incentives for provider participation.

NTIA has produced Common Misconceptions: Non-Traditional Broadband Providers (ntia.gov) guidance to address common concerns non-traditional broadband providers might have regarding applying for BEAD or other federal grants and provides tips and resources to support applications.

The BEAD NOFO Section IV.B.9.b.10 requires the following in each Eligible Entity’s Final Proposal:

“A description of efforts undertaken by the Eligible Entity to ensure the participation of non-traditional broadband providers (such as municipalities or political subdivisions, cooperatives, non-profits, Tribal Governments, and utilities), including an explanation for awards to traditional broadband providers when one or more non-traditional providers submitted competing proposals to serve an area consistent with the requirements of SectionIV.C.1.a”

Section I.C.p defines non-traditional broadband provider:

“Non-Traditional Broadband Provider—The term “non-traditional broadband provider” means

an electric cooperative, nonprofit organization, public-private partnership, public or private

utility, public utility district, Tribal entity, or local government (including any unit, subdivision,

authority, or consortium of local governments) that provides or will provide broadband services.”

CAPACITY | I am concerned that I will not score high enough on the operational or technical capability criteria to win a bid.

Scoring a potential subgrantee’s operational and technical capabilities will account for the size of the project at issue. If the project is appropriately scoped so that your organization has the operational and technical capabilities to complete it, you should apply.

CYBERSECURITY AND SCRM | We operate with a limited number of staff and fear we are too small to hire the specialized personnel needed to meet BEAD cybersecurity requirements.

The BEAD Program does not require subgrantees to maintain a certain number of full-time personnel or teams staffed with experts on specific operational matters such as cybersecurity. States and territories must require prospective subgrantees to attest to having cybersecurity and supply chain risk management plans in place that reflect recent guidance issued by the federal government and to submit these plans before receiving award funding. Prospective subgrantees should employ the staff and contractors they deem necessary to meet this and other BEAD requirements.

WORKFORCE | I don’t believe I can apply for a BEAD grant because my workforce is not unionized, and I may not be able to abide by federal prevailing wage requirements.

BEAD does not require a unionized workforce or compliance with prevailing wage laws. For BEAD projects that will exceed $5 million, subgrantees that will not be using a unionized workforce or complying with prevailing wage laws must file reports that include information such as the size, job titles, and wages and benefits of the proposed project’s workforce and certification and licensure requirements for each position.

For more information: Prevailing Wage Overview & Resources

NEW ENTRANT | As a new entrant to the broadband industry, I can’t provide historical evidence of meeting state and federal fair labor laws.

New entrants without a record of labor and employment law compliance must be permitted to mitigate this fact by making specific, forward-looking commitments to strong labor and employment standards and protections with respect to BEAD-funded projects. This requirement is described in further detail in Section IV.C.1.e of the BEAD NOFO.

For more information: BEAD NOFO

BUILD AMERICA BUY AMERICA | We can’t meet the buildout timeline or submit a competitive project budget due to BABA requirements.

NTIA released a BABA waiver for the BEAD Program in February 2024. Because of the Buy America preference, the majority of fiber broadband equipment used to complete BEAD projects will be made in the United States, but BABA does not require that all goods purchased with BEAD funds are domestically manufactured.

For more information: BEAD BABA Waiver

LETTER OF CREDIT | I cannot meet the letter of credit obligations outlined in the BEAD NOFO so I shouldn’t even apply.

NTIA approved a programmatic waiver for the BEAD letter of credit requirement. This waiver allows subgrantees to use banks or credit unions to secure letters of credit or performance bonds and to reduce the letter of credit (or bond) amount upon completion of project milestones. The waiver also allows states and territories to permit subgrantees to maintain a letter of credit or performance bond valued at 10% of the subaward amount under certain circumstances.

For more information: Letter of Credit Waiver

MATCH | I can’t provide more than a 25% match, and because the state I bid in scores additional points for a higher match, I feel discouraged from applying.

NTIA will consider individual match waiver requests from states and territories as needed. Subgrantees can also pursue match support from other local organizations or governments. Finally, projects in BEAD high-cost areas have no match requirement.

LOW-COST BROADBAND SERVICE OPTION | I will not be able to make money on a project if I can only charge subscribers $30 per month.

ISPs that receive BEAD subgrants must provide a low-cost broadband service option to eligible subscribers, which includes households with income at or below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. States define their own BEAD low-cost service option, and many may permit subgrantees to charge more than $30 per month, plus some may allow potential subgrantees to seek waivers to charge more than the ceiling for low-cost plans set by the state.

Common complaints about BEAD in Broadband Breakfast

Posted on by
Reply

Broadband Breakfast posts an article from Lori Adams, cu vice president of broadband policy and funding strategy for Nokia, on whether/how rural providers can prepare to apply for BEAD. With years of MN State Broadband funds, I feel like Minnesota providers are in a little different position than providers in other states. (Although BEAD will certainly be different.) Yet, I found the section on complaints about BEAD to be interesting…

Common complaints about BEAD

The first is that the states have already made up their mind who they want to partner with for BEAD. To put it bluntly, this is completely false.

The money is not predetermined to go to a single carrier or group of providers. This will be a competitive process in every state. Scoring will determine which applicants are successful. The higher an applicant scores, the more likely it is an applicant will win. How a state defines the project areas to be “bid on” for BEAD may favor certain types of providers, but nothing is pre-determined. In fact, states are actively looking for rural providers to engage and participate in the process.

The next complaint is centered on the BEAD rules. Often we hear – “well, it depends on what the rules are in the states.” At this juncture, most of the rules are determined and there is more than enough information available to help inform decisions.

For example, The National Telecommunications and Information Administration first released their Notice of Funding Opportunity in May of 2022, and nearly 90% of the program rules are the same in every state.

Additionally, every state has released its Initial Proposal Volume 2, outlining the specific program rules for that state. Almost all the states are now moving into the mapping challenge processes. This means that almost all the critical details are available to help providers start preparing an application now.

Others believe that BEAD is too complex, and it is too early to think about it. Yes, BEAD is complex. It is arguably the most complicated broadband funding program we have ever seen. But it’s complex for everyone, and the longer an applicant waits to prepare, the more complex it will become.

In most cases, providers will need at least three to four months to prepare an application. For example, it’s a requirement in every state that a professional engineer (PE) stamps the network designs, budgets and other documentation that must be submitted as part of a BEAD application.

Finding and contracting with a PE takes time, as does the preparation of the necessary the documentation. Once a grant window opens, it will most likely be too late to find a PE and have this work completed.

There is also the belief that BEAD costs too much and that matching funds are too high. Yes, there is a minimum match requirement of 25%, and an applicant may very well need to put in more money to be competitive. However, other federal grant and loan programs including those through USDA’s Rural Utilities Service range from a 50% to 100% subsidy.

State and federal programs such as the Capital Projects Fund (CPF) programs contain a 20-50% matching requirement, and we are hearing from states that these programs are up to five times oversubscribed, with matching funds exceeding 50% in some cases.

For BEAD, states will consider waiving the match for the highest cost area, and private equity is clamoring at the bit to assist with financing. While cost is a factor, someone will figure out how to make this work.

The final excuse repeated is that other funding programs are preferred. Well, if the mandate of BEAD to reach every single unserved and underserved location is achieved, those future funding programs may very well disappear. As it is, ReConnect through USDA is funding a fraction of the money that is available for BEAD. Further, it’s a risk to hedge your bet that there will be future unserved locations in your service area qualified to be funded through these other programs.

Office of Broadband Development training on utility license application and process

Posted on by
Reply

Today was the final session of Broadband Development Tuesday Training Series: Navigating PLUS (Permitting, Land Use, and State Systems). In this training, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) cover information on the utility license application and process. (Content from the series is recorded and posted to the Office of Broadband Development’s webpage.)

Questions:

Is Forestry a separate division?
Yes. But we can coordinate with them.
Ecological water division is another division. We can help with coordination.

When will the PWI map be made into a GIS format?
Not in process now. We’re working on getting the application process and payment online.

About aerial – dealing with different areas. Is it better to go aerial or is boring OK too? Which is better overhead or trenching?
It depends on the case. Aerial isn’t always preferable in a nature reserve.
We want to limit natural resource impact.
Rules in natural area, try to avoid it, if you can’t bury it.

Update on House bills related to broadband grant requirements and fund distribution

Posted on by
Reply

The Journal of the House (April 24, 2024) updates two items related to broadband. I have tried to pull out the pertinent information from the Reports of Standing Committees and Divisions.

  • At the very highest level the first item would give DEED and the Office of Broadband Development more authority for spending the money available for broadband grants.
  • The second would give unserved areas priority over underserved areas looking for broadband grants. It reserves a percent of funds for projects that agree to implement the workforce best practices, which includes prevailing wage and 80 hours of training. They also specify similar goals for BEAD funding; however, the Office of Broadband Development can eschew rules if that adhering to them would present the state from getting federal funding. The bill also recommends a standards for a safety-qualified underground telecommunications installer certification program.

ARTICLE 4 BROADBAND

Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2022, section 116J.396, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:

Subd. 4. Transfer. The commissioner may transfer up to $5,000,000 of a fiscal year appropriation between the border-to-border broadband program, low density population broadband program, and the broadband line extension program to meet demand. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment.

Sec. 2. BROADBAND DEVELOPMENT; APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL FUNDING; APPROPRIATION.

(a) The commissioner of employment and economic development must prepare and submit an application to the United States Department of Commerce requesting State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Funding made available under Public Law 117-58, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

(b) The amount awarded to Minnesota pursuant to the application submitted under paragraph (a) is appropriated to the commissioner of employment and economic development for purposes of the commissioner’s Minnesota Digital Opportunity Plan.”

Delete the title and insert:

“A bill for an act relating to state government; authorizing supplemental agriculture appropriations; modifying appropriations; providing broadband appropriation transfer authority; making policy and technical changes to agriculture provisions; establishing and modifying agriculture programs; requiring an application for federal broadband aid; requiring reports; appropriating money; amending Minnesota Statutes 2022, sections 3.7371, subdivisions 2, 3, by adding subdivisions; 17.133, subdivision 1; 18B.01, by adding a subdivision; 18B.26, subdivision 6; 18B.28, by adding a subdivision; 18B.305, subdivision 2; 18B.32, subdivisions 1, 3, 4, 5; 18B.33, subdivisions 1, 5, 6; 18B.34, subdivisions 1, 4; 18B.35, subdivision 1; 18B.36, subdivisions 1, 2; 18B.37, subdivisions 2, 3; 18C.005, subdivision 33, by adding subdivisions; 18C.115, subdivision 2; 18C.215, subdivision 1; 18C.221; 18C.70, subdivision 5; 18C.71, subdivision 4; 18C.80, subdivision 2; 18D.301, subdivision 1; 28A.10; 28A.21, subdivision 6; 31.74; 31.94; 32D.30; 41B.039, subdivision 2; 41B.04, subdivision 8; 41B.042, subdivision 4; 41B.043, subdivision 1b; 41B.045, subdivision 2; 41B.047, subdivision 1; 116J.396, by adding a subdivision; 223.17, subdivision 6; 232.21, subdivisions 3, 7, 11, 12, 13; Minnesota Statutes 2023 Supplement, sections 17.055, subdivision 3; 17.133, subdivision 3; 17.134, by adding a subdivision; 18C.421, subdivision 1; 18C.425, subdivision 6; 18K.06; 41A.19; Laws 2023, chapter 43, article 1, sections 2; 4; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapters 18B; 18C; repealing Minnesota Statutes 2022, sections 3.7371, subdivision 7; 34.07; Minnesota Rules, parts 1506.0010; 1506.0015; 1506.0020; 1506.0025; 1506.0030; 1506.0035; 1506.0040.”

With the recommendation that when so amended the bill be re-referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

The report was adopted

ARTICLE 8

BROADBAND AND PIPELINE SAFETY

Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2022, section 116J.395, subdivision 6, is amended to read:

Subd. 6. Awarding grants. (a) In evaluating applications and awarding grants, the commissioner shall give priority to applications that are constructed in areas identified by the director of the Office of Broadband Development as unserved.

(b) In evaluating applications and awarding grants, the commissioner may give priority to applications that:

(1) are constructed in areas identified by the director of the Office of Broadband Development as underserved;

(2) offer new or substantially upgraded broadband service to important community institutions including, but not limited to, libraries, educational institutions, public safety facilities, and healthcare facilities;

(3) facilitate the use of telehealth and electronic health records;

(4) serve economically distressed areas of the state, as measured by indices of unemployment, poverty, or population loss that are significantly greater than the statewide average;

(5) provide technical support and train residents, businesses, and institutions in the community served by the project to utilize broadband service;

(6) include a component to actively promote the adoption of the newly available broadband services in the community;

(7) provide evidence of strong support for the project from citizens, government, businesses, and institutions in the community;

(8) provide access to broadband service to a greater number of unserved or underserved households and businesses; or

(9) leverage greater amounts of funding for the project from other private and public sources.

(c) The commissioner shall endeavor to award grants under this section to qualified applicants in all regions of the state. 104TH DAY] WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2024 14265

(d) No less than the following percentages of the total border-to-border broadband grant funds awarded in the year indicated shall be reserved for applicants that agree to implement the workforce best practices as defined in paragraph (e):

(1) 50 percent in 2024;

(2) 60 percent in 2025; and

(3) 70 percent in 2026 and thereafter.

The applicant’s agreement to implement the workforce best practices as defined in paragraph (e) must be an express condition of providing the grant in the grant agreement.

(e) An applicant for a grant under this section is considered to implement workforce best practices only if the applicant can demonstrate that:

(1) there is credible evidence of support for the application and the applicant’s workforce needs on the project for which the grant is provided from one or more labor, labor-management, or other workforce organizations that have a track record of representing and advocating for workers or recruiting, training, and securing employment for people of color, Indigenous people, women, or people with disabilities in the construction industry; and

(2) all laborers and mechanics performing construction, installation, remodeling, or repairs on the project sites for which the grant is provided:

(i) are paid the prevailing wage rate as defined in section 177.42, subdivision 6, and the applicant and all of its construction contractors and subcontractors agree that the payment of prevailing wage to such laborers and mechanics is subject to the requirements and enforcement provisions under sections 177.27, 177.30, 177.32, 177.41 to 177.435, and 177.45, which the commissioner of labor and industry shall have the authority to enforce; or

(ii) receive from their employer:

(A) at least 80 hours of skills training annually, of which at least 40 hours must consist of hands-on instruction;

(B) employer-paid family health insurance coverage; and

(C) employer-paid retirement benefit payments equal to no less than 15 percent of the employee’s total taxable wages.

(f) In the event that the commissioner does not receive enough qualified applications to achieve the standards under paragraph (d), the commissioner shall consult with prospective applicants and labor and workforce organizations under paragraph (e), clause (1), to solicit additional qualified applications.

Sec. 2. [116J.3991] BROADBAND, EQUITY, ACCESS, AND DEPLOYMENT (BEAD).

Subdivision 1. Implementation. The commissioner shall implement a Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program that prioritizes applicants for state funding that demonstrate the following:

(1) commitment by the applicant to robust training programs with established requirements that are tied to uniform wage scales, job titles, and relevant certifications or skill codes

(2) use of a directly employed workforce, as opposed to a subcontracted workforce, to perform broadband placing, splicing, and maintenance work. Public entity applicants may meet this requirement by use of a directly employed workforce or committing to contract with an Internet service provider that will use a directly employed workforce;

(3) commitment to implement workforce best practices under section 116J.395, subdivision 6, paragraph (e), on the project or projects for which the applicant seeks public funding; and

(4) commitment to retaining a locally based workforce and establishing programs to promote training and hiring pipelines for underrepresented communities.

Subd. 2. Project evaluation. In projects funded by the BEAD Program, the criteria under subdivision 1 and section 116J.395, subdivision 6, paragraph (e), shall receive a priority point allocation in the point scheme for project applications, such that these criteria shall, together with points awarded for labor law compliance, constitute no fewer than 25 points of the evaluation scheme, out of 100. No fewer than 20 points must be based on an applicant’s forward-looking commitments regarding implementation of workforce best practices and other commitments listed in this section.

Subd. 3. Disclosures. Applicants’ disclosures responding to the criteria in subdivision 1 and section 116J.395, subdivision 6, paragraph (e), must be publicly available on the department website, and all workforce commitments made under this section and section 116J.395 shall become enforceable, certified commitments and conditions of the grant.

Subd. 4. Workforce plan data. (a) Grantees in projects funded by the program under this section and section 116J.395 are required to provide in biannual reports information on their workforce, including:

(1) whether the workforce will be directly employed by the grantee or the Internet service provider or whether work will be performed by a subcontracted workforce;

(2) the entities that the contractor plans to subcontract with in carrying out the proposed work, if any, and the entity employing the workforce in each job title;

(3) the job titles and size of the workforce, including the number of full-time equivalent positions that are required to carry out the proposed work over the course of the project;

(4) for each job title required to carry out the proposed work, a description of wages, benefits, applicable wage scales including overtime rates, and a description of how wages are calculated; and

(5) any other workforce plan information as determined by the commissioner.

(b) Following an award, the workforce plan and the requirement to submit ongoing workforce reports shall be incorporated as material conditions of the contract with the department and become enforceable, certified commitments. The commissioner must conduct regular reviews to assure compliance and take appropriate measures for enforcement.

Subd. 5. Failure to meet requirements or falsification of data. If successful applicants fail to meet the program requirements under this section, or otherwise falsify information regarding such requirements, the commissioner shall investigate the failure and issue an appropriate action, up to and including a determination that the applicant is ineligible for future participation in broadband grant programs funded by the department.

Subd. 6. Federal grant requirements. The commissioner shall have authority not to enforce or apply any requirement of this section to the extent that the requirement would prevent the state from receiving federal broadband grant funding.

Sec. 3. [181.912] UNDERGROUND TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE.

Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this section:

(1) “directional drilling” means a drilling method that utilizes a steerable drill bit to cut a bore hole for installing underground utilities;

(2) “safety-qualified underground telecommunications installer” means a person who has completed underground utilities installation certification under subdivision 3;

(3) “underground telecommunications utilities” means buried broadband, telephone and other telecommunications transmission, distribution and service lines, and associated facilities; and

(4) “underground utilities” means buried electric transmission and distribution lines, gas and hazardous liquids pipelines and distribution lines, sewer and water pipelines, telephone or telecommunications lines, and associated facilities.

Subd. 2. Installation requirements. The installation of underground telecommunications infrastructure that is located within ten feet of existing underground utilities or that crosses said utilities must be performed by safety-qualified underground telecommunications installers as follows:

(1) the location of existing utilities by hand or hydro excavation or other accepted methods must be performed by a safety-qualified underground telecommunications installer;

(2) where telecommunications infrastructure is installed by means of directional drilling, the monitoring of the location and depth of the drill head must be performed by a safety-qualified underground telecommunications installer; and

(3) no less than two safety-qualified underground telecommunications installers must be present at all times at any location where telecommunications infrastructure is being installed by means of directional drilling.

Subd. 3. Certification Standards. (a) The commissioner of labor and industry shall approve standards for a safety-qualified underground telecommunications installer certification program that requires a person to:

(1) complete a 40-hour initial course that includes classroom and hands-on instruction covering proper work procedures for safe installation of underground utilities, including:

(i) regulations applicable to excavation near existing utilities;

(ii) identification, location, and verification of utility lines using hand or hydro excavation or other accepted methods;

(iii) response to line strike incidents;

(iv) traffic control procedures;

(v) use of a tracking device to safely guide directional drill equipment along a drill path; and

(vi) avoidance and mitigation of safety hazards posed by underground utility installation projects;

(2) demonstrate knowledge of the course material by successfully completing an examination approved by the commissioner; and

(3) complete a four-hour refresher course within three years of completing the original course and every three years thereafter in order to maintain certification.

(b) The commissioner must develop an approval process for training providers under this subdivision, and may suspend or revoke the approval of any training provider that fails to demonstrate consistent delivery of approved curriculum or success in preparing participants to complete the examination.

Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 2022, section 216B.17, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:

Subd. 9. Telecommunications and cable communications systems. (a) The commission has authority under this section to investigate, upon complaint or on its own motion, conduct by or on behalf of a telecommunications carrier, telephone company, or cable communications system provider that impacts public utility or cooperative electric association infrastructure. If the commission finds that the conduct damaged or unreasonably interfered with the function of the infrastructure, the commission may take any action authorized under sections 216B.52 to 216B.61 with respect to the provider.

(b) For purposes of this subdivision:

(1) “telecommunications carrier” has the meaning given in section 237.01, subdivision 6;

(2) “telephone company” has the meaning given in section 237.01, subdivision 7; and

(3) “cable communications system provider” means an owner or operator of a cable communications system as defined in section 238.02, subdivision 3.

Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 2022, section 299J.01, is amended to read: [The rest of the bill is focused on pipelines]

EVENT Notes: OBD Training for broadband providers: working with MN Indian Affairs Council, MN Historical Society, and the Office of the State Archaeologist

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s session on BEAD funding regulations by the Office of Broadband Development focused on…

Session provides an overview of Minnesota’s two primary statutes governing archaeological resources: the Private Cemeteries Act (Minnesota Statute 307.08) and the Field Archaeology Act (Minnesota Statute 138.31-42); a discussion on licensing, including qualifications needed to work in Minnesota; and a consultation with MIAC regarding American Indian cemetery sites, the licensing process, and work standards.

You can check out the session:

Links shared:

Link for the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) Portal: https://osaportal.gisdata.mn.gov/

For more information on SOI-quals: https://www.nps.gov/articles/sec-standards-prof-quals.htm

Applying for an Archaeology License: https://mn.gov/admin/archaeologist/professional-archaeologists/manuals-licenses/

OSA’s Manual for Archaeological Projects in Minnesota: https://mn.gov/admin/assets/OSAmanual_tcm36-186982.pdf

Curation of Archaeological Collections: https://www.mnhs.org/library/learn/collections/archaeology/curation

Or the PPT slides: Continue reading →

EVENT June 10: Building for Digital Equity (#B4DE)

Posted on by
Reply

From the Institute for Local Self Reliance...

The Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR) Community Broadband Networks Initiative and the National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA) are gearing up for the second installment of the Building for Digital Equity (#B4DE) event this year, and encouraging digital equity practitioners to save the date.

The popular (and free) virtual gathering will be held June 10, 2024 from 3 to 4:15 PM ET and will feature an Internet Affordability theme: Pathways to Affordable Connectivity

You can register for the event here.

Coming on the heels of our last B4DE event in March, we are excited to follow up with an informative agenda that will cover:

As with the previous #B4DE events, the June live stream will once again be sponsored by UTOPIA Fiber and co-hosted by NDIA’s Pamela Rosales and ILSR’s Community Broadband Networks Initiative Director Christopher Mitchell.

Bank ranking and federal funding: FCC won’t use Weiss ratings for one year

Posted on by
Reply

Broadband Breakfast follows the reasons and realities behind the FCC’s decision to quit using Weiss ratings for banks’ letters of credit of RDOF, CAF II winners for one year…

 In January, Consolidated Communications notified federal regulators about a financial issue that had cropped up, could do harm to hundreds of broadband Internet Service Providers, and frustrate the effort to deliver high-speed Internet service to rural America.

In a filing with the Federal Communications Commission, Consolidated said the bank from which it had received a letter of credit (LOC) – a requirement under the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction rules – was no longer an eligible lending institution.

Although the FCC did not provide data, the agency in the Consolidated filing was evidently looking in broad terms at a problem that involved hundreds of banks that were backstopping millions of dollars pledged to the FCC as protection against auction winners that defaulted or otherwise underperformed in a manner that would trigger payment to the agency.

Under the FCC’s rules, an LOC had to come from a bank with a Weiss rating of at least B-minus. Consolidated’s bank had just dipped to C plus. The FCC’s rules stipulated that an inferior Weiss rating required the suspension of RDOF support until the auction winner found a new bank with a Weiss rating with at least a B minus.

Finding a new LOC provider can take time and involve additional expense. The FCC’s rules said an LOC from a qualified bank had to be equal to the amount of RDOF support in the first year.

Consolidated sought a six-month waiver from the Weiss requirement, which the FCC granted shortly thereafter. Based in Mattoon, Il., Consolidated has about 393,000 broadband subscribers located in more than 20 states.

That’s just the first chapter but it speaks to the intricacies behind every aspect of every question on these federal applications and the frustration of these intricacies.

MN Seante hears SF5366: fund transfers in broadband budget

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Broadband, and Rural Development discussed SF5366 – Putnam: Broadband supplemental appropriations and transfers
Governor’s supplemental broadband budget. (I have written about this bill before and have been following the House version HF5231.) They deciced to lay the bill over.

Presentation:

Supplemental budget proposal isn’t asking for more money but asks for permission to shift money among Border to Border, Low Density and Line Extension grant programs based on needs. The areas that are unserved are the hardest and most expensive areas to reach. We need to spend/allocate the state grants so we can take areas-to-be-served off the maps that define eligibility for federal funds. They want to make awards after July 1, 2024.

We need to authorize DEED Commissioner to access/allocate federal funds. Specifically, the recently allocated $12 million from the Digital Equity funds. The next step is to apply for those funds through capacity grants from the feds. MN is also expecting $65 million for broadband deployment.

Questions:

How much money do you want to transfer?
Up to $5 million based on applications received. We get some excellent proposals and look at match. It will just depends on the grants we see.

What area has the greatest need?
The red areas on the map in the presentation are the least served.

Does MN work with neighboring states for federal dollars?
Our broadband grants go to broadband providers, so they are in the better position to partner. But we are working with states to learn together and partnering more with tribal areas.

Can Agencies Take Steps to Better Meet Deadline for Processing Permits?

Posted on by
Reply

Borrowing from Benton Institute for Broadband & Society Headlines…

Andrew Von Ah  |  Research  |  Government Accountability Office

The federal government is investing billions of dollars in expanding broadband access. Some new infrastructure—such as broadband towers—will be situated on federal lands. Federal agencies are required to process applications for such permits within 270 days. The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service process most of these applications. Between 2018-2022, both agencies missed the deadline for some applications and for others couldn’t determine if they processed the applications on time. GAO analyzed federal permitting data; reviewed laws and reports on the application review process; and interviewed agency officials. Based on this analysis, GAO is making six recommendations—three to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and three to Forest Service—to improve their processing of communications use applications, so that they are better able to meet the 270-day deadline. BLM and the Forest Service agreed with the recommendations.

  1. The Director of BLM should develop controls to ensure BLM data are sufficiently accurate and complete to track processing times for all communications use applications

  2. The Chief of the Forest Service should develop controls to ensure Forest Service data are sufficiently accurate and complete to track processing times for all communications use applications

  3. The Director of BLM should continue to analyze the factors that contribute to delays in processing communications use applications as they occur and take actions to address those factors

  4. The Chief of the Forest Service should continue to analyze the factors that contribute to delays in processing communications use applications as they occur, as well as the efficacy of the actions the agency has taken to address those factors, and take additional actions as necessary

  5. The Director of BLM should establish a method to alert staff to communications use applications at risk of exceeding the 270-day deadline

  6. The Chief of the Forest Service should establish a method to alert staff to communications use applications at risk of exceeding the 270-day deadline

Earlier this week, the Minnesota Office of Broadband Development hosted a conversation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) about how broadband providers could best work with their office to get necessary permits and permission. SHPO aims to responds to people within 30 days but they admit that can often be 60 days. And if there’s anything amiss with the original application it may take 30-60 days to get a response after each modification. Why? Because they are terribly short staffed and it didn’t sound like they were optimistic about getting funding for more staff anytime soon. I suspect the BLM could be faster with more staff too.

The question is whether we’d like to spend money to streamline permits or on the deplo

EVENT April 11: MN Broadband Task Force monthly meeting at Black Bear and online

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s the agenda for tomorrow’s MN Broadband Task Force meeting…

Governor’s Task Force on Broadband

Thursday, April 11, 2024

10:00 a.m. – 12:35 p.m. 

Black Bear Casino Resort

1785 Highway 210

Carlton, MN 55718

OR

Join on your computer, mobile app or room device

Click here to join the meeting

Meeting ID: 254 999 787 670
Passcode: eijkqa

Download Teams | Join on the web

Join with a video conferencing device

mn@m.webex.com

Video Conference ID: 117 260 817 7

Alternate VTC instructions

Or call in (audio only)

+1 651-395-7448,,876612095#   United States, St. Paul

Phone Conference ID: 876 612 095#

Find a local number | Reset PIN

 

10:00 a.m. – 10:05 a.m.  Welcome and Introductions

Teddy Bekele, Chair, Minnesota Governor’s Task Force on Broadband

10:05 a.m. – 10:10 a.m.  Approval of minutes from March 20th and the April 3rd Task Force Meetings

10:10 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.   Not funding ACP will have on Broadband subscribers on the reservations
Brian Hood, Operations Manager, Fond du Lac Communications

10:30 a.m. – 10:50 a.m.   BEAD Scoring rubric/Updated plan highlights
Diane Wells, Deputy Director, Office of Broadband Development

Bree Maki, Executive Director, Office of Broadband Development

10:50 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.  Digital Opportunity Update

Hannah Buckland, Digital Equity Program Lead

Bree Maki, Executive Director, Office of Broadband Development

11:00 a.m. – 11:10 a.m.  Break
11:10 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.    Broadband Overview

Bree Maki, Executive Director, Office of Broadband Development

11:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.   Legislature Discussion Update – Current Volume
Darielle Dannen, State Program Admin Manager

Tom Karst, Federal Program Officer, US Department of Commerce, NTIA

Bree Maki, Executive Director, Office of Broadband Development

Diane Wells, Deputy Director, Office of Broadband Development

12:00 p.m. – 12:15 p.m.   Sub-Group Discussion

12:15 p.m. – 12:20 p.m.                Public Comment, Other Business, May 15th Meeting Plans, Wrap-up

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) presentation from Office of Broadband Development

Posted on by
Reply

Here are the slides, videos and some notes from today’s webinar on  State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and how to interact with them for your broadband deployment proposals.

Update from Office of Broadband Development

  • Current grant round deadline is May 10, 1pm.
  • Digital Equity Plan was approved by NTIA. Identifies areas to support in the State. Awarded $12M.
  • BEAD volumes 1 and 2 are in process.

Presentation from State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) – how to review historic preservation issue using SHPO and Dep pf Admin portals

Questions:

We have an archeologist, but a new guy says he can do phase 1A and get it reviewed. Is that true or do we need to do it all?
Grant times are strict. We say do all of the fieldwork so as not to waste time. Generally the desktop assessment is not sufficient.

Timeframes – is there a deadline for SHPO to respond?
Not in state statute. Federal deadline is 30 and we try but we simply have too much work. We say it takes 30-60 days.

What are common mistakes?
People miss the cover letter. It helps us hugely – especially if you address your intentions.
Need to understand that cemetery or tribal burial area – are sacred. Try to avoid them.
Tell us as much about the deployment plan as you can so that we can understand the implications of having to make certain charges.

Where can we find past surveys?
We wish – but no plan here

If we are only working on highway do we need to do a review?
Yes.

What’s your take on pole replacement?
It hasn’t come up with broadband.

Drop locations – we don’t normally go to customer location. Is that OK?
We are looking at recommendations on this too. We think it’s the mainline that are important at this point. Some drops have been issues because they go through cemeteries – but usually private cemeteries.

Is review necessary with arial construction?
If you’re putting in new poles – it’s necessary. We haven’t seen many like that.

How about replacing poles?
Yes that needs to be reviewed – if it gets State funding.

If we’re using existing pole, but going over land, do we need to do a review?
No, not if there’s no ground disturbance. Actually sounds like this hasn’t been decided.

MN HF4025: MN Advisory Council established re-referred to Ways and Means (given deadline waiver)

Posted on by
Reply

The MN House Committee on Rules and Legislative Administration discussed HF4025 (Koegel) Minnesota Advisory Council on Infrastructure established. (I have written about this bill before.) They gave it a deadline waiver and re-referred to Ways and Means.

Comments:

What are fiscal implications of this bill?
That will be discussed in Ways and Means.
This is frustrating.

Why was fiscal note delayed?
There were changes to the bill.

Is there an updated fiscal note?
They are still working on it.

The bill was discussed for about five minutes. It is one reason I am thankful for technology and broadband, which meant I could watch Wednesday afternoon from home rather than driving through rush hour and cold winds to get to the Capitol at 8:30am. Beyond my own convenience, it’s one example where broadband helps us all participate (or at least pay attention to) in civic life.

NTIA Adopts New Measures to Streamline Environmental Impact Permitting Review for “Internet for All” Projects

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s the latest from the NTIA on federal funding…

36 “categorical exclusions” will allow projects with minimal potential for environmental effects to proceed without detailed assessments

WASHINGTON – The Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today announced 30 new “categorical exclusions” established to support National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews for broadband infrastructure deployments funded by the Internet for All programs. NTIA has also adopted six additional categorical exclusions from the First Responder Network Authority, an independent agency within NTIA, the nation’s communication network for first responders. NTIA has historically relied on 11 categorical exclusions established by the Department of Commerce in 2009 that remain available to support NEPA reviews.

Categorical exclusions are categories of actions that a federal agency has determined, after review by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and therefore typically require neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement. The use of categorical exclusions can reduce paperwork and save time and resources. In March, CEQ issued a letter finding NTIA’s proposed categorical exclusions in conformity with NEPA, noting that “NTIA’s proposal is intended to further NTIA’s compliance with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and increase NTIA’s efficiency in environmental analysis and decision making while fully meeting NEPA’s requirements.”

Broadband deployment projects generally have limited potential for significant environmental impacts, and NTIA’s substantial record of related NEPA reviews supports expanding the list of actions categorically excluded from detailed environmental review.

Examples of the types of activities potentially excluded from detailed environmental assessment include, but are not limited to:

  • Administrative actions such as recruiting, policy development, studies, testing that does not cause ground disturbance, and routine procurement of non-hazardous goods and services.
  • Real property and facilities actions such as maintenance, internal modifications/renovations to existing structures, abatement of hazardous materials, and certain real property transactions.
  • Operational actions such as research within closed facilities, outdoor research activities conducted in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and requirements, new construction of non-tower structures in previously developed areas, new construction of certain self-supporting wireless communications towers, and acquisition, installation, reconstruction, repair by replacement, and operation of aerial or buried utility, communications, and security systems.
  • Certain network deployment activities categorically excluded under the FirstNet Implementing Procedures, such as construction of buried and aerial telecommunications lines and cables, changes or additions to sites supporting telecommunication service, rebuilding/relocation of power or telecommunications lines due to highway reconstruction, and deployment of mobile communications networks.

Detailed lists can be found in the Public Notices found on the National Environmental Policy Act Procedures and Categorical Exclusions and Adoption of FirstNet Categorical Exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act pages.

NTIA has also announced that it will adopt five regional Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (PEIS) analyzing the deployment of FirstNet, which included infrastructure similar to NTIA’s IFA programs. Expanding the availability of categorical exclusions and enabling programmatic efficiencies like tiering off these PEISs can expedite infrastructure deployment by streamlining NEPA requirements.

Today’s announcement is the third action in as many weeks by NTIA to provide common-sense permitting relief to Internet for All grantees and sub-grantees and other IIJA initiatives as several funded projects prepare for the construction phase.

  • On March 14, NTIA announced that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation granted its request to make a 2017 program comment establishing streamlined historic preservation permitting rules for communications infrastructure projects on federal lands available to all Internet for All programs.
  • On March 22, NTIA released the Permitting and Environmental Information Application, a publicly available GIS screening tool that enables project proponents to identify permit requirements and potentially sensitive environmental resources early in project planning. The tool is also helping grantees design projects that will qualify for categorical exclusions and identify and initiate permit applications at the earliest possible time. In the week since launching, users have accessed the tool approximately 2,500 times.

For more information on the Biden-Harris Administration’s Internet for All initiative, please visit InternetForAll.gov.