[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 5, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11221-11232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-03344]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[Connect America Fund et al.; WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 18-143, 19-126; AU
Docket No. 20-34; DA 25-32; FR ID 280111]
Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB or the Bureau) adopts the
Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric (Fabric), the most up-to-date and
comprehensive source for identifying broadband serviceable locations
(BSLs), as the basis it will rely on for generally verifying compliance
with high-cost program deployment obligations and for adjusting the
location obligations for certain high-cost support mechanisms.
DATES: Effective April 4, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please
contact, Heidi Lankau, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications Access
Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at [email protected]
or 202-418-7400.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Bureau's Order
(Order) in WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 18-143, 19-126 and AU Docket No. 20-
34; DA 25-32, adopted and released on January 10, 2025. The full text
of this document is available at the following internet address:
https://www.fcc.gov/document/wcb-adopts-use-fabric-update-and-verify-high-cost-obligations.
Synopsis
The Bureau adopts its proposal to use the Fabric as the data source
to verify compliance with deployment obligations for high-cost support
mechanisms when the Bureau conducts compliance reviews. The Bureau also
adopts specific procedures related to location total adjustments for
the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF), Alternative Connect America
Cost Model (A-CAM) I, Revised A-CAM I, A-CAM II, the Bringing Puerto
Rico Together (PR) Fund, and the Connect USVI Fund. The Bureau adopts
processes and policies for implementing the RDOF location readjustment
process prior to the six-year RDOF service milestone that will maximize
the number of consumers served through RDOF support, and also leverage
existing Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission)
processes to implement streamlined location adjustment procedures for
the PR Fund, the Connect USVI Fund, A-CAM I, Revised A-CAM I, and A-CAM
II carriers. The Bureau's decision to rely on the Fabric for these
purposes is an important step towards improving accuracy, oversight,
and accountability for the Bureau's high-cost support mechanisms.
Use of the Fabric. The Bureau adopts its proposal to use the Fabric
to identify the actual number of residential and small business units
in each relevant high-cost support recipient's service area, i.e., the
number of high cost-eligible locations. Many commenters supported using
the Fabric to revise and verify deployment obligations. However, some
commenters suggested that the accuracy of and process for challenging
the Fabric should be improved before the Commission relies on the
Fabric for verifying compliance with high-cost obligations. The Bureau
disagrees. The Fabric is the most accurate and granular dataset of BSLs
the Bureau has available to date. Moreover, as Congress intended in the
Broadband DATA Act, the Fabric is an iterative dataset that will
continue to improve through stakeholder participation in the challenge
process, updates to the underlying sources of data, and improvements to
the model used to generate the Fabric. No commenters suggested that any
other dataset would be more comprehensive or up-to-date than the
Fabric. Moreover, using a different data source could jeopardize the
Bureau's efforts through interagency coordination to minimize
duplicative Federal funding for broadband given that other agencies
rely on Fabric data to identify potential overlaps in funding.
The Commission continues its work to balance the stability of the
Fabric with the need to make updates that account for new inputs and
improvements in the quality of the data. First, the Fabric remains
stable and has become increasingly more stable with each release.
Overall, 108 million BSLs from the original (June 2022) Fabric--or over
95% of the original BSLs--remain in the June 2024 Fabric version. The
Fabric remains the most accurate picture of BSLs the Bureau has
available to date. Delaying the Bureau's alignment of high-cost funding
support with Fabric locations is not in the public interest because it
would risk delaying deployments, leaving locations unconnected, and
increase the potential for duplicative funding.
The challenge process is a critical part of ensuring the Fabric
provides an accurate dataset of BSLs. Since the first version of the
Fabric, the Commission has received a number of high-quality challenges
that have improved the accuracy of the Fabric. For example, the Bureau
has received over 2 million challenges to add a new location that hits
the footprint of a BSL that was already in the Fabric. These challenges
might have been intended to change an address or make some other change
to the data associated with a BSL, but the challenges filed indicated
that the Bureau should add a new BSL. The Commission is committed to
ensuring that providers and challengers understand the challenge
process to continue the submission of high-quality challenges to ensure
the accuracy of the Fabric.
Some commenters have provided anecdotal examples of unsuccessful
challenges that they suggest show the challenge process needs
improvement before the Commission can rely on the Fabric. For example,
the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) claims a
member cooperative ``submitted a location challenge specifying about
5,000 locations that should be BSLs . . . but CostQuest accepted only
about 700 of the locations as valid BSLs.'' Because NRECA's comments do
not provide enough information to identify the provider that had
problems with the Fabric challenge process, the Bureau is not able to
specifically identify the reason for the provider's low success rate
for its challenges. Nevertheless, the Bureau notes that NRECA
acknowledges the
[[Page 11222]]
low success rate may be because the data used by the provider to
support its challenges do not meet the Commission's requirements for a
BSL, and that, in fact, the Fabric may already contain a BSL for the
challenged locations. The Bureau, therefore, disagrees with commenters
who argue that low-quality Fabric challenges, which resulted in
rejections, are a reflection of the difficulty of the challenge process
and should delay the application of the Fabric to high-cost deployment
obligations.
Commission staff have taken a number of steps to ensure that
providers understand Fabric challenge outcomes and to address provider
concerns about the Fabric challenge process. The Commission also
continues to make improvements to the challenge process based on
stakeholder feedback and lessons learned. Fabric challenges are focused
on which locations are BSLs, and are resolved by the Commission's
Fabric contractor, CostQuest, based on guidance from Commission staff.
When providers file a Fabric challenge, the Broadband Data Collection
(BDC) system notifies them of the challenge outcome. When providers
have made the Commission aware of concerns related to their Fabric
challenge results, the Bureau has worked closely with the provider and
CostQuest, to review their submissions and to identify opportunities
for improvements to the Bureau's modeling or other elements of the
Fabric creation and challenge review processes. Consistent with the
requirements of the Broadband DATA Act, the Fabric is updated twice per
year and, as a result, the final adjudication for certain types of
Fabric challenges, such as requests to add or remove a location, can
only be completed shortly before the release of the updated version of
the Fabric. The Bureau has begun to provide certain types of Fabric
challenge results earlier in the process, generally within weeks of the
challenge being submitted. The Bureau believes providing results to
challengers closer to the time of submission will allow them to better
review their results and either resubmit a different type of Fabric
challenge or to raise concerns with FCC staff about their challenge
results.
Adjustments. In identifying the eligible locations that are
relevant to a high-cost support recipient's service area, the Bureau
adopts its proposal to exclude group quarters locations, which are
currently included as BSLs in the Fabric, from revised location totals
to remain consistent with our previous guidance to exclude such
locations from our high-cost support mechanism location counts.
Although the Coalition of RDOF Winners (RDOF Winners) suggested that
the Bureau should include group quarters when recalculating location
totals, model-based support amounts have been calculated excluding
group quarters, and carriers that participated in competitive bidding
may have relied on the fact that they did not have to serve group
quarters when determining how much support they would need to meet
their obligations. Moreover, carriers have likely relied on the
guidance provided by WCB to plan their deployments. While there is a
potential for some confusion given that the Fabric includes group
quarters as BSLs, the Bureau notes that the Fabric has a unique
building type code for group quarters locations. Ultimately, the Bureau
finds on balance that the risk of disruption to ongoing deployment if
the guidance changed to require funded carriers to serve group quarters
strongly outweighs the potential for confusion.
The Bureau also adopts its proposal that if a portion of a parcel
is inside an eligible census block, but the BSL structure located on
the parcel falls outside of the census block, the BSL will not be
counted towards a support recipient's location total, consistent with
the Bureau's other high-cost support mechanisms, subject to any
modifications that may be made to account for the 7.6-meter buffer it
describes in the following. No commenters opposed this proposal, and
the Bureau expects adopting this approach will provide further clarity
to providers regarding which locations they will be required to serve
as they complete their deployments. Additionally, the Bureau reiterates
its plan to overlay 2010 census blocks on the Fabric to determine
updated location counts. Commenters did not identify any issues with
this approach and explained that they have relied on 2010 census blocks
in planning their deployments so that any changes in this approach
``would materially alter the foundation of their participation'' in
high-cost support mechanisms and ``have the potential to disrupt
planning or construction activities that are in progress or have
already occurred.''
Consistency with HUBB Submissions. In the High-Cost Fabric Public
Notice, 89 FR 11239, February 14, 2024, the Bureau explained that it
expects high-cost support recipients to review the data they submit
into the High Cost Universal Broadband portal (HUBB) and as part of
their BDC reporting to identify any inconsistencies between the
datasets. The Bureau also explained that if a support recipient
identifies a mismatch between its two datasets, it can take one of the
following steps to address the mismatch: (1) remove the location from
its HUBB submission or modify the attributes of its HUBB submitted
location(s) to better align with its BDC submissions, or (2) submit a
Fabric challenge through the National Broadband Map or the BDC system
to the extent a support recipient believes the Fabric is not accurate.
Consistent with the Bureau's use of the Fabric for verifying CAF
BLS carriers' claims that they have served 100% of the locations in
their service areas, it also anticipates incorporating the Fabric as
part of its compliance reviews to verify high-cost carriers' reporting
in the HUBB and claims that they have met their service milestones.
Specifically, if a carrier claims to have met its service milestones,
but the Bureau identifies material inconsistences between data
collected through the BDC and data that the carrier has filed in the
HUBB, it anticipates investigating those discrepancies as part of the
Bureau's compliance reviews. This will help with consistency between
the data being reported by carriers in the HUBB and the carriers' BDC
filings and ensure the Commission and other agencies relying on the
Fabric and BDC as directed by Congress will have an accurate
understanding of the broadband deployment supported by high-cost
programs. This process will also give carriers the opportunity to
explain any discrepancies between their HUBB reporting and the Fabric,
and the data collected by the BDC that they have been unable to
correct, which may result in improvements in both data sets. While the
Bureau acknowledges that reconciling the data sets may require a
significant effort for both carriers and Commission staff, such efforts
are crucial to ensuring that all agencies that offer funding for
broadband have available the most accurate broadband availability and
funding data possible by which to make funding decisions. Moreover,
such efforts are consistent with the Commission's obligation to be a
responsible steward of the public's funds. If there are material
inconsistencies between a carrier's HUBB reporting and the Fabric, it
may call into question the accuracy of a carrier's HUBB reporting and
whether the carrier has actually met its service milestones.
In conducting these compliance reviews and when verifying that A-
CAM I, Revised A-CAM I, and A-CAM II recipients have served the
required number of locations, the Bureau will account for the 7.6 meter
buffer that the
[[Page 11223]]
HUBB incorporates--i.e., if a carrier reports deployment to a location
that is within 7.6 meters of an eligible census block boundary, the
HUBB will consider those locations to be within the eligible census
block even if they are not technically within the census block.
Accordingly, carriers may have been reporting in the HUBB having served
locations that the Fabric does not include within the relevant eligible
census blocks. Because A-CAM I, Revised A-CAM I, and A-CAM II carriers'
deployment obligations will remain area-based--i.e., they must serve a
set number of locations within the eligible census blocks--the Bureau
will cross-reference the Fabric with the HUBB data and to the extent
such an A-CAM carrier reports serving a location that is technically
outside the census block but is accepted for filing in the HUBB, that
carrier can count that location towards the number of locations it is
required to serve. As the Bureau explains in the following, for RDOF,
the PR Fund, and the Connect USVI Fund, the Bureau will be generating a
list of locations in the carriers' service areas that they are required
to serve--transitioning from an area-based obligation to a location-
based obligation. The Bureau also will account for the buffer when
reconciling inconsistencies between all carriers' HUBB reporting and
data reported in the BDC.
As directed by the Commission, the Bureau adopts a process to
implement the Commission's framework for adjusting required location
totals based on the Fabric. Specifically, the Bureau determines the
timing for when the Bureau will announce new location totals, adopt a
methodology for adjusting support in certain circumstances where there
are significantly more or fewer locations in a service area than
estimated by the Connect America Cost Model (CAM), adopts standards it
should use for waivers, describes the process for determining whether
requests for service are reasonable, and determines how the Bureau will
apply the framework to support recipients that have multiple
performance tiers associated with their winning bids.
Given the Commission's direction that WCB adopt revised location
totals by the end of the sixth calendar year of a RDOF provider's
support term, the Bureau will announce revised location totals for each
support recipient within a reasonable time after the Fabric version
used for the BDC collection as of December 31, 2026 (i.e., December
2026 Fabric) is made available to licensees. The Commission typically
releases a version of the Fabric to licensees approximately every six
months, in June and December. The Bureau expects that using the
December 2026 Fabric would provide sufficient time for WCB to
recalculate location totals prior to December 31, 2027, which is the
sixth-year service milestone for RDOF support recipients authorized in
2021. While this deviates from the Bureau's original proposal to use
the June 2027 version of the Fabric, it decided that there are
administrative benefits to using a version of the Fabric that will be
available to the Commission and the licensees at the start of 2027 so
that WCB can adopt revised location totals earlier on in the year and
give carriers plenty of advance notice regarding the locations they
will be required to serve prior to the six year deployment milestone
for carriers authorized in 2021. The Bureau finds these benefits
outweigh any disadvantages of using an earlier version of the Fabric.
The Bureau also believes this approach appropriately balances its
objectives of ensuring that the revised location totals are based on
up-to-date location data, including resolved challenges, and also
giving support recipients notice of their revised location totals prior
to the sixth-year service milestone. Because carriers are being given
several years notice regarding the version of the Fabric that will be
used to determine the revised location totals and existing licensees
will have access to earlier versions of the Fabric prior to December
2026, they will have time to submit any Fabric challenges, in 2025 and
2026, and have those challenges resolved in time for the Bureau to
adopt location totals. Carriers are on notice that any outstanding or
pending challenges that were filed but not incorporated in the December
2026 Fabric will not be considered for determining the final deployment
obligation. Accordingly, any carrier that would like to challenge the
Fabric should file challenges to the versions of the Fabric released to
licensees every six months between December 2024 and June 2026.
Once the Bureau has adopted revised location totals, the specific
BSLs that are included in this total will be the locations that the
RDOF carrier is required to serve. That is, the Bureau will transition
from monitoring compliance with RDOF deployment obligations on an area
basis--i.e., all locations in the eligible location census block--to a
location-list basis, and the Bureau notes that the RDOF carrier must
also serve any newly built locations upon reasonable request in the
eligible census blocks subject to limited exceptions. As a result, RDOF
carriers will transition to reporting Location IDs in their HUBB
filings.
Rather than release preliminary lists of the BSLs that each RDOF
carrier will be required to serve for informational purposes with each
release of the Fabric prior to adopting revised location totals, the
Bureau will rely on licensees to overlay their RDOF service areas on
the latest version of the Fabric. Some commenters suggested that it
would be useful for carriers, including small carriers that may not
have the resources to frequently monitor and analyze the Fabric, to
have such information in advance so that they can incorporate any
changes to their deployment plans. The Bureau concludes that because
RDOF carriers have access to the tools needed to determine this
information, it is not necessary for Commission staff to take on the
administrative burden of separately generating location lists for
carriers with each release of the Fabric. All carriers should already
be familiar with how to determine which Fabric locations are in their
service areas, as they are required to report their availability data
to these locations through the BDC. Additionally, the Bureau expects to
provide resources as part of carriers' HUBB reporting to assist in this
effort. Accordingly, the Bureau does not expect that requiring RDOF
carriers to monitor changes in the Fabric will impose significant
additional operational or administrative costs, or require carriers,
including small carriers, to hire additional attorneys, engineers,
consultants, or other professionals beyond those they have already
hired to aid in compliance with existing requirements.
The Bureau also adopts its proposal to announce revised location
totals for all RDOF support recipients at the same time, rather than
waiting for the following year to adopt revised location totals for
support recipients authorized in 2022 and 2023. Such an approach means
that locations built after the Bureau announces revised location totals
will not be included in the new totals and that support recipients
authorized in 2022 and 2023 will have an extra year to meet their
eighth year service milestone if they have newly identified locations
when compared to those authorized in 2021. NCTA--The internet &
Television Association (NCTA) supported this approach, and no commenter
indicated it disagreed with the Bureau's expectation that the benefits
of the administrative efficiency of determining and announcing all
revised location totals at once will outweigh any potential concerns
this
[[Page 11224]]
approach may raise, particularly given that any locations built after
the revised location totals and prior the end of the eighth year of
support will be subject to the requirement that the support recipient
serve the location upon reasonable request subject to some limited
exceptions.
For RDOF support recipients that must deploy to additional
locations once WCB announces revised location totals, the Bureau adopts
its proposal with a minor modification: the Bureau will increase
support on a pro rata basis for each location over the 35% threshold
based on the average support amount per location. In adopting this
approach, the Bureau agrees with commenters that using the original
CAM-estimated location total to determine an average cost per location
will better approximate the costs attributed to the extra locations
than the smaller amount of support that would result if it were to use
the new location total to calculate the average cost per location.
The Bureau concludes that this approach will be an administratively
feasible way to provide certainty to carriers regarding the support
they will receive if more locations than originally estimated (more
than 35%) are identified in their service areas and ensure the
additional locations are served in a timely matter. No commenters
supported the other alternatives the Bureau sought comment on, such as
requiring a more burdensome case-by-case waiver approach that could
potentially strand locations without service and access to other
funding programs, or providing more time to serve locations which would
delay broadband to these areas.
The Bureau disagrees with commenters that suggest it should provide
support to carriers for every location that exceeds their original
estimated location total or that it should provide extra support for
such locations to carriers that demonstrate good cause. First, the
Rural Electric Cooperatives Providing Broadband's (RECPB) request that
the Bureau ``abandon'' the 35% threshold is an untimely petition for
reconsideration of the Commission's decision to adopt this threshold.
Second, all carriers bid in the auction with the understanding that
they would not receive extra support unless their new location total
exceeded the 35% threshold and were required to conduct due diligence
to ensure they could meet their RDOF obligations based on the rules the
Commission adopted at the time of the auction. Even if the Bureau were
to consider the arguments, they are not persuasive because carriers
should have factored in their anticipated subscriber revenue and
conducted due diligence to determine if the model estimated location
total varied significantly from conditions on the ground.
For the same reasons, the Bureau also disagrees with the suggestion
that it adopts a de minimis standard that would not require RDOF
providers to serve additional locations if there were 1,000 or fewer
additional locations identified in the carrier's service area. Such an
approach would undermine the Commission's goal of maximizing service to
RDOF areas and would be at odds with the Commission's requirement that
RDOF carriers serve 100% of locations subject to only very limited
exceptions. Further, it is possible that such locations would be
undesirable for other service providers to serve, particularly if they
are sprinkled throughout a RDOF carrier's service area and have been
prevented from receiving other funding due to the RDOF carrier's
enforceable buildout commitment for a number of years.
The Commission adopted a more targeted approach of permitting
support recipients to seek to exclude additional locations, beyond the
number identified by the CAM, that it determines are ineligible,
unreasonable to deploy to, or part of a development newly built after
year 6 for which the cost and/or time to deploy would be unreasonable.
The Bureau adopts its proposal to require that any carrier seeking to
have its new location total adjusted to remove locations it claims are
ineligible--i.e., they are not housing units or small businesses to
which mass market internet access services will be made available--must
first successfully challenge the location through the BDC's Fabric
challenge process. NCTA supports this approach, and no parties
indicated disagreement with the Bureau's rationale that this approach
would enable it to conserve administrative resources by leveraging the
Commission's existing process and would also help to maintain
consistency between the Fabric and the support recipient's obligations.
For locations that a carrier believes are unreasonable to serve,
the Bureau must balance the Commission's goal of maximizing RDOF
support to serve as many consumers and small businesses as possible
with potential burdens on RDOF recipients. Accordingly, the Bureau
declines to adopt specific criteria or presumptions at this point for
defining what constitutes a location that is unreasonable to serve. The
Bureau agrees that certain factors raised in the record, such as
whether the property owner refuses to allow a provider to obtain access
to land that is needed to construct the network, how far away the
location is from the existing network footprint, terrain issues, the
marginal cost to deploy to the location as compared to revenues, and
whether a location has been deemed extremely high-cost by the state for
the BEAD program, are all factors that may be relevant to determining
whether a location is unreasonable to serve. As part of this inquiry,
the Bureau will also consider whether a carrier conducted the required
due diligence prior to bidding to ensure it was bidding for enough
support to meet its RDOF obligations.
Because each RDOF carrier will be uniquely situated depending on
the number of locations it will serve, the technologies it plans to
use, the amount of support it has been authorized to receive, the
terrain in its service area, and other factors that may impact the
ability of a RDOF carrier to serve certain locations, the Bureau
concludes that it would be best to examine each situation on a case-by-
case basis. Otherwise, the Bureau could potentially strand locations
without broadband that would be otherwise reasonable to serve based on
the carrier's individual circumstances and/or if the carrier had
conducted due diligence as required. Instead, a case-by-case approach
will allow the Bureau to examine all relevant factors, including the
enforceable buildout commitment preventing broadband funding for
deployment by other Federal programs, and allow it to coordinate with
other Federal, state, and local partners if the Bureau in fact does
deem a location unreasonable to serve. While this approach may be more
administratively burdensome for carriers and Commission staff and does
not provide the certainty that stakeholders might prefer regarding the
types of locations the Bureau will deem unreasonable to serve, it
concludes that these concerns are outweighed by the importance of
ensuring as many locations as possible have access to broadband
service.
As the Bureau explained in the High-Cost Fabric Public Notice, it
does not expect to routinely grant requests to exclude locations from a
support recipient's new location total. Carriers were required to
conduct due diligence prior to bidding to serve an area and had the
opportunity to make business decisions about where they would bid and
how much support they would bid for with the understanding that the
Commission expected RDOF carriers to serve their entire service areas,
including locations that may not be in
[[Page 11225]]
existence at the time of bidding. Accordingly, in determining whether a
request is unreasonable, the Bureau will conduct a rigorous, thorough
and searching review that (1) will include, but not be limited to, the
consideration of all the factors discussed in this document and (2)
will be comparable to a total company earnings review in which the
Bureau will take into account not only all revenues derived from
network facilities that are supported by universal service but also
revenues derived from unregulated and unsupported services as well in
determining whether it would be unreasonable for a company to serve a
location. The Bureau may request additional information to assess a
carrier's claim that a location is unreasonable to serve, and a failure
to submit this additional information would result in the Bureau
finding that the carrier has not demonstrated that it would be
unreasonable to serve the location.
Once the Bureau has announced revised location totals in 2027, it
will require carriers to submit any requests to remove locations from
their revised location lists no later than six months after the date it
announces the revised location totals. The Bureau expects carriers to
be prepared for the revised location totals given the biannual Fabric
updates, the requirement that they be familiar with the Fabric for BDC
reporting, and their plans to meet their upcoming service milestones.
No commenters provided specific suggestions for how long a carrier
should have to notify the Bureau. The Bureau will set up a data
collection system in which carriers should submit a request identifying
the locations they claim are unreasonable to serve (i.e., Fabric ID),
the specific reasons why each location is unreasonable to serve, and
evidence to support their claims. The Bureau may then request
additional information from the carrier and other stakeholders to
verify and assess the carrier's claims. Given that each determination
will be made on a case-by-case basis, the Bureau is not able to adopt a
set timeline for when it would be able to make determinations, but it
anticipates that requiring carriers to notify the Bureau within six
months of it announcing the revised location totals will give the
Bureau sufficient time to make determinations prior to the end of the
cure period for the eighth year service milestone and that any timing
issues could be handled by waiver if there is a good cause to grant
such a request.
The Bureau encourages all carriers that have more locations than
estimated in their service areas to file a location request with it as
soon as it has set up the data collection system if they believe they
can demonstrate there are locations in their service areas that are
unreasonable to serve. Then, if the Bureau does deem a location
unreasonable to serve, it can more quickly coordinate with the other
agencies to attempt to secure alternative funding for the location. If
carriers submit such a request prior to the Bureau adopting revised
location counts, they must certify that they have or will have served
at a minimum the number of locations estimated by the CAM by the end of
the deployment period. This is consistent with the requirement that
carriers with more locations in their service area must serve the CAM-
estimated location total at a minimum by the end of the deployment
term. This information collection is subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (Paperwork Reduction Act) and will
become effective upon announcement in the Federal Register of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the information
collection requirements.
The Bureau disagrees that carriers should have the option of
requesting to have any newly built locations excluded prior to the
Bureau adopting revised location counts and after the carrier has
deployed to all of the CAM-estimated locations, using the same standard
the Commission adopted for locations newly built after year six. The
Bureau concludes that such an approach would be inconsistent with the
Commission's requirement that a carrier serve all locations in its
service area identified by the Bureau when it adopts the revised
location counts, subject only to limited exceptions explained in the
RDOF Order, 85 FR 13773, March 10, 2020. While the Bureau recognizes
that it may increase costs for carriers to go back and serve additional
locations that were not in existence during the initial build, the
Bureau agrees with Irby Utilities, 4-County Fiber, LLC, Aeneas
Communications, LLC, Clay County Connect, Inc. and TEPA Connect LLC
(Irby et al.) that, in many cases, new locations within the area will
already be covered by the carrier's network or along already
established roads so that costs will not increase significantly. And
the Bureau also expects that because they knew they would be required
to offer service to the locations included in the Bureau's recount
subject to limited exceptions, service providers would conduct due
diligence to determine how to serve their entire service areas and
factor in the risk that new locations may appear during the deployment
term and prior to the Bureau's recount when placing bids in the
auction. As described in this document, carriers will also have the
opportunity to demonstrate that locations in their location list are
unreasonable to deploy to if they have already served the model-
estimated number of locations. The Bureau is not persuaded that
requiring carriers to serve such newly built locations by the end of
the deployment period and cure period would result in carriers
significantly delaying deployment. All carriers will be motivated by
the requirement to serve the required number of locations by the end of
the deployment term subject to the cure period.
The Bureau also adopts procedures to implement the Commission's
framework for RDOF carriers that have fewer actual locations in the
eligible census blocks in their service area than estimated by the CAM.
Prior to the sixth year service milestone. The Commission directed
RDOF carriers to notify WCB no later than March 1st following the fifth
year of deployment--i.e., March 1, 2027--if there are fewer actual
locations than were included in the RDOF auction. RDOF carriers with
fewer locations shall submit a notification in the Commission's
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) in WC Docket Nos. 10-90 & 19-
126, and AU Docket No. 20-34 by March 1, 2027, and may incorporate the
Fabric by reference by certifying that there fewer locations identified
in the latest version of the Fabric in the carrier's relevant service
area than the carrier's model estimated locations total. The Bureau
expects this requirement will provide additional motivation for
carriers to conduct due diligence, review the Fabric, and challenge any
ineligible locations prior to the Bureau adopting its revised location
totals.
The Bureau also adopts its proposal to permit a support recipient
that claims to have served all existing locations in the eligible
census blocks prior to WCB announcing revised location totals to rely
on the latest version of the Fabric available to Fabric licensees to
demonstrate that there are no other locations left to serve and to
request a verification that it has served all the locations identified
in the Fabric. If a verification determines that the support recipient
has served all existing locations prior to the sixth-year service
milestone, the Bureau will permit the support recipient to close out
its letter of credit. Commenters generally
[[Page 11226]]
supported this proposal, and no commenters disagreed with our
expectation that changes in the Fabric will not be significant enough
that it would be necessary for support recipients to keep their letters
of credit open to secure any additional deployment that may be required
after WCB revises location totals, and that any non-compliance issues
can be handled pursuant to the Commission's rules. The Wireless
internet Service Providers Association also explained that giving
carriers this option may create further incentives for recipients to
complete their deployment plans sooner.
The Bureau disagrees that it should provide a grace period for
carriers' challenges to be resolved while verifying that a carrier has
served 100% of the locations in the Fabric. If a challenge is not
resolved favorably for the carrier, that could result in the carrier
having unserved locations in its service area. The Bureau finds the
balance in favor of ensuring maximum protection of the public's funds
under the rules shifts when not all locations have been served in an
area to avoid carriers prematurely certifying they have met their
obligation to serve 100% percent of locations and then potentially
deciding not to serve any remaining locations and refusing to pay back
support for those locations after the deployment period. Instead, the
Bureau encourages carriers to file challenges as soon as possible to
avoid delays.
If a pre-December 2026 version of the Fabric is used to validate
the carrier's compliance and additional Fabric locations appear in
later versions of the Fabric up to and including the December 2026
Fabric, the carrier will be required to serve these additional
locations by the end of the six-year deployment period until the
carrier has served the number of locations estimated by the cost model
(if there are the same number or more locations in the carrier's
service area than originally estimated) or the adjusted location total
adopted by the Bureau (if there are fewer locations in the carrier's
service area than originally estimated). The Bureau recognizes that
some locations may come into existence soon before the Bureau adopts
the revised location totals. In that circumstance, the carrier will
still have the period after the Bureau has adopted the revised location
totals until the end of their six-year deployment term to serve either
the model-estimated number of locations or adjusted location total, and
then the additional one-year cure period before it will be subject to
any support reductions for failure to serve the additional locations.
The Bureau expects that this will provide sufficient time for carriers
to plan for and serve these locations as a routine matter, but any
carriers facing special circumstances have the option of seeking a
waiver if they are not able to serve the newly added locations by the
end of the cure period and can demonstrate good cause. As the Bureau
explained in this document, carriers already have the ability to
monitor the BSLs in their service areas and the obligation to monitor
the Fabric as part of their BDC reporting obligations, thus the Bureau
does not find it necessary to release updated location counts with each
release of the Fabric.
If a support recipient is unable to meet interim service milestones
because there are significantly fewer existing locations than estimated
by the CAM, the Commission directed such support recipients to seek a
waiver of the relevant interim service milestones. The Bureau adopts
its proposal to find good cause exists to waive the relevant interim
service milestones if the support recipient demonstrates with Fabric
data that it has identified all existing locations in its service area
and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) verifies that
the support recipient offers service meeting the relevant Commission
requirements to all existing locations. No commenters opposed this
proposal nor offered any rationale for why the Bureau should not find:
(1) special circumstances warrant a waiver if the Fabric shows that
there are no more locations to serve in the relevant service area, and
(2) a waiver would serve the public interest because the support
recipient could use any resources tied up by maintaining a letter of
credit towards deploying more voice and broadband service, and the
Commission would still have the ability to take further non-compliance
measures if the support recipient does not serve any newly added
locations as required.
Applying this standard, the Bureau grants Taylor Telephone Coop.,
Inc. d/b/a Taylor Telecom (Taylor) a waiver of the 40%, 60%, and 80%
RDOF service milestones. Taylor has demonstrated there are currently no
locations in its service area and the Bureau has confirmed the current
version of the Fabric does not show any locations in Taylor's service
area. However, the Bureau will require Taylor to continue to monitor
the Fabric, and if when it adopts revised location counts, the Bureau
identifies locations in Taylor's service area, Taylor will be required
to serve those locations by the end of the six-year deployment period.
The Bureau is persuaded by commenters that it should not withhold a
certain percentage of support from support recipients that are able to
demonstrate using the Fabric that they have served 100% percent of
locations prior to the sixth-year service milestone, but fewer than the
estimated total of locations. The Commission has explained that it
withholds support through its non-compliance measures framework to
encourage compliance, and if a carrier has already served 100% of
actual locations, the need to take additional measures to incentivize
compliance diminishes. Moreover, no commenters supported withholding
funds from such carriers, so there is nothing in the record that
convinces the Bureau that the risk that a compliant carrier may
improperly use funds outweighs the burden on carriers and the Bureau of
withholding a percentage of support, particularly if such support could
be used for deploying to any locations that are newly added to the
area.
Post WCB's announcement of revised location totals. The Bureau
adopts its proposed methodology for implementing the Commission's
requirement that WCB reduce support for those support recipients for
which the revised location count is less than 65% of the CAM locations.
Accordingly, the Bureau will interpret the Commission's direction that
support be reduced on a pro rata basis by the number of reduced
locations to mean that WCB would apply the pro rata support reduction
to the number of locations that bring the location total below the 65%
threshold. As the Bureau explained in the High-Cost Fabric Public
Notice, this approach would avoid the inequity of support recipients
being subject to no support reduction if their revised location total
is 65% of the CAM-estimated location total, but being subject to a pro
rata support reduction for all of the locations that make up the gap
between the CAM estimated location total and the revised location total
if their revised location total is 64% or less of the CAM-estimated
location total. No commenters specifically opposed the Bureau's
rationale for adopting this approach.
As the Bureau explained in this document regarding the 35%
threshold for providing more support to carriers that have additional
locations added to their required location totals, it is not persuaded
that carriers for which the revised location count is less than 65%
should retain their full support. As noted in this document, the
RECPB's suggestion that the Bureau not reduce support for such carriers
is an untimely
[[Page 11227]]
request for reconsideration of the Commission's decision to adopt this
threshold. Moreover, the Bureau is not persuaded it should find good
cause to waive this threshold for carriers when they were aware of it
when bidding and had the responsibility to conduct due diligence to
determine that they could meet the RDOF requirements.
The Bureau adopts its proposed methodology for revising the
location totals for those support recipients that were authorized to
receive support for multiple performance tiers in a state.
Specifically, when revising the location totals for such support
recipients, the Bureau will proportionally adjust their location totals
for each performance tier so that it maintains the same ratio of
locations across all performance tiers for the new location total as
what was authorized under the initial deployment obligation. As the
Bureau explained in the High-Cost Fabric Public Notice, this approach
is consistent with the Commission's direction that compliance with
service milestones be determined at the state level, so that a
recipient will be in compliance with service milestones if it offers
service meeting the relevant performance requirements to the required
percentage of locations across all of the relevant eligible census
blocks in the state. No commenters opposed this approach or supported
any alternatives, like assigning new locations with the performance
tier associated with the census block within which the location falls,
which would not account for the flexibility the Commission afforded
RDOF carriers when it decided to measure compliance on a state-level
basis.
RDOF support recipients must provide the required service upon
reasonable request to any locations built after WCB announces revised
location totals and prior to the end of the eighth year of support,
excluding any locations that do not request service or that have
exclusive arrangements with other providers. The Bureau adopts its
proposal to rely on Fabric data to identify any new locations as of the
end of the eighth year of support and confirm compliance with this
requirement. To the extent a provider gets a reasonable request to
provide service to a location that is not but should be in the Fabric,
a provider is required to provide service to that location and submit a
challenge to the Fabric to add the location. As the Bureau explained in
this document, no commenter offered an alternative that was more
comprehensive or up-to-date than the Fabric, and thus it concludes the
Fabric is the appropriate source for verifying compliance with this
requirement. The Bureau also expects carriers will use the existing BDC
Fabric challenge process to ensure the Fabric accurately depicts the
locations they are serving in their service areas.
For the same reasons the Bureau discusses in this document, it
declines to adopt specific parameters for determining whether a request
for service is reasonable. However, the Bureau recognizes that carriers
may not have been able to anticipate, when conducting the required due
diligence prior to the auction, where locations would be newly built
late in the support term after the Bureau adopted revised location
counts. Given this, the Bureau finds it reasonable to adopt a
presumption that if a newly built location falls outside of the
footprint of a carrier's existing network or the network that the
carrier would be required to build to serve any additional locations
that the Bureau identified when it adopted revised location counts,
that location will not be considered reasonable to serve. Similarly,
the Bureau adopts a presumption that if a newly built location falls
within the footprint of the carrier's existing network or network that
the carrier would be required to build to serve the locations on its
location list, that location would be considered reasonable to serve.
While the Bureau declined to adopt such presumptions for locations that
were built prior to the Bureau adopting revised location totals, it
finds that adopting these presumptions for locations that are newly
built after the Bureau adopts revised location totals is consistent
with the Commission's intent to afford carriers more flexibility for
these locations by requiring that carriers only serve such locations
upon reasonable request.
The Bureau expects to monitor compliance with this requirement as
part of its verification and auditing processes to confirm that
carriers have met their RDOF obligations. RDOF carriers should track
unfulfilled requests for service and be prepared to demonstrate why any
unfulfilled requests were unreasonable. The Bureau or USAC may request
additional information to assess such claims. A failure to submit any
additional information would result in the Bureau finding that the
carrier has not demonstrated that a request is unreasonable.
The Bureau adopts its proposal to leverage Fabric data to simplify
the location adjustment process for the PR Fund and the Connect USVI
Fund. Specifically, the Bureau will require support recipients to
submit a document in ECFS in WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90 certifying
that they have reviewed the Fabric and that there are more or fewer
locations identified in the latest version of the Fabric in the
carrier's relevant service area than the carrier's estimated locations
total. The Bureau concludes it is sufficient for support recipients to
incorporate the data from the Fabric in their filings in ECFS by
reference. The Bureau finds that this approach meets the Commission's
requirement that support recipients submit evidence of existing
locations and meets the Commission's objective of accurately verifying
the number of locations that exist in the Territories post-hurricane.
No commenters provided suggestions for alternatives on how to
accomplish this objective. Fewer than 10 carriers will be subject to
this information collection, and thus this information collection is
not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Once the Bureau has adopted revised location totals, the list of
locations that are included in this total will be the locations that
the PR Fund or Connect USVI Fund carrier is required to serve. That is,
the Bureau will transition from monitoring compliance with PR Fund and
Connect USVI Fund deployment obligations on an area-based basis to a
location-list basis. As a result, PR Fund and Connect USVI Fund
carriers will transition to reporting Location IDs in their HUBB
filings.
The Bureau will conduct the location adjustment process within a
reasonable amount of time after the version of the Fabric used for the
BDC collection as of December 2025 is made available to licensees,
which it expects to occur in December 2025. The Commission anticipated
that the process would occur within one year of the announcement of
winning bidders, but later explained the process had been delayed. No
commenters proposed any particular timeline for conducting this
process, but, the Bureau concludes that it is reasonable to give
carriers as close to two years as possible to adjust to any changes to
support and location totals so that they can meet the 100% service
milestone by December 31, 2027. This is consistent with the
Commission's direction that RDOF recipients have an additional two
years to serve any additional locations above the number of locations
that the cost model originally estimated they would be required to
serve, while also balancing the need to provide sufficient time to
carriers to challenge the Fabric. Moreover, this would align the
adjustment process with the opportunity support recipients have to
[[Page 11228]]
request a reassessment of their obligations no later than the beginning
of the fifth year of support, i.e. 2026. No party filed comments
opposing our suggestion that these two processes could be combined, and
the Bureau sees no reason to expend resources to conduct a separate
process to make further adjustments to a carrier's obligations so close
in time to when it expects to adopt revised location totals for PR Fund
and USVI Connect Fund carriers based on the Fabric.
For further administrative efficiency, the Bureau adopts its
proposal to rely on the BDC's location challenge process to provide
stakeholders and carriers an opportunity to propose corrections to the
Fabric. The Bureau will rely on the version of the Fabric that is
released to licensees and that incorporates the results of any
previously resolved challenges. Because the Bureau is announcing the
version of the Fabric that will be used for this process prior to the
determination of the deployment obligation through the adjustment
process, stakeholders have time to immediately review and challenge any
Fabric data that they believe to be inaccurate, prior to the release of
the December 2025 Fabric version. Carriers should take the opportunity
to review the December 2024 and June 2025 versions of the Fabric made
available to licensees and file any challenges as soon as possible to
ensure their challenges can be resolved prior to the release of the
Fabric version the Bureau will be using for this process. Carriers are
on notice that any outstanding or pending challenges that were filed
and not incorporated into the December 2025 Fabric will not be
considered for determining the final deployment obligation. No
commenters suggested any alternatives for how the Bureau could
otherwise provide an opportunity for stakeholders to participate in
this process as required by the Commission.
As proposed, if the location total based on the Fabric is lower
than originally estimated, the Bureau will find that the support
recipient has met its burden of proof to receive a downward adjustment
in its location total and a corresponding pro rata support reduction
for the number of locations reflected in the Fabric data, as proposed
in the High-Cost Fabric Public Notice. No commenter proposed any other
alternatives for how to conduct the location adjustment process, and
the Bureau concludes this approach will further the Commission's
objective of providing stakeholders with an opportunity to review and
comment on the existence of locations while also minimizing burdens on
carriers that are required to participate in this process.
If the location total based on the Fabric is higher than originally
estimated, the Bureau will find that the support recipient has met its
burden of proof to receive an upward adjustment in its location total
and a corresponding pro rata support increase for the number of
locations reflected in the Fabric data. Given that the Commission has
reiterated that PR Fund and the Connect USVI Fund support recipients
must serve all locations in their supported areas, the Bureau concludes
it serves the public interest to provide additional support to the
providers that have more locations than originally estimated in their
service areas. Consistent with the Commission's decision to decrease
support on a pro rata basis if there are fewer locations, the Bureau
will increase a carrier's support on a pro rata basis if there are more
locations in the Fabric than originally estimated. The Bureau
previously emphasized that the PR Fund and Connect USVI Funds are
unique from other high-cost support mechanisms given the uncertainty
regarding the data available for determining the number of locations
post-hurricanes for the Territories. While the Commission relied on
carriers to conduct due diligence to ensure they can meet their
obligations, it also acknowledged ``that locations numbers could be
substantially different'' than estimated ``due to the high-level of
destruction and potential shifts in population.'' Thus, the Bureau
concludes it serves the public interest to provide some additional
support to account for any additional locations so that carriers have
sufficient resources to serve all locations in their service areas. No
commenters filed comments addressing this issue.
The Bureau adopts its proposal to permit A-CAM I, Revised A-CAM I,
and A-CAM II carriers to seek a downward adjustment in their location
totals by using the Fabric to demonstrate the actual number of
locations in their service areas. The Bureau agrees with commenters
that participation in this process should be voluntary, similar to the
Eligible Locations Adjustment Process (ELAP) for the CAF Phase II
auction, given that obligations for the A-CAM I, Revised A-CAM I and A-
CAM II support programs were based on model-estimated location
obligations instead of a 100% commitment to offer service to all
locations as required in RDOF, the PR Fund, and the Connect USVI Fund.
The Bureau will permit an A-CAM I, Revised A-CAM I, or A-CAM II carrier
to request a downward adjustment when there are fewer locations in
eligible 2010 census blocks than the carrier has supported locations
pursuant to its A-CAM authorization.
For administrative simplicity, the Bureau will provide a one-time
window for carriers to request such an adjustment, and will release a
public notice specifying the process for making this request. Because
the majority of A-CAM carriers' support terms will end by December 31,
2028, the Bureau finds it reasonable to open a window for revised A-CAM
I and A-CAM II support recipients to request in the docket a downward
adjustment. This adjustment would be based on the version of the Fabric
used for the BDC collection as of June 30, 2026, which is expected to
be released to licensees in June 2026, and the Bureau expects to open
the window shortly after that time--approximately two years before the
end of the support term. The Bureau concludes that adopting such a
process later in the support term appropriately balances the importance
of including as many actual locations as possible that exist during the
support term with time for the carrier to adjust to any changes in
support or its obligation as a result of the adjustment process. This
information collection is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act and
will become effective upon announcement in the Federal Register of the
OMB approval of the information collection requirements. For the A-CAM
I carriers that have a support term that will end by December 31, 2026,
the Bureau finds it reasonable to open a window for A-CAM I support
recipients to request a downward adjustment in the docket based on the
version of the Fabric that is used for BDC collection as of December
31, 2025 (i.e., December 2025 Fabric), which is expected to be released
to licensees in December 2025. The Bureau expects to open the window
within a reasonable amount of time after the Fabric is made available
to licensees. While this affords less time for A-CAM I carriers, the
Bureau finds this is an appropriate balance between the time such
carriers might need to adjust to any changes in their obligations and
support with the time needed for it to set up the process and to ensure
that as many locations are included as possible when conducting the
adjustment process, particularly when there are so few carriers that
will be subject to this timing. This also provides stakeholders with an
opportunity to file bulk challenges to prior versions of the Fabric and
have those challenges resolved in the December 2025 Fabric version.
Fewer than 10 A-CAM I carriers will be
[[Page 11229]]
subject to this information collection, and thus this information
collection is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Similar to the PR Fund and the Connect USVI Fund, support
recipients that want to participate in this process must request a
downward adjustment in the relevant docket. To alleviate the burden on
carriers, particularly small carriers with limited resources, the
Bureau will permit carriers to incorporate Fabric data by reference
when requesting this adjustment by certifying that they have reviewed
the Fabric and there are fewer locations identified in the relevant
version of the Fabric in the carrier's service area than the carrier's
model estimated locations total. Consistent with ELAP, the PR Fund, and
the Connect USVI Fund, the Bureau adopts a preponderance of the
evidence standard, and like what it adopted in this document for the PR
Fund and the Connect USVI Fund, the Bureau will find that a carrier has
demonstrated it has met the preponderance of the evidence standard by
referencing the Fabric data. No commenter opposed this approach.
To avoid duplicating the Commission's existing processes, the
Bureau will rely on the Commission's BDC Fabric challenge process to
allow carriers and stakeholders to challenge the accuracy of Fabric
data. To streamline our administrative process, the Bureau will rely on
the versions of the Fabric that are released to licensees and that
incorporate the results of any previously resolved challenges. Carriers
are on notice that any outstanding or pending challenges that were
filed but not incorporated in the release of these Fabric versions will
not be considered for determining the final deployment obligation.
Because the Bureau is announcing the versions of the Fabric that will
be used now, it anticipates that carriers will take the opportunity to
review the current Fabric and file any challenges as soon as possible
to ensure their challenges can be resolved prior to the release of the
Fabric versions it will be using for this process.
The Bureau will use the A-CAM to determine the adjusted location
obligations and support amounts for A-CAM I, Revised A-CAM I, and A-CAM
II carriers. Although the Bureau proposed adjusting support using a pro
rata approach in the High-Cost Fabric Public Notice, it is persuaded
that it should rely on the A-CAM to determine the relative costs of
locations and adjust support based on this methodology. Unlike the
Bureau's programs that used competitive processes to allocate support,
for the A-CAM programs, the carriers' support is directly tied to the
A-CAM's cost estimates. Accordingly, the Bureau agrees it is reasonable
to also use those cost estimates to adjust the carrier's support moving
forward. Specifically, the Bureau will use the cost estimates, support
parameters, and census block eligibility used to originally calculate
A-CAM I, Revised A-CAM I, and A-CAM II carriers' support, but update
the location totals for each eligible census block to reflect the
location totals in the Fabric and generate a new support total for that
carrier. Given the Bureau only has the authority to adjust a carrier's
support downward, it will cap the amount of support that a carrier can
receive through this adjustment process at its existing levels.
Similarly, the Bureau will rely on these new location totals and the
location density criteria applied previously to each carrier under its
current A-CAM mechanism to recalculate the carrier's revised 25/3 Mbps,
10/1 Mbps, 4/1 Mbps and reasonable request deployment obligations.
Because this methodology takes into account the previously estimated
costs of serving the locations by census block, the Bureau is not
persuaded that it needs to take the further steps of reducing support
only in certain circumstances such as when there are fewer than 65% of
locations based on the Fabric than originally estimated.
I. Procedural Matters
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
This document contains new information collection requirements. The
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, will be inviting the general public to comment on the
information collection requirements contained in the Order as required
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition,
the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the
Bureau previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might
further reduce the information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
B. Congressional Review Act
The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, concurs, that this rule is
non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The
Commission will send a copy of the Order to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Bureau has prepared
this Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental
FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules adopted in the Order. The supplemental FRFA
supplements the Commission's Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses
(IRFAs) in connection with the USF/ICC Transformation FNPRM, 76 FR
78384, December 16, 2011, April 2014 Connect America FNPRM, 79 FR
39196, July 9, 2014, 2018 Rate-of-Return Reform NPRM, 83 FR 17968,
April 25, 2018, and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund NPRM, 84 FR 43543,
August 21, 2019, (NPRMs and FNPRMs), and Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analyses (FRFAs) in connection with the USF/ICC Transformation Order,
76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011, 2016 Rate-of-Return Reform Order, 81 FR
24282, April 25, 2016, 2018 Rate-of-Return Reform Order, 84 FR 18951,
May 1, 2018, and RDOF Order, 85 FR 13773, March 10, 2020. A
supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental
IRFA) was also filed in the High-Cost Fabric Public Notice in the
proceeding. The Commission sought public comment on the proposals in
the IRFAs, including the Supplemental IRFA. No comments were filed
addressing the Supplemental IRFA. This Supplemental Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental FRFA) supplements the FRFAs and
conforms to the RFA.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Order. The Order adopts the
Bureau's proposal to leverage the Fabric, the ``common dataset of all
locations in the United States where fixed broadband internet access
service can be installed, as determined by the Commission,'' to provide
recipients with a reliable data source for determining locations and to
maximize the number of consumers that are served by recipients of
various high-cost support mechanisms. This includes using the Fabric to
identify the actual number of residential and small businesses in each
relevant high-cost support recipient's service area. The Bureau
anticipates incorporating the Fabric as part of the Bureau's compliance
reviews to verify high-cost carriers' reporting in the HUBB and claims
that they have met their service milestones.
The Commission also delegated to WCB the authority to revise
deployment obligations, and adjust funded locations and funding levels
for support
[[Page 11230]]
recipients' service areas in certain high-cost support mechanisms. For
RDOF, the Order adopts procedures to implement the Commission's
framework for adjusting required location totals based on an updated
location source. For the PR Fund and the Connect USVI Fund, the Order
adopts procedures for leveraging Fabric data to simplify the location
adjustment processes for these support mechanisms. For A-CAM I, Revised
A-CAM I & A-CAM II, the Order adopts a voluntary process for recipients
with fewer locations in eligible 2010 census blocks than they have
supported locations pursuant to their A-CAM authorizations to seek a
downward adjustment in their location totals by using the Fabric to
demonstrate the actual number of locations in their service areas.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the Supplemental IRFA. There were no comments filed that
specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed in the
Supplemental IRFA.
Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of
2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to
any comments filed by the Chief Counsel of the Small Business
Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change
made to the proposed procedures as a result of those comments. The
Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed
rules in this proceeding.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description
of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities
that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.
As noted in this document, Regulatory Flexibility Analyses were
incorporated in the USF/ICC Transformation FNPRM, April 2014 Connect
America FNPRM, 2018 Rate-of-Return Reform NPRM, Rural Digital
Opportunity Fund NPRM, USF/ICC Transformation Order, 2016 Rate-of-
Return Reform Order, 2018 Rate-of-Return Reform Order, and RDOF Order.
In those analyses, the Commission described in detail the small
entities that might be significantly affected. Accordingly, in this
Supplemental FRFA, the Bureau hereby incorporates by reference the
descriptions and estimates of the number of small entities that may be
impacted by the Order from these previous RFAs.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities. In the Order, the Bureau
sought to minimize compliance burdens on small entities where
practicable. However, the requirements adopted in the Order may impose
new or additional reporting, recordkeeping, and/or other compliance
obligations on small entities, which are discussed in the following.
The Bureau notes that small and other carriers should already be
familiar with how to determine which Fabric locations are in their
service areas, which should help minimize the burdens imposed by
additional compliance obligations. In adopting these requirements, the
Bureau has balanced potential burdens on small and other entities with
the Commission's objective of serving as many consumers as possible
through its High-Cost program.
For the relevant high-cost support mechanisms, the Order describes
how WCB anticipates using the Fabric to verify compliance with high-
cost deployment obligations. The Order also adopts streamlined
procedures to implement location adjustment processes adopted by the
Commission, including reliance on the Fabric to determine the actual
number of locations in the carrier's service areas, which will impact
the number of locations carriers are required to serve pursuant to
their high-cost obligations.
Specifically for RDOF, the Order adopts the timing for the location
adjustment process as well as processes for calculating support if
there are more or fewer locations in the carrier's service area than
originally estimated by the CAM, for the carrier to notify the Bureau
and demonstrate it has served all actual locations prior to the end of
the deployment if there are fewer locations than estimated in the
carrier's service area, and for submitting requests if the carrier
determines that the locations it is required to serve, beyond the
number of locations identified by the CAM, are unreasonable to serve.
The Order also adopts a methodology for adjusting location totals if
the carrier is required to offer service at multiple performance tiers
and describes the process for determining whether requests for service
at newly built locations are reasonable.
For the PR Fund, Connect USVI Fund, A-CAM I, Revised A-CAM I, and
A-CAM II, the Order implements the location adjustment processes for
these programs by leveraging existing Commission processes for
maintaining the accuracy of the Fabric to minimize the burdens on
support recipients, including small businesses, in demonstrating how
many actual locations are within their service areas. Specifically, the
Order adopts a process by which carriers can certify they have reviewed
the Fabric to demonstrate based on the preponderance of evidence that
they can have their support and location totals adjusted based on the
location totals in the Fabric. The Order also adopts timing for when
this process will occur, as well as methodologies for increasing
support for PR Fund and Connect USVI Fund carriers if there are more
locations in the Fabric than originally estimated and for decreasing
support for A-CAM I, Revised A-CAM I, and A-CAM II carriers if there
are fewer locations in the Fabric than originally estimated.
While the Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance for
small entities, due to high-cost carriers' existing obligations, the
Commission does not believe the adopted rules will impose significant
additional operational or administrative costs or require small
entities to hire additional attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other
professionals in order to comply beyond those they have already hired
to aid in compliance with their High-Cost program obligations
generally.
Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an
agency to provide, ``a description of the steps the agency has taken to
minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . .
including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for
selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of
the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency
which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.''
In the Order, the Bureau states that it anticipates incorporating
the Fabric as part of its compliance reviews to verify both high-cost
carriers' reporting in the HUBB and claims that those carriers have met
their service milestones. While the Bureau acknowledges the burdens
reconciling HUBB and Fabric data may place on all small and other
carriers, it concludes that such an effort is critical
[[Page 11231]]
to both the Bureau responsibility to coordinate with other agencies
that offer funding for broadband and to its long-standing obligation to
be responsible stewards of the public's funds.
In determining the final rules concerning RDOF, the Bureau
considered a number of alternatives that may have a significant
economic impact on small entities. For example, the Bureau considered
whether it should publish a list of changes to the Fabric with each
Fabric release in order to enable RDOF carriers that may lack the
financial resources to monitor the Fabric to keep track of any changes
to the location totals in their service areas prior to the Bureau
adopting revised location counts for RDOF. The Bureau ultimately
determined that all carriers should already be familiar with how to
determine which Fabric locations are in their service areas as they are
required to report their availability data to these locations through
the BDC and have tools available to help with this effort. The Bureau
also expects to make resources available through HUBB reporting.
In addition, the Bureau considered whether it should require RDOF
carriers that have to serve a significantly higher number of locations
than originally estimated to seek a waiver to obtain more support.
Instead, the Bureau determined that rather than implementing an onerous
case-by-case process, it should increase a carrier's support pro rata
if its new location count exceeds the CAM locations within their
service areas in each state by more than 35%. However, the Bureau
further determined that a case-by-case approach was warranted in
situations where a RDOF carrier is requesting to have a location
removed from its revised location total above the CAM estimated amount
or does not want to fulfill a request for service because the RDOF
carrier claims the location is unreasonable to serve. For removing
locations from the revised location total, rather than adopt specific
criteria or parameters that may have streamlined the process for such
requests, the Bureau determined that each situation would likely be
fact specific and determined on a case-by-case basis to avoid adopting
overbroad criteria that could potentially leave locations that are
otherwise reasonable to serve stranded without service. Further, this
approach would also allow the Bureau to facilitate coordination with
other funding programs. However, the Bureau adopted presumptions for
locations that are newly built after the Commission adopts revised
location totals, acknowledging the additional flexibility the
Commission provided in allowing carriers to only serve these locations
upon reasonable request.
Additionally, the Bureau adopted its proposal to permit a RDOF
carrier that claims to have served all existing locations in the
eligible census blocks prior to WCB announcing revised location totals
to rely on the latest version of the Fabric available to Fabric
licensees to demonstrate that there are no other locations left to
serve and to request a verification that it has served all the
locations identified in the Fabric. After a successful verification,
the carrier can close out its letter of credit. In determining the
rules adopted in the Order, the Bureau considered a number of
alternatives that could impact small entities when adopting this
approach, including whether if there are any newly identified locations
prior to the Bureau adopting revised location counts, the carrier can
have additional time to serve those locations. While it may impact a
carrier's ability to meet its obligations if locations are newly
identified later in the deployment period, the Bureau decided it was
most aligned with the Commission's requirement that carriers serve at a
minimum the adjusted location total or the CAM estimated total by the
end of the six-year deployment term to require carriers to serve any
newly identified locations, up to the number of model estimated number
of locations, by the end of the deployment period plus cure period.
The Bureau also considered whether it should withhold some portion
of a carrier's support until it adopts revised location totals, but the
Bureau decided the burden on carriers and the Commission in
implementing such a policy would outweigh the risk to the Universal
Service Fund given the carrier would have already previously served all
actual locations. However, the Bureau declined to provide a grace
period for carriers' challenges to be resolved while they were seeking
a verification they had served all actual locations, finding the
balance shifted when a carrier had not yet demonstrated it had served
all actual locations as determined by the Fabric. Instead, the Bureau
encourages carriers to submit challenges as soon as possible so that
they can be resolved in a timely manner.
Furthermore, the Bureau decided that it would interpret the
Commission's direction that support be reduced on a pro rata basis by
the number of reduced locations to mean that WCB would apply the pro
rata support reduction to the number of locations that bring the
location total below the 65% threshold. The Bureau considered the
alternative of applying the pro rata support reduction for all of the
locations that make up the gap between the CAM estimated location total
and the revised location total. But this approach would result in the
inequity of support recipients being subject to no support reduction if
their revised location total is 65% of the CAM-estimated location
total, but support recipients that have a revised location total of 64%
or less of the CAM-estimated location total being subject to a pro rata
support reduction for all of the locations that make up the gap.
Additionally, in regards to multiple performance tier requirements,
the Bureau considered whether after it adopts revised location counts
it should proportionally adjust locations totals for each performance
tier to maintain the same ratio of locations across all performance
tiers, or instead whether it should assign locations the performance
tier associated with the census block where the location is located.
The Bureau decided that by adopting the proportional approach it would
preserve the flexibility that the Commission intended when it decided
to measure compliance on a state-level basis.
For the PR Fund and Connect USVI Fund as well as A-CAM I, Revised
A-CAM I, and A-CAM II, the Bureau adopted its proposal to minimize
burdens on the funded carriers, including small carriers, to rely on
existing Commission processes and the Fabric to support their requests
for location adjustments rather than require carriers participating in
these processes to submit their own data regarding the locations in
their funded service areas.
Lastly, for A-CAM I, Revised A-CAM I, and A-CAM II the Bureau had
originally proposed reducing support on a pro rata basis if there are
fewer Fabric locations than the carrier is required to serve. Based on
the record, the Bureau instead decided to use the A-CAM to generate new
support totals for the carriers participating in the process to better
capture the relative costs of serving locations.
II. Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i),
5(c), 214, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155(c), 214, 254, Sec. Sec. 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3
of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and the delegations
of authority in paragraphs 45 of the RDOF Order, FCC 20-5, paragraphs
65 and 66 of the 2019 PR-USVI Order, FCC 19-95 (84 FR 59937, November
7, 2019), and paragraph 34 for the 2016 Rate-of-Return Reform Order,
FCC 16-33, the
[[Page 11232]]
Order IS ADOPTED, effective thirty (30) days after publication of the
text or summary thereof in the Federal Register, except for the
provisions subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, which will become
effective upon announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval of
the subject information collection requirements.
It is further ordered that the petition for waiver filed by Taylor
Telephone Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a Taylor Telecom is granted and Sec.
54.802(c)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 54.802(c)(1) is waived
to the extent described herein.
Federal Communications Commission.
Trent B. Harkrader,
Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2025-03344 Filed 3-4-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P