101358 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[GN Docket No. 20–32; FCC 24–89; FRS 

247283] 

Establishing a 5G Fund for Rural 

America 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission or FCC) takes important 

and necessary steps to implement the 

5G Fund for Rural America (5G Fund) 

to support the build out of advanced, 5G 

mobile wireless broadband networks for 

those who live, work, and travel in rural 

areas. The Commission also in this 

document resolves the issues raised in 

the five pending petitions for 

reconsideration of its 2020 5G Fund 

Report and Order. 

DATES: Effective January 13, 2025. 

Compliance with §§ 54.322(b), 

54.322(g), 54.322(h), 54.322(i), 54.322(j), 

54.1014(a), 54.1014(b)(2), 54.1018(a), 

54.1018(b), 54.1018(c), 54.1018(d), 

54.1019(a)(1), 54.1019(a)(2), 

54.1019(a)(3), 54.1019(b), 54.1022(b), 

and 54.1022(f) is not required until the 

Commission publishes a document in 

the Federal Register announcing the 

compliance date. As of December 13, 

2024, instruction 10.b., amending 

§ 54.313, and published November 25, 

2020, at 85 FR 75770, is withdrawn. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Kelly Quinn, Office 

of Economics and Analytics, Auctions 

Division, (202) 418–0660 or 

Kelly.Quinn@fcc.gov, Valerie M. Barrish, 

Office of Economics and Analytics, 

Auctions Division, (202) 418–0660 or 

Valerie.Barrish@fcc.gov. For 

information regarding the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

information collection requirements 

contained in this PRA, contact Cathy 

Williams, Office of Managing Director, 

at (202) 418–2918 or Cathy.Williams@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 5G Fund 

Second Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration in GN Docket No. 20– 

32, FCC 24–89, adopted on August 14, 

2024 and released on August 29, 2024. 

The full text of this document is 

available on the Commission’s website 

at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fccreignite-5g-fund-target-investmentsrural-communities. To request materials 

in accessible formats for people with 

disabilities, send an email to FCC504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice). 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. The Commission takes important 

and necessary steps in the 5G Fund 

Second Report and 

Order and Order on Reconsideration 

to implement the framework for the 5G 

Fund for Rural America (5G Fund) to 

support the build out of advanced, 5G 

mobile wireless broadband networks for 

those who live, work, and travel in rural 

areas. After over a decade of hard work 

to reach this pivotal moment, the 5G 

Fund reflects the Commission’s 

persistent efforts to reform and redirect 

universal service funds for mobile 

broadband to areas of the country that 

need them the most. As it finalizes the 

details for the 5G Fund, the Commission 

is confident that its conclusions are 

solidly grounded in the improved 

mobile coverage data obtained in the 

Broadband Data Collection (BDC), 

which is reflected on its new National 

Broadband Map and provides the 

Commission with the most 

comprehensive picture to date about 

where mobile broadband service is and 

is not across the entire country. 

Unquestionably, the Commission’s 

decision to wait to proceed with the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction until the 

Commission had these data to rely on 

has dramatically improved its 

understanding of where high-speed 

mobile broadband service is being 

provided and has significantly 

enhanced its ability to hold a successful 

5G Fund auction. The Commission is 

now far better informed regarding which 

communities lack mobile broadband 

service. 

2. As the Commission noted when it 

adopted the 5G Fund Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (5G Fund 

FNPRM), 88 FR 66781 (Sept. 28, 2023), 

the National Broadband Map reflects the 

stark reality that over 14 million homes 

and businesses nationwide continue to 

lack access to 5G mobile wireless 

broadband service. The Commission 

therefore undertook a tailored effort to 

refresh the record and reignite the 5G 

Fund’s plan to expand the deployment 

of 5G service to those rural communities 

that remain trapped on the wrong side 

of the digital divide. After careful 

consideration of the record gathered in 

this proceeding, the Commission 

concludes that the determinations it 

reaches herein will best incentivize the 

deployment of networks providing 

advanced, 5G mobile wireless 

broadband in areas of the country 

where, absent subsidies, such service 

will continue to be lacking. 

3. Specifically, in this 5G Fund 

Second Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration, the Commission: (1) 

modifies the definition of the areas that 

will be eligible for support in the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction and include areas 

in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands that meet this eligible area 

definition in the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction; (2) increases the budget for 

Phase I of the 5G Fund and the Tribal 

reserve budget; (3) modifies the metric 

for accepting and identifying winning 

bids and adopt a service-based 

weighting factor for bidding in the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction; (4) explains how 

it will aggregate areas eligible for 5G 

Fund support to minimum geographic 

areas for bidding; (5) explains its 

approach to generally align the 

methodologies for demonstrating 

compliance with the 5G Fund public 

interest obligations and performance 

requirements with those used in the 

BDC; (6) modifies the schedule for 

transitioning from mobile legacy highcost support to 5G Fund support 

consistent with recent legislative 

amendments; (7) requires each 5G Fund 

Phase I auction applicant to certify, 

under penalty of perjury, that it has read 

the public notice adopting procedures 

for the auction, and that it has 

familiarized itself with those procedures 

and any requirements related to the 

support made available for bidding in 

the auction; (8) requires 5G Fund 

support recipients to implement 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management plans as a condition of 

receiving support; and (9) encourages 

5G Fund support recipients to 

incorporate Open Radio Access Network 

(Open RAN) technologies in networks 

funded through the 5G Fund through 

the use of incentive funding and an 

opportunity to seek additional time to 

meet their 5G Fund public interest 

obligations and performance 

requirements by the established service 

deployment milestones. 

4. The Commission also resolves the 

issues raised in the pending petitions 

for reconsideration of the 5G Fund 

Report and Order filed by The Rural 

Wireless Association, Inc. (RWA) and 

NTCA—The Rural Broadband 

Association (NTCA), The Coalition of 

Rural Wireless Carriers (CRWC), CTIA, 

Smith Bagley, Inc. (SBI), and 5G Fund 

Supporters. See 86 FR 6611 (Jan. 22, 

2021). With the decisions the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101359 

Commission reaches herein, the 

Commission advances its extensive 

efforts that began with the USF/ICC 

Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830 

(Nov. 29, 2011), to modernize high-cost 

support for mobile broadband services 

and proceeds with confidence that it is 

stretching its limited universal service 

fund dollars to support advanced, 5G 

mobile wireless broadband service to as 

many areas where Americans live, work 

and travel as possible. 

II. Background 

5. In its October 2020 5G Fund Report 

and Order, 85 FR 75770 (Nov. 25, 2020), 

the Commission established the 5G 

Fund and determined that it would use 

multi-round reverse auctions to 

distribute up to $9 billion, in two 

phases, to retarget mobile universal 

service in the high-cost program to bring 

voice and 5G mobile broadband service 

to rural areas of the country unlikely to 

otherwise see unsubsidized deployment 

of 5G-capable networks. In adopting a 

budget of up to $9 billion for the 5G 

Fund, the Commission explained that 

support would be awarded in two 

phases, with up to $8 billion for Phase 

I, of which it would reserve $680 

million of support for service to Tribal 

lands, and at least $1 billion in Phase II, 

as well as any unawarded funds from 

Phase I. The Commission decided that 

it would use new, more precise, verified 

mobile coverage data gathered through 

the BDC to determine the areas eligible 

for support in a 5G Fund auction. The 

Commission defined the areas eligible 

for support in the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction as those that lack unsubsidized 

4G LTE and 5G broadband service by at 

least one service provider based on BDC 

data. The Commission also decided that 

it would accept bids and identify 

winning bids in a 5G Fund auction 

using a support price per adjusted 

square kilometer. Under this approach, 

each eligible area would have an 

associated number of square kilometers 

that would be subject to an adjustment 

factor that would assign a weight to 

each geographic area and apply that 

adjustment factor to bidding for support 

amounts, and support amounts for an 

area would be determined by 

multiplying an area’s associated 

adjusted square kilometers by the 

relevant price per square kilometer. 

6. The Commission also concluded in 

the 5G Fund Report and Order that 

‘‘[r]ural Americans deserve timely 

deployment of service by legacy 

recipients of high-cost support that is 

comparable to what is being offered in 

urban areas, and [that its] stewardship 

of the Universal Service Fund demands 

that [it] specify and clarify the 

obligations of legacy support 

recipients.’’ Consistent with this 

conclusion, the Commission adopted 

additional 5G public interest obligations 

and performance requirements, as well 

as associated reporting requirements, for 

competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers (ETCs) to 

continue to receive mobile legacy highcost support. The Commission also 

adopted a requirement that competitive 

ETCs receiving mobile legacy high-cost 

support use an increasing percentage of 

their support toward the deployment, 

maintenance, and operation of voice 

and broadband networks that support 

5G service in their subsidized areas. 

Furthermore, the Commission noted 

that it would terminate support 

payments to competitive ETCs receiving 

mobile legacy high-cost support that fail 

to comply with their public interest 

obligations and performance 

requirements. The Commission 

explained that such rules would help to 

ensure that the areas served by legacy 

support providers enjoyed the benefits 

that 5G promises. 

7. Pursuant to the rules adopted in the 

5G Fund Report and Order, both 

recipients of mobile legacy high-cost 

support and recipients of 5G Fund 

auction support are required to meet 

minimum baseline performance 

requirements for data speed, latency, 

and data allowance, including: (1) 

deploying 5G networks that meet at 

least the 5G–NR (New Radio) 

technology standards developed by the 

3rd Generation Partnership Project with 

Release 15 (or any successor release that 

may be adopted by the Office of 

Economics and Analytics (OEA) and 

Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) 

after appropriate notice and comment) 

with median download and upload 

speeds of at least 35 Mbps and 3 Mbps 

and with minimum cell edge download 

and upload speeds of 7 Mbps and 1 

Mbps; (2) meeting end-to-end round trip 

data latency measurements of 100 

milliseconds or below; and (3) offering 

at least one service plan that includes a 

minimum monthly data allowance that 

is equivalent to the average United 

States subscriber data usage. The 

Commission explained that these 

performance requirements, along with 

public interest obligations for 

reasonably comparable rates, 

collocation, and voice and data roaming, 

will ensure that rural areas receive 

service reasonably comparable to highspeed mobile broadband service 

available in urban areas from both 

mobile legacy support recipients and 5G 

Fund support recipients. 

8. To ensure that 5G Fund support 

recipients meet their public interest 

obligations and performance 

requirements in areas where they 

receive support, the Commission 

adopted interim and final service 

deployment milestones along with 

reporting requirements to monitor their 

progress. Specifically, the Commission 

adopted milestones requiring a 5G Fund 

support recipient to offer 5G service 

meeting established performance 

requirements to at least 40% of the total 

square kilometers associated with the 

eligible areas for which it is authorized 

to receive 5G Fund support in a state by 

the end of the third full calendar year 

following authorization of support, to at 

least 60% of the total square kilometers 

by the end of the fourth full calendar 

year, and to at least 80% of the total 

square kilometers by the end of the fifth 

full calendar year. Moreover, the 

Commission adopted a final service 

deployment milestone that would 

require a 5G Fund support recipient to 

offer 5G service that meets the 

established 5G Fund performance 

requirements to at least 85% of the total 

square kilometers associated with the 

eligible areas for which it is authorized 

to receive 5G Fund support in a state by 

the end of the sixth full calendar year 

following authorization of support. 

Additionally, a 5G Fund support 

recipient is required to demonstrate by 

the end of the sixth full calendar year 

following authorization of support that 

it provides service that meets the 

established 5G performance 

requirements to at least 75% of the total 

square kilometers within each of its 

individual biddable areas. 

9. Figure 1 in the 5G Fund Second 

Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration, titled ‘‘USAC Mobile 

CETC Service Area Boundaries Map,’’ 

depicts USAC’s online map delineating 

the boundaries of the subsidized service 

areas of each competitive ETC receiving 

mobile legacy high-cost support used in 

determining which areas are subsidized 

for this purpose. The Commission stated 

in the 5G Fund Report and Order that 

it will use Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS) data from the Universal 

Service Administrative Company 

(USAC) delineating the boundaries of 

the subsidized service areas of each 

competitive ETC receiving mobile 

legacy high-cost support in determining 

which areas are subsidized for this 

purpose. The 5G Fund Second Report 

and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration notes that California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, 

Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, 

and Washington, DC do not have any 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101360 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

mobile legacy high-cost support service 

areas. The charts in Figure 2 in the 5G 

Fund Second Report and Order and 

Order on Reconsideration, titled 

‘‘Percent of a State’s Total Area Within 

a Subsidized CETC Area and the Percent 

of Total High-Cost Subsidy Directed to 

That State,’’ and Figure 3 in the 5G 

Fund Second Report and Order and 

Order on Reconsideration, titled 

‘‘Percent of a State’s Total Area Within 

the Subsidized Area of 1, 2, 3, or 4 

CETCs,’’ provide more detail about the 

distribution of mobile legacy high-cost 

support by state. 

10. The Commission decided in the 

5G Fund Report and Order that it would 

wait to hold an auction to award 5G 

Fund support until it had new, more 

precise, verified mobile coverage data 

obtained through the BDC, and 

explained that waiting for the 

development of a National Broadband 

Map was critical to the 5G Fund’s 

success. The Commission’s National 

Broadband Map, which reflects the most 

recently available data submitted in the 

BDC concerning mobile broadband 

service availability, provides us with a 

substantially improved understanding 

about where such service is—and is 

not—available. Moreover, in areas 

where mobile broadband service is 

available, this map provides an 

improved picture of the type(s) of 

service available, the speeds at which 

service is available, and the 

environment(s) in which service is 

available. 

11. Armed with this data, the 

Commission adopted the 5G Fund 

FNPRM on September 21, 2023, to 

refresh the record and help inform the 

decisions the Commission makes below 

about how Phase I of the 5G Fund 

should operate. The 5G Fund FNPRM 

therefore sought comment on a limited 

set of issues that are critical to the 5G 

Fund’s success, namely: (1) defining the 

areas that will be eligible for 5G Fund 

support; (2) reassessing the budget for 

the 5G Fund; (3) potentially 

reconsidering the use of adjusted square 

kilometers as the metric for accepting 

bids and identifying winning bids in a 

5G Fund auction; (4) aggregating areas 

eligible for 5G Fund support to 

minimum geographic areas for bidding; 

(5) measuring a 5G Fund support 

recipient’s compliance with its public 

interest obligations and performance 

requirements based on any modified 

metric for accepting bids and 

identifying winning bids; (6) modifying 

the schedule for transitioning from 

mobile legacy high-cost support to 5G 

Fund support, consistent with recent 

legislative amendments; (7) requiring 

each 5G Fund Phase I auction applicant 

to certify, under penalty of perjury, that 

it has read the public notice adopting 

procedures for the auction, and that it 

has familiarized itself with those 

procedures and any requirements, 

terms, and conditions related to the 

support made available for bidding in 

the auction; (8) requiring 5G Fund 

support recipients to implement 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management plans; (9) determining 

whether and how this proceeding might 

create an opportunity to support further 

deployment of Open Radio Access 

Network (Open RAN) technologies; and 

(10) asking how its proposals may 

promote or inhibit advances in 

diversity, equity, inclusion, and 

accessibility, as well the scope of the 

Commission’s relevant legal authority to 

address any such issues. 

III. Identifying Areas Eligible for 5G 

Fund Support 

A. Defining the Areas Eligible for 5G 

Fund Support 

12. The Commission modifies the 

definition of areas eligible for support in 

the 5G Fund Phase I auction to be those 

areas that: (1) show a lack of 

unsubsidized 5G mobile wireless 

broadband service at speeds of at least 

7⁄1 Mbps in an outdoor stationary 

environment by at least one service 

provider based on mobile coverage data 

submitted in the BDC, (2) are not in 

urban areas, as defined by the U.S. 

Census Bureau, and (3) contain at least 

one location or at least some portion of 

a road. In the 5G Fund Second Report 

and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration, the Commission noted 

that data submitted in the BDC does not 

include the subsidy status of a reported 

service or provider, and that to 

determine whether an area lacks 

unsubsidized service, it evaluates the 

subsidy status of a service provider by 

using information provided from USAC 

regarding the distribution of mobile 

legacy high-cost support from the 

universal service fund and competitive 

eligible telecommunications carrier 

(CETC) study boundaries. The 

Commission also noted that, consistent 

with the Commission’s decision in the 

5G Fund Report and Order prohibiting 

any provider with enforceable 5G 

deployment obligations to use 5G Fund 

support to fund such deployments, it 

expects to give providers with 

enforceable 5G deployment obligations 

an opportunity to make pre-auction, 

binding commitments to deploy 5G in 

certain areas, thereby removing those 

areas from the inventory of areas eligible 

for the auction. 

13. As the Commission noted in the 

5G Fund FNPRM, throughout this 

proceeding, several parties have taken 

issue with the previously adopted 

eligible areas definition—i.e., areas 

where mobile coverage data submitted 

in the BDC show a lack of both 

unsubsidized 4G LTE and unsubsidized 

5G broadband service by at least one 

service provider—and have advocated 

that the Commission more broadly 

define as eligible for 5G Fund support 

any areas that lack unsubsidized 5G 

mobile broadband service. The 

Commission also received two petitions 

seeking reconsideration of the eligible 

areas definition adopted in the 5G Fund 

Report and Order, both of which ask the 

Commission to define as eligible for 5G 

Fund support any area that lacks 

unsubsidized 5G broadband service. See 

86 FR 6611 (Jan. 22, 2021). The 

Commission is persuaded by the 

comments filed in response to the 5G 

Fund FNPRM that, for a variety of 

reasons, unsubsidized providers of 4G 

LTE service may lack motivation to 

upgrade their networks to 5G 

technology in rural areas and thus may 

be unlikely to do so without incentives. 

To provide such incentives, the 

Commission therefore modifies the 

definition of eligible areas adopted in 

the 5G Fund Report and Order. 

However, the Commission is also 

mindful that there are rural areas that 

lack unsubsidized 4G LTE service and 

thus lack access to any type of advanced 

high-speed mobile broadband service. 

Accordingly, as more fully explained in 

the 5G Fund Second Report and Order, 

the Commission will apply a servicebased weighting factor in 5G Fund 

Phase I auction bidding to incentivize 

the deployment of 5G mobile broadband 

service in areas that lack unsubsidized 

4G LTE service. The Commission will 

use a speed threshold of 5/1 Mbps for 

purposes of determining the areas that 

lack unsubsidized 4G LTE in connection 

with this weighting approach. As noted 

in the 5G Fund Second Report and 

Order and Order on Reconsideration, for 

4G LTE, the BDC requires mobile 

broadband service providers to submit 

propagation maps and propagation 

model details that demonstrate where 

mobile wireless users should expect to 

receive minimum user speeds of 5/1 

Mbps at the cell edge, with a cell edge 

probability of not less than 90% and a 

cell loading of not less than 50%, in 

accordance with the Broadband 

Deployment Accuracy and 

Technological Availability (Broadband 

DATA) Act. See 47 U.S.C. 

642(b)(2)(B)(ii). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101361 

14. Consistent with the Commission’s 

decision to modify the definition of 

areas eligible for support in the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction to be those areas where 

mobile coverage data submitted in the 

BDC show a lack of unsubsidized 5G 

mobile broadband service at speeds of at 

least 7/1 Mbps in an outdoor stationary 

environment by at least one service 

provider, the Commission also grants 

the Petitions for Reconsideration filed 

by CRWC, NTCA, and RWA to the 

extent they request that the Commission 

define the areas eligible for the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction as those where BDC data 

show a lack of unsubsidized 5G mobile 

broadband service. 

1. Technology for Determining Eligible 

Areas 

15. The record overwhelmingly 

supports modifying the definition of 

areas eligible for support in the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction to be those areas where 

BDC mobile coverage data show a lack 

of unsubsidized 5G mobile broadband 

service by at least one service provider, 

even if those areas are served by 4G LTE 

service. As the Competitive Carriers 

Association (CCA) emphasizes, ‘‘the 5G 

Fund should be truly focused on 5G,’’ 

and ‘‘[t]he relevant question for 5G 

Fund eligibility is the presence or 

absence of currently-available 5G 

service in that area.’’ CCA maintains 

that defining eligibility for 5G Fund 

support based on this baseline question 

will extend 5G service to both areas 

currently receiving only 4G service and 

those that do not receive 4G service. 

CCA notes that expanding eligibility to 

areas in which 4G LTE service is 

available but 5G service is not 

‘‘appropriately focuses the 5G Fund on 

expanding access to 5G service . . . 

[and] also avoids the potentially 

harmful consequences of stranding 4Gserved areas without the potential for 

5G service for an extended period of 

time.’’ 

16. AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) and T-Mobile 

USA, Inc. (T-Mobile) are the only 

commenters that support continuing to 

define eligible areas as those that lack 

unsubsidized 4G LTE and 5G mobile 

broadband service. AT&T ‘‘supports 

prioritizing 5G Fund support for areas 

without 4G LTE or 5G service’’ and 

submits that ‘‘[t]his could be 

accomplished by conducting a more 

targeted 5G Fund Phase I auction based 

on areas without 4G LTE and 5G service 

. . . [and] then expand[ing] the eligible 

areas [for the 5G Fund Phase II auction] 

to also include those that have 4G LTE 

service if the BDC maps at the time 

support [such an expansion].’’ AT&T 

argues that ‘‘[5G Fund support] should 

only be expended for areas that will not 

receive 5G service without private 

investment’’ and asserts that ‘‘the 

Commission . . . should first direct [its 

limited funds] to [areas] most in need— 

[those] that do not have 4G LTE or 5G 

service[,] . . . [which] will allow more 

time for private investment to upgrade 

4G LTE coverage areas to 5G without 

[5G Fund] support but will also 

eventually allow support in the event it 

is not economical for a 4G LTE area[ ] 

to be [upgraded] without government 

support.’’ T-Mobile argues that 

‘‘[t]argeting unserved areas is consistent 

with the framework of previous 

universal service auctions . . . [and] 

will avoid waste and inefficient use of 

resources due to overbuilding.’’ TMobile submits that retaining the 

existing eligible areas definition ‘‘will 

also help target funding to areas that 

lack mobile broadband service, as there 

are many places throughout the United 

States that lack even 4G LTE service,’’ 

and maintains that ‘‘[p]rioritizing areas 

that lack 4G LTE or 5G will ensure that 

funding is targeted to areas that lack any 

service.’’ 

17. Several commenters address the 

questions posed by the Commission 

about what motivations there are for 

unsubsidized providers of 4G LTE 

service to upgrade their networks to 5G 

technology in rural areas. AST&Science 

LLC (AST&Science), CCA, CRWC, RWA, 

and Smith Bagley, Inc. (SBI) each 

submit that there is no reasonable basis 

to conclude that the provision of 

unsubsidized 4G LTE service in rural 

areas serves as an indicator that 5G 

mobile broadband service will be 

deployed in those areas absent 

subsidies. They argue that unsubsidized 

4G LTE providers lack incentives and 

thus have limited motivation to upgrade 

their networks to support 5G service in 

rural areas, with AST&Science and CCA 

specifically noting the financial 

challenges of such rural upgrades as one 

of the main reasons. CCA contends that 

the record in this proceeding clearly 

demonstrates that the Commission’s 

assumption in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order that areas with unsubsidized 4G 

service tend to show a likelihood of 

unsubsidized 5G deployments such that 

they should be excluded from 5G Fund 

eligibility is incorrect and risks 

widening the digital divide instead of 

closing it. CRWC, US Cellular, and SBI 

each cite CRWC’s claim in its Petition 

for Reconsideration of the 5G Fund 

Report and Order that ‘‘it would be[ ] 

premature in the extreme for the 

Commission to assume [in 2020] that, 

within the next several years, all rural 

areas that currently have 4G service will 

see [deployment of] 5G service [at levels 

meeting Commission’s adopted 

performance requirements]’’ and each 

notes ‘‘that the facts appear to bear out 

[CRWC’s earlier assertion]’’ because 

‘‘[t]he BDC map [in Figure 1 of the 5G 

Fund FNPRM ] continues to show vast 

swaths of rural America lacking 

unsubsidized 4G LTE service at 5/1 

Mbps as well as unsubsidized 5G 

service at 7/1 Mbps or better.’’ CRWC, 

US Cellular, and SBI submit that 

notwithstanding record low interest 

rates in effect at the time of, and 

following, the adoption of the 5G Fund 

Report and Order and recent 

Commission auctions of spectrum 

suitable for 5G deployments, 

‘‘unsubsidized carriers have not rushed 

in over the past three years to close the 

mobile service gap in rural America . . . 

[and] it appears there is a great deal of 

work to do’’ to upgrade areas that lack 

4G LTE service, let alone upgrading to 

5G service. According to US Cellular, 

another disincentive for providers to 

upgrade from 4G to 5G is that while 

upgrades from 3G to 4G LTE service 

have in the past served to deliver access 

to new services, such as internet access 

and streaming, that increased usage and 

in turn carrier revenues, ‘‘almost every 

American already has a mobile device of 

some sort, even if they live in an area 

without high-quality coverage and 

service [and] [a]s a result, investing to 

upgrade to 5G-level service does not 

deliver substantial new revenues to a 

carrier from non-business customers, at 

least not yet.’’ 

18. Verizon notes that ‘‘[w]hile many 

areas that have unsubsidized 4G LTE 

coverage will soon obtain 5G coverage 

through the operation of the competitive 

market, some areas with 4G LTE 

coverage will require universal service 

support to upgrade to 5G.’’ Verizon 

submits that the risk of preempting 

near-term 5G deployments by 

subsidizing them in areas where 

unsubsidized 4G LTE networks have 

been deployed—which the Commission 

previously sought to avoid—has already 

been reduced by the extensive 

unsubsidized 5G deployment that has 

occurred during the three-year pause in 

implementation of the 5G Fund, and 

‘‘will be further reduced by the time the 

Commission holds the [5G Fund] Phase 

I auction . . . as those unsubsidized 

deployments continue to expand. 

Verizon contends that as a result, ‘‘[b]y 

the time [the Commission] holds the [5G 

Fund] Phase I auction, it will be more 

reasonable for the Commission to 

assume that any remaining 4G LTE-only 

areas shown on the BDC maps require 

universal service support to upgrade to 

5G.’’ NTCA maintains that ‘‘in sparse 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101362 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1 Id. at 2–3 (citing CRWC Comments at 9–14). 

rural areas where the distance between 

buildings is significant, the population 

small, and often there is not a major 

highway passing through the area, there 

is little to justify or even absorb the cost 

of delivering 5G [mobile] broadband 

service’’ and thus ‘‘predicting that 

entities currently offering unsubsidized 

4G LTE coverage in these areas might 

someday increase that coverage to 5G 

would miss the mark.’’ NTCA further 

submits that ‘‘[s]uch a baseless 

predictive judgment would instead 

result in the very areas the Commission 

intends to support through the 5G Fund 

remaining on the wrong side of the 

digital divide.’’ 

19. T-Mobile is the only commenter 

that argues that the Commission’s 

earlier assumption was correct because, 

‘‘[a]s in 2020, 5G deployments are likely 

in areas where unsubsidized 4G LTE 

networks have already been deployed 

. . . [and] [t]he market forces that 

brought unsubsidized 4G LTE to an area 

are likely to result in a provider’s 

decision to upgrade their service to 5G.’’ 

T-Mobile submits that the Commission’s 

approach in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order for defining eligible areas ‘‘will 

help to mitigate overbuilding as 

providers continue to deploy 5G service 

to meet market demands.’’ However, 

RWA disagrees, arguing that ‘‘T-Mobile 

provide[s] no evidence to support the 

[Commission’s] assumption [in the 5G 

Fund Report and Order] that 5G 

deployments are likely in areas where 

unsubsidized 4G LTE networks have 

already been deployed . . . [and is] only 

able to point to ‘market forces’ that it 

argues will drive 5G deployment in 

areas where there is unsubsidized 4G 

LTE deployment and a general concern 

[regarding] overbuilding.’’ RWA notes 

that, to the contrary, BDC filing data 

show that ‘‘unsubsidized carriers have 

not [in fact] rushed to deploy 5G mobile 

service in rural America [during] the 

. . . three years since the 5G Fund 

[Report and] Order was adopted.’’ 1

RWA contends that ‘‘the record clearly 

shows that rural areas served only by 4G 

LTE should be funded by the 5G Fund 

due to the high risk of being left behind 

in 5G rural deployments.’’ 

20. The Commission agrees with 

commenters that defining eligible areas 

based on a lack of unsubsidized 5G 

mobile service is more consistent with 

the 5G-centered approach envisioned 

for the 5G Fund. While the Commission 

is mindful of the need to avoid 

overbuilding, it concludes that retaining 

the eligible areas definition adopted in 

the 5G Fund Report and Order could 

exclude some areas where unsubsidized 

4G LTE service is being provided that 

will not be upgraded to 5G service 

without 5G Fund support. Moreover, the 

Commission finds the risk of 

overbuilding such areas is outweighed 

by the benefit of ensuring that it does 

not inadvertently strand areas to lesser 

mobile broadband technology and 

speeds. The Commission recognized in 

2020 in the 5G Fund Report and Order 

that at least two providers—T-Mobile 

and DISH—would be deploying 5G 

mobile broadband service in rural areas 

in the then-near term pursuant to their 

enforceable merger commitments. For 

this reason, the Commission decided in 

the 5G Fund Report and Order that it 

would first afford T-Mobile, and 

potentially others, an opportunity to 

make pre-auction, binding commitments 

to deploy 5G service in certain areas to 

allow the Commission to remove such 

areas from the inventory of areas eligible 

for the auction, and thereby avoid 

overbuilding in rural areas where it is 

known that a provider plans to deploy 

unsubsidized 5G mobile broadband 

service. 

21. The Commission declines to adopt 

the approach proposed by AT&T that 

would stagger the implementation of the 

5G Fund by first awarding support to 

‘‘areas that do not have 4G LTE or 5G 

service [in order to] allow more time for 

private investment to upgrade 4G LTE 

coverage areas to 5G service without 

support from the 5G Fund.’’ AT&T’s 

proposal essentially asks the 

Commission to retain the definition of 

eligible areas that it adopted in 2020 for 

an indeterminate period of time while 

the Commission continues to evaluate if 

the market will bring advanced, 5G 

mobile broadband service to those areas 

absent subsidies. T-Mobile similarly 

suggests in support of retaining that 

definition that the Commission wait to 

‘‘hold[ ] the 5G Fund Phase I Auction 

[until] pending wireless industry 

developments have been resolved’’ in 

order to ‘‘maximize the impact of the 5G 

Fund and minimize inefficient 

overbuilding.’’ In support of waiting to 

move forward toward the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction until unsubsidized 5G 

mobile broadband service deployments 

play out, T-Mobile notes the 

Commission’s decision to wait to decide 

‘‘’how and/or whether future planned 

processes, such as [Phase II of the Rural 

Digital Opportunity Fund], remain 

necessary after the Commission’s 

creation of the Fabric and deployment 

commitments under BEAD and/or other 

Infrastructure Act programs are made.’’’ 

However, unlike the timing for the 

creation of the Broadband Serviceable 

Location Fabric (Fabric) created for the 

BDC and the deployment commitments 

under BEAD and/or other Infrastructure 

Act programs, which have more 

structured parameters and are largely 

within the control of the government, 

decisions about where unsubsidized 5G 

mobile broadband service will be 

deployed and on what timeline rest 

solely with the carriers deploying such 

service. Moreover, one of the underlying 

policy principles of the 5G Fund is to 

direct high-cost universal service 

support to areas of the country where, 

absent subsidies, they are unlikely to 

experience advanced, 5G mobile 

broadband service. The Commission 

therefore finds both AT&T’s and TMobile’s approaches are wholly 

inconsistent with its decision herein to 

target 5G Fund support to the greatest 

number of rural areas as possible where 

people live, work, and travel within the 

available budget. Although the 

Commission is not persuaded that it 

should delay the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction until after BEAD support has 

been awarded, as more fully explained 

in the 5G Fund Second Report and 

Order, the Commission will nonetheless 

assess eligible area determinations to 

ensure that 5G Fund support does not 

duplicate BEAD funding efforts. 

2. Speed Thresholds for Determining 

Eligible Areas 

22. Although virtually all commenters 

support basing the determination of 

eligible areas on where BDC mobile 

coverage data show a lack of 

unsubsidized 5G broadband service by 

at least one service provider, their 

positions about which speed thresholds 

to use in connection with applying this 

definition to determine eligible areas 

differ. Brian Dang (Dang), T-Mobile, and 

Verizon each express support for using 

7/1 Mbps as the speed threshold for 5G 

service. Dang asserts that ‘‘setting the 

benchmark for 5/1 Mbps for 4G and 7/ 

1 Mbps for 5G seems to strike a 

reasonable balance for considering the 

mobile user experience.’’ T-Mobile 

notes that the Commission has 

expressed that ‘‘[a] speed threshold [of 

7/1 Mbps] is likely to be attainable by 

mobile broadband service providers 

deploying 5G–NR service over smaller 

channel blocks of low-band spectrum.’’ 

T-Mobile submits that defining eligible 

areas as those that lack 35/3 Mbps 5G 

coverage ‘‘would certainly result in 

overbuilding areas that have 5G from 

unsubsidized providers and would 

divert resources away from the areas 

that need it most—namely, areas that 

still lack any 5G or 4G LTE coverage at 

all.’’ T-Mobile maintains ‘‘[t]he 

Commission can carry out its obligation 

to be ‘a fiscally responsible steward of 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101363 

[the] limited universal service funds’ 

and fulfill its ‘commitment to 

preventing overbuilding’ by reaffirming 

its decision to use speed thresholds that 

mirror the mapping parameters adopted 

for the BDC.’’ T-Mobile notes that ‘‘[t]he 

BDC uses 5/1 Mbps as the speed 

threshold for 4G LTE coverage and 7/1 

Mbps as the speed threshold for 5G 

coverage,’’ and contends that ‘‘those 

same thresholds should be used for 

identifying eligible areas for the 5G 

Fund.’’ 

23. Michael Ravnitzky recommends 

‘‘us[ing] a minimum speed threshold of 

25 Mbps/3 Mbps to define unsubsidized 

5G service [for funding 5G service for 

Native American, Native Alaskan Native 

Hawaiian, Puerto Rican, and U.S. Virgin 

Island communities]’’ because it ‘‘is 

consistent with the Commission’s 

current definition of fixed broadband 

service and reflects the minimum level 

of service quality that these 

communities deserve and need.’’ 

24. AST&Science, CCA, CRWC, RWA, 

SBI, and US Cellular each express 

support for using 35/3 Mbps as the 

speed threshold for 5G service. CRWC 

reiterates the request made in its 

pending Petition for Reconsideration 

that the Commission ‘‘‘define as eligible 

any area that lacks unsubsidized 5G 

service meeting the performance 

requirements set forth for 5G Fund 

auction winners’ . . . [i.e.,] [a]ny area 

lacking mobile broadband at a median 

speed of [35/3 Mbps], with 90% cell 

edge reliability, with no more than 100 

milliseconds . . . of latency.’’ CCA, 

CRWC, and US Cellular acknowledge 

that making every area lacking 5G 

service at a speed threshold of 35/3 

Mbps eligible for the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction could mean areas with median 

speeds that are close to 35/3 Mbps 

might receive support, but they each 

submit that this could be addressed by 

‘‘giv[ing] a preference to areas that are 

unserved or underserved, weighting the 

5G Fund auction so that these areas 

would be funded before any support is 

distributed in areas having median 

speeds close to 35/3 Mbps,’’ or by 

‘‘tak[ing] steps to coordinate or time 

[the] 5G Fund [Phase I] auction to more 

completely consider the impacts of a 

robust mobile BDC challenge process 

and/or the impacts of BEAD-funded 

projects on the mobility landscape.’’ 

CRWC and US Cellular contend that 

using a speed threshold of 7/1 Mbps for 

5G service does not go far enough to 

fulfill the statutory goal of ‘‘provid[ing] 

consumers in rural areas with access to 

service quality that is reasonably 

comparable to that which is available in 

urban areas,’’ but submit that if the 

Commission does not adopt the eligible 

areas definition CRWC advocates for in 

its Petition for Reconsideration, 

‘‘making eligible for 5G Fund support 

any area lacking 5G technology at a 

speed of 7/1 Mbps or better’’ represents 

‘‘a significant and commendable 

improvement over the eligibility 

provisions [adopted] in the 5G Fund 

[Report and] Order.’’ SBI likewise 

believes a speed threshold of 7/1 Mbps 

for 5G service does not go far enough, 

and supports adopting the eligible areas 

definition CRWC advocates in it 

Petition, but submits that if the 

Commission does not use a speed 

threshold of 35/3 Mbps for purposes of 

determining eligible areas, it should 

alternatively provide for a middle 

ground data collection by replacing the 

7/1 Mbps collection in the BDC with 20/ 

2 Mbps, so that all rural Americans 

receiving service at less than 20/2 Mbps 

can access 5G Fund support 

investments. 

25. CCA compares the mobile speeds 

to fixed service speeds and argues that 

‘‘[defining the speed threshold for] 5G 

connectivity as merely 7/1 Mbps is 

inconsistent with the Commission’s role 

as a global leader in technological 

innovation and connectivity . . . [and] 

also falls short of the speed threshold 

expectations the Administration and the 

Commission have expressed in other 

programs—for example, [Broadband 

Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD)] 

Program connectivity requires a speed 

threshold of 100/20 Mbps, and 

Alternative-Connect America[ ] Cost 

Model II (‘A–CAM II’) connectivity 

requires 25/3 Mbps.’’ CCA also 

‘‘disagrees with the [Commission’s] 

assumption [in the 5G Fund FNPRM] 

that download and upload speeds of at 

least 7/1 Mbps are the typical minimum 

desired mobile experience for 5G 

service,’’ asserting that ‘‘[this speed 

threshold] myopically focuses on 

mobile phone 5G connectivity’’ even 

though 5G encompasses much more 

than that. CCA also argues that ‘‘us[ing] 

a 5/1 Mbps speed threshold for 4G 

connectivity and a 7/1 Mbps speed 

threshold for 5G connectivity minimizes 

the significant differences between 4G 

and 5G technology and user 

experience.’’ CCA advocates using a 

speed threshold of 35/3 Mbps to define 

5G service, contending that the 7/1 

Mbps speed threshold the Commission 

proposes to set for 5G is ‘‘a fraction of 

the median nationwide speed’’ of over 

83/8 Mbps and the speeds exceeding 4 

Gbps that are enjoyed by Americans 

living in urban areas. 

26. The Commission notes that for 

mobile services, it standardized the 

speed parameters that providers use in 

generating their BDC coverage areas, 

and for 5G mobile broadband service, 

those speed parameters are standardized 

at 7/1 Mbps and 35/5 Mbps. See BDC 

Second Report and Order, 85 FR 50886 

(Aug. 18, 2020). The BDC therefore 

collects 5G coverage data based only on 

speed thresholds of 7/1 Mbps and 35/3 

Mbps. As a result, the Commission does 

not have data on 5G mobile broadband 

coverage at speed thresholds of 25/3 

Mbps, 83/8 Mbps, 100/20 Mbps—which 

are all associated with performance 

requirements through which fixed 

service is funded (e.g., the BEAD 

Program, A–CAM II)—or any other 

speed threshold combinations, and 

therefore can use only the speed 

threshold of 7/1 Mbps or 35/3 Mbps for 

which mobile coverage data is available 

in the BDC for purposes of determining 

eligible areas. 

27. The Commission concludes that 

using a speed threshold of 7/1 Mbps for 

5G for purposes of determining eligible 

areas will promote the expansion of 5G 

mobile broadband coverage at a speed 

threshold of at least 35/3 Mbps while 

avoiding the potential for overbuilding 

in areas where a provider already offers 

some level of unsubsidized 5G service 

(i.e., at 7/1 Mbps) and could upgrade to 

higher speeds in the future. Conversely, 

using a speed threshold of 35/3 Mbps to 

determine eligible areas would result in 

many more areas being eligible for 

support, which would unnecessarily tax 

the 5G Fund Phase I budget. Further, 

using a speed threshold of 35/3 Mbps 

would result in overbuilding in areas 

where providers will upgrade their 7/1 

Mbps service to 35/3 Mbps service 

absent a subsidy. Moreover, the 

Commission expects that a speed 

threshold of 7/1 Mbps reflects the 

minimum desired typical mobile user 

experience across broad 5G coverage 

areas. The Commission continues to 

believe that it should not use the same 

35/3 Mbps speed threshold for purposes 

of determining areas eligible for 5G 

Fund support that support recipients are 

required to achieve in meeting their 5G 

Fund performance requirements. The 

Commission notes that CCA’s assertion 

that the Commission is ‘‘[defining] 5G 

connectivity as merely 7/1 Mbps’’ is 

incorrect and conflates its decision to 

use 7/1 Mbps as the speed threshold for 

purposes of determining eligible areas 

with the minimum speed threshold of 

35/3 Mbps that a support recipient must 

achieve in order to meet its 5G Fund 

performance requirements. This 

performance requirement will ensure 

that areas currently lacking 

unsubsidized 7/1 Mbps will not be left 

behind in experiencing the higher 

speeds that areas with 7/1 Mbps service 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101364 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

are likely to experience as the result of 

provider network upgrades. For these 

reasons, the Commission also denies the 

Petitions for Reconsideration filed by 

CRWC, NTCA, and RWA to the extent 

they request that the Commission define 

areas eligible for the 5G Fund Phase I 

auctions as those that lack unsubsidized 

5G mobile broadband service at speeds 

of at least 35/3 Mbps. 

28. The Commission disagrees with 

commenters’ assertion that, if a 35/3 

Mbps threshold is used to determine an 

area’s eligibility for 5G Fund support, 

issues with support funds being 

diverted from unserved or underserved 

areas to fund areas with service ‘‘close 

to 35/3 Mbps’’ can be addressed by 

distributing support first to areas with 

service speeds not ‘‘close to 35/3 

Mbps.’’ Such a process would be 

inconsistent with the mechanism the 

Commission adopted to assign support 

under the 5G Fund, namely a reverse 

auction that considers in a single 

auction all eligible areas and that aims 

to assign the full budget to those eligible 

areas. A second reverse auction for the 

‘‘close to 35/3 Mbps’’ areas would be 

required, with a corresponding 

rulemaking and pre-auction process to 

determine the areas that would be held 

back from the initial auction, the 

portion of the budget that would be 

withheld for later assignment, the 

timing of the later assignment 

mechanism, and any of a number of 

additional details that would need to be 

resolved for such a process to be carried 

out. Therefore, for this reason and for 

the reasons the Commission adopts the 

7/1 threshold more generally, the 

Commission declines to accept the 

commenters’ proposal and, as explained 

herein, the Commission excludes from 

eligibility areas that already have some 

level of 5G service (at speeds faster than 

7/1 Mbps). Instead, the Commission 

targets its limited universal service 

support funds to areas that do not 

already enjoy a provision of service that 

far exceeds areas that have service 

offerings no better than 4G LTE. 

29. As noted herein, the Commission 

will use a speed threshold of 5/1 Mbps 

with respect to 4G LTE service in 

connection with identifying any areas 

within the universe of areas eligible for 

the 5G Fund Phase I auction that lack 

unsubsidized 4G LTE, for purposes of 

incentivizing the deployment of 5G 

service in areas that lack unsubsidized 

4G LTE service. The Commission notes 

that the BDC collects 4G LTE coverage 

areas based on speed thresholds of 5/1 

Mbps in accordance with the Broadband 

DATA Act, and concludes that using 

this speed threshold for this purpose is 

appropriate. 

3. Environment for Determining Eligible 

Areas 

30. The record is split on whether the 

Commission should use outdoor 

stationary or in-vehicle BDC coverage 

maps to determine eligible areas. AT&T, 

CTIA, T-Mobile, and Verizon each 

express support for using outdoor 

stationary BDC coverage maps to 

identify areas that are eligible for 5G 

Fund support. AT&T argues that the 

lack of standardized parameters for invehicle coverage maps ‘‘compromises 

the value of such maps and would only 

further complicate the distribution of 5G 

Fund support’’ and that ‘‘utilizing invehicle coverage maps instead of 

outdoor stationary maps will increase 

the eligible areas and allow support in 

areas that already have some amount of 

5G coverage.’’ CTIA asserts that ‘‘[w]hile 

the idea of using in-vehicle mobile 

coverage maps might have some facial 

appeal, [it] remains concerned that such 

maps fail to account for significant 

variables . . . [such as] the location of 

the device within the vehicle, the type 

of vehicle, whether the windows are up 

or down, and the vehicle speed.’’ TMobile also notes that, because ‘‘[t]he 

Commission did not standardize any of 

the key parameters that affect the results 

of in-vehicle coverage, such as vehicle 

speed, the position of the phone inside 

the car, and the type of car, . . . invehicle data [will be] much more 

variable and therefore [provide a] less 

reliable basis for determining the actual 

coverage of an area.’’ ‘‘Given the 

potential for inconsistency among invehicle mobile coverage maps, CTIA 

urges the Commission to use coverage 

maps produced to show outdoor 

stationary coverage . . . [in order to] use 

a more stable and reliable coverage 

dataset as the basis for the 5G Fund . . . 

[and] target 5G Fund subsidies to the 

areas most in need of support as the 

outdoor stationary maps provide a more 

targeted list of eligible areas.’’ 

31. T-Mobile submits that ‘‘outdoor 

stationary data is a far more reliable and 

realistic basis for determining where 

wireless coverage is available than invehicle coverage data for several 

reasons.’’ T-Mobile argues that ‘‘[g]iven 

the number of variables, providers will 

inevitably use different parameters to 

model their in-vehicle coverage, making 

it practically impossible to make 

meaningful [apples-to-apples] 

comparisons between mobile providers’ 

in-vehicle coverage maps.’’ T-Mobile 

notes that ‘‘[t]he variability of in-vehicle 

mobile speed testing also introduces 

unnecessary complications in the 

challenge process . . . [because], for 

purposes of the BDC, speed tests taken 

on bicycles, motorcycles, snowmobiles, 

and all-terrain vehicles are all 

considered tests from in-vehicle mobile 

environments, as are tests conducted in 

soft-top convertibles, hard-top sedans, 

SUVs, pickup trucks, and any type of 

recreational vehicle, [which] entails a 

wide range of ‘in-vehicle testing 

scenarios.’ ’’ Verizon supports ‘‘using 

the outdoor stationary 7/1 Mbps 5G 

coverage map . . . [to] ensure that the 

entire budget is used to expand highspeed 5G coverage in areas that have 

little or no 5G coverage at the time of 

the auction, i.e., [those] that do not even 

meet the 7/1 Mbps outdoor stationary 

standard.’’ Verizon opposes ‘‘identifying 

eligible areas using the in-vehicle maps 

[because it] would allow part or all of 

the budget to be used to upgrade 

existing networks in those areas that 

meet the outdoor stationary 7/1 Mbps 

standard but fall short of the in-vehicle 

standard.’’ 

32. CCA, RWA, and US Cellular 

express support for using in-vehicle 

BDC coverage maps to identify areas 

that are eligible for 5G Fund support. 

CCA argues that coverage maps based 

on in-vehicle mobile environments 

‘‘better reflects the purposes of the 5G 

Fund—achieving ubiquitous 

connectivity—by accounting for the 

mobile nature of 5G usage. RWA 

similarly asserts that ‘‘[g]iven the 

inherent mobility aspect of in-vehicle 

data, [using] such data will best 

represent where 5G Fund support is 

needed to provide 5G mobility coverage. 

RWA submits that ‘‘[w]hile there may be 

multiple variables related to in-vehicle 

mobile data collection, such data 

provides a more accurate picture of 

actual mobile coverage that consumers 

will experience in the relevant areas.’’ 

RWA maintains that if the 

Commission’s goal is ‘‘expand[ing] 5G 

to rural areas where consumers live, 

work, and travel, ensuring that such 

consumers have 5G connectivity on 

rural roads is critical to that goal’’ and 

that ‘‘[o]utdoor stationary mobile data 

does not depict actual mobile coverage 

and [thus] should not be used as a 

methodology for determining eligible 

areas for consumers traveling through 

rural areas on rural roads.’’ RWA further 

notes that ‘‘using in-vehicle mobile data 

would ease the costs of the challenge 

process as drive testing is a much more 

cost-efficient and effective way to 

measure mobile coverage as opposed to 

conducting measurements in off-road 

areas, which are expensive and difficult 

to access in rural and remote areas.’’ US 

Cellular likewise contends that ‘‘[a]n invehicle measurement standard aligns 

more closely with how mobile handsets 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101365 

interact with cell towers and will result 

in improved service quality for voice 

calls and data sessions conducted in a 

mobile environment.’’ 

33. The Commission is concerned that 

the use of in-vehicle mobile coverage 

maps could result in significant 

overbuilding, as claimed by commenters 

that oppose using such coverage maps. 

The Commission concludes that relying 

on outdoor stationary coverage data will 

avoid potentially overbuilding in areas 

where a provider already offers some 

level of unsubsidized 5G service and 

could upgrade to better service in the 

future. The Commission notes that 

outdoor stationary coverage estimates as 

reflected on the its National Broadband 

Map are generally larger than those 

generated for in-vehicle mobile 

coverage, and therefore relying on them 

will reduce the likelihood of 

overbuilding. Looking at data from June 

30, 2023, as updated on February 7, 

2024, about 34% of the U.S. is covered 

by 5G service at 7/1 according to invehicle mobile coverage data, whereas 

the analogous outdoor stationary data 

show that about 46% of the U.S. is 

covered. Additionally, unlike in-vehicle 

mobile coverage data, outdoor stationary 

coverage data are unperturbed by the 

lack of standard assumptions about 

characteristics such as vehicle type and 

speed. In balancing the Commission’s 

obligation to exercise fiscal 

responsibility to avoid excessive 

subsidization and the goal of deploying 

5G services to where people live, work, 

and travel, the Commission finds the 

best approach is to use outdoor 

stationary BDC coverage maps in 

determining eligible areas. 

4. Limiting Eligibility to Areas With 

Locations or Roads 

34. Because the Commission intends 

to direct 5G Fund Phase I support to 

areas where people live, work, and 

travel, it will limit the areas eligible for 

the 5G Fund Phase I auction to areas 

that contain at least one location or at 

least some portion of a road. The 

Commission will determine the areas 

that contain locations using the BDC 

Fabric. The Fabric is a dataset of every 

location (building or structure) in the 

United States and its Territories 

identified as a single point or record 

defined by a set of geographic 

coordinates that fall within the footprint 

of a structure, with each point assigned 

a unique Commission-issued Location 

ID. Within the location records included 

in the Fabric are a subset of business, 

residential, or mixed-use locations at 

which mass-market fixed broadband 

internet access service are or could be 

installed, referred to as Broadband 

Serviceable Locations (BSLs). The 

Commission will use all locations 

included in the Fabric dataset, not just 

those that are identified as BSLs. This 

broader set of locations includes 

structures—such as community anchor 

institutions and large enterprises—that 

subscribe to, or would be expected to 

subscribe to, non-mass market 

broadband service. Including these 

locations, as well as BSLs, ensures that 

the Commission will capture more of 

the areas where people live, work, and 

travel. 

35. The Commission will determine 

the areas that contain roads using road 

data from OpenStreetMap. 

OpenStreetMap is a free, editable map 

of the world that is updated and 

maintained by a community of 

volunteers via open collaboration. 

OpenStreetMap is published and freely 

licensed under an Open Database 

License, which allows anyone to access, 

use, and share the data. Contributors 

collect data from surveys, trace from 

permitted aerial photography and 

satellite imagery, and import other 

geographical data in the public domain 

(such as U.S. TIGER) and from freely 

licensed geodata sources. These 

contributions are immediately ingested 

by OpenStreetMap, resulting in a map 

made by local experts with data that can 

be as current as the time of access/ 

download. The Commission will define 

‘‘roads’’ for purposes of determining 

areas eligible for the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction as those that include the 

following categories of roads: primary 

roads; secondary roads; local 

neighborhood roads, rural roads, and 

city streets; vehicular trails; ramps; 

private roads; parking lot roads; and 

winter trails. These categories of roads 

are encompassed in the OpenStreetMap 

‘‘highways’’ category, which includes 

motorways, trunks, primary roads, 

secondary roads, tertiary roads, 

residential roads, service roads, and 

tracks, and the associated links. 

Defining roads in this manner is 

consistent with how the Commission 

has defined roads for purpose of other 

mobile universal service auctions. 

Further, because this definition includes 

many different types of roads, it helps 

ensure that areas where people live, 

work, and travel will be eligible for 5G 

Fund Phase I support. 

36. Given that the Commission is 

limiting the areas eligible for support in 

the 5G Fund Phase I auction to those 

that contain locations or roads, it does 

not believe it is necessary to also 

exclude water-only areas from 

eligibility. Further, excluding wateronly areas from eligibility as part of the 

process of generating eligible areas 

could exclude portions of roads, such as 

bridges and causeways, that are located 

in water-only areas but which the 

Commission believes should be eligible 

for support. 

37. Urban areas, as defined by the 

U.S. Census Bureau, will not be eligible 

for support in the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction, because the Commission 

concludes that making these areas 

eligible for support would be 

inconsistent with the objective of the 5G 

Fund program to fund the deployment 

of 5G service in rural areas. The limited 

comment the Commission received on 

this issue supports excluding urban 

areas from eligibility for support in 

support in the 5G Fund Phase I auction. 

38. Commenters generally support the 

Commission’s approach to limiting 

eligible areas to those areas that contain 

locations or roads in furtherance of its 

goal of directing 5G Fund Phase I 

support to areas where people live, 

work, and travel. AT&T ‘‘supports 

limiting eligible areas to those 

resolution 9 hexagons [(hex-9s)] that 

contain locations and/or certain roads,’’ 

noting that if eligible areas were defined 

as ‘‘those areas where both locations 

and roads exist, it would overly limit 

the areas eligible for 5G Fund support, 

contrary to the Commission’s goal of 

reaching all areas where people live, 

work, and travel.’’ CCA ‘‘agrees with 

AT&T that defining eligible areas as 

those where ‘locations and roads exist’’ 

would be overly limiting and contrary to 

the Commission’s goal of reaching all 

areas where people live, work, and 

travel, and advocates for ‘‘a definition of 

eligibility that includes both unserved 

roads and unserved locations’’ because 

it would ‘‘appropriately reflect the 

mobile nature of 5G service.’’ Michael 

Ravnitzky submits that limiting eligible 

areas to those that contain BSLs and/or 

roads will help ‘‘direct 5G Fund support 

[in Native American, Native Alaskan 

Native Hawaiian, Puerto Rican, and U.S. 

Virgin Island communities] to areas 

where people live, work, and travel and 

avoid wasting resources on areas that 

are uninhabited or inaccessible.’’ 

39. In its initial comments, RWA 

advocates ‘‘limit[ing] eligible areas to 

roadways, rather than locations,’’ and 

expresses concern that relying solely on 

locations would ‘‘disregard[ ] the 

inherent mobility of 5G mobile services 

and could potentially be duplicating 

efforts made by the BEAD Program and 

other federal broadband programs 

which provide funding for both fiber 

and wireless projects, which focus on 

locations.’’ RWA maintains in its reply 

comments that the Commission should 

limit eligible areas to roadways if the 5G 

Fund budget is limited to $9 billion, but 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101366 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

submits that ‘‘if additional funding is 

available, locations should also be 

included.’’ While acknowledging that 

serving both roads and locations is 

important, RWA expresses concern that 

‘‘[if] locations [are included] in eligible 

areas, the funding may not go as far and 

the [Commission] could duplicate 

efforts of the [BEAD] Program and other 

federal broadband funding programs 

that [fund] . . . projects to serve 

locations.’’ 

40. Other commenters ask the 

Commission to expand the eligibility 

criteria to specifically include 

agricultural lands. Verizon supports 

expanding the eligibility criteria to 

include ‘‘rural hex-9s with roads, BSLs, 

or agricultural lands,’’ and urges the 

Commission to ‘‘focus[ ] support on 

unserved areas that would have the 

most significant demand for mobile 

broadband service and require relatively 

smaller subsidies, rather than on areas 

that would have little demand for 

mobile broadband service and require 

larger subsidies.’’ Verizon submits that 

‘‘including agricultural lands in the 

definition of eligible areas . . . will 

ensure that more of the nation’s 

farmland gains the benefits of precision 

agriculture,’’ which it notes is one of the 

goals articulated in the 5G Fund Report 

and Order. WIA similarly advocates for 

including agricultural areas within the 

geographic areas determined to be 

eligible for 5G Fund support, and asks 

the Commission to specifically include 

such areas as eligible for 5G Fund 

support. WIA acknowledges the 

importance of mobile service on 

roadways, but submits that there are 

areas that extend well beyond the reach 

of roads that need mobile connectivity 

as well (e.g., agricultural communities 

cultivating land). WIA argues that 

support areas must include those that 

are crucial to economic activity, 

tourism, and public safety in which 

competitive solutions do not exist, 

noting that farmers now use a host of 

precision technologies to manage their 

operations that cannot be used without 

mobile connectivity. John Deere 

Corporation (Deere) agrees with WIA, 

and urges the Commission to both 

include agricultural areas and farmlands 

within the areas that are eligible to 

receive 5G Fund support and make 

them the focus of the $1 billion in 5G 

Fund support that was set aside for 

precision agriculture in the 5G Fund 

Report and Order. 

41. The Commission declines either to 

narrow or expand the eligibility-limiting 

criteria used to determine areas eligible 

for the 5G Fund Phase I auction in 

response to these comments. Although 

BEAD and other programs fund the 

deployment of fixed broadband services 

to fixed locations, these locations also 

indicate where people use mobile 

devices and where they live, work, and 

travel. Thus, the Commission disagrees 

with RWA that it should limit the 

eligibility criteria for determining 

eligible areas to those areas with roads 

only. With respect to expanding the 

eligibility criteria to specifically include 

agricultural areas, as requested by 

Verizon, WIA, and Deere, the 

Commission notes that the Commission 

explained in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order that ‘‘Phase II [of the 5G Fund] 

. . . will focus support to specifically 

target the deployment of technologically 

innovative 5G networks that facilitate 

precision agriculture.’’ Specifically, 

including agricultural areas would 

therefore be outside the scope of the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction. The Commission 

further notes that any agricultural areas 

located within an area determined to be 

eligible for the 5G Fund Phase I auction 

will indeed be eligible for support in 

that auction; the criteria the 

Commission adopts today for 

determining the eligible areas will not 

categorically remove agricultural lands. 

Additionally, the Commission believes 

the broad definition of ‘‘roads’’ it will 

use for purposes of determining the 

areas eligible for support in the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction may result in coverage 

reaching agricultural areas and 

farmlands because providers, when 

engineering their networks to cover the 

roads, are likely to cover such areas if 

they are in close proximity. 

Accordingly, the Commission does not 

take any additional steps here to ensure 

that support under Phase I of the 5G 

Fund reaches agricultural lands 

specifically. 

42. Several commenters address both 

the categories of roads and the data 

source(s) that the Commission should 

use for purposes of determining the 

eligible areas that contain roads. RWA 

and CCA advocate using the following 

roadways, as defined by the U.S. Census 

Bureau: primary roads; secondary roads; 

local neighborhood roads, rural roads, 

and city streets; vehicular trails; ramps; 

private roads; parking lot roads; and 

winter trails. CCA asks the Commission 

to consider including other types of 

unserved roadways in determining an 

area eligible for support, ‘‘even if they 

are not captured in U.S. Census Bureau 

[road] data or are located close to a 

served roadway.’’ CCA submits that ‘‘the 

Commission cannot and should not 

assume a local road, alleyway, or 

agricultural road in a rural area receives 

or will receive unsubsidized 5G service 

simply because a highway in that same 

area receives 5G service,’’ and urges the 

Commission to ‘‘consider data at a 

granular level to avoid leaving behind 

unserved roadways in areas where 

another roadway in that area is 

receiving 5G service.’’ CCA also 

expresses support for looking beyond 

roadways and including other unserved 

areas—such as waterways, agricultural 

lands, farmland and other cultivable 

land, parks, and trails—for purposes of 

determining an area’s eligibility for 

support. NYPSC asks the Commission to 

consider including waterways and other 

frequented areas, such as state parks, as 

well as remote areas, in making eligible 

area determinations, noting that ‘‘wired 

services may be unreliable or 

unavailable [in these rural and remote 

areas].’’ SBI advocates making all active 

roads used on remote Tribal lands 

eligible for support if the Commission 

decides to limit eligible areas to those 

that contain locations or roads because 

‘‘[t]housands of Tribal locations in SBI’s 

service area are beyond the reach of the 

U.S. Postal Service as they receive no 

home delivery and they have no Postal 

Service address.’’ SBI notes that ‘‘[t]hese 

remote locations often are connected to 

primary roads by very small unpaved 

dirt roads through the high desert,’’ 

many of which SBI states ‘‘are 

considered to be service and private 

roads[ ] categorized as S.1740’’ under 

the U.S. Census Bureau’s feature class 

codes. SBI submits that ‘‘[t]hese roads, 

which likely fall into the 1.6, 1.7, or 1.8 

category in the OpenStreetMap 

hierarchy, must be included as eligible 

areas’’ if the Commission chooses to use 

OpenStreetMap. SBI notes that that 

‘‘there are substantial road areas in 

between homes and major roads that 

could be excluded if the Commission 

limits eligibility to only [hex-9s] with 

developed roads or locations.’’ SBI 

states that unlike much of the rest of the 

nation, this undeveloped network of 

roads comprise a substantial area within 

which Tribal residents will travel, and 

notes that the health and safety benefits 

of access to mobile services (especially 

911 service) compel the Commission to 

ensure that all of these minor roads are 

considered when making eligible area 

determinations. 

43. CCA, Deere, RWA, and WIA each 

support using U.S. Census Bureau 

TIGER data when making road-based 

eligible area determinations. WIA and 

Deere note that agricultural 

communities may fall outside of the 

maps for roads, and therefore caution 

against using a single data source, such 

as OpenStreetMap, to determine eligible 

areas that contain roads. WIA and Deere 

therefore urge the Commission to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101367 

instead rely on multiple sources, 

including the TIGER road miles 

database, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s cultivated land layer, and 

other sources, to provide redundancy 

and help ensure that all agricultural 

communities are included within the 

areas eligible to receive 5G Fund 

support. 

44. The Commission concludes that 

the definition of roads, and the source 

of road data, it adopts here is broadly 

consistent with the categories of roads 

commenters ask us to consider when 

identifying the eligible areas that 

contain roads. In addition, including 

areas with Fabric locations will ensure 

that the roads leading to those locations 

generally will receive 5G coverage even 

if such roads do not fall within the 

categories of roads the Commission 

adopts today. While the Commission 

appreciates commenters’ interest in 

using more than one road data source 

for redundancy and completeness, the 

Commission believes that using 

multiple road data sources would be 

unwieldly and could cause confusion, 

and thus decline to do so. The 

Commission concludes that using 

OpenStreetMap as the single road data 

source is beneficial because it includes 

all the road categories in the definition 

the Commission adopts, it is updated 

more frequently than TIGER data, and it 

reflects input from the public. 

5. Generating Areas Eligible for 5G Fund 

Support at the Hex-9 Level 

45. In the 5G Fund FNPRM, the 

Commission noted that in order to limit 

the areas eligible for support in the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction to those that 

contain locations or roads, the 

Commission would need to designate 

the geographic areas that contain 

locations and/or roads. The Commission 

sought comment in the 5G Fund FNPRM 

on its approach to identifying specific 

geographic areas eligible for 5G Fund 

support, and the idea of expressing 

those eligible areas as hex-9s. The 

Commission explained in the 5G Fund 

FNPRM that under this approach, ‘‘areas 

eligible for 5G Fund support [would be 

converted] to, and [made] available in 

the form of, [hex-9s],’’ noting that 

‘‘unlike ‘raw’ coverage footprints based 

on propagation model output, which do 

not conform to any defined boundary, 

hex-9s are standardized and can be 

clearly identified and referenced.’’ The 

Commission noted that ‘‘because hex-9s 

are relatively small, with an average 

area of approximately 0.1 square 

kilometer, any reduction in map 

resolution when converting from raw 

propagation model output (as filed by 

providers) to hex-9s is minimal,’’ and 

that ‘‘the use of hex-9s can strike the 

appropriate balance between the 

benefits of their use and this loss in 

granularity, particularly given that the 

data as filed are based on models of 

coverage.’’ 

46. The H3 hexagonal geospatial 

indexing system (H3 system) is an opensource GIS dataset developed by Uber 

Technologies, Inc., that overlays the 

globe with hexagonal cells of different 

sizes at various resolutions, from zero to 

15. The smallest hexagonal cells are at 

resolution 15, in which the average 

hexagonal cell has an area of 

approximately 0.9 square meters, and 

the largest are at resolution 0, in which 

the average hexagonal cell has an area 

of approximately 4.25 million square 

kilometers. The H3 system is designed 

with a nested structure wherein a lower 

resolution cell (the ‘‘parent’’ hexagon) 

contains approximately seven hexagonal 

cells at the next higher resolution (its 

‘‘children’’ where each ‘‘child’’ is a 

smaller, nested hexagon), which fit 

approximately within the ‘‘parent’’ 

hexagon. The H3 system supports 

sixteen resolutions. Each finer 

resolution has cells with one seventh 

the area of the coarser resolution. 

Hexagons cannot be perfectly 

subdivided into seven hexagons, so the 

finer cells—i.e., the ‘‘children’’—are 

approximately contained within a 

parent cell. The identifiers for these 

‘‘child’’ cells can be easily truncated to 

find their ancestor cell at a coarser 

resolution, enabling efficient indexing. 

47. In the 5G Fund Second Report and 

Order and Order on Reconsideration, 

the Commission adopts its proposal to 

express the specific geographic areas 

eligible for 5G Fund as hex-9s, with 

certain modifications, because it is 

persuaded that a more granular analysis 

of coverage is needed to address 

concerns raised by commenters. The 

Commission will therefore analyze 

mobile broadband coverage by first 

translating ‘‘raw’’ mobile coverage 

polygons to resolution 11 hexagons 

(hex-11s) and then evaluating the 

coverage of the hex-11s that compose a 

hex-9, using the process described 

herein, and directs OEA, WCB, and the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

(WTB) to make additional details 

regarding the methodology used to 

generate eligible areas available with the 

publication of the list of eligible areas. 

48. A hex-9 will be eligible for 5G 

Fund support if it includes roads or 

locations and if a certain share of its 

component hex-11s lack unsubsidized 

5G coverage and are in non-urban areas. 

Here, 5G coverage is based on the ‘‘raw’’ 

polygon coverage areas submitted by 

providers in their biannual BDC 

submission for 5G outdoor-stationary 

service at 7/1 Mbps. The Commission 

will determine whether coverage is 

subsidized or unsubsidized using 

information from USAC on legacy 

support and CETC study area 

boundaries. Hex-11s are two levels more 

granular than hex-9s in the H3 system 

hierarchy and are therefore the 

‘‘grandchildren’’ hexagons of hex-9s. 

Hex-11s have an average area of 2,150 

square meters (about half an acre), 

which is smaller than the maximum 

area of the bin sizes used by providers 

when generating raw coverage areas 

submitted in the BDC. The maximum 

resolution allowed when generating 

mobile broadband coverage areas under 

the BDC requirements is 100 meters. See 

47 CFR 1.7004(c)(3)(iii). This resolution 

would result in a bin or pixel, the 

individual square generated by a 

propagation model to represent 

predicted coverage, with an area of 

10,000 square meters. 

49. To understand how the 

Commission will determine which hex9s are eligible for support, it may be 

helpful to examine the inverse, i.e., how 

a hex-9 is defined as served. For each 

hex-9, the Commission will determine 

the number of served grandchild hex11s relative to the total number of 

grandchild hex-11s. For both the 

numerator and the denominator, the 

centroid—i.e., the geographic center 

point—of the hex-11 must fall within 

the boundary of United States or its 

territories to be counted. To find the 

number of served hex-11s, the 

Commission will overlay hex-11 areas 

on a provider’s unsubsidized 5G 

coverage polygon and urban areas. If 

any of those boundaries overlap the 

centroid, the geographic center point, of 

the hex-11, then the Commission will 

treat the entire hex-11 as being covered 

by that boundary. Any hex-11 covered 

by unsubsidized 5G coverage or in an 

urban area will be considered served 

and counted in the number of served 

hex-11s. The total number of grandchild 

hex-11s of a hex-9 is typically 7x7, or 

49. However, it would not be 49 when 

a hex-9 straddles an international 

boundary or coastline, for instance, and 

some its component hex-11s fall outside 

the United States or in coastal waters. If 

a substantial majority of the grandchild 

hex-11s are served, then the grandparent 

hex-9 will be considered served. For 

hex-9s with both land and water 

grandchild hex-11s, only the land hex11s are considered in this calculation. 

For purposes of making this 

determination, the Commission 

considers a ‘‘substantial majority’’ to be 

70% or more. Any hex-9 that is not 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101368 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

served in this way is therefore 

considered unserved and will be eligible 

for 5G support, as long as it also 

contains at least one location or at least 

some portion of a road. 

50. The Commission notes that 

although it has not formally defined 

what constitutes a ‘‘substantial 

majority,’’ it has concluded that it is 

more than a simple majority. In the 

context of the Lifeline program, the 

Commission decided in its Lifeline 

Third Report and Order, 81 FR 33026 

(May 24, 2016), to ‘‘establish minimum 

service standards for all Lifeline 

supported services based on services to 

which a ‘substantial majority’ of 

consumers have already subscribed’’ 

and ‘‘conclude[d] that 70 percent of 

consumers constitutes a ‘substantial 

majority’ as it relates to fixed broadband 

speeds.’’ The Commission also 

concluded in its Lifeline Third Report 

and Order in the context of Lifeline 

program mobile services that ‘‘after the 

phase-in of mobile data usage allowance 

standards, [it would] update mobile 

broadband standards for data usage 

allowance in line with the principle of 

supporting services that a ‘‘substantial 

majority’’ of American consumers 

subscribe to,’’ and that ‘‘given the types 

of data that are [publicly] and regularly 

available, the minimum service 

standard for mobile broadband data 

usage allowance will be 70 percent of 

the calculated average mobile data usage 

per household.’’ 

51. CCA supports converting the areas 

eligible for 5G Fund support into hex9 standardized units and excluding from 

5G Fund eligibility any hex-9 unit that 

overlaps with a relevant mobile 

coverage area, such that the entire hex9 area is considered covered or served. 

Verizon also supports converting the 

areas eligible for 5G Fund support into 

hex-9s and notes that the Commission’s 

BDC challenge and verification 

processes also use hex-9s. Verizon also 

advocates making bidding units with 

only a handful of eligible hex-9s 

ineligible for support, consistent with 

the Commission’s decision in the 5G 

Fund Report and Order to exclude 

geographic areas with de minimis 

eligible areas. ARA PAWR submits that 

using the H3 system can be an efficient 

way to identify specific geographic areas 

but notes that one challenge with that 

approach is the need to have multiple 

resolution implementations based on 

the geographical location. AT&T 

expresses support for limiting the areas 

eligible for 5G Fund support to hex-9s 

in rural areas that are not 100% served. 

52. While not opposing converting 

eligible areas to hex-9s, T-Mobile notes 

that there are some issues with doing so. 

T-Mobile submits that ‘‘translating 

providers’ submitted BDC coverage data 

into hex-9 cell maps does not result in 

a perfect match.’’ T-Mobile notes that 

‘‘[t]he BDC rules require mobile wireless 

providers to report coverage using 100 

meter by 100 meter square pixels, but 

[because] hex-9 cells are larger than 

these pixels[,] . . . providers’ coverage 

data is more granular than the hex-9 

cells used in the Commission’s maps,’’ 

and as a result, ‘‘translating providers’ 

coverage data into hex-9 maps 

inevitably introduces some degree of 

inaccuracy and imprecision.’’ In an ex 

parte presentation, T-Mobile submits 

that ‘‘[u]sing more granular hexagonal 

areas for the 5G Fund, such as hex-10 

or hex-11 cells, may help mitigate [the 

hex-9 translation issue].’’ The 

Commission agrees. Overlaying hex-11 

cells onto the raw coverage data 

submitted by mobile service providers 

and generating eligible hex-9s based on 

the percentage of unserved hex-11s will 

allow for a more granular assessment of 

coverage data in the geographic areas 

than the coverage data as rendered on 

the National Broadband Map. This 

approach also is more accurate and 

granular than the approach the 

Commission outlined in the 5G Fund 

FNPRM and will alleviate certain 

concerns raised by commenters about 

converting coverage to hex-9s. The 

Commission’s approach in the 5G Fund 

Second Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration is also more granular 

than the methodology used to report 

and depict mobile broadband coverage 

on the National Broadband Map, which 

considers a hex-9 covered if its centroid 

is overlapped by a provider’s raw 

mobile broadband coverage area. 

Because hex-11s are so small, there is 

little to no loss in granularity when 

converting from raw coverage areas to 

hex-11s, even when using the centroid 

method. 

53. T-Mobile also argues that ‘‘smaller 

hexagonal cell[s] would require higher 

resolution terrain and clutter maps that 

are not readily available,’’ ‘‘would 

require changes to the BDC submission 

processes,’’ and ‘‘would . . . 

dramatically increase the size of the 

data files and computer processing 

requirements in a way that is 

unachievable.’’ The Commission 

disagrees with these arguments because 

the approach it adopts would not 

require mobile service providers to 

submit coverage data into the system 

based upon hex-11s, thus obviating the 

potential computer processing 

requirements and other logistical 

hurdles to gathering the data based on 

hex-11s. 

54. T-Mobile notes that ‘‘[i]n the 5G 

Fund FNPRM, the Commission 

propose[d] to treat an entire hex-9 cell 

as served—and thus ineligible for 5G 

Fund support—if a provider’s coverage 

data overlaps any portion of that hex-9 

cell.’’ ‘‘[T]o ensure complete, robust 

rural coverage,’’ T-Mobile argues that 

‘‘hex-9 cells that are only partially 

covered (e.g., cells where BDC shows 

only 25%, 50%, or 75% coverage) 

should be included in the 5G Fund 

Phase I Auction to avoid denying 

support to unserved locations.’’ TMobile submits that this will ‘‘ensure[ ] 

that locations are not excluded because 

they are within a hex-9 cell [with less 

than 100% coverage] . . . [and] is 

consistent with the goal[ ] of the BDC 

. . . to produce more granular results.’’ 

In its reply comments, AT&T agrees 

with T-Mobile that eligible areas should 

include hex-9s that are not 100% 

served. CTIA likewise supports 

excluding hexagons that are 100% 

covered and including those that are 

partially covered, and submits that this 

approach will mitigate the risk 

highlighted by T-Mobile of skewing 

support away from areas where 

unsubsidized service is actually 

unavailable. 

55. The Commission will exclude 

from eligibility any hex-9s that are 

100% covered by unsubsidized 5G 

service. However, the Commission 

disagrees with CCA that a hex-9 with 

any 5G coverage should be excluded 

from 5G Fund eligibility, because doing 

so would leave behind too many areas 

from gaining 5G coverage. The 

Commission will therefore also make 

some hex-9s that are partially covered 

eligible for 5G Fund support, depending 

on the percentage of the hex-9 that is 

covered. To address commenters’ 

concerns about excluding from 

eligibility hex-9s with only a small 

percentage of their area covered by 

unsubsidized 5G service, the 

Commission will determine the 

eligibility of a hex-9 based on whether 

the percentage of its nested, non-urban 

‘‘grandchild’’ hex-11s with 

unsubsidized 5G mobile coverage 

represents a ‘‘substantial majority’’ of 

the hex-11s in that hex-9. As noted 

herein, the Commission concludes that 

unsubsidized 5G mobile coverage of 

70% or more represents a substantial 

majority. Under this approach, a hex-9 

will be ineligible if 70% or more of its 

nested, non-urban ‘‘grandchild’’ hex-11s 

show unsubsidized 5G coverage. The 

Commission believes that its 

methodology strikes the appropriate 

balance between not leaving too many 

areas and locations ineligible for 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101369 

support and avoiding supporting areas 

that are largely covered by 5G service 

without a subsidy. 

6. Source and Timing for Determining 

Final List of Eligible Areas 

56. As the basis for determining the 

final list of areas eligible for support in 

the 5G Fund Phase I auction, the 

Commission will use the most recent 

vintage of BDC mobile availability data 

published on the National Broadband 

Map that the public have had the 

opportunity to challenge. The 

methodologies, processes, and timelines 

applicable to mobile challenges 

submitted under the BDC rules will 

apply. For example, a speed test 

conducted using a 5G-capable device in 

an area where a provider claims 4G LTE 

and 5G–NR service but the results show 

less than 5/1 Mbps would count as a 

negative test for both the 4G LTE and 

5G–NR coverage. Alternatively, such a 

test would count as a positive test for 

5G–NR if the test result is higher than 

7/1 Mbps, even if the test is taken over 

a 4G LTE connection. The Commission 

directs OEA, WCB, and WTB to 

implement this approach and to release 

the final list of eligible areas for that 

auction at least 30 days prior to the start 

of bidding in the auction. The 

Commission intends to publish a 

‘‘preview’’ map of the eligible areas 

based on the vintage (the ‘‘as-of date’’) 

of the BDC mobile availability data that 

the Commission plans to use as the 

basis for the final eligible areas. The 

Commission also anticipates publishing 

an updated preview of the eligible areas 

before the short-form application filing 

window for the auction opens. This 

updated preview would be based on the 

same vintage of BDC mobile availability 

data and reflect any mobile challenges 

to that vintage resolved at the time of 

release. The Commission concludes that 

providing both an initial and an 

updated preview of the eligible areas 

during the pre-auction process will 

afford potential auction applicants 

sufficient time to determine whether 

additional challenges to the data are 

needed, and to submit those challenges 

so that they can be processed and 

adjudicated sufficiently in advance of 

when the Commission expects to 

generate the final list of eligible areas. 

It will also enable them to make a more 

informed decision applying for, and 

bidding in, the auction. 

57. The Commission recognizes that, 

depending on the timing for the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction, this approach 

means that it would not use the most 

recent vintage of published BDC mobile 

availability data as the basis for the 

eligible areas. If the Commission were to 

commit to using the most recent vintage 

of published BDC mobile availability 

data, there might be little or no time for 

the public to submit, and for the 

Commission to resolve, challenges to 

such coverage data; as a result, some 

areas that should be eligible for the 

auction might be excluded. The 

Commission therefore concludes that, 

on balance, using a prior vintage of BDC 

mobile availability data to determine the 

final list of eligible areas is preferable 

because it will afford greater 

opportunity for public review, challenge 

submissions, Commission 

adjudications, and for provider updates 

on the National Broadband Map to be 

considered. 

58. Michael Ravnitzky supports the 

proposal to make the map of eligible 

areas available no later than 30 days in 

advance of bidding, submitting that 

‘‘this approach will ensure that the 

eligible areas are based on the most 

recent and accurate data available.’’ 

CCA expresses concern about the 

Commission’s proposal ‘‘to use mobile 

availability data published no later than 

30 days prior to the start of bidding as 

the basis for [determining] final eligible 

areas,’’ arguing that ‘‘[p]articipating 

carriers will need to engage in 

considerable preparation for bidding 

and [that] 30 days is insufficient for 

small carriers with limited resources to 

review the data, make decisions 

regarding participating in the auction, 

and take the steps necessary to prepare 

for the auction.’’ CCA asserts that ‘‘[t]he 

Commission should ensure that there is 

sufficient time between when the final 

[eligible areas] data is made available 

and the start of bidding, so that 

adequate preparation can occur.’’ CCA 

also urges the Commission to ‘‘permit a 

robust mobility mapping challenge to 

run its course[ ] to detect and resolve 

any significant concerns regarding the 

accuracy of the current coverage maps.’’ 

59. CTIA submits that ‘‘[the 5G Fund] 

program timelines should be aligned 

with the BDC timeline to enable the use 

of the most recent version of the 

[National Broadband Map] that has been 

verified by the challenge process.’’ 

While CTIA does not specifically 

oppose the Commission’s specific 

proposed timing, it asserts that 

‘‘[d]epending on the timing of when the 

map is published, 30 days may not be 

sufficient to ensure that the map can be 

validated through the challenge 

process.’’ ‘‘Since challenges are 

ordinarily accepted on a rolling basis, 

CTIA recommends that the Commission 

provide a target date for eligible parties 

to submit challenges for consideration 

in the map that will be used to 

determine eligible areas for the 5G Fund 

. . . [that is] sufficiently far in advance 

of the start of bidding to ensure that 

potential bidders in the auction have an 

adequate opportunity to evaluate the 

updated coverage data and its impact on 

their participation.’’ While not 

specifically addressing the 

Commission’s specific proposed timing, 

RWA asserts that the Commission 

should set a deadline for determining 

the final areas eligible for the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction prior to making this 

determination, in order to enable 

providers to determine the most 

opportune time to file challenges to the 

BDC maps that the Commission will 

rely on to determine the areas eligible 

for the auction, noting that ‘‘[i]f a 

provider files a challenge too early, such 

challenge may be moot by the time a 

later version of the BDC map is released 

due to continued 5G build out by 

nationwide carriers.’’ RWA further notes 

that ‘‘[f]iling such challenges is also 

extremely costly for rural providers, 

making the timing of filing challenges 

even more difficult . . . [because] filing 

challenges to overstated coverage in 

perpetuity is economically infeasible for 

rural carriers.’’ RWA submits that 

‘‘[p]roviding a date when the final 

eligible areas will be determined will 

provide needed clarity and avoid 

wasteful spending by carriers filing 

premature challenges . . . [and ensure] 

that industry and the Commission are in 

a better position to understand the 

impact of the BEAD Program, [as 

contemplated by the Commission in the 

5G Fund FNPRM].’’ 

60. The iterative nature of the 

National Broadband Map, which is 

published twice a year and updated on 

a bi-weekly basis to reflect provider 

updates and the results of challenges, 

addresses commenters concerns about 

the Map showing the most up-to-date 

coverage data. The Commission 

therefore strongly encourages the public 

to review and, to the extent appropriate, 

challenge these data as soon as possible 

so that any challenges can be resolved 

by Commission staff prior to its 

announcement of the final eligible areas. 

Challenges may take as long as 180 days 

to be reflected in corrections to the 

National Broadband Map. As outlined 

in the Commission’s rules, speed tests 

submitted as part of the BDC mobile 

challenge process are valid for up to one 

year and are combined with other tests 

conducted in nearby geographic areas to 

create a cognizable challenge to the 

mobile data once the geographic, 

testing, and temporal thresholds 

outlined in the BDC mobile challenge 

process have been met. If a challenge is 

upheld, the challenged area will be 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101370 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

removed from the National Broadband 

Map, and the results of upheld 

challenges will continue to be reflected 

in future versions of the National 

Broadband Map, including future data 

vintages. The challenge outcome will 

remain until a mobile challenge 

restoration process has been 

implemented and a provider has 

successfully followed that process to 

demonstrate that coverage in the 

challenged area is available in a 

subsequent vintage after the loss or 

concession of a challenge. Once an area 

is successfully challenged and the 

challenge is upheld, the provider will 

not simply be able to add the area back 

to their availability filing in the next 

biannual filing period. Instead, to show 

that a provider can serve a previously 

challenged area in a future BDC filing, 

it will need to separately submit the 

same type of detailed infrastructure data 

for the successfully challenged area that 

the Commission can require in an audit 

or verification (i.e., the type of data that 

would be sufficient to invalidate 

challenge speed tests through the 

challenge process). 

B. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands 

61. Consistent with the underlying 

policy objectives of the Commission’s 

decisions in the Bringing Puerto Rico 

Together Fund and the Connect USVI 

Fund, the Commission concludes that 

areas in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands that meet the eligible areas 

definition for the 5G Fund will be 

included in the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction. The Commission considers this 

conclusion to be a natural progression 

from the Commission’s decision to 

provide support to mobile carriers in 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

to restore and harden their networks 

after the devastation caused by 

Hurricanes Irma and Maria to the 

Commission’s gradual transition to 

allow carriers in these areas to use a 

portion of the support they receive 

toward deploying high-speed 5G mobile 

services. As the Commission anticipated 

in both the PR–USVI Stage 2 Order, 84 

FR 59937 (Nov. 7, 2019), and more 

recently in the Transitional Support 

Report and Order, 88 FR 28993 (May 5, 

2023), the time has come to establish a 

competitive funding mechanism for the 

long-term expansion of advanced 

telecommunications access and next 

generation wireless services for Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and 

the Commission concludes that it is 

now appropriate to view the funding 

needs for support for mobile broadband 

services in Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands through the same lens as 

other areas eligible for support under 

the 5G Fund. Accordingly, eligible areas 

in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands will be included in the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction, and winning bidders 

that are authorized to receive 5G Fund 

Phase I support in those areas will be 

subject to the same terms and 

conditions as winning bidders 

authorized to receive support in other 

eligible areas. 

62. Over the past six years, the 

Commission has dedicated significant 

effort and financial support to 

accomplish the restoration of mobile 

communication networks in Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In 

recognition of the advancements that 

have been made to achieve this goal, in 

its 2019 PR–USVI Stage 2 Order, the 

Commission began the process of 

transitioning from offering restorative 

support to a plan that would begin to 

offer support to mobile carriers to 

deploy high-speed 5G mobile services in 

areas that that would otherwise not see 

such services absent subsidies. Thus, in 

Stage 2 of the Bringing Puerto Rico 

Together Fund and the Connect USVI 

Fund, the Commission adopted a threeyear funding period and budget 

pursuant to which carriers could elect to 

receive up to 75% of the support for 

which they are eligible to restore, 

harden, and expand their networks 

using 4G LTE or better technology 

capable of providing service at speeds of 

at least 10/1 Mbps, and up to 25% of the 

support for which they are eligible to 

deploy 5G mobile networks capable of 

providing service at speeds of at least 

35/3 Mbps. In so doing, the Commission 

stated that it expected to establish a 

competitive funding mechanism for the 

long-term expansion of advanced 

telecommunications access and nextgeneration wireless services for Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands by the 

conclusion of Stage 2. However, in June 

2023, when Stage 2 mobile support 

under the Bringing Puerto Rico Together 

Fund and the Connect USVI Fund was 

scheduled to conclude, this next stage of 

the implementation of the 5G Fund had 

not yet begun. Without another option 

on the immediate horizon, and not 

wanting to lose the momentum that had 

been achieved in Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commission 

adopted an additional transitional 

support period of up to 24 months to 

allow eligible mobile carriers currently 

receiving Stage 2 mobile support to 

continue receiving support at levels 

lower than in Stage 2 that is intended 

to harden and improve the resiliency 

and redundancy of facilities for 4G LTE 

or better technologies during natural 

disasters, but may be used for both 4G 

LTE and 5G–NR-capable networks in 

order to encourage the deployment of 

5G–NR service while also ensuring 

resilient networks until the Commission 

could develop a long-term funding 

mechanism. The Commission 

nonetheless stated in the Transitional 

Support Report and Order that 

transitional support would end sooner 

than 24 months if a long-term funding 

mechanism were established before the 

transition period ends. 

63. The Commission recognizes that 

its decision to use the 5G Fund as the 

long-term competitive funding 

mechanism to advance high-speed, 

mobile broadband for eligible areas in 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

may raise concerns for certain 

commenters. Although some parties 

support the inclusion of eligible areas in 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

in the 5G Fund because they maintain 

that the award of 5G Fund support has 

the potential to bring new services and 

service providers to these areas, other 

commenters contend there should be a 

separate, specific funding mechanism 

for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands that addresses the unique 

challenges that service providers face 

there. One commenter even argues that 

the Commission should continue 

offering support to providers through 

the Bringing Puerto Rico Together Fund 

and the Connect USVI Fund, and also 

include eligible areas in Puerto Rico in 

the 5G Fund. 

64. In reaching today’s decision, the 

Commission is mindful that, had it not 

been for the catastrophic damage caused 

by Hurricanes Irma and Maria, eligible 

areas in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands would have remained in 

Mobility Fund Phase II, which was later 

replaced by the 5G Fund. Moreover, 

after carefully reviewing the record on 

this issue, the Commission has 

determined that there is no reasonable 

basis for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands to continue to be treated 

differently than other U.S. islands and 

territories, which also face the same 

factors that challenge the deployment of 

mobile service as those cited by 

commenters, including the economy, 

the costs of shipping materials from the 

mainland, and the limited availability of 

trained workers. While the Commission 

acknowledges and are not 

unsympathetic to these obstacles, it 

concludes that Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands no longer warrant 

continued separate, dedicated, mobile 

funding mechanisms. As stewards of 

universal service support, the 

Commission has an obligation to be 

fiscally responsible and to ensure that 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101371 

its limited resources are used efficiently. 

Although the Commission stated in the 

Transitional Support Report and Order 

that transitional support would end 

sooner than 24 months if a long-term 

funding mechanism were established, 

the Commission finds that providing 

carriers in Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands that are not winning 

bidders in the 5G Fund Phase I auction 

with a two-year phase down of the 

transitional support being provided 

under the Bringing Puerto Rico Together 

Fund, on the same terms and conditions 

as those being adopted for mobile legacy 

high-cost support recipients, will 

provide the continuity of support 

necessary to preserve the Commission’s 

investment in restoring and hardening 

networks impacted by the hurricanes in 

these Territories. The Commission 

concludes that its decision today serves 

the public interest and reduces the 

administrative burdens of continuing to 

manage separate funding mechanisms. 

Accordingly, areas in Puerto Rico and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands that meet the 

eligible areas definition for the 5G Fund 

will be included in the 5G Fund Phase 

I auction, subject to the same terms and 

conditions as other eligible areas, and 

the transition from the transitional 

support being provided under the 

Bringing Puerto Rico Together Fund and 

the Connect USVI Fund to 5G Fund 

support in Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, or to a two-year phase 

down of transitional support, will occur 

on the same terms and schedule 

adopted below. For areas in Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the 

transitional support being provided 

under the Transitional Support Order is 

the ‘‘mobile legacy high-cost support’’ 

that will transition to 5G Fund support 

or be subject to phase down (whichever 

is applicable). 

IV. 5G Fund Budget 

65. The Commission increases the 

budget for Phase I of the 5G Fund from 

up to $8 billion to up to $9 billion by 

including the $1 billion that previously 

had been allocated by the Commission 

in the 5G Fund Report and Order for 

Phase II, as suggested in the record. In 

so doing, the Commission affirms its 

prior commitment to reassess the 

appropriate amount needed for the 5G 

Fund Phase II budget, including support 

that will be necessary for carriers to 

commit to the deployment of 

technologically innovative 5G networks 

that facilitate precision agriculture, 

following Phase I. From this 5G Fund 

Phase I budget of up to $9 billion, the 

Commission also proportionately 

increases the amount it reserves for 

service to Tribal lands from up to $680 

million to up to $765 million, and here 

too reaffirm the Commission’s 

commitment to revisit the amount of 

this reserve after the conclusion of the 

5G Fund Phase I auction. 

66. The Commission’s budget 

determinations today remain grounded 

in its effort to balance the policy 

objectives of the 5G Fund with its 

obligation to exercise fiscal 

responsibility to avoid excessive 

subsidization, recognizing that the cost 

of subsidies distributed through the 5G 

Fund will ultimately be borne by 

consumers and businesses. The 

Commission also heeds the concerns of 

many commenters that caution the 

Commission against raising the 5G Fund 

budget to the detriment of the Universal 

Service Fund (USF) contribution factor. 

67. The Commission nonetheless 

recognizes the apprehension expressed 

by commenters that, particularly due to 

inflationary factors, an $8 billion budget 

for 5G Fund Phase I auction may be 

insufficient to achieve its policy goals. 

The Commission has long 

acknowledged that extending 

deployment of 5G networks in rural 

areas will require significant 

expenditures. The Commission is 

mindful that the magnitude of such 

expenditures may only continue to 

increase. While many commenters favor 

raising the 5G Fund Phase I auction 

budget, most did not propose any 

alternative budget amount other than 

suggesting that the Commission should 

employ a cost model approach. In 

reaching its decision today, the 

Commission is persuaded, however, by 

the argument suggested in the record to 

increase the Phase I auction budget to 

include up to the full $1 billion 

previously allocated to the Phase II 

budget, holding open a decision on the 

budget that will be necessary for Phase 

II of the 5G Fund. The Commission 

recognizes that Phase II will focus 

support on precision agriculture, and its 

decision to reallocate the budget does 

not diminish that intention. 

Furthermore, precision agriculture 

connectivity relies upon a wide variety 

of broadband deployment technologies, 

and the landscape of broadband 

infrastructure in rural areas continues to 

evolve. The Commission concludes that 

repurposing the budget amount 

previously allocated to Phase II of the 

5G Fund strikes an appropriate balance 

in responding to commenters that 

advocate an increase in the Phase I 

budget, while also being conscious of its 

fiscal obligations to be good stewards of 

the Universal Service Fund. 

68. According to the U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, the price of broadcast 

and wireless communications 

equipment manufacturing increased by 

6.18% from May 2020 to August 2023, 

and the total compensation for private 

industry workers in the information 

industry increased by 13.32% from Q2 

2020 to Q3 2023. Assuming the wireless 

telecommunications industry uses 

equipment and labor in approximately 

equal shares, costs in the industry have 

gone up by approximately 10% since 

May 2020. The Commission finds that a 

12.5% increase in the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction budget will help compensate for 

the inflationary pressures cited by 

commenters that might otherwise 

reduce the potential for the deployment 

of 5G service relative to when the 

budget was adopted in 2020. Likewise, 

the Commission increases the amount of 

the budget it reserves for service to 

Tribal lands proportionally by that same 

12.5%. The Commission nonetheless 

balances its decision to increase the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction budget with its 

obligation to ensure that the budget it 

establishes provides sufficient, but not 

excessive support. The Commission 

concludes that by distributing up to $9 

billion in the 5G Fund Phase I auction, 

the Commission can make a significant 

impact on the provision of advanced, 

high-speed 5G mobile broadband in 

areas where Americans live, work, and 

travel, and the Commission will 

continue to monitor its progress as the 

Commission reviews information 

collected through the BDC, annually. 

69. The Commission emphasizes that 

it is aware that this budget, even as 

modified, will not cover the costs of 

serving every eligible area that will be 

offered in the 5G Fund Phase I auction, 

and the Commission states again that it 

is not intended to do so. Commenters 

that continue to argue in favor of using 

a cost model to determine the 5G Fund 

budget disregard the Commission’s 

repeated explanation that relying on 

cost studies would wholly conflict with 

its intent to award support in eligible 

areas in amounts that are competitive, 

but still acceptable to the providers, as 

a reverse auction does. In other 

situations in which the Commission has 

used a cost model to provide universal 

service support, the cost model 

generally served to establish the amount 

of support that would be offered to 

eligible legacy providers, and 

expenditures for those programs are 

determined by the total of the providers’ 

acceptances of the modelled support 

offers. The 5G Fund auction operates in 

a fundamentally different way; a budget 

is established in advance and the 

competitive bidding process, not the 

Commission, determines which 

providers will receive support and the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101372 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

amount of support they will be eligible 

to receive. Multiple entities—not only 

the legacy provider—may qualify to 

compete for support to an area and the 

auction will assign support to at most 

one entity in a fair and transparent 

process. Support amounts for a 

particular area will not be lower than an 

amount that the winning bidder (which 

knows its situation best) indicates that 

it is willing to accept in exchange for 

meeting the program requirements. A 

cost model may provide a generalized 

estimate of costs, but modelled costs 

will be overstated in many cases. 

Accordingly, the Commission does not 

base the budget that it adopts for Phase 

I of the 5G Fund on an estimate of total 

costs (however estimated, according to a 

model such as that submitted in the 

record or any other method), but on a 

careful balancing of its priorities to 

expand the deployment of 5G mobile 

broadband service to rural areas where 

Americans live, work, and travel with 

the Commission’s obligation to be 

fiscally responsible as the steward of 

limited universal service funds. 

70. Additionally, consistent with the 

Commission’s conclusion in both the 5G 

Fund Report and Order and the Mobility 

Fund Phase II Report and Order, 82 FR 

15422 (Mar. 28, 2017), the Commission 

declines to adopt any alternative 

mechanisms to distribute its limited 

budget, such as the plan requested by 

SBI in its Petition for Reconsideration 

filed in 2020, or as it recently revised 

and tailored in its reply comments 

concerning the 5G Fund FNPRM 

(collectively SBI’s request for a ‘‘Remote 

Tribal Areas Fund’’). Likewise, the 

Commission also declines to adopt the 

suggestion of NTCA to implement a 

Small Carrier Fund as part of its 5G 

Fund budget. NTCA renews a similar 

argument raised in 2020, proposing that 

the Commission should retain $1.5 

billion of the 5G Fund budget and, in 

lieu of having small carriers participate 

in an auction, should instead distribute 

this reserved budget over a ten-year 

period to current recipients of frozen 

support that have 500,000 or fewer 

subscribers in the aggregate in the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s RuralUrban Commuting Area (RUCA) Codes 

5–10. 

71. The Commission emphasizes that 

it remains committed to reserving 

support for service to Tribal lands in the 

5G Fund, and as the Commission has 

stated previously, it recognizes that 

‘‘Tribal lands will be more expensive to 

serve than non-Tribal lands due to their 

lower population density, and income 

levels, as well as the lack of power or 

roads in some parts of Indian country 

and the need for federal approval (such 

as from the Bureau of Indian Affairs) 

before broadband can be deployed 

there.’’ However, as the Commission 

explained in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order, and as the Commission affirms 

herein, it is not persuaded that adopting 

SBI’s request for a Remote Tribal Areas 

Fund would result in an improved 

outcome for such areas over its decision 

to utilize a reverse auction to award a 

reserved portion of the budget for 

service to Tribal lands. The Commission 

therefore denies SBI’s Petition for 

Reconsideration to the extent that it 

requests that the Commission adopt a 

special Remote Tribal Area Fund to 

distribute support rather than using an 

auction mechanism to distribute 5G 

Fund support reserved for Tribal areas. 

72. The Commission also declines to 

adopt SBI’s most recent version of its 

proposal to adopt a special case 

mechanism in lieu of making eligible 

areas on Tribal lands available in the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction or its suggestion 

that the Commission should provide 

special case treatment for mobile legacy 

high-cost support in remote Tribal lands 

not won at auction. While pointing to 

the rare decisions in which the 

Commission has awarded universal 

service support without the use of 

competitive bidding, SBI is 

unconvincing in arguing that the 

Commission should create another 

exception in this instance. The 

Commission has previously 

distinguished areas in Alaska from 

Tribal lands in the lower 48 states, and 

SBI has provided no new evidence that 

the Commission erred in its judgment, 

simply rearguing the same positions it 

has offered and the Commission has 

rejected twice before. As the 

Commission explained the first time it 

declined to adopt SBI’s request to adopt 

a funding plan for Tribal areas that was 

similar to the Alaska plan, ‘‘the unique 

basis for the adoption of the Alaska plan 

was not the existence of Tribal lands in 

Alaska’’ but rather was based on the 

challenges facing the entire state. The 

Commission also disagrees with SBI that 

the amount it has reserved for Tribal 

support is inadequate. As explained 

herein, the Commission has 

proportionately increased the amount it 

reserves for service to Tribal lands in 

the 5G Fund Phase I auction to up to 

$765 million, which should lessen 

concerns that the budget reserved for 

providing support to Tribal lands is 

underfunded. The 5G Fund has 

insufficient resources to fund every area 

of the country that lacks unsubsidized 

5G mobile service, and to do so at the 

level of support estimated to be needed 

by cost studies or other means, whether 

those areas are located in remote Tribal 

areas or otherwise. As stewards of the 

Universal Service Fund, the 

Commission has the obligation to adopt 

policies and procedures for the 5G Fund 

that benefit the public as a whole and 

that serve the public interest generally, 

within its abilities to do so. 

73. Similarly, based on the 

Commission’s decisions in the 5G Fund 

Report and Order, the current record, 

and its experience with competitive 

bidding mechanisms, the Commission is 

not convinced that NTCA’s proposed 

approach for small carriers would be a 

more efficient or effective means of 

awarding support than through an 

auction. The Commission remains 

unpersuaded that reserving a portion of 

the budget to distribute through a Small 

Carrier Fund improves its ability to 

better target support or to significantly 

accelerate 5G deployment in rural areas; 

thus, the Commission affirms the 

Commission’s decision in the 5G Fund 

Report and Order to distribute its entire 

budget through a reverse auction. 

Moreover, the Commission affirms its 

prior determination that such a proposal 

is inconsistent ‘‘with [its] decade-long 

efforts to reform universal service highcost support.’’ As the Commission 

previously explained, to the extent 

NTCA is correct that carriers receiving 

legacy high-cost support can deploy 5G 

networks in their service areas more 

efficiently, the Commission continues to 

anticipate they will have an advantage 

against bidders in the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction that do not already serve those 

eligible areas in the auction. In sum, the 

Commission continues to conclude that 

using a reverse auction to award 5G 

Fund support best achieves its policy 

goals and ‘‘that setting aside funds for 

a limited subset of providers would be 

an inefficient use of [its] scarce 

resources, and could limit [the 

Commission’s] ability to expand 5G 

coverage to as many unserved areas as 

possible.’’ As the Commission explained 

in the 5G Fund Report and Order, if the 

Commission were to implement a plan 

such as this, it ‘‘would risk overpaying 

for 5G networks in some areas that 

another provider (or even the same 

legacy support recipient) would be 

willing to serve for less support through 

an auction.’’ 

74. In contrast to reserving support 

and awarding it through a specialized 

fund of any sort, a reverse auction uses 

competition across areas and within 

areas to determine which areas will 

receive support, in what amounts, and 

which entities will receive that support, 

all within the available budget. This 

means the Commission will be able to 

distribute support across as many 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101373 

square kilometers as possible within the 

available budget at amounts the winning 

bidders have agreed to accept, 

consistent with its fiscal 

responsibilities. Doing so serves the 

Commission’s policy goals to reform 

and modernize the distribution of 

mobile high-cost support, a goal that it 

has repeatedly articulated since 2011. 

The Commission explained in the 5G 

Fund Report and Order that in contrast 

to the use of competitive bidding, in the 

existing mobile legacy high-cost support 

program, neither the areas for which 

legacy support is disbursed nor the 

amount of support carriers receive have 

a direct nexus to the areas most in need 

of support or the amount needed to 

provide service therein. Moreover, and 

as explained previously, the funds 

available to subsidize 5G mobile 

broadband service are not unlimited, 

and, as commenters warn, raising the 

budget does not come without an 

impact to the universal service 

contribution factor. 

75. For similar reasons, the 

Commission also declines to increase 

the 5G Fund Phase I budget further to 

account for the inclusion of eligible 

areas in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands in the 5G Fund Phase I auction. 

The Commission disagrees with 

commenters that suggest that the 

inclusion of eligible areas from Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands will 

further strain the budget. While 

increasing the budget might result in 

areas that have higher costs to serve 

receiving a winning bid, it is also 

possible that any additional increase in 

the budget could be split between 

supporting new areas and providing 

greater support to bidders that would 

have agreed to provide service at lower 

support amounts. Moreover, increasing 

the budget to account for the inclusion 

of additional eligible areas, regardless of 

where those areas are located, will not 

ensure any particular eligible area will 

ultimately receive support through the 

auction. 

76. Lastly, many commenters also 

advocate that the Commission should 

continue to consider how other federal 

and state funding to deploy broadband 

will impact the provision of 5G mobile 

broadband service before establishing 

the budget for the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction. The majority of such comments 

focus on the funding stemming from the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

(Infrastructure Act), Public Law 117–58, 

135 Stat. 429 (2021), which includes the 

largest-ever federal broadband 

investment. Section 60102 of the 

Infrastructure Act directs the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) to establish the 

BEAD Program, through which NTIA 

will allocate $42.45 billion to states for 

grants ‘‘to bridge the digital divide.’’ 

77. On May 13, 2022, NTIA released 

the Notice of Funding Opportunity for 

the BEAD Program (BEAD Program 

NOFO), detailing the process for 

requesting BEAD Program funding for 

reliable broadband service. In it, BEAD 

defines ‘‘Reliable Broadband Service’’ as 

service that the Broadband DATA Maps 

show is accessible to a location via: (i) 

fiber-optic technology; (ii) Cable 

Modem/Hybrid fiber-coaxial 

technology; (iii) digital subscriber line 

(DSL) technology; or (iv) terrestrial fixed 

wireless technology utilizing entirely 

licensed spectrum or using a hybrid of 

licensed and unlicensed spectrum. 

Broadband networks funded by the 

BEAD Program must provide download 

speeds of at least 100 Mbps and upload 

speeds of at least 20 Mbps and ‘‘latency 

that is sufficiently low to allow 

reasonably foreseeable, real-time, 

interactive applications.’’ 

78. The BEAD Program NOFO set a 

July 18, 2022 deadline for NTIA to 

receive letters of intent from states and 

territories, as well as an August 15, 2022 

deadline for any supplemental 

information. The BEAD Program NOFO 

also specifies a number of program 

requirements, including principles that 

states and territories must observe in 

their subgrantee selection, 

prioritization, and scoring processes. In 

particular, the BEAD Program NOFO 

prohibits states and territories from 

‘‘treat[ing] as ‘unserved’ or 

‘underserved’ any location that is 

already subject to an enforceable 

federal, state, or local commitment to 

deploy qualifying broadband’’ at the 

conclusion of the state’s or territory’s 

challenge process. States and territories 

must also ensure that subgrantees 

comply with obligations spelled out in 

the BEAD Program NOFO regarding 

network capabilities (i.e., speed, 

latency, and uptime), deployment 

requirements, and service obligations. 

Finally, the BEAD Program NOFO 

requires states and territories to ensure 

that prospective subgrantees have the 

managerial and financial capacity to 

meet the commitments of the subgrant 

and any BEAD program requirements. 

79. In recognition of the Infrastructure 

Act and the BEAD Program, in August 

2022, the Commission released its 

Future of USF Report (FCC 22–67)—a 

report to Congress outlining the future 

of the Universal Service Fund. In that 

report, the Commission explained that 

‘‘[f]unding for deployment under the 

Infrastructure Act focuses on fixed 

services, not mobile services. The 

Commission also noted that it ‘‘has a 

unique role to play in supporting the 

deployment of mobile broadband to 

maintain connectivity wherever people 

live, work, or travel.’’ The Future of USF 

Report recommended that the 

Commission include, as part of its longterm plans, an evaluation of the impact 

of the BEAD Program and other federal 

and state broadband infrastructure 

investments discussed in this report on 

future mobile deployments. 

80. The 5G Fund will support the 

deployment of advanced mobile 

broadband by requiring that support 

recipients deploy 5G–NR service at 

speeds of at least 35/3 Mbps. As the 

Commission explained in 2020, ‘‘the 

Commission believes support is best 

directed to modern 5G deployments 

rather than further deployments of 4G 

LTE technology.’’ The 5G Fund 

therefore requires support recipients to 

meet public interest obligations to 

provide voice and 5G broadband 

service, and to satisfy distinct, measured 

performance requirements as a 

condition of receiving support. The 5G 

Fund and the BEAD Program therefore 

clearly serve very different purposes. 

81. Moreover, most recently, in the 

2024 Section 706 Report (FCC 24–27), 

the Commission concluded that 

‘‘[b]ased on the separate use cases for 

fixed and mobile broadband as well as 

evidence that consumers tend to 

subscribe to both services when they 

can . . . fixed and mobile broadband 

services are not full substitutes.’’ As the 

Commission explained in that report, 

‘‘[b]oth services are necessary to ensure 

that all Americans have access to 

advanced telecommunications 

capability.’’ 

82. Similarly, in evaluating the impact 

of the BEAD Program on the 

Commission’s implementation of the 5G 

Fund, the Commission finds that both 

programs are necessary to ensuring that 

all Americans have access to advanced 

telecommunications capability. The 5G 

Fund supports mobile broadband, BEAD 

supports fixed broadband, although 

some states may incorporate a provision 

among their prioritization selection 

criteria for subgrantees that favors a 

fixed broadband deployment that also 

supports mobile broadband. To date, 

however, the record does not indicate 

that any state has incorporated a mobile 

broadband service performance 

requirement on par with the 5G Fund’s 

requirement for providing 5G–NR 

service at speeds of at least 35/3 Mbps. 

Likewise, although the Commission has 

seen at least one state (Louisiana) 

incorporate a commitment for a 

subgrantee to advance mobile 

broadband in order to receive BEAD 

funding, that commitment is to provide 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101374 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

only 4G LTE service. For this reason, the 

Commission is not persuaded by 

commenters that urge it to delay the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction until after BEAD 

support has been awarded because 

BEAD funding could be used to support 

mobile services as part of the BEAD 

recipients’ broader deployment 

commitments. The Commission finds 

that moving ahead expeditiously with 

support for robust mobile broadband 

will best advance its shared goal of 

ensuring that all Americans have access 

to advanced telecommunications 

services. 

83. The Commission is nonetheless 

mindful of its obligation to share 

information regarding its efforts to 

implement the 5G Fund with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and 

NTIA, consistent with the Broadband 

Interagency Coordination Act (BICA), 

Public Law 116–260, 134 Stat. 3214, 

Div. FF, tit. IX, section 904 (2020) 

(codified at 47 U.S.C. 1308 et seq.). On 

June 25, 2021, the Commission, USDA, 

and NTIA announced they had entered 

into an agreement to share information 

about existing or planned projects that 

have received, or will receive, funding 

through the Commission’s high-cost 

programs and programs administered by 

NTIA and the USDA, as required by 

BICA. Representatives of the agencies 

have been meeting regularly pursuant to 

the agreement. On February 17, 2023, 

the Commission released a report on the 

effectiveness of BICA, detailing the 

steps that the agencies were taking to 

ensure the most effective allocation of 

broadband funding. In addition, the 

Commission, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration of the U.S. Department 

of Commerce, and the U.S. Department 

of Treasury entered into a memorandum 

of understanding regarding information 

sharing in May 2022, which was 

renewed in May 2024. 

84. Given the Commission’s decision 

to make areas that lack unsubsidized 5G 

mobile broadband service at speeds of at 

least 7/1 Mbps eligible for support in 

the 5G Fund Phase I auction, areas that 

are being offered ‘‘unsubsidized’’ 4G 

LTE service, or even low levels of 5G 

service, will still be included in the 

auction. After carefully considering the 

issue of whether duplicative support for 

advanced, 5G mobile wireless service 

might result from BEAD funding being 

awarded in substantially the same 

geographic area as support being offered 

in the 5G Fund Phase I auction, the 

Commission concludes that, in the 

event that a BEAD subgrantee has made 

an enforceable commitment to a state, 

prior to the Commission’s release of the 

final list of eligible areas, to deploy 5G– 

NR service at a speed of at least 35/3 

Mbps in an in-vehicle environment, the 

Commission will consider that area to 

be ineligible for 5G Fund support, and 

it will not include such an area in the 

5G Fund Phase I auction. In order for an 

area subject to an enforceable 

commitment to be considered ineligible 

for support in the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction, the commitment must require 

deployment of 5G–NR service at speeds 

of at least 35/3 Mbps to the entire area 

that would have otherwise been eligible 

for support in the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction. To the extent any provider has 

an enforceable commitment to a state or 

locality or instrumentality thereof 

outside of the BEAD Program, the 

Commission will treat such enforceable 

commitments the same as set forth 

herein. The Commission adopts this 

speed determination of at least 35/3 

Mbps here for the purposes of 

evaluating whether an enforceable 

commitment to a state for the award of 

BEAD funding duplicates the policy 

goals and deployment requirements the 

Commission establishes for the 5G Fund 

such that the area should be considered 

to be ineligible for such support. The 

Commission directs OEA and WCB to 

determine during the pre-auction 

process, and after notice and comment, 

the procedures for removing areas from 

the final list of eligible areas for the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction. 

85. Because any BEAD-related 

enforceable commitments to deploy 

advanced, 5G mobile networks would 

be new network deployments—just like 

those deployed with support from the 

5G Fund—the Commission does not 

want to remove BEAD-funded areas 

summarily from the 5G Fund and risk 

the possibility that consumers in those 

areas might be left to accept a reduced 

level of service for an indeterminate 

period of time. For similar reasons, the 

Commission concludes that an 

enforceable commitment to a state must 

also require that the BEAD subgrantee 

deploy 5G–NR service at speeds of at 

least 35/3 Mbps in an in-vehicle 

environment within the same milestone 

deadlines that apply to 5G Fund support 

recipients, thereby meeting the 

Commission’s performance 

requirements for the 5G Fund. To 

ensure that an enforceable commitment 

made with BEAD funding complies with 

the 5G Fund’s 5G–NR service and at 

least 35/3 Mbps speed requirements for 

the purposes of determining whether to 

remove such an area from eligibility 

from the 5G Fund, the enforceable state 

commitment must also include 

verification processes that involve the 

submission of infrastructure data or onthe-ground test data to verify that the 

BEAD subgrantee has met these service 

and speed requirements. The 

Commission directs OEA and WCB to 

determine during the pre-auction 

process, and after notice and comment, 

a verification process that would 

demonstrate that a BEAD subgrantee has 

made an enforceable commitment to 

meet these service and speed 

requirements, prior to removing an area 

from the final list of eligible areas for 

the 5G Fund Phase I auction. 

86. The Commission has previously 

taken aggressive measures post-auction 

to not award universal service support 

to areas where it has determined that 

there is an existing provision of service 

in an area or a significant concern 

regarding wasteful spending. 

Accordingly, the Commission directs 

OEA and WCB to seek comment in the 

pre-auction process on whether and 

how to establish a post-auction, preauthorization procedure wherein an 

interested party could submit proof to 

the Commission prior to the award of 

5G Fund support that demonstrates that 

there is a BEAD award that includes an 

enforceable state commitment for the 

deployment of verifiable mobile 5G–NR 

service at speeds of at least 35/3 Mbps 

that conflicts with a winning bid for an 

area offered in the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction. In the event such a process is 

implemented, consistent with its past 

practice, the Commission anticipates 

that it would take similar action here, 

up to and including declining to 

authorize support for that area. Thus, 

applicants in the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction are encouraged to perform due 

diligence, research, and analysis and 

factor into their bids and bidding 

strategies any state BEAD requirements 

that include a commitment from a 

subgrantee to deploy 5G–NR service at 

speeds of at least 35/3 Mbps as a 

condition to receiving BEAD funds. 

87. The Commissions recognizes that 

offering support for advanced, 5G 

mobile broadband service that 

duplicates BEAD funding efforts would 

defeat the policy goals established for 

the 5G Fund. To that end, as explained 

above, the Commission is carefully 

coordinating its 5G Fund plans with 

other government agencies, including 

NTIA, as required by BICA. Moreover, 

the Commission agrees with 

commenters that advocate that BEAD 

funding can be leveraged to amplify the 

reach of 5G Fund support. The 

Commission further agrees that there are 

many benefits that can be derived from 

a 5G Fund support recipient’s ability to 

capitalize on any advancements in fixed 

broadband service being offered in rural 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101375 

America, particularly so that new 

BEAD-funded fiber can be used to 

connect towers built with 5G Fund 

support, and can increase capacity at 

existing towers currently using 

microwave backhaul. Insofar as it may 

cost a 5G support recipient less to 

provide 5G mobile broadband service in 

a rural area where a fixed broadband 

network has been, or will be, deployed 

with BEAD funding, the Commission 

expects that a bidder in the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction for such an area would 

be willing to bid to accept less support 

than if the area did not have a fixed 

service offering. Additionally, the 

Commission anticipates that even if the 

5G Fund Phase I auction were to be held 

prior to all BEAD program support being 

awarded, applicants seeking to 

participate in a 5G Fund auction will 

have sufficient information about their 

own and others’ current or future 

service offerings, including reasonably 

certain BEAD deployments, through 

basic due diligence to factor into their 

bids and bidding strategies the potential 

impact that BEAD funding may have on 

the market. The Commission notes that 

on June 28, 2023, NTIA issued the 

BEAD Challenge Process Policy Notice, 

providing guidance on several BEAD 

Program processes, such as the 

identification of existing broadband 

funding and the required challenge 

processes that states must conduct, that 

aim to avoid broadband funding 

overlaps. 

88. For these reasons, the Commission 

disagrees with commenters that 

advocate that it should delay the 

implementation of the 5G Fund while 

the Commission determines the 

potential impact of BEAD funding on 

the deployment of mobile broadband 

services. Waiting to implement the 5G 

Fund until all BEAD funding is assigned 

and the success of that program is 

analyzed would do a disservice to 

Americans who live, work, and travel in 

rural areas, who should not be denied 

access to mobile services that are 

reasonably comparable to those 

provided in urban areas. As the 

Commission previously explained in its 

Future of USF Report, insofar as the 

BEAD Program serves to fund fixed 

wireless broadband deployment, the 

Commission has stated that pausing the 

process of preparing for a 5G Fund 

auction ‘‘would have detrimental 

impacts on consumers’ access to 

advanced mobile wireless service.’’ 

Delaying the 5G Fund would also 

require us to continue the current 

inefficient practice of providing legacy 

high-cost support in areas of the country 

where there is already unsubsidized 

mobile service and would thus be 

contrary to the policy initiatives the 

Commission has advocated since the 

adoption of the USF/ICC 

Transformation Order. Not only does 

the legacy high-cost support often reach 

areas where unsubsidized service exists, 

but also it is often duplicative—i.e., 

given to more than one mobile provider 

serving the same area. Continued delay 

of the transition away from legacy 

support is antithetical to the 

Commission’s efforts in this proceeding 

to avoid providing support to the same 

area where another mobile service 

provider is receiving or will receive 

support to deploy 5G service. It would 

also undermine the underlying policy 

goal of the Commission’s BICA 

obligations, which is to avoid 

duplicating government subsidies for 

the same service in the same area. 

Having undertaken a tailored effort to 

refresh the record and reignite the 5G 

Fund, the Commission is now wellpositioned to make these determinations 

and ultimately begin the process to 

incentivize the deployment of networks 

providing advanced, 5G mobile 

broadband in areas where, absent 

subsidies, such service will continue to 

be lacking. Accordingly, the 

Commission concludes that the 5G 

Fund can enhance achievements of the 

BEAD program rather than conflict with 

them. 

89. By adopting a budget of up to $9 

billion for the 5G Fund Phase I auction, 

using a reverse auction to distribute 

support, and committing to reassess the 

amount that will be needed for Phase II 

of the 5G Fund in the future, the 

Commission will support the 

advancement of high-speed 5G mobile 

broadband in areas where Americans 

live, work, and travel. Moreover, the 

Commission continues to anticipate, as 

the Commission did in 2020 that many 

providers will use private capital in 

conjunction with 5G Fund support to 

build their 5G networks. The 

Commission therefore adopts a 5G Fund 

Phase I budget herein that again ‘‘seeks 

to balance the various competing 

objectives in section 254 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (the Act), including the 

objective of providing support that is 

sufficient, but not so excessive so as to 

impose an undue burden on consumers 

and businesses.’’ The courts have held 

that the Commission enjoys broad 

discretion when conducting exactly this 

type of balancing. Accordingly, the 

Commission concludes that setting the 

5G Fund Phase I budget at up to $9 

billion establishes a significant start to 

support the build out of advanced, 5G 

mobile wireless broadband networks in 

unserved and underserved rural areas. 

V. Accepting Bids and Identifying 

Winning Bids 

A. Metric for Accepting Winning Bids 

and Identifying Winning Bids 

90. The Commission adopts a bidding 

and support price metric based on 

dollars per square kilometer that, as 

described below, includes a weighting 

factor that weights bids and support 

prices based upon service availability 

within an eligible area. In the 5G Fund 

FNPRM, the Commission sought 

comment on using a bidding and 

support price metric based on dollars 

per square kilometer in the event that it 

decides to limit eligible areas to hex-9s 

that have locations and/or roads. The 

Commission also sought comment on 

whether to adjust the square kilometers 

associated with an eligible area using 

either the adjustment factor that was 

adopted in 2020 or another approach. 

Based on its policy goal to use the 

available budget most efficiently to 

provide 5G coverage to places where 

people live, work, and travel, the 

Commission declines to employ the 

adjustment factor that it adopted in the 

5G Fund Report and Order as part of the 

metric for accepting and identifying 

winning bids in a 5G Fund auction, 

because doing so would prioritize 

sparsely populated areas over areas 

where people live, work and travel as 

indicated by available data. However, 

consistent with alternatives proposed in 

the current record, the Commission 

adopts an alternative adjustment 

approach to differentiate between 

eligible areas that lack 4G–LTE service 

by an unsubsidized provider and those 

that have such service, as addressed 

below. 

1. Bidding and Support Metric 

91. In the 5G Fund Report and Order, 

the Commission decided that it would 

accept bids and identify winning bids in 

the 5G Fund Phase I auction using a 

support price per adjusted square 

kilometer. Under this metric, each 

eligible area would be associated with a 

number of units equal to the square 

kilometers of the area multiplied by an 

adjustment factor that was also adopted 

in the 2020 proceeding. The 

corresponding support amount for an 

area would be the number of adjusted 

square kilometers multiplied by the 

price. The Commission retains a bidding 

and support metric based on dollars per 

adjusted square kilometer, but as 

explained further herein, modifies the 

factors upon which it will base the 

adjustment. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101376 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

2 Verizon Comments at 9. 

92. In the 5G Fund FNPRM, the 

Commission asked whether there were 

alternative bidding and support metrics 

that might target unserved locations 

and/or unserved road miles more 

specifically, if eligible areas were 

limited to those census tracts that 

include unserved locations and/or 

roads. The Commission further asked 

whether a single targeted metric would 

appropriately balance unserved road 

miles and unserved locations—for 

example, by using a weighted sum of 

unserved locations and unserved road 

miles—and how the balancing weights 

should be determined. 

93. There are no objections in the 

record to basing the bidding and 

support metric on square kilometers. 

Verizon affirms the Commission’s 

choice of square kilometers, noting that 

‘‘[b]ecause hex-9s are small—with an 

area of just 0.1 square kilometers—a persquare kilometer bidding and support 

metric is likely sufficient to ensure that 

CCA urges us not to use a metric based 

on the number of locations in an eligible 

area, since ‘‘[s]uch an approach would 

inappropriately adopt a fixed-centric 

basis for support price calculation.’’ The 

Commission agrees that an appropriate 

metric should target support for mobile 

service more broadly than solely based 

on locations. Accordingly, consistent 

with the goals of this proceeding to 

expand 5G coverage to areas where 

people live, work, and travel, the 

Commission will use a bidding and 

support metric based on dollars per 

square kilometer. roads or locations in 

the supported hex-9s have access to 5G 

service.’’ 

94. CCA urges us not to use a metric 

based on the number of locations in an 

eligible area, since ‘‘[s]uch an approach 

would inappropriately adopt a fixedcentric basis for support price 

calculation.’’ The Commission agrees 

that an appropriate metric should target 

support for mobile service more broadly 

than solely based on locations. 

Accordingly, consistent with the goals 

of this proceeding to expand 5G 

coverage to areas where people live, 

work, and travel, the Commission will 

use a bidding and support metric based 

on dollars per square kilometer. 

2. The Adjustment Factor as Adopted in 

2020 

95. The Commission will not use the 

adjustment factor that was adopted in 

the 5G Fund Report and Order for 

bidding in the 5G Fund Phase I auction. 

The Commission will, however, retain 

the adjustment factor for purposes of 

disaggregating legacy support. The 

Commission bases its decision not to 

use the adjustment factor in bidding on 

the inconsistency between its goal of 

ensuring that the available budget is 

used to benefit as many people as 

possible and the purpose of the 

adjustment factor, as adopted in the 5G 

Fund Report and Order. The 

Commission’s goal in 2020 was to allow 

the more costly eligible areas (defined, 

in part, by low population density and 

difficult terrain) to compete on a more 

equal basis with the eligible areas that 

were less costly to serve. By applying 

such an adjustment factor, sparsely 

populated, particularly costly areas that 

would have a high adjustment factor 

and areas that could be served at lower 

cost per square kilometer, would have 

had approximately equal chances of 

winning support in the auction. 

Applying such an adjustment factor 

would have shifted funds away from 

more populated and traveled eligible 

areas, which is in conflict with the 

Commission’s goal of targeting unserved 

and underserved residents, workers, and 

travelers. The Commission therefore 

sought comment on whether to use this 

adjustment factor, to adopt an 

alternative adjustment factor that would 

provide some advantage to particularly 

costly areas that nonetheless are areas 

with a considerable number of homes, 

businesses, and other locations and/or 

roads that are frequently traveled, or to 

abandon the use of any adjustment 

factor altogether. With respect to its 

decision to retain the adjustment factor 

adopted in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order for purposes of disaggregating 

legacy support, the Commission’s 

rationale in 2020 for adopting the 

adjustment factor remains unchanged. 

96. Relatively few parties commented 

on the continued use of the adjustment 

factor for bidding as adopted in the 5G 

Fund Report and Order. Of those that 

submitted comments or reply comments 

on the issue, four parties—CRWC, RWA, 

SBI, and US Cellular—indicate that the 

Commission should eliminate the 

adjustment factor only if it adopts a 

larger budget, with CRWC noting that 

‘‘[i]f the budget comes up short, funds 

will exhaust before the higher-cost 

areas, which are the areas most in need 

of support, receive any support.’’ TMobile recommends that the 

Commission ‘‘reaffirm [the 

Commission’s] approach of using an 

adjustment factor to prioritize areas that 

are the most costly and least profitable 

to serve.’’ 

97. Verizon, on the other hand, urges 

us to eliminate the adjustment factor for 

bidding. It asserts that ‘‘[t]he 

Commission should maximize the 

impact of the limited 5G Fund budget 

by focusing support on those unserved 

areas that would have the most 

significant demand for mobile 

broadband service and require relatively 

smaller subsidies, rather than on areas 

that would have little demand for 

mobile broadband service and require 

larger subsidies.’’ 2 The Commission 

agrees with Verizon that it should 

discontinue use of the adjustment factor 

for bidding as adopted in the 5G Fund 

Report and Order, and with Verizon’s 

reasoning that 5G Fund support dollars 

should instead be targeted to those 

currently unserved and underserved 

areas where more people are likely to 

live, work, and travel. 

98. With respect to commenters’ 

arguments that the bidding adjustment 

factor should be eliminated only if the 

Commission significantly increases the 

budget, the Commission is not 

persuaded that it would be a costeffective use of 5G Fund support to 

increase the budget for the purpose of 

extending support to areas that would 

have been given an advantage with the 

current adjustment factor. As a 

threshold matter, and as addressed 

above, the adjustment factor would shift 

funds away from more populated and 

travelled areas to more remote areas, 

which is in conflict with the 

Commission’s goal of covering as many 

areas where people live, work, and 

travel as possible. Therefore, the 

Commission does not support the 

adjustment factor as originally designed, 

as suggested here. Second, under this 

reverse auction mechanism, a large 

increase in the budget would not 

translate into a similarly large increase 

in the total area that can be assigned 5G 

Fund support. Instead, the additional 

funds would be divided between 

support to some higher-cost areas that 

would not have been assigned support 

otherwise and support at unnecessarily 

high prices to the same areas that would 

win support under a lower budget. 

Under the descending price clock 

reverse auction mechanism, the budget 

clears and support assignment begins 

when total requested support at the 

current clock price is equal to or less 

than the budget. If the budget is 

increased significantly without a 

proportional increase in the number and 

cost distribution of eligible areas, the 

clearing round support price will be 

higher. Some of the more costly areas 

will likely be assigned at the higher 

support level, but the most costly areas 

will not receive support. Lower cost 

areas—those that would have won 

support under the original budget—will 

be funded, but at prices well above 

those they would have been willing to 

accept. Thus, the Commission believes 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101377 

it would be an inefficient use of federal 

resources to increase the budget for the 

purpose of extending support to the 

most remote areas. Finally, even if the 

Commission were persuaded that that 

the original adjustment factor should be 

retained (which it is not) or that 

increasing the budget significantly 

would be an acceptable alternative to 

the adjustment factor (which it also is 

not), fiscal responsibility precludes us 

from increasing the 5G Fund budget by 

more than the $1 billion increase set 

forth above. Although $1 billion is a 

substantial increase, it is likely less of 

an increase than is envisioned by the 

commenters. Therefore, for all of these 

reasons, the Commission is 

unpersuaded that increasing the budget 

by significantly more than $1 billion for 

the purpose of reaching the hardest-toserve areas is a fiscally responsible 

approach to spending its limited 

universal service funds. 

99. Given the Commission’s decision 

today to eliminate the use of the 

adjustment factor adopted in the 5G 

Fund Report and Order for bidding in 

the 5G Fund Phase I auction, the 

Commission also dismisses as moot the 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by the 

5G Fund Supporters to the extent that 

it requests relief concerning the use of 

the adjustment factor adopted in the 5G 

Fund Report and Order for bidding in 

that auction. 

3. An Adjustment That Weights Bids 

and Support Prices Based on Service 

Availability 

100. In its discussion in the 5G Fund 

FNPRM of the bidding and support 

metric and the adjustment factor 

adopted in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order, the Commission asked ‘‘whether 

[it] should adopt an alternative 

approach that would provide some 

advantage to particularly costly areas 

that nonetheless are areas with a 

considerable number of homes, 

business[es], and other locations, and/or 

roads that are frequently travelled.’’ 

Several commenters suggest prioritizing 

areas based upon the level of service 

that is available. To address these 

concerns, the Commission will 

implement a service-based weighting 

factor for those areas that lack 4G LTE 

service. To eliminate confusion with the 

adjustment factor adopted in the 5G 

Fund Report and Order, which the 

Commission will retain for purposes of 

disaggregating legacy support, the 

Commission refers to the service-based 

factor it adopts herein as a ‘‘weighting 

factor.’’ While eligible areas will include 

both those that lack unsubsidized 5G 

broadband service but have access to 

unsubsidized 4G LTE and areas that 

lack both unsubsidized 5G service and 

any 4G LTE service, the Commission 

finds there are greater public benefits of 

providing 5G service to areas that lack 

4G LTE than the benefits of 5G accruing 

to other eligible areas. As such, a 

weighting factor based on this 

distinction is warranted. The 

Commission is mindful, however, of its 

primary responsibility to use the budget 

cost-effectively to provide support to 

people where they live, work, and 

travel. Accordingly, unlike the 

adjustment factor that was calculated to 

allow a bid to compete on an equal basis 

with bids to provide service to a 

geographic area with several times the 

number of square kilometers for the 

same support amount, the weighting 

factor is intended to give bids for 

unserved areas an advantage, but not so 

great an advantage as to result in a 

significant reduction in the number of 

square kilometers that can be covered 

with 5G Fund support. 

101. Therefore, the Commission 

adopts a service-based weighting factor. 

Consistent with their existing authority 

concerning the distribution of universal 

service support, the Commission directs 

OEA, WCB, and WTB to establish 

during the pre-auction process, after 

notice and comment, the size of this 

service-based weighting factor. The 

Commission directs OEA, WTB, and 

WCB to take into account the need to 

balance the Commission’s fiscal 

responsibility to award 5G Fund 

support cost-effectively with a 

recognition that there may be additional 

challenges to and public benefits from 

providing service to areas that lack 4G 

LTE service. 

B. Minimum Geographic Area for 

Bidding 

102. The Commission will use census 

tracts as the minimum geographic unit 

for bidding in the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction and will aggregate all of the 

eligible hex-9s into a census tract for 

purposes of bidding. The Commission’s 

goal in adopting census tracts rather 

than hexes as the minimum geographic 

area for bidding is to ensure that a wide 

variety of interested bidders, including 

small entities, have the flexibility to 

design a network that matches their 

business model and technical 

capabilities and that allows them to 

efficiently achieve their public interest 

obligations and performance 

requirements. After considering the 

record on this issue, we conclude that, 

on balance, using census geographies is 

preferable to using hex areas. Census 

geographies provide a more efficient 

and appropriate way to group areas 

eligible for the 5G Fund into larger 

geographic areas for purposes of bidding 

for areas along state boundaries, 

particularly in view of the 

Commission’s decision herein to 

convert those areas to hex-9s. 

103. Commenters are equally split on 

whether the Commission should use 

census geographies or the H3 hexagonal 

geospatial indexing system (H3 system) 

to group eligible hex-9s for bidding. 

CCA and Verizon each support 

aggregating eligible hex-9s into census 

geographies. Verizon advocates 

grouping eligible hex-9s into census 

tracts or larger for ease of auction 

administration, and contends that using 

hexes—whether at the resolution 5 

hexagon (hex-5) or resolution 6 hexagon 

(hex-6) level—‘‘would introduce 

unnecessary complexity into the 

auction, require considerable software 

development by potential bidders, and 

could reduce auction participation.’’ 

104. AT&T and Michael Ravnitzky, on 

the other hand, support using the H3 

system to aggregate areas eligible for 

support to minimum geographic areas 

for bidding because, they assert, it is a 

logical approach and aligns areas 

eligible for 5G Fund support with the 

BDC mobile mapping and challenge 

processes, would be more efficient than 

trying to aggregate eligible hex-9s into 

census block groups (CBGs) or census 

tracts, and provides a consistent and 

flexible framework for defining and 

mapping eligible areas. AT&T contends 

that ‘‘[a]ggregation of [eligible] hex-9s at 

the hex-6 level, which covers on average 

36 square kilometers, best reflects the 

design of wireless infrastructure in rural 

areas with various terrain and foliage 

that has not already attracted private 

investment . . . [and] is more 

manageable [for providers than] 

committing to cover locations or certain 

roads in a hex-5 area, [which cover] 252 

square kilometers.’’ Ravnitzky suggests 

‘‘[u]s[ing] resolution 8 hexagons or 

higher for aggregating eligible areas . . . 

[to] provide sufficient granularity and 

accuracy for capturing the variations in 

cost and value of providing 5G service 

in different areas,’’ and ‘‘group[ing] 

adjacent hexagons into larger geographic 

units based on their proximity, 

similarity, and contiguity . . . [to] 

create more coherent and efficient 

geographic units for bidding and 

support purposes.’’ 

105. The Commission concludes that, 

on balance, aggregating eligible hex-9s 

to census geographies is preferable, 

irrespective of the resolution of hexagon 

level used. Census geographies 

aggregate to the state level, and eligible 

telecommunications carriers (ETC) 

designations—which all winning 

bidders are required to obtain prior to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101378 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

being authorized for support—are 

issued by state. In contrast, hex 

boundaries are not coterminous with 

state, county, and international 

boundaries. Additionally, due to the 

nature of the H3 system, in which not 

all higher resolution hexagons (e.g., hex9) are contained within the boundaries 

of their ancestor lower resolution 

hexagons (e.g., hex-6 or hex-5), use of a 

lower resolution hexagon, such as hex5 or hex-6, as the minimum geographic 

unit for bidding runs the risk that entire 

portions of the eligible areas, which will 

be converted to and expressed at the 

hex-9 level, may fall outside of the hex5 or hex-6 boundary to which they are 

aggregated. Moreover, we note that the 

average hex-5 has an average area that 

is larger than the average areas of either 

of the two census geographies 

considered, and thus may not provide 

the best opportunity for bidders to target 

their bids to win support for the areas 

they are interested in serving. Because 

the Commission would have to use 

fairly large hex areas for bidding units, 

it would have to account for many 

hexagons covering multiple state and 

international boundaries, which would 

complicate an applicant’s inventory 

selections and state ETC designations. 

For these reasons, the Commission does 

not agree that aggregating eligible hex9s into larger hexagons would be more 

efficient than aggregating them to 

census tracts. 

106. The Commission further 

concludes that aggregating to census 

tracts, as opposed to census block 

groups (CBGs), is preferable for several 

reasons. First, because the boundaries of 

a CBG are often defined by roads, using 

CBGs could have the unintentional 

effect of leaving the road that bounds a 

CBG not served by the bidder that wins 

support for the CBG. Using census tracts 

minimizes that problem. Second, 

wireless networks are often built to 

cover areas that are larger than a CBG 

with a single cell site. Third, because 

census tracts are larger than CBGs, using 

census tracts will also help mitigate the 

risk of funding duplicative, overlapping 

networks if two different bidders were 

to win support for adjacent CBGs. 

Finally, using census tracts, as opposed 

to CBGs, will result in a smaller number 

of biddable items, which will make 

bidding in the auction more 

manageable. 

VI. Compliance WitH 5G Fund Public 

Interest Obligations and Performance 

Requirements 

A. Metric for Measuring Compliance 

With 5G Fund Public Interest 

Obligations and Performance 

Requirements 

107. In the 5G Fund FNPRM, the 

Commission sought comment on its 

approach to making any necessary 

corresponding modifications concerning 

the metric used to measure a 5G Fund 

support recipient’s compliance with its 

public interest obligations and 

performance requirements if the 

Commission were to modify the bidding 

and support price metric that was 

adopted in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order. All commenters that address this 

issue support the Commission’s 

approach for doing so, and no 

commenter opposes it. As discussed 

above, the Commission intends to use a 

bidding and support price metric for the 

5G Fund Phase I auction that is based 

on dollars per adjusted square 

kilometer. Because the metric for 

measuring compliance with the 5G 

Fund public interest obligations and 

performance requirements adopted in 

the 5G Fund Report and Order is 

already based on square kilometers, no 

modifications to the previously adopted 

compliance metric are necessary as a 

result of the Commission’s decision 

today regarding the bidding and support 

price metric that will be used for the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction. 

108. A few commenters suggest other 

changes concerning the public interest 

obligations and performance 

requirements adopted in the 5G Fund 

Report and Order. RWA asks the 

Commission to update the 3GPP 

performance standard for eligible 5G 

services to at least 3GPP Release 17, 

given that the 3GPP Release 15 standard 

adopted in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order is now outdated. RWA notes that 

3GPP Release 18 (5G-Advanced) is 

expected to be rolled out in the fourth 

quarter of 2023, and that development 

of 3GPP Release 19 is set to begin in 

December 2023. ARA PAWR suggests 

that the Commission consider bidder 

capability in setting deployment 

milestones by, for example, giving a 

rural carrier trying to cover a very 

remote area more time to meet 

deployment milestones, while SBI states 

that a better alternative to using 

adjustment factors is ‘‘changing the 

performance criteria for remote areas 

. . . [to] reduce the performance 

requirements commensurate with 

microwave backhaul capabilities.’’ 

According to SBI, carriers serving very 

remote areas (as defined by the 

Commission) ‘‘could be much more 

competitive in an auction if they are 

required to deliver mobile 4G LTE 

service at a median speed of 7⁄1 Mbps, 

rather than a median speed of 35/3 with 

5G.’’ T-Mobile expresses support for the 

5G Fund milestones, but suggests that 

the Commission create incentives to 

encourage 5G Fund support recipients 

to deploy service to more than 85% of 

an area by the final deployment 

milestone by reducing support 

proportionally to the percent of 

uncovered area between 85% and 100% 

and requiring recipients who deploy 

service to at least 85% but less than 

100% of their winning geographic areas 

to return that support on a prorated 

basis. T-Mobile also notes that ‘‘[t]he 

Commission could consider giving 

[support recipients] an extra year to 

meet the higher [deployment] 

thresholds.’’ 

109. The Commission notes that when 

the Commission adopted the 5G Fund 

Report and Order, it stated that 5G Fund 

support recipients would be required to 

comply with ‘‘at least the 5G–NR . . . 

technology standards developed by 

[3GPP] with Release 15 or any successor 

release that may be adopted by [OEA 

and WCB] after notice and comment.’’ 

The ‘‘Releases’’ page on 3GPP’s website 

shows that work on 3GPP Releases 16 

and 17 has been completed and they are 

now available, and that work on 3GPP 

Release 18 is expected to be completed 

later this year. Given that two successor 

releases have been completed since the 

3GPP Release 15 standard was adopted 

for 5G Fund support recipients in the 

5G Fund Report and Order, the 

Commission directs OEA and WCB to 

initiate a notice-and-comment 

rulemaking to determine whether and 

how to update the 3GPP standard. We 

also note that, in making its 

determination in the 5G Fund Report 

and Order that entities seeking to 

receive support from the 5G Fund must 

have access to spectrum and sufficient 

bandwidth (at a minimum, 10 

megahertz x 10 megahertz using 

frequency division duplex (FDD) or 20 

megahertz using time division duplex 

(TDD)) capable of supporting 5G 

services in the particular area(s) for 

which they intend to bid, the 

Commission observed that 3GPP Release 

16 had finalized a list of various 

frequency bands for North America that 

appeared at that time to be capable of 

supporting 5G. Given the passage of 

time and 3GPP’s ongoing work since the 

5G Fund Report and Order was adopted, 

the Commission directs OEA, WCB, and 

WTB to determine in the pre-auction 

process, and after notice and comment, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101379 

whether there are 5G-capable spectrum 

bands other than those identified in 

3GPP Release 16 that entities seeking to 

receive support from the 5G Fund could 

use to meet the 5G Fund public interest 

obligations and performance 

requirements. 

110. The Commission declines to 

make any of the other changes suggested 

by commenters concerning the 

previously adopted performance 

requirements. The Commission finds 

that the suggestions offered by ARA 

PAWR and SBI that it adopt differing 

compliance deadlines and performance 

standards for support recipients serving 

remote areas to be inconsistent with the 

5G Fund’s policy goals of ensuring the 

rapid deployment of 5G mobile wireless 

broadband networks. T-Mobile’s 

suggestions are similar to suggestions 

offered earlier in the 5G Fund 

proceeding, which the Commission 

declined to adopt as both unworkable 

and unrealistic. As the Commission 

observed in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order, ‘‘[t]here may be isolated areas 

that are particularly challenging to serve 

even in terrain that is otherwise not 

difficult to serve, and adopting a 100% 

coverage requirement could drastically 

increase costs in a 5G Fund auction if 

bidders reasonably conclude that certain 

areas they would otherwise be 

interested in serving are cost prohibitive 

due to an especially challenging terrain 

feature like a ravine or mountaintop,’’ 

which ‘‘would [] potentially distort the 

5G Fund auction with little gain.’’ We 

note that the Commission also 

previously declined to adopt a 100% 

final deployment milestone percentage 

for Mobility Fund II based on 

commenters’ arguments in that 

proceeding that a 100% buildout 

requirement is unrealistic in remote 

areas as well as most rural areas, and 

could discourage bids. The Commission 

concludes that the Commission struck 

an appropriate balance in adopting an 

85% final coverage requirement in the 

5G Fund Report and Order, and find 

that T-Mobile has not offered anything 

in its comments that persuades us to 

depart from the Commission’s earlier 

conclusions. 

B. Methodologies for Demonstrating 

Compliance With 5G Fund Performance 

Requirements 

111. Consistent with the 

recommendations of many commenters, 

the Commission modifies the 

methodologies for demonstrating 

compliance with 5G Fund performance 

requirements adopted in the 5G Fund 

Report and Order to align largely with 

those adopted for the BDC verification 

process. In the 5G Fund Report and 

Order, the Commission decided it 

would generally align with the BDC the 

methodologies used by 5G Fund support 

recipients to demonstrate compliance 

with their interim and final performance 

requirement milestones. The 

Commission concluded that 

standardizing the data required for 

compliance reporting was likely to ease 

the burden on support recipients, while 

collecting sufficient data to confirm that 

the 5G Fund’s requirements have been 

met. In the 5G Fund FNPRM, the 

Commission proposed and sought 

comment on requiring 5G Fund support 

recipients to use the methodologies 

adopted for the BDC mobile verification 

process—which allow mobile providers 

to choose to submit either on-theground test data or infrastructure data to 

verify coverage in response to a mobile 

verification request from the 

Commission—as the basis for 

substantiating coverage and 

demonstrating compliance with the 5G 

Fund interim and final deployment 

milestones. In addition, the Commission 

sought comment on whether 5G Fund 

support recipients should be required to 

submit on-the-ground test data for areas 

that are accessible and infrastructure 

data for areas that are inaccessible. The 

Commission also sought comment on 

whether 5G Fund support recipients 

should submit infrastructure data 

sufficient to generate a ‘‘core coverage 

area,’’ as defined in the BDC mobile 

verification process, and on-the-ground 

test data for areas outside of that core 

coverage area, or should instead be 

allowed to submit either type of data 

regardless of the type of area in which 

they are deploying service. The 

Commission also described and sought 

comment on the specific on-the-ground 

test data and infrastructure data 5G 

Fund support recipients would need to 

submit. 

112. In response to the 5G Fund 

FNPRM, many commenters express 

support generally for harmonizing the 

5G Fund’s compliance processes with 

the BDC’s verification processes, and no 

commenters oppose this approach. The 

Commission agrees with commenters 

and adopts its proposal to largely align 

the methodologies for demonstrating 

compliance with the 5G Fund interim 

and final deployment milestones with 

those adopted for the BDC mobile 

verification process. The Commission 

finds this approach will give 5G Fund 

support recipients the same flexibilities 

afforded under the BDC rules to choose 

which type of verification data to 

submit. This approach also affords 

Commission staff the right to collect 

additional data as necessary. The 

Commission therefore amends the 

Commission’s rules as necessary to 

accommodate such alignment, 

consistent with the specific needs of the 

5G Fund. Based on supportive 

comments in the record, the 

Commission requires that, in its interim 

and final milestone reports, each 5G 

Fund support recipient (1) certify that 

the 5G mobile broadband coverage data 

filed in its BDC biannual submissions 

demonstrate that its deployments in the 

area(s) for which it receives 5G Fund 

support meet the 5G Fund coverage, 

speed, and latency requirements, and (2) 

substantiate its reported 5G mobile 

coverage data by submitting either onthe-ground test data or infrastructure 

information. A support recipient can 

submit either type of information (either 

on-the-ground test data or infrastructure 

data), regardless of whether it is 

deploying service in an accessible or 

inaccessible area, but it must submit at 

least one type of data for a whole state. 

A support recipient may submit 

different types of data for different states 

and may voluntarily submit the 

additional data type for part or all of a 

state. For example, a 5G Fund support 

recipient may submit only infrastructure 

information reflecting coverage their 

supported area in State A, and only onthe-ground data for the sampled area(s) 

in State B, but it may not submit only 

infrastructure information in a census 

tract in State A and only on-the-ground 

data in a different census tract in State 

A. This does not preclude a 5G Fund 

support recipient from submitting both 

infrastructure information and on-theground data, so long as it submits one 

type of data for all of its supported areas 

in a state. A 5G Fund support recipient 

shall submit its interim service and final 

service milestone reports, including onthe-ground measurement tests or 

infrastructure information, in the 

Broadband Data Collection portal. As 

discussed below, 5G Fund support 

recipients submitting on-the-ground 

data will do so for a sample of hex-9s 

within its supported area, whereas 

support recipients submitting 

infrastructure information are required 

to submit data for all cell sites and 

antennas that serve a 5G Fund 

recipient’s supported area. This 

approach is consistent with the BDC 

verification process, in which providers 

submitting on-the-ground data do so for 

a statistically valid sample of areas 

within a targeted area, whereas 

providers submitting infrastructure 

information do so for the entire targeted 

area. The Commission directs 5G Fund 

support recipients to indicate which 

type of data they will submit for each 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101380 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

state. To ensure the accuracy of the data 

being submitted, the Commission 

requires 5G Fund support recipients to 

have their on-the-ground or 

infrastructure data certified by an 

engineer with the same qualifications as 

required for submitting the BDC 

biannual filings that apply under 

section 1.7004 of the Commission’s 

rules. 

113. On-the-Ground Test Data. In the 

5G Fund Report and Order, the 

Commission required 5G Fund support 

recipients to conduct on-the-ground 

speed tests to substantiate 5G broadband 

coverage, and adopted specific 

methodologies for on-the-ground speed 

tests to substantiate 5G broadband data. 

Additionally, the Commission 

determined it would defer the adoption 

of additional requirements and 

parameters for such on-the-ground 

measurement tests until the pre-auction 

process. As discussed above, 5G Fund 

support recipients have the option of 

submitting either on-the-ground test 

data or infrastructure information, on a 

state-by-state basis. The Commission 

requires 5G Fund support recipients 

submitting on-the-ground data to do so 

in accordance with the parameters and 

specifications established in the BDC 

mobile verification process and the BDC 

Data Specifications for Mobile Speed 

Test Data. The Commission further 

requires that all such tests be taken in 

an in-vehicle mobile environment only 

because, as more fully explained herein, 

unlike for the BDC, 5G Fund support 

recipients must demonstrate their 

compliance with the 5G Fund 

performance requirements by 

submitting tests that are taken in an invehicle mobile environment only. A 5G 

Fund support recipient must submit onthe-ground test data for a sample of hex9s within its supported area within a 

state. The sample will be statistically 

appropriate and selected by 

Commission staff. The use of hex-9s is 

a variation from the mobile verification 

process, which uses a sample of hex-8s. 

Because eligible and supported areas in 

the 5G Fund Phase I will be based on 

hex-9s, the Commission adopts a 

methodology that relies on hex-9s 

instead of hex-8s. If the number of 

supported hex-9s in a state is too small 

to sample a subset of them, all hexagons 

may be selected in that area, or the 

small area will be combined with other 

nearby area(s) where support has been 

awarded, to the extent they exist for the 

support recipient, to create a larger area 

that can be sampled. 

114. The Commission also requires a 

5G Fund support recipient’s cumulative 

on-the-ground test data within a 

sampled area to show that at least 90% 

of its speed test measurements report 

5G–NR service at minimum download 

and upload speeds of at least 35/3 Mbps 

in an in-vehicle environment, and that 

at least 90% of tests record latency of 

100 milliseconds or less for each of the 

support recipient’s interim and final 

deployment milestones. The 

Commission notes this is a change from 

the performance requirements adopted 

in the 5G Fund Report and Order, which 

require 5G Fund support recipients to 

meet baseline performance speed 

requirements of a median of 35 Mbps 

download and 3 Mbps upload, and with 

at least 90 percent of measurements 

recording data transmission rates of not 

less than 7 Mbps download and 1 Mbps 

upload. However, requiring 5G Fund 

support recipients to submit cumulative 

test data showing that at least 90% of its 

speed test measurements report 5G–NR 

service at minimum download and 

upload speeds of at least 35/3 Mbps in 

an in-vehicle environment more closely 

aligns with the requirements adopted 

for BDC reporting. The Commission 

therefore amends section 54.1015(c)(1) 

of its rules, 47 CFR 54.1015(c)(1), in 

connection with aligning the 

methodologies for demonstrating 

compliance with the 5G Fund interim 

and final deployment milestones with 

those adopted for the BDC mobile 

verification process to specify that 5G 

Fund support recipients must meet a 

minimum baseline performance speed 

requirement of 35 Mbps download and 

3 Mbps upload in an in-vehicle 

environment, with at least 90 percent of 

measurements recording these data 

transmission speeds. When conducting 

tests to demonstrate compliance with its 

5G Fund performance milestones, a 5G 

Fund support recipient must record and 

submit at least two tests within each of 

the selected hexagons where the time of 

the tests are at least four hours apart, 

irrespective of date. However, if the 5G 

Fund support recipient has, and submits 

with its speed tests, actual cell loading 

data for the cell(s) covering the sampled 

hexagon showing that the median 

loading, measured in 15-minute 

intervals, did not exceed the BDCmodeled loading factor for the one-week 

period prior to the speed test 

submission, then the 5G Fund support 

recipient must submit two speed tests 

for the sampled hexagon, but without 

the restriction of testing four hours 

apart. Further, the target of at least 35/ 

3 Mbps speed must be taken in an invehicle mobile environment. The 

Commission emphasizes that 5G Fund 

support recipients must submit tests 

taken in an in-vehicle mobile 

environment only, and recognizes that 

this requirement differs from the BDC 

verification process, in which providers 

must conduct on-the-ground speed tests 

for the technology (4G and/or 5G) and 

environment (outdoor stationary or invehicle mobile) listed within hexagons 

that require verification. Given that the 

Commission is providing universal 

service support through the 5G Fund for 

the deployment of 5G–NR service in 

rural areas, the Commission concludes 

that requiring 5G Fund support 

recipients to submit tests taken in an invehicle mobile environment only is 

appropriate, because measuring 5G–NR 

service at speeds of at least 35/3 Mbps 

in an in-vehicle environment reflects 

the most stringent and robust 

measurement we are collecting from 

providers in the BDC and will help 

ensure that rural areas receive service 

that is reasonably comparable to the 

service offered in urban areas. For invehicle tests, 5G Fund support 

recipients must conduct tests with the 

antenna located inside the vehicle to 

replicate typical consumer behavior and 

ensure more equivalent comparisons 

between the on-the-ground test data 

submitted by support recipients and the 

typical consumer experience. 

115. Identifying Areas for On-theGround Testing. In the 5G Fund 

FNPRM, the Commission proposed to 

use a methodology for demonstrating 

compliance with 5G Fund performance 

milestones that is similar to that 

adopted for the BDC mobile verification 

process, except that 5G Fund support 

recipients would be required to submit 

speed test data for all supported areas, 

rather than a sample of areas, and the 

area would be hex-9, rather than the 

hex-8 area used in BDC mobile 

verification process. As discussed 

herein, if a support recipient chooses to 

submit on-the-ground test data, it must 

do so for a sample of hex-9s. The 

Commission received limited feedback 

in response to its proposal to require onthe-ground testing in all supported 

areas. However, T-Mobile argued that 

mandatory on-the-ground testing for all 

supported areas could become 

‘‘prohibitively expensive and time 

consuming.’’ The Commission agrees 

and therefore require that tests 

conducted and submitted for a sample 

of hex-9s within the supported area of 

a state. However, the sampling 

methodology used in the BDC mobile 

verification process may not translate 

well to demonstrating compliance with 

5G Fund performance milestones. In the 

BDC mobile verification process, a 

verification inquiry can be conducted 

only when there is a ‘‘credible basis’’ for 

believing the provider’s coverage may 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101381 

be inaccurate, while the basis for 

verifying coverage is different in the 5G 

Fund context. Therefore, the 

Commission declines to adopt a specific 

sampling methodology at this time and 

directs OEA, WTB, and WCB to both 

establish the methodology that will be 

used by all 5G Fund support recipients 

to demonstrate compliance with their 

5G Fund performance requirements and 

generate the sample of hex-9s for which 

each 5G Fund recipient must submit onthe-ground data at the time of its interim 

and final deployment milestones. 

116. Infrastructure Data. In the 5G 

Fund FNPRM, the Commission 

proposed to require 5G Fund support 

recipients to submit the same 

infrastructure data required in the BDC 

mobile verification process to 

substantiate coverage in the areas for 

which they receive 5G Fund support. In 

the context of BDC mobile verifications, 

a provider must submit additional 

information beyond what is submitted 

as part of its biannual BDC availability 

data (propagation modeling details, as 

well as link budget and clutter data), 

including cell-site and antenna data for 

the targeted area. The Commission 

adopts this proposal, and require 5G 

Fund support recipients electing to 

substantiate their 5G Fund milestones 

with infrastructure data to submit all of 

the infrastructure data that providers 

submit as part of the BDC mobile 

verification process for all cell sites and 

antennas that serve a 5G Fund 

recipient’s supported area. In its 

comments, Verizon asks the 

Commission to specify how it will use 

infrastructure data to verify compliance 

with the deployment obligations. 

Similar to BDC mobile verifications, 

staff will use the infrastructure data to 

estimate a ‘‘core coverage area,’’ in 

which coverage at the modeled 

throughput is highly likely to exist at or 

above the minimum values reported in 

the provider’s submitted coverage data. 

For any areas that are outside of the 

’’core coverage area’’ but within the 

required coverage area, Commission 

staff will consider additional 

information submitted by the 5G Fund 

support recipient, such as on-theground test data, and may request such 

data from the provider if not already 

submitted. If any areas outside the core 

coverage area but within the required 

coverage area are inaccessible, the 

Commission will consider whether 

alternatives to on-the-ground drive 

testing data are appropriate to validate 

coverage in such areas. To facilitate the 

process of Commission staff review of a 

5G Fund support recipient’s data, the 

Commission directs staff to notify the 

support recipient of any additional 

requests for information, and the 

Commission amends section 54.1019 of 

its rules, 54 CFR 1019, to account for 

such case-by-case information requests. 

VII. Schedule for Transitioning From 

Mobile Legacy High-Cost Support to 5G 

Fund Support 

117. Consistent with the strong 

consensus among commenters, the 

Commission concludes that the phase 

down of mobile legacy high-cost 

support will commence upon the 

release of a public notice announcing 

the authorization of 5G Fund support, as 

more fully explained below. In view of 

the provision in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2023, Public Law 

117–328, Div. E, Title VI section 624, 

136 Stat. 4459, 4702, requiring that any 

support mechanism that serves as an 

alternative to Mobility Fund Phase II 

‘‘shall maintain existing high-cost 

support to competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers until 

support under such mechanism 

commences,’’ the Commission sought 

comment in the 5G Fund FNPRM on a 

proposal to treat the release of the 

public notice announcing the close of 

the 5G Fund Phase I auction to be the 

point at which support under the 5G 

Fund ‘‘commences.’’ 

118. Many commenters maintain that 

the proposal suggested by the 

Commission in the 5G Fund FNPRM is 

inconsistent with the language in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2023. The Commission is therefore 

persuaded that it should follow the 

recommendations of commenters to 

commence the phase down of mobile 

legacy high-cost support upon the 

release of a public notice announcing 

the authorization of 5G Fund support. 

119. Under this approach, the 

Commission will commence the twoyear phase down of mobile legacy highcost support in all areas that are 

ineligible for inclusion in the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction upon the release of the 

first public notice announcing the 

authorization of support in any eligible 

area. Similarly, the five-year phase 

down of mobile legacy high-cost 

support for eligible areas that are not 

won in the 5G Fund Phase I auction, 

where the carrier is a legacy support 

recipient and receives the minimum 

level of sustainable support for the area 

for which it receives support, will also 

commence upon the release of the first 

public notice announcing the 

authorization of the award of support in 

any eligible area. For eligible areas won 

in the 5G Fund Phase I auction in which 

the winning bidder is also the legacy 

support recipient for the area won, 

legacy support will cease and 5G Fund 

support will commence after the release 

of the public notice announcing the 

authorization of the award of support 

for that area. The Commission 

recognizes that this may create an 

incentive for winning bidders to delay 

prosecuting their long-form applications 

to the extent that the legacy support 

they currently receive is greater than 5G 

Fund support. Nonetheless, the 

Commission expects long-form 

applicants to expeditiously complete 

their applications and respond in a 

timely manner to staff requests for 

additional or missing information. For 

eligible areas that are won in the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction in which the 

legacy support carrier is not the winning 

bidder in the area, a two-year phase 

down of mobile high-cost legacy 

support will ‘‘commence’’ after the 

release of the public notice announcing 

the authorization of the award of 

support for that eligible area. Likewise, 

for eligible areas not won in the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction where the carrier 

is a legacy support recipient but does 

not receive the minimum level of 

sustainable support for the area for 

which it receives support, a two-year 

phase down of mobile high-cost legacy 

support will ‘‘commence’’ after the 

release of the first public notice 

announcing the authorization of the 

award of support for any eligible area. 

As explained above, areas in Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands will 

proceed on the same transition schedule 

to either 5G Fund support or a two-year 

phase down of transitional support from 

the Bringing Puerto Rico Together Fund 

and the Connect USVI Fund, whichever 

is applicable. The Commission 

concludes that this approach complies 

with the text of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2023. The 

following chart summarizes the 

schedule the Commission adopts for 

transitioning from mobile legacy highcost support to 5G Fund support: 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101382 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TRANSITION SCHEDULE FOR LEGACY HIGH-COST SUPPORT TO 5G FUND SUPPORT

Area eligibility Auction result Bidder or recipient status Support type and timing 

Ineligible ............... ............................... ............................................................................. Two-year phase down of legacy support for all ineligible areas commences on the first day of the month after the release of the first public notice announcing the authorization of 5G Fund support in any eligible area. 

Eligible .................. Won in auction ..... Carrier is the winning bidder and is the legacy 

support recipient for the area it won.

Legacy support ceases and 5G Fund support commences in an area on 

the first day of the month after the release of the public notice announcing the authorization of 5G Fund support for that area. 

Eligible .................. Won in auction ..... Carrier is a legacy support recipient but is not 

the winning bidder in the area for which it receives support.

Two-year phase down commences in an area on the first day of the 

month after the release of the public notice announcing the authorization of 5G Fund support in that area. 

Eligible .................. Not won in auction Carrier is a legacy support recipient but does 

not receive the minimum level of sustainable 

support for the area for which it receives support.

Two-year phase down of legacy support commences on the first day of 

the month after the release of the first public notice announcing the 

authorization of 5G Fund support in any eligible area won in the auction. 

Eligible .................. Not won in auction Carrier is a legacy support recipient and receives the minimum level of sustainable support for the area for which it receives support.Legacy support continues for no more than five years and the phase 

down of such support commences on the first day of the month after 

the release of the first public notice announcing the authorization of 

5G Fund support in any eligible area won in the auction. 

120. Consistent with the 

Commission’s decision to include areas 

in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands that meet the eligible areas 

definition in the 5G Fund, these 

Territories will be subject to this 

transition schedule. For areas in Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the 

transitional support being provided 

under the Transitional Support Order is 

the ‘‘mobile legacy high-cost support’’ 

that will transition to 5G Fund support 

or be subject to a two-year phase down 

(whichever is applicable). 

Notwithstanding the schedule adopted 

in the Transitional Support Order, the 

Commission will extend transitional 

support beyond the 24-month period as 

needed to facilitate the phase down 

schedule adopted herein and comply 

with the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 2023. As noted herein, mobile 

wireless carriers receiving transitional 

support in areas in Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands that are subject to 

phase down will receive support 

amounts as specified in section 

54.307(e)(5)–(7) of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 54.307(e)(5)–(7), and will 

be subject to the same public interest 

obligations, performance requirements, 

reporting requirements, and noncompliance mechanisms adopted for 

mobile legacy high-cost support 

recipients specified in section 54.322 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 54.322. 

121. Other than the changes necessary 

to make its legacy support transition 

schedule consistent with the language 

in the Consolidated Appropriations Act 

of 2023, the Commission makes no other 

modifications to the decisions adopted 

in the 5G Fund Report and Order 

regarding the transition from mobile 

legacy high-cost support to 5G Fund 

support. The Commission was clear in 

the 5G Fund Report and Order that ‘‘the 

continuation of legacy support is an 

interim measure’’ as it implemented its 

plans for the 5G Fund. The Commission 

therefore declines to accept any of the 

alternatives to the Commission’s longstanding plan to phase down mobile 

legacy high-cost support suggested by 

commenters. Those alternative 

approaches are contrary to the 

Commission’s more than decade-old 

goal of reforming high-cost support and 

closing the digital divide, as well as the 

steps the Commission has taken to 

ensure the efficiency and good 

stewardship of its limited universal 

service fund dollars. As the Commission 

previously determined in the 5G Fund 

Report and Order, in an area where the 

legacy support provider becomes the 

winning bidder for 5G Fund support, if 

it ‘‘defaults on its bid prior to 

authorization, or otherwise fails to be 

authorized, [the Commission] will not 

award 5G Fund support for that area. 

However, to avoid perverse incentives, 

consistent with [the Commission’s] 

decision to maintain support to preserve 

service only in areas that lack a winning 

bid, a carrier receiving legacy support in 

the area of its winning bid will not 

receive preservation-of-service support 

and will instead be subject to phase 

down if not authorized to receive 5G 

Fund support.’’ As explained by the 

Commission in 2020, and as addressed 

herein in the Commission’s discussion 

of the 5G Fund budget, ‘‘the 

Commission’s experience awarding 

support via competitive bidding has 

shown it to be an effective use of 

ratepayer funds and none of these 

commenters has convinced us that 

departing from that approach is 

warranted.’’ 

122. Consistent with the 

Commission’s decision that the phase 

down of mobile legacy high-cost 

support will commence upon the 

release of a public notice announcing 

the authorization of 5G Fund support, as 

well as Congress’s language in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2023, the Commission dismisses 

CRWC’s Petition for Reconsideration as 

moot to the extent that its arguments 

concern the transition schedule for 

mobile legacy high-cost support. 

Additionally, for the same reasons 

expressed herein, the Commission 

denies the Petition for Reconsideration 

filed by SBI to the extent that it requests 

that the Commission reconsider the fiveyear phase down of mobile legacy high 

cost support for a carrier receiving the 

minimum sustainable level of support 

in an area that is eligible for 5G Fund 

support, but is not the winning bidder 

for that area. This request for 

reconsideration conflicts with the 

Commission’s plan to reform high-cost 

support and Congress’s intention for the 

Commission to transition to a more 

modern support mechanism. 

VIII. Certification of Notice of 5G Fund 

Phase I Auction Requirements and 

Procedures 

123. Consistent with the approach 

taken in its recent spectrum auctions, 

the Commission requires any applicant 

seeking to participate in the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction to certify, under penalty 

of perjury, in its short-form application 

that the applicant has read the public 

notice adopting procedures for the 

auction and that it has familiarized itself 

both with the auction procedures and 

with the requirements, terms, and 

conditions associated with the receipt of 

5G Fund support. This certification 

helps ensure that an applicant educates 

itself about the procedures for auction 

participation and that, prior to 

submitting a short-form application, the 

applicant understands its obligation to 

stay abreast of relevant, forthcoming 

information. While this certification 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101383 

refers to information regarding auction 

procedures and the requirements, terms, 

and conditions associated with the 

receipt of 5G Fund support that is 

available at the time of certification, 

potential auction applicants are on 

notice from the time the auction 

procedures are adopted that their 

educational efforts must continue even 

after their short-form applications are 

filed. As with other certifications 

required in the short-form application, 

an applicant’s failure to make this 

required certification in its short-form 

application by the applicable filing 

deadline will render its application 

unacceptable for filing, and its 

application will be dismissed with 

prejudice. 

124. As noted in the 5G Fund FNPRM, 

the Commission has a longstanding 

policy that expressly places a burden 

upon each auction applicant to be 

thoroughly familiar with the 

procedures, terms, and conditions 

contained in the relevant auction 

procedures public notice and any future 

public notices that may be released in 

the auction proceeding. Both the 

Commission and OEA, in conjunction 

with WTB and the Media Bureau, have 

reinforced this policy in recent 

spectrum auctions by adopting a 

requirement that each auction 

participant certify, under penalty of 

perjury, that it has read the Procedures 

Public Notice for the applicable auction, 

and that it has familiarized itself with 

the auction procedures and with the 

requirements related to the licenses 

made available for bidding. In adopting 

this certification requirement for prior 

auctions, the Commission noted that it 

was intended to bolster applicants’ 

efforts to educate themselves to the 

greatest extent possible about the 

procedures for auction participation and 

to ensure that, prior to submitting their 

short-form applications, applicants 

understood their obligation to stay 

abreast of relevant, forthcoming 

information. The Commission and OEA 

reasoned in the context of spectrum 

auctions that familiarity with the 

Commission’s rules and procedures 

governing the auctions would help 

bidders avoid the consequences to them 

associated with defaults, which also 

cause harm to other applicants and the 

public by reducing the efficiency of the 

auction process and reducing the 

likelihood that the license or 

construction permit will be assigned to 

the bidder that values it the most. 

Moreover, the Commission has also 

previously expressed in the context of 

spectrum auctions that the certification 

requirement will help ensure that an 

‘‘auction applicant . . . has investigated 

and evaluated those technical and 

marketplace factors that may have a 

bearing on its potential use of any 

licenses won at auction.’’ 

125. All commenters that address this 

certification requirement support it. The 

Commission concludes that applicants 

for universal service support in the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction will benefit from 

this certification because, as with 

spectrum auctions, familiarity with the 

rules and procedures governing the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction could help bidders 

avoid the consequences to them 

associated with defaults, which in turn 

harms other applicants and the public 

by reducing the efficiency of the auction 

process and potentially stranding areas 

without 5G mobile service. The 

Commission further concludes that such 

a certification will promote the integrity 

of, and public confidence in, the 

Commission’s auction processes, as well 

as help ensure that recipients of 5G 

Fund Phase I support are aware of and 

better prepared to comply with their 

public interest obligations and 

performance requirements. For these 

reasons, the Commission will require 

each 5G Fund Phase I auction applicant 

to make the following certification, 

under penalty of perjury, in its shortform application: 

that the applicant has read the public 

notice adopting procedures for the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction, and that it has 

familiarized itself with those procedures 

and any requirements, terms, and 

conditions associated with receipt of 5G 

Fund support. 

IX. Cybersecurity and Supply Chain 

Risk Management 

126. The Commission requires 5G 

Fund support recipients to implement 

both an operational cybersecurity risk 

management plan and a supply chain 

risk management plan as a condition of 

receiving 5G Fund support, as discussed 

in the 5G Fund FNPRM. 

127. Cybersecurity Risk Management. 

Consistent with the Enhanced 

Alternative-Connect America Cost 

Model (Enhanced A–CAM) and BEAD 

programs, 5G Fund support recipients’ 

cybersecurity risk management plans 

must reflect at least the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology’s 

(NIST) Framework for Improving 

Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity 

v.1.1 (2018) (NIST Framework), or any 

successor version of the NIST 

Framework, and must reflect established 

cybersecurity best practices that address 

each of the Core Functions described in 

the NIST Framework, such as the 

standards and controls set forth in the 

Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security 

Agency (CISA) Cybersecurity Crosssector Performance Goals and Objectives 

(CISA CPGs) or the Center for internet 

Security Critical Security Controls (CIS 

Controls). The Commission notes that 

the BEAD program specifically requires 

that a recipient’s cybersecurity risk 

management plan reflect the standards 

and controls set forth in Executive 

Order 14028. However, the development 

of standards and controls pursuant to 

Executive Order 14028 are still ongoing. 

While the Commission recognizes these 

continuing efforts elsewhere in the 

federal government, it will not expressly 

require that a 5G Fund recipient 

implement the standards and controls 

developed pursuant to Executive Order 

14028. Once those standards and 

controls are finalized, however, the 

Commission will consider them to be 

established cybersecurity best practices 

for purposes of the 5G Fund 

cybersecurity requirements that it 

adopts herein. The Commission 

delegates to the Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau the authority 

to update these requirements, after 

notice and comment, to require that 5G 

Fund recipients’ cybersecurity risk 

management plans reflect NIST 

Framework v.2.0 (2024) or any other 

successor versions that may be released. 

128. Supply Chain Risk Management. 

Support recipients’ supply chain risk 

management plans must incorporate the 

key practices discussed in NISTIR 8276, 

Key Practices in Cyber Supply Chain 

Risk Management: Observations from 

Industry, and related supply chain risk 

management guidance from NIST 800– 

161, Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk 

Management Practices for Systems and 

Organizations (2022). 

129. The Commission requires 

winning bidders to submit their 

cybersecurity risk management and 

supply chain risk management plans to 

USAC, and to certify that they have 

done so, by a date to be announced by 

Public Notice or within 30 days after 

approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), whichever is later. 

Consistent with the penalties adopted 

for the Enhanced A–CAM program, 

failure to submit such plans and make 

the required certification will result in 

25% of monthly support being withheld 

until the recipient comes into 

compliance. A 5G Fund support 

recipient may consider its ‘‘plans’’ for 

addressing cybersecurity and supply 

chain risks to be separate because they 

entail different kinds of actions, but 

they may satisfy this requirement by 

submitting to USAC a single document 

that contains both their cybersecurity 

risk management and supply chain risk 

management plans. Once the 5G Fund 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101384 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

support recipient comes into 

compliance, the Administrator will stop 

withholding support, and the support 

recipient will receive all of the support 

that had been withheld as a result of the 

recipient’s failure to comply with the 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management requirements the 

Commission adopts herein. These 

requirements will improve the 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management of the nation’s mobile 

broadband networks and protect 

consumers from online risks, such as 

fraud, theft, and ransomware, that can 

be mitigated or eliminated through the 

implementation of widely-accepted 

security measures. 

130. Commenters generally support 

the requirement that 5G Fund support 

recipients implement cybersecurity and 

supply chain risk management plans. 

Only one commenter, US Cellular, 

opposes such a requirement on the 

grounds that it ‘‘may place undue 

burdens and costs on 5G Fund support 

recipients.’’ Similarly, while generally 

supporting the requirements, the CCA 

urges us to ‘‘ensure that any such 

standards, while achieving 

cybersecurity and risk management 

goals, avoid imposing onerous or 

piecemeal burdens on carriers.’’ 

131. However, the cybersecurity and 

supply chain risk management 

requirements the Commission adopts for 

5G Fund support recipients are 

designed to mitigate concerns that 

development and implementation of 

cybersecurity plans are expensive and 

time consuming. As US Cellular itself 

explains, the NIST Framework is not a 

one-size-fits-all approach to 

cybersecurity and represents a flexible 

approach that ‘‘promotes customization 

and prioritization, allowing 

organizations to tailor their approach 

according to specific needs.’’ Other 

commenters agree that the NIST 

Framework provides an appropriate 

foundation for the required 

cybersecurity plans. The Commission 

therefore affords carriers the flexibility 

to develop plans that fit within their 

budgetary constraints, so long as they 

meet the baseline requirements. 

Moreover, the Commission declines to 

require 5G Fund support recipients to 

certify that they have implemented the 

NIST Framework at a particular 

implementation tier, as suggested by 

Verizon, as doing so would reduce 

flexibility and potentially impose 

unnecessary costs on providers. For the 

same reasons, the Commission also 

declines to adopt the additional 

requirements recommended by the 

Puerto Rico Telecommunications 

Regulatory Bureau. 

132. The Commission’s approach will 

also likely reduce compliance costs by 

allowing 5G Fund support recipients 

that have already implemented the NIST 

Framework to comply with this 

requirement without redoing their plans 

so long as such plans include already 

implemented established cybersecurity 

best practices. To further mitigate costs 

for small providers, as suggested by 

commenter Michael Ravnitzky, the 

Commission encourages 5G Fund 

support recipients to take advantage of 

existing federal government resources 

designed to share supply chain security 

risk information with trusted 

communications providers and 

suppliers and facilitate the creation of 

cybersecurity and supply-chain risk 

management plans. 

133. In the 5G FNPRM, the 

Commission proposed to require a 5G 

Fund recipient’s cybersecurity risk 

management plan to reflect ‘‘an 

established set of best practices, such as 

the [CISA CPGs] or the [CIS Controls]. 

Some commenters took issue with this 

proposal, expressing concerns about a 

prescriptive mandate that would require 

the use of either the CISA CPGs or the 

CISA Controls, without regard to the 

wider universe of established best 

practices that are currently available 

and that may be a better fit for their 

particular circumstances. The 

Commission emphasizes that the 

approach it adopts herein does not 

require the use of either of these best 

practices, and is instead intended to 

afford 5G Fund support recipients the 

flexibility to implement any established 

best practices, including those 

identified in the relevant NIST 

Framework v. 2.0 Informative 

References Spreadsheet, so long as they 

address each of the Core Functions of 

the NIST Framework, as the CISA CPGs 

and the CIS Controls do. To that end, 

the rule that the Commission adopts 

amends the language proposed in the 5G 

Fund FNPRM to make clear that, rather 

than requiring the use of a complete set 

of best practices compiled by a third 

party, a 5G Fund recipient may use best 

practices selected from a variety of 

sources, so long as they are established 

and, in aggregate, they address each of 

the NIST Framework’s Core Functions. 

134. AT&T is the only commenter that 

takes issue with the requirement that 5G 

Fund support recipients’ supply chain 

risk management plans incorporate 

guidance from NIST 800–161. AT&T 

notes that NIST 800–161 itself states 

that it ‘‘is not one-size-fits-all’’ and that 

‘‘the guidance . . . should be adopted 

and tailored to the unique size, 

[resources], and risk circumstances of 

each enterprise.’’ As with the NIST 

Framework, the Commission believes 

that the flexibility provided within 

NIST 800–161 will benefit 5G Fund 

support recipients for the very reasons 

stated by AT&T. The Commission does 

not view the use of NIST 800–161 as 

imposing rigid requirements. Instead, it 

serves as a baseline for ensuring that 

each 5G Fund support recipient has 

implemented an effective supply chain 

risk management plan that is 

appropriately tailored to its individual 

needs. 

135. Updating Cybersecurity and 

Supply Chain Risk Management Plans. 

Consistent with the requirements 

adopted for both the Enhanced A–CAM 

and BEAD Programs, the Commission 

also requires that a 5G Fund support 

recipient submit an updated plan to 

USAC within 30 days after making any 

substantive modification to its 

cybersecurity or supply chain risk 

management plan. A modification to a 

cybersecurity or supply chain risk 

management plan will be considered as 

substantive if at least one of the 

following conditions apply: 

• There is a change in the plan’s 

scope, including any addition, removal, 

or significant alteration to the types of 

risks covered by the plan (e.g., 

expanding a plan to cover new areas, 

such as supply chain risks to Internet of 

Things devices or cloud security, could 

be a substantive change); 

• There is a change in the plan’s risk 

mitigation strategies (e.g., implementing 

a new encryption protocol or deploying 

a different firewall architecture); 

• There is a shift in organizational 

structure (e.g., creating a new 

information technology department or 

hiring a Chief Information Security 

Officer); 

• There is a shift in the threat 

landscape prompting the organization to 

recognize the emergence of new threats 

or vulnerabilities that weren’t 

previously accounted for in the plan; 

• Updates are made to comply with 

new cybersecurity regulations, 

standards, or laws; 

• Significant changes are made in the 

supply chain, including offboarding 

major suppliers or vendors, or shifts in 

procurement strategies that may impact 

the security of the supply chain; or 

A large-scale technological change is 

made, including the adoption of new 

systems or technologies, migrating to a 

new information technology 

infrastructure, or significantly changing 

the information technology architecture. 

136. US Cellular opposes the 

requirement that a 5G Fund support 

recipient submit an updated plan to 

USAC within 30 days after making any 

substantive modification to its 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101385 

cybersecurity or supply chain risk 

management plan, stating that requiring 

the submission of an updated plan 

within 30 days ‘‘may pose challenges in 

responding swiftly to emerging threats 

or adopting cutting-edge cybersecurity 

solutions.’’ The Commission disagrees. 

To the extent that a 5G Fund support 

recipient makes a substantive change to 

its cybersecurity or supply chain risk 

management plan in response to a 

specific threat or the adoption of a new 

cybersecurity solution, the provider is 

not required to submit its updated plan 

until well after that change is made. The 

Commission sees no reason why the 

need to submit an updated plan after the 

fact would impact an organization’s 

ability to modify its plan as needed at 

any given time, particularly given its 

enumeration herein of the types of 

modifications that will be considered 

substantive. 

137. NTCA expresses concern that 5G 

Fund support recipients may be 

required to submit updated 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management plans within 30 days after 

any substantive modifications to the 

best practices or standards reflected in 

those plans (e.g., within 30 days after 

any changes are made to the CISA CPGs 

or the CIS Controls). This is a 

misreading of the requirement. While 

the Commission fully expects that 5G 

Fund support recipients will regularly 

update their cybersecurity and supply 

chain risk management plans as best 

practices evolve, the Commission does 

not impose a specific timeframe by 

which those plans must be updated after 

a best practices publication has been 

modified. 

138. NTCA and RWA both suggest 

that, rather than requiring the 

submission of updated plans within 30 

days after any substantive modification, 

5G Fund support recipients should be 

required to file updated plans on an 

annual basis with their annual report. 

The Commission does not believe that 

the requirement it adopts will impose 

substantial burdens on 5G Fund support 

recipients. To the contrary, because this 

requirement aligns with the 

requirements adopted for the Enhanced 

A–CAM and BEAD programs, the 

Commission believes that 5G Fund 

support recipients that also participate 

in those programs will benefit from 

having a single deadline by which they 

must submit their reports for each 

program. Consistent with requirements 

for other high-cost support recipients, 

such as Enhanced A–CAM program 

participants, 5G Fund support 

recipients must submit an annual report 

no later than July 1 of each year after the 

year in which it was authorized to 

receive support. Moreover, there is 

nothing in the record that explains how 

5G Fund support recipients differ from 

Enhanced A–CAM and BEAD program 

participants with respect to this 

requirement such that they merit 

different treatment. 

139. Annual Certification. Consistent 

with the requirements adopted for the 

Enhanced A–CAM program, the 

Commission also requires that 5G Fund 

support recipients certify in their 

annual report following each support 

year that they have maintained their 

plans, whether they have submitted 

modifications in the prior year, and the 

date any modifications were submitted. 

If at any point during the support term 

a 5G Fund support recipient does not 

have in place operational cybersecurity 

and supply chain risk management 

plans meeting the Commission’s 

requirements, the Commission directs 

WCB to instruct USAC to withhold 25% 

of the 5G Fund recipient’s support until 

the recipient comes into compliance. As 

noted above, once the 5G Fund support 

recipient comes into compliance, 

support will no longer be withheld and 

the support recipient will receive all of 

the support that had been withheld as 

a result of its non-compliance with the 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management requirements. 

140. While the Commission declines 

to adopt NTCA’s proposal to treat 5G 

Fund support recipients’ submitted 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management plans as presumptively 

confidential under section 0.457 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.457, the 

Commission recognizes that such plans 

can contain sensitive information 

regarding providers’ operations and 

networks. As a result, the Commission 

will provide an abbreviated means by 

which 5G Fund support recipients may 

request confidential treatment of their 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management plans pursuant to section 

0.459 of its rules, 47 CFR 0.459(a)(4). 

141. The Commission concludes that 

these requirements will serve to 

facilitate the nation’s cybersecurity and 

supply chain risk management goals 

while minimizing the burden on 5G 

Fund support recipients in complying 

with such requirements. The 

Commission’s actions emphasize the 

critical importance of cybersecurity and 

supply chain risk management in 

modern broadband networks, consistent 

with broader initiatives across the 

federal government. The enforcement 

mechanism carefully balances 

compliance with this important 

requirement with avoiding a 

disproportionate disruption to 

providers’ support. Adopting these risk 

management requirements is necessary 

to ensure that the 5G Fund program 

does not deprive rural consumers in 

high-cost areas of receiving 5G mobile 

service that is equally as secure as the 

high-speed broadband service deployed 

pursuant to other federal funding 

initiatives, including through Enhanced 

A–CAM and BEAD programs. 

X. Use of Open Radio Access Network 

Technologies in 5G Fund Supported 

Networks 

142. The Commission concludes that 

there are significant public interest 

benefits to incentivize and to promote 

the voluntary inclusion of Open Radio 

Access Network technologies (Open 

RAN) in networks that are deployed 

with 5G Fund support by allocating 

additional funds for this specific 

purpose. The Commission further 

concludes that providing a 5G Fund 

support recipient with a process 

whereby it can seek additional time to 

meet the 5G Fund deployment 

milestones may also further incentivize 

the inclusion of Open RAN in networks 

supported through the 5G Fund. As 

expressed in the 5G Fund FNPRM, the 

Commission recognizes that this 

proceeding presents an opportunity for 

the Commission to assist providers that 

elect to incorporate Open RAN in their 

network deployment plans. By 

providing these additional incentives, 

the Commission seeks to encourage 

early adoption of Open RAN that will 

strengthen and secure the advanced, 5G 

mobile broadband networks that the 5G 

Fund is subsidizing. 

143. As explained more fully in the 

Commission’s recent Open RAN NOI, 

rather than relying on proprietary 

specifications, ‘‘Open RAN modularizes 

the hardware and software components 

of the traditional RAN to promote 

virtualization, to enable [artificial 

intelligence/machine learning] solutions 

to optimize performance, and to enable 

interoperability across multiple 

vendors.’’ The Commission has also 

noted that networks deploying Open 

RAN ‘‘have the potential to address 

national security and other concerns 

that the Commission and other federal 

stakeholders have raised in recent years 

about network integrity and supply 

chain reliability.’’ Commenters in the 

instant proceeding also have noted that 

the incorporation of Open RAN 

technologies within networks serves 

many public interest benefits including 

improving security, lessening provider 

costs, strengthening the domestic 

supply chain, and promoting 

competition. 

144. Consistent with record support, 

the Commission concludes that using 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101386 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

the 5G Fund to incentivize the 

voluntary inclusion of Open RAN in 

networks deployed with 5G Fund 

support serves its national priorities. 

Thus, to incentivize deployment of 

Open RAN, as detailed herein, the 

Commission offers a process whereby a 

5G Fund support recipient can seek a 

limited extension of its 5G Fund interim 

and final deployment milestones as set 

forth in section 54.1015(b) in order to 

afford it additional time to deploy Open 

RAN. Additionally, as explained fully 

herein, the Commission will allocate up 

to an additional $900 million of support 

in conjunction with implementation of 

the 5G Fund solely for the purpose of 

incentivizing providers to deploy Open 

RAN. This $900 million will allow us to 

award a 5G Fund support recipient that 

deploys Open RAN with additional 

funding in the amount of one-tenth of 

the support that it is being allocated 

through the 5G Fund Phase I auction. To 

receive this additional funding, support 

recipients must deploy Open RAN 

technology through their network(s) for 

which they are authorized to receive 5G 

Fund support. The Commission finds 

that offering these incentives is 

consistent with the requirement in 

section 254(b)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 

254(b)(1), that the Commission base its 

universal service policies on the 

principles of providing ‘‘[q]uality 

services,’’ and the Commission believes 

that providing this additional funding 

will hasten the deployment of fast, 

secure, flexible, resilient, advanced, 5G 

mobile broadband networks throughout 

rural America. The Commission directs 

OEA and WTB to develop a post-auction 

process to evaluate applications for the 

award of this funding in accordance 

with the parameters that the 

Commission adopts herein. 

Additionally, the Commission directs 

OEA and WTB to adopt provisions to 

allow a 5G Fund support recipient to 

seek and receive, if approved by OEA 

and WTB, an extension of time for its 

interim and final deployment 

milestones so that it may include Open 

RAN in its supported network. 

145. As a general policy matter, the 

federal government has begun to 

undertake funding efforts that accelerate 

the development, deployment, and 

adoption of Open RAN in advanced 

mobile services. Likewise, the 

government, together with nine other 

countries, has recently released a joint 

statement endorsing principles for 

secure 6G technology ‘‘that recognize 

the importance of international 

cooperation in promoting open, secure, 

resilient, inclusive, interoperable 

networks, such as Open Radio Access 

Networks, and safe, resilient, inclusive, 

and sustainable 6G ecosystem.’’ 

Incentivizing the inclusion of Open 

RAN technology in networks subsidized 

with universal service fund support is 

therefore consistent with global accord 

that interoperable networks are of 

significant importance both currently 

and in the future. 

146. The Commission offers these 

incentives to 5G Fund support 

recipients because it anticipates that 

extending 5G deployment in unserved 

and underserved areas using Open RAN 

will be especially beneficial in 

promoting its 5G Fund goal of ensuring 

that Americans have access to 

advanced, 5G mobile broadband 

services where they live, work, and 

travel, now and in the long run. 

Accordingly, currently unserved and 

underserved areas where 5G Fund 

support will be used for an Open RAN 

deployment should be better positioned 

in the future not to be left behind. 

147. In the 5G Fund FNPRM, the 

Commission sought comment on 

whether the 5G Fund could be an 

appropriate vehicle to further the goals 

outlined in Executive Order 14036, 

which encouraged the Commission to 

‘‘consider providing support for the 

continued development and adoption of 

5G Open [RAN] . . . protocols and 

software,’’ and if so, what the best 

mechanism(s) for doing so might be. 

The Commission asked whether 

deploying Open RAN networks requires 

more time such that it would be 

appropriate to provide an extension of 

the interim and/or final service 

milestone deadlines to 5G Fund support 

recipients that use Open RAN in their 

network deployments. The Commission 

also asked how a support recipient 

could demonstrate that it is using Open 

RAN and how the Commission could 

monitor compliance. 

148. A number of commenters 

commend the Commission’s 

consideration of using the 5G Fund to 

incentivize Open RAN and claim that 

doing so has the potential to increase 

competition among vendors, decrease 

reliance on foreign vendors, increase 

network security, increase innovation, 

and lower long-term costs. Many 

commenters agree with the 

Commission’s observation in its 

Enhanced Competition Incentive 

Program Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking that ‘‘Open RAN has the 

potential to allow carriers to promote 

the security of their networks while 

driving innovation, in particular in 

next-generation technologies like 5G, 

lowering costs, increasing vendor 

diversity, and enabling more flexible 

network architecture.’’ Some 

commenters assert that smaller vendors 

and rural carriers will need support in 

order to deploy Open RAN. Mavenir, an 

equipment manufacturer, suggests that 

5G Fund incentives to deploy Open 

RAN may lessen the barriers to market 

entry that Open RAN vendors currently 

face and may encourage closed RAN 

incumbents to ‘‘open’’ their equipment 

without additional costs to providers. 

149. The Open RAN Policy Coalition 

suggests that in exchange for 

‘‘demonstrable commitments’’ to use 5G 

Fund support to deploy Open RAN 5G, 

the Commission offer post-auction 

incentives for winning bidders, such as 

additional funding for various phases of 

the buildout, flexibility in timing for 

meeting build-out requirements, and 

also technical assistance, to encourage 

the deployment of Open RAN in areas 

receiving 5G Fund support. CTIA agrees 

with the Open RAN Policy Coalition 

that voluntary, post-auction incentives 

such as additional funding may help 

spur Open RAN deployment. 

150. By contrast, other commenters 

raise practical concerns about using the 

5G Fund to support the deployment of 

Open RAN, contending that Open RAN 

has not been proven capable of 

providing 5G service at scale and that 

more suitable efforts are occurring 

elsewhere in the government and 

industry to support its development. 

And some commenters raise concerns 

that certain specifications and protocols 

of Open RAN are still too early in 

development for a deployment scenario 

of Open RAN with advanced 

capabilities (e.g., Massive multipleinput multiple-output (Massive MIMO)), 

and that Open RAN may need 

additional time for interoperability 

testing and network integration to be 

completed. The Commission does not 

persuaded, however, that these concerns 

should preclude us from using universal 

service support and the 5G Fund 

proceeding to encourage the use of 

Open RAN. To the contrary, the 

Commission believes that the public 

interest benefits of incentivizing the use 

of Open RAN in 5G networks outweigh 

the concerns and, importantly, will 

hasten its use more widely in areas of 

the country where it might not 

otherwise be deployed. 

151. Recognizing the practical 

challenges associated with deploying 

Open RAN raised by commenters, the 

Commission has given careful 

consideration to the suggestion of the 

Open RAN Policy Coalition that it 

provide post-auction incentives to 

winning bidders to promote 

opportunities for Open RAN 

deployment. The Commission finds that 

offering additional financial support 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101387 

from the 5G Fund to those support 

recipients that voluntarily incorporate 

Open RAN into their networks deployed 

using 5G Fund support in tandem with 

offering a process to obtain a potential 

extension of up to one year of the buildout milestone deadlines will best further 

the Commission’s interests in 

incentivizing the development and 

deployment of Open RAN and 

accommodate the various needs of 

industry in doing so. 

152. Additional Funding for 

Deployment of Open RAN. The 

Commission will make available this 

additional high-cost funding exclusively 

to those 5G Fund support recipients that 

deploy networks using Open RAN 

through their network(s) for which they 

are awarded 5G Fund support. The 

Commission will award an additional 

amount of one-tenth of the total support 

a 5G Fund support recipient is 

authorized to receive. The inclusion of 

Open RAN in a network deployed using 

5G Fund support will be entirely 

voluntary, as this additional support is 

being offered in recognition of the 

challenges that these service providers 

may face. Consistent with its goal, as 

stewards of the Universal Service Fund, 

of distributing funds in a responsible, 

and administratively efficient, manner, 

the Commission requires that this 

additional funding be used to deploy 

Open RAN and that 5G Fund support 

recipients that accept this additional 

funding certify to that effect. 

153. To avoid a significant increase to 

the contribution factor from any single 

Open RAN incentive payment, the 

Commission has determined to disburse 

support at specified intervals. Likewise, 

the Commission seeks to ensure that it 

is able to protect universal service funds 

in the event that support recipients do 

not timely deploy Open RAN. Based on 

its review of the information supporting 

a request for the additional funding, the 

Commission will award each authorized 

support recipient funding related to its 

Open RAN deployment in three 

tranches, with the timing of the 

disbursements to be based on whether a 

support recipient seeks only the 

additional funding or both the 

additional funding and an extension of 

time to meet the deployment 

milestones. For 5G Fund support 

recipients seeking only the additional 

funding, the Commission will award the 

support based on the following 

schedule: (1) one-third of the support 

upon meeting the Year Three Interim 

Service Milestone Deadline; (2) onethird upon meeting the Year Four 

Interim Service Milestone Deadline; and 

(3) one-third upon meeting the Year Six 

Final Service Milestone Deadline, at 

completion of buildout. For support 

recipients seeking both additional 

funding and an extension of time of one 

year, the Commission will award the 

additional support funding based on the 

following schedule: (1) one-third upon 

meeting the Year Four Interim Service 

Milestone Deadline; (2) one-third upon 

meeting the Year Five Interim Service 

Milestone Deadline; and (3) one-third 

upon completion of buildout at Year 

Seven. Accordingly, the Commission 

directs OEA and WTB to establish a 

process by which this funding may be 

elected and awarded post-auction. 

154. Extension of Deployment 

Milestones. As noted herein, to ensure 

that 5G Fund support recipients meet 

their obligation to provide advanced, 5G 

mobile broadband service in areas 

where they receive support, the 

Commission adopted interim and final 

service deployment milestones in the 

5G Fund Report and Order to monitor 

progress in timely meeting the 5G Fund 

public interest obligations and 

performance requirements. Rather than 

adopt an Open RAN exception to 

section 54.1015(b) of the Commission’s 

rules, which requires a support 

recipient to meet all of its interim and 

final 5G Fund deployment milestones 

and deadlines, the Commission will 

instead grant a one-year extension of the 

deployment milestones for a 5G Fund 

support recipient that demonstrates that 

it will incorporate Open RAN into its 

network. The Commission finds that 

providing flexibility to a 5G Fund 

support recipient by allowing more time 

to meet its public interest obligations 

and performance requirements is 

warranted here to incentivize the 

development and deployment of Open 

RAN networks. 

155. Those commenters supporting 

use of the 5G Fund as a vehicle to 

promote the development of Open RAN 

also generally support the idea 

described in the 5G Fund FNPRM of 

extending the milestone deadlines for a 

support recipient to meet its public 

interest obligations and performance 

requirements for those providers who 

deploy networks using Open RAN. The 

Commission believes that this approach 

addresses the concerns raised by some 

commenters that aspects of Open RAN 

make it so that deployment requires 

additional time. In particular, the 

Commission agrees with DISH’s 

argument in response to the 

Commission’s 5G FNPRM that ‘‘. . . 

extending buildout requirements for 

Open RAN deployments [will help] to 

prevent would-be Open RAN providers 

from choosing an outdated, closed 

technology merely to deploy faster.’’ 

This approach also addresses concerns 

that incorporating Open RAN in a 

network deployment could take longer 

to implement, and that each provider 

may have different constraints on its 

ability to deploy Open RAN. The 

Commission is creating separate 

processes for seeking additional Open 

RAN funding and for seeking an 

extension to accommodate the needs 

and goals of individual support 

recipients. Accordingly, the 

Commission directs OEA and WTB to 

establish a process for a 5G Fund 

support recipient that needs additional 

time to obtain an extension of up to one 

year of the interim and final milestones 

as set forth in section 54.1015(b) if it can 

demonstrate that it will incorporate 

Open RAN into its network(s). 

156. With one exception, all 

commenters oppose making the 

deployment of Open RAN mandatory. 

Given commenters’ concerns that the 

specifications, testing, and standards for 

using Open RAN advanced technologies 

are still under development, and given 

that some of the major carriers are still 

assessing Open RAN’s benefits, the 

Commission does not believe Open 

RAN should be mandatory for 5G Fund 

support recipients. The Commission 

also recognizes, as AT&T notes, that 

some providers that have deployed or 

are currently deploying a greenfield 

Open RAN network have to consider 

different capital investment issues than 

incumbents that are currently 

integrating 5G networks with 4G LTE 

networks. 

157. Some commenters propose that 

auction participants that commit to 

deploying Open RAN should be given 

an advantage in bidding. DISH 

advocates for a 40% bidding credit to 

auction participants that commit to 

certain Open RAN deployments, and an 

additional 10% bidding credit to 

providers that commit to deploying 

Open RAN on a faster timeline than the 

Commission otherwise requires. While 

the Commission finds that offering a 

combination of financial and extended 

milestone buildout deadline incentives 

will promote its interest in furthering 

the adoption of Open RAN solutions in 

networks for advanced, 5G mobile 

broadband services, given its goal of 

fiscal responsibility, the Commission 

finds it inappropriate to adopt a 

financial incentive as large as the 50% 

bidding credit that was proposed by 

DISH. Rather, the Commission 

concludes that offering a 5G Fund 

support recipient additional funding in 

the amount of one-tenth of the total 

support it is authorized to receive 

through the 5G Fund Phase I auction, 

spread over three payments, will 

sufficiently encourage the deployment 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101388 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

of Open RAN. This is especially true in 

light of some commenters assertions 

that Open RAN may be more costeffective because it is easier to 

administer and will discourage bidders 

from claiming a credit without sufficient 

due diligence about their ability to 

deploy Open RAN. In particular, the 

Commission agrees with DISH ‘s 

advocacy that ‘‘[d]espite the viability of 

Open RAN, there are still challenges in 

the ecosystem—often imposed by RAN 

incumbents—that can be alleviated by 

federal funding.’’ The Commission 

therefore finds that providing up to 

$900 million in funding to incentivize 

the deployment of Open RAN 

technology in networks supported 

through the 5G Fund, which amounts to 

an addition of 10% in funding beyond 

the up to $9 billion that will be 

allocated through the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction, strikes the proper balance to 

financially incentivize 5G Fund support 

recipients to consider deploying this 

innovative technology. 

158. The Commission directs OEA 

and WTB to establish, after notice and 

comment, the minimum specifications 

for Open RAN that a 5G Fund support 

recipient must implement in the 5G 

networks it deploys with 5G Fund 

support to qualify for additional funds 

and extended milestone deadlines; the 

mechanism by which such a recipient 

must demonstrate compliance (both 

initial and continued) with such 

specifications; and other requirements, 

if any, sufficient to justify additional 

post-auction funding and/or an 

extension of up to one year to meet the 

public interest obligations and/or 

performance requirements consistent 

with its goals described herein. 

Providing further details regarding the 

showing a 5G Fund support recipient 

must make in order to be granted 

additional funding and/or an extension 

will help ensure that the incentives 

discussed here are used appropriately to 

support the Commission’s policy 

objectives. The Commission further 

directs OEA and WTB to review each 

request for additional funding and 

extension to determine, as appropriate, 

whether such a request should be 

granted. OEA and WTB shall grant 

requests for funding only if the 

recipient’s use of Open RAN technology 

in networks deployed with 5G support 

meets the Open RAN specifications that 

will be adopted by OEA and WTB and 

the recipient certifies its conformance 

with those specifications. Likewise, 

OEA and WTB shall grant an extension 

of up to one year only if they determine 

that the 5G Fund support recipient’s 

proposal to deploy Open RAN is 

reasonably capable of meeting the 

prescribed minimum specifications. 

Reasonably capable means meeting the 

Commission staff’s reasonable 

expectation that the applicant would be 

able to meet the relevant Open RAN 

specifications in the areas where the 

applicant won support. To be clear, 

these determinations will be made on a 

case-by-case basis, measured against 

standards developed by OEA and WTB, 

taking each recipient’s circumstances 

into account. The Commission further 

directs OEA and WTB to adopt, after 

notice and comment, measures to 

ensure that it can appropriately address 

an Open RAN support recipient’s noncompliance with its commitment to 

timely deploy a network consistent with 

the established Open RAN 

specifications. In particular, OEA and 

WTB shall address whether recipients 

should be required to increase the 

amount of the letter of credit required 

by section 54.1016 of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 54.1016, by the amount of 

the Open RAN support, be subject to a 

modified timeline before it can begin to 

decrease the amount of its letter of 

credit, and be subject to recovery of all 

distributed support for non-compliance 

with 5G Fund Open RAN obligations. 

159. The Commission’s approach 

factors in the time that it anticipates is 

needed for the finalization of Open RAN 

specifications and also allows more time 

for industry to better address the 

challenges associated with 

interoperability and the RAN integration 

testing. The decision to deploy Open 

RAN in a network deployed with 5G 

Fund Phase I support is and will remain 

entirely optional. Potential bidders need 

not decide whether to deploy Open 

RAN or whether to seek the additional 

funding for Open RAN and/or an 

extension until after they know where 

they have been awarded 5G Fund 

support as well as the showing that will 

be required to receive the additional 

funding and/or extension of time. 

XI. Promoting Digital Equity and 

Inclusion 

160. The Commission sought 

comment on how the proposals and 

issues discussed in the 5G Fund FNPRM 

may promote or inhibit advances in 

diversity, equity, inclusion, and 

accessibility, as well the scope of the 

Commission’s relevant legal authority to 

address any such issues. Although the 

Commission received a few generalized 

comments regarding how the 

Commission’s decisions could impact 

such issues, no commenter offered any 

proposals for specific program 

requirements that the Commission 

should adopt for the 5G Fund or any 

comments regarding its legal authority 

to address diversity, equity, inclusion, 

and accessibility in this proceeding. The 

Commission therefore lacks a record to 

adopt any specific requirements for the 

5G Fund. 

161. For similar reasons, the 

Commission also denies the Petition for 

Reconsideration filed by the 5G Fund 

Supporters to the extent it seeks 

reconsideration of the Commission’s 

decision declining to extend the cable 

procurement rule requirements to 5G 

Fund support recipients, which the 5G 

Fund Supporters contend will ensure 

that qualified minority and women 

entrepreneurs receive information about 

upcoming infrastructure buildout 

contracts. As the Commission has 

previously noted, ‘‘the cable 

procurement requirement and [the 

Commission rule implementing it] flow 

directly from the statutory mandate 

pertaining explicitly to the cable 

industry contained in the 1992 Cable 

Act.’’ Moreover, although the 

Commission has sought comment on 

whether this type of procurement 

requirement could be applied to the 

broadcast or other FCC-regulated 

industries, it has not to date extended 

the cable procurement rule to any other 

FCC-regulated industries. Notably, no 

commenter offered support for adopting 

this type of procurement requirement 

for the 5G Fund in response to the 

Commission’s public notice seeking 

comment on the 5G Fund Supporters’ 

Petition for Reconsideration. Nor did 

any commenter, including the 5G Fund 

Supporters, provide any additional 

information to support adopting this 

type of procurement requirement for the 

5G Fund in response to the 5G Fund 

FNPRM. Accordingly, the Commission 

declines to extend the cable 

procurement rule requirements to 5G 

Fund support recipients. 

162. As the Commission implements 

and administers the 5G Fund, however, 

it remains mindful of the importance of 

considering how the Commission can 

promote diversity, equity, inclusion, 

and accessibility and the impact its 

rules have on these issues. The 

Commission emphasizes that one of the 

general principles of the Universal 

Service Fund is to create equal access 

for every American to high-speed 

broadband in underserved and unserved 

areas. To that end, the Commission has 

long used its Universal Service highcost funding programs to further 

consumer access to broadband and 

bridge the digital divide. Most recently, 

in its Future of USF Report, the 

Commission adopted universal service 

goals for broadband—universal 

deployment, affordability, adoption, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101389 

availability, and equitable access to 

broadband throughout the United 

States. Accordingly, the Commission is 

committed to ensuring that the policies 

and rules the Commission has adopted 

for the 5G Fund remain in accord with 

the Commission’s general efforts to 

advance digital equity for all. 

XII. CTIA Petition for Partial 

Reconsideration of the 5G Fund Report 

and Order 

163. The Commission agrees with 

CTIA that resolving its pending Petition 

for Partial Reconsideration of the 

Commission’s 5G Fund Report and 

Order serves the public interest, and is 

consistent with the Commission’s 

intention to finalize the framework of 

the 5G Fund. To that end, the 

Commission grants in part and denies in 

part CTIA’s petition to update the 

enforcement provisions associated with 

the award of mobile legacy high-cost 

support. 

164. In the 5G Fund Report and 

Order, the Commission adopted noncompliance measures for mobile legacy 

high-cost support recipients that fail to 

comply with any of the public interest 

obligations and/or performance 

requirements. See 47 CFR 54.322(k). 

These public interest obligations 

include, among other things, a 

requirement that a mobile legacy highcost support recipient use an increasing 

percentage of its support for the 

deployment, maintenance, and 

operation of mobile networks that 

provide 5G service. See 47 CFR 

54.322(c). In particular, the Commission 

concluded in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order that a non-compliant mobile 

legacy high-cost support recipient (1) 

‘‘will receive no further support 

disbursements’’; (2) ‘‘may be subject to 

recovery of up to the amount of support 

received since the effective date of the 

Report and Order, FCC 20–150, that was 

not used for the deployment, 

maintenance, and operation of mobile 

networks that provide 5G service’’; and 

(3) ‘‘may be subject to further action, 

including the Commission’s existing 

enforcement procedures and penalties, 

potential revocation of ETC designation, 

and suspension or debarment pursuant 

to [section] 54.8.’’ To address concerns 

about the possibility of disproportionate 

recovery, the Commission limited the 

amount of mobile legacy high-cost 

support that would be subject to 

recovery by indicating that it would not 

seek to recover any support that a 

recipient actually spent on the 

deployment, operation, and/or 

maintenance of voice and broadband 

networks that support 5G service, that it 

would retain the discretion to determine 

whether to seek up to full recovery of 

all support that was not spent on the 

deployment, operation, and/or 

maintenance of 5G services, and that it 

would seek to recover only support 

received since the effective date of the 

public interest obligations and 

performance requirements. The 

Commission also noted that it may 

apply this recovery measure in cases of 

voluntary relinquishment of legacy 

support. 

165. CTIA takes issue with these noncompliance measures, contending that 

the Commission adopted an 

unreasonable and unprecedented 

penalty for those mobile legacy support 

recipients that do not meet the public 

interest obligations and performance 

requirements adopted in the 5G Fund 

Report and Order. Specifically, CTIA 

seeks to limit the recovery of support for 

non-compliance or voluntary 

relinquishment of support to the 

difference between the amount spent on 

5G and the amount that the 

Commission’s rules require mobile 

legacy high-cost support recipients to 

spend on 5G. CTIA argues that it is 

inequitable for the Commission to 

recover all previous legacy support that 

a mobile legacy support recipient did 

not spend directly on 5G services during 

the transition to the 5G Fund, even 

though the Commission allowed mobile 

legacy support recipients to spend less 

than 100% of their support on 5G 

services in the first two years of the 

transition. Moreover, CTIA asserts that 

the new rules unreasonably treat the 

voluntary relinquishment of future 

support as a ‘‘default’’ and subject to 

recovery all previous support that was 

not spent on 5G, even if the prior non5G spending complied with the 

requirements adopted by the 

Commission. CTIA contends that the 

Commission should revise its rules to 

make clear that a mobile legacy support 

recipient that fails to meet the new 5Grelated obligations will be subject to 

recovery only for the portion of past 

support that the Commission required 

the ETC to spend on 5G. In addition, 

CTIA advocates that in no event should 

the rules allow recovery of previously 

spent support where the mobile legacy 

support recipient’s only ‘‘default’’ is 

electing voluntarily to relinquish 

prospective support. 

166. The Commission responds to 

CTIA’s concerns, in part, by amending 

section 54.322(k)(2) of its rules, 47 CFR 

54.322(k)(2), governing the recovery of 

mobile legacy high-cost support from 

non-compliant recipients. In particular, 

the Commission clarifies that a noncompliant mobile legacy high-cost 

support recipient will—not may—be 

subject to the recovery of the difference 

between the amount the recipient spent 

on 5G service and the amount that 

section 54.322(c) of its rules, 47 CFR 

54.322(c), required the recipient to 

spend on 5G service. This clarification 

grants CTIA’s request that the 

Commission ‘‘makes clear that mobile 

wireless ETCs who fail to meet the new 

5G-related obligations will be subject to 

recovery . . . for the portion of past 

support that the Commission required 

the ETC to spend on 5G.’’ The 

Commission’s rules conditioned the 

continued distribution of mobile legacy 

high-cost support on the satisfaction of 

public interest obligations, including 

the use of an increasing percentage of its 

support for the deployment, 

maintenance, and operation of mobile 

networks that provide 5G service, and 

required the recovery of funds where 

the percentage scheme envisioned by 

the rule is not satisfied. CTIA’s 

argument that the rule operates as an 

arbitrary penalty is unavailing in the 

context of the 5G Fund, which created 

a complex regulatory framework with 

specific conditions governing receipt of 

USF support. The Commission’s action 

herein is wholly consistent with its 

obligation to recover federal funds 

where the associated regulatory 

requirements are not satisfied. 

Furthermore, this clarification is 

generally consistent with other 

universal service high-cost rules, which 

require a recipient to repay support for 

locations where it failed to meet its 

build-out milestones. 

167. The Commission’s authority to 

recover such support remains essential 

and relevant as the Commission moves 

forward with the implementation of the 

5G Fund. In adopting the rule that 

allows the Commission to cease making 

legacy support payments and pursue the 

recovery of support that has been 

awarded but not used for 5G service, the 

Commission reasoned that ‘‘the 

continuation of legacy support is an 

interim mechanism in place as [the 

Commission] implement[s] the 5G 

Fund, and therefore, unlike the 

Commission’s other modernized 

support mechanisms, the noncompliance measures here do not 

benefit from allowing legacy support 

recipients to come back into compliance 

prior to the end of the support term.’’ In 

sum, by providing authority to recover 

up to all legacy support a carrier 

received that was not spent toward the 

deployment, operation, and/or 

maintenance of 5G service, the 

Commission reasoned that it ‘‘better 

incentivize[d] 5G deployment.’’ The 

Commission agrees with this reasoning. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101390 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

The Commission also expands on the 

Commission’s conclusion in the 5G 

Fund Report and Order that having 

strong public interest obligations and 

performance requirements for mobile 

legacy high-cost support recipients and 

the ability to enforce its rules in the 

event of a default, such as by recovering 

legacy support that was not spent on 5G 

services, is part of its obligation ‘‘[a]s 

stewards of the Universal Service 

Fund,’’ and that such provisions will 

help us ‘‘ensure that all Americans 

living in areas served by these carriers 

receive the most advanced wireless 

services.’’ 

168. The Commission does, however, 

find merit in CTIA’s argument that 

section 54.322(k)(2) should be revised 

because it includes the voluntary 

relinquishment of future support as a 

‘‘default,’’ even if a carrier’s prior 

spending complied with the 

requirements adopted by the 

Commission. The Commission agrees 

with CTIA that revising this limited 

aspect of the rule avoids creating an 

incentive for a carrier to continue to 

accept mobile legacy high-cost support 

if it otherwise wishes to voluntarily 

relinquish that support. Accordingly, 

the Commission grants this aspect of 

CTIA’s Petition for Reconsideration and 

amends section 54.322(k)(3) of its rules, 

47 CFR 54.322(k)(3), to clarify that, to 

the extent a carrier receiving mobile 

legacy high-cost support has been in full 

compliance with the Commission’s 

rules and subsequently elects to 

voluntarily relinquish future support, 

the Commission will not deem the 

voluntary relinquishment of such future 

mobile legacy high-cost support alone to 

be a default for which the Commission 

will seek the recovery of prior support. 

However, for the reason discussed 

herein, the Commission denies CTIA’s 

Petition to the extent that it seeks to 

amend section 54.322(k)(2) to preclude 

the recovery of legacy support that a 

mobile legacy high-cost support 

recipient received—other than the 

amount specified in section 54.322(c)— 

that was not spent toward the 

deployment, operation, and/or 

maintenance of mobile networks that 

support 5G service. 

XIII. Non-Substantive Rule 

Clarifications 

169. The Commission also takes this 

opportunity to make non-substantive 

editorial changes to the rules adopted by 

the Commission in the 5G Fund Report 

and Order governing the annual 

reporting requirement for mobile legacy 

high-cost support recipients. While the 

majority of the elements of this annual 

reporting requirement are contained in 

section 54.322(i) of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 54.322(i), which relates 

specifically to mobile legacy high-cost 

support recipients, other elements of 

this requirement are separately 

contained in section 54.313 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 54.313, 

which relates to annual reporting 

requirements for high-cost recipients 

generally. The Commission therefore 

consolidates the requirements contained 

in section 54.313(n), as adopted in the 

5G Fund Report and Order, into section 

54.322(i), to enhance clarity and make it 

easier for mobile legacy high-cost 

support recipients to locate all of the 

elements of their annual reporting 

requirement. The Commission notes 

that paragraph reference for this rule as 

adopted in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order was incorrectly listed as section 

54.313(n), rather than section 54.313(p), 

in the both the final rules appendix in 

the 5G Fund Report and Order and in 

the Federal Register summary of that 

decision published at 85 FR 75,770 on 

November 25, 2020. Section 54.313(n), 

as adopted in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order, has a delayed effective date and 

has not yet been made effective. See 47 

CFR 54.313, Effective Date Notes, Note 

4. No substantive change is intended or 

should result from this consolidation. 

Because these editorial changes are nonsubstantive, they have no impact on 

regulated parties or the public, and the 

Commission finds for good cause that 

notice and comment are unnecessary 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). 

XIV. Procedural Matters 

170. Paperwork Reduction Act. The 

5G Fund Second Report and Order and 

Order on Reconsideration contains new 

or modified information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. It will be submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under section 3507(d) 

of the PRA. OMB, the general public, 

and other Federal agencies will be 

invited to comment on the new or 

modified information collection 

requirements adopted in this 

proceeding. In addition, the 

Commission notes that pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, it previously sought specific 

comment on how the Commission might 

further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

The Commission describes impacts that 

might affect small businesses, which 

includes most businesses with fewer 

than 25 employees, in the Supplemental 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(Supplemental FRFA) herein. 

171. Congressional Review Act. The 

Commission has determined, and the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

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 5G Fund Second 

Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

172. Regulatory Flexibility Act. As 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), a 

Supplemental Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental 

IRFA) was incorporated in the 5G Fund 

FNPRM. The Commission prepared 

Regulatory Flexibility Analyses in 

connection with its 2020 5G Fund 

NPRM, 85 FR 31616 (May 26, 2020), and 

its 2020 5G Fund Report and Order. The 

Commission sought written public 

comment on the proposals and issues 

raised in the 5G Fund NPRM, and the 

5G FNPRM, including comment on the 

IRFA, and Supplemental IRFA. No 

comments were filed addressing the 

IRFAs. This Supplemental FRFA 

supplements the Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in the 5G 

Fund Report and Order to reflect actions 

taken in the 5G Fund FNPRM, and 

conforms to the RFA. 

173. The Commission takes important 

and necessary steps in the 5G Fund 

Second Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration to implement the 

framework for the 5G Fund to support 

the build out of advanced, 5G mobile 

wireless broadband networks for those 

who live, work, and travel in rural areas. 

After over a decade of hard work to 

reach this pivotal moment, the 5G Fund 

reflects the Commission’s persistent 

efforts to reform and redirect universal 

service funds for mobile broadband to 

areas of the country that need them the 

most. As the Commission finalizes the 

details for the 5G Fund, it is confident 

that its conclusions in the 5G Fund 

Second Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration are solidly grounded in 

the improved mobile coverage data 

obtained in the Broadband Data 

Collection (BDC), which is reflected on 

its new National Broadband Map and 

provides the Commission with the most 

comprehensive picture to date about 

where mobile broadband service is and 

is not across the entire country. 

Unquestionably, the Commission’s 

decision to wait to proceed with a 5G 

Fund Phase I auction until the 

Commission had these data to rely on 

has dramatically improved its 

understanding of where high-speed 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101391 

mobile broadband service is being 

provided and has significantly 

enhanced its ability to hold a successful 

5G Fund auction. The Commission is 

now far better informed regarding which 

communities lack mobile broadband 

service. 

174. As the Commission noted when 

it adopted the 5G Fund FNPRM, the 

National Broadband Map reflected the 

stark reality that over 14 million homes 

and businesses nationwide continued to 

lack access to 5G mobile wireless 

broadband service. The Commission 

therefore undertook a tailored effort to 

refresh the record and reignite the 5G 

Fund’s plan to expand the deployment 

of 5G service to those rural communities 

that remain trapped on the wrong side 

of the digital divide. After careful 

consideration of the record gathered in 

this proceeding, the Commission 

concludes that the determinations it 

reaches in the 5G Fund Second Report 

and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration will best incentivize 

the deployment of networks providing 

advanced, 5G mobile wireless 

broadband in areas of the country 

where, absent subsidies, such service 

will continue to be lacking. 

175. Specifically, in the 5G Fund 

Second Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration the Commission: (1) 

modifies the definition of the areas that 

will be eligible for 5G Fund support and 

include areas in Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands that meet this 

eligible area definition in the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction; (2) increases the budget 

for Phase I of the 5G Fund and the 

Tribal reserve budget; (3) modifies the 

metric for accepting and identifying 

winning bids and adopt a service-based 

weighting factor for bidding in the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction; (4) explains how 

the Commission will aggregate areas 

eligible for 5G Fund support to 

minimum geographic areas for bidding; 

(5) explains its approach to aligning the 

methodologies for demonstrating 

compliance with the 5G Fund public 

interest obligations and performance 

requirements with those used in the 

BDC; (6) revises the schedule for 

transitioning from mobile legacy highcost support for 5G Fund support 

consistent with recent legislative 

amendments; (7) requires each 5G Fund 

Phase I auction applicant to certify, 

under penalty of perjury, that it has read 

the public notice adopting procedures 

for the auction, and that it has 

familiarized itself with those procedures 

and any requirements related to the 

support made available for bidding in 

the auction; (8) requires 5G Fund 

support recipients to implement 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management plans as a condition of 

receiving support; and (9) encourages 

5G Fund support recipients to 

incorporate Open Radio Access Network 

(Open RAN) technologies in networks 

funded through the 5G Fund through 

the use of incentive funding and an 

opportunity to seek additional time to 

meet their 5G Fund public interest 

obligations and performance 

requirements by the established service 

deployment milestones. The 

Commission also resolves the issues 

raised in the pending petitions for 

reconsideration of the Commission’s 

2020 5G Fund Report and Order. With 

the decisions the Commissions reaches 

in the 5G Fund Second Report and 

Order and Order on Reconsideration, it 

advances its extensive efforts to 

modernize high-cost support for mobile 

broadband services and proceeds with 

confidence that it is stretching its 

limited universal service fund dollars to 

support advanced, 5G mobile wireless 

broadband service to as many areas 

where Americans live, work and travel 

as possible. 

176. There were no comments filed 

that specifically addressed the rules and 

policies presented in the Supplemental 

IRFA. 

177. 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 for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA), and to 

provide a detailed statement of any 

change made to the proposed rule(s) as 

a result of those comments. The Chief 

Counsel did not file any comments in 

response to the proposed rules in this 

proceeding. 

178. 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 ‘‘smallbusiness 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 

herein, Regulatory Flexibility Analyses 

were incorporated into the 5G Fund 

NPRM, the 5G Fund Report and Order, 

and the 5G Fund FNPRM. In those 

analyses, the Commission described in 

detail the small entities that might be 

significantly affected. In this 

Supplemental FRFA, the Commission 

incorporates by reference the 

descriptions and estimates of the 

number of small entities from the 

previous Regulatory Flexibility 

Analyses in the 5G Fund NPRM, the 5G 

Fund Report and Order, and the 5G 

Fund FNPRM. 

179. The 5G Fund Second Report and 

Order and Order on Reconsideration 

modifies some of the compliance 

requirements adopted in the 5G Report 

and Order based on the proposals and/ 

or the other issues on which the 

Commission sought comment in the 5G 

Fund FNPRM. Such modifications could 

impact the reporting, recordkeeping, 

and other compliance requirements for 

small and other providers that receive 

5G Fund support. 

180. In the 5G Fund Second Report 

and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration, the Commission 

modifies the methodologies by which 

5G Fund support recipients must 

demonstrate compliance with their 5G 

Fund performance requirements to 

largely align with those adopted for the 

BDC verification process. At present, the 

record contains insufficient information 

to either quantify compliance costs for 

small entities as a result of the modified 

methodologies for 5G Fund support 

recipients, or determine whether there 

will be a need for small entities to hire 

attorneys, engineers, consultants, or 

other professionals. However, the 

Commission notes that its approach in 

largely aligning the methodologies for 

5G Fund support recipients to 

demonstrate and report compliance 

with the 5G Fund performance 

requirements is likely to ease the burden 

on small and other 5G Fund support 

recipients, and afford such support 

recipients the same flexibilities afforded 

under the BDC rules to choose which 

type of verification data to submit. 

181. The 5G Fund Second Report and 

Order and Order on Reconsideration 

also adopts a requirement that each 5G 

Fund support recipient implement 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management plans as a condition of 

receiving 5G Fund support. 

Cybersecurity risk management plans 

must reflect at least the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology’s 

Framework for Improving Critical 

Infrastructure Cybersecurity v.1.1 (2018) 

(NIST Framework), or any successor 

version of the NIST Framework, and 

must reflect established cybersecurity 

best practices that address each of the 

Core Functions described in the NIST 

Framework, such as the standards and 

controls set forth in the Cybersecurity & 

Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) 

Cybersecurity Cross-sector Performance 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101392 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Goals and Objectives (CISA CPGs) or the 

Center for internet Security Critical 

Security Controls (CIS Controls). 

Support recipients’ supply chain risk 

management plans must incorporate the 

key practices discussed in NISTIR 8276, 

Key Practices in Cyber Supply Chain 

Risk Management: Observations from 

Industry, and related supply chain risk 

management guidance from NIST 800– 

161. The Commission also requires that 

a 5G Fund support recipient submit an 

updated plan to USAC within 30 days 

after making any substantive 

modification to its cybersecurity or 

supply chain risk management plan. 5G 

Fund support recipients must also 

certify in their annual report following 

each subsequent support year that they 

have maintained their plans, whether 

they have submitted modifications in 

the prior year, and the date any 

modifications were submitted. If at any 

point during the support term a 5G 

Fund support recipient does not have in 

place operational cybersecurity and 

supply chain risk management plans 

meeting the Commission’s 

requirements, 25% of the 5G Fund 

recipient’s support will be withheld 

until the recipient comes into 

compliance. There were no comments 

that specifically addressed this 

modification as presented in the 

Supplemental IRFA. In addition, the 

record does not include a detailed costbenefit analysis that would enable us to 

quantify compliance costs for small 

entities, including whether there will be 

a need for small entities to hire 

attorneys, engineers, consultants, or 

other professionals. The Commission 

notes, however, that the cybersecurity 

and supply chain risk management 

requirements adopted for 5G Fund 

support recipients in the 5G Fund 

Second Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration are designed to mitigate 

concerns that development and 

implementation of cybersecurity plans 

are expensive and time consuming. The 

requirements therefore afford small and 

other carriers the flexibility to develop 

plans that fit within their budgetary 

constraints, so long as they meet the 

baseline requirements. The 

Commission’s approach will also likely 

reduce compliance costs by allowing 5G 

Fund support recipients that have 

already implemented the NIST 

Framework to comply with this 

requirement without redoing their plans 

so long as they implement an 

established set of cybersecurity best 

practices. To further mitigate costs for 

small carriers, the Commission also 

encourages 5G Fund support recipients 

to take advantage of existing federal 

government resources designed to share 

supply chain security risk information 

with trusted communications providers 

and suppliers and facilitate the creation 

of cybersecurity and supply-chain risk 

management plans. 

182. In addition, the Commission 

adopts a requirement that any applicant 

seeking to participate in the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction to certify in its shortform application, under penalty of 

perjury, that the applicant has read the 

public notice adopting procedures for 

the auction and that it has familiarized 

itself both with the auction procedures 

and with the requirements, terms, and 

conditions associated with the receipt of 

5G Fund support. As with other 

certifications required in the short-form 

application, an applicant’s failure to 

make this required certification in its 

short-form application by the applicable 

filing deadline will render its 

application unacceptable for filing, and 

its application will be dismissed with 

prejudice. Typically, the auction 

procedures inform prospective 

applicants that they should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s 

general competitive bidding rules, 

Commission decisions regarding 

competitive bidding procedures, 

application requirements, obligations of 

universal service support recipients, 

and the Commission’s service rules 

support granted in the auction, and that 

they must be thoroughly familiar with 

the procedures, terms, and conditions 

contained in the public notice adopting 

procedures for the auction. The 

Commission therefore does not expect 

that the adopted certification 

requirement will increase the need for 

small entities to hire attorneys, 

engineers, consultants, or other 

professionals because it does not 

increase the level of education or due 

diligence beyond what was required of 

applicants prior to the adoption of the 

certification requirement, and thus it 

should not increase an applicant’s 

burden in complying with the 

additional certification requirement. 

183. 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 5G Fund Second Report 

and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration, the Commission 

adopted rules seeking to balance its 

proposals in the 5G Fund FNPRM with 

proposed alternatives commenters 

submitted and weighing their benefits 

against the potential costs to small and 

other entities. Some key areas of focus 

addressed in the adopted rules are: 

184. Definition of Eligible Areas. The 

5G Fund Second Report and Order and 

Order on Reconsideration modifies the 

definition of the areas that will be 

eligible for 5G Fund Phase I support to 

be those areas where BDC mobile 

coverage data show a lack of 

unsubsidized 5G mobile broadband 

service at speeds of at least 7/1 Mbps in 

an outdoor stationary environment by at 

least one service provider, even if those 

areas are served by 4G LTE service. The 

Commission will also apply a servicebased weighting factor in 5G Fund 

Phase I auction bidding to incentivize 

the deployment of 5G service in areas 

that lack unsubsidized 4G LTE service. 

The Commission considered retaining 

the eligible areas definition adopted in 

the 5G Fund Report and Order, 

however, it believes that this 

modification to the definition of areas 

eligible for 5G Fund support ensures 

that a wide variety of small entities and 

other interested bidders will have 

greater flexibility to design a network 

that matches their business model and 

that allows service providers to achieve 

their performance benchmarks and 

public interest obligations efficiently. 

185. Technology for Determining 

Eligible Areas. The Commission 

considered, as an alternative to defining 

areas eligible for 5G Fund Phase I 

support as those where BDC mobile 

coverage data show a lack of 

unsubsidized 5G service by at least one 

service provider, retaining the definition 

of eligible areas as those areas that lack 

both unsubsidized 4G LTE and 

unsubsidized 5G broadband service, as 

adopted in the 5G Fund Report and 

Order. As the Commission noted in the 

5G Fund FNPRM, however, throughout 

this proceeding, several parties have 

taken issue with the eligible areas 

definition, and have advocated that the 

Commission define as eligible for 5G 

Fund support any areas that lack 

unsubsidized 5G mobile broadband 

service. The Commission expects that 

small entities and other interested 

parties will benefit from its modification 

of the definition of eligible areas 

because it is likely to increase the total 

number of areas that are available in a 

5G Fund auction and eligible for 5G 

Fund support, thus creating additional 

opportunities for them to expand their 

businesses. 

186. Speed Thresholds for 

Determining Eligible Areas. Another 

alternative the Commission considered 

was a defining the areas eligible for 5G 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101393 

Fund support as those areas that lack 

unsubsidized 5G service at a speed 

threshold of 35/3 Mbps. The 

Commission concludes that using a 

speed threshold of 7/1 Mbps for 5G for 

purposes of determining eligible areas 

will promote the expansion of 5G 

coverage to as many areas as possible, 

while also avoiding the potential for 

overbuilding in areas where a provider 

already offers some level of 

unsubsidized 5G service and could 

upgrade such service to higher speeds in 

the future. The Commission further 

determines that using a speed threshold 

of 35/3 Mbps to determine eligible areas 

will result in more areas being eligible 

for support, taxing the 5G Fund Phase 

I budget unnecessarily, especially in 

light of the increased number of eligible 

areas that the Commission anticipates as 

a result of its other modifications to the 

definition. Increasing the number of 

eligible areas to such a great extent will 

likely reduce the support that may be 

available to winning bidders. The 

Commission believes that defining areas 

eligible for 5G Fund support as those 

that lack unsubsidized 5G service at 

speeds of at least 7/1 Mbps strikes an 

appropriate balance of increasing the 

number of areas eligible for support 

without overly taxing the budget. 

187. Environment for Determining 

Eligible Areas. The Commission also 

considered defining the areas eligible 

for 5G Fund Phase I support as those 

areas that lack unsubsidized 5G mobile 

broadband service at speeds of at least 

7/1 Mbps in an in-vehicle environment. 

The Commission concludes that using 

coverage maps based on an outdoor 

stationary environment for purposes of 

determining areas eligible for the 5G 

Fund Phase I auction is preferable to 

using in-vehicle BDC coverage maps 

because the key parameters for outdoor 

stationary coverage have been 

standardized. 

188. 5G Fund Budget. In the 5G Fund 

Second Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration, the Commission 

modified the budget for Phase I of the 

5G Fund auction by increasing it to 

include up to the $1 billion that 

previously had been allocated to Phase 

II by the Commission in the 5G Fund 

Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration. A number of 

commenters, some of which include 

small entities, advocated for an increase 

in the original budget of $8 billion for 

Phase I. The Commission concludes that 

adopting an increased budget for Phase 

I will benefit all 5G Fund recipients, 

including those that are small entities. 

The Commission declines to adopt an 

alternative approach that would use a 

cost model to determine the 5G Fund 

budget, as such an approach would 

conflict with its interest in awarding 

support in eligible areas in amounts that 

are competitive, but still acceptable to 

providers. 

189. Bidding and Support Price 

Metric. In addition, the 5G Fund Second 

Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration adopts a bidding and 

support price metric of dollars per 

square kilometer that includes a servicebased weighting factor that weights bids 

and support prices based on upon 

service availability within the area. This 

service-based weighting factor will 

distinguish between areas that lack 

unsubsidized 5G broadband service but 

have access to unsubsidized 4G LTE 

service, and areas that lack both 5G and 

4G LTE service. The Commission adopts 

this approach as an alternative to the 

adjustment factor that was adopted in 

the 5G Fund Report and Order for 

bidding. 

190. Certification of Notice of 5G 

Fund Phase I Auction Requirements and 

Procedures. With respect to the 

requirement that any applicant seeking 

to participate in the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction must certify in its short-form 

application, under penalty of perjury, 

that the applicant has read the public 

notice adopting procedures for the 

auction and that it has familiarized itself 

both with the auction procedures and 

with the requirements, terms, and 

conditions associated with the receipt of 

5G Fund support, the Commission has 

a longstanding policy that expressly 

places a burden upon each auction 

applicant to be thoroughly familiar with 

the procedures, terms, and conditions 

contained in the relevant auctions 

procedures public notice and any future 

public notices that may be released in 

the auction proceeding. However, the 

Commission has taken steps to 

minimize any economic impact of the 

certification requirement on small 

entities through the many free resources 

it provides to potential auction 

participants. The public notice adopting 

the procedures for each auction will be 

posted to the auction’s website prior to 

the opening of the application window, 

and other relevant orders are available 

through EDOCS, the Commission’s 

online document database 

(www.fcc.gov/edocs). The Commission 

believes that reading these materials 

will be sufficient for applicants to 

certify that they have familiarized 

themselves with the relevant auction 

procedures and other requirements. The 

Commission also makes available 

additional educational materials to help 

potential auction participants 

understand the auction process, 

including short-form filing instructions 

and a tutorial. Further, the Commission 

makes this information publicly 

available, easily accessible, and without 

charge to benefit all potential auction 

applicants, including small entities, 

thereby lowering their administrative 

costs to comply with the Commission’s 

competitive bidding rules. 

191. Small entities participating in 

auctions may also seek clarification of, 

or guidance regarding, auction 

procedures, the competitive bidding 

rules, and any requirements related to 

the authorizations or support to be made 

available through the auction from 

Commission staff prior to each auction’s 

application window. Additionally, an 

FCC Auctions Hotline provides small 

entities one-on-one access to 

Commission staff for information about 

the auction process and procedures. The 

FCC Auctions Technical Support 

Hotline is another resource that 

provides technical assistance to 

applicants, including small entities, on 

issues such as access to or navigation 

within the electronic short-form 

application and use of the bidding 

system. 

192. Cybersecurity and Supply Chain 

Risk Management. The Commission also 

considered, as an alternative approach 

to the requirement that 5G Fund support 

recipients submit updated plans within 

30 days of making any substantive 

modifications to those plans, a 

requirement that plans be updated on an 

annual basis. The Commission does not 

believe that the requirement it adopts 

will impose substantial burdens on 5G 

Fund support recipients. To the 

contrary, because this requirement 

aligns with the requirements adopted 

other support programs, the 

Commission believes that small entity 

5G Fund support recipients that also 

participate in those programs will 

benefit from having a single deadline by 

which they must submit their reports for 

each program. In general, the 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management requirements the 

Commission adopted for 5G Fund 

support recipients are designed to 

mitigate concerns that development and 

implementation of cybersecurity plans 

are expensive and time consuming. The 

NIST Framework is not a one-size-fitsall approach to cybersecurity and 

represents a flexible approach that 

promotes customization and 

prioritization, allowing organizations to 

tailor their approach according to 

specific needs. The Commission 

therefore affords small and other 

carriers the flexibility to develop plans 

that fit within their budgetary 

constraints, so long as they meet the 

baseline requirements. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101394 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

193. Use of Open Radio Access 

Network Technologies in 5G Fund 

Supported Networks. To promote and 

incentivize the voluntary inclusion of 

Open Radio Access Network (Open 

RAN) technology networks deployed 

using 5G Fund support, the Commission 

offers a process whereby a 5G Fund 

support recipient can seek a limited 

extension of its 5G Fund interim and 

final deployment milestones as set forth 

in section 54.1015(b) of the 

Commission’s rules in order to afford it 

additional time to deploy Open RAN. 

Additionally, the Commission allocates 

up to an additional $900 million of 

support in conjunction with 

implementation of the 5G Fund solely 

for the purpose of incentivizing 

providers to deploy Open RAN. 

Specifically, the Commission will allow 

a winning bidder that is authorized to 

receive 5G Fund support to apply for 

additional funding of one-tenth of the 

total support that the 5G Fund support 

recipient is authorized to receive to be 

spent on the deployment of Open RAN, 

to be awarded in a post-auction process. 

To receive this additional funding, 

support recipients must deploy Open 

RAN technology through their 

network(s) for which they are 

authorized to receive 5G Fund support. 

The Commission directs OEA and WTB 

to establish a process by which this 

additional funding may be elected and 

awarded post-auction in accordance 

with the parameters set forth in the 5G 

Fund Second Report and Order and 

Order on Reconsideration. Additionally, 

the Commission directs OEA and WTB 

to establish a process for a 5G Fund 

support recipient that needs additional 

time to obtain an extension of up to one 

year of the interim and final deployment 

milestones as set forth in section 

54.1015(b) of the Commission’s rules if 

it can demonstrate that it will 

incorporate Open RAN into its 

network(s). Alternatives approaches that 

the Commission considered in 

determining how best to encourage the 

use of Open RAN technologies included 

granting bidding credits to 5G Fund 

Phase I applicants that agree to use 

Open RAN technologies in their 

deployments as well as mandating the 

use of such technologies in deployments 

built with 5G Fund support. The 

Commission concluded that the adopted 

approach will allow time for the Open 

RAN specifications to become more 

settled for the case of a deployment 

scenario with Open RAN advanced 

capabilities and also for industry to 

better address the challenges associated 

with interoperability and the RAN 

integration testing. This approach could 

benefit small providers, many of which 

have limited resources, by allowing 

them the flexibility to choose an option 

that may provide an extension of 

compliance deadlines. 

194. The Commission will send a 

copy of the 5G Fund Second Report and 

Order and Order on Reconsideration, 

including this Supplemental FRFA, in a 

report to Congress. In addition, the 

Commission will send a copy of the 5G 

Fund Second Report and Order and 

Order on Reconsideration, including 

this Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

XVI. Ordering Clauses 

195. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 4(i), 5, 214, 254, 303(r), 403, 

and 405 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 155, 

214, 254, 303(r), 403, 405, the 5G Fund 

Second Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration is adopted. 

196. It is further ordered that the rules 

and requirements adopted in the 5G 

Fund Second Report and Order and 

Order on Reconsideration will become 

effective thirty (30) days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Sections 54.322(b), 54.322(g), 54.322(h), 

54.322(i), 54.322(j), 54.1014(a), 

54.1014(b)(2), 54.1018(a), 54.1018(b), 

54.1018(c), 54.1018(d), 54.1018(f), 

54.1019(a)(1), 54.1019(a)(2), 

54.1019(a)(3), 54.1019(b), 54.1022(b), 

and 54.1022(f), may contain new or 

modified information collection 

requirements that require review by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. The Commission directs OEA, 

WCB, and WTB to announce the 

compliance date for these sections in a 

document published in the Federal 

Register and directs them OEA to cause 

sections 54.322(l), 54.1014(c), 

54.1018(h), 54.1019(e), and 54.1022(g) 

to be revised accordingly. 

197. It is further ordered that the Joint 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

The Rural Wireless Association and 

NTCA—The Rural Broadband 

Association in GN Docket No. 20–32 on 

December 28, 2020, is granted in part 

and denied in part, as indicated herein. 

198. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

The Coalition of Rural Wireless Carriers 

in GN Docket No. 20–32 on December 

28, 2020, is dismissed in part, granted 

in part, and denied in part, as indicated 

herein. 

199. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Partial Reconsideration filed 

CTIA in GN Docket No. 20–32 on 

December 28, 2020, is granted in part 

and denied in part, as indicated herein. 

200. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

Smith Bagley, Inc. in GN Docket No. 20– 

32 on December 28, 2020, is denied, as 

indicated herein. 

201. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by 5G 

Fund Supporters in GN Docket No. 20– 

32 on November 30, 2020, is dismissed 

in part and denied in part, as indicated 

herein. 

202. It is further ordered that the 

Office of the Managing Director, 

Performance Program Management, 

shall send a copy of the 5G Fund 

Second Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration in a report to be sent to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

203. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Office of the Secretary, 

shall send a copy of the 5G Fund 

Second Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration, including the 

Supplemental Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54 

Communications common carriers, 

Internet, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Telecommunications. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 to 

read as follows: 

PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 54 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 

205, 214, 219, 220, 229, 254, 303(r), 403, 

1004, 1302, 1601–1609, and 1752, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 54.307 by revising 

paragraphs (e)(5) introductory text, 

(e)(5)(ii) through (iv), (e)(6), and (e)(7) to 

read as follows: 

§ 54.307 Support to a competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(5) Eligibility for interim support 

before 5G Fund Phase I auction. 

Beginning the first day of the month 

following December 28, 2020, a 

competitive eligible 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101395 

telecommunications carrier that receives 

support pursuant to paragraph (a) or 

(e)(2) of this section shall no longer 

receive such support and shall instead 

receive support as described in 

paragraph (e)(5). 

* * * * * 

(ii) Until the first day of the month 

following the release of the first public 

notice by the Office of Economics and 

Analytics and Wireline Competition 

Bureau announcing the authorization of 

support for any area eligible for support 

in the 5G Fund Phase I auction as 

described in paragraph (e)(6) of this 

section: 

(A) A mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier that receives 

support pursuant to paragraph (a) of this 

section shall receive ‘‘monthly baseline 

support’’ in an amount equal to onetwelfth (1⁄12) of its total support received 

for the preceding 12-month period. 

(B) A mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier that receives 

support pursuant to paragraph (e)(2) of 

this section shall receive support at the 

same level described in paragraph 

(e)(2)(iii) of this section. 

(iii) For mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers that receive 

support pursuant to paragraph (e)(5)(ii) 

of this section, beginning the first day of 

the month following the release of a 

public notice by the Office of Economics 

and Analytics and Wireline Competition 

Bureau announcing the final areas 

eligible for support in the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction, the geographic 

boundary for each carrier’s subsidized 

service area shall be subdivided into the 

smallest constituent piece for which 

support must be disaggregated and 

transitioned separately by overlaying on 

each carrier’s subsidized service area 

boundary data the eligible and ineligible 

area boundaries, the minimum 

geographic area for bidding (i.e., census 

tract boundaries), and the subsidized 

service area boundary data for other 

support recipients that receive support 

pursuant to paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of this 

section or that receive transitional 

support pursuant to § 54.1516(c). The 

percent area for each constituent piece 

shall then be calculated in order to 

disaggregate and apportion the legacy 

high-cost support amount for each area, 

which shall be calculated by 

multiplying the monthly support level 

described in paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of this 

section by the areal percentage of the 

constituent piece of the competitive 

eligible telecommunications carrier’s 

service area, weighted by applying the 

5G Fund adjustment factor methodology 

and values adopted by the Office of 

Economics and Analytics and Wireline 

Competition Bureau in Public Notice, 

DA 20–1361. At the conclusion of this 

disaggregation process, the sum of the 

disaggregated support amounts for all 

constituent parts shall precisely equal 

the legacy support amount for the 

carrier’s service area consistent with the 

amount described in paragraph (e)(5)(ii) 

of this section. 

(iv) For mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers that receive 

transitional support pursuant to 

§ 54.1516(c), beginning the first day of 

the month following the release of a 

public notice by the Office of Economics 

and Analytics and Wireline Competition 

Bureau announcing the final areas 

eligible for support in the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction, the geographic 

boundary for each carrier’s subsidized 

service area shall be subdivided into the 

smallest constituent piece for which 

support must be disaggregated and 

transitioned separately by overlaying on 

each carrier’s subsidized service area 

boundary data the eligible and ineligible 

area boundaries, the minimum 

geographic area for bidding (i.e., census 

tract boundaries), and the subsidized 

service area boundary data for other 

support recipients that receive support 

pursuant to paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of this 

section or that receive transitional 

support pursuant to § 54.1516(c). The 

percent area for each constituent piece 

shall then be calculated in order to 

disaggregate and apportion the 

transitional support amount for each 

area, which shall be calculated by 

multiplying the monthly support level 

described in § 54.1516(c) by the areal 

percentage of the constituent piece of 

the competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier’s service 

area, weighted by applying the 5G Fund 

adjustment factor methodology and 

values adopted by the Office of 

Economics and Analytics and Wireline 

Competition Bureau in Public Notice, 

DA 20–1361. At the conclusion of this 

disaggregation process, the sum of the 

disaggregated support amounts for all 

constituent parts shall precisely equal 

the transitional support amount for the 

carrier’s service area consistent with the 

amount described in § 54.1516(c). 

(6) Eligibility for support after 5G 

Fund Phase I auction. (i) For all areas 

that are ineligible for 5G Fund support, 

a two-year phase down of legacy highcost support will commence on the first 

day of the month following the release 

of the first public notice by the Office 

of Economics and Analytics and 

Wireline Competition Bureau 

announcing the authorization of support 

for any area eligible for support in the 

5G Fund Phase I auction. At such time, 

a mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier that receives 

monthly support pursuant to paragraph 

(e)(5)(iii) or (iv) of this section shall 

instead receive monthly support 

amounts for such ineligible areas as 

follows: 

(A) For 12 months starting the first 

day of the month following the release 

of the public notice described in 

paragraph (e)(6)(i) of this section, each 

mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier shall receive 

a monthly support amount that is twothirds (2⁄3) of the level described in 

paragraph (e)(5)(iii) or (iv) of this 

section, as applicable, for each 

constituent part of its service area that 

is ineligible for 5G Fund Phase I 

support. 

(B) For 12 months starting the first 

day of the month following the period 

described in paragraph (e)(6)(i)(A) of 

this section, each mobile competitive 

eligible telecommunications carrier 

shall receive a monthly support amount 

that is one-third (1⁄3) of the level 

described in paragraph (e)(5)(iii) or (iv) 

of this section, as applicable, for each 

constituent part of its service area that 

is ineligible for 5G Fund Phase I 

support. 

(C) Following the period described in 

paragraph (e)(6)(i)(B) of this section, no 

mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier shall receive 

monthly support for an area that is 

ineligible for 5G Fund Phase I support 

pursuant to this section. 

(ii) For all areas that are eligible for 

support in the 5G Fund Phase I auction, 

the transition from legacy high-cost 

support will commence as follows: 

(A) A mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier that receives 

monthly support pursuant to paragraph 

(e)(5)(iii) or (iv) of this section for an 

area and is the winning bidder for that 

area in the 5G Fund Phase I auction 

shall continue to receive support at the 

same level described in paragraph 

(e)(5)(iii) or (iv) of this section, as 

applicable, until the first day of the 

month following the release of a public 

notice by the Office of Economics and 

Analytics and Wireline Competition 

Bureau announcing whether or not the 

carrier is authorized to receive 5G Fund 

Phase I support. 

(1) If the mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier is 

authorized to receive 5G Fund Phase I 

support in that area, beginning the first 

day of the month following the release 

of a public notice by the Office of 

Economics and Analytics and Wireline 

Competition Bureau authorizing the 

carrier to receive such support in that 

area, the carrier shall no longer receive 

support pursuant to paragraph (e)(5)(iii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101396 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

or (iv) of this section, as applicable, and 

shall instead receive monthly support in 

the amount determined by its 5G Fund 

Phase I winning bid pursuant to 

§ 54.1017. 

(2) If the mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier is not 

authorized to receive 5G Fund Phase I 

support in that area, the carrier shall no 

longer receive support at the level of 

monthly support described in paragraph 

(e)(5)(iii) or (iv) of this section, as 

applicable, for such area, and shall 

instead receive monthly support as 

follows: 

(i) For 12 months starting the first day 

of the month following release of a 

public notice announcing that the 

carrier is not authorized to receive 5G 

Phase I auction support, the carrier shall 

receive a monthly support amount that 

is two-thirds (2⁄3) of the level described 

in paragraph (e)(5)(iii) or (iv) of this 

section, as applicable, for each 

constituent part of the area. 

(ii) For 12 months starting the month 

following the period described in 

paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(A)(2)(i) of this 

section, the carrier shall receive a 

monthly support amount that is onethird (1⁄3) of the level described in 

paragraph (e)(5)(iii) or (iv) of this 

section, as applicable, for each 

constituent part of the area. 

(iii) Following the period described in 

paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(A)(2)(ii) of this 

section, the carrier shall not receive 

monthly support for the area pursuant 

to this section. 

(B) A mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier that receives 

monthly support pursuant to paragraph 

(e)(5)(iii) or (iv) of this section for an 

area and is not the winning bidder for 

such area in the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction shall continue to receive 

support at the same level described in 

paragraph (e)(5)(iii) or (iv) of this 

section, as applicable, until the first day 

of the month following the release of a 

public notice by the Office of Economics 

and Analytics and Wireline Competition 

Bureau announcing the authorization of 

5G Fund Phase I support for that area. 

Thereafter, the carrier shall instead 

receive monthly support for that area as 

follows: 

(1) For 12 months starting the first day 

of the month following the release of the 

public notice described in paragraph 

(e)(6)(ii)(B) of this section, the carrier 

shall receive a monthly support amount 

that is two-thirds (2⁄3) of the level 

described in paragraph (e)(5)(iii) or (iv) 

of this section, as applicable, for each 

constituent part of the area. 

(2) For 12 months starting the month 

following the period described in 

paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(B)(1) of this section, 

the carrier shall receive a monthly 

support amount that is one-third (1⁄3) of 

the level described in paragraph 

(e)(5)(iii) or (iv) of this section, as 

applicable, for each constituent part of 

the area. 

(3) Following the period described in 

paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(B)(2) of this section, 

the carrier shall not receive monthly 

support for the area pursuant to this 

section. 

(C) A mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier that receives 

monthly support pursuant to paragraph 

(e)(5)(iii) or (iv) of this section for an 

area eligible for support in the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction, but for which support 

is not won, and for which the carrier is 

not receiving the minimum level of 

support for the area shall, beginning the 

first day of the month following the 

release of the first public notice by the 

Office of Economics and Analytics and 

Wireline Competition Bureau 

announcing the authorization of support 

for any eligible area won in the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction, receive monthly 

support for that area as follows: 

(1) For 12 months starting the first day 

of the month following the release of the 

public notice described in paragraph 

(e)(6)(ii)(C) of this section, the carrier 

shall receive a monthly support amount 

that is two-thirds (2⁄3) of the level 

described in paragraph (e)(5)(iii) or (iv) 

of this section, as applicable, for each 

constituent part of the area. 

(2) For 12 months starting the month 

following the period described in 

paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(C)(1) of this section, 

the carrier shall receive a monthly 

support amount that is one-third (1⁄3) of 

the level described in paragraph 

(e)(5)(iii) or (e)(5)(iv) of this section, as 

applicable, for each constituent part of 

the area. 

(3) Following the period described in 

paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(C)(2) of this section, 

the carrier shall not receive monthly 

support for the area pursuant to this 

section. 

(D) A mobile eligible 

telecommunications carrier that receives 

monthly support pursuant to paragraph 

(e)(5)(iii) of this section for an area 

eligible for support in the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction, but for which support 

is not won, and for which the carrier is 

receiving the minimum level of support 

for such area, shall continue to receive 

a monthly support amount for such area 

at the level described in paragraph 

(e)(5)(iii) of this section for each 

constituent part of the area for no more 

than 60 months from the first day of the 

month following the release of the first 

public notice by the Office of Economics 

and Analytics and Wireline Competition 

Bureau announcing the authorization of 

support for any eligible area won in the 

5G Fund Phase I auction. The 

‘‘minimum level of sustainable support’’ 

is the lowest monthly support received 

by a mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier for the area 

that has deployed the highest level of 

technology (e.g., 5G) within the state 

encompassing the area. 

(7) Eligibility for support after 5G 

Fund Phase II auction. For all areas that 

are eligible for support in the 5G Fund 

Phase II auction, the transition from 

support described in paragraph 

(e)(6)(ii)(B), (C), or (D) of this section, as 

applicable, will commence as follows: 

(i) A mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier that receives 

monthly support pursuant to paragraph 

(e)(6)(ii)(B), (C), or (D) of this section, as 

applicable, and is a winning bidder in 

the 5G Fund Phase II auction for the 

area for which it receives such support, 

shall receive support for such area at the 

same level described in paragraph 

(e)(6)(ii)(B), (C), or (D) of this section 

until the first day of the month 

following the release of a public notice 

by the Office of Economics and 

Analytics and Wireline Competition 

Bureau announcing whether or not the 

carrier is authorized to receive 5G Fund 

Phase II support. 

(A) If the mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier is 

authorized to receive 5G Fund Phase II 

support in the area, the carrier shall no 

longer receive support pursuant to 

paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(B), (C), or (D) of this 

section for such area, and shall instead 

receive monthly support in the amount 

determined by its 5G Fund Phase II 

winning bid pursuant to § 54.1017. 

(B) If the mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier is not 

authorized to receive 5G Fund Phase II 

support in that area, the carrier shall no 

longer receive support at the level of 

monthly support pursuant to paragraph 

(e)(6)(ii)(B), (C), or (D) of this section for 

such area, as applicable, and shall 

instead receive monthly support as 

follows for such area: 

(1) For 12 months starting the first day 

of the month following release of a 

public notice announcing that the 

carrier is not authorized to receive 5G 

Phase II auction support, the carrier 

shall receive an amount of monthly 

support that is two-thirds (2⁄3) of the 

level described in paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(B), 

(C), or (D) of this section for the area, as 

applicable. 

(2) For 12 months starting the month 

following the period described in 

paragraph (e)(7)(i)(B)(1) of this section, 

the carrier shall receive an amount of 

monthly support that is one-third (1⁄3) of 

the level described in paragraph 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101397 

(e)(6)(ii)(B), (C), or (D) of this section for 

the area, as applicable. 

(3) Following the period described in 

paragraph (e)(7)(i)(B)(2) of this section, 

the carrier shall not receive monthly 

support for the area pursuant to this 

section. 

(ii) A mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier that receives 

monthly support pursuant to paragraph 

(e)(6)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section for an 

area for which support is won in the 5G 

Fund Phase II auction and for which the 

carrier is not the winning bidder shall 

continue to receive support for that area 

as described in paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(B) or 

(C) of this section. 

(iii) A mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier that receives 

monthly support pursuant to paragraph 

(e)(6)(ii)(B), (C), or (D) of this section for 

an area, as applicable, for which support 

is not won in the 5G Fund Phase II 

auction, shall continue to receive 

support for that area as described in 

paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(B), (C), or (D) of this 

section. 

(iv) A mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier that receives 

monthly support pursuant to paragraph 

(e)(6)(ii)(D) of this section for an area for 

which support is won in the 5G Fund 

Phase II auction and for which the 

carrier is not the winning bidder shall 

receive the following monthly support 

amounts for such areas: 

(A) For 12 months starting the first 

day of the month following release of a 

public notice announcing the close of 

the 5G Fund Phase II auction, the 

mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier shall receive 

monthly support that is two-thirds (2⁄3) 

of the level described in paragraph 

(e)(6)(ii)(D) of this section for the area. 

(B) For 12 months starting the month 

following the period described in 

paragraph (e)(7)(iv)(A) of this section, 

the mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier shall receive 

monthly support that is one-third (1⁄3) of 

the level described in paragraph 

(e)(6)(ii)(D) of this section for the area. 

(C) Following the period described in 

paragraph (e)(7)(iv)(B) of this section, 

the mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier shall not 

receive monthly support for the area 

pursuant to this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 54.322 by: 

■ a. Removing ‘‘§ 54.307(e)(5)(ii), 

(e)(5)(iii), (e)(6)(iii), or (e)(7)(iii)’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘§ 54.307(e)(5)(ii) 

through (iv), (e)(6)(ii)(D), or (e)(7)(iii)’’ 

wherever it appears in paragraphs (a) 

through (c), (d) introductory text, and 

(j)(1); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (h)(1); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (i)(1)(i); 

■ d. Redesignating paragraph (i)(1)(vi) 

as paragraph (i)(1)(viii); 

■ e. Redesignating paragraphs (i)(1)(iv) 

and (v) as paragraphs (i)(1)(v) and (vi), 

respectively; 

■ f. Adding new paragraph (i)(1)(iv); 

■ g. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraphs (i)(1)(v) and (vi); 

■ h. Adding paragraph (i)(1)(vii); 

■ i. Revising paragraphs (k)(2) and (3); 

and 

■ j. Adding paragraph (l). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 54.322 Public interest obligations and 

performance requirements, reporting 

requirements, and non-compliance 

mechanisms for mobile legacy high-cost 

support recipients. 

(a) General. A mobile competitive 

eligible telecommunications carrier that 

receives monthly support pursuant to 

§ 54.307(e)(5)(ii), (e)(5)(iii), (e)(5)(iv), 

(e)(6)(ii)(D), or (e)(7)(iii) shall deploy 

voice and broadband data services that 

meet at least the 5G–NR (New Radio) 

technology standards developed by the 

3rd Generation Partnership Project with 

Release 15, or any successor release that 

may be adopted by the Office of 

Economics and Analytics and the 

Wireline Competition Bureau after 

notice and comment. 

(b) Service milestones and deadlines. 

A mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier that receives 

monthly support pursuant to 

§ 54.307(e)(5)(ii), (e)(5)(iii), (e)(5)(iv), 

(e)(6)(ii)(D), or (e)(7)(iii) shall deploy 5G 

service that meets the performance 

requirements specified in paragraph (d) 

of this section to a percentage of the 

service areas for which the carrier 

receives monthly support and on a 

schedule as specified and adopted by 

the Office of Economics and Analytics 

and Wireline Competition Bureau after 

notice and comment. 

(c) Support usage. A mobile 

competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier that receives 

monthly support pursuant to 

§ 54.307(e)(5)(ii), (e)(5)(iii), (e)(5)(iv), 

(e)(6)(ii)(D), or (e)(7)(iii) shall use an 

increasing percentage of such support 

for the deployment, maintenance, and 

operation of mobile networks that 

provide 5G service as specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section and that 

meet the performance requirements 

specified in paragraph (d) of this section 

as follows: 

(1) Year one support usage. The 

carrier shall use at least one-third (1⁄3) of 

the total monthly support received 

pursuant to § 54.307(e)(5)(ii), (e)(5)(iii), 

(e)(5)(iv), (e)(6)(ii)(D), or (e)(7)(iii) in 

calendar year 2021 as specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section by 

December 31, 2021. 

(2) Year two support usage. The 

carrier shall use at least two-thirds (2⁄3) 

of the total monthly support received 

pursuant to § 54.307(e)(5)(ii), (e)(5)(iii), 

(e)(5)(iv), (e)(6)(ii)(D), or (e)(7)(iii) in 

calendar year 2022 as specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section by 

December 31, 2022. 

(3) Year three and subsequent year 

support usage. The carrier shall use all 

monthly support received pursuant to 

§ 54.307(e)(5)(ii), (e)(5)(iii), (e)(5)(iv), 

(e)(6)(ii)(D), or (e)(7)(iii) as specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section in 2023 and 

thereafter. 

(4) Year one support usage flexibility. 

If the carrier is unable to meet the 

support usage requirement in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section, the carrier shall 

have the flexibility to instead 

proportionally increase the support 

usage requirement in paragraph (c)(2) of 

this section such that its combined 

usage of monthly support received 

pursuant to § 54.307(e)(5)(ii), (e)(5)(iii), 

(e)(5)(iv), (e)(6)(ii)(D), or (e)(7)(iii) in 

calendar years 2021 and 2022 is equal 

to the total amount of such support that 

the carrier receives annually, provided 

that the carrier certifies to the Wireline 

Competition Bureau this amount and 

that it will make up for any shortfall in 

a filing due by March 31, 2021 or 30 

days after Paperwork Reduction Act 

approval, whichever is later. 

(d) Performance requirements. A 

mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier that receives 

monthly support pursuant to 

§ 54.307(e)(5)(ii), (e)(5)(iii), (e)(5)(iv), 

(e)(6)(ii)(D), (e)(6)(iii), or (e)(7)(iii) shall 

meet the following minimum baseline 

performance requirements for data 

speeds, data latency, and data 

allowances in areas that it has deployed 

5G service as specified in paragraph (a) 

of this section and for which it receives 

support for at least one plan that it 

offers: 

* * * * * 

(h) Initial report of current service 

offerings. (1) A mobile competitive 

eligible telecommunications carrier that 

receives monthly support pursuant to 

§ 54.307(e)(5), (e)(6), or (e)(7) shall 

submit an initial report describing its 

current service offerings in its 

subsidized service areas and how the 

monthly support it is receiving is being 

used in such areas no later than three 

months after December 28, 2020, and 

Paperwork Reduction Act approval. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101398 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

This report shall include the following 

information: 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Except for areas for which the 

carriers receives monthly support 

pursuant to § 54.307(e)(6)(ii) or 

(e)(7)(iv), updated information regarding 

the carrier’s current service offerings in 

its subsidized service areas for the 

previous calendar year, including the 

highest level of technology deployed, a 

target date for when 5G broadband 

service meeting the performance 

requirements specified in paragraph (d) 

of this section will be deployed within 

the subsidized service area, and an 

estimate of the percentage of area 

covered by 5G deployment meeting the 

performance requirements specified in 

paragraph (d) of this section within the 

subsidized service area; 

* * * * * 

(iv) Provide the information and 

certifications required by § 54.313(a); 

(v) Certification that the carrier has 

filed relevant deployment data (either 

via FCC Form 477 or the Broadband 

Data Collection, as appropriate) that 

reflect its current deployment covering 

its subsidized service areas; 

(vi) Certification that the carrier is in 

compliance with the public interest 

obligations as set forth in this section 

and all of the terms and conditions 

associated with the continued receipt of 

monthly support; 

(vii) Certification as to whether the 

carrier used any monthly support it 

receives pursuant to § 54.307(e)(5), (6), 

or (7) pursuant to § 54.207(f), and if so, 

whether the carrier used such support 

in compliance with § 54.7; and 

* * * * * 

(j) Service milestone reports. (1) A 

mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier that receives 

monthly support pursuant to 

§ 54.307(e)(5)(ii), (e)(5)(iii), (e)(5)(iv), 

(e)(6)(ii)(D), or (e)(7)(iii) shall submit a 

report after each of the service 

milestones described in paragraph (b) of 

this section by the deadlines established 

by the Office of Economics and 

Analytics and Wireline Competition 

Bureau demonstrating that it has 

deployed 5G service that meets the 

performance requirements specified in 

paragraph (d) of this section, which 

shall include information as required by 

the Office of Economics and Analytics 

and Wireline Competition Bureau in a 

public notice. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(2) Upon notification by a carrier of its 

non-compliance pursuant to paragraph 

(k) of this section, or a determination by 

the Administrator or Wireline 

Competition Bureau of a carrier’s noncompliance with any of the public 

interest obligations set forth in 

paragraphs (e) through (j) of this section 

or the performance requirements set 

forth in paragraph (d) of this section, the 

carrier will be deemed to be in default, 

and for monthly support received 

pursuant to § 54.307(e)(5), (e)(6), or 

(e)(7), will no longer be eligible to 

receive such support, will receive no 

further support disbursements, will be 

subject to a recovery of the amount of 

support received since December 28, 

2020 that was not used for the 

deployment, maintenance, and 

operation of mobile networks that 

provide 5G service as specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section, and may be 

subject to recovery of up to the amount 

of support received since the December 

28, 2020, other than the amount 

specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section, that was not used for the 

deployment, maintenance, and 

operation of mobile networks that 

provide 5G service as specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section and that 

meet the performance requirements 

specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. The carrier may also be subject 

to further action, including the 

Commission’s existing enforcement 

procedures and penalties, potential 

revocation of ETC designation, and 

suspension or debarment pursuant to 

§ 54.8. 

(3) A mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier that 

voluntarily relinquishes receipt of 

monthly support pursuant to 

§ 54.307(e)(5), (e)(6), or (e)(7) will no 

longer be required to comply with the 

public interest obligations specified in 

this section. 

(l) Compliance with paragraphs (b), 

(g), (h), (i), and (j) of this section will not 

be required until after the completion of 

such review by the Office of 

Management and Budget as the Office of 

Economics and Analytics and Wireline 

Competition Bureau deem necessary. 

The Commission will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing that compliance date and 

revising or removing this paragraph (l). 

■ 4. Amend § 54.1011 by revising 

paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 54.1011 5G Fund. 

* * * * * 

(c) Areas eligible for 5G Fund Phase 

I support will be those areas identified 

by the Office of Economics and 

Analytics and Wireline Competition 

Bureau in a public notice that: 

(1) Show a lack of unsubsidized 5G 

mobile wireless broadband coverage at a 

download speed of 7 Mbps and an 

upload speed of 1 Mbps in an outdoor 

stationary environment by at least one 

provider based on the mobile broadband 

coverage maps created by the 

Commission pursuant to § 1.7008 of this 

chapter; 

(2) Do not contain urban areas, as 

defined by the U.S. Census Bureau; and 

(3) Contain at least one location or at 

least some portion of a road. 

(d) The Commission will incorporate 

a service-based weighting factor into the 

5G Fund auction design that will assign 

a weight to each geographic area eligible 

in the 5G Fund Phase I auction using 

the weighting values adopted by the 

Office of Economics and Analytics and 

Wireline Competition Bureau and 

announced in a public notice. 

(e) The Commission will incorporate 

an adjustment factor into the 

methodology for disaggregation of highcost legacy support pursuant to 

§ 54.307(e)(5)(iii) and (iv) that will 

assign a weight to each geographic area 

using the adjustment factor values 

adopted by the Office of Economics and 

Analytics and Wireline Competition 

Bureau and announced in the 

Adjustment Factor Values Public 

Notice, DA 20–1361. 

■ 5. Amend § 54.1012 by adding 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 54.1012 Geographic areas eligible for 

support. 

* * * * * 

(c) The geographic areas identified as 

eligible for support in the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction will be converted, to, 

and made available in, the form of 

hexagons at the resolution 9 level (hex9s) using the H3 standardized geospatial 

indexing system defined in 

§ 1.7001(a)(20) of this chapter. All 

eligible hex-9s will then be grouped into 

census tracts for purposes of bidding in 

the auction. 

(1) The hex-9s that are eligible for 5G 

Fund support in the 5G Fund Phase I 

auction will be generated using the 

following process: 

(i) Overlay resolution 11 hexagons 

(hex-11s) on the ‘‘raw’’ mobile coverage 

polygons submitted in the Broadband 

Data Collection for 5G outdoor 

stationary coverage at speeds of at least 

7/1 Mbps on unsubsidized areas, and on 

urban areas. If the centroid (i.e., the 

geographic center point) of the hex-11, 

overlaps any of those boundaries, then 

the entire hex-11 is considered covered 

by that boundary and ‘‘served.’’ 

(ii) Divide the number of served 

grandchild hex-11s belonging to the 

grandparent hex-9 by the total number 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101399 

of grandchild hex-11s belonging to the 

grandparent hex-9 to determine the 

percentage of the hex-9 that is 

considered served. The centroid of a 

hex-11 must fall within the boundary of 

United States or its territories to be 

included in this calculation. For hex-9s 

with both land and water grandchild 

hex-11s, only the land hex-11s are 

considered in this calculation. 

(iii) If a ‘‘substantial majority’’ of the 

grandchild hex-11s belonging to a 

grandparent hex-9 are served, then the 

entire hex-9 will be considered served. 

For purposes of this determination, a 

‘‘substantial majority’’ is 70% or more. 

(2) After completing the process 

described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through 

(iii) of this section, any hex-9 that is not 

considered served and that also contains 

at least one location or some portion of 

a road will be eligible for support in the 

5G Fund Phase I auction. 

■ 6. Amend § 54.1014 by redesignating 

paragraph (a)(6) as paragraph (a)(7), 

adding new paragraph (a)(6), and adding 

new paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 54.1014 Application process. 

(a) * * * 

(6) Certify, under penalty of perjury, 

that it has read the public notice 

adopting procedures for the 5G Fund 

Phase I auction, and that it has 

familiarized itself with those procedures 

and any requirements, terms, and 

conditions associated with receipt of 5G 

Fund support; and 

* * * * * 

(c) Compliance with paragraphs (a) 

and (b)(2) of this section will not be 

required until after the completion of 

such review by the Office of 

Management and Budget as the Office of 

Economics and Analytics and Wireline 

Competition Bureau deem necessary. 

The Commission will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing that compliance date and 

revising or removing this paragraph (c). 

■ 7. Amend § 54.1015 by revising 

paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 54.1015 Public interest obligations and 

performance requirements for 5G Fund 

support recipients. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) 35 Mbps download and 3 Mbps 

upload in an in-vehicle environment, 

with at least 90 percent of 

measurements recording these data 

transmission speeds; and 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 54.1018 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), 

(d), (e), and (f) as paragraphs (c), (d), (e), 

(f), and (g), respectively; 

■ c. Adding new paragraph (b); and 

■ d. Adding new paragraph (h). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 54.1018 Annual reports. 

(a) A 5G Fund support recipient 

authorized to receive 5G Fund support 

shall submit an annual report to the 

Administrator no later than July 1 of 

each year after the year in which it was 

authorized to receive support. Each 

support recipient shall certify in its 

annual report that it: 

(1) Is in compliance with the public 

interest obligations, performance 

requirements, and all of the terms and 

conditions associated with the receipt of 

5G Fund support in order to continue 

receiving 5G Fund support 

disbursements; and 

(2) Has maintained its cybersecurity 

and supply chain risk management 

plans pursuant to § 54.1022. 

(b) Each 5G Fund support recipient 

authorized to receive 5G Fund support 

shall report in its annual report whether 

it filed any substantive modifications 

pursuant to § 54.1022(f) in the prior 

year, and shall report the date it filed 

any such substantive modifications. 

* * * * * 

(h) Compliance with paragraphs (a) 

through (d) and (f) of this section will 

not be required until after the 

completion of such review by the Office 

of Management and Budget as the Office 

of Economics and Analytics and 

Wireline Competition Bureau deem 

necessary. The Commission will publish 

a document in the Federal Register 

announcing that compliance date and 

revising or removing this paragraph (h). 

■ 9. Amend § 54.1019 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (a)(3); 

■ c. Redesignating paragraph (a)(4) as 

paragraph (a)(3); 

■ d. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (a)(3); 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (d); 

and 

■ f. Adding paragraph (e). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 54.1019 Interim service and final service 

milestone reports. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Certifications to representative 

data submitted in the Broadband Data 

Collection demonstrating mobile 

transmissions to and from the network 

that establish compliance with the 5G 

Fund coverage, speed, and latency 

requirements; 

(2) On-the-ground test data or 

infrastructure data to substantiate 5G 

broadband coverage data; 

(i) On-the-ground test data must: 

(A) Be collected within each selected 

hexagon in a sample of hexagons at the 

resolution 9 level selected by 

Commission staff; 

(B) Be conducted pursuant to the 

testing parameters and metrics for valid 

on-the-ground tests described in 

§ 1.7006(c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this chapter; 

(C) Show that at least 90% of the 

support recipient’s speed test 

measurements demonstrate that it has 

deployed service meeting the 5G Fund 

performance requirements specified in 

§ 54.1015(c) in the area(s) for which the 

support recipient is authorized to 

receive 5G Fund support; 

(D) Include at least two tests within 

each of the selected hexagons where the 

time of the tests are at least four hours 

apart, irrespective of date, unless the 

support recipient has, and submits with 

its speed tests, actual cell loading data 

for the cell(s) covering the sampled 

hexagon showing that the median 

loading, measured in 15-minute 

intervals, did not exceed the modeled 

loading factor for the one-week period 

prior to the submission, in which case 

the support recipient must submit two 

speed tests for each hexagon and the 

two tests need not be recorded four 

hours apart; 

(E) Be conducted in an in-vehicle 

mobile environment with the antenna 

located inside the vehicle. 

(ii) Infrastructure data must include 

the information described in 

§ 1.7006(c)(2)(i) of this chapter for all 

cell sites and antennas within the 

area(s) for which the support recipient 

is authorized to receive 5G Fund 

support; 

(3) Additional information as required 

by Commission staff. 

(b) All data submitted and certified to 

in compliance with a recipient’s public 

interest obligations in the milestone 

report must be certified by an engineer 

with the same qualifications as required 

for submitting the Broadband Data 

Collection biannual filings described in 

§ 1.7004 of this chapter. 

(c) Each service milestone report must 

be submitted via the Commission’s 

Broadband Data Collection portal. 

(d) All data submitted in and certified 

to in any service milestone report shall 

be subject to verification by the 

Administrator and Commission staff for 

compliance with the 5G Fund 

performance requirements specified in 

§ 54.1015(c). 

(e) Compliance with paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (3) and (b) of this section will 

not be required until after the 

completion of such review by the Office 

of Management and Budget as the Office 

of Economics and Analytics and 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4
101400 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Wireline Competition Bureau deem 

necessary. The Commission will publish 

a document in the Federal Register 

announcing that compliance date and 

revising or removing this paragraph (e). 

■ 10. Add § 54.1022 to read as follows: 

§ 54.1022 Cybersecurity and supply chain 

risk requirements. 

(a) A 5G Fund support recipient must 

implement operational cybersecurity 

and supply chain risk management 

plans meeting the requirements of this 

section as a condition of receiving 5G 

Fund support. 

(b) A 5G Fund support recipient must 

certify that it has implemented plans 

required under paragraph (a) of this 

section and submit the plans to the 

Administrator by the date announced by 

the Office of Economics and Analytics 

and the Wireline Competition Bureau in 

a public notice or within 30 days after 

approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, whichever is later. 

(c) A 5G Fund support recipient that 

fails to comply with any 5G Fund 

cybersecurity or supply chain risk 

management requirement is subject to 

the following non-compliance measures: 

(1) The Wireline Competition Bureau 

shall direct the Administrator to 

withhold 25 percent of the 5G Fund 

support recipient’s monthly support for 

failure to comply with paragraph (b) of 

this section until the support recipient 

makes the required certification and 

submits the required plans. 

(2) At any time during the support 

term, if a 5G Fund support recipient 

does not have in place operational 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management plans meeting the 

requirements of this section, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau shall 

direct the Administrator to withhold 25 

percent of the support recipient’s 

monthly support. 

(3) Once the 5G Fund support 

recipient comes into compliance, the 

Administrator shall stop withholding 

support, and the support recipient will 

receive all of the support that had been 

withheld pursuant to this section. 

(d) A 5G Fund support recipient’s 

cybersecurity risk management plan 

must reflect at least the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) Framework for Improving 

Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity 

v.1.1 (2018) (NIST Framework) or any 

successor version of the NIST 

Framework, and must reflect established 

cybersecurity best practices that address 

each of the Core Functions described in 

the NIST Framework, such as the 

standards and controls set forth in the 

Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security 

Agency (CISA) Cybersecurity Crosssector Performance Goals and Objectives 

or the Center for internet Security 

Critical Security Controls. 

(e) A 5G Fund support recipient’s 

supply chain risk management plan 

must incorporate the key practices 

discussed in NISTIR 8276, Key Practices 

in Cyber Supply Chain Risk 

Management: Observations from 

Industry, and related supply chain risk 

management guidance from NIST 800– 

161. 

(f) If a 5G Fund support recipient 

makes a substantive modification to a 

plan under this section, the carrier must 

file an updated plan with the 

Administrator within 30 days of making 

the modification. A modification to a 

plan under this section is substantive if 

at least one of the following conditions 

apply: 

(1) There is a change in the plan’s 

scope, including any addition, removal, 

or significant alternation to the types of 

risks covered by the plan (e.g., 

expanding a plan to cover new areas, 

such as supply chain risks to Internet of 

Things devices or cloud security, could 

be a substantive change); 

(2) There is a change in the plan’s risk 

mitigation strategies (e.g., implementing 

a new encryption protocol or deploying 

a different firewall architecture); 

(3) There is a shift in organizational 

structure (e.g., creating a new 

information technology department or 

hiring a Chief Information Security 

Officer); 

(4) There is a shift in the threat 

landscape prompting the organization to 

recognize that emergence of new threats 

or vulnerabilities that were not 

previously accounted for in the plan; 

(5) Updates are made to comply with 

new cybersecurity regulations, 

standards, or laws; 

(6) Significant changes are made in 

the supply chain, including offboarding 

major suppliers or vendors, or shifts in 

procurement strategies that may impact 

the security of the supply chain; or 

(7) A large-scale technological change 

is made, including the adoption of new 

systems or technologies, migrating to a 

new information technology 

infrastructure, or significantly changing 

the information technology architecture. 

(g) Compliance with paragraphs (b) 

and (f) of this section will not be 

required until after the completion of 

such review by the Office of 

Management and Budget as the Office of 

Economics and Analytics and Wireline 

Competition Bureau deem necessary. 

The Commission will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing that compliance date and 

revising or removing this paragraph (g). 

[FR Doc. 2024–23404 Filed 12–12–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES4