Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36283 

that EPA is withdrawing, EPA proposed 

standards for these emissions under the 

CAA. Specifically, EPA proposed that 

no later than October 1, 2022, as 

compared to the amount of HCFCs 

intentionally manufactured on a facility 

line, no more than 0.1 percent of HFC– 

23 generated on the line may be emitted. 

Proposed requirements were that HFC– 

23 byproduct must be captured and 

employed for a commercial use or 

destroyed using a technology approved 

by EPA, thereby ensuring it was not 

directly emitted. The proposed rule 

being withdrawn also referenced 

another proposed rulemaking under 

authority from the American Innovation 

and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM 

Act), and stated in footnote 6, ‘‘If that 

proposed approach under the AIM Act 

were to be finalized, all generation of 

HFC–23 would be regulated, including 

HFC–23 generated as a byproduct 

during production of HCFCs for 

feedstock use. Under such a scenario, 

EPA anticipates that it would not 

finalize this proposal’’ (86 FR 53918). 

On October 5, 2021, EPA finalized 

that rule, ‘‘Phasedown of 

Hydrofluorocarbons: Establishing the 

Allowance Allocation and Trading 

Program under the American Innovation 

and Manufacturing Act’’ (HFC 

Allocation Framework Rule) at 86 FR 

55116, which codified regulatory 

standards for these HFC–23 byproducts 

(40 CFR 84.27). This HFC Allocation 

Framework Rule used EPA’s discretion 

under the AIM Act to restrict the use of 

allocated allowances for HFC–23 

byproducts to those that were 

consumptive, or to otherwise destroy 

the HFC–23 byproducts, and disallowed 

emitting HFC–23 at quantities greater 

than 0.1 percent of the amount of 

chemical intentionally produced on a 

facility line. The finalized HFC 

Allocation Framework Rule codified 

regulatory requirements that are 

duplicative of the proposed 

requirements included in the proposed 

rule being withdrawn. 

As noted, EPA stated in footnote 6 of 

the proposal that it anticipated not 

finalizing this proposed rule if it were 

to finalize HFC–23 requirements under 

the referenced AIM Act rulemaking. 

EPA solicited comment on whether, in 

such a scenario, ‘‘this CAA-specific 

rulemaking would still be beneficial’’ 

(86 FR 53918). One commenter 

supported not finalizing this CAAspecific rulemaking if the AIM Act 

HFC–23 requirements were finalized. A 

separate commenter supported 

finalizing overlapping requirements due 

to a perceived benefit in reducing HFC– 

23 emissions and implementing the 

requirements but did not provide a 

supporting rationale. Additional 

comments on the proposed rule were 

submitted and are not relevant to the 

Agency’s decision on whether to 

withdraw this proposed rule. 

III. How does EPA intend to proceed? 

Given the issuance of the HFC 

Allocation Framework Rule that 

codified regulatory standards that are 

duplicative of the requirements 

proposed in the proposed rule being 

withdrawn through this document, EPA 

has determined that finalizing the 

proposed rule would be unnecessarily 

duplicative. We considered comments 

on this issue to the proposed rule that 

is being withdrawn, but the one 

comment in favor of overlapping 

requirements did not justify that 

approach. That comment did not change 

our conclusion that the requirements 

proposed in the proposed rule being 

withdrawn are duplicative of what EPA 

has already established, and thus are not 

necessary. 

For these reasons, EPA is 

withdrawing the proposed rule that was 

published on September 29, 2021 (86 FR 

53916; FRL–8506–01–OAR). 

IV. Impact Analysis 

Because EPA is not promulgating any 

regulatory requirements, there are no 

compliance costs or impacts associated 

with this notice. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This document does not establish new 

regulatory requirements. Hence, the 

requirements of other regulatory statutes 

and Executive Orders that generally 

apply to rulemakings (e.g., the 

Unfunded Mandate Reform Act) do not 

apply. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13007 Filed 6–15–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 36, 51, and 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 14–58, 09–197, 16– 

271; RM–11868; FCC 22–35; FR ID 89579] 

Connect America Fund: A National 

Broadband Plan for Our Future HighCost Universal Service Support, ETC 

Annual Reports and Certifications, 

Telecommunications Carriers Eligible 

To Received Universal Service Support 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) seeks comment on a 

proposal by the ACAM Broadband 

Coalition (Coalition) to achieve 

widespread deployment of 100/20 Mbps 

broadband service throughout the rural 

areas served by carriers currently 

receiving Alternative Connect America 

Model (A–CAM) support. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

July 18, 2022, and reply comments are 

due on or before August 1, 2022. 

If you anticipate that you will be 

submitting comments, but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this document, you 

should advise the contact listed in the 

following as soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 10–90, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: www.fcc.gov/ecfs. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788, 2788–89 (OS 

2020). 

Comments and reply comments 

exceeding ten pages must include a 

short and concise summary of the 

substantive arguments raised in the 

pleading. Comments and reply 

comments must also comply with § 1.49 

and all other applicable sections of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission 

directs all interested parties to include 

the name of the filing party and the date 

of the filing on each page of their 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
36284 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

comments and reply comments. All 

parties are encouraged to utilize a table 

of contents, regardless of the length of 

their submission. The Commission also 

strongly encourages parties to track the 

organization set forth in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in order 

to facilitate the Commission’s internal 

review process. 

People with Disabilities. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202)418–0530 (voice), 

(202)418–0432 (tty). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, please contact, 

Theodore Burmeister, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

at Theodore.Burmeister@fcc.gov or 202– 

418–7400, or Jesse Jachman, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

at Jesse.Jachman@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s NPRM in 

WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 14–58,09–197, 

16–271 and RM–11868, adopted on May 

19, 2022 and released on May 20, 2022. 

Due to the COVID–19 pandemic, the 

Commission’s headquarters will be 

closed to the general public until further 

notice. The full text of this document is 

available at the following internet 

address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/ 

fcc-proposes-higher-speed-goals-smallrural-broadband-providers-0. 

Ex Parte Presentations—Permit-ButDisclose. The proceeding this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking initiates shall be 

treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making ex parte presentations must file 

a copy of any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). 

In light of the Commission’s trust 

relationship with Tribal Nations and its 

commitment to engage in governmentto-government consultation with them, 

the Commission finds the public 

interest requires a limited modification 

of the ex parte rules in this proceeding. 

Tribal Nations, like other interested 

parties, should file comments, reply 

comments, and ex parte presentations in 

the record to put facts and arguments 

before the Commission in a manner 

such that they may be relied upon in the 

decision-making process consistent with 

the requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act. However, at the option 

of the Tribe, ex parte presentations 

made during consultations by elected 

and appointed leaders and duly 

appointed representatives of federally 

recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska 

Native Villages to Commission decision 

makers shall be exempt from disclosure 

in permit-but-disclose proceedings and 

exempt from the prohibitions during the 

Sunshine Agenda period. To be clear, 

while the Commission recognizes 

consultation is critically important, it 

emphasizes that the Commission will 

rely in its decision-making only on 

those presentations that are placed in 

the public record for this proceeding. 

Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

I. Introduction 

1. In the NPRM, the Commission 

seeks comment on a proposal by the 

Coalition to achieve widespread 

deployment of 100/20 Mbps broadband 

service throughout the rural areas 

served by carriers currently receiving 

A–CAM support. The areas served by 

A–CAM recipients are among the 

costliest to serve in the nation, and by 

improving access to modern 

communications services, the 

Commission can help connect 

individuals living in rural areas to highspeed broadband. In seeking comment 

on the Coalition’s proposal, the 

Commission recognizes that the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

(Infrastructure Act) recently created 

several pathways for federal agencies, in 

partnership with the states, to fund 

deployment of broadband in unserved 

and underserved areas. Given that A– 

CAM is already supporting the 

deployment and ongoing provision of 

some level of broadband service in rural 

areas through 2028 for most A–CAM 

carriers, enhancements to the A–CAM 

program, as the Coalition has proposed, 

may be an efficient means of funding 

deployment in a manner 

complementary to other federal and 

state efforts. If appropriately highquality broadband can be deployed in a 

cost-effective manner by A–CAM 

carriers pursuant to the cost model, 

other agencies and the states will be 

able to target their Infrastructure Act 

funds to achieve more deployment 

elsewhere. 

2. In this NPRM, the Commission also 

initiates a targeted inquiry into the 

management and administration of the 

high-cost program. For more than a 

decade, the Commission has made 

substantial progress reforming and 

modernizing the various high-cost 

support mechanisms and has gained 

valuable experience administering and 

overseeing the program. Based on those 

lessons learned, the Commission 

proposes targeted modifications to its 

rules to improve the efficiency and 

efficacy of the high-cost program. 

3. In the 2016 Rate-of-Return Reform 

Order, 81 FR 24282, April 25, 2016, the 

Commission provided rate-of-return 

carriers a voluntary path from 

traditional rate-of-return support to 

model-based high-cost universal service 

support (A–CAM I), tailored to reflect 

the specific requirements in rate-ofreturn areas. The A–CAM model was 

used to establish fixed monthly support 

amounts over a ten-year term in 

exchange for broadband deployment to 

a pre-determined number of eligible 

locations. The Commission directed the 

Bureau to calculate support as modelestimated costs for eligible census 

blocks in excess of the funding 

threshold of $52.50 per location per 

month up to the cap of $200. Carriers 

were obligated to deploy broadband at 

speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps or 10/1 

Mbps to a number of locations equal to 

the number of fully funded locations 

(i.e., locations in eligible census blocks 

which the model determined could be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36285 

served for costs at or below the funding 

cap), and at least 4/1 Mbps or service on 

reasonable request to a number of 

locations equal to the number of capped 

locations (i.e., locations in eligible 

census blocks which the model 

determined could be served for costs 

above the funding cap). Each carrier’s 

specific mix of 25/3 Mbps or 10/1 Mbps 

obligations, and 4/1 Mbps or reasonable 

request obligations, was based on the 

housing unit density of the eligible areas 

in the offer. These deployment 

obligations could be met by serving any 

eligible location, whether fully funded 

or capped. Carriers that elected A–CAM 

I were required to elect for all affiliated 

study areas in the state. 

4. The Commission excluded from A– 

CAM eligibility carriers that had 

reported deploying 10/1 Mbps service to 

more than 90% of eligible locations. For 

those carriers eligible to participate in 

A–CAM I, the Commission concluded 

that it would not provide support for 

locations in census blocks served by an 

unsubsidized competitor offering at 

least 10/1 Mbps, and locations in census 

blocks where the incumbent already 

deployed fiber to the premises (FTTP) or 

was providing 10/1 Mbps or better 

broadband using cable technologies. 

5. To award support, the Bureau 

announced A–CAM I offer amounts and 

deployment obligations predicated on a 

monthly funding cap of $200 per 

location. Faced with substantial carrier 

interest in the offer and demand beyond 

the Commission-approved budget, 

however, the Commission later 

allocated an additional $50 million 

annually to the A–CAM I budget and 

adopted other measures to ensure that 

the model-based support stayed within 

the revised budget, including a reduced 

funding cap below $200 per location for 

most carriers. In the March 2018 Rateof-Return Reform Order and NPRM, 83 

FR 18951, May 1, 2018 and 83 FR 

17968, April 25, 2018, the Commission 

authorized additional support for 

another offer to A–CAM I carriers, 

pursuant to which the funding cap was 

increased to $146.10 per location for 

carriers that elected it. 

6. In the December 2018 Rate-ofReturn Reform Order, 84 FR 4711, 

February 19, 2019, the Commission 

adopted another additional offer for 

carriers that had previously elected A– 

CAM. Pursuant to this Revised A–CAM 

I, the funding cap was increased to $200 

per location per month for all electing 

carriers, and the term of support was 

extended by two years, through 2028, in 

exchange for increased 25/3 Mbps 

deployment obligations. The Bureau 

extended offers to eligible carriers in 

April 2019 and authorized Revised A– 

CAM I support in May 2019. 

7. In the December 2018 Rate-ofReturn Reform Order, the Commission 

also adopted a new model offer, A–CAM 

II, for carriers still receiving support 

pursuant to legacy support mechanisms 

based on historical costs, including 

carriers not previously eligible for A– 

CAM I. Consistent with Revised A–CAM 

I, the Commission set the per-location 

cap for A–CAM II at $200. For A–CAM 

II, the Commission revised the model 

parameters to include as eligible blocks 

those census blocks where the 

incumbent or its affiliate already 

provided FTTP or cable service. Further, 

the Commission excluded as ineligible 

census blocks served by unsubsidized 

competitors only if the unsubsidized 

competitors provided voice and at least 

25/3 Mbps service under the then-most 

recently available FCC Form 477 data. 

Finally, the A–CAM II model 

parameters included a Tribal Broadband 

Factor, which set the funding threshold 

for locations on Tribal lands at $39.38 

while increasing the support cap to 

$213.12. A–CAM II was offered for a 

ten-year term, ending in 2028. Carriers 

electing A–CAM II were required to 

deploy at least 25/3 Mbps service to a 

number of locations equal to the number 

of fully funded locations, and at least 4/ 

1 Mbps or on reasonable request to a 

number of locations equal to the number 

of capped locations. The Commission 

adopted a single-step election process, 

under which the Bureau released a 

public notice announcing the offers of 

A–CAM II support amounts and 

deployment obligations, after which 

each carrier had 45 days to make an 

irrevocable acceptance of the offer. On 

August 22, 2019, the Bureau authorized 

171 companies to receive A–CAM II 

support. 

8. Currently, 262 companies are 

authorized to receive A–CAM I, 

including 243 companies that elected 

Revised A–CAM I, with a term ending 

in 2028, and 19 companies that did not 

elect Revised A–CAM I, whose term 

ends in 2026. These A–CAM I carriers 

collectively receive $607.6 million per 

year and have an obligation to deploy at 

least 25/3 Mbps service to 451,059 

eligible locations, at least 10/1 Mbps to 

170,491 eligible locations, and at least 

4/1 Mbps service to 26,868 eligible 

locations, with an additional 65,555 

locations subject to the reasonable 

request standard. In addition, there are 

185 A–CAM II companies, with support 

terms ending in 2028, that collectively 

receive $494.3 million per year. These 

carriers have an obligation to provide at 

least 25/3 Mbps service to 364,108 

eligible locations, at least 4/1 Mbps to 

24,103 eligible locations, and service on 

reasonable request to another 68,034 

locations. For the A–CAM I and II areas, 

there are approximately 1,170,000 

eligible locations in the model. The total 

support currently provided to A–CAM I 

and A–CAM II companies is $1.1 billion 

per year. 

9. Since 2013, the Commission has 

collected information on broadband 

deployment across the United States 

through the FCC Form 477. Using Form 

477, broadband service providers have 

annually reported the census blocks in 

which they make service available to 

end users, as well as the maximum 

speed offered in each census block, 

distinguishing between residential and 

non-residential services and by the 

technology used to provide service. This 

reporting format made available a 

nationwide broadband deployment 

dataset. Over time, however, it became 

clear that more granular and accurate 

broadband data were needed to 

implement the Commission’s Universal 

Service Fund (USF) programs and to 

support efforts to bridge the digital 

divide. 

10. On August 1, 2019, the 

Commission adopted an order setting 

parameters for a new data collection 

distinct from the Form 477 that would 

collect fixed broadband deployment 

data in the form of granular coverage 

maps and that would include a process 

for accepting crowdsourced data to 

challenge the accuracy of the submitted 

data. The Commission stated its 

intention to establish a uniform national 

dataset of locations where broadband 

could be deployed and upon which new 

coverage data could be overlaid. 

11. On March 23, 2020, the 

Broadband DATA Act was signed into 

law. In brief, the Broadband DATA Act 

requires the Commission to establish a 

semiannual collection of geographically 

granular broadband coverage data 

(which the Commission has titled the 

Broadband Data Collection or BDC) for 

use in creating coverage maps and 

processes for challenges to the coverage 

data and for accepting crowdsourced 

information, and it further directs the 

Commission to create a comprehensive 

database of broadband serviceable 

locations—i.e., the Broadband 

Serviceable Location Fabric (Fabric). 

Further, it requires the Commission to 

use these maps ‘‘to determine the areas 

in which terrestrial fixed, fixed wireless, 

mobile, and satellite broadband internet 

access service is and is not available,’’ 

and ‘‘when making any new award of 

funding with respect to the deployment 

of broadband internet access intended 

for use by residential and mobile 

customers.’’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
36286 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

12. On November 15, 2021, President 

Biden signed the Infrastructure Act. The 

Act includes the largest-ever federal 

broadband investment, totaling 

approximately $65 billion, and directs 

multiple agencies to work towards 

expanding broadband access. In 

particular, Section 60104(c) of the Act 

instructs the Commission to report on 

how it may ‘‘improv[e] its effectiveness 

in achieving the universal service goals 

for broadband in light of this Act,’’ 

while Section 60104(b) instructs the 

Commission to commence a proceeding 

‘‘to evaluate the implications of this Act 

. . . on how the Commission should 

achieve the universal service goals for 

broadband.’’ 

13. In accordance with these statutory 

directives, the Commission adopted a 

Notice of Inquiry initiating a proceeding 

regarding the future of the USF on 

December 15, 2021. In the Future of USF 

Notice, the Commission invited 

comment on the effect of the 

Infrastructure Act on existing USF 

programs and the Commission’s ability 

to reach its goals of universal 

deployment, affordability, adoption, 

availability, and equitable access to 

broadband throughout the United 

States. The Commission also sought 

comment on recommended courses of 

action the Commission and Congress 

might take to further promote those 

goals. 

14. Other provisions of the 

Infrastructure Act likewise aim to 

expand broadband access for all 

Americans. Section 60102 of the Act 

directs the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) to establish the 

Broadband Equity, Access, and 

Deployment Program (BEAD Program), 

through which NTIA will allocate 

$42.45 billion to states for grants ‘‘to 

bridge the digital divide.’’ NTIA will 

provide minimum allocations of $100 

million for each state and $100 million 

to be divided equally among the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 

and the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands. Remaining funds will 

be allocated using a formula based on 

total unserved locations in each state. 

The Act instructs states to award 

funding in a way that gives priority to 

projects that will provide service to 

unserved locations (defined as those 

without access to 25/3 Mbps service), 

then to underserved locations (defined 

as those without access to 100/20 Mbps 

service), and next to community anchor 

institutions (defined as those without 

gigabit connections). 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.’’ Grant recipients must 

provide service to every customer that 

desires broadband service in the project 

area and must offer at least one low-cost 

service option for eligible subscribers. 

15. On January 7, 2022, NTIA 

announced a Request for Comment 

regarding the BEAD Program and other 

broadband programs authorized and 

funded by the Infrastructure Act. As 

explained in the Request for Comment, 

NTIA will first provide BEAD funding 

to states and territories to support 

planning efforts and coordination with 

local communities and stakeholders. 

Next, states and territories must 

collaborate with local and regional 

entities in submitting an initial 

broadband plan to NTIA. After 

submitting the initial broadband plan, 

the state or territory must conduct a 

‘‘transparent, evidence-based, and 

expeditious challenge process under 

which a unit of local government, 

nonprofit organization, or other 

broadband service provider can 

challenge a determination made by the 

[state or territory] in the initial proposal 

as to whether a particular location or 

community anchor institution . . . is 

eligible for the grant funds, including 

whether a particular location is 

unserved or underserved.’’ When NTIA 

approves a state’s or territory’s initial 

plan, the state or territory will then be 

able to access additional funds from its 

BEAD allocation, and final approval of 

a plan will permit access to the 

remaining allocated funds. In 

preparation for a Notice of Funding 

Opportunity (NOFO) with further 

specifics regarding the BEAD Program, 

NTIA asked commenters to explore how 

the agency ‘‘should treat prior buildout 

commitments that are not reflected in 

the updated FCC maps because the 

projects themselves are not complete,’’ 

as well as ‘‘[w]hat risks should be 

mitigated in considering these areas as 

‘served’ in the goal to connect all 

Americans to reliable, affordable, highspeed broadband.’’ 

16. On May 13, 2022, NTIA released 

its NOFO detailing the process for 

requesting BEAD Program funding. The 

NOFO sets a July 18, 2022 deadline for 

NTIA to receive initial plans from states 

and territories, as well as an August 15, 

2022 deadline for any supplemental 

information. The NOFO also specifies a 

number of a program requirements, 

including principles that states and 

territories must observe in their 

subgrantee selection, prioritization, and 

scoring processes. In particular, the 

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 NOFO regarding network 

capabilities (i.e., speed, latency, and 

uptime), deployment requirements, and 

service obligations. Finally, the 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. 

17. Other federal programs also work 

to further the goal of universal service. 

For instance, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA)’s Rural Utilities 

Service supports broadband through a 

number of programs, including the 

Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband 

Program, for which the Infrastructure 

Act provided an additional $2 billion. 

The Department of the Treasury also has 

several programs that may fund 

broadband projects, and other NTIA 

programs beyond the BEAD Program 

provide funding for broadband 

deployment, affordability, adoption, 

availability, and equitable access. 

Pursuant to the Broadband Interagency 

Coordination Act (BICA), the 

Commission, USDA, and NTIA must 

share information regarding these highcost universal service efforts. 

Specifically, the BICA required the FCC, 

USDA, and NTIA to enter into an 

agreement within six months to provide 

for sharing 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. The BICA also mandates that the 

interagency agreement requires the 

agencies to ‘‘consider basing the 

distribution of funds for broadband 

deployment’’ under the referenced 

programs ‘‘on standardized data 

regarding broadband coverage.’’ On June 

25, 2021, the agencies announced that 

they had entered into the agreement, 

and representatives of the agencies have 

been meeting regularly pursuant to that 

agreement. 

18. On October 30, 2020, the ACAM 

Broadband Coalition filed a Petition for 

Rulemaking asking the Commission to 

initiate a proceeding to consider the 

Coalition’s proposal to extend both A– 

CAM I and A–CAM II. Pursuant to this 

original proposal, the terms of A–CAM 

I and A–CAM II would be extended in 

exchange for increased obligations to 

deploy 25/3 Mbps service. The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36287 

Commission initially sought comment 

on the Petition for Rulemaking on 

November 4, 2020. In response, several 

commenters supported the Coalition’s 

request that the Commission initiate a 

rulemaking. One commenter objected, 

but said the Commission ‘‘should 

consider alternatives to the Coalition’s 

recommended approach’’ if the 

Commission were to adopt a notice of 

proposed rulemaking. More recently, 

commenters also discussed the 

Coalition’s proposal in response to the 

aforementioned Future of USF Notice. 

19. On December 15, 2021, the 

Coalition revised its proposal in order to 

require deployment of at least 100/20 

Mbps service to 90% of locations, as 

determined by the Fabric, in eligible 

census blocks, and at least 25/3 Mbps 

service to the remaining 10%. To fund 

the increased deployment costs, the 

Coalition proposed increasing monthly 

support for participating A–CAM 

carriers to the higher of 80% of a 

company’s model-estimated costs or 

$300 per location. The Coalition 

provided additional details on its 

proposal on January 19, 2022. On 

February 17, 2022, the Coalition further 

proposed support, in exchange for the 

same revised deployment obligations, 

for locations in census blocks that had 

been excluded from A–CAM I because 

an unsubsidized competitor reported 

providing at least 10/1 Mbps service. 

II. Discussion 

20. The A–CAM programs currently 

provide support for more than 350,000 

locations that could be considered 

‘‘unserved’’ pursuant to the 

Infrastructure Act because the A–CAM 

carriers have commitments to provide 

service only at speeds of 10/1 Mbps or 

4/1 Mbps, or on reasonable request, and 

more than 800,000 locations that could 

be considered ‘‘underserved’’ under the 

Infrastructure Act because the carriers 

have commitments to provide service 

only at 25/3 Mbps. The Commission 

seeks comment on the Enhanced A– 

CAM proposal and generally regarding 

how to leverage the existing, supported 

networks of A–CAM carriers to swiftly 

meet current legislative requirements 

and goals while avoiding duplicative 

support across programs and 

maximizing the efficient use of 

universal service funds. Furthermore, 

the Commission seeks comment on how 

to best and most efficiently implement 

and sequence Enhanced A–CAM so that 

it works in concert with the BEAD 

Program. Throughout, the Commission 

seeks comment regarding how these 

specific proposals are, or can be, made 

consistent with Congressional intent 

expressed through the Infrastructure Act 

and other legislation, as well as 

programs at other agencies. 

21. The Commission notes when it 

first adopted A–CAM I that it expected 

in year eight of the mechanism (2024) to 

conduct a proceeding to address the 

determination of support after the end 

of A–CAM. The Commission proposes 

that the rulemaking initiated by this 

NPRM will satisfy that Commission 

expectation. 

22. Final Deployment Obligations— 

The Coalition proposes that carriers 

electing Enhanced A–CAM support 

deploy to 100% of eligible ‘‘post-Fabric’’ 

locations. Post-Fabric locations are the 

locations identified in the Fabric that 

are determined to be in eligible census 

blocks. In some number of census 

blocks, the number of post-Fabric 

eligible locations may be fewer than the 

Connect America Model-estimated 

number of locations. At the same time, 

the Coalition proposes to expand the set 

of eligible locations to include locations 

in census blocks that were not eligible 

in the A–CAM I program because they 

were served by FTTP or cable 

broadband or were served with at least 

10/1 Mbps broadband service by an 

unsubsidized competitor. 

23. The Coalition proposes that 

carriers electing Enhanced A–CAM 

would be required to deploy 100/20 

Mbps or faster broadband service to 

90% of the eligible post-Fabric 

locations. For the remaining 10% of 

eligible post-Fabric locations, carriers 

would be required to deploy 25/3 Mbps 

or faster broadband service. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

Coalition’s proposal. In contrast to the 

Coalition proposal, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether carriers 

should be required to deploy at least 

100/20 Mbps to all eligible locations or 

whether carriers should be required to 

deploy to all locations where 

deployment of this level of service is not 

cost prohibitive. In either scenario, 

should carriers electing Enhanced A– 

CAM be required to serve 100% of 

unserved locations in their study areas, 

including unserved or underserved 

locations in currently ineligible census 

blocks? Should carriers with changes in 

their study area boundaries since the 

development of the model also be 

required to serve locations in eligible 

census blocks that are newly within 

their study area boundaries? 

24. If Enhanced A–CAM funds 25/3 

Mbps broadband service, as the 

Coalition proposes for 10% of a carrier’s 

eligible post-Fabric locations, when 

should those carriers be required to 

identify which specific locations will 

receive only 25/3 Mbps service? Would 

some obligations result in double 

support where recipients receive 

Enhanced A–CAM to improve speed to 

25/3 Mbps and then could apply for 

BEAD Program funds to deploy 100/20 

Mbps broadband to those same 

locations? 

25. Pursuant to the Broadband DATA 

Act, the Commission must use its new 

fixed deployment maps ‘‘when making 

any new award of funding with respect 

to the deployment of broadband internet 

access service intended for use by 

residential and mobile customers.’’ In 

accord with the Broadband DATA Act, 

the Commission tentatively concludes 

that it will use the new fixed 

deployment maps when making any 

new award of funding to an A–CAM 

provider. The Commission seeks 

comment, specifically, on how its new 

fixed deployment maps should be 

applied to determine eligible areas and 

deployment obligations for the 

Enhanced A–CAM program. 

26. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the impact of challenges to 

the Broadband Data Collection map. The 

Broadband DATA Act requires the 

Commission to accept challenges to 

both the Fabric and the availability 

maps, and those challenges will occur 

regularly to help improve all subsequent 

versions of the Fabric and the map. 

Given the importance of challenges to 

the accuracy of the Fabric and the map, 

and the continuous opportunity for 

challenges, when for the purposes of the 

Enhanced A–CAM should the 

Commission establish the post-Fabric 

locations? Should the Commission 

allow for a period of challenges to the 

fixed deployment reflected in the maps 

before relying upon them to award 

funding? Challenges to fixed broadband 

must be resolved within the timeframe 

established by the Commission when 

establishing the rules for the Broadband 

Data Collection. Can the Commission 

establish a different deadline for 

resolution of challenges associated with 

Enhanced A–CAM locations? If so, how 

long should challengers and providers 

have to resolve challenges before the 

Commission award funding? The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

questions and any other aspect of how 

it should comply with the requirements 

of the Broadband DATA Act in this 

program. 

27. Pursuant to current A–CAM rules, 

as with other high-cost support 

mechanisms, the Universal Service 

Administrative Company (USAC) will 

recover an amount of support from A– 

CAM participants that do not meet their 

final deployment obligations. In those 

situations, § 54.320(d)(2) of the 

Commission’s rules require that USAC 

recover ‘‘the percentage of support that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
36288 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

is equal to 1.89 times the average 

amount of support per location received 

in the state for that carrier over the term 

of support for the relevant number of 

locations plus 10 percent of the eligible 

telecommunications carrier’s total 

relevant high-cost support over the 

support term for that state.’’ The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

applicability of this general rule to 

Enhanced A–CAM participants. On the 

other hand, is a stricter penalty more 

appropriate, given that the Fabric and 

Broadband Data Collection may permit 

the Enhanced A–CAM program to rely 

on a more accurate location count? 

28. The Coalition proposes that 

Enhanced A–CAM carriers be 

considered in full compliance with their 

deployment obligations if they deploy to 

95% of their required locations. For A– 

CAM I and A–CAM II carriers, the 

Commission has allowed ‘‘some 

flexibility in their deployment 

obligations’’ and permitted them to 

deploy to 95% of the required locations 

by the end of the 10-year term. Further, 

the Commission noted that ‘‘to the 

extent that an electing carrier deploys to 

less than 100 percent of the requisite 

locations, the remaining percent of 

locations would be subject to the same 

deployment obligations as for the 

carrier’s capped locations.’’ Because 

these locations were still subject to 

deployment obligations, the 

Commission concluded that, unlike the 

price cap recipients of Connect America 

Phase II model support, it was not 

necessary for A–CAM recipients to 

refund any support when they took 

advantage of the 5% flexibility. For 

Enhanced A–CAM carriers, however, as 

with Rural Digital Opportunity Fund 

(RDOF) recipients, the Commission 

expects that using the Fabric will ensure 

that the location counts are more 

accurate than the data upon which it 

developed previous deployment 

obligations. Moreover, under the 

Enhanced A–CAM proposal, there are 

no ‘‘capped locations’’ or associated 

deployment obligations to apply to 

locations that are not fully funded. 

Thus, the Commission proposes not to 

extend the same kind of location count 

flexibility to Enhanced A–CAM carriers 

and seek comment on its proposal. 

Nonetheless, are there reasons why a 

buffer of this type may be appropriate or 

necessary under Enhanced A–CAM? 

Would a smaller buffer (i.e., one that 

considered Enhanced A–CAM carriers 

to be in full compliance if they 

deployed to 99% of their required 

locations) be sufficient to protect the 

Commission’s interests in full 

deployment? How would this comport 

with the Commission’s goal of creating 

enforceable commitments? 

29. With other agencies’ ongoing 

broadband initiatives, including NTIA’s 

BEAD Program, there is the potential for 

two providers to receive funding from 

different sources to deploy broadband to 

the same locations. The Commission 

seeks comment on how it may avoid 

such overlap in the Enhanced A–CAM 

program to maximize broadband 

deployment to unserved and 

underserved locations. For example, 

should the Commission require 

Enhanced A–CAM carriers to make 

binding commitments regarding specific 

locations based on the Fabric after it is 

created? Should any such binding 

commitments include an obligation to 

deploy at least 100/20 Mbps broadband 

service for all or some percentage of 

those specific locations? Should the 

Commission instead require carriers to 

commit to deployment at particular 

speeds at the census block level? If the 

BEAD Program requires full deployment 

by the end of a particular year, should 

Enhanced A–CAM likewise require full 

deployment by the end of that same year 

or even sooner? The Commission also 

seeks comment on the sequencing of 

Enhanced A–CAM with the BEAD 

Program. Should the Commission 

proceed with Enhanced A–CAM 

commitments before BEAD Program 

allocations? Should the Commission 

instead refrain from acting on the 

Enhanced A–CAM proposal until after 

the BEAD Program has awarded 

funding? What are the impacts of these 

options? Finally, should the 

Commission require, as a condition of 

accepting Enhanced A–CAM support, 

that carriers coordinate with the states 

in which they are receiving support to 

mitigate the risk of duplicative funding? 

The Commission invites states, in 

particular, to comment on these issues. 

30. Interim Deployment Milestones— 

Consistent with other high-cost support 

mechanisms, including the existing A– 

CAM I and A–CAM II mechanisms, the 

Coalition proposes that Enhanced A– 

CAM participants meet interim 

deployment milestones before the final 

milestone of 100% of locations. 

Specifically, the Coalition proposes that 

Enhanced A–CAM carriers deploy 100/ 

20 Mbps broadband service to at least 

30% of eligible locations by the end of 

the second year after the program 

begins. Each subsequent year, carriers 

would be required to deploy to an 

additional 10% of eligible locations 

until meeting the final obligation of 

deploying 100/20 Mbps service to 90% 

of eligible locations. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether these 

particular interim deployment 

milestones would be appropriate if it 

were to adopt the eight-year deployment 

timeframe the Coalition has proposed, 

and also what interim deployment 

milestones would be appropriate if the 

Commission were to require 

deployment in four years, such as in the 

BEAD program, or a different timeframe. 

Should the Commission require 

deployment to the same number of 

additional locations each year? 

31. The Commission tentatively 

concludes that any new interim 

milestones, for carriers that elect 

Enhanced A–CAM support, would 

supersede those associated with A– 

CAM I and A–CAM II. Retaining the 

interim milestones associated with the 

existing programs would introduce 

unnecessary administrative complexity. 

Moreover, the Commission expects that 

the Enhanced A–CAM milestones will 

require accelerated deployment at 

higher speeds, rendering previous 

milestones moot. The Commission seeks 

comment on this tentative conclusion. If 

the Commission were to retain the 

existing interim milestones for carriers 

electing Enhanced A–CAM support, is 

there a way to simplify deployment 

milestones in a way that is both fair and 

ensures regular progress? 

32. Likewise, the Commission seeks 

comment on the applicability of the 

existing mechanisms for withholding 

support from A–CAM I and A–CAM II 

participants that do not meet interim 

deployment milestones, and whether a 

similar mechanism should apply to 

Enhanced A–CAM. § 54.320(d)(1) of the 

Commission’s rules specifies different 

tiers of compliance gaps associated with 

different percentages of withheld 

support, with the goal of encouraging 

carriers to come into compliance and 

complete deployment in order to 

recover support. Should Enhanced A– 

CAM participants be subject to the same 

mechanisms for withholding support as 

A–CAM I and A–CAM II participants for 

failing to meet interim deployment 

milestones? 

33. Coordination of Deployment 

Obligations with BEAD Program. The 

Coalition proposes that carriers electing 

Enhanced A–CAM support meet the 

proposed deployment obligations set 

forth above by the end of the eighth year 

under the enhanced program. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

Coalition’s proposal and whether the 

Commission should adopt a timeframe 

aligned closer to the BEAD Program, 

which generally requires buildout in 

four years after subgrants are made. To 

minimize administrative complexity 

and prioritize higher-speed broadband 

deployment, the Commission tentatively 

concludes that any carriers electing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36289 

Enhanced A–CAM support would be 

subject only to the final deployment 

obligations associated with Enhanced 

A–CAM support, which would 

supersede existing A–CAM I and A– 

CAM II final deployment obligations. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

34. Performance Measures—To ensure 

that recipients of high-cost universal 

service support deploy networks 

meeting their performance obligations, 

the Commission requires that those 

carriers annually test and report the 

speed and latency of a random sample 

of locations. Carriers that fail to meet 

the required performance standards are 

subject to additional reporting and may 

have a percentage of universal service 

support withheld based on the level of 

non-compliance. However, those 

carriers subject to support withholding 

that later come into compliance may 

have their support restored. A–CAM I 

carriers have begun the required 

performance testing as of this year, 

while A–CAM II carriers are currently 

required to conduct pre-testing, under 

which no support reductions are 

assessed as long as the carrier performs 

the pre-testing and reports the results in 

a timely manner. The Commission 

invites comment on whether these 

existing performance testing 

requirements applicable to A–CAM I 

and A–CAM II carriers should continue 

to apply to Enhanced A–CAM carriers, 

or whether any improvements to the 

testing requirements should be made. 

35. Affordability—The Commission 

next considers the issue of affordability 

for customers of Enhanced A–CAM 

carriers. Promoting access to affordable, 

high-speed broadband is a priority for 

the Commission. And the Commission 

notes the important role that the 

Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) 

is playing to help consumers obtain 

affordable or in many cases no cost 

internet services. In the context of the 

FCC’s high-cost support programs, the 

Commission notes that all recipients of 

those funds, including A–CAM 

participants, must certify that 

broadband rates do not exceed the 

reasonably comparable benchmark 

announced annually by the Wireline 

Competition Bureau (the Bureau). The 

Commission also notes that, pursuant to 

the Infrastructure Act, subgrantees of 

the BEAD Program are required to offer 

at least one ‘‘low-cost broadband 

option.’’ The Commission seeks 

comment on the extent to which A– 

CAM providers are participating in the 

ACP or Lifeline programs or otherwise 

offer affordable internet plans. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether it should require or incentivize 

Enhanced A–CAM carriers to participate 

in ACP. If so, should there be any 

minimum performance characteristics 

for the affordable option (e.g., minimum 

download and upload speeds, usage 

allowances, and maximum latency)? 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

approach, how to implement this 

approach, and how it should determine 

the appropriate characteristics. At the 

same time, the Commission notes that it 

did not require similar minimum 

performance characteristics for plans 

from providers electing to participate in 

ACP. What other interactions between 

an affordable option, the Lifeline 

program, and the ACP should the 

Commission consider? 

36. To achieve these deployment 

obligations, the Coalition proposes to 

retain the basic framework of A–CAM 

support but increase the total amount 

paid by increasing the cap on support, 

increasing the number of eligible 

locations, and extending the term of 

support. The Coalition estimates that, if 

all eligible carriers elect the Enhanced 

A–CAM, as it is proposed, the impact of 

increasing the cap and the number of 

eligible locations would be to increase 

A–CAM support by $389.5 million per 

year from approximately $1.1 billion per 

year to $1.49 billion per year, a 35.4% 

increase. Further, the proposal adds six 

years of support for most A–CAM I and 

A–CAM II carriers (eight years of 

additional support in the case of A– 

CAM I carriers that did not accept 

Revised A–CAM I support in 2019). 

37. The Commission seeks comment 

regarding whether the A–CAM 

framework, and especially the model on 

which it is based, continues to be an 

appropriate method of calculating 

support going forward. Given the 

amount of time that has passed and the 

pace of technological developments 

since the development of the model, it 

seems likely that some model inputs are 

no longer the most appropriate for 

estimating the cost to provide service. 

The Commission notes in particular that 

location data and the need for 

assumptions about the placement of 

locations, which have a significant 

impact on model cost estimates, likely 

have changed or improved since the 

development of the model. On the other 

hand, a proceeding to develop an 

updated model would be time 

consuming and may not yield 

significantly different or more accurate 

results. What are the costs and benefits 

associated with relying on the existing 

model? Should the Commission develop 

a new cost model based upon 2020 

census geographies and updated inputs? 

38. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the overall plan and scope 

of the Coalition’s support proposal, 

particularly in context of the 

deployment obligations discussed in 

this document. The Commission 

recognizes that the Coalition’s proposal 

is intended to match its members’ 

estimated long-term revenue 

requirements with the proposed 

deployment obligations and term of 

support. Do the proposed deployment 

obligations justify the proposed support 

increases, both in the aggregate and for 

specific A–CAM recipients? Are there 

other support mechanisms the 

Commission should explore to increase 

the efficiency of the support amounts in 

these areas? For example, the 

Commission has recognized the benefits 

of competitive mechanisms to 

efficiently allocate high-cost universal 

service support. The Commission seeks 

comment on what mechanism would be 

appropriate to allocate support most 

efficiently in this instance, given the 

time-sensitivity of receiving binding 

commitments to provide service at a 

level of at least 100/20 Mbps and the 

ongoing commitments to provide 

support for 25/3 Mbps service to A– 

CAM I and A–CAM II carriers through 

2028. To the extent that these general 

questions have particular bearing on 

specific changes proposed by the 

Coalition, the Commission seeks 

comment in the following. 

39. Support Calculation—The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

Coalition’s proposal to increase the cap 

on support. Currently, support for most 

eligible locations is capped at $200 per 

month. For A–CAM II carriers, eligible 

locations in Tribal areas are capped at 

$213.12 in order to accommodate a 

lower support threshold. The Coalition 

proposes increasing the cap on support 

to $300 per location or 80% of model 

costs, whichever is greater. The 

Coalition’s proposal would significantly 

increase the amount of model-based 

support to A–CAM carriers. For the 291 

carriers to which the $300 cap would 

apply, Commission staff estimates that 

the number of locations in currently 

eligible census blocks that would be 

‘‘fully funded’’ at $300 would increase 

to 719,061 from 682,200. The alternative 

support calculation equal to 80% of 

model-estimated costs implies a funding 

cap in excess of $300 for 136 

companies. While 40 companies would 

have an implied cap of less than $400, 

pursuant to Commission staff analysis, 

29 would have an implied cap of more 

than $1000. To provide the amount of 

support proposed by the Coalition, 

without the 80% of costs provision, the 

funding cap would need to be set at 

approximately $500. Is this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
36290 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

methodology consistent with the model 

design and framework? What is the 

rationale or justification for providing 

support as a percentage of model costs 

in some instances, rather than relying 

on a higher cap? Also, because 

upgrading capacity of existing fiber is 

less costly than installing new fiber, 

should the Commission offer a lower 

level of support for those areas where 

the provider has already deployed fiber? 

The Commission invites economic 

studies that address the efficiency of 

authorizing funding to existing A–CAM 

providers to build networks providing 

service of at least 100/20 Mbps as 

compared to maintaining the current A– 

CAM programs. The Commission seeks 

further comment on how to determine 

the appropriate amount of support 

recognizing existing commitments and 

funding to build networks in these 

areas. What are the incremental costs of 

the proposed commitments under the 

Enhanced A–CAM proposal? Would a 

subsidy that covered those costs be 

sufficient, and if not, what other costs 

should be covered, such as recovery of 

costs for existing A–CAM locations and 

why? 

40. Pursuant to A–CAM II, census 

blocks in Tribal lands have a lower 

support threshold of $38.38 and a 

funding cap of $213.12, along with 

separately enforceable deployment 

obligations. The Commission seeks 

comment regarding how this Tribal 

Broadband Factor should be 

incorporated into Enhanced A–CAM. Do 

the generally increased support amounts 

and universal deployment obligations 

relieve the need for a separate Tribal 

Broadband Factor? Further, the 

Commission seeks comment on how to 

address intergovernmental coordination 

and eligibility for locations on Tribal 

lands. The Commission notes that, 

under the BEAD Program, a 

commitment to deploy broadband will 

not be considered enforceable ‘‘unless it 

includes a legally binding agreement, 

which includes a Tribal Government 

Resolution, between the Tribal 

Government of the Tribal Lands 

encompassing that location, or its 

authorized agent, and a service provider 

offering qualifying broadband service to 

that location.’’ 

41. Eligible Locations—The Coalition 

proposes to use eligible model locations, 

rather than eligible post-Fabric 

locations, to calculate support. 

However, the Broadband DATA Act 

requires that, after the creation of the 

Fabric and associated maps, the 

Commission use those maps ‘‘when 

making any new award of funding with 

respect to the deployment of broadband 

internet access.’’ The Commission seeks 

comment on the use of eligible model 

locations to calculate support, and 

specifically how it can reconcile the 

difference between model locations and 

Fabric locations, especially in cases 

where the number of model locations 

significantly exceeds the number of 

serviceable locations in the Fabric. The 

Commission notes that model costs are 

significantly affected by location 

density, and if the model were run with 

fewer locations, in many cases the perlocation cost of providing service would 

likely increase. For that reason, it may 

not be appropriate to reduce support on 

a pro rata basis simply because the 

number of actual locations in the Fabric 

is ultimately fewer than in the model. 

Nonetheless, there may be instances in 

which the number of locations to be 

served is so greatly overstated by the 

model that it may create an apparent 

windfall to provide support based on 

model locations. In similar 

circumstances, the Commission requires 

a pro rata support adjustment when an 

RDOF support recipient’s updated 

location count is less than 65% of the 

Connect America Cost Model locations 

within the recipient’s area in a state. 

Would such an approach be useful for 

the Enhanced A–CAM plan and comply 

with the Broadband DATA Act? 

42. The Coalition additionally 

proposes expanding the number of 

eligible locations in two ways. First, the 

Coalition proposes to add census blocks 

that were ineligible for A–CAM I 

because they were FTTP-served by the 

incumbent or an affiliate. In the 2016 

Rate-of-Return Reform Order, the 

Commission excluded from eligibility 

for A–CAM I census blocks that were 

FTTP-served in order to prioritize 

model support to those areas that were 

then unserved. In the December 2018 

Rate-of-Return Reform Order, however, 

the Commission made such census 

blocks eligible for A–CAM II, 

concluding that their inclusion would 

‘‘promote more and higher speed 

deployment to location in those census 

blocks that do not currently have 25/3 

Mbps or better service’’ while 

recognizing that areas with partially or 

fully deployed fiber to the premises may 

still require high-cost support to 

maintain existing service. The 

Commission did not, in the same Order, 

make such census blocks eligible for 

revised A–CAM I offers. Given the 

Commission’s recognition that areas 

with partial or complete fiber 

deployment may still require ongoing 

support for expenses, it may be 

reasonable to provide some support for 

these census blocks. Further, doing so 

could harmonize the treatment of A– 

CAM I and A–CAM II carriers. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

Coalition’s proposal to make eligible for 

Enhanced A–CAM census blocks 

excluded from A–CAM I because they 

were FTTP-served. 

43. Nonetheless, the Commission also 

recognizes that it may not be costeffective to provide support for census 

blocks where an A–CAM carrier is 

already offering service of at least 100/ 

20 Mbps, and therefore seek comment 

on the Enhanced A–CAM treatment of 

census blocks that are fully served. The 

Commission notes that A–CAM carriers 

have already reported deployment of 

100/20 Mbps or faster service to over 

347,000 eligible locations. Thirty-three 

A–CAM carriers have deployed at least 

100/20 Mbps service to at least 90% of 

the eligible locations in their service 

areas. The Commission therefore seeks 

comment regarding how to use the postFabric broadband deployment maps to 

establish eligibility for Enhanced A– 

CAM of census blocks to which an A– 

CAM carrier has already deployed 100/ 

20 Mbps or faster to service to all 

locations in the block. One possibility 

would be for the Enhanced A–CAM 

offer to simply exclude locations in 

fully deployed census blocks, which 

would no longer be eligible for A–CAM 

support if a carrier elected the offer, and 

support for those locations would cease 

upon authorization of Enhanced A– 

CAM. However, the Commission 

recognizes that an A–CAM provider 

reporting 100/20 Mbps or faster service 

for certain locations may require 

continued support for those locations, 

particularly if the provider relied on 

loans to fund deployment under the 

terms of the existing A–CAM programs. 

If continued support is required for the 

fully deployed census blocks, the 

remaining authorized support 

associated with those census blocks 

could be incorporated into the 

Enhanced A–CAM support. Another 

option would be for the Enhanced A– 

CAM offers to include fully deployed 

census blocks, but only at the current 

A–CAM I or A–CAM II funding levels. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

these options. 

44. The Coalition’s second proposed 

expansion of eligibility is for census 

blocks that were excluded from A–CAM 

I because they were served by an 

unsubsidized competitor with at least 

10/1 Mbps service. Given that locations 

with 10/1 Mbps service are considered 

‘‘unserved’’ pursuant to the 

Infrastructure Act, it may be reasonable 

to expand eligibility to include these 

census blocks. On the other hand, some 

unsubsidized competitors serving these 

census blocks may now provide at least 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36291 

100/20 Mbps. The Commission 

therefore proposes to re-assess the 

eligibility of census blocks under 

Enhanced A–CAM for all carriers based 

on the provision of service by 

unsubsidized competitors. The 

Commission seeks comment regarding 

what test should be applied to 

determine whether census blocks 

should be ineligible because they are 

served by an unsubsidized competitor. 

The Commission tentatively concludes 

that locations, rather than census 

blocks, in which an unsubsidized 

competitor provides at least 100/20 

Mbps should be ineligible for support 

because those locations would be 

considered ‘‘served’’ pursuant to the 

Infrastructure Act. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether eligibility by 

served location, rather than census 

block, will be feasible for an Enhanced 

A–CAM offer. 

45. Under A–CAM II census blocks 

were ineligible if an unsubsidized 

competitor provided at least 25/3 Mbps 

service. Should census blocks served by 

an unsubsidized competitor with at 

least 25/3 Mbps also be ineligible for 

support under Enhanced A–CAM? The 

Commission notes that such census 

blocks would be considered 

underserved pursuant to the 

Infrastructure Act. However, the 

provision of at least 25/3 Mbps service 

by an unsubsidized competitor may be 

evidence that the A–CAM carrier is not 

the most efficient provider of service in 

that area and that another program, such 

as BEAD, may be able to more cost 

effectively achieve deployment of 100/ 

20 Mbps or faster service. Finally, the 

Commission notes that in some cases, 

these may be census blocks that were 

split by a study area boundary and a 

price cap carrier reported providing 

service in the census block. The 

Commission seeks comment regarding 

how those census blocks should be 

tested for eligibility. For both A–CAM I 

and A–CAM II carriers, should 

competitive overlap be re-assessed in all 

census blocks before making a new 

offer? What criteria should be used? 

46. What other considerations should 

be made with respect to the eligibility 

of locations under an Enhanced A–CAM 

offer? The Commission proposes to 

remove from eligibility locations that 

are already funded through another 

federal/state program at 100/20 Mbps or 

higher, such as the Broadband 

Infrastructure Program, American 

Rescue Plan Act Coronavirus State and 

Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, and Tribal 

Broadband Connectivity Program. Is it 

necessary to independently address the 

funding commitments made by each of 

these programs, or do any of the other 

eligibility rules proposed above 

effectively cover the locations 

associated with these commitments? To 

the extent that locations are funded 

through state mechanisms, rather than 

federal mechanisms, how should the 

Commission incorporate that into the 

eligibility requirements? How can the 

Commission collect state funding 

information in an efficient and complete 

manner? The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. On the other 

hand, are there other unserved or 

underserved locations in census blocks 

currently ineligible for A–CAM I or A– 

CAM II that can and should be made 

eligible for support? 

47. Extended Term—The Coalition 

proposes that the increased support take 

effect immediately, with increased 

support paid retroactively to the 

beginning of 2022, and extend through 

2034. The Commission recognizes that a 

primary purpose of extending the term 

of support is to provide additional time 

to recover the capital used to meet 

deployment obligations. As a result, the 

Commission would expect the term 

could be adjusted to coincide with 

adjustments to support amounts or 

deployment obligations, such as because 

of reconciliation with the Fabric. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

Coalition’s proposed term. What is the 

justification to pay increased support 

retroactively and prior to the imposition 

of the new Enhanced A–CAM 

obligations? How should the term be 

adjusted, if at all, if changes are made 

to the deployment obligations or annual 

support amounts? 

48. Glide Path Carriers—Under A– 

CAM I and A–CAM II, carriers receive 

additional transitional support if their 

model-based support is less than the 

amount of legacy support they received 

prior to their election of model-based 

support (glidepath carriers). This 

transitional support declines over time 

based on the size of each carrier’s 

support reduction. The Coalition 

proposes that glidepath companies that 

elect Enhanced A–CAM would ‘‘either 

(1) continue to receive support pursuant 

to their current schedule until such time 

as their total annual support is less than 

that under the Enhancement Plan and, 

at that time, they would convert to the 

Enhancement Plan funding level; or (2) 

receive support at the level provided for 

in the Enhancement Plan.’’ The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. Alternatively, should the 

glidepath carriers’ transitional support 

amounts and schedule be re-assessed 

based on their new, Enhanced A–CAM 

support amounts? 

49. The Coalition proposes that each 

A–CAM I or A–CAM II participant be 

permitted to elect, on a state-by-state 

basis, whether to participate in the 

Enhanced A–CAM program. A–CAM 

participants that decline to participate 

in the enhanced program would 

continue under the terms of the 

participant’s existing A–CAM program, 

‘‘with no changes to the company’s 

deployment schedule, obligations, term, 

or support level.’’ The Commission 

seeks comment on this proposal and 

whether alternatively, they should be 

subject to an ‘‘all or nothing’’ election. 

50. The Commission seeks comment 

regarding whether all current A–CAM I 

and A–CAM II carriers should be 

eligible to participate in Enhanced A– 

CAM. The Commission notes that some 

A–CAM carriers already have 

widespread deployment of 100/20 Mbps 

or faster service. The Commission 

estimates that 75 companies have 

deployed at least 100/20 Mbps to 75% 

or more of their proposed Enhanced A– 

CAM locations, including 33 companies 

that serve 90 percent of their locations. 

Of these, 20 companies serve all 

proposed Enhanced A–CAM locations 

with at least 100/20 Mbps. In all, 

347,620 A–CAM eligible locations are 

served with 100/20 Mbps or faster 

service. Given that the stated purpose of 

providing additional support pursuant 

to Enhanced A–CAM is to permit 

carriers to deploy higher levels of 100/ 

20 Mbps or faster broadband, is it an 

effective use of limited universal service 

funds to provide support to carriers that 

have already achieved universal or nearuniversal deployment of such speeds? 

Given that such carriers may require 

support for ongoing provision of service 

in these areas and may have obtained 

financing to deploy networks with these 

higher speed levels, is it reasonable to 

permit them to elect the extended A– 

CAM term for that purpose? 

51. The Commission seeks comment 

regarding whether eligibility for 

Enhanced A–CAM should be extended 

to include rate-of-return carriers that 

currently receive legacy support. The 

Commission notes that including 

carriers currently receiving legacy 

support would be generally consistent 

with the Commission’s longstanding 

objective of transitioning away from 

legacy rate-of-return support 

mechanisms and providing high-cost 

support based on a carrier’s forwardlooking, efficient costs. Would 

extending Enhanced A–CAM offers 

otherwise be consistent with the 

Commission’s goals? Are there other 

eligibility considerations, at the 

company or census block levels, that 

should be applied specifically to legacy 

carriers? 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
36292 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

52. In the event that the Commission 

adopts an Enhanced A–CAM 

mechanism, it seeks comment on the 

procedures for carriers to make this 

election. The Commission anticipates 

that it would instruct the Bureau to 

follow the same processes for making 

offers and processing elections as were 

used for A–CAM II. How much time do 

carriers require to evaluate their offers 

and make an election? In this document, 

the Commission seeks comment 

regarding whether locations should be 

re-assessed for eligibility based on 

unsubsidized competitors offering at 

least 100/20 Mbps. Assuming data from 

the Broadband Data Collection (BDC) 

are used to determine exclusion from 

eligibility, should the BDC challenge 

processes (i.e., challenges to provider 

availability data and to the Fabric data) 

be used to determine eligible locations 

for Enhanced A–CAM, or is a separate 

process warranted? If the BDC processes 

are used for this purpose, how much 

time would be appropriate for these 

processes to run before the Commission 

makes eligibility determinations based 

on them? Are there any other procedural 

considerations related to the election 

process that the Commission should 

consider? 

53. The Commission also seeks 

comment on adopting a minimum 

carrier participation threshold for 

implementing the Enhanced A–CAM 

program. If participation in any 

Enhanced A–CAM program is low, 

increasing broadband deployment in A– 

CAM I and A–CAM II areas may be 

more efficient and effective through 

another program. If the Commission 

adopts a minimum threshold, what 

should the parameters be? For example, 

should there be a set percentage of 

eligible locations in the entire program 

beyond which the program continues, or 

should the minimum threshold be a set 

percentage of A–CAM I and A–CAM II 

carriers opting into an enhanced 

program? In the event that the 

Commission does not adopt an 

Enhanced A–CAM mechanism, it seeks 

comment on how to use support 

efficiently and effectively in these areas, 

including where broadband deployment 

funding is provided by another agency 

to either an Eligible 

Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) highcost recipient or another provider. 

54. As discussed in this document, 

the Commission seeks to align key 

aspects of the proposed Enhanced A– 

CAM program with NTIA’s BEAD 

Program. To implement a requirement 

from the Infrastructure Investment and 

Jobs Act, service providers receiving 

BEAD funding must attest that they 

have a cybersecurity risk management 

plan and a supply-chain risk 

management plan. The cybersecurity 

risk management plan must specify 

security and privacy controls and reflect 

the latest version of the NIST 

Framework for Improving Critical 

Infrastructure Cybersecurity. The supply 

chain risk management plan must be 

based on key practices in NIST 

publication NISTIR 8276 and other 

supply chain risk management guidance 

from NIST that specifies the supply 

chain risk management controls being 

implemented. Service providers must 

reevaluate and update both plans 

periodically and as events warrant, and 

provide the plans to NTIA at NTIA’s 

request. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether it should require 

similar cybersecurity and supply chain 

risk management practices and 

certifications for A–CAM recipients or, 

alternatively, for all carriers receiving 

high-cost support. 

55. The Commission notes that 

providers receiving Connect America 

Fund Broadband Loop Support (CAF 

BLS) support are subject to mandatory 

deployment obligations to deploy 

broadband service of at least 25/3 Mbps 

to a carrier-specific number of locations 

by the end of 2023. The Commission 

plans to separately and subsequently 

consider the deployment obligations 

and funding levels for such providers 

that will apply beginning in 2024. In 

considering how to update these 

commitments going forward, the 

Commission anticipates addressing 

questions regarding the level of services 

to be delivered, identifying eligible 

locations, and the level of support 

required. The Commission seeks 

comment now on whether and how it 

should align the deployment obligations 

and required timeframes for deployment 

for CAF BLS carriers with any Enhanced 

A–CAM plan adopted by the 

Commission. The Commission notes 

that such alignment would ensure 

similar deployment in areas served by 

carriers receiving support from an 

Enhanced A–CAM Plan and those 

receiving support from CAF BLS. In 

addition, such alignment would ease 

administration of the programs by 

minimizing the number of interim and 

final milestones in high-cost programs. 

Accordingly, the Commission invites 

comment generally on any additional 

benefits and potential costs of aligning 

the high-cost funding programs for rate 

of return areas. 

56. In this NPRM, the Commission 

also evaluates opportunities to improve 

the administration of the high-cost 

program to enhance its efficiency and 

efficacy and better safeguard the USF. 

Specifically, the Commission seeks 

comment on: changes to annual 

reporting requirements and certification 

obligations; review of mergers between 

rate-of-return local exchange carriers 

(LECs); support for exchanges acquired 

by a CAF BLS recipient; the process to 

merge commonly-owned study areas; 

the schedule for CAF BLS recipients to 

file optional quarterly line counts; and 

the process to relinquish ETC status. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

whether stakeholders have any 

additional recommendations to improve 

the administration of the high-cost 

program. Many high-cost support 

recipients are small businesses; the 

Commission therefore seeks comment 

generally on how the proposed rule 

changes will affect them. 

57. The Commission seeks comment 

regarding several changes that would 

improve or streamline annual reporting 

and certification requirements. 

58. The Commission has established 

performance and other programmatic 

reporting obligations to ensure 

accountability for high-cost support 

recipients and monitor compliance. By 

March 1 annually, support recipients 

that serve fixed locations must report 

locations deployed to in the prior year 

in satisfaction of build-out obligations 

and certify compliance with 

deployment milestones, as applicable. 

By July 1 annually, recipients must file 

certain financial and operations 

information. By October 1 annually, 

each state or ETC, if the ETC is not 

subject to the jurisdiction of a state, 

must file a certification that support was 

used during the preceding calendar year 

and will only be used in the coming 

calendar year for ‘‘the provision, 

maintenance, and upgrading of facilities 

and services for which support is 

intended.’’ 

59. First, the Commission seeks 

comment on modifying § 54.313(i) of its 

rules to streamline the process for 

submitting annual high-cost reports by 

requiring that such filings be made only 

with the universal service program 

administrator, USAC. In the 2017 

Annual Report Streamlining Order, the 

Commission decided it would ‘‘no 

longer require ETCs to file duplicate 

copies of Form 481 with the FCC and 

with states, U.S. Territories, and/or 

Tribal governments beginning in 2018.’’ 

However, because the change was 

contingent upon USAC completing the 

rollout of an online portal for the annual 

report, the Commission did not modify 

the rule at that time. That rollout has 

since been completed and the 

Commission proposes to revise 54.313(i) 

to clarify that annual reports must only 

be filed with USAC. The Commission 

finds that this modification would 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36293 

remove ambiguity and reduce 

administrative burdens on support 

recipients, while ensuring that 

governmental entities continue to have 

ready access to the information they 

need. The Commission seeks comment 

on this proposal. 

60. Second, and along similar lines, 

current rules require an annual 

certification be filed with both the 

Office of the Secretary (OSEC) of the 

Commission and USAC stating that 

support has been and will be used only 

for the intended purposes. To ease 

administrative burdens by eliminating 

duplication, the Commission proposes 

to remove the requirement to file with 

the Office of the Secretary and require 

only submission with USAC. Because 

Commission staff routinely coordinates 

with USAC, the Commission does not 

expect that the ability of the 

Commission to monitor the annual 

certification would be diminished in 

any way. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal and whether 

removing the requirement to file with 

OSEC would inhibit the filing becoming 

‘‘part of the public record maintained by 

the Commission.’’ The Commission 

invites commenters to identify any other 

opportunities to streamline filing and 

reporting obligations to improve 

efficiency without compromising the 

effective oversight of the high-cost 

program. 

61. Third, the Commission seeks 

comment on a proposal to more closely 

link support reductions with failing to 

certify locations in order to minimize 

confusion and improve carrier 

accountability. The Commission’s rules 

establish deadlines for carriers to file 

reports and certifications, as well as a 

schedule for reducing support if the 

deadlines are missed. Currently, support 

reductions do not occur until January of 

the following year, well after the carrier 

may have come into compliance. The 

Commission proposes to more closely 

align any support reduction with the 

failure to comply with the reporting 

deadline by reducing support in the 

month immediately following the date 

of the missed deadline. The 

Commission believes this change will 

eliminate confusion that has occurred 

when support decreases unexpectedly 

months after a deadline is missed (and 

well after a carrier may have come into 

compliance) and facilitate carrier 

accountability. Since support reductions 

are based on the number of days late 

and payments usually occur mid-month, 

there may be situations where a filing is 

not received in time for USAC to 

calculate the requisite support reduction 

for the next month’s payment. In those 

instances, the Commission proposes 

that USAC implement the support 

reduction in the following month as 

needed. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. 

Alternatively, should the Commission 

continue to defer support reductions 

until January 1 of the following year? 

What is the best process to reduce 

support to ensure carriers comply with 

the reporting and certification deadlines 

and avoid confusion? 

62. Fourth, the Commission seeks 

comment on modifying reporting 

requirements for performance testing to 

require all high-cost support recipients 

serving fixed locations to report on a 

quarterly basis. High-cost support 

recipients must perform broadband 

performance testing one week out of 

each quarter. Recipients that are not in 

compliance with speed and latency 

requirements must report the results of 

the performance tests quarterly, while 

other recipients must only report the 

results of tests conducted in the 

preceding calendar year annually on 

July 1. Support reductions are assessed 

for non-compliant carriers, but withheld 

support is returned once they achieve 

compliance. 

63. The Commission seeks comment 

on making the quarterly reporting of 

performance test results mandatory for 

all recipients and not just those that are 

not in compliance with speed and 

latency requirements. Currently, there 

can be a lengthy lag between when 

quarterly performance testing is 

completed and when it is reported to 

the Commission and USAC. For 

example, under the Commission’s 

current rules, a performance test 

conducted in January 2022 would not 

have to be reported until July 2023. 

Monitoring network performance to 

make sure consumers in supported areas 

are receiving service consistent with 

commitments is critical. The 

Commission’s experience with the 

current lag time is that it has inhibited 

such monitoring. While the Commission 

already monitors non-compliant carriers 

through quarterly reporting, there are 

benefits to requiring it for all carriers. 

Quarterly reporting would allow the 

Commission to better track that carriers 

are meeting its requirements and 

determine if there are significant 

problems with a carrier’s network. In 

addition, quarterly reporting would 

allow the Commission to better monitor 

trends that may interfere with consumer 

service and testing results, to more 

quickly adopt any necessary changes to 

its testing mechanism. While quarterly 

reporting could increase the burden on 

carriers, the Commission does not 

anticipate that any increased burden 

will be significant given that carriers are 

obligated to conduct tests on a quarterly 

basis already. Furthermore, the 

Commission believes that any increase 

in the burden is offset by the benefits. 

The Commission believes that some 

carriers may find additional reporting 

helpful—given that the performance 

measures can be a large volume of data, 

it could be helpful to report less of the 

data more often rather than all of it once 

a year. The Commission seeks comment 

regarding this analysis and its proposal. 

Also, the Commission notes that some 

carriers have not yet reported locations 

when they are scheduled to begin 

performance pre-testing or testing. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

timeframe for such carriers to begin pretesting or testing once such a carrier 

reports High Cost Universal Broadband 

locations for the first time. 

64. The Commission also seeks 

comment on revising the filing schedule 

for quarterly reporting of performance 

tests. Currently, the Commission 

requires quarterly reporting of carriers’ 

pre-testing data, reflecting the results of 

tests conducted prior to the 

commencement of the official test 

period. Those results must be reported 

within one week after the end of the 

quarter in which the tests are 

conducted, to provide insight into 

carriers’ experience with the testing 

process. The Commission proposes that 

the same schedule be adopted to report 

other carrier testing. Does this provide 

carriers with sufficient time to prepare 

the results for filing? If not, the 

Commission seeks comment on how 

much time is required, and what filing 

deadlines it should require instead. The 

Commission’s goal in establishing a 

specific reporting schedule is to provide 

certainty, promote accountability and 

conform with timelines for other testing 

protocols to minimize confusion. 

65. Fifth, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether to relieve 

privately held rate-of-return carriers that 

receive A–CAM support of the 

requirement to file annually a report of 

the company’s financial condition and 

operations —an issue raised by NTCA— 

The Rural Broadband Association 

(NTCA) in a petition for rulemaking. 

The Commission’s rules require all 

privately held rate-of-return carriers that 

obtain high-cost support to provide ‘‘a 

full and complete annual report of the 

company’s financial condition and 

operations as of the end of the preceding 

fiscal year.’’ The Commission adopted 

this requirement at a time when all rateof-return support recipients received 

support through cost-based support 

mechanisms. 

66. The Commission declined to 

impose such a requirement on price cap 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
36294 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

carriers receiving model-based support, 

concluding that it was not ‘‘necessary to 

require the filing of such information by 

recipients of funding determined 

through a forward-looking cost model 

. . . even if those recipients are 

privately held.’’ The design of the 

model, the Commission expected, 

would produce a level of support 

‘‘sufficient but not excessive,’’ thereby 

negating the need for reporting audited 

financial information. Should the 

Commission apply the same rationale to 

extend similar relief to A–CAM carriers, 

as NTCA requests? Commenters are 

invited to address NTCA’s assertion that 

granting relief to A–CAM carriers will 

provide regulatory parity. Given that the 

term of support for CAF (Connect 

America Fund) Phase II model-based 

carriers ended, and A–CAM carriers are 

the only high-cost recipients remaining 

on model-based support, should the 

Commission take a fresh look at this 

obligation? The Commission notes, 

however, that most carriers that 

received CAF Phase II model-based 

support are publicly traded companies, 

and it can obtain such information 

directly for Securities and Exchange 

Commission registrants. What are the 

benefits, if any, in retaining the 

financial reporting requirement for 

privately held A–CAM carriers in 

enhancing the Commission’s ability to 

assess the efficacy of its models? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

other, potentially less burdensome, 

mechanisms that would allow us to 

monitor as needed. For instance, should 

the Commission collect financial 

information on a less frequent but 

recurring basis or collecting on an asneeded basis instead? 

67. The NTCA Petition for 

Rulemaking also requests the same relief 

for Alaska Plan recipients. Alaska Plan 

recipients receive frozen support— 

essentially support set at 2011 costbased levels. The Commission seeks 

comment on NTCA’s request. The 

Commission notes, however, that the 

frozen support Alaska Plan carriers 

receive was not model-based, and it 

seeks comment on the benefits and 

burdens of keeping the filing 

requirement in place for Alaska Plan 

carriers. 

68. Sixth, the Commission proposes to 

modify its rules to create a consistent 

one-time grace period for all compliance 

filings. Currently, several rules have a 

specific date, after the due date, by 

which carriers may file reports without 

a support reduction if they have not 

previously missed a deadline. For 

example, filings under § 54.316 for 

certain ETCs are due annually March 1 

and have a grace period until March 5, 

but that same rule provides a grace 

period of ‘‘three days’’ for other ETCs. 

Filings under § 54.314 are due annually 

October 1 and have a grace period until 

October 5. Filings submitted under 

§ 54.313 are due annually July 1 and 

have a grace period until July 5. The 

Commission proposes to modify all 

grace periods to ‘‘within four business 

days.’’ For instance, this change would 

mean that where a filing is due March 

1, recipients must file by the end of 

March 5 or be subject to a support 

reduction. Consistent with the 

Commission’s Computation of Time 

rule, if March 5 falls on a weekend or 

holiday, the filing must be made by the 

end of the next business day to avoid 

the support reduction. The Commission 

expects that establishing a uniform 

grace period will reduce confusion, and 

it seeks comment on its proposal. 

69. Seventh, the Commission 

proposes to codify uniform deployment, 

certification and location reporting 

deadlines for all CAF Phase II auction 

funding recipients to reduce confusion 

and facilitate efficient program 

administration. As originally adopted, 

these deadlines were tied to the date 

that individual funding recipients were 

authorized to receive support, resulting 

in a patchwork compliance scheme due 

to the rolling nature of the 

authorizations. Recognizing that the 

varied deadlines could create confusion 

and unnecessarily burden program 

administration and oversight, the 

Bureau waived §§ 54.310(c), 

54.316(b)(4), and 54.316(c)(2), and 

instead adopted uniform deadlines 

governing deployment, certification, 

and location reporting obligations. 

Consistent with the waiver, which will 

remain in effect through the support 

term, deployment deadlines for all CAF 

Phase II auction support recipients, 

including New York’s New NY 

Broadband Program, fall at the end of 

the calendar year, and certification and 

location reporting deadlines fall on 

March 1 annually. The Commission 

proposes to make the waiver permanent 

by formally modifying the rules 

consistent with the waiver and seek 

comment on this proposal. Along 

similar lines, and to bring some clarity 

in the Commission’s rules to the 

certification deadlines for the Bringing 

Puerto Rico Together Fund stage 2 fixed 

program and the Connect USVI Fund 

stage 2 fixed program, the Commission 

proposes to make explicit the March 1 

deadline in the respective authorization 

public notices, which will also align the 

programs’ rules with the rules for other 

high-cost programs. The Commission 

seeks comment on these proposals. 

70. Eighth, the Commission seeks 

comment on methods to obtain more 

accurate information on the speeds of 

broadband service provided through the 

high-cost programs. § 54.316(a) requires 

recipients of high-cost support to report 

the geocoded locations to which they 

have deployed facilities capable of 

meeting the Commission’s 

requirements. The current language 

directs ETCs to report ‘‘whether they are 

offering service providing speeds of at 

least 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps 

upstream, 10 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps 

upstream, and 25 Mbps downstream/3 

Mbps upstream,’’ consistent with their 

required minimum deployment 

obligations. While this reporting enables 

USAC and the Commission to determine 

whether carriers have met their 

minimum obligations, it does not 

require carriers to provide a complete 

picture of the maximum speeds actually 

being offered, advertised, or delivered to 

customers, where the carrier is 

providing speeds higher than the 

obligated minimum. The Commission 

seeks comment regarding how to get a 

better overall understanding of actual 

deployment. Should the Commission 

require carriers to report the speeds they 

would offer a location, in addition to the 

required speeds that the deployment 

meets? How would the Commission 

define such ‘‘maximum available 

speeds’’? Would it be most appropriate 

to define these maximum speeds in 

terms of advertised speeds or is there 

some other measure of available speeds 

that could be used? Are there any other 

methods the Commission can use to 

ensure that it has reliable data regarding 

available broadband speeds at each 

location? Would it be feasible to 

extrapolate maximum available speeds 

for locations in an area from the data 

produced by the performance testing? 

71. Ninth, the Commission proposes 

to amend § 54.316(a)(1) to more 

accurately reflect the current scope of its 

location reporting obligations. This rule 

directs ‘‘recipients of high-cost support 

with defined broadband deployment 

obligations’’ to ‘‘provide to the 

Administrator on a recurring basis 

information regarding the locations to 

which the [ETC] is offering broadband 

service in satisfaction of its public 

interest obligations . . . .’’ Given that 

all filers subject to this requirement 

have an established deadline to submit 

information, the Commission finds 

some of the qualifying language to be 

extraneous and therefore propose to 

delete ‘‘on a recurring basis’’ from the 

rule. The Commission seeks comment 

on this proposal. 

72. Tenth, the Commission proposes 

to modify the voice and broadband rate 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36295 

certifications to clarify the reporting 

period. The original requirements for 

the FCC Form 481 were adopted in the 

USF/ICC Transformation Order, 76 FR 

73830, November 29, 2011. The 

Commission’s discussion makes clear 

that the reports, which include voice 

and broadband pricing, are annual and 

would be due April 1, covering the prior 

year. Therefore, for the annual report 

due in a particular year, the relevant 

time period for the pricing data was 

originally intended to be January 1 to 

December 31 of the prior year. The 

Commission then moved the date of the 

annual reports to July 1. As a result of 

moving the date to July 1, the 

Commission moved the date for the 

relevant voice rates to the rate in place 

as of June 1 the year the report was 

filed, as opposed to the prior year. This 

was done to facilitate the 

implementation of the rate floor 

provision, which was subsequently 

eliminated. However, the Commission 

did not change the applicable reporting 

period for broadband rates. 

73. Since the rate floor has been 

eliminated, there is no longer the same 

justification for carving out voice rates 

so they cover the year the report is filed 

rather than the prior year. Because all 

other reporting in the FCC Form 481 

coves the prior calendar year, including 

compliance with the broadband rates, it 

creates confusion to treat voice rates 

differently. Recipients, not infrequently, 

have expressed confusion as to what 

year’s rate benchmarks they are 

certifying compliance with when 

completing the FCC Form 481. To 

address this confusion and aid in 

program administration, the 

Commission proposes to modify the 

voice and broadband rate certification 

rules to make explicit that recipients are 

certifying to compliance with pricing 

benchmarks in the prior year. In other 

words, when certifying the FCC Form 

481 by July 1, 2022, recipients will be 

certifying compliance with voice and 

broadband benchmarks for 2021. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal, and it also proposes to modify 

the rules to reflect that the Public Notice 

announcing the benchmarks is issued by 

the Bureau and the Office of Economics 

and Analytics. 

74. Finally, the Commission proposes 

a new rule to allow high-cost support 

recipients to report locations that were 

deployed to during a given year, even 

after the reporting period has ended. 

The Commission requires that recipients 

with defined deployment obligations 

annually certify all locations deployed 

to in satisfaction of public interest 

obligations in the prior calendar year. 

For example, by March 1, 2023, 

recipients must certify all locations 

deployed to in 2022 where they began 

offering voice and at least one 

broadband plan that meets or exceeds 

the minimum speed and minimum 

usage, complies with latency 

requirements, and is offered at or below 

the applicable benchmark rate. 

75. The Commission’s rules set forth 

an explicit support reduction 

mechanism when recipients fail to 

certify on time. However, the 

Commission’s rules do not allow a 

recipient that certified locations by the 

deadline to later certify additional 

locations that were deployed to during 

that reporting year. Since the 

Commission’s rules require recipients to 

certify all locations deployed to in the 

prior year by the deadline, currently 

recipients must seek a waiver showing 

good cause to certify additional 

locations after the deadline. 

76. There are sound reasons to 

prohibit recipients from filing deployed 

to locations after the reporting deadline 

(untimely reported locations) absent 

good cause. For instance, if the 

Commission were to freely allow 

recipients to certify additional locations 

after the deadline, recipients would 

have no incentive to file locations on 

time unless the locations were needed 

to meet a build-out obligation. Accurate 

and timely location data are critical for 

the Commission and USAC to monitor 

compliance and for USAC to conduct 

verifications. 

77. However, the Commission also 

believes that it is inequitable and 

undesirable to prohibit recipients from 

certifying untimely reported locations 

under all circumstances. Such 

prohibition may ultimately result in 

recipients falling short of a deployment 

milestone and then facing support 

recovery and/or withholding when they 

have in actuality sufficiently and timely 

met their deployment obligations. 

Moreover, it seems unreasonable that a 

recipient that, for example, misses the 

March 1st deadline completely and 

certifies all locations by March 21st is 

permitted to count all those locations 

towards its milestone, but a recipient 

that certifies the vast majority of its 

locations by March 1st and 

subsequently seeks to certify additional 

locations by March 18th, for example, 

could not do so absent good cause— 

resulting in not being able to count 

those locations towards milestones. 

Furthermore, allowing recipients to 

certify untimely reported locations 

comports with their duty to correct or 

amend submitted information. Finally, 

prohibiting recipients from certifying 

untimely reported locations would leave 

us without a fully accurate 

representation of deployment using 

high-cost support. 

78. To balance these considerations, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

whether it should amend its rules to 

allow recipients to file untimely 

reported locations, but also to apply a 

corresponding support reduction to 

provide a continued incentive for timely 

filing. The Commission proposes that 

the amended rule would apply, 

prospectively, a support reduction 

mechanism where recipients’ support 

will be reduced for untimely reported 

locations based on the percentage of a 

recipient’s total locations for the 

reporting year being reported after the 

deadline and the number of days after 

the deadline. Such a mechanism, which 

bases the reduction on the number of 

days late, is consistent with the existing 

mechanism that reduces support for 

failure to complete the annual 

certification. In addition, factoring in 

the number (percentage) of untimely 

reported locations for the reporting year 

further helps make the reduction in 

support proportional to the severity of 

the rule violation. 

79. The Commission seeks comment 

on this proposal and whether it strikes 

the right balance of allowing untimely 

report locations to count towards 

deployment but also ensuring timely 

filing and efficient administration of the 

program. The Commission also seeks 

comment on any alternative proposals 

and whether there should be a cap on 

a support reduction for untimely 

reported locations. To further help 

efficiently administer this regime, 

unlike in the Commission’s rule 

regarding late certifications, it does not 

propose to apply a one-time grace 

period or to reduce support at a 

minimum a full week given that in these 

situations recipients will have filed 

some locations by the deadline. 

80. The Commission proposes to 

amend its rules to provide a simpler 

process for rate-of-return carriers 

seeking to merge, consolidate, or acquire 

one or more rate-of-return study areas to 

calculate the new entity’s Access 

Recovery Charge; CAF ICC (Connect 

America Fund Intercarrier 

Compensation) support; and reciprocal 

compensation and switched access rate 

caps. The Commission anticipates that 

adopting such revisions to its rules 

would reduce the burden on carriers 

that currently have to seek waivers of 

the existing rules whenever they seek to 

merge, consolidate or acquire one or 

more rate-of-return study areas. Such 

rule revisions would also reduce the 

burden on the Commission of acting on 

these waiver requests and facilitate the 

Commission’s goal of encouraging 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
36296 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

carriers to become more efficient and to 

increase productivity. The Commission 

seeks comment on these proposals and 

on the costs and benefits of adopting 

these proposals. 

81. In the USF/ICC Transformation 

Order, the Commission capped rate-ofreturn carriers’ reciprocal compensation 

and interstate switched access rates and 

most intrastate switched access rates at 

the rates in effect on December 29, 2011. 

At the same time, the Commission 

adopted a multi-year transition for 

reducing most terminating switched 

access rates to bill-and-keep. As part of 

these reforms, the Commission adopted 

an Access Recovery Charge that allows 

rate-of-return carriers to recover a 

portion of the intercarrier compensation 

revenues lost due to the Commission’s 

reforms, up to a defined amount 

(Eligible Recovery) for each year of the 

transition. If the projected Access 

Recovery Charge revenues are not 

sufficient to cover the entire Eligible 

Recovery amount, rate-of-return carriers 

may elect to collect the remainder in 

CAF ICC support. 

82. The calculation of a rate-of-return 

Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) Eligible 

Recovery begins with its Base Period 

Revenue. A rate-of-return carrier’s Base 

Period Revenue is the sum of certain 

intrastate switched access revenues and 

net reciprocal compensation revenues 

received by March 31, 2012, for services 

provided during Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, 

and the projected revenue requirement 

for interstate switched access services 

for the 2011–2012 tariff period. The 

Base Period Revenue for rate-of-return 

carriers was reduced by 5% initially and 

is reduced by an additional 5% in each 

year of the transition. A rate-of-return 

carrier’s Eligible Recovery is equal to 

the adjusted Base Period Revenue for 

the year in question, less, for the 

relevant year of the transition, the sum 

of: (1) projected intrastate switched 

access revenue; (2) projected interstate 

switched access revenue; and (3) 

projected net reciprocal compensation 

revenue. The adjusted Base Period 

Revenue is also adjusted to reflect 

certain demand true-ups. A rate-ofreturn LECs Base Period Revenue is 

calculated only once, but is used during 

each step of the intercarrier 

compensation recovery mechanism 

calculations for each year of the 

transition. 

83. The Commission’s rules for 

calculating Eligible Recovery are based 

on study-area-specific data, and do not 

address what adjustments may be 

necessary when study areas are merged 

after one company acquires all or a 

portion of another. Because a carrier’s 

Base Period Revenue and interstate 

revenue requirement are study-areaspecific, as are a carrier’s reciprocal 

compensation and capped switched 

access rates, combining two study areas 

requires a decision about how best to 

combine two different Base Period 

Revenues and interstate revenue 

requirements, and—when the study 

areas do not have the same capped 

rates—a waiver of the Commission’s 

rules to establish the proper rate levels. 

84. Since the Eligible Recovery rules 

have taken effect, several rate-of-return 

LECs have partially or fully merged 

study areas or acquired new study areas. 

Because the intercarrier compensation 

and CAF ICC rules adopted in the USF/ 

ICC Transformation Order do not 

contemplate study area changes, these 

carriers have had to file petitions for 

waiver of portions of §§ 51.917 and 

51.909 of the Commission’s rules to 

reset the applicable Base Period 

Revenue associated with the study areas 

they have merged or acquired. In this 

line of waiver orders, the Bureau has 

permitted carriers to add together the 

relevant interstate revenues from FY 

2011 of the merging study areas and the 

2011–2012 interstate revenue 

requirement of the merging study areas. 

This calculation then creates a 

combined Base Period Revenue which 

serves as the baseline for calculating the 

Eligible Recovery of the company 

serving the combined study area going 

forward. To facilitate mergers for 

entities that participate in the National 

Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) 

Tariff, the Bureau has granted waivers to 

allow NECA to place the consolidated 

study area in the rate band that most 

closely approximates the merged 

entities’ cost characteristics. The rate for 

that rate band then becomes the rate cap 

for that rate element in the merged 

study area. 

85. The waiver process has imposed 

additional costs on these carriers and, in 

some instances, delayed mergers or 

acquisitions. The Commission’s 

experience in reviewing these waiver 

requests has shown that certain patterns 

recur with predictable outcomes that 

can be addressed through rule revisions 

rather than by requiring individual 

waiver requests in the future. Adopting 

such revisions to the Commission’s 

rules would reduce the burden on 

carriers and on the Commission. The 

Commission, therefore, proposes to 

revise its rules to eliminate the need for 

a rate-of-return LEC that is involved in 

a merger, consolidation, or acquisition 

with another rate-of-return carrier to 

obtain a waiver of these intercarrier 

compensation rules when certain 

conditions apply. 

86. First, the Commission proposes to 

revise § 51.917 of its rules to provide 

that merging, consolidating, or acquiring 

rate-of-return carriers shall combine 

separate Base Period Revenue and 

interstate revenue requirement factors 

when two or more entire study areas are 

being merged. This approach is 

consistent with the Commission’s 

precedent and the proposed rule 

revisions will eliminate the need for 

individual waiver requests in these 

circumstances. If only a portion of a 

study area is being acquired and merged 

into another study area, the Commission 

proposes to allow the acquiring entity 

and the remaining entity to allocate the 

Base Period Revenue and interstate 

revenue requirement levels of the partial 

study area on the proportion of access 

lines acquired compared to the total 

access lines in the pre-merger study area 

of the remaining entity. This proposal is 

consistent with the approach the 

Commission has previously taken when 

dealing with transactions affecting only 

part of a study area. 

87. Similarly, the Commission 

proposes to revise § 51.909 of its rules 

to establish procedures that will allow 

us to set new rate caps for merging rateof-return carriers without requiring the 

merging carriers to file a waiver request. 

The Commission proposes to amend its 

rule to provide that, for merging, 

acquiring or consolidating carriers that 

will file their own tariffs, the new rate 

cap for each rate element shall be the 

weighted average of the preexisting rates 

in each of the study areas. For merging 

carriers that participate in the NECA 

traffic-sensitive tariff and that have to 

establish a single switched access rate 

for a rate element, the Commission 

proposes that the new consolidated rate, 

as determined by NECA pursuant to the 

rate bands in its traffic-sensitive tariff, 

will serve as the new rate cap if the 

merged entity’s CAF ICC support will 

not increase as a result of the merger by 

more than 2% above the amount 

received by the merging entities, using 

the demand and rate data for the 

preceding calendar year. The 

Commission invites comment on these 

proposals. In particular, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the two percent factor represents a 

reasonable level for determining that a 

merger should be allowed at the rate(s) 

determined by NECA. 

88. Finally, the Commission proposes 

to streamline the process by which rateof-return carriers seeking to merge, 

consolidate, or acquire study areas can 

establish new reciprocal compensation 

and switched access rate caps if the 

impact of using the weighted average of 

the preexisting rates in the previous 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36297 

study areas to establish the rates for the 

new combined study area would result 

in the new entity’s CAF ICC support 

exceeding the 2 percent threshold 

described in this document. Under 

those circumstances, the Commission 

proposes to require carriers to file a 

petition for waiver, specifying the 

impact of the merger, acquisition or 

consolidation on the new entity’s rates 

and CAF ICC support, but the 

Commission proposes to adopt a 

streamlined public notice period after 

which petitions for waiver would be 

deemed granted after 60 days if there is 

no opposition and the Bureau or 

Commission has not acted to extend the 

review period. The Commission 

proposes that the petitions for waiver be 

submitted for consideration via the 

Commission’s ECFS and a courtesy copy 

emailed to the Chief, Pricing Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau. 

89. The Commission further proposes 

that carriers filing petitions under these 

revised rules must include: (1) a 

description of the merging study areas, 

or portions of study areas involved; (2) 

the switched access demand; (3) 

relevant pre- and post-merger rates for 

the study areas involved, as proposed; 

(4) the effect on CAF ICC resulting from 

the merger; and (5) a brief statement of 

the benefits of the merger. The Bureau 

would then release a public notice 

announcing receipt of a petition and a 

30-day comment period would begin 

upon release of that public notice. Reply 

comments would be due 45 days after 

the release of the public notice. If no 

oppositions are received, the petition for 

waiver will be deemed granted on the 

60th day after the public notice, unless 

the Bureau or Commission acts to 

prevent the ‘‘automatic’’ grant. If an 

opposition is received during the 

comment or reply comment period, the 

Commission proposes that the petition 

would be automatically removed from 

the streamlined grant process. The 

Commission invites parties to comment 

on this proposal and whether the 

requested information to be included in 

the petition is sufficient to permit 

interested parties and the Bureau or 

Commission to determine whether the 

proposed merger is in the public 

interest. The Commission proposes to 

delegate to the Bureau the authority to 

review, analyze and approve these 

petitions for waiver. 

90. The Commission seeks comment 

on amending § 54.902 of its rules, which 

governs the amount of CAF BLS support 

a rate-of-return carrier receives when it 

acquires exchanges from another 

incumbent local exchange carrier, to 

better reflect the current state of highcost universal service. 

91. Currently, § 54.902(a) describes 

how CAF BLS support is calculated 

when a rate-of-return carrier acquires 

exchanges from another rate-of-return 

carrier, while § 54.902(b) specifies that 

when a rate-of-return carrier acquires 

exchanges from a price cap carrier, the 

acquired exchanges remain subject to 

the support amounts and obligations 

established by CAF Phases I and II. 

Since this rule was last amended, the 

Commission has adopted and 

implemented several new high-cost 

support mechanisms, for areas served by 

both rate-of-return and price cap 

carriers, as well as non-incumbent 

LEC’s. These new mechanisms include 

auction-based mechanisms and modelbased support for rate-of-return carriers 

(A–CAM I and II). 

92. The Commission proposes to 

modify § 54.902(a) to expressly limit its 

application, so that a carrier would only 

be eligible to receive CAF BLS support 

for exchanges acquired from existing 

CAF BLS recipients. The Commission 

further proposes to modify § 54.902(b) 

to include any model-based, auctionbased or frozen support. Specifically, 

the Commission proposes that any 

transferred exchanges subject to 

§ 54.902(b) would be subject to the 

support and obligations in place at the 

time of the exchange. These proposed 

modifications would be consistent 

generally with the rule as originally 

adopted, when all rate-of-return carriers 

were subject to the Interstate Common 

Line Support (ICLS) mechanism (which 

was renamed CAF BLS when 

modernized by the Commission in 

2016). Because the Commission also 

created a voluntary pathway to modelbased support for rate-of-return carriers 

in 2016, it is no longer accurate to 

assume, as § 54.902(a) does, that all rateof-return carriers are subject to CAF 

BLS. Similarly, because the Commission 

has adopted competitive bidding 

processes to allocate high-cost support 

in many areas, rate-of-return carriers 

may acquire exchanges from carriers 

that are not subject to rate-of-return or 

price cap regulation. The proposed rule 

would clarify that only transferred 

exchanges that are already eligible for 

CAF BLS would be eligible for CAF BLS 

after their transfers. Though exchanges 

not subject to ICLS (or CAF BLS) would 

have been eligible for ICLS (or CAF 

BLS) as the rule was originally designed 

in 2001, today the alternatives to CAF 

BLS are model-based or auction-based 

support mechanisms in which support 

recipients have agreed to fixed support 

amounts in exchange for defined 

obligations over specified terms, and it 

would not typically be appropriate for 

those fixed obligations and support 

amounts to be changed because some 

exchanges were transferred. This 

includes exchanges served by rate-ofreturn carriers under the A–CAM I and 

A–CAM II mechanisms. The 

Commission, of course, may address 

unique circumstances justifying a 

different result through the waiver 

process. The Commission seeks 

comment on these proposals. 

93. The Commission seeks comment 

on several proposals to modify the study 

area boundary waiver process. A study 

area is a geographic segment of an 

incumbent LECs telephone operations 

and forms the basis of the jurisdictional 

separations of its costs and its cost 

studies. The Commission froze all study 

area boundaries effective November 15, 

1984 to prevent incumbent LECs from 

establishing separate study areas made 

up of only high-cost exchanges to 

maximize their receipt of high-cost 

universal service support. The study 

area freeze also prevents incumbent 

LECs from transferring exchanges 

among existing study areas for the 

purpose of increasing interstate revenue 

requirements and maximizing universal 

service compensation. Carriers 

operating in more than one state 

typically have one study area for each 

state, and carriers operating in a single 

state typically only have a single study 

area. 

94. In 1996, the then Common Carrier 

Bureau (now known as the Wireline 

Competition Bureau) issued an order 

stating that ‘‘carriers are not required to 

seek study area waivers if: (1) a 

separately incorporated company is 

establishing a study area for a 

previously unserved area; (2) a company 

is combining previously unserved 

territory with one of its existing study 

areas in the same state; and (3) a holding 

company is consolidating existing study 

areas in the same state.’’ Accordingly, 

any carrier seeking to merge study areas 

that does not fall into one of those three 

categories must petition the 

Commission for a waiver. In 2004, the 

Commission adopted the Skyline Order, 

which stated that ‘‘the Commission has 

never enunciated an exception to its 

study area waiver requirements for 

unserved areas [and] that treating an 

area as unserved when it was previously 

within an existing study area would be 

inconsistent with the purpose of the 

study area freeze.’’ It clarified that ‘‘a 

study area waiver request must be filed 

with the Commission where a company 

is seeking to create a new study area 

from within one or more existing study 

areas.’’ The Skyline Order therefore 

modified the 1996 Bureau-level order by 

prohibiting the establishment of a new 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
36298 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

study area in previously unserved 

territory if the unserved area was within 

an existing study area. 

95. In the USF/ICC Transformation 

Order, the Commission recognized the 

administrative burden the ad hoc 

approach placed on the Bureau. Because 

most petitions are ‘‘routine in nature,’’ 

the Commission adopted a streamlined 

process to address all study area waiver 

petitions. Under this process, once a 

carrier submits a petition the Bureau 

will issue a public notice seeking 

comment and noting whether the waiver 

is appropriate for streamlined treatment. 

Absent any further action by the Bureau, 

if the waiver is subject to streamlined 

treatment, it is granted on the 60th day 

after the reply comment due date. 

Alternatively, if the petition requires 

further analysis and review, the public 

notice will state that the petition is not 

suitable for streamlined treatment. 

96. Since then, the Commission has 

substantially reformed how universal 

service support is awarded. Incumbent 

LECs now receive support in different 

ways, including model-based support 

and auction support, in addition to 

traditional rate-of-return regulation 

(legacy support). Currently, when a 

carrier that owns multiple study areas 

within a state wants to merge these 

commonly-owned study areas, the 

carrier is not required to petition the 

Commission. However, allowing carriers 

to merge study areas that receive 

support under different mechanisms 

could create opportunities for carriers to 

manipulate the Commission’s support. 

For example, if a carrier sought to merge 

two study areas in a state, one of which 

receives legacy rate-of-return support 

and another that receives model-based 

support, it would be difficult for the 

Commission to determine which lines 

in the new study area are entitled to 

rate-of-return support, which typically 

increases as the number of lines 

increases. Similarly, such a merger 

could create confusion regarding 

tracking carrier mandatory build-out 

obligations by changing the areas in 

which they must deploy broadband. For 

example, an A–CAM carrier receives a 

fixed amount of support in exchange for 

deploying broadband to a specific 

number of locations based on costs as 

determined by a model. If the A–CAM 

carrier merges its study area with a 

legacy rate-of-return study area in the 

same state owned by the same carrier, 

it would then be harder to track the 

deployment obligations under each 

program. 

97. In addition, allowing carriers to 

add unserved areas to their study areas, 

even if those areas are not within an 

existing study area, could undermine 

the Commission’s goal of distributing 

universal service support in the most 

efficient manner possible. In furtherance 

of this objective, the Commission has 

encouraged the transition to modelbased support and auction-awarded 

support over traditional rate-of-return 

regulation. If rate-of-return carriers can 

extend their existing study area into 

unserved areas, this could result in the 

use of legacy support in additional areas 

when such areas could be served with 

broadband more efficiently using 

model-based or auction-based support. 

98. To avoid the issues created by 

merging study areas receiving different 

types of support or the expanded use of 

less efficient support methodologies, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

requiring waivers for all study area 

boundary changes. Requiring changes in 

study area boundaries to be reviewed by 

the Bureau would ensure that any 

proposed changes are not approved 

until the effects on the Fund are taken 

into account. Because the Commission 

has already established a streamlined 

process for such waivers, those requests 

that do not present any support or other 

concerns could be swiftly granted, 

thereby minimizing the burden on those 

carriers proposing mergers that promote 

efficiency and are clearly in the public 

interest. The Commissions seeks 

comment on this proposal. Are there 

any alternatives that the Commissions 

should consider that would address 

these concerns? 

99. The Commission seeks comment 

on eliminating optional line count 

filings for CAF BLS support recipients 

reported on FCC Form 507, or, 

alternatively, updating the filing 

schedule for optional quarterly line 

counts to better align with the 

mandatory annual filing deadline. 

100. The Commission adopted 

quarterly filing provisions for rate-ofreturn carriers in 2001 in the MultiAssociation Group (MAG) Order. The 

filing schedule tracked the existing 

schedule for reporting line counts for 

high cost loop support, with annual line 

counts due on July 31 each year 

(reporting line counts as of the prior 

December 31), and quarterly updates 

due on September 30, December 31, and 

March 31 (each reporting lines as of six 

months earlier). The quarterly line 

counts were mandatory for rate-ofreturn carriers serving areas in which a 

competitive ETC was operating, and 

permissive for all other rate-of-return 

carriers. In 2012, mandatory quarterly 

filings were eliminated because 

competitive ETCs no longer received 

support based on the incumbent rate-ofreturn carriers’ per-line support 

amounts. In the December 2018 Rate-ofReturn Reform Order, the Commission 

changed the date of the mandatory 

annual filing from July 31 to March 31 

but did not address the optional 

quarterly updates. As a result, the 

optional quarterly update of lines as of 

September 30 is due on the same day, 

March 31, as the mandatory annual 

filing of line counts as of December 31, 

and other optional line count filings 

have an unnecessary six-month lag. 

101. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether to eliminate the option of 

submitting quarterly line counts or 

alternatively to align the schedule to 

conform to the recently revised 

schedule for annual line count filings. 

The optional line counts are currently 

used for two purposes. First, USAC uses 

the quarterly line count updates to 

administer the monthly per-line cap on 

high-cost universal service support each 

quarter. In practice, only 17 carriers 

filed updated line counts on December 

31, 2020, and most of those were not 

subject to the per-line cap. The 

Commission notes that using the 

quarterly line counts to calculate a 

carrier’s per-line support gives carriers 

that may be subject to monthly per-line 

cap a benefit, in that they can choose to 

file updated line counts only if the 

change would increase support to the 

carrier. Second, the quarterly line 

counts are used to determine 

preliminary CAF BLS when a CAF BLS 

support recipient acquires exchanges 

from another CAF BLS support 

recipient. This preliminary CAF BLS 

amount is ultimately subject to true-up 

based on the carrier’s actual cost and 

revenue data, including the transferred 

exchanges. Under either scenario, it is 

possible that the Commission could rely 

on the mandatory annual line counts 

with minimal loss of utility. Given the 

limited utility of the quarterly line 

count filings, should the Commission 

eliminate them altogether? 

102. In the event that the Commission 

decides to retain the optional quarterly 

filings, it seeks comment on revising the 

filing schedule to align with the recently 

revised schedule for reporting annual 

lines. Consistent with § 54.903(a)(1), 

carriers must annually report lines 

counts as of December 31 on March 31. 

The Commission proposes to revise 

§ 54.903(a)(2) to permit carriers 

optionally to report updated lines as of 

March 31 on June 30, lines as of June 

30 on September 30, and lines as of 

September 30 on December 31. This 

would eliminate confusion and provide 

a more consistent flow of line count 

data over the course of the year. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36299 

103. The Commission seeks comment 

on revising the process by which a 

support recipient subject to a state 

commission’s jurisdiction can 

relinquish its ETC designation by 

requiring the ETC to provide advance 

notice to the Commission prior to 

seeking relinquishment and within 10 

days after such relinquishment has been 

granted. 

104. Section 254(e) of the 

Communications Act of 1934 provides 

that ‘‘only an eligible 

telecommunications carrier . . . shall be 

eligible to receive specific Federal 

universal service support.’’ States have 

primary jurisdiction for designating 

ETCs; the Commission generally has 

authority only when ‘‘a common carrier 

[is] providing telephone exchange 

service and exchange access that is not 

subject to the jurisdiction of a State 

commission.’’ An ETC may relinquish 

its designation ‘‘in any area served by 

more than one’’ ETC so long as ‘‘the 

remaining [ETCs] ensure that all 

customers served by the relinquishing 

carrier will continue to be served.’’ 

Once the requesting carrier makes the 

required showing, the state commission 

or the Commission grants the request for 

relinquishment. 

105. Where states designate ETCs, the 

Commission currently has no oversight 

over the ETC relinquishment process. 

As a result, a carrier could seek and be 

granted relinquishment of its ETC 

designation while it still has high-cost 

support obligations, such as an 

outstanding debt to USAC or unfulfilled 

deployment commitment. 

106. Section 54.205 of the 

Commission’s rules requires an ETC 

seeking to relinquish its ETC 

designation granted by a state 

commission to give advance notice to 

the state commission. The Commission 

proposes to extend that obligation to 

also require advance notice to them. In 

addition, after the state commission 

grants its request to relinquish its 

designation, the Commission proposes 

to require the ETC to notify them within 

10 days. The Commission believes the 

proposed notification requirements 

would help deter waste, fraud, and 

abuse in the management of the USF. In 

that regard, the Commission notes that, 

while states are largely responsible for 

granting ETC status, ETCs receive 

universal service support from them on 

the basis of this designation. Moreover, 

such notification would enable the 

Commission to end support payments in 

a timely fashion and, where applicable, 

take action where a carrier fails to meet 

its deployment, performance, or other 

obligations. Conversely, when an ETC 

does not receive any federal USF 

support, the Commission believes such 

notification is appropriate as it would 

allow to us confirm that in fact, there 

are not federal USF issues as stake. 

Given the impact of relinquishments on 

federal USF support, the Commission 

believes it has ample legal authority to 

adopt the foregoing notice requirements, 

under Section 254 and as reasonably 

ancillary thereto. The Commission also 

proposes to find that the benefits of 

providing an additional safeguard to 

protect the integrity of the Fund 

outweighs any modest burden resulting 

from the proposed notification 

obligation. The Commission seeks 

comment on these proposals and 

assessments of legal authority and costs 

and benefits. 

107. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether it should consider any other 

clarifications, modifications or 

additions to its rules in this proceeding. 

Are there modifications that would 

improve administrative efficiency or 

reduce unnecessary burdens in the highcost program? Are there examples where 

the Commission’s rules have not kept 

pace or are otherwise not aligned with 

Commission orders? Are there any highcost rules that are reflected solely in 

Commission orders but not in the 

Commission’s rules? In considering 

additional changes, the Commission 

seeks to balance its goals of facilitating 

the efficient operation of the high-cost 

program for all parties, while ensuring 

that the Commission continues to 

protect the fund from waste, fraud and 

abuse. Commenters are invited to 

specifically address how any suggested 

modifications will meet those goals. 

108. The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to advance digital 

equity for all, including people of color, 

persons with disabilities, persons who 

live in rural or Tribal areas, and others 

who are or have been historically 

underserved, marginalized, or adversely 

affected by persistent poverty or 

inequality, invites comment on any 

equity-related considerations and 

benefits (if any) that may be associated 

with the proposals and issues discussed 

herein. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on 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. 

III. Procedural Matters 

109. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Analysis. This document contains 

proposed new information collection 

requirements. The Commission as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, will be inviting the 

general public and OMB to comment on 

the information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

the Commission seeks specific comment 

on how it might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

110. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on small 

entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in this NPRM. The 

Commission requests written public 

comments on this IRFA. Comments 

must be identified as responses to the 

IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines 

for comments provided on the first page 

of the NPRM. The Commission will 

send a copy of the NPRM, including this 

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

(SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA 

(or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

111. In this proposed rule, the 

Commission seeks comment on a 

proposal by the Coalition to achieve 

widespread deployment of 100/20 Mbps 

broadband service throughout the areas 

served by carriers currently receiving 

A–CAM support, and the Commission 

initiates a targeted inquiry into the 

management and administration of the 

high-cost program of the USF. For more 

than a decade, the Commission has 

made substantial progress in reforming 

and modernizing the various high-cost 

universal service support mechanisms. 

This NPRM continues the progress by 

seeking methods to increase efficiency 

and efficacy of the program. 

112. The proposed action is 

authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 

214, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 214, 254, 

303(r), and 403. 

113. 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 proposed rules and by the rule 

revisions on which the Notice seeks 

comment, if adopted. 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
36300 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

SBA. A ‘‘small-business concern’’ is one 

that: (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. 

114. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. The Commission’s actions, 

over time, may affect small entities that 

are not easily categorized at present. 

The Commission therefore describes 

here, at the outset, three broad groups of 

small entities that could be directly 

affected herein. First, while there are 

industry specific size standards for 

small businesses that are used in the 

regulatory flexibility analysis, according 

to data from the SBA’s Office of 

Advocacy, in general a small business is 

an independent business having fewer 

than 500 employees. These types of 

small businesses represent 99.9% of all 

businesses in the United States, which 

translates to 32.5 million businesses. 

115. Next, the type of small entity 

described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

that is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ The Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of 

$50,000 or less to delineate its annual 

electronic filing requirements for small 

exempt organizations. Nationwide, for 

tax year 2020, there were approximately 

447,689 small exempt organizations in 

the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 

or less according to the registration and 

tax data for exempt organizations 

available from the IRS. 

116. Finally, the small entity 

described as a ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction’’ is defined generally as 

‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts, with a population of 

less than fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census 

Bureau data from the 2017 Census of 

Governments indicate that there were 

90,075 local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. Of 

this number there were 36,931 general 

purpose governments (county, 

municipal and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,040 special purpose governments— 

independent school districts with 

enrollment populations of less than 

50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 

U.S. Census of Governments data, the 

Commission estimates that at least 

48,971 entities fall into the category of 

‘‘small governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

117. Small entities potentially 

affected by the proposed regulations 

herein include Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, LECs, 

Incumbent LECs, Competitive Local 

Exchange Carriers, Interexchange 

Carriers, Local Resellers, Toll Resellers, 

Other Toll Carriers, Prepaid Calling 

Card Providers, Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite), Cable and 

Other Subscription Programming, Cable 

Companies and Systems (Rate 

Regulation Cable System Operators 

(Telecom Act Standard), All Other 

Telecommunications, Radio and 

Television Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, Semiconductor and 

Related Device Manufacturing, Software 

Publishers, Wired Broadband internet 

Access Service Providers, Wireless 

Broadband internet Access Service 

Providers, internet Service Providers 

(Non-Broadband), and All Other 

Information Services. 

118. In this NPRM the Commission 

seeks comment on ways to improve the 

management, administration, and 

oversight of the high-cost program, 

including: streamlining reporting and 

certification requirements; improving 

review of mergers between rate-of-return 

local exchange carriers; clarifying 

support for exchanges acquired by a 

CAF BLS recipient; establishing a 

streamlined process to merge jointlyowned study areas; aligning the 

schedule for CAF BLS recipients to file 

optional quarterly line count updates; 

improving the process to relinquish ETC 

status; and improving its audit program. 

At this time the Commission cannot 

quantify the cost of compliance with the 

potential rule changes discussed in this 

document. However, the Commission 

does not believe that the costs and/or 

administrative burdens associated with 

any of the proposal rule changes will 

unduly burden small entities. The 

Commission discusses the new or 

modified obligations that result in this 

document, and seek comment on these 

matters, including cost and benefit 

analyses supported by quantitative and 

qualitative data from the parties in the 

proceeding. 

119. Specifically, the NPRM seeks 

comment on a proposal by the by 

Coalition for new A–CAM. The NPRM 

also seeks comment regarding several 

changes that would improve or 

streamline annual reporting and 

certification requirements. First, the 

NPRM seeks comment on and proposes 

modifying § 54.313(i) of the 

Commission’s rules from the CFR 

because, pursuant to a previous 

Commission order, high-cost recipients 

are no longer subject to the requirement 

to file annual reporting and 

certifications with the Commission, 

relevant state commissions, relevant or 

authority in a U.S. Territory, or Tribal 

government now that the information is 

available from USAC. Second, the 

Commission proposes to align more 

closely support reductions for a carrier’s 

actual failure to comply with the 

reporting and certification deadline by 

directing USAC to reduce support in the 

month immediately following the date 

of failure. Third, the NPRM seeks 

comment on quarterly reporting 

requirements for performance testing, 

on making such requirements 

mandatory for all high-cost support 

recipients, and on the filing schedule. 

Fourth, the Commission seeks comment 

on relieving privately held A–CAM 

carriers of the requirement to file 

audited financials annually. Fifth, the 

NPRM proposes to modify the 

Commission’s rules to create a 

consistent grace period for all 

compliance filings by modifying all 

grace periods to ‘‘within four business 

days.’’ Sixth the NPRM seeks comment 

on provisions related to the location 

reporting and certification requirements 

for ETCs receiving high-cost USF 

support. Seventh, the NPRM proposes to 

codify uniform deployment, 

certification and location reporting 

deadlines for all CAF Phase II auction 

recipients and clarify deadlines for the 

Bringing Puerto Rico Together and 

Connect USVI stage 2 fixed funds. 

Eighth, the NPRM seeks comment on 

methods to obtain more accurate 

information on the actual speeds of 

broadband service provided through the 

high-cost programs. Ninth, the NPRM 

proposes amending § 54.316(a)(1) by 

deleting extraneous language to more 

accurately reflect the current scope of 

the Commission’s location reporting 

obligations. Tenth, the NPRM proposes 

to modify the voice and broadband rate 

certifications rules to clarify the 

reporting period. Finally, the NPRM 

proposes a support reduction scheme 

for when a carrier reports some 

locations after the deadline for the 

reporting period. 

120. In addition, the NPRM seeks 

comment on proposals to eliminate the 

need for a rate-of-return LEC that is 

involved in a merger, consolidation, or 

acquisition with another rate-of-return 

carrier to obtain a waiver of specified 

intercarrier compensation rules when 

certain conditions apply. The NPRM 

also seeks comment on amending 

§ 54.902, which governs the amount of 

CAF BLS received by a rate-of-return 

carrier when it acquires exchanges from 

another incumbent local exchange 

carrier. The NPRM proposes to modify 

§ 54.902(a) to expressly limit its 

application, so that a carrier would only 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36301 

be eligible for CAF BLS for exchanges 

acquired from existing CAF BLS 

recipients, and to modify § 54.902(b) to 

include any model-based, auction-based 

or frozen support. The NPRM also seeks 

comment on several proposals to modify 

the study area boundary process. 

121. The NPRM also seeks comment 

on updating the schedule for CAF BLS 

support recipients to file optional 

quarterly line counts on the FCC Form 

507 or, alternatively, eliminating 

optional quarterly line counts entirely. 

Additionally, the NPRM seeks comment 

on revising the process by which a 

support recipient can relinquish its ETC 

designation by requiring a certification 

that all outstanding universal service 

issues have been satisfied prior to 

relinquishment. Taken together, all of 

these proposals will reduce burdens on 

carriers and the Commission and will 

encourage carriers to become more 

efficient and productive. 

122. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) the establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rules for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities. 

123. In the NPRM, the Commission 

seeks comment from all entities, 

including small entities, regarding the 

impact of these proposed rules to 

improve the efficiency and efficacy of 

the high-cost program. The NRPM 

proposes changes that would improve or 

streamline annual reporting and 

certification requirements and proposes 

to eliminate a codified rule that is no 

longer applicable. These changes will 

eliminate ambiguity and reduce 

administrative burdens on all recipients, 

including small entities. The NPRM 

seeks comment on relieving privately 

held carriers receiving A–CAM support, 

most of which are small entities, of the 

requirement to file audited financial 

statements annually. The NPRM 

proposes to adopt consistent grace 

periods of ‘‘four business days’’ which 

will eliminate confusion for all entities 

from grace periods falling on a weekend 

or holiday. The NPRM also proposes to 

eliminate the need for rate-of-return 

local exchange carriers, most of which 

are small entities, involved in a merger, 

consolidation, or acquisition with 

another rate-of-return carrier to obtain a 

waiver of certain intercarrier 

compensation rules. For carriers that do 

not satisfy the criteria identified for 

transactions when waiver is not 

required, the NPRM proposes to 

streamline the CAF ICC merger approval 

process. The Commission asks and will 

consider alternatives to the proposals 

and on alternative ways of 

implementing the proposals. 

124. More generally, the Commission 

expects to consider the economic 

impact on small entities, as identified in 

comments filed in response to the 

Notice and this IRFA, in reaching its 

final conclusions and taking action in 

this proceeding. The proposals and 

questions laid out in the NPRM are 

designed to ensure the Commission has 

a complete understanding of the 

benefits and potential burdens 

associated with the different actions and 

methods. 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

125. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 4(i), 214, 218–220, 254, 303(r), 

and 403 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 214, 

218–220, 254, 303(r), and 403, and 

§§ 1.1, 1.3, 1.407, 1.411, and 1.412 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.3, 

1.407, 1.411, and 1.412, the petition for 

rulemaking filed by the ACAM 

Broadband Coalition, RM–11868, is 

granted to the extent discussed herein, 

and this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

is adopted. 

126. It is further ordered that this 

NPRM will be effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register, 

with comment dates indicated therein. 

List of Subjects 

47 CFR Part 36 

Communications common carriers, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Telecommunications, 

Telephone, Uniform System of 

Accounts. 

47 CFR Part 51 

Communications, Communications 

common carriers, Telecommunications, 

Telephone. 

47 CFR Part 54 

Communications common carriers, 

Health facilities, Infants and children, 

internet, Libraries, Puerto Rico, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Schools, 

Telecommunications, Telephone, Virgin 

Islands. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Regulations 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

parts 36, 51, and 54 as follows: 

PART 36—JURISDICTIONAL 

SEPARATIONS PROCEDURES; 

STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR 

SEPARATING 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROPERTY 

COSTS, REVENUES, EXPENSES, 

TAXES AND RESERVES FOR 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 36 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i) and 

(j), 201, 205, 220, 221(c), 254, 303(r), 403, 

410, and 1302 unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 36.4 by adding paragraph 

(c) to read as follows: 

§ 36.4 Streamlining procedures for 

processing petitions for waiver of study 

area boundaries. 

* * * * * 

(c) As of 30 days after the effective 

date of this paragraph, incumbent local 

exchange carrier must seek waiver for 

study area boundary changes 

notwithstanding any prior exemptions 

from such waiver requests including, 

but not limited to, when a company is 

combining previously unserved territory 

with one of its study areas or a holding 

company is consolidating existing study 

areas within the same state. The 

Wireline Competition Bureau or the 

Office of Economics and Analytics may 

accept study area boundary corrections 

without a waiver. 

PART 51—INTERCONNECTION 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151–55, 201–05, 207– 

09, 218, 225–27, 251–52, 271, 332, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 4. Amend § 51.909 by adding 

paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows: 

§ 51.909 Transition of rate-of-return carrier 

access charges. 

(a) * * * 

(7) Rate-of-return carriers subject to 

§ 51.917 that merge with, consolidate 

with, or acquire, other rate-of-return 

carriers shall establish new rate caps as 

follows: 

(i) If the merged entity will file its 

own access tariff, the new rate cap for 

each rate element shall be the average of 

the preexisting rates of each study area 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
36302 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

weighted by the number of access lines 

in each study area; or 

(ii) If the merged entity participates in 

the Association traffic-sensitive tariff 

and has to establish a single switched 

access rate for one or more rate 

elements, the new consolidated rate 

reflecting the cost characteristics of the 

merged entity, as determined by the 

Association, will serve as the new rate 

cap if the merged entity’s CAF ICC 

support will not be more than two 

percent higher than the combined 

amount received by the entities prior to 

merger, using rate and demand levels 

for the preceding calendar year. A 

merging entity that does not satisfy this 

requirement may file a streamlined 

waiver petition that will be subject to 

the following procedure: 

(A) Public notice and review period. 

The Wireline Competition Bureau will 

issue a public notice seeking comment 

on a petition for waiver of the twopercent threshold established by this 

rule. 

(B) Comment cycle. Comments on 

petitions for waiver may be filed during 

the first 30 days following public notice, 

and reply comments may be filed during 

the first 45 days following public notice, 

unless the public notice specifies a 

different pleading cycle. All comments 

on petitions for waiver shall be filed 

electronically, and shall satisfy such 

other filing requirements as may be 

specified in the public notice. 

(C) Effectuating waiver grant. A 

waiver petition filed pursuant to this 

paragraph will be deemed granted 60 

days after the release of the public 

notice seeking comment on the petition, 

unless opposed or the Commission acts 

to prevent the waiver from taking effect. 

The Association and the petitioner shall 

coordinate the timing of any tariff filing 

necessary to effectuate this change. The 

revised rate filed by the Association 

shall be the rate cap for purposes of 

applying § 51.909(a). 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 51.917 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 51.917 Revenue Recovery for Rate-ofReturn Carriers. 

* * * * * 

(c) Base Period Revenue—(1) 

Adjustment for Access Stimulation 

activity. 2011 Rate-of-Return Carrier 

Base Period Revenue shall be adjusted 

to reflect the removal of any increases 

in revenue requirement or revenues 

resulting from Access Stimulation 

activity the Rate-of-Return Carrier 

engaged in during the relevant 

measuring period. A Rate-of-Return 

Carrier should make this adjustment for 

its initial July 1, 2012, tariff filing, but 

the adjustment may result from a 

subsequent Commission or court ruling. 

(2) Adjustment for Merger, 

Consolidation or Acquisition. Rate-ofreturn carriers subject to this section 

that merge with, consolidate with, or 

acquire, other rate-of-return carriers 

shall establish combined Base Period 

Revenue and interstate revenue 

requirement levels as follows: 

(i) If the merger or acquisition is of 

two or more study areas, the Base Period 

Revenue and interstate revenue 

requirement levels of the study areas 

shall be added together to establish a 

new Base Period Revenue and interstate 

revenue requirement for the newly 

combined entity; or 

(ii) If a portion of a study area is being 

acquired and merged into another study 

area, the Base Period Revenue and 

interstate revenue requirement levels of 

the partial study area shall be based on 

the proportion of access lines acquired 

compared to the total access lines in the 

pre-merger study area. 

* * * * * 

PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE 

■ 6. 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, and 1302, 1609, and 1752, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 7. Amend § 54.205 by revising the last 

sentence of paragraph (a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 54.205 Relinquishment of universal 

service. 

(a) * * * An eligible 

telecommunications carrier that seeks to 

relinquish its eligible 

telecommunications carrier designation 

for an area served by more than one 

eligible telecommunications carrier 

shall give advance notice to the State 

commission and the Commission of 

such relinquishment. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 54.310 by revising 

paragraph (c) introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 54.310 Connect America Fund for Price 

Cap Territories—Phase II. 

* * * * * 

(c) Deployment obligation. Recipients 

of Connect America Phase II modelbased support must complete 

deployment to 40 percent of supported 

locations by December 31, 2017, to 60 

percent of supported locations by 

December 31, 2018, to 80 percent of 

supported locations by December 31, 

2019, and to 100 percent of supported 

locations by December 31, 2020. 

Recipients of Connect America Phase II 

awarded through a competitive bidding 

process, including New York’s New NY 

Broadband Program, must complete 

deployment to 40 percent of supported 

locations by December 31, 2022, to 60 

percent of supported locations 

December 31, 2023, to 80 percent of 

supported locations by December 31, 

2024, and to 100 percent of supported 

locations by December 31, 2025. 

Compliance shall be determined based 

on the total number of supported 

locations in a state. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 54.313 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) and (i), the first 

sentence of paragraph (j)(1), paragraph 

(j)(2), and adding paragraphs (j)(3) and 

(4) to read as follows: 

§ 54.313 Annual reporting requirements 

for high-cost recipients. 

(a) * * * 

(2) A certification that the pricing of 

the company’s voice services during the 

prior calendar year is no more than two 

standard deviations above the 

applicable national average urban rate 

for voice service, as specified in the 

public notice issued by the Wireline 

Competition Bureau and the Office of 

Economics and Analytics; 

(3) A certification that the pricing of 

a service that meets the Commission’s 

broadband public interest obligations 

during the prior calendar year is no 

more than the applicable benchmark to 

be announced annually in a public 

notice issued by the Wireline 

Competition Bureau and the Office of 

Economics and Analytics, or is no more 

than the non-promotional price charged 

for a comparable fixed wireline service 

in urban areas in the states or U.S. 

Territories where the eligible 

telecommunications carrier receives 

support; 

* * * * * 

(i) All reports pursuant to this section 

shall be filed with the Administrator. 

(j) * * * 

(1) Annual deadline. In order for a 

recipient of high-cost support to 

continue to receive support or to retain 

its eligible telecommunications carrier 

designation, it must submit the annual 

reporting information required by this 

section annually by July 1 of each year. 

* * * 

(2) Grace period. An eligible 

telecommunications carrier that submits 

the annual reporting information 

required by this section after July 1, or 

the quarterly reporting required by 

subparagraph (j)(3) of this section after 

the required date, but within 4 business 

days will not receive a reduction in 

support if the eligible 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 36303 

telecommunications carrier and its 

holding company, operating companies, 

and affiliates as reported pursuant to 

paragraph (a)(4) of this section have not 

missed the July 1 deadline in any prior 

year. 

(3) Performance testing reports. 

Reports of network performance testing 

results pursuant to subparagraph (a)(6) 

of this section shall be filed quarterly on 

the first day of the second month 

following the quarter in the tests were 

conducted, except reports for the first 

quarter of each year may be reported on 

July 1 in conjunction with the annual 

reports. 

(4) Support reductions. Any support 

reductions resulting from a failure to 

make required filing pursuant to this 

section shall be applied in the next 

month following the missed deadline. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Revise § 54.314 to read as follows: 

§ 54.314 Certification of support for 

eligible telecommunications carriers. 

(a) Certification. States that desire 

eligible telecommunications carriers to 

receive support pursuant to the highcost program must file an annual 

certification with the Administrator 

stating that all federal high-cost support 

provided to such carriers within that 

State was used in the preceding 

calendar year and will be used in the 

coming calendar year only for the 

provision, maintenance, and upgrading 

of facilities and services for which the 

support is intended. 

(b) Carriers not subject to State 

jurisdiction. An eligible 

telecommunications carrier not subject 

to the jurisdiction of a State that desires 

to receive support pursuant to the highcost program must file an annual 

certification with the Administrator 

stating that all federal high-cost support 

provided to such carrier was used in the 

preceding calendar year and will be 

used in the coming calendar year only 

for the provision, maintenance, and 

upgrading of facilities and services for 

which the support is intended. 

(c) Certification format. (1) A 

certification pursuant to this section 

may be filed in the form of a letter from 

the appropriate regulatory authority for 

the State, and must be filed with the 

Administrator of the high-cost universal 

mechanism, on or before the deadlines 

set forth in paragraph (d) of this section. 

If provided by the appropriate 

regulatory authority for the State, the 

annual certification must identify which 

carriers in the State are eligible to 

receive federal support during the 

applicable 12-month period, and must 

certify that those carriers only used 

support during the preceding calendar 

year and will only use support in the 

coming calendar year for the provision, 

maintenance, and upgrading of facilities 

and services for which support is 

intended. A State may file a 

supplemental certification for carriers 

not subject to the State’s annual 

certification. 

(2) An eligible telecommunications 

carrier not subject to the jurisdiction of 

a State shall file a sworn affidavit 

executed by a corporate officer attesting 

that the carrier only used support 

during the preceding calendar year and 

will only use support in the coming 

calendar year for the provision, 

maintenance, and upgrading of facilities 

and services for which support is 

intended. The affidavit must be filed 

with the Administrator of the high-cost 

universal service support mechanism, 

on or before the deadlines set forth in 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(d) Filing deadlines—(1) Annual 

deadline. In order for an eligible 

telecommunications carrier to receive 

Federal high-cost support, the state or 

the eligible telecommunications carrier, 

if not subject to the jurisdiction of a 

state, must file an annual certification, 

as described in paragraph (c) of this 

section, with the Administrator by 

October 1 of each year. If a state or 

eligible telecommunications carrier files 

the annual certification after the October 

1 deadline, the carrier subject to the 

certification shall receive a reduction in 

its support pursuant to the following 

schedule: 

(i) An eligible telecommunications 

carrier subject to certifications filed after 

the October 1 deadline, but by October 

8, will have its support reduced in an 

amount equivalent to seven days in 

support; 

(ii) An eligible telecommunications 

carrier subject to certifications filed on 

or after October 9 will have its support 

reduced on a pro-rata daily basis 

equivalent to the period of noncompliance, plus the minimum sevenday reduction. 

(iii) Any support reductions resulting 

from a failure to make required filing 

pursuant to this section shall be applied 

in the next month following the missed 

deadline. 

(2) Grace period. If an eligible 

telecommunications carrier or state 

submits the annual certification 

required by this section after October 1 

but within 4 business days, the eligible 

telecommunications carrier subject to 

the certification will not receive a 

reduction in support if the eligible 

telecommunications carrier and its 

holding company, operating companies, 

and affiliates as reported pursuant to 

§ 54.313(a)(4) have not missed the 

October 1 deadline in any prior year. 

■ 11. Amend § 54.316 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(1), (b) introductory text, 

(b)(4) and (7), and (c) to read as follows. 

§ 54.316 Broadband deployment and 

certification requirements for high-cost 

recipients. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Recipients of high-cost support 

with defined broadband deployment 

obligations pursuant to § 54.308(a), 

54.308(c), or § 54.310(c) shall provide to 

the Administrator information regarding 

the locations to which the eligible 

telecommunications carrier is offering 

broadband service in satisfaction of its 

public interest obligations, as defined in 

either § 54.308 or § 54.309. 

* * * * * 

(b) Broadband deployment 

certifications. ETCs that receive support 

to serve fixed locations shall have the 

following broadband deployment 

certification obligations: 

* * * * * 

(4) Recipients of Connect America 

Phase II auction support, including New 

York’s New NY Broadband Program, 

shall provide: No later than March 1, 

2023, and every year thereafter ending 

March 1, 2026 a certification that by the 

end of the prior calendar year, it was 

offering broadband meeting the requisite 

public interest obligations specific in 

§ 54.309 to the required percentage of its 

supported locations in each state as set 

forth in § 54.310(c). 

* * * * * 

(7) Recipients of Uniendo a Puerto 

Rico Fund Stage 2 fixed and Connect 

USVI Fund fixed Stage 2 fixed support 

shall provide: No later than March 1 

following each service milestone in 

§ 54.1506, a certification that by the end 

of the prior support year, it was offering 

broadband meeting the requisite public 

interest obligations specified in 

§ 54.1507 to the required percentage of 

its supported locations in Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands as set forth 

in § 54.1506. The annual certification 

shall quantify the carrier’s progress 

toward or, as applicable, completion of 

deployment in accordance with the 

resilience and redundancy 

commitments in its application and in 

accordance with the detailed network 

plan it submitted to the Wireline 

Competition Bureau. 

* * * * * 

(c) Filing deadlines. In order for a 

recipient of high-cost support to 

continue to receive support for the 

following calendar year, or retain its 

eligible telecommunications carrier 

designations, it must submit the annual 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
36304 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

reporting information by March 1 as 

described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. ETCs that file their reports 

after the March 1 deadline shall receive 

a reduction in support pursuant to the 

following schedule: 

(1) An ETC that certifies after the 

March 1 deadline, but by March 8, will 

have its support reduced in an amount 

equivalent to seven days in support. 

(2) An ETC that certifies on or after 

March 9 will have its support reduced 

on a pro-rata daily basis equivalent to 

the period of non-compliance, plus the 

minimum seven-day reduction; 

(3) An ETC that certifies the 

information required by this section 

within 4 business days of March 1 will 

not receive a reduction in support if the 

ETC and its holding company, operating 

companies, and affiliates as reported 

pursuant to § 54.313(a)(4) in their report 

due July 1 of the prior year, have not 

missed the deadline in any prior year. 

(4) Any support reductions resulting 

from a failure to make a required filing 

pursuant to this section shall be applied 

in the next month following the missed 

deadline. 

(5) An ETC that met the March 1 

deadline by reporting locations 

pursuant to paragraph (a)(1), is 

permitted to report locations after the 

March 1 deadline (untimely reported 

locations) but shall have support 

reduced based on the percentage of the 

ETC’s total locations for the reporting 

year being reported after March 1 and 

the number of days after March 1. The 

grace period in paragraph (c)(3) does not 

apply to support reductions for 

untimely reported locations. 

■ 12. Revise the heading of subpart K to 

read as follows: 

Subpart K—Connect America Fund 

Broadband Loop Support 

■ 13. Amend § 54.902 by revising 

paragraphs (a) introductory text and (b) 

to read as follows: 

§ 54.902 Calculation of CAF BLS Support 

for Transferred Exchanges. 

(a) In the event that a rate-of-return 

carrier receiving CAF BLS acquires 

exchanges from an entity that also 

receives CAF BLS, CAF BLS for the 

transferred exchanges shall be 

distributed as follows: 

* * * * * 

(b) In the event that a rate-of-return 

carrier receiving CAF BLS acquires 

exchanges from an entity receiving 

frozen support, model-based support, or 

auction-based support, absent further 

action by the Commission, the 

exchanges shall receive the same 

amount of support and be subject to the 

same public interest obligations as 

specified pursuant to the frozen, modelbased, or auction-based program. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Amend § 54.903 by revising the 

first sentence of paragraph (a)(2) to read 

as follows: 

§ 54.903 Obligations of rate-of-return 

carriers and the Administrator. 

(a) * * * 

(2) A rate-of-return carrier may submit 

quarterly updates of the information in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, 

reporting data as of the last day of a 

quarter on the final day of the next 

quarter. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Amend § 54.1302 by adding two 

sentences to the end of paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 54.1302 Calculation of the incumbent 

local exchange carrier portion of the 

nationwide loop cost expense adjustment 

for rate-of-return carriers. 

(a) * * * Beginning January 1, 2021, 

and each calendar year thereafter, the 

base amount of the nationwide loop cost 

expense adjustment shall be the 

annualized amount of the final six 

months of the preceding calendar year. 

The total amount of the incumbent local 

exchange carrier portion of the 

nationwide loop cost expense 

adjustment for the first six months of 

the calendar year shall be the base 

amount divided by two and for the 

second six months of the calendar year 

shall be the base amount divided by 

two, multiplied times one plus the Rural 

Growth Factor calculated pursuant to 

§ 54.1303. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Amend § 54.1307 by adding a 

sentence to the end of paragraph (a)(2) 

to read as follows: 

§ 54.1307 Submission of Information by 

the National Exchange Carrier Association 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * The amounts for January 1 

to June 30 and for July 1 to December 

31 shall be shown separately. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–12685 Filed 6–15–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS