Rule2023-18621
Affordable Connectivity Program
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 1, 2023
Effective
October 2, 2023
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopts rules to establish the enhanced discounts available for monthly broadband services provided in high-cost areas by participants in the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 169 (Friday, September 1, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 169 (Friday, September 1, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60347-60356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18621]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 21-450; FCC 23-62; FR ID 167068]
Affordable Connectivity Program
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
or Commission) adopts rules to establish the enhanced discounts
available for monthly broadband services provided in high-cost areas by
participants in the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP).
DATES: Effective October 2, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please
contact, Travis Hahn, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications Access
Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f1b3d2e39263c61072e27210f292c2c61282039"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99cdebf8eff0eab7d1f8f1f7d9fffafab7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a> or
202-418-7400.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Sixth
Report and Order (Order) in WC Docket No. 21-450; adopted on August 3,
2023 and released on August 4, 2023. The full text of this document is
available at the following internet address: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-acts-provide-subsidy-consumers-certain-high-cost-areas-0">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-acts-provide-subsidy-consumers-certain-high-cost-areas-0</a>.
I. Introduction
1. In this final rule, as required by the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (Infrastructure Act), the Commission adopts rules to
establish the enhanced discounts available for monthly broadband
services provided in high-cost areas by participants in the ACP. The
Infrastructure Act recognizes that in certain high-cost areas of the
country, offering broadband service to ACP eligible households at the
standard up-to-$30 monthly benefit level could lead providers to
experience particularized economic hardship such that the provider may
not be able to maintain the operation of part or all of its broadband
network. To address this, the Infrastructure Act allows for providers
to provide an up-to-$75 monthly benefit to ACP eligible households in
high-cost areas upon a showing of such particularized economic hardship
in a given high-cost area. The steps the Commission takes to implement
this provision will help narrow the digital divide by ensuring that
more low-income households throughout the country, including households
in rural and insular areas, have access to discounted broadband
services. In particular, the high-cost area benefit will maximize
provider participation in the ACP, by encouraging additional providers
to participate in the ACP in high-cost areas and incentivizing existing
ACP providers experiencing an economic hardship in high-cost areas to
continue participating in the program. The high-cost area benefit also
complements and supports other Federal initiatives, including those in
the Infrastructure Act, to spur deployment and adoption in rural areas
by strengthening the business case for providers to deploy broadband in
rural and insular areas.
II. Discussion
2. The Commission now establishes the requirements to implement the
ACP high-cost area benefit as required by the Infrastructure Act. In
this section, the Commission discusses determining high-cost areas that
will be eligible for the high-cost area benefit, eligibility to receive
the high-cost area benefit, requirements to make a showing of economic
hardship, as well as other administrative aspects necessary to
implement the high-cost area benefit.
3. Pursuant to the Infrastructure Act, for purposes of the ACP
high-cost area benefit, the Commission must use the definition of high-
cost areas established by the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) for its Broadband Equity, Access, and
Deployment (BEAD) grant program. The ACP statutory provisions
specifically reference NTIA's determination of high-cost areas under
the BEAD program in defining a high-cost area for the ACP high-cost
area benefit. As such, the high-cost areas used by the Commission for
the ACP high-cost area benefit will be the same as the high-cost areas
used for the BEAD program as determined by NTIA.
4. The statute establishing the BEAD program requires NTIA, ``on or
after the date on which the [Commission's] broadband DATA maps are made
public,'' to allocate funding to eligible States for the high-cost
areas within the State. By definition, a `` `high-cost area' [as
determined by NTIA in consultation with the Commission] means an
unserved area in which the cost of building out broadband service is
higher, as compared with the average cost of building out broadband
service in unserved areas in the United States.'' For purposes of
defining ``high-cost area'', the term ``unserved area'' means an area
in which not less than 80 percent of broadband-serviceable locations
are unserved locations.
5. On June 26, 2023, NTIA announced the State allocations for the
BEAD grant program. As part of BEAD, NTIA has made State allocations in
part based on the determined ``high-cost areas'' within each State.
Pursuant to the Infrastructure Act, the Commission therefore makes the
ACP high-cost area benefit available in those high-cost areas
identified by NTIA consistent with the Infrastructure Act's definition
of ``high-cost area,'' and subject to the provider's demonstration of
particularized economic hardship, as described in further detail in the
following.
6. The Commission next addresses the requirements for participating
providers seeking to offer a high-cost area benefit to eligible
households located in designated high-cost areas served by the
provider. Specifically, the Commission defines ``particularized
economic hardship,'' to clarify that the benefit is limited to
facilities-based providers, and address the specific showing that
participating providers must make to demonstrate they are experiencing
a particularized economic hardship in a given high-cost area. The
Commission also prescribes the process for submitting, reviewing, and
taking action on such showings, and for requests for review of adverse
decisions. Lastly, the Commission clarifies the interplay between the
qualifying Tribal land and high-cost area benefits by interpreting the
Infrastructure Act to mean that participating providers can either
offer one or the other, but not both simultaneously, to eligible
households located on both a Tribal land and in a designated high-cost
area.
7. Particularized Economic Hardship. First, consistent with the
Infrastructure Act, the Commission will require a participating
provider to demonstrate economic hardship to be eligible for the high-
cost area benefit. The Infrastructure Act directs the Commission to
establish a mechanism whereby a ``participating provider'' in a high-
cost area ``may provide'' an enhanced monthly benefit up to $75 ``upon
a showing that the applicability of the lower [$30] limit . . . would
cause particularized economic hardship to the provider such that the
provider may not be able to maintain the
[[Page 60348]]
operation of part or all of its broadband network.'' The Commission
implements this directive by requiring a participating provider seeking
application of the high-cost area benefit to demonstrate the economic
hardship to which it would be subject if only the standard $30 monthly
discount were applied to its provision of ACP service in a high-cost
area(s). This approach to implementing the statute is consistent with
the positions taken by several commenters in the record.
8. Next, the Commission defines particularized economic hardship by
focusing on the provider's operating costs and revenues in the high-
cost area(s) where the provider seeks approval to offer the high-cost
area benefit. The Commission finds that a provider that demonstrates it
is unable to cover the costs of maintaining the operation of all or
part of its broadband network in a high-cost area where it seeks to
offer the high-cost area benefit as described in the following meets
the ``particularized economic hardship'' standard. Hereafter, the
Commission describes such a provider as operating at a loss. To
establish ``particularized economic hardship,'' the Commission will
require providers to submit documentation, such as an income statement,
showing that they are unable to cover the costs of maintaining the
operation of all or part of their broadband network for each high-cost
area for which the high-cost area benefit is being sought. Aside from
required documentation, the Commission will also require each provider
to certify to and explain how the up to $75 a month high-cost area
benefit would materially improve the provider's ability to offer
service through the ACP and maintain and operate its broadband network
and how the economic hardship limits its ability to ``maintain the
operation of all or part of its broadband network'' in each high-cost
area for which it seeks to offer the high-cost area benefit.
9. The Commission finds this standard to be consistent with the
language and intent of the statute, as well as the record. Congress did
not provide details on the nature of the showing of economic hardship
providers must make to obtain the high-cost area benefit. The statute
provides that the provider must show that the applicability of the
basic $30 benefit would cause ``particularized economic hardship . . .
such that the provider may not be able to maintain the operation of
part or all of its broadband network.'' The Commission sought comment
on the mechanism by which providers can show particularized economic
hardship. Because a provider operating at a loss in the high-cost area
for which it seeks the high-cost area benefit may be unable to maintain
broadband network operations in that area, the Commission finds this
standard to be consistent with the language and intent of the statute.
For purposes of this standard, the provider will need to factor in the
standard monthly $30 ACP benefit as well as subsidies and other
financial benefits the provider receives, including Universal Service
Fund (USF) high-cost support, as they are directly relevant when
evaluating the overall costs and revenues of the provider. No commenter
opposed the Commission's proposal in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), 87 FR 8385, February 14, 2022, of including subsidies and other
financial benefits in the economic hardship analysis.
10. The Commission rejects ACA Connects' suggestion to interpret
``particularized economic hardship'' to mean those instances where the
provider's administrative costs of participating in the ACP exceeds the
benefits received, and where the provider shows that in the context of
its overall financial position, that net loss would affect its ability
to maintain part of its broadband network. A provider could be
profitable overall and willing to maintain network operations even if
the costs of voluntarily participating in the ACP exceeded the benefits
received. Conversely, a provider could be unprofitable overall, but the
administrative costs of ACP participation could be less than the
benefits received. Accordingly, the Commission finds ACA Connects'
suggested approach would not provide a meaningful indication of whether
a provider can ``maintain the operation of part or all of its broadband
network'' when just the standard $30 benefit is available to eligible
households in the designated high-cost areas it serves.
11. The Commission also declines to define ``particularized
economic hardship'' as the serving of less than a Commission-defined
threshold of broadband subscribers across a smaller provider's entire
service territory, as suggested by ACA Connects. The Commission did
seek comment on this approach in the NPRM in response to earlier
comments by NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA) and Conexon.
However, the Commission received no comments that would help them
determine how to apply a standard under a threshold-based approach to
determine whether a provider may not be able to maintain the operation
of part or all of its broadband network without the high-cost area
benefit. Furthermore, the Commission believes that a subscriber
threshold-based approach would be at odds with Congress's directive to
require a showing of ``particularized'' economic hardship. The
Commission interprets the meaning of ``particularized'' in the context
of the high-cost area benefit to mean that a provider must show that it
is individually experiencing economic hardship. A subscriber-based
threshold approach is inconsistent with this interpretation because it
would necessarily assume that all providers that met the threshold were
experiencing sufficiently similar circumstances to merit access to the
high-cost area benefit, without regard to whether each provider's
specific circumstances demonstrated that the provider would experience
economic hardship absent the application of the high-cost area benefit.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the statute requires them to
define particularized economic hardship based on an individualized
showing so that each provider can account for its own particularized
cost and revenue structure.
12. To the extent that NTCA suggests an approach that allows
providers to qualify for the high-cost area benefit based solely on the
receipt of USF high-cost support, the Commission declines to adopt such
an approach. Recipients of USF high-cost support receive subsidies to
provide reasonably comparable services at rates reasonably comparable
to those in urban areas. Indeed, those subsidies are a way for
providers to cover certain costs of operating and maintaining their
networks, which may, if anything, make it less likely that a provider
would be suffering a particularized economic hardship in the geographic
area where it receives high-cost support. Therefore, receipt of USF
high-cost support, in and of itself, does not show the provider is
experiencing a ``particularized economic hardship'' in general, or as
defined herein. To bolster its argument, NTCA attempts to tie the ACP
high-cost area benefit to the role USF high-cost support plays in
enabling `` `affordable' broadband services for all rural consumers,
regardless of income level.'' NTCA contends that the `` `enhanced' ACP
subsidy can make up for [the] `gap' between `reasonable comparability'
and `affordability' that the High-Cost USF program does not close on
its own.'' However, this argument does not address the specific
language of the statute, which focuses on a provider's inability to
``maintain the operation of part or all of [a provider's] broadband
[[Page 60349]]
network'' rather than on whether the service at issue is affordable to
subscribers with the standard ACP benefit. Accordingly, the Commission
rejects this proposal.
13. The Commission also disagrees with the Wireless Internet
Service Providers Association's (WISPA) position that small Internet
Service Providers ``lack the administrative resources to establish
their specific costs to provide broadband service in an area,'' and
that it is unnecessary to examine an individual operator's cost of
doing business.'' Instead, WISPA asserts that all areas eligible for
the Connect America Fund or Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, as well as
any census block identified as a high-poverty area on the map created
by the Department of Agriculture and NTIA, should be designated as
high-cost areas eligible for the $75 subsidy. WISPA's suggested
approach would seem to read the ``particularized economic hardship''
showing out of the statute entirely. As discussed in this document, the
statute's particularized economic hardship requirement is separate from
and in addition to the requirement that this enhanced support only be
made available in ``high-cost areas,'' and the determination of those
high-cost areas will be made by NTIA. Moreover, the Commission expects
that any business, regardless of size, will have knowledge of the costs
and revenues associated with its business operations, at least to the
extent necessary to determine if the provider is experiencing
particularized economic hardship in a high-cost area.
14. Facilities-Based Provider Limitation. Pursuant to the
Infrastructure Act's direction that a provider show that particularized
economic hardship may impair its ability ``to maintain the operation of
part or all of its broadband network,'' the Commission clarifies that
only facilities-based providers will be eligible for the high-cost
benefit. The Commission finds that the Act directs them to prohibit
non-facilities-based providers from receiving a high-cost area benefit
as such providers would not experience an inability to maintain their
network absent the application of the high-cost benefit. For purposes
of this final rule, the Commission defines facilities-based provider
consistent with its rules regarding the Form 477 collection, to include
provider owned physical facilities, and wireless spectrum. The
Commission directs the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC)
to validate and verify a provider's facilities-based status as part of
the process of approving providers to offer the high-cost area benefit.
Providers will additionally be required to certify to their status as a
facilities-based provider as part of their application to offer the
high-cost area benefit.
15. Showing to Support Request for Approval to Offer the High-Cost
Area Benefit. The Commission's objective is to administer the high-cost
area benefit consistent with the statutory language requiring, among
other things, a showing of particularized economic hardship by the ACP
provider balanced with ``a minimal burden on qualifying households and
providers.'' In implementing this approach, the Commission seeks to
safeguard program integrity while also minimizing the administrative
burden for a provider seeking to demonstrate that it is unable to cover
the costs of operating and maintaining all or part of its network
operations in the high-cost area(s) absent the high-cost area benefit.
16. The Commission outlines the type of documentation that it
expects would be sufficient for a provider to demonstrate that it is
experiencing ``particularized economic hardship'' for purposes of the
high-cost area benefit. Participating providers must demonstrate
particularized economic hardship by submitting an affidavit supported
by an income statement demonstrating the provider is currently
operating at a loss in each high-cost area(s) for which the provider is
seeking approval to offer the high-cost area benefit. To facilitate the
administration of the benefit and minimize provider burdens, providers
may submit a single application with supporting documentation for all
of the high-cost areas where they are seeking approval to offer the
high-cost area benefit.
17. To support its affidavit, the provider must include a copy of
its most recent income statement(s), prepared in the ordinary course of
business, consolidated and at the component level, as applicable,
covering the previous fiscal year of operations or the last six
quarters of operations, and separately identify, in the method
determined by the Wireline Competition Bureau (the Bureau), the high-
cost areas, as designated by NTIA, that the provider serves and in
which it is seeking to provide the high-cost area benefit. An income
statement, otherwise known as a profit and loss statement, showing the
provider's revenue, expenses, gains, and losses during the required
time period, strikes the appropriate balance between ensuring the high-
cost area benefit is appropriately limited and minimizing the
administrative burden on providers. An income statement is a routine
financial statement prepared by companies, and thus most providers
already prepare such statements in the normal course of business. The
income statement must, at a minimum, include detailed information on
the provider's net income, operating revenue and operating expenses,
including, but not necessarily limited to, cost of goods sold or
services, selling, general and administrative expenses and depreciation
or amortization expenses. To protect program integrity providers that
are publicly traded or that prepare audited income statements in the
ordinary course of business shall be required to submit the audited
income statement, rather than an unaudited income statement, to support
their affidavit. The Commission delegates authority to the Bureau, in
consultation with the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) as
appropriate, and consistent with the standard established in this
Order, to further specify or modify the types of documentation that
providers must submit to show ``particularized economic hardship''.
18. To protect program integrity, and consistent with other
submissions made to justify the receipt of a Federal benefit, such an
affidavit shall be made under penalty of perjury from a company officer
with knowledge of the provider company's costs and revenues. The
affidavit must describe in sufficient detail the methodology used for
determining that the annualized expenses of maintaining the operation
of the provider's broadband network in a particular high-cost area
exceeds the provider's expected total revenues in that high-cost area.
This should include an allocation of provider broadband internet access
service revenues and costs for the relevant high-cost area(s) if the
income statement is too broad to demonstrate that the provider is
operating at a loss relative to providing broadband internet access
service in the high-cost area(s) in question. The affidavit should also
factor in payments from customers for broadband internet access service
as well as the up-to-$30 ACP benefit and additional subsidies and other
financial benefits received, including USF high-cost support related to
providing broadband internet access service. The affidavit must also
include an explanation as to how the economic hardship resulting from
the operating loss may limit the provider's ability to maintain the
operation of all or part of its broadband network in the high-cost
area(s) for which it seeks to offer the high-cost area benefit.
Additionally, in the affidavit, each provider must explain when and why
the provider originally began operating in the high-
[[Page 60350]]
cost area(s). In support of the affidavit a provider is also required
to submit any Federal income tax returns relating to the submitted
income statements. These tax returns could be used to identify
anomalies or other potential issues in the financial data being
provided as part of the application for the high-cost area benefit.
19. To demonstrate that a provider is operating at a loss, the
income statement, and cost-allocation as applicable, must show that the
provider's broadband revenue has been below broadband expenses in at
least four of the last six fiscal quarters or for the last full fiscal
year for each relevant high-cost area. If the income statement includes
costs and revenues for broadband network operations outside of the
high-cost areas for which the provider seeks approval to offer the
high-cost area benefit, then the provider will need to allocate the
costs and revenues associated with the relevant high-cost area(s) and
provide the cost and revenue allocation for the high-cost area(s) in
the supporting affidavit.
20. To determine the share of the provider's total operating costs
that are associated with its broadband network operations in the
relevant high-cost area(s), the provider must use a reasonable cost
assignment and/or cost-allocation method. A provider should first
attempt to directly assign or attribute costs to broadband internet
access services and to the relevant high-cost area(s). Costs that are
not directly assignable (e.g., common or shared costs) should be
allocated based on a cost-causative mechanism wherein the participating
provider should identify a cost-causative link to an expense category
(or group of categories) that has already been directly assigned or
attributed. Finally, where none of the methods described in this
document are possible, the participating provider should employ a
reasonable cost-allocation of operating expenses, which may be based on
factors, such as, for the relevant high-cost area(s), the share of a
provider's total investments, total locations served, or in proportion
to the share of directly assignable investments or expenses for the
relevant high-cost area(s). Different cost allocators may be used to
allocate different shared costs and must be sufficiently described in
the supporting affidavit. For providers applying for multiple high-cost
areas, the cost allocation methods should be consistent for all
relevant high-cost areas to the extent feasible. To determine the share
of the provider's total revenues associated with its broadband network
operations in the relevant high-cost area(s), the provider must
calculate and allocate revenue for the relevant time periods based on
revenues for the applicable high-cost area(s), and account for any
subsidies received by the provider or other financial benefits,
including USF high-cost support. Regardless of which cost allocation
methods is used, all company-wide financial data submitted in support
of an application for the high-cost area benefit must comply with
generally accepted accounting principles.
21. To maximize flexibility, the Commission will allow a provider
to choose the reasonable cost and revenue allocation method(s) within
the parameters described in this document, rather than prescribe one.
To mitigate any program integrity issues that this discretion might
introduce, however, the Commission requires providers to identify and
justify their chosen allocation method(s). Allowing providers options
for reasonable cost and revenue allocation method(s) will allow even
those providers with limited financial expertise to submit a showing
based on their records that meets the standards adopted herein. The
Commission directs the Bureau to develop a more detailed process for
determining, in consultation with OEA, whether the provider's
allocation method and justification are reasonable.
22. Notwithstanding the Commission's recognition that the needs to
minimize the burden on participating providers and to encourage
provider participation in the ACP are paramount, the Commission
requires the filing of documentation showing that a provider will
experience particularized economic hardship, which shall include the
filing of both an affidavit with the information outlined in this
document, along with the required income statement, and tax filings. An
income statement alone would not provide sufficient assurances that a
provider has satisfied the standard for offering the high-cost area
benefit in a given high-cost area. The affidavit is an important
safeguard for ensuring that the high-cost area benefit is appropriately
limited to providers that are facing ``particularized economic
hardship'' such that they will be unable to maintain part or all of
their broadband network if they can only offer the standard $30 ACP
benefit. The Commission recognizes that providers may not routinely
prepare cost-allocations specific to the relevant high-cost areas.
However, for income statements that are not specific to the relevant
high-cost areas, cost allocations are necessary to satisfy the
statute's requirement that the high-cost area benefit only be made
available in high-cost areas where the provider experiences economic
hardship. As noted earlier, to minimize the burden associated with
cost-allocations, the Commission allows providers some flexibility in
determining which cost-allocation method to use where the provider is
unable to directly assign or attribute costs to broadband internet
access services and to the relevant high-cost area(s) or use a cost-
causative mechanism. An affidavit accompanying an income statement
strikes the appropriate balance between protecting program integrity
while minimizing the burden on providers.
23. Commenters stressed the importance of the Commission choosing a
means for ``qualification that imposes the least administrative burdens
on providers, while protecting against waste, fraud, and abuse.'' The
Commission agrees, although it also concludes that proposals that
effectively eliminate the need for any showing altogether are at odds
with the statute. Similarly, the Commission finds that a mere
certification as to a provider's particularized economic hardship in
the high-cost area(s) it serves, as suggested by ACA Connects, is
insufficient to satisfy the express ``showing'' mandated by Congress
and impedes the Commission's ability to ascertain whether the provider
is, in fact, experiencing a particularized economic hardship.
24. The Commission declines to adopt the suggestion from the
Mississippi Center for Justice that it requires service providers to
submit additional speed and coverage tests before allowing a broadband
service provider to receive the high-cost area benefit. While the
Commission is sympathetic to concerns about whether a provider's
asserted coverage and speed matches actual network performance, the
Infrastructure Act is clear that the only criterion it may consider
when deciding whether a provider can receive the high-cost area
benefit, is whether the absence of a high-cost area benefit would cause
a particularized economic hardship to the provider. Furthermore, the
Commission has taken steps in other proceedings to address service
quality concerns and the reporting of accurate coverage and speed data.
Accordingly, the Commission declines to require participating providers
to perform these additional tests.
25. Additional Information Required for High-Cost Area Benefit
Application. To facilitate the evaluation of a provider request for
approval to offer the high-cost area benefit and to help protect
program integrity, the Commission directs USAC to communicate with the
[[Page 60351]]
provider about its request and collect information, as part of the
application for approval to offer the high-cost area benefit,
sufficient to identify the provider and the nature of the services it
offers in the relevant high-cost areas, such as: contact information;
FCC Registration Number; Unique Entity Identifier; Federal Tax ID
Number; Service Provider ID Number; whether the provider is facilities-
based in the relevant high-cost areas; and the nature of the provider's
broadband network technology in the relevant high-cost area(s).
Finally, a provider's submission must include certifications from a
company officer with knowledge of the provider's cost and revenues
under penalty of perjury that: (1) all information submitted is true
and correct to the best of the filer's knowledge; (2) the provider will
comply with all applicable statutes and the Commission's rules and
orders; and (3) the provider will use any reimbursed funds received for
its intended purpose of providing discounted broadband internet access
services to eligible low-income households.
26. To help protect program integrity, a participating provider
will also be required to indicate in its application seeking to offer
the ACP high-cost area benefit whether it has previously applied for
Federal financial assistance in the three fiscal years prior to the
provider's application. Upon request, the participating provider must
submit to USAC or the Commission applications for loans submitted to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utility Service (RUS),
approvals or denials of such loans, the provider's RUS Operating Report
for Telecommunications Borrowers filed with the RUS, and any financial
reports filed with a state Public Utility Commission, as applicable.
The requirement to submit these documents is an important safeguard
against provider manipulation of the financial information in its
application. This requirement will also assist USAC in ascertaining the
validity of the financial information in the provider's application
materials. Finally, in evaluating a provider's request for approval to
offer the high-cost area benefit and to help protect program integrity
the Commission or USAC must consider the extent to which other
providers are operating in the high-cost area and not requesting this
benefit.
27. Submission and Review of Showings and Appeals. The Commission
directs USAC, under the oversight of the Bureau and the Office of the
Managing Director, to develop a mechanism to enable participating
providers to electronically submit the requisite particularized
economic hardship showings. The Commission further directs USAC, under
the oversight of the Bureau and OEA, to produce provider education and
training materials concerning seeking approval to offer the high-cost
area benefit and the Commission directs the Bureau to provide
additional guidance to providers on the submission process. All
provider submissions will be treated as presumptively confidential and
will not be available for routine public inspection consistent with the
Freedom of Information Act and the Commission's rules. While the actual
content of the provider filings will remain confidential, the
Commission directs USAC to publicly issue information identifying which
providers are approved to offer the high-cost area benefit and the
high-cost areas where they are approved to offer it. The Commission
further directs the Bureau to release a Public Notice within 90 days
after NTIA's determination of high-cost areas, announcing the date upon
which providers can start to submit applications requesting authority
to offer the high-cost area benefit. The Bureau shall have the
discretion to determine whether to establish an initial deadline for
provider requests or accept applications on a rolling basis.
28. The Commission directs USAC to review each economic hardship
submission for completeness and then either approve or deny each
submission pursuant to guidance and oversight by the Bureau and OEA.
Each decision by USAC shall be made in writing, provide a written
explanation of the basis for the decision, and provide the approval
period for the high-cost area benefit as appropriate. Each USAC
decision will be subject to the restrictions of Sec. 54.702(c) of the
Commission's rules which prohibits USAC from making policy,
interpreting unclear provisions of the statute or rules, or from
interpreting the intent of Congress. Any provider aggrieved by an
action taken by USAC may seek review of that action, as set forth in
Subpart I of the Commission's rules. While review of that action is
pending, a provider will be able to submit claims for up to the $30
standard monthly benefit. Following a successful appeal, providers
approved to offer the high-cost area benefit may submit revised claims
for eligible households in the approved high-cost areas as set forth in
47 CFR 54.1808. The provider may only submit revised claims for up to
$75 per month per eligible subscriber for the snapshot dates from the
start of the period of approval, and the provider will be responsible
for passing the full benefit amount on to subscribers as a discount off
the price of their monthly bills before seeking reimbursement for the
high-cost area benefit amount.
29. The Commission directs USAC to make updates to ACP systems,
including to the National Lifeline Accountability Database, as
appropriate, to allow providers that are approved to receive
reimbursement for the high-cost area benefit to enroll households with
the high-cost area benefit or to update existing ACP subscribers'
records to reflect the designated high-cost areas associated with the
participating provider's approved showing. The Commission also directs
USAC to incorporate the high-cost area benefit into the ACP claims and
enrollment tracker, with a separate column for households receiving the
up to $75 high-cost area benefit. The Commission further directs USAC,
with Bureau oversight, to develop provider training materials on how to
enroll or update subscriber information to reflect the high-cost area
benefit and to seek reimbursement for the enhanced benefit for eligible
households in the relevant high-cost areas.
30. Annual Resubmission Requirement. To account for changing
financial circumstances, participating providers approved to offer the
high-cost area benefit must annually resubmit a showing of
particularized economic hardship to demonstrate continued eligibility
to offer the high-cost area benefit. The Commission directs the Bureau
to determine any modifications providers should make to the financial
showing for the resubmission, consistent with the statutory language
and standard outlined in this Order, as well as the deadline for such
resubmissions. The deadline shall allow sufficient time for review and
a determination on the renewal submission, and provider notification to
households of any benefit level changes as appropriate, before the
expiration of the prior approval period. The Commission directs USAC to
issue reminders to providers with current approvals of the renewal
submission requirements within at least 30 days and at least 15 days of
the deadline the Bureau announces for resubmissions. These reminders
shall also inform providers that failure to make a resubmission will
result in the loss of their approval to offer the high-cost area
benefit and the date on which the provider must cease offering and can
no longer claim the high-cost area benefit if it does not timely make a
renewal submission. The Commission directs the
[[Page 60352]]
Bureau to ensure that the renewal resubmissions are reviewed and a
determination is issued in a reasonable timeframe.
31. There may be instances where a provider fails to submit the
renewal submission, or does not satisfy the criteria to offer the high-
cost area benefit based on its renewal submission. The Commission
recognizes that the loss of the high-cost area benefit may cause a
financial burden to low-income households that would be transitioned to
the standard discount rather than the higher subsidy. To mitigate
financial hardship and to avoid an accrual of household debt related to
the loss of the high-cost area benefit, the Commission adopts several
protections for ACP households where the provider is no longer approved
to offer the high-cost ACP benefit. If a provider fails to submit the
renewal submission by the deadline, the provider shall provide written
notice to its ACP households receiving the high-cost area benefit at
least 30 days prior to the last date that the provider is approved to
offer the high-cost area benefit and a second notice at least 15 days
before the last date that the provider is approved to offer the high-
cost area benefit. If USAC determines that a provider no longer
qualifies for the high-cost area benefit based on its renewal
submission, the provider shall also follow the same customer
notification process and deadlines as providers that fail to submit the
renewal submission by the deadline. Such notices shall include: (1) a
statement that the provider will no longer be offering the high-cost
benefit; (2) the effective date of the loss of the high-cost area
benefit; (3) a statement that upon the effective date of the loss of
the high-cost area benefit, the ACP-supported service purchased by the
household will no longer be discounted at the higher subsidy amount;
and (4) the amount the household will be expected to pay if it
continues purchasing the service from the provider after the high-cost
area benefit is no longer available.
32. The Commission finds that providers may transition a household
to a lower-priced service plan once the provider is no longer eligible
to offer the high-cost area benefit upon advance notice to the
household and after offering a reasonable opportunity for the household
to agree to retain its current service plan or switch to another
service plan. If the provider offers to transition the eligible
household to a lower-priced plan, the offer to transition must be
included in the required 30-day and 15-day notices, and must: (1)
provide details about the new plan and monthly price; (2) inform the
subscribers they can opt out of the transition and retain their current
service plan or change to a different service plan than the lower-
priced plan the service provider identified; (3) provide instructions
for opting out of the transition or switching plans; and (4) provide
the deadline for opting out of the transition or switching plans. The
Commission believes this approach minimizes the potential for bill
shock by allowing providers to transition eligible subscribers to a
lower-priced plan, while also giving them an opportunity to opt out of
the transition and either remain on their current service plan or
choose another service plan. The Commission clarifies that moving
eligible subscribers to a lower-priced plan upon advance notice and
reasonable opportunity for subscribers to opt out of such a transition
where the high-cost area benefit is no longer available does not
constitute inappropriate down-selling.
33. Subscriber Initial Notice Concerning High-Cost Area Benefit.
The Commission requires providers to seek annual approval to continue
offering the high-cost area benefit. Accordingly, there is a potential
for ACP subscribers receiving the high-cost area benefit to experience
financial difficulty if their provider ceases being eligible to offer
the high-cost area benefit.
34. To promote transparency and avoid the potential for subscriber
confusion, participating providers approved to offer the high-cost area
benefit must provide written notice to the subscriber when the provider
first applies the high-cost area benefit to the subscriber's bill,
stating: (1) that the subscriber is receiving an high-cost area benefit
and specifying the difference between the standard ACP benefit and the
high-cost area benefit being applied to the subscriber's ACP service;
(2) that the receipt of the high-cost area benefit is contingent on the
provider's annual continued eligibility to offer the high-cost area
benefit; (3) that the provider is required to provide the subscriber
advance notice if the provider is no longer deemed eligible to offer
the high-cost area benefit; and (4) that the provider is required to
provide the subscriber advance notice of any changes to the
subscriber's ACP service rate or service plan stemming from any loss of
the provider's eligibility to offer the high-cost area benefit.
35. Program Integrity. To ensure that providers are only seeking
reimbursement for households that are eligible to receive the ACP high-
cost area benefit, the Commission directs USAC to conduct program
integrity reviews of claims related to the high-cost area benefit on an
annual basis, in addition to targeted reviews of providers approved to
offer the high-cost area benefit as needed (e.g., based on indicia of
program integrity risks). The Commission recognizes that a risk exists
where providers receiving the high-cost benefit could attempt to raise
rates or push ACP subscribers to higher priced pans to maximize their
reimbursement for the high-cost area benefit claims. The Commission
reminds providers that they are required to offer the same services to
ACP households on the same terms and conditions as non-ACP households
and inappropriate upselling is a violation of the ACP rules. The
Commission also clarifies that, as with the standard benefit and the
enhanced Tribal benefit, providers are required to pass through the
entire benefit to ACP eligible households. In addition to USAC's
program integrity reviews, the Bureau, in coordination with OEA, shall
also use available data from ACP providers to maximize program
integrity with respect to the high-cost area benefit, including, but
not limited to, inflating rates, or claiming the high-cost area benefit
for a greater number of households than the number of the provider's
broadband serviceable locations in a given high-cost area. The
Commission reminds providers that it may suspend or remove a
participating provider from the ACP for a variety of reasons, including
violations of the rules or requirements of ACP or any action that
indicates a lack of business integrity or business honesty that
seriously and directly affects the provider's responsibilities under
the ACP or undermines the integrity of the program. The Commission
further directs the Bureau, in coordination with USAC, to provide
additional details and procedures, as necessary, in conformance with
this Order to ensure the efficient functioning of the high-cost area
benefit.
36. Lastly, the Commission reminds providers that the
Infrastructure Act allows eligible households to apply the ACP benefit
to ``any internet service offering of the participating provider, at
the same terms available to households that are not eligible
households.'' The Commission has found this requirement will help
``ensure the marketplace will not be limited, and consumers can apply
the affordable connectivity benefit to a plan of their choosing.''
This, in turn, will help minimize concerns that ``providers may
introduce or alter plans solely to maximize the reimbursement amount.''
However, as the Commission clarified, providers are not precluded
``from making internet service offerings that are only available to ACP
[[Page 60353]]
subscribers provided that the terms are at least as good as plans that
are available to non-eligible households. . . .''
37. Clarification of the Scope of Both ACP Enhanced Benefits. The
statute is silent on whether a household that is both eligible for the
ACP high-cost area benefit and the ACP enhanced qualifying Tribal land
benefit may receive both benefits simultaneously However, nothing
indicates that Congress intended for households in this scenario to be
eligible to receive more than one ACP enhanced benefit. Further,
allowing households to receive both enhanced ACP benefits at the same
time would not be a fiscally responsible use of limited ACP funds.
Absent Congressional intent to the contrary, the Commission clarifies
that the ACP enhanced benefits are not cumulative and thus, a
participating provider can only offer and seek reimbursement for one
ACP enhanced benefit to eligible households in such situations.
Accordingly, a participating provider is allowed to seek reimbursement
for the enhanced qualifying Tribal land or the high-cost area benefit
per eligible household up to the maximum benefit amount of $75 per
month, not both.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
38. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 1752(h)(2) the collection of information
sponsored or conducted under the regulations promulgated in this Order
is deemed not to constitute a collection of information for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
B. Congressional Review Act
39. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, concurs, that this
rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The Commission will send a copy of this final rule to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
40. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) released in
March 2021. The Commission sought written public comment on the
proposals in the Notice, including comment on the IRFA. No comments
were filed addressing the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
41. In the Infrastructure Act, Congress established the ACP, which
is designed to promote access to broadband internet access services by
households that meet specified eligibility criteria by providing
funding for participating providers to offer certain services and
connected devices to these households at discounted prices. The ACP
funds an affordable connectivity benefit consisting of a per month
discount up to $30 on the price of broadband internet access services
that participating providers supply to eligible households in most
parts of the country and a per month discount up to $75 on such prices
for households on qualifying Tribal lands. The Commission established
rules governing the affordable connectivity standard $30 benefit and
the enhanced Tribal lands benefit in the ACP Report and Order, 87 FR
8346, February 14, 2022, adopted on January 14, 2022.
42. The Infrastructure Act also establishes a separate, enhanced
affordable connectivity benefit for eligible households served by
participating providers in certain high-cost areas. Specifically, the
Infrastructure Act makes available a high-cost area benefit of up to
$75 per month for broadband internet access service offered by
participating providers in certain areas where the cost of building
broadband facilities is relatively high, upon a showing that the lower
$30 per month benefit ``would cause particularized economic hardship to
the provider such that the provider may not be able to maintain the
operation of part or all of its broadband network.'' In the earlier
NPRM to which the IRFA applied, the Commission sought comment on the
rules to implement this enhanced benefit.
43. In the Order, the Commission adopts the rules necessary to
implement the enhanced benefit in high-cost areas the NTIA designated
in consultation with the Commission. Specifically, the Commission
addresses the rules and procedures for participating providers that are
facilities-based to offer an high-cost area benefit to eligible
households located in designated high-cost areas served by the
provider. The Commission defines ``particularized economic hardship''
for purposes of determining eligibility for the high-cost area benefit.
The Commission then addresses the specific showing that participating
providers must make to demonstrate they are experiencing a
particularized economic hardship. The Commission also prescribes the
process for submitting, reviewing, taking action on such showings, and
for requests for review of adverse decisions.
44. 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, 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 Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one that: (1) is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
45. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. 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, 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.
46. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which 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.
[[Page 60354]]
47. 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 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.''
48. Small entities potentially affected by the rules herein include
Wireless Broadband internet Access Service Providers (Wireless ISPs or
WISPs).
49. High-Cost Area Benefit. Providers of wireline or wireless
broadband internet access services, including small businesses, that
voluntarily seek to qualify for the enhanced benefit will need to
report and retain certain data about their operations. The necessary
data include the costs of deploying and maintaining broadband internet
access networks in particular high-cost areas, including the cost of
capital, depreciation expenses, operating costs, and other associated
expenses. These costs may vary, in part, depending on the topological
features, population distribution, and other conditions in such areas.
Other relevant factors may include estimates of consumer demand and
likely revenues from providing broadband internet access services.
Importantly, no small entity will be required to report or retain such
data as a general matter.
50. The recordkeeping or reporting requirements adopted in this
proceeding will apply only to those providers that choose to
participate in the ACP and that voluntarily seek to provide service
that qualifies for the enhanced benefit in high-cost areas where the
benefit may be available. Moreover, because participation is entirely
optional, the Commission believes that providers that voluntarily avail
themselves of the enhanced benefit component of the ACP will enjoy
benefits that far exceed the reporting and recordkeeping costs.
51. The Commission therefore finds the cost of compliance for small
entities will be minimal given the steps taken to minimize the
administrative burden as discussed in this FRFA.
52. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its 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 or
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such
small entities.''
53. The actions taken by the Commission in this final rule were
considered to be the least costly and minimally burdensome for small
and other entities impacted by the rules. As such, the Commission does
not expect the adopted requirements to have a significant economic
impact on small entities. In the following, the Commission discusses
actions it takes in this final rule to minimize any significant
economic impact on small entities and some alternatives that were
considered.
54. High-Cost Area Benefit. As discussed in this FRFA, the
Commission is constrained by the plain language of the statute to
require a participating provider to make a showing of ``particularized
economic hardship'' to offer the high-cost area benefit. Such a showing
inevitably involves a measure of a provider's costs and revenues. The
Commission has, however, taken steps to minimize the burden on small
entities. A provider will only need to submit an affidavit asserting it
will incur a ``particularized economic hardship'' and supply an income
statement, that businesses routinely keep in the normal course of
business, to show the provider is operating at a loss. Only if the
income statement includes costs and revenues for areas outside of the
designated high-cost areas, would the provider need to submit
information, in addition to the income statement and an affidavit, to
allocate costs and revenues to the high-cost areas it intends to serve.
These steps will greatly minimize the administrative burden on all
providers that voluntarily seek to offer the high-cost area benefit,
including small providers, by eliminating the need, in the first
instance, to gather and submit specific cost and revenue information
for review and analysis. The Commission did consider the proposal to
define ``particularized economic hardship'' as the serving of less than
a Commission-defined threshold of broadband subscribers across a
smaller provider's entire service area, but determined this approach
was inconsistent with the statutory language, as discussed in this
final rule.
IV. Ordering Clauses
55. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in Section 904 of Division N, Title IX of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, as
amended by Section 60502 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
and codified at 47 U.S.C. 1752, this Sixth Report and Order, is adopted
and shall be effective thirty (30) days after publication of the text
or summary thereof in the Federal Register.
56. It is further ordered, that Part 54 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR part 54, is amended as set forth in this document, and such rule
amendments shall be effective thirty (30) days following publication of
the text or summary thereof in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 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.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
Final Regulations
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends part 54 of title 47 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 54--UNIVERSAL SERVICE
0
1. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220,
229, 254, 303(r), 403, 1004, 1302, 1601-1609, 1752, unless otherwise
noted.
Subpart R--Affordable Connectivity Program
0
2. Amend Sec. 54.1803 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.1803 Affordable Connectivity Program support amounts.
(a) The monthly affordable connectivity benefit support amount for
all participating providers shall equal
[[Page 60355]]
the actual discount provided to an eligible household off of the actual
amount charged to such household but not more than $30.00 per month, if
that provider certifies that it will pass through the full amount of
support to the eligible household, or not more than $75.00 per month,
if that provider certifies that it will pass through the full amount of
support to the eligible household on Tribal lands, as defined in Sec.
54.1800(s), or not more than $75.00 per month, if that provider
certifies that it will pass through the full amount of support to the
eligible household in a high-cost area, as defined in Sec. 54.1814(a),
and is approved to offer the enhanced high-cost benefit in that high-
cost area pursuant to the process in Sec. 54.1814(b).
* * * * *
0
3. Add Sec. 54.1814 to read as follows:
Sec. 54.1814 High-cost area benefit.
(a) Definitions--(1) Audited income statement. For purposes of the
administration of the Affordable Connectivity Program high-cost area
benefit, an ``audited income statement'' is an income statement that
has been audited by an independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA).
(2) Component-level income statement. For purposes of the
administration of the Affordable Connectivity Program high-cost area
benefit, a ``component-level income statement'' is an income statement
that shows financial results for the subsidiary or business component
that is operating and/or offering retail broadband internet access
service for sale in the designated high-cost areas as defined by 47
U.S.C. 1702(a)(2)(G).
(3) Consolidated income statement. For purposes of the
administration of the Affordable Connectivity Program high-cost area
benefit, a ``consolidated income statement'' is an income statement
that shows aggregated financial results for multiple entities or
subsidiaries connected with a single parent company.
(4) High-cost area. For purposes of the administration of the
Affordable Connectivity Program high-cost area benefit, the term
``high-cost area'' means an area as defined by 47 U.S.C. 1702(a)(2)(G)
as determined by the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration.
(5) Particularized economic hardship. A provider has a
``particularized economic hardship'' in a high-cost area only if:
(i) It is not possible for that provider to offer service in the
high-cost area while covering the costs of maintaining the operation of
all or part of its broadband network in that area at the standard up to
$30 a month discount; and
(ii) The up to $75 a month high-cost area benefit would materially
improve the provider's ability to offer service through the ACP and
maintain and operate its broadband network in that area.
(b) High-cost area benefit approval process. A facilities-based ACP
participating provider in a high-cost area (as defined in paragraph (a)
of this section) may provide an affordable connectivity benefit in an
amount up to $75.00 for a broadband internet access service offering in
a high-cost area upon a showing that the applicability of the standard
up to $30.00 benefit under Sec. 54.1803(a) by the provider would cause
particularized economic hardship to the provider such that the provider
may not be able to maintain the operation of part or all of its
broadband network in that high-cost area.
(1) A participating provider seeking approval to provide the high-
cost area benefit must first electronically file a request with the
Universal Service Administrative Company by the deadline established by
the Wireline Competition Bureau.
(i) The electronic request shall require the participating provider
to specify whether it has previously applied for Federal financial
assistance, as defined in 2 CFR 25.406, in the three fiscal years prior
to the provider's application. Upon request, the participating provider
must submit to the Administrator or the Commission applications for
loans submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utility
Service (RUS), approvals or denials of such loans, the provider's RUS
Operating Report for Telecommunications Borrowers filed with the RUS,
and any financial reports filed with a state Public Utility Commission,
as applicable.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) The participating provider's request shall include the
documentation required to demonstrate particularized economic hardship.
The request shall include an income statement, a supporting affidavit,
any applicable Federal tax filings and/or returns, and any other
relevant documentation as determined by the Bureau and OEA.
(i) The income statement(s) must:
(A) Be produced in the ordinary course of business;
(B) Include both consolidated and component-level income
statements;
(C) Be audited by an independent public accountant, where such
statements are produced in the ordinary course of business or are
required by 17 U.S.C. 78m, 78o(d); and
(D) Include detailed information on the provider's net income,
operating revenue, and operating expenses, including, but not
necessarily limited to, cost of goods sold or services, selling,
general and administrative expenses and depreciation or amortization
expenses.
(ii) The supporting affidavit, must include revenue and cost
allocations and a description of the methodology, demonstrating that
the provider was operating at a loss related to providing broadband
internet access service in the relevant high-cost area(s) for the last
fiscal year or in at least four of the last six fiscal quarters, or
other acceptable documentation determined by the Wireline Competition
Bureau in consultation with the Office of Economics and Analytics.
(iii) The participating provider must first attempt to directly
assign or attribute costs to broadband internet access services, and if
that is not possible, must use a cost-causative mechanism to the extent
possible. If neither is possible, the participating provider must
employ a reasonable cost-allocation with a justification for its
methodology.
(iv) The tax filing should include Form 1120, Form 1120-S or other
applicable Federal Income Tax returns as required by 26 CFR part 1.
(2) The participating provider's application must also include
certifications from a company officer with knowledge of the provider's
cost and revenues under penalty of perjury that:
(i) All information submitted is true and correct to the best of
the filer's knowledge;
(ii) The provider will comply with all applicable statutes and the
Commission's rules and orders; and
(iii) The provider will use any reimbursed funds received for its
intended purpose of providing discounted broadband internet access
services to eligible low-income households.
(iv) The provider is a facilities-based provider as defined by 47
CFR 1.7001(a)(2)(i) through (v).
(v) The provider used cost allocation methodology consistent with
the rules.
(c) Review process. The Administrator, under oversight of the
Wireline Competition Bureau and the Office of Economics and Analytics,
shall review each participating provider's request to offer the high-
cost area benefit and determine whether the provider has demonstrated a
particularized economic hardship in the
[[Page 60356]]
high-cost areas for which it is requesting to offer the high-cost area
benefit. If the Administrator finds the particularized economic
hardship showing is satisfied in accordance with the Commission's rules
and orders, and any guidance from the Wireline Competition Bureau and
the Office of Economics and Analytics, then the Administrator will
approve the request and notify the participating provider. Otherwise,
the Administrator will deny the request and provide the participating
provider a written explanation of the basis for the denial.
(1) The Administrator will review applications within a timeline to
be determined by the Bureau.
(2) Providers may appeal the Administrator's determination as set
forth in subpart I in this part of the Commission's rules.
(3) Providers may only submit claims for up to the $30.00 standard
benefit amount while an appeal of an Administrator's determination is
underway. Following a successful appeal, providers approved to offer
the high-cost area benefit may submit revised claims for eligible
households in the approved high-cost areas as set forth in Sec.
54.1808. The provider many submit revised claims for up to $75.00 only
from the start of the approval period indicated in the appeal
determination letter.
(d) Annual renewal process. A participating provider that has been
approved to provide the high-cost area benefit must request approval
annually thereafter to continue to provide the enhanced benefit to
eligible households in a subsequent year. The participating provider
will need to demonstrate particularized economic hardship in the
renewal submission, through the documentation specified by the Wireline
Competition Bureau. The deadline for submitting the renewal request
shall be determined by the Wireline Competition Bureau.
(e) Notice to eligible households. (1) Participating providers
approved to offer the high-cost area benefit shall provide Affordable
Connectivity Program subscribers written notice when the provider
begins applying the high-cost area benefit to the subscriber's bill.
The written notice must state:
(i) That the subscriber is receiving a high-cost area benefit and
the difference between the standard benefit amount and the enhanced
high-cost benefit being applied to the subscriber's supported service;
(ii) That the receipt of the high-cost area benefit is contingent
on the provider's annual continued eligibility to offer the enhanced
high-cost area benefit;
(iii) That the provider is required to provide the subscriber
advance notice if the provider is no longer deemed eligible to offer
the high-cost area benefit; and
(iv) That the provider is required to provide the subscriber
advance notice of any changes to the subscriber's supported service
rate or service plan stemming from any loss of the provider's
eligibility to offer the high-cost area benefit.
(2) If a participating provider fails to timely submit the renewal
submission by the deadline or no longer qualifies to offer the high-
cost area benefit based on its annual resubmission, then the
participating provider shall provide written notice to its Affordable
Connectivity Program customers receiving the high-cost area benefit at
least 30 days and at least 15 days before the expiration of its
approval to offer the high-cost area benefit. Such subscriber notices
shall include:
(i) A statement that the provider will no longer be offering the
high-cost area benefit in the relevant high-cost area;
(ii) The effective date of the end of the high-cost area benefit;
(iii) A statement that upon the effective date of the loss of the
high-cost area benefit, the Affordable Connectivity Program supported
service purchased by the household will no longer be discounted at the
higher subsidy amount; and
(iv) The amount the household will be expected to pay if it
continues purchasing the service from the provider after the high-cost
area benefit is no longer available.
(3) If a participating provider is no longer authorized to offer
the high-cost area benefit, the provider may transition an eligible
household to a lower-priced ACP service plan once the high-cost area
benefit is no longer available, upon advance notice to the household
and an opportunity for the household to opt out of the change and
remain on its current service plan or select another service plan.
Participating providers must include the advance transition notice in
the required written notice about the end of the provider's approval to
offer the high-cost area benefit. The advanced notice must:
(i) Provide details about the new plan and monthly price;
(ii) State that the subscriber may remain on its current plan or
choose another plan;
(iii) Provide instructions on how the subscriber can opt out of the
transition or change its service plan;
(iv) Provide the deadline for the subscriber to notify the provider
that the subscriber would like to remain on its current plan or choose
another plan.
[FR Doc. 2023-18621 Filed 8-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 1, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.