Federal Communications Commission DA 23-117 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Connect America Fund ) ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 10-90 ORDER Adopted: February 9, 2023 Released: February 9, 2023 By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. With the release of this Order, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) concludes the Eligible Locations Adjustment Process (ELAP) for the Connect America Fund (CAF) Phase II auction. We find that each of the support recipients specified in the Attachment (Participants) has met the burden of proof by demonstrating that it is more likely than not that the Participant has identified all eligible locations in its CAF Phase II auction service area. Accordingly, we adopt new deployment obligations for each of these support recipients and reduce each Participant’s authorized support on a pro rata basis as directed by the Commission. 2. The Bureau also addresses a petition filed by Douglas Services, Inc., d/b/a Douglas Fast Net (Douglas Services) seeking waiver of the August 3, 2021 deadline for all Participants to submit ELAP information so as to allow it to participate in the ELAP. See Connect America Fund Douglas Services, Inc., d/b/a Douglas Fast Net, Petition for Waiver to Permit Its Making Submissions to the Connect America Fund Phase II Eligible Locations Adjustment Process Module, Docket No. 10-90 (filed Aug. 23, 2022) (Douglas Services Waiver Petition). We find that Douglas Services has failed to demonstrate good cause for waiver, and accordingly, deny Douglas Services its requested relief. II. ELAP ADJUSTMENT A. BACKGROUND 3. In the Phase II Auction Order, the Commission adopted a competitive bidding process to support deployment in price cap areas not already served by a price-cap carrier receiving high-cost support or by an unsubsidized provider. Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 5949, 5968-74, 5974-79, paras. 51-73, 82-90 (2016) (excluding from eligibility areas served by unsubsidized providers offering at least 10/1 Mbps, with a minimum usage allowance of 150 GBs at a rate meeting the Commission’s reasonable comparability benchmark, with latency not exceeding 100 ms and establishing a challenge process for determining these areas) (Phase II Auction Order); see also Wireline Competition Bureau Releases List and Map of Eligible Census Blocks for the Connect America Fund Phase II Auction (Auction 903), AU Docket No. 17-182 et al., Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 10381 (WCB 2017) (explaining that “[a]s a general matter, census blocks eligible for the Phase II auction include those in price cap study areas where the price cap carriers declined the statewide offers of model-based support”). Pursuant to this process, winning bidders would, as a condition of receiving support, commit to offering service to a specific number of locations (funded locations) as determined by the Connect America Cost Model (CAM). Phase II Auction Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 5964, 5966, paras. 40, 46; CostQuest Associates, Inc., Connect America Cost Model: Model Methodology 12-15 (Dec. 22, 2014), https://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/CAM v.4.2 Methodology.pdf. The Commission set this defined deployment obligation for each support recipient as the sum of the funded locations in all of the areas the recipient won in a state and required support recipients to meet service milestones over a six-year deployment term. Phase II Auction Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 5964, 5966, paras. 40-41, 46; 47 CFR § 54.310. Specifically, all CAF Phase II auction support recipients must deploy service to 40% of the requisite number of locations in a state by December 31, 2022; 60% by December 31, 2023; 80% by December 31, 2024; and 100% by December 31, 2025. Phase II Auction Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 5964, paras. 40-41; Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Order, 35 FCC Rcd 109, 112, para. 9 (WCB 2020) (waiving rule requirements basing milestone dates on date of authorization and aligning service milestones for all authorized CAF Phase II auction support recipients). The Commission also anticipated that CAF Phase II auction support recipients might face unexpected obstacles in building out their networks and, accordingly, provided recipients with the flexibility to deploy to 95% of their defined deployment obligation and refund a certain amount of support in lieu of being found in default. Phase II Auction Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 5965-66, paras. 44-47. To the extent that a support recipient chooses to avail itself of this 5% flexibility, the recipient must refund support, on a per location basis, as determined through one-half the average support for the top 5% of the highest cost funded locations nationwide. Id. at 5966, para. 45. The Commission authorized 129 long-form applicants to receive a total of more than $1.483 billion in CAF Phase II auction support over 10 years in exchange for their commitment to serve a total of more than 700,000 qualifying locations Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 3964, 4031-32, para. 159 (WCB 2014) (CAM Inputs Order) (excluding the costs of extending fiber to community anchor locations from cost-to-serve calculations, and excluding the locations served by enterprise services from “the unitization of the total middle mile cost of a census block to avoid location counts that are a mixture of residences and small businesses intermingled with enterprise locations”); id. at 4032, n.458 (explaining that “[w]hen the total middle mile cost of serving the census block is divided by all locations passed, the locations passed only include residential as well as those business locations assumed to receive the same type of voice and broadband services as residential customers”). in 45 states. Connect America Fund Phase II Auction Application Review Concludes; Long-Form Applications Made Public, AU Docket No. 17-182 et al., Public Notice, DA 23-49 (WCB Jan. 19, 2023) (citing “Authorized Auction 903 Long-Form Applicants,” https://www.fcc.gov/auction/903 (under the “Data” tab)). 4. After the adoption of the Phase II Auction Order, several parties sought clarification on whether the Commission would give funding recipients the opportunity to bring to the Commission’s attention any discrepancies between the number of funded locations and the number of actual locations in a state. Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Order on Reconsideration, 33 FCC Rcd 1380, 1389, para. 22 (2018) (Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order); see also Request for Clarification or Partial Reconsideration of Southern Tier Wireless, Inc., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., at 4-5 (filed July 20, 2016); Petition for Reconsideration of Broad Valley Micro Fiber Networks, Inc., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., at 3 (filed July 20, 2016); Petition for Clarification or Reconsideration of Crocker Telecommunications, LLC, WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., at 3-4 (filed July 18, 2016). Specifically, commenters sought to reduce their defined deployment obligations and associated support when a location discrepancy resulted in fewer actual locations than funded locations. Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 1389, para. 22. To address these concerns, the Commission created a challenge process to facilitate adjustments to defined deployment obligations on a statewide basis. Id. at 1389-90, paras. 23, 25-26. In creating this process, the Commission explained its intent to “prevent any cherry picking that might occur if support recipients only identify the easiest-to-serve locations and ignore harder-to-serve locations.” Id. at 1390, para. 25. The Commission delegated to the Bureau the authority to decide, based on a preponderance of the evidence gathered during this process and on a state-by-state basis, whether the participant’s total number of funded locations within the state exceeds the total number of actual eligible locations in the state, thus warranting a reduction in the participant’s defined deployment obligation and a pro rata reduction in support based the average support awarded on a per location basis and the number of locations by which the Participant’s original defined deployment obligation was reduced. Id. at 1389, para. 24 & n.62 (explaining that the “new support amount in the state would be reduced by (total state support/model locations) x number of deficient locations”). The Commission also specified that any data submitted by the Participant would be subject to future audit. Id. at 1389, para. 23. In the Locations Adjustment Order, the Bureau determined that the audit process referred to by the Commission would mirror that of the verifications process adopted to confirm deployment to the requisite number of locations and would be limited to the support term plus any additional time necessary to complete verification of the associated deployment information. See Locations Adjustment Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10411, para. 46. 5. While the Commission set some parameters for certain aspects of this process, it also directed the Bureau to adopt requirements and issue guidance necessary for implementation, consistent with prior Commission direction. Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 1389, para. 24 (directing the Bureau “to implement this process, consistent with our prior direction to the Bureau concerning model location adjustments” and to “set the parameters of this review process, set the parameters for the audits, and adopt any other necessary implementation details”). Pursuant to this authority, the Bureau established the ELAP consistent with the parameters set forth in the Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order and prior Commission guidance for making adjustments to defined deployment obligations. Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Order, 34 FCC Rcd 10395, 10396-97, paras. 4-5 (2019) (Locations Adjustment Order). As directed by the Commission, the Bureau permitted CAF Phase II auction support recipients to participate in ELAP on a voluntary basis by submitting to the Commission certain location information (e.g., geocoordinates, addresses) for all qualifying locations within their supported areas in a state. We note that the location information submitted as part of ELAP was intended to help the stakeholders and the Bureau evaluate the comprehensiveness of the Participant’s review of actual locations and to facilitate overall adjustments to defined deployment obligations. ELAP Participants are free to serve any locations that become qualifying after the ELAP process in lieu of the reported ELAP locations. See Locations Adjustment Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10402-03, para. 21. Recognizing that there could be certain limited fluctuations in the total number of qualifying locations in the state after the closure of the ELAP but before the end of these Participants’ deployment term (ending December 31, 2025), the Bureau also permitted Participants to add to this total some number of additional locations less than the original defined deployment obligation (prospective locations). Id. at 10402-10404, paras. 21-23. The Commission warned Participants that in submitting prospective locations, they should exercise reasonable due diligence in assessing the overall probability that they could meet any adjusted defined deployment obligation resulting from ELAP. Id.; see also Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 1390, para. 25 (declining to permit support applicants to identify additional locations to serve above their required state total with an accompanying increase in support). Together, the total number of qualifying and prospective locations (collectively, eligible locations) constituted the total number of locations to which the Participant would commit to serving. Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 1389-90, paras. 23, 25-26; Locations Adjustment Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10402-10404, paras. 21-23 (defining eligible locations to include prospective as well as qualifying locations). 6. To ensure that each of the Participants reporting locations had exercised due diligence in identifying all qualifying locations within the state, the Bureau also required that Participants include: 1) information regarding the relevant state and study area code (SAC); 2) location specific information, e.g., addresses, geocoordinates, and number of units; 3) a narrative description of the methodology(ies) used to identify every qualifying location, e.g., on the ground or aerial surveys, any sources used (such as county records or commercial services), and the “as-of” date that sources or surveys evaluated locations; 4) relevant supporting evidence (or show cause why such evidence need not or cannot be submitted) demonstrating the quality of the evidence collected; and 5) certification that the submission is true and accurate. Locations Adjustment Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10401-08, paras. 18-32. The Bureau established a four-month filing window beginning April 1, 2021, and ending August 3, 2021 (Participant Filing Window), for Participants to submit all required information in an ELAP module created by the Commission in conjunction with the USAC. Wireline Competition Bureau Announces the April 1, 2021 Opening of the Connect America Fund Phase II Auction Eligible Locations Adjustment Process, WC Docket 10-90, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 5612 (WCB 2021) (ELAP Participant Window Public Notice); Locations Adjustment Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10398, para. 8 (stating that the Bureau would provide Participants with at least a three-month timeframe to upload information, correct any errors identified through verification, and certify such information). 7. By August 3, 2021 (Participant filing deadline), 25 Participants reporting for 23 states submitted all required ELAP information. Connect America Fund Phase II Auction (Auction 903), “Summary of Eligible Locations Adjustment Process Prima Facie Participant Location Information by State and Study Area Code,” https://www.fcc.gov/ auction/903 (identifying participants). We note that this summary originally included an erroneous reference to Cherokee Telephone Company due to an incorrect association of this entity with a SAC identification number assigned to Wisper ISP, Inc., which has been corrected. After reviewing this information, the Bureau released a public notice announcing that all participants had satisfied the prima facie evidentiary standards for continuing the ELAP. WCB Announces CAF Phase II Support Recipients Meeting Standards for Continuing with the Eligible Locations Adjustment Process; the Opening of the Stakeholder Registration Period; Extension of Deadline for Stakeholders to File Challenges; Identification of Potentially Affected Tribal Authorities, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 16493, 16494 (WCB 2021). The Bureau also made public certain non-confidential location information filed and certified by the Participants, e.g., data identifying locations reported and certain identifying information about the Participants and the relevant eligible areas, More specifically, the Bureau disclosed to the public the Participant’s name, the SAC where the location sits, the reported type of location (qualifying, nonqualifying, prospective), the geocoordinates of the location, the postal address (or other physical identification of location if postal address is unavailable), and the number of separate dwelling units as relevant, e.g., apartments. Id. at 16495. so that interested parties, including individuals, governmental entities, and special interest groups, could decide whether they wanted to participate in ELAP as “stakeholders,” meaning parties with a verifiable interest in receiving broadband in the eligible areas either directly or on behalf of constituents and seeking to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of the relevant Participant’s ELAP information. To do so, these stakeholders were required to submit within their own filing window (May 20, 2022 to August 18, 2022), information about the eligible locations that they assert were omitted from Participant’s locations as well as a brief description of their methodology and any supporting evidence. Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 1390, para. 25; Locations Adjustment Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10399, paras. 11-12; WCB Extends the Eligible Locations Adjustment Process Registration Deadline and Modifies Other Related Deadlines and Procedures; WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, DA 22-301, at 2 (WCB Mar. 22, 2022). While several stakeholders requested access to information filed by Participants, no stakeholders ultimately filed any information. If challenges had been filed, challenged Participants would have had the opportunity to submit replies with additional data and information to oppose specific information in the challenges. Locations Adjustment Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10399-40, paras. 13-14; Wireline Competition Bureau Announces the August 23, 2022 Opening of the ELAP Participant Reply Filing Window, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, DA 22-816 (WCB Aug. 10, 2022). During the ELAP process, four participants reporting in five states reported more eligible locations than their original defined deployment obligation, rendering their participation in ELAP moot. We requested that these Participants withdraw from the process. More specifically, the following carrier/SAC combinations were withdrawn: AMG Technology Inc. (AMG) (SACs 379035, 449089), Co-Mo Comm, Inc. (429038), Verizon South LLC (SAC 190479), and Wisper ISP, Inc. (SAC 419047). 8. The Commission delegated to the Bureau the authority to decide, based on a preponderance of the evidence, whether a participant’s total number of funded locations within the state exceeds the total number of eligible locations that the Participant was able to identify using reasonable efforts in the state, thus warranting a reduction in the participant’s original defined deployment obligation and a corresponding reduction in support. Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 1389 para. 24; Locations Adjustment Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10400-10401, paras. 15-17. Participants carry the burden of proof. Locations Adjustment Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10400, para. 15. B. DISCUSSION 9. In this Order, the Bureau makes its determination regarding adjustments to Participants’ original defined deployment obligations. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires the Bureau in each instance to conclude, based on the totality of the evidence, that it is more likely than not that the original defined deployment obligation is greater than the number of eligible locations within the state by a specific number of locations. Id. at 10400, para. 15. 1. Participant Adjustments Granted 10. We find that each of the Participants listed in the Attachment to this Order has demonstrated that it made reasonable efforts to identify every location within the supported areas for which they seek ELAP adjustment. Geolocation information for locations reported into the HUBB toward satisfaction of defined deployment obligations is available on the CAF Broadband Map, https://data.usac.org/publicreports/caf-map/. Such locations are displayed on a publicly accessible map that allows for optional overlays, including eligible areas. Based on the totality of the evidence for each Participant in each state, the Bureau concludes that each one has submitted evidence that makes it more likely than not that it has identified every eligible location within its study area and that such efforts have resulted in a reliable and accurate count of all qualifying locations. 11. Participants described various methodologies and submitted different types of evidence to prove they had found all eligible locations in the relevant areas. For example, certain Participants submitted methodologies that relied upon and reconciled multiple reasonably up-to-date data sources (e.g. Google Earth, E911 Database, ArcGIS mapping software, internal billing systems, County plat and tax records, etc.), and described multiple layers of review. Some Participants also described evaluating locations using aerial imagery and/or conducting extensive field research by driving to the majority of locations and visually inspecting locations, and in once instance, conducting helicopter surveys over the entire service area. Participants relied upon specific and articulated criteria to distinguish eligible from ineligible locations consistent with Commission and Bureau guidance. They also provided descriptions of how they used collected data and submitted evidence supporting their descriptions of methods and location information. This evidence included photographs used to illustrate the decision to deem a location ineligible, such as photographs of vacant, dilapidated homes with boarded windows and overgrown landscaping; or photographic evidence to illustrate eligible, prospective locations. 12. With these showings, we find that all Participants listed in the Attachment have completed reasonable steps to identify every location in the state, and as a result we adjust each of their defined deployment obligations and associated support. As directed by the Commission, we have also reduced each Participant’s CAF Phase II auction support on a pro rata basis. In the Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, the Commission explained that the “new support amount in the state would be reduced by (total state support/model locations) x number of deficient locations.” Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 1389, para. 24, n.62. In total, we have reduced the Participants’ CAF Phase II auction support by over $51 million. The Attachment to this Order provides, on a carrier-by-carrier basis, each Participant’s adjusted defined deployment obligation and associated support amounts. Three Participants in a total of six states were authorized to receive support for multiple performance tiers in a state. For each Participant/state combination (six in total), we proportionally reduced the Participant’s required number of locations in each tier to maintain the same ratio of locations across all performance tiers under the ELAP-adjusted deployment obligation as authorized under the initial deployment obligation. See Phase II Auction Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 5956-63, paras. 14-37 (adopting performance tiers for the CAF Phase II auction); “Authorized Auction 903 Long-Form Applicants,” https://www.fcc.gov/auction/903 (under the “Data” tab) (identifying the performance tiers applicable to each authorized recipient). The adjusted eligible location total will become the Participant’s new defined deployment obligation that we will use to determine compliance with the CAF Phase II auction service milestones. We direct Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to prorate remaining support payments due to the Participants to reflect the new authorized funding amount identified in the Attachment. Locations Adjustment Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10401, para. 17. Participants may adjust the amount secured by their letters of credit according to the applicable rules. We note that until the end of 2023, the Bureau has waived section 54.315(c) of the Commission’s rules for CAF Phase II auction recipients and directed them to comply with section 54.804(c) of the Commission’s rules with regard to their letter of credit obligations. Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Order, 35 FCC Rcd 6556 (WCB 2020) (waiving section 54.315(c) until the end of 2021); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Order, 36 FCC Rcd 16633 (WCB 2021) (extending the waiver until the end of 2022); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Order, DA 22-1304 (WCB Dec. 12, 2022) (extending the waiver until the end of 2023); 47 CFR §§ 54.315(c), 54.804(c). 13. As indicated in the Locations Adjustment Order and consistent with the Commission’s indication that ELAP information is subject to review and audit, if the Bureau discovers that actual locations were not reported by the Participant after the release of this Order, we will add those locations to the Participant’s defined deployment obligation but will not increase the Participant’s support. Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 1389, para. 23; Locations Adjustment Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10412, para. 49. We may also refer cases to the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau where it appears that the Participant may have intentionally or negligently misrepresented the number of actual locations in the ELAP. Id. 2. Douglas Services Waiver Petition 14. On August 23, 2022, Douglas Services submitted its Petition seeking waiver of the Participant filing deadline so as to permit it to participate in the ELAP. See generally, Douglas Services Waiver Petition. Douglas Services states it “dedicated considerable staff resources during the [Participant filing window],” to assemble various information relating to the number of eligible locations and to prepare the required certifications but could not meet the Participant filing deadline. Id. at 3-4. It asserts that waiver of this deadline serves the public interest because ELAP-related adjustments in support further the public interest by helping to ensure, ultimately, the best and most efficient use of high-cost support. See id. at 4. 15. We find that Douglas Services has not demonstrated that there is good cause to waive the Participant filing deadline. Generally, the Commission’s rules may be waived for good cause shown. 47 CFR § 1.3 (“Any provision of the rules may be waived by the Commission on its own motion or on petition if good cause therefor is shown.”). The Commission may exercise its discretion to waive a rule where the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest. Ne. Cellular Tel. Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990). In addition, the Commission may take into account considerations of hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy on an individual basis. WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969). Waiver of the Commission’s rules is appropriate only if both (i) special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and (ii) such deviation will serve the public interest. NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 125-28 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Ne. Cellular Tel. Co., 897 F.2d at 1166. Generally, the Commission will waive high-cost deadlines only when the petitioner demonstrates unusual or compelling circumstances. NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 126-27 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (explaining that Commission deadlines, particularly those related to filings, are generally waived only in “'unusual or compelling circumstances,” because absent such circumstances, the Commission risks arbitrariness in it decisions related to meritorious claims). Douglas Services fails to meet this standard. Douglas Services has not demonstrated that it acted with all reasonable due diligence after the release of the Locations Adjustment Order in November 2019 to gather and compile all requisite ELAP information. The Bureau established a four-month Participant filing window five months after it released the Locations Adjustment Order, providing a collective nine months to complete the assessment. Further, in advance of the opening of the Participant filing window, USAC contacted CAF Phase II funding recipients regarding the development of the module and conducted an ELAP webinar on October 20, 2020 to help CAF Phase II support recipients better understand the ELAP process and requirements. See ELAP Participant Window Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd at 5613 (referencing availability of recorded copy of USAC’s October 20, 2020 ELAP webinar and associated slides available at https://www.usac.org/high-cost/funds/caf-phase-ii-auction/eligible-locations-adjustment-process-elap/). As of the opening of the filing window, USAC published specific technical guidance for entering information into the system as well as direct technical support. See id. (indicating that USAC made available to carriers interested in participating in ELAP, an ELAP Module User Guide, available for download at https://www.usac.org/high-cost/funds/caf-phase-ii-auction/eligible-locations-adjustment-process-elap/; in addition, indicating that USAC could be contacted via direct email and phone to address any technical questions). Despite Douglas Services’ claims that it devoted resources to compiling its ELAP information and completing the certifications during the four-month Participant filing window, Douglas Services Petition at 3-4. Douglas Services failed to access the system during this time frame. It also fails to explain why it could not meet the deadline and did not submit its waiver request until 20 days after the deadline. While we recognize that Douglas Services could not submit ELAP information after the Participant filing deadline, the delay in notifying the Bureau and submitting the waiver request further reinforces concerns regarding Douglas Services lack of due diligence. 16. Accordingly, we cannot conclude based on the record before us that Douglas Services’ failure to meet the Participant deadline resulted from circumstances that were not within its control. Universal Service Contribution Methodology; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Requests for Review of Decisions of Universal Service Administrator by Airband Communications, Inc. et al., WC Docket No. 06-122, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 10861, 10864, para. 8 (WCB 2010) (explaining that the Bureau has generally denied waivers where claims of good cause rest on the petitioner’s error or negligence, or circumstances “squarely within the petitioner's control”). Although Douglas Services asserts that grant of this waiver request would serve the public interest by expediting the return of support that cannot be utilized toward deployment to qualifying locations, the Bureau will have an opportunity to recover support at the end of the process in accordance with default rules should Douglas Services fail to meet its future milestones. Phase II Auction Order, 31 FCC at 6017-18, paras. 190-193; 47 CFR § 54.320(d). Accordingly, we find that Douglas Services has failed to meet its obligation to prove good cause for waiver relief, and we deny its Waiver Petition. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 5, 214, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 155, and 254, and sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 0.91, 0.291, and the authority delegated to the Wireline Competition Bureau in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Phase II Auction Reconsideration Order, 33 FCC Rcd 1380 (2018), that this Order IS ADOPTED. We direct the Universal Service Administrative Company to take further action in accordance with the terms of this Order. 18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 1.3 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.3, the Petition for Waiver filed by Douglas Services, Inc., d/b/a Douglas Fast Net IS DENIED. 19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.102(b)(1), that this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Trent B. Harkrader Chief Wireline Competition Bureau 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 23-117 ATTACHMENT Participant State Study Area Code CAF II Funded Locations CAF II Support Amount Adjusted Eligible Locations Adjusted Support Amount AMG Technology Investment Group IL 349039 15,022 $35,329,965.90 13,478 AMG’s adjusted eligible location total for SAC 349039 includes offering service to 9,175 locations meeting the Above Baseline performance tier (Above Baseline) requirements and 4,303 locations meeting the Baseline performance tier (Baseline) requirements. $31,698,660.66 AMG Technology Investment Group IA 359146 15,097 $50,614,528.00 11,157 AMG’s adjusted eligible location total for SAC 359146 includes offering service to 5,685 locations meeting the Above Baseline requirements and 5,472 locations meeting the Baseline requirements. $37,405,198.97 AMG Technology Investment Group KS 419044 10,088 $37,349,710.70 9,603 AMG’s adjusted eligible location total for SAC 419044 includes offering service to 5,134 locations meeting the Above Baseline requirements and 4,469 locations meeting the Baseline requirements. $35,554,051.53 AMG Technology Investment Group OK 439073 17,883 $41,285,224.30 16,677 AMG’s adjusted eligible location total for SAC 439073 includes offering service 11,890 locations meeting the Above Baseline requirements and 4,787 locations meeting the Baseline requirements. $38,501,016.92 Farmers Mutual Telephone Company MN 369020 65 $217,992.80 51 $171,040.50 Federated Telephone Cooperative MN 366130 808 $1,431,038.80 721 $1,276,954.18 Frontier California Inc CA 542302 23 $51,552.60 18 $40,345.51 IdeaTek Telcom, LLC KS 419043 2,490 $6,186,881.60 2,078 $5,163,188.74 Independent Networks, L.C. IA 359006 123 $288,834.00 91 $213,690.20 Maquoketa Valley Rural Electric Cooperative IA 359148 1,107 $2,262,038.60 882 $1,802,274.66 Marshall County Fiber, LLC IN 329027 1,203 $1,326,394.00 981 $1,081,623.04 Midcontinent Communications MN 369015 7,410 $27,977,283.80 5,948 $22,457,339.28 NewMax, LLC dba Intermax Networks WA 529027 823 $2,160,450.60 635 $1,666,933.33 PC Telecorp, Inc. CO 469032 33 $387,303.00 21 $246,465.55 Point Broadband Fiber Holding, LLC MI 319050 17,610 $27,299,086.90 15,830 Point Broadband Fiber Holding LLC’s adjusted eligible location total for SAC 319050 includes offering service to 2 locations meeting the Gigabit performance tier requirements, 15,780 locations meeting the Above Baseline requirements, and 48 locations meeting the Baseline requirements. $24,539,724.34 Slic Network Solutions, Inc. NY 159038 5,516 $13,695,349.00 5,286 $13,124,295.65 Sunset Digital Communications, LLC VA 199025 6,998 $23,979,452.60 6,942 $23,787,562.15 Sunset Digital Communications, LLC TN 299033 2,095 $5,595,554.80 2,049 $5,472,692.98 Valley Communications Association, LLC NV 559030 153 $404,753.70 152 $402,108.25 Verizon New England Inc. MA 115112 305 $948,305.20 247 $767,971.75 Verizon New England Inc. RI 585114 165 $475,302.70 150 $432,093.36 Verizon New Jersey Inc. NJ 165120 510 $1,621,782.20 427 $1,357,845.10 Verizon Pennsylvania LLC Verizon Communications Inc. is using SAC 175000 for both Verizon Pennsylvania LLC and Verizon North LLC’s authorized winning bids in Pennsylvania. Verizon North LLC was originally assigned 170169 as its SAC. PA 175000 709 $1,687,283.80 626 $1,489,759.74 Verizon Maryland LLC MD 185030 1,194 $3,058,921.30 940 $2,408,196.00 Verizon Virginia LLC Verizon Communications Inc. is using SAC 195040 for both Verizon Virginia LLC and Verizon South Inc.’s authorized winning bids in Virginia. Verizon South Inc. was originally assigned 190479 as its SAC. VA 195040 456 $1,537,248.90 415 $1,399,031.35 West Central Telephone Association MN 369042 532 $611,934.40 494 $568,224.80 Wisper ISP, Inc IN 329031 14 $123,648.00 9 $79,488.00 Wisper ISP, Inc IL 349045 8,907 $35,079,137.70 8,236 $32,436,485.70 Wisper ISP, Inc AR 409047 102 $399,565.60 97 $379,979.05 Wisper ISP, Inc MO 429045 68,269 $176,319,409.30 63,053 Wisper ISP, Inc.’s adjusted eligible location total for SAC 429045 includes offering service to 62,461 locations meeting the Above Baseline performance tier requirements and 592 locations meeting the Baseline performance tier requirements. $162,847,964.88 Wisper ISP, Inc OK 439082 2,443 $6,790,089.80 2,135 $5,934,032.63 2