Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1035 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the matter of
Connect America Fund
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WC Docket No. 10-90
Adopted:  July 22, 2014 Released:  July 22, 2014
By the Acting Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: 
ORDER
1. In this Order, we grant petitions filed by FairPoint Communications Missouri, Inc. 
(FairPoint) and Steelville Telephone Exchange, Inc. (Steelville) for a waiver of section 54.313(h) of the 
Commission’s rules, which requires all incumbent local exchange companies (LECs) with rates below a 
rate floor for residential local service to report such rates.1 Because both FairPoint and Steelville charged 
rates meeting the rate floor for the entire period the $10 rate floor was in effect, we find that there is good
cause to waive the filing deadline in this instance.  Accordingly, we grant both petitions and direct USAC 
to refund any associated reductions in high-cost support for both carriers.  
I. BACKGROUND
2. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission aimed to ensure that universal 
service funds were not being used improperly to subsidize below-average local service rates by adopting a 
rule to limit high-cost loop support (HCLS), frozen high-cost support, and Connect America Fund Phase I 
support for carriers whose end-user rates do not meet a specified local rate floor.2 To provide adequate 
time for carriers to comply with this new rule, the Commission phased in the rate floor in three steps: $10 
for the period beginning July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013; $14 for the period beginning July 1, 2013 
through June 30, 2014; and a rate determined by an annual survey of voice rates beginning July 1, 2014, 
and continuing in each subsequent calendar year.3
3. The Commission required all incumbent LECs receiving high-cost support to report their 
residential local service rates to USAC beginning April 1, 2012, in order to enable USAC to calculate 
reductions in support levels for carriers with rates below the specified rate floor.4 The rates and lines filed 
by carriers on April 1 would be those in effect as of each January 1 (referred to herein as the “rate 
  
1 Petition for Waiver or Clarification to Reinstate High-Cost Support of FairPoint Communications Missouri, Inc., 
WC Docket No. 10-90 et al. (filed Dec. 26, 2012) (FairPoint Petition); Petition for Waiver to Reinstate High-Cost 
Support of Steelville Telephone Exchange, Inc., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al. (filed Dec. 31, 2012) (Steelville 
Petition).  See 47 C.F.R. § 54.313(h).
2 See Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Report and Order et al., 26 FCC 17663, 17749, 
para. 234-35 (2011), aff’d sub nom. In re FCC 11-161, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 2142106 (10th Cir. May 23, 
2014) (USF/ICC Transformation Order). 
3 Id. at 17751-52, para. 239.
4 Id. at 17856, para. 594.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1035 
2
sampling date”). In the Third Reconsideration Order, the Commission extended the deadline for carriers 
to file their annual reports, including data required for the rate floor, from April 1 to July 1,5 and delayed 
the rate sampling date from January 1 to June 1.6 The Commission also clarified that carriers needed to 
file their residential local rates only to the extent such rates were below the effective rate floor.7
4. On May 17, 2012, FairPoint and Steelville filed tariff revisions with the Missouri Public 
Service Commission (PSC) requesting expedited approval for rates meeting the $10 local rate floor.8 The 
Missouri PSC adopted an order on May 24, 2012, approving the carriers’ tariffs effective as of June 1.9  
Although the PSC’s order allowed FairPoint and Steelville to comply with the June 1 effective rate 
deadline, neither carrier was able to put the revised rate into effect by June 1, the rate sampling date.10 As 
a result, both FairPoint and Steelville experienced reduced high-cost support for the six-month period 
beginning July 1, 2012, and ending December 31, 2012.11
5. FairPoint and Steelville subsequently filed petitions for waiver of the Commission’s local 
voice rate data reporting rules,12 arguing that section 54.313(h)(1) and 54.318(a) are inconsistent and 
caused confusion regarding the correct filing date.  In addition, FairPoint and Steelville claim that the 
Third Reconsideration Order increased the burden on carriers to comply with the rate floor by changing 
the rate sampling date from July 1 to June 1.13 FairPoint also urges the Commission to clarify that it 
intended July 1 to be the rate sampling date.14  
  
5 See Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Third Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 
5622, 5628, para. 16, 19 (2012) (Third Order on Reconsideration).
6 Id. at 5629, para. 19. 
7 Id. at 5630, para. 21.
8 See Revised Tariff Filing of FairPoint Communications Missouri, Inc. d/b/a FairPoint Communications, File No. 
IT-2012-0390, Motion for Expedited Treatment (filed May 17, 2012), 
https://www.efis.psc.mo.gov/mpsc/commoncomponents/viewdocument.asp?DocId=935693745 (FairPoint Tariff); 
Revised Tariff Filing of Steelville Telephone Company to Comply with the FCC’s Nov. 18, 2011 Order Establishing 
a Local Rate Floor, File No. IT-2012-0388, Motion for Expedited Treatment (filed May 17, 2012), 
https://www.efis.psc.mo.gov/mpsc/commoncomponents/viewdocument.asp?DocId=935693722 (Steelville Tariff).
9 See Local Exchange Rate Tariff Filing of BPS Telephone Company to Comply with the FCC’s Nov. 18, 2011 Order 
Establishing a Local Rate Floor et al., File No. IT-2012-0374 et al., Order Approving Tariffs and Granting Motions 
for Expedited Treatment, at 7-8 (rel. May 24, 2012), available at
http://psc.mo.gov/CMSInternetData/ON/Orders/2012/052412374.htm.  
10 FairPoint Petition at 3 (explaining that it inadvertently reported the rate billed as of the last billing cycle, which 
was below the local urban rate floor); Steelville Petition at 2-3 (explaining that the Missouri PSC approved the tariff 
revision too late to implement the new rate into its billing system).
11 FairPoint Petition at 4 (stating a loss of $88,854 in high-cost support); Steelville Petition at 4 (stating a loss of 
$18,456 in high-cost support).
12 FairPoint Petition at 1; Steelville Petition at 1. 
13 FairPoint Petition at 2; Steelville Petition at 2.  
14 FairPoint Petition at 6-7. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1035 
3
II. DISCUSSION
6. We conclude that the circumstances particular to this instance justify granting the 
petitions of both FairPoint and Steelville for good cause.15 Because the carriers reported that their rates 
were below the rate floor as of the June 1 effective rate deadline, they received reduced high-cost support 
for the period between July 2012 and December 2012.  However, because the Missouri PSC approved 
their revised tariffs effective June 1, 2012, both FairPoint and Steelville were able to bill customers at 
rates that were in compliance with the rate floor for the entire period between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 
2013.  We conclude that under the totality of these circumstances relief is warranted.  Therefore, we direct 
USAC to refund any reductions in the high-cost support that both FairPoint and Steelville should have 
received for the period beginning July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.      
7. We also take this opportunity to clarify the reporting requirements for carriers seeking to 
avoid reductions in their high-cost support.  As stated in section 54.313(h)(1), carriers must “report lines 
and rates in effect as of June 1,”16 to the extent those rates are below the rate floor.17 In contrast, section 
54.318(a)—rather than setting a competing rate sampling date, as FairPoint and Steelville suggest—
provides the date on which high-cost support reductions associated with rates below the rate floor will 
begin for the forthcoming year.  
8. Finally, we note that the Third Order on Reconsideration did not shift the rate sampling 
date from July 1 back to June 1, as the petitioners contend.18 Instead, the Commission moved the date 
forward from January 1 to June 1 in order to give parties more time to take steps to avoid support 
reductions beginning July 1, 2012.19 As a result, the rate sampling date was delayed four months, from 
January 1 to June 1.20  
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201, and 254 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 155(c), 201, 254, and sections 0.91, 
0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, that this Order IS ADOPTED.
10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for waiver of section 54.313(h) of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.313(h), which requires all incumbent LECs that fail to meet the rate 
floor for residential local service to report such rates, filed by FairPoint Communications Missouri, Inc., 
IS GRANTED as described herein.
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for waiver of section 54.313(h) of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.313(h), which requires all incumbent LECs that fail to meet the rate 
floor for residential local service to report such rates, filed by Steelville Telephone Exchange, Inc., IS 
GRANTED as described herein.
  
15 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.
16 See 47 C.F.R. § 54.313(h)(1) (emphasis added).
17 Third Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd at 5629, para. 19.
18 See FairPoint Petition at 2; Steelville Petition at 2.  
19 Third Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd at 5629, para. 19.
20 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1035 
4
12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission’s 
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Carol E. Mattey
Acting Chief
Wireline Competition Bureau