Connect America Fund; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future; Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers; High-Cost Universal Service Support, 20551-20553 [2012-7057]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 2. Section 1340.2 is revised to read as follows: Daily_Business/2012/db0227/DA-12298A1.pdf. § 1340.2 I. Introduction ■ Applicability. This part applies to State surveys of seat belt use beginning in calendar year 2013 and continuing annually thereafter. However, a State may elect to conduct its calendar year 2012 seat belt use survey using a survey design approved under this part. Issued on: March 28, 2012. David L. Strickland, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2012–8137 Filed 4–4–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 1. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission delegated to the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) the authority to revise and clarify rules as necessary to ensure that the reforms adopted in the Order are properly reflected in the rules. In this Order, the Bureau acts pursuant to this delegated authority to revise and clarify certain rules, and acts pursuant to authority delegated to the Bureau in §§ 0.91, 0.201(d), and 0.291 of the Commission’s rules to clarify certain rules. II. Discussion FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION A. Intercarrier Compensation 47 CFR Parts 54 and 61 [WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 07–135, 05–337, 03–109; GN Docket No. 09–51; CC Docket Nos. 01–92, 96–45; WT Docket No. 10–208; DA 12–298] Connect America Fund; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future; Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers; High-Cost Universal Service Support Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission clarifies certain rules. The order clarifies, but does not otherwise modify, the USF/ICC Transformation Order. The petition for Clarification or, in the Alternative, for Reconsideration of Verizon is granted in part and dismissed in part, and the Petition for Reconsideration of United States Telecom Association is dismissed in part. DATES: Effective May 7, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Bender, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418–1469, Victoria Goldberg, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418–7353. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Wireline Competition Bureau’s Order in WC Docket Nos. 10– 90, 07–135, 05–337, 03–109; GN Docket No. 09–51; CC Docket Nos. 01–92, 96– 45; WT Docket No. 10–208; DA 12–298, released on February 27, 2012. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Or at the following Internet address: https:// transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/ rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:36 Apr 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 2. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission adopted a prospective transitional intercarrier compensation framework for VoIP– PSTN traffic. This transitional framework included default compensation rates and addressed a number of implementation issues, including explaining the scope of charges that local exchange carrier (LEC) partners of affiliated or unaffiliated retail VoIP providers are able to include in tariffs. In particular, the Commission determined that it was appropriate to adopt a ‘‘symmetric’’ framework for VoIP–PSTN traffic. This symmetric approach means that ‘‘providers that benefit from lower VoIP–PSTN rates when their end-user customers’ traffic is terminated to other providers’ end-user customers also are restricted to charging the lower VoIP–PSTN rates when other providers’ traffic is terminated to their end-user customers.’’ 3. As part of its symmetric regime, the Commission adopted rules that ‘‘permit a LEC to charge the relevant intercarrier compensation for functions performed by it and/or its retail VoIP partner, regardless of whether the functions performed or the technology used correspond precisely to those used under a traditional TDM architecture.’’ The Commission cautioned, however, that ‘‘although access services might functionally be accomplished in different ways depending upon the network technology, the right to charge does not extend to functions not performed by the LEC or its retail VoIP service provider partner.’’ The Commission adopted this limitation to address concerns in the record regarding double billing. This limitation was codified as part of the VoIP–PSTN framework in § 51.913(b) of the Commission’s rules. The Commission also modified its tariffing rules in Part PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 20551 61 for competitive LECs to implement the VoIP symmetry rule. 4. On February 3, 2012, YMax Communications Corp. (YMax) filed an ex parte letter seeking confirmation of its interpretation that ‘‘under [the Commission’s] new VoIP–PSTN ‘symmetry’ rule, a LEC is performing the functional equivalent of ILEC access service, and therefore entitled to charge the full ‘benchmark’ rate level, whenever it is providing telephone numbers and some portion of the interconnection with the PSTN, and regardless of how or by whom the lastmile transmission is provided.’’ Stated differently, YMax seeks guidance from the Commission as to whether the revised rule language in Part 61, specifically, § 61.26(f) permits a competitive LEC to tariff and charge the full benchmark rate even if it includes functions that neither it nor its VoIP retail partner are actually providing. YMax asserts that the purpose of the Commission’s revisions to § 61.26(f) was to ‘‘defin[e] the minimum access functionality necessary in order for a CLEC to be allowed to collect access charges at the full benchmark level under the VoIP–PSTN symmetry rule.’’ We disagree. The Commission revised § 61.26(f) to reflect the change in the tariffing process to implement the VoIP symmetry rule, which included limitations to prevent double billing. Interpreting the rule in the manner proposed by YMax could enable double billing. The Commission made clear in adopting the VoIP-symmetry rule that it intended to prevent double billing and charging for functions not actually provided. Indeed, § 51.913(b) expressly states that ‘‘[t]his rule does not permit a local exchange carrier to charge for functions not performed by the local exchange carrier itself or the affiliated or unaffiliated provider of interconnected VoIP service or non-interconnected VoIP service.’’ 5. YMax’s letter does, however, highlight a potential ambiguity because the amended rule § 61.26(f), which is the tariffing provision intended to implement the VoIP symmetry rule, did not include an express cross reference to § 51.913(b). Although § 51.913(b) makes clear that its terms apply notwithstanding any other Commission rule, to remove any ambiguity regarding the scope of what competitive LECs are permitted to assess in their tariffs, we amend § 61.26(f) to make clear that the ability to charge under the tariff is limited by § 51.913(b). In so doing, we address and reject YMax’s interpretation of § 61.26(f). E:\FR\FM\05APR1.SGM 05APR1 rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES 20552 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations B. Universal Service 6. Verizon Petition for Clarification or, in the Alternative, for Reconsideration. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission adopted rules to phase down existing high-cost support for competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs), and addressed the phase down of existing high-cost support to Verizon Wireless and Sprint pursuant to those carriers’ prior merger commitments, as clarified by the Corr Wireless Order. On December 29, 2011, Verizon Wireless filed a petition for clarification or, in the alternative, for reconsideration of this aspect of the Order as it applies to Verizon Wireless. Verizon Wireless argues that there are two permissible interpretations of the USF/ICC Order as it bears on the phase down of support for Verizon Wireless: That the general phase down of the competitive ETC support applies but Verizon Wireless’s merger commitment no longer does, or that Verizon Wireless’s merger commitment remains in effect but general phase down of competitive ETC support does not. Verizon Wireless states that a Bureau-level clarification is the appropriate means of resolving this ambiguity. 7. The Bureau clarifies that, pursuant to paragraph 520 of the USF/ICC Transformation Order, only Verizon Wireless’s merger commitment applies. Specifically, the Bureau clarifies that Verizon Wireless will receive support in 2012 based on its merger commitments, as clarified by the Corr Wireless Order, not based on the general phase down of competitive ETC support described in the USF/ICC Transformation Order. Verizon Wireless will not receive highcost competitive ETC support after 2012. The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) shall disburse to Verizon Wireless in 2012 20 percent of the support it would have received for each ETC service area in the absence of its merger commitment and the USF/ICC Transformation Order. As a proxy for the amount Verizon Wireless would have received in 2012 in the absence of its merger commitment and the USF/ICC Transformation Order, USAC shall use the amount of support it calculated for Verizon Wireless in 2011 pursuant to the identical support rule and the interim cap, including any support not actually disbursed to Verizon Wireless as a result of the merger commitment. 8. Accordingly, the Bureau grants Verizon’s Petition to the extent it requests clarification of the phase down of competitive ETC support and dismisses Verizon’s Petition to the VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:36 Apr 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 extent it alternatively requests reconsideration of the same issue. 9. Other Matters. First, the Bureau amends the definition of ‘‘rate-of-return carrier’’ in § 54.5 of our rules to correct an erroneous cross-reference to the definition of price cap regulation. 10. Second, the Bureau dismisses in part the petition for reconsideration filed by the United States Telecom Association (USTelecom), which, among other things, asked the Commission to clarify that reductions in legacy support resulting from a failure to meet the urban rate floor will, at most, extend only to high-cost loop support and high-cost model support. 11. In the USF/ICC Clarification Order, the Bureaus addressed this issue by amending § 54.318(d) to clarify that support reductions associated with the rate floor will offset frozen CAF Phase I support only to the extent that the recipient’s frozen CAF Phase I support replaced HCLS and HCMS. The Bureaus further stated that the offset does not apply to frozen CAF Phase I support to the extent that it replaced IAS and ICLS. Because the USF/ICC Clarification Order addressed this issue, the Bureau dismisses as moot that portion of the USTelecom petition for reconsideration. III. Procedural Matters A. Paperwork Reduction Act 12. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 13. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.’’ The RFA generally defines ‘‘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 which: (1) Is independently owned and PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 14. This Order clarifies, but does not otherwise modify, the USF/ICC Transformation Order. These clarifications do not create any burdens, benefits, or requirements that were not addressed by the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis attached to USF/ ICC Transformation Order. Therefore, we certify that the requirements of this Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the Order including a copy of this final certification in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Order and this certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and will be published in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). C. Congressional Review Act 15. The Commission will send a copy of this Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. IV. Ordering Clauses 16. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201–206, 214, 218– 220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201–206, 214, 218–220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 1302, and pursuant to §§ 0.91, 0.201(d), 0.291, 1.3, and 1.427 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.201(d), 0.291, 1.3, 1.427 and pursuant to the delegation of authority in paragraph 1404 of FCC 11–161 (rel. Nov. 18, 2011), that this Order is adopted, effective May 7, 2012. 17. It is further ordered, that parts 54 and 61 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR parts 54, 61 are amended as set forth, and such rule amendments shall be effective 30 days after the date of publication of the rule amendments in the Federal Register. 18. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 254, and the authority delegated in §§ 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.291, the Petition for Clarification or, in the Alternative, for Reconsideration of E:\FR\FM\05APR1.SGM 05APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Verizon is granted in part and dismissed in part and the Petition for Reconsideration of United States Telecom Association is dismissed in part. 19. It is further ordered, that the Commission shall send a copy of this Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 20. It is further ordered, that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. (f) If a CLEC provides some portion of the switched exchange access services used to send traffic to or from an end user not served by that CLEC, the rate for the access services provided may not exceed the rate charged by the competing ILEC for the same access services, except if the CLEC is listed in the database of the Number Portability Administration Center as providing the calling party or dialed number, the CLEC may, to the extent permitted by § 51.913(b) of this chapter, assess a rate equal to the rate that would be charged by the competing ILEC for all exchange access services required to deliver interstate traffic to the called number. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2012–7057 Filed 4–4–12; 8:45 am] List of Subjects 47 CFR Parts 54 and 61 Communications common carriers, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone. BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Federal Communications Commission. Sharon E. Gillett, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. 47 CFR Part 64 Final Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 54 and 61 to read as follows: Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals [CG Docket No. 10–210; DA 12–430] PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302 unless otherwise noted. 2. Amend § 54.5 by revising the definition of ‘‘rate-of-return carrier’’ to read as follows. ■ Terms and definitions. * * * * * Rate-of-return carrier. ‘‘Rate-of-return carrier’’ shall refer to any incumbent local exchange carrier not subject to price cap regulation as that term is defined in § 61.3(ee) of this chapter. * * * * * PART 61—TARIFFS 3. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows: rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES ■ Authority: Secs. 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201–205 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201– 205 and 403, unless otherwise noted. ■ 4. Revise § 61.26(f) to read as follows: § 61.26 Tariffing of competitive interstate switched exchange access services. * * * VerDate Mar<15>2010 * * 15:36 Apr 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; waiver of requirement. AGENCY: In this document, the Commission conditionally waives the requirement for National Deaf Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP) certified programs to submit reimbursement claims only once every six months, to permit certified programs to submit reimbursement claims as frequently as monthly. The Commission waives this requirement for good cause shown, to reduce the financial burden on programs that the Commission certifies to participate in the NDBEDP, and to better enable selected participants to fully meet the needs of eligible low-income, deaf-blind individuals in a timely manner. DATES: This document is effective May 7, 2012, except the modified reporting requirement in 47 CFR 64.610(f)(2), published at 76 FR 26641, May 9, 2011, has not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The modified information collection requirement shall become effective when the Commission publishes a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval and the effective date of the requirement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosaline Crawford, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability SUMMARY: 1. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows: ■ § 54.5 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 20553 Rights Office, at (202) 418–2075 or email Rosaline.Crawford@fcc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission’s document DA 12–430, adopted March 20, 2012, and released March 20, 2012, in CG Docket No. 10–210. The full text of document DA 12–430 and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. They may also be purchased from the Commission’s duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (800) 378–3160, fax: (202) 488–5563, or Internet: www.bcpiweb.com. Document DA 12– 430 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/ headlines.html and at https:// www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/cvaa.html. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY). Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis Document DA 12–430 contains a modified information collection requirement. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public to comment on the modified information collection requirement contained in document DA 12–430 as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), Public Law 104–13 in a separate published Federal Register Notice (Notice). Public and agency comments are due on or before May 29, 2012. See Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission, Notice, published at 77 FR 18813, March 28, 2012. In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, the Commission previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might ‘‘further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.’’ See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). In the present document, the Commission has assessed the effects of the rules for the NDBEDP pilot program and finds that the E:\FR\FM\05APR1.SGM 05APR1

Agencies

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20551-20553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7057]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 54 and 61

[WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, 03-109; GN Docket No. 09-51; CC
Docket Nos. 01-92, 96-45; WT Docket No. 10-208; DA 12-298]

Connect America Fund; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future;
Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers;
High-Cost Universal Service Support

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
clarifies certain rules. The order clarifies, but does not otherwise
modify, the USF/ICC Transformation Order. The petition for
Clarification or, in the Alternative, for Reconsideration of Verizon is
granted in part and dismissed in part, and the Petition for
Reconsideration of United States Telecom Association is dismissed in
part.

DATES: Effective May 7, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Bender, Wireline Competition
Bureau, (202) 418-1469, Victoria Goldberg, Wireline Competition Bureau,
(202) 418-7353.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Wireline
Competition Bureau's Order in WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, 03-
109; GN Docket No. 09-51; CC Docket Nos. 01-92, 96-45; WT Docket No.
10-208; DA 12-298, released on February 27, 2012. The full text of this
document is available for public inspection during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. Or at the following Internet address: https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0227/DA-12-298A1.pdf.

I. Introduction

1. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission delegated to
the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) the authority to revise and
clarify rules as necessary to ensure that the reforms adopted in the
Order are properly reflected in the rules. In this Order, the Bureau
acts pursuant to this delegated authority to revise and clarify certain
rules, and acts pursuant to authority delegated to the Bureau in
Sec. Sec. 0.91, 0.201(d), and 0.291 of the Commission's rules to
clarify certain rules.

II. Discussion

A. Intercarrier Compensation

2. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission adopted a
prospective transitional intercarrier compensation framework for VoIP-
PSTN traffic. This transitional framework included default compensation
rates and addressed a number of implementation issues, including
explaining the scope of charges that local exchange carrier (LEC)
partners of affiliated or unaffiliated retail VoIP providers are able
to include in tariffs. In particular, the Commission determined that it
was appropriate to adopt a ``symmetric'' framework for VoIP-PSTN
traffic. This symmetric approach means that ``providers that benefit
from lower VoIP-PSTN rates when their end-user customers' traffic is
terminated to other providers' end-user customers also are restricted
to charging the lower VoIP-PSTN rates when other providers' traffic is
terminated to their end-user customers.''
3. As part of its symmetric regime, the Commission adopted rules
that ``permit a LEC to charge the relevant intercarrier compensation
for functions performed by it and/or its retail VoIP partner,
regardless of whether the functions performed or the technology used
correspond precisely to those used under a traditional TDM
architecture.'' The Commission cautioned, however, that ``although
access services might functionally be accomplished in different ways
depending upon the network technology, the right to charge does not
extend to functions not performed by the LEC or its retail VoIP service
provider partner.'' The Commission adopted this limitation to address
concerns in the record regarding double billing. This limitation was
codified as part of the VoIP-PSTN framework in Sec. 51.913(b) of the
Commission's rules. The Commission also modified its tariffing rules in
Part 61 for competitive LECs to implement the VoIP symmetry rule.
4. On February 3, 2012, YMax Communications Corp. (YMax) filed an
ex parte letter seeking confirmation of its interpretation that ``under
[the Commission's] new VoIP-PSTN `symmetry' rule, a LEC is performing
the functional equivalent of ILEC access service, and therefore
entitled to charge the full `benchmark' rate level, whenever it is
providing telephone numbers and some portion of the interconnection
with the PSTN, and regardless of how or by whom the last-mile
transmission is provided.'' Stated differently, YMax seeks guidance
from the Commission as to whether the revised rule language in Part 61,
specifically, Sec. 61.26(f) permits a competitive LEC to tariff and
charge the full benchmark rate even if it includes functions that
neither it nor its VoIP retail partner are actually providing. YMax
asserts that the purpose of the Commission's revisions to Sec.
61.26(f) was to ``defin[e] the minimum access functionality necessary
in order for a CLEC to be allowed to collect access charges at the full
benchmark level under the VoIP-PSTN symmetry rule.'' We disagree. The
Commission revised Sec. 61.26(f) to reflect the change in the
tariffing process to implement the VoIP symmetry rule, which included
limitations to prevent double billing. Interpreting the rule in the
manner proposed by YMax could enable double billing. The Commission
made clear in adopting the VoIP-symmetry rule that it intended to
prevent double billing and charging for functions not actually
provided. Indeed, Sec. 51.913(b) expressly states that ``[t]his rule
does not permit a local exchange carrier to charge for functions not
performed by the local exchange carrier itself or the affiliated or
unaffiliated provider of interconnected VoIP service or non-
interconnected VoIP service.''
5. YMax's letter does, however, highlight a potential ambiguity
because the amended rule Sec. 61.26(f), which is the tariffing
provision intended to implement the VoIP symmetry rule, did not include
an express cross reference to Sec. 51.913(b). Although Sec. 51.913(b)
makes clear that its terms apply notwithstanding any other Commission
rule, to remove any ambiguity regarding the scope of what competitive
LECs are permitted to assess in their tariffs, we amend Sec. 61.26(f)
to make clear that the ability to charge under the tariff is limited by
Sec. 51.913(b). In so doing, we address and reject YMax's
interpretation of Sec. 61.26(f).

[[Page 20552]]

B. Universal Service

6. Verizon Petition for Clarification or, in the Alternative, for
Reconsideration. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission
adopted rules to phase down existing high-cost support for competitive
eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs), and addressed the phase
down of existing high-cost support to Verizon Wireless and Sprint
pursuant to those carriers' prior merger commitments, as clarified by
the Corr Wireless Order. On December 29, 2011, Verizon Wireless filed a
petition for clarification or, in the alternative, for reconsideration
of this aspect of the Order as it applies to Verizon Wireless. Verizon
Wireless argues that there are two permissible interpretations of the
USF/ICC Order as it bears on the phase down of support for Verizon
Wireless: That the general phase down of the competitive ETC support
applies but Verizon Wireless's merger commitment no longer does, or
that Verizon Wireless's merger commitment remains in effect but general
phase down of competitive ETC support does not. Verizon Wireless states
that a Bureau-level clarification is the appropriate means of resolving
this ambiguity.
7. The Bureau clarifies that, pursuant to paragraph 520 of the USF/
ICC Transformation Order, only Verizon Wireless's merger commitment
applies. Specifically, the Bureau clarifies that Verizon Wireless will
receive support in 2012 based on its merger commitments, as clarified
by the Corr Wireless Order, not based on the general phase down of
competitive ETC support described in the USF/ICC Transformation Order.
Verizon Wireless will not receive high-cost competitive ETC support
after 2012. The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) shall
disburse to Verizon Wireless in 2012 20 percent of the support it would
have received for each ETC service area in the absence of its merger
commitment and the USF/ICC Transformation Order. As a proxy for the
amount Verizon Wireless would have received in 2012 in the absence of
its merger commitment and the USF/ICC Transformation Order, USAC shall
use the amount of support it calculated for Verizon Wireless in 2011
pursuant to the identical support rule and the interim cap, including
any support not actually disbursed to Verizon Wireless as a result of
the merger commitment.
8. Accordingly, the Bureau grants Verizon's Petition to the extent
it requests clarification of the phase down of competitive ETC support
and dismisses Verizon's Petition to the extent it alternatively
requests reconsideration of the same issue.
9. Other Matters. First, the Bureau amends the definition of
``rate-of-return carrier'' in Sec. 54.5 of our rules to correct an
erroneous cross-reference to the definition of price cap regulation.
10. Second, the Bureau dismisses in part the petition for
reconsideration filed by the United States Telecom Association
(USTelecom), which, among other things, asked the Commission to clarify
that reductions in legacy support resulting from a failure to meet the
urban rate floor will, at most, extend only to high-cost loop support
and high-cost model support.
11. In the USF/ICC Clarification Order, the Bureaus addressed this
issue by amending Sec. 54.318(d) to clarify that support reductions
associated with the rate floor will offset frozen CAF Phase I support
only to the extent that the recipient's frozen CAF Phase I support
replaced HCLS and HCMS. The Bureaus further stated that the offset does
not apply to frozen CAF Phase I support to the extent that it replaced
IAS and ICLS. Because the USF/ICC Clarification Order addressed this
issue, the Bureau dismisses as moot that portion of the USTelecom
petition for reconsideration.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

12. This document does not contain new or modified information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain
any new or modified information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).

B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

13. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory
flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the
agency certifies that ``the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' The RFA generally
defines ``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 which: (1) Is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
14. This Order clarifies, but does not otherwise modify, the USF/
ICC Transformation Order. These clarifications do not create any
burdens, benefits, or requirements that were not addressed by the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis attached to USF/ICC Transformation
Order. Therefore, we certify that the requirements of this Order will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Commission will send a copy of the Order including a copy
of this final certification in a report to Congress pursuant to the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Order and this certification will
be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, and will be published in the Federal Register. See 5
U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Congressional Review Act

15. The Commission will send a copy of this Order to Congress and
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act.

IV. Ordering Clauses

16. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained
in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256,
303(r), 332, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and
section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
154(i), 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403,
1302, and pursuant to Sec. Sec. 0.91, 0.201(d), 0.291, 1.3, and 1.427
of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.201(d), 0.291, 1.3, 1.427 and
pursuant to the delegation of authority in paragraph 1404 of FCC 11-161
(rel. Nov. 18, 2011), that this Order is adopted, effective May 7,
2012.
17. It is further ordered, that parts 54 and 61 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR parts 54, 61 are amended as set forth, and such rule
amendments shall be effective 30 days after the date of publication of
the rule amendments in the Federal Register.
18. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained
in section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
254, and the authority delegated in Sec. Sec. 0.91 and 0.291 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.291, the Petition for Clarification
or, in the Alternative, for Reconsideration of

[[Page 20553]]

Verizon is granted in part and dismissed in part and the Petition for
Reconsideration of United States Telecom Association is dismissed in
part.
19. It is further ordered, that the Commission shall send a copy of
this Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
20. It is further ordered, that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.

List of Subjects 47 CFR Parts 54 and 61

Communications common carriers, Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Sharon E. Gillett,
Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.

Final Rules

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 54 and 61 to read 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), 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254,
303(r), 403, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec. 54.5 by revising the definition of ``rate-of-return
carrier'' to read as follows.

Sec. 54.5 Terms and definitions.

* * * * *
Rate-of-return carrier. ``Rate-of-return carrier'' shall refer to
any incumbent local exchange carrier not subject to price cap
regulation as that term is defined in Sec. 61.3(ee) of this chapter.
* * * * *

PART 61--TARIFFS

0
3. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205 and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),
154(j), 201-205 and 403, unless otherwise noted.

0
4. Revise Sec. 61.26(f) to read as follows:

Sec. 61.26 Tariffing of competitive interstate switched exchange
access services.

* * * * *
(f) If a CLEC provides some portion of the switched exchange access
services used to send traffic to or from an end user not served by that
CLEC, the rate for the access services provided may not exceed the rate
charged by the competing ILEC for the same access services, except if
the CLEC is listed in the database of the Number Portability
Administration Center as providing the calling party or dialed number,
the CLEC may, to the extent permitted by Sec. 51.913(b) of this
chapter, assess a rate equal to the rate that would be charged by the
competing ILEC for all exchange access services required to deliver
interstate traffic to the called number.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-7057 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Webinars for All

Navigating Immigration in a Second Trump Term [CLE]

Charles H. Kuck

Greg Siskind

May 13, 7 am ET / 4 am PT

Succession Planning Unlocked: Mastering the Transition From Leadership to Legacy [CLE]

Mark Bassingthwaighte

May 16, 7 am ET / 4 am PT

Family Law Practice Marketing and AI: Ask Our Experts

Tim Stanley

May 19, 7 am ET / 4 am PT

View All Webinars ›

Justia Webinars are open to all, lawyers and non-lawyers. Lawyers, please visit individual webinar pages for more information about CLE accreditation.