Connect America Fund, 76435-76446 [2012-31084]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
offense is classified as a felony and is
punishable by fines of up to $25,000
and imprisonment for up to 5 years. OIG
may also impose civil money penalties,
in accordance with section 1128A(a)(7)
of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a–7a(a)(7)), or
exclusion from the Federal health care
programs, in accordance with section
1128(b)(7) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a–
7(b)(7)).
Since the statute on its face is so
broad, concern has been expressed for
many years that some relatively
innocuous commercial arrangements
may be subject to criminal prosecution
or administrative sanction. In response
to the above concern, section 14 of the
Medicare and Medicaid Patient and
Program Protection Act of 1987, Public
Law 100–93 § 14, the Act, § 1128B(b), 42
U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b), specifically required
the development and promulgation of
regulations, the so-called ‘‘safe harbor’’
provisions, specifying various payment
and business practices that, although
potentially capable of inducing referrals
of business reimbursable under the
Federal health care programs, would not
be treated as criminal offenses under the
anti-kickback statute and would not
serve as a basis for administrative
sanctions. OIG safe harbor provisions
have been developed ‘‘to limit the reach
of the statute somewhat by permitting
certain non-abusive arrangements, while
encouraging beneficial and innocuous
arrangements’’ (56 FR 35952, July 29,
1991). Health care providers and others
may voluntarily seek to comply with
these provisions so that they have the
assurance that their business practices
will not be subject to liability under the
anti-kickback statute or related
administrative authorities. The OIG safe
harbor regulations are found at 42 CFR
part 1001.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
B. OIG Special Fraud Alerts
OIG has also periodically issued
Special Fraud Alerts to give continuing
guidance to health care providers with
respect to practices OIG finds
potentially fraudulent or abusive. The
Special Fraud Alerts encourage industry
compliance by giving providers
guidance that can be applied to their
own practices. OIG Special Fraud Alerts
are intended for extensive distribution
directly to the health care provider
community, as well as to those charged
with administering the Federal health
care programs.
In developing Special Fraud Alerts,
OIG has relied on a number of sources
and has consulted directly with experts
in the subject field, including those
within OIG, other agencies of the
Department, other Federal and State
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:23 Dec 27, 2012
Jkt 229001
agencies, and those in the health care
industry.
C. Section 205 of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of
1996
Section 205 of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104–191
§ 205, the Act, § 1128D, 42 U.S.C.
1320a–7d, requires the Department to
develop and publish an annual notice in
the Federal Register formally soliciting
proposals for modifying existing safe
harbors to the anti-kickback statute and
for developing new safe harbors and
Special Fraud Alerts.
In developing safe harbors for a
criminal statute, OIG is required to
engage in a thorough review of the range
of factual circumstances that may fall
within the proposed safe harbor subject
area so as to uncover potential
opportunities for fraud and abuse. Only
then can OIG determine, in consultation
with the Department of Justice, whether
it can effectively develop regulatory
limitations and controls that will permit
beneficial and innocuous arrangements
within a subject area while, at the same
time, protecting the Federal health care
programs and their beneficiaries from
abusive practices.
II. Solicitation of Additional New
Recommendations and Proposals
In accordance with the requirements
of section 205 of HIPAA, OIG last
published a Federal Register
solicitation notice for developing new
safe harbors and Special Fraud Alerts on
December 29, 2011 (76 FR 89104). As
required under section 205, a status
report of the public comments received
in response to that notice is set forth in
Appendix F.1 OIG is not seeking
additional public comment on the
proposals listed in Appendix F at this
time. Rather, this notice seeks
additional recommendations regarding
the development of new or modified
safe harbor regulations and new Special
Fraud Alerts beyond those summarized
in Appendix F.
A detailed explanation of
justifications for, or empirical data
supporting, a suggestion for a safe
harbor or Special Fraud Alert would be
helpful and should, if possible, be
included in any response to this
solicitation.
A. Criteria for Modifying and
Establishing Safe Harbor Provisions
In accordance with section 205 of
HIPAA, we will consider a number of
1 The OIG Semiannual Report to Congress can be
accessed through the OIG Web site at https://
oig.hhs.gov/publications/semiannual.asp.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76435
factors in reviewing proposals for new
or modified safe harbor provisions, such
as the extent to which the proposals
would affect an increase or decrease in:
• Access to health care services,
• The quality of health care services,
• Patient freedom of choice among
health care providers,
• Competition among health care
providers,
• The cost to Federal health care
programs,
• The potential overutilization of
health care services, and
• The ability of health care facilities
to provide services in medically
underserved areas or to medically
underserved populations.
In addition, we will also take into
consideration other factors, including,
for example, the existence (or
nonexistence) of any potential financial
benefit to health care professionals or
providers that may take into account
their decisions whether to (1) order a
health care item or service or (2) arrange
for a referral of health care items or
services to a particular practitioner or
provider.
B. Criteria for Developing Special Fraud
Alerts
In determining whether to issue
additional Special Fraud Alerts, we will
consider whether, and to what extent,
the practices that would be identified in
a new Special Fraud Alert may result in
any of the consequences set forth above,
as well as the volume and frequency of
the conduct that would be identified in
the Special Fraud Alert.
Dated: December 20, 2012.
Daniel R. Levinson,
Inspector General.
[FR Doc. 2012–31107 Filed 12–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4152–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 10–90; FCC 12–138]
Connect America Fund
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission seeks
comment in this Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on potential
modifications to the rules governing
Connect America Phase I incremental
support to further accelerate the
deployment of broadband facilities to
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
76436
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
consumers who lack access to robust
broadband.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
January 28, 2013 and reply comments
are due on or before February 11, 2013.
If you anticipate that you will be
submitting comments, but find it
difficult to do so within the period of
time allowed by this notice, you should
advise the contact listed below as soon
as possible.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by WC Docket No. 10–90, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web Site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ryan Yates, Wireline Competition
Bureau, (202) 418–0886 or TTY: (202)
418–0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Federal
Communications Commission’s
(Commission) Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC
Docket No. 10–90, and FCC 12–138,
adopted November 14, 2012, and
released November 19, 2012. The
complete text of this document is
available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the
FCC Reference Information Center,
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The
document may also be purchased from
the Commission’s duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.
(BCPI), 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–
B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone
(800) 378–3160 or (202) 863–2893,
facsimile (202) 863–2898, or via the
Internet at https://www.bcpiweb.com. It
is also available on the Commission’s
web site at https://www.fcc.gov.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, interested parties
may file comments and reply comments
on or before the dates indicated on the
first page of this document. Comments
may be filed using: (1) The
Commission’s Electronic Comment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:23 Dec 27, 2012
Jkt 229001
Filing System (ECFS); (2) the Federal
Government’s eRulemaking Portal; or (3)
by filing paper copies. See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the
Internet by accessing the ECFS:
https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/or the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Filers should
follow the instructions provided on
the Web site for submitting
comments.
Æ For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or
rulemaking numbers appear in the
caption of this proceeding, filers
must transmit one electronic copy
of the comments for each docket or
rulemaking number referenced in
the caption. In completing the
transmittal screen, filers should
include their full name, U.S. Postal
Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket or rulemaking
number. Parties may also submit an
electronic comment by Internet
email. To get filing instructions,
filers should send an email to
ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the
following words in the body of the
message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form
and directions will be sent in
response.
Æ Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original
and four copies of each filing. If
more than one docket or rulemaking
number appears in the caption of
this proceeding, filers must submit
two additional copies for each
additional docket or rulemaking
number.
• Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class
or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail (although we continue to
experience delays in receiving U.S.
Postal Service mail). All filings
must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of
the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission.
Æ The Commission’s contractor will
receive hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission’s Secretary at
236 Massachusetts Avenue NE,
Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002.
The filing hours at this location are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
Æ Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent
to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail should
be addressed to 445 12th Street
SW., Washington, DC 20554.
In addition, one copy of each pleading
must be sent to the Commission’s
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc, 445 12th Street SW., Room
CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554; Web
site: www.bcpiweb.com; phone: 1–800–
378–3160. Furthermore, two copies of
each pleading must be sent to Charles
Tyler, Telecommunications Access
Policy Division, Wireline Competition
Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5–
A452, Washington, DC 20554; email:
Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov and one copy to
Ryan Yates, Telecommunications
Access Policy Division, Wireline
Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street
SW., Room 5–B441A, Washington, DC
20554; email: Ryan.Yates@fcc.gov.
Filings and comments are also
available for public inspection and
copying during regular business hours
at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
Copies may also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
BCPI, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–
B402, Washington, DC 20554.
Customers may contact BCPI through its
Web site: www.bcpiweb.com, by email at
fcc@bcpiweb.com, by telephone at (202)
488–5300 or (800) 378–3160 (voice),
(202) 488–5562 (tty), or by facsimile at
(202) 488–5563.
To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), send an email to
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice) or (202) 418–0432
(TTY). Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations for filing
comments (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov;
phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
I. Introduction
1. On November 18, 2011, the
Commission released the USF/ICC
Transformation Order and FNPRM, 76
FR 73830, November 29, 2011 and 76
FR 78384, December 16, 2011, which
comprehensively reforms and
modernizes the high-cost universal
service and intercarrier compensation
systems. Recognizing, among other
facts, that over 80 percent of the more
than 18 million Americans unserved by
broadband live in price cap territories,
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
the Commission provided for two
phases of funding to make broadbandcapable networks available to as many
unserved locations as possible in those
areas. In Connect America Phase I, the
Commission froze existing high-cost
support for price cap carriers and
provided up to $300 million of
additional, incremental support in 2012
in order to advance deployment of
broadband-capable infrastructure while
it implements Phase II. In Phase II, the
Commission provided for up to $1.8
billion to be spent each year, over a
period of five years, to further advance
deployment of broadband-capable
infrastructure and sustain services in
price cap territories through ‘‘a
combination of a forward-looking cost
model and competitive bidding.’’
2. Of the initial $300 million in Phase
I incremental support allocated to price
cap carriers to support the deployment
of broadband-capable networks to
currently unserved locations,
approximately $115 million was
accepted. Because the USF/ICC
Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830,
November 29, 2001, calls for making the
additional incremental support
available in the coming months, we now
seek comment in this Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) on
potential modifications to the rules
governing Connect America Phase I
incremental support to further
accelerate the deployment of broadband
facilities to consumers who lack access
to robust broadband. These changes
would expand on the steps already
taken in Phase I earlier this year, while
we continue to implement Phase II.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
II. Discussion
3. Building on the success of the first
round of Phase I, we now seek comment
on rule changes that would provide
further opportunities to advance our
overarching goal to use available funds
to rapidly and efficiently deploy
broadband networks throughout
America. Given our interest in
disbursing the available funds to bring
robust broadband-capable networks to
consumers and businesses as soon as
possible, we intend to proceed
expeditiously with this rulemaking.
A. Options for Utilizing Remaining 2012
Connect America Phase I Funding
4. Of the $300 million in Connect
America Phase I incremental support
initially allocated in 2012 to promote
broadband deployment, approximately
$185 million remains. We seek
comment on whether to modify our
rules for Phase I incremental support or
instead use such funding in Phase II.
Under either option, we propose to use
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:23 Dec 27, 2012
Jkt 229001
these remaining funds to support further
broadband deployment in the areas
those funds were originally targeted to
support—areas served by price cap
carriers and their rate-of-return affiliates
that are costly for the private sector to
serve.
1. Modifications for a New Round of
Connect America Phase I
5. We propose several changes to
Connect America Phase I that build on
the success of the first round of funding
and use the remaining $185 million of
incremental support and any future
Phase I funding with maximum impact.
First, we propose to expand the
definition of unserved areas to include
any census block lacking access to
broadband with speeds of 4 Mbps
downstream and 1 Mbps upstream,
which would be consistent with the
minimum standard for broadband
service required from carriers receiving
Connect America Phase I incremental
support and would be in line with the
Commission’s broadband speed
benchmark for Connect America Phase
II recipients. Second, we propose to
conduct a challenge process, to be
completed before carriers have the
opportunity to elect to receive
additional funding, to develop a list of
census blocks eligible for funding.
Third, we seek comment on several
proposals to distribute the next round of
Phase I funding, including tying funding
to the construction of second-mile fiber,
tying funding to the estimated costs of
deployment in an area, and maintaining
the $775 per unserved location metric.
Finally, we propose that the remaining
2012 funds be made available under
these revised rules to further expand
access to broadband-capable networks.
We seek comment on the costs and
benefits of each proposal, and how
those approaches might impact small
businesses and whether there are
alternatives that would minimize
impacts on small businesses. We also
seek comment on alternatives in the
event we do not adopt these rule
changes.
6. Expanding the Areas Eligible for
Phase I. Under our current rules,
carriers accepting Phase I incremental
support are required to deploy
broadband to one unserved location for
each $775 in incremental support they
accept. For these purposes, the
Commission specified that locations
would be eligible if, according to the
then-current version of the National
Broadband Map, those locations were in
areas that did not have access to fixed
terrestrial broadband with a minimum
speed of 768 kbps downstream and 200
kbps upstream. As the Commission
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76437
explained, Phase I was initially targeted
to bring high-speed Internet access to
consumers who lacked any broadband
access at all, even though there are
many other consumers who did not
have broadband that meets our standard
of 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps
upstream.
7. Given the success of the first round
of Phase I in targeting support to those
areas lacking any form of high-speed
Internet access, we now propose to
broaden Phase I by permitting carriers to
accept additional funds to target
consumers and businesses that are in
areas unserved by broadband that meets
our 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps
upstream standard. We seek comment
on this proposal.
8. Such an approach would further
the objective of ensuring that all
Americans can, at a minimum, take
advantage of modern Internet
applications, such as voice over Internet
protocol and streaming video. If we
were to take such an approach, we
propose to designate an area as
unserved by broadband with speeds of
4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps
upstream if it is shown on the National
Broadband Map as unserved by fixed
terrestrial broadband with an advertised
speed of at least 3 Mbps downstream
and 768 kbps upstream. Using 3 Mbps
downstream and 768 kbps upstream as
a proxy for 4 Mbps downstream and 1
Mbps upstream is consistent with the
Commission’s prior approach in the
USF/ICC Transformation Order and
uses the best data currently available on
the National Broadband Map. This
baseline would be the starting point for
the challenge process discussed below.
The 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps
upstream standard is consistent with
what is required from carriers receiving
Connect America Phase I incremental
support and is also in line with the
Commission’s broadband speed
benchmark for Phase II. Is a different
standard for initially determining what
locations are unserved by 4 Mbps
upstream and 1 Mbps downstream
broadband more appropriate?
9. Challenge Process. The
Commission relies on the National
Broadband Map in many contexts,
including as a tool to target funding
appropriately in Phase I of the Connect
America Fund. Some commenters,
however, have suggested the National
Broadband Map may contain
inaccuracies that materially impact the
targeting of support as the Commission
intended.
10. As an alternative to having
carriers rely exclusively on the National
Broadband Map to determine eligible
areas, we propose to utilize a limited
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
76438
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
challenge process to allow interested
parties to provide updates to the
National Broadband Map for purposes
of any additional round of Phase I
funding. We seek comment on this
proposal.
11. Within 15 days of release of this
FNPRM, we direct the Bureau to publish
a list of eligible census blocks shown on
the current version of the National
Broadband Map as unserved by fixed
terrestrial broadband with an advertised
speed of 3 Mbps downstream and 768
kbps upstream. The Bureau will solicit
public input on updates, revisions, and
other potential corrections to the
National Broadband Map data. In
particular, the Bureau should seek
comment on areas where coverage is
either overstated (i.e., census blocks are
listed as served where they are in fact
unserved) or understated (i.e., census
blocks are listed as unserved when they
are in fact served). The Bureau also
should seek comment on areas listed as
unserved on the map that are served
through the Broadband Initiatives
Program or the Broadband Technology
Opportunities Program. The most useful
comments will be those that list specific
census blocks that are inaccurately
reported on the map, along with a
detailed explanation of why the
commenter believes the areas are
inaccurately reported. Comments are
also sought on steps parties have taken
to bring the alleged errors to the
attention of the relevant state mapping
entity or any other entity, and, if they
have, the outcome of any of those
discussions. Finally, commenters
claiming that an entity does not provide
service as reflected on the National
Broadband Map are encouraged to serve
a copy of their comments on the entity
whose service area the commenter is
challenging.
12. Where the Bureau finds that the
evidence demonstrates that it is more
probable than not that the National
Broadband Map inaccurately portrays
coverage of a particular area, we
propose that the Bureau deem that
census block as served or unserved, as
appropriate, for purposes of Phase I
incremental support. We propose that
the Bureau would give more weight to
comments supported by tests (with the
testing methodology described and the
underlying data provided) and/or
engineering certifications where
appropriate. We propose that the Bureau
publish a revised list, after the public
comment described above, which will
then become the list of areas eligible for
Phase I support going forward. The
census blocks on this list would be
deemed unserved, and carriers would
meet buildout obligations by deploying
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:23 Dec 27, 2012
Jkt 229001
to unserved locations in those areas. We
seek comment as to whether this is a
workable approach that can be
implemented quickly so that a finalized
list of eligible census blocks would
become available shortly after adoption
of the revised rules under consideration
in this FNPRM.
13. Alternative Proposals for
Distributing Phase I Funding. We seek
comment on several proposals to
distribute the next round of Phase I
funding, including tying funding to the
construction of second-mile fiber, tying
funding to the estimated costs of
deployment in an area, and maintaining
the $775 per location metric.
14. The first proposal would require
carriers to satisfy their buildout
obligations for incremental support
based on a metric that measures the
number of miles of fiber deployed for a
defined dollar amount, with a
requirement to connect to a minimum
number of unserved locations per mile.
Under this proposal, carriers accepting
Phase I incremental support would be
required to meet their buildout
obligations by building a certain number
of miles of fiber for a specified amount
of support accepted. We propose that a
carrier would be permitted to count any
fiber it builds between its central office
and an unserved location, where that
location is unserved by the carrier with
4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps
upstream broadband, and that location
is within a census block not served by
any other provider, which would be
determined as proposed above. This
would allow carriers maximum
flexibility in determining how to invest
Phase I support to deploy new fiber. We
seek comment on this proposal.
15. We seek comment on the specific
metric that would be adopted to
implement this approach. We note that
Windstream, in its July 2012 request for
a waiver of the Phase I incremental
support deployment requirement, has
suggested that it could deploy fiber to
high-cost rural areas with a subsidy of
$35,784 per mile. Is there any
significant variation in the cost per fiber
mile among price cap carriers? If we
were to adopt this proposal, should we
adopt a uniform metric for all recipients
of Phase I support and what should that
dollar value per miles of fiber deployed
be? Is the figure Windstream suggests
appropriate? We note that the
Commission has structured the Connect
America Phase I program in a way that
would enable recipients to seek a ruling
from the Internal Revenue Service that
such Phase I incremental support is a
contribution to capital under section
118 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.
The funding is a governmental payment
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to private parties for the express
purpose of their making capital
investments—the deployment of fiber
and related broadband facilities—to
achieve the Commission’s public policy
purpose of extending broadbandcapable infrastructure to unserved
Americans. Should we establish the
dollar amount based on a pre-tax or
post-tax figure?
16. If we were to require carriers to
satisfy buildout requirements by
reporting on miles of fiber deployed, we
propose also to require that a minimum
average number of unserved locations
per route mile of fiber be served,
averaged over the entirety of the fiber
the carrier seeks credit for under
Connect America Phase I. In this
context, we note that Windstream
indicated that, if its waiver petition
were granted, it would deploy
broadband, on average, to
approximately ten locations defined as
unserved, under our existing definition,
per mile of fiber deployed. We note that
requiring service to an average
minimum number of unserved locations
would be one way to prevent a carrier
from deploying Connect America fiber
almost entirely in areas already served
by an unsubsidized competitor, with
just a small number of unserved
customers. It would also support our
goal of bringing broadband-capable
infrastructure to as many unserved
homes and businesses as possible. Is
requiring deployment to a minimum
number of unserved locations per route
mile an appropriate requirement for
Phase I support, given the goal of
quickly maximizing the number of
locations that become served with this
finite amount of support? How many
locations per mile should be required,
and should that figure be altered
depending on whether we update our
definition of eligible areas to be those
that do not have 4 Mbps downstream
and 1 Mbps upstream broadband, as
proposed above? Are there other factors
or exceptions to this approach that
should be considered by the
Commission?
17. As an alternative or in addition to
a predefined requirement to deploy to a
number of unserved locations per mile
of fiber deployed, should we require
carriers to certify that they have ranked
potential fiber deployments by the
number of unserved locations that
would be served by each route
deployment and have selected the fiber
routes with the highest number of
unserved locations per mile? If we were
to adopt such a requirement, would we
need to adopt additional measures in
order to monitor and enforce the
accuracy of such certifications?
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
18. We also seek input on any
additional rule modifications we should
adopt to prevent subsidizing fiber in
areas served by unsubsidized
competitors. Although we wish to avoid
providing support to carriers in areas
where an unsubsidized competitor
provides service without support, we
are at the same time mindful that if we
prohibit support to any fiber
construction that could theoretically
benefit a geographic area with an
unsubsidized competitor, such a
restriction could unreasonably deprive
many unserved consumers from
obtaining broadband, to the extent the
fiber to connect those customers would
need to traverse a geographic area that
is served. Given the tradeoff between
encouraging fiber construction and not
wanting to provide subsidies that
unfairly skew competition, we seek
comment on how to design a workable
standard to meet our policy objectives
that could be implemented quickly and
efficiently. For example, should we
require that no more than a specified
percentage of the fiber route miles
traverse census blocks where there is an
unsubsidized competitor? Should the
carrier be required to build more miles
of fiber to meet its buildout obligations
if that fiber could potentially serve areas
with unsubsidized competitors? Should
support be reduced on a prorated basis
if a length of fiber serves locations that
are both served and unserved by an
unsubsidized competitor?
19. We also invite comment on
whether to impose any other restrictions
on where a carrier may build fiber that
it wishes to count toward its buildout
obligations.
20. Under our existing rules, carriers
are required to deploy broadband to
two-thirds of the required number of
locations within two years, and all
required locations within three years.
We seek comment on what deployment
milestones would be appropriate if we
were to provide support for fiber
deployment with or without a perlocation requirement. Should, for
instance, we require that two-thirds of
the route miles be deployed within two
years, and all of the route miles be
deployed within three years?
21. We seek comment on what
information carriers should be required
to provide about their deployments at
the time of acceptance and after meeting
any deployment milestones, if we were
to require carriers to meet buildout
obligations based on a metric of miles of
fiber deployed. Should carriers be
required at the time of acceptance to
specify the census blocks where the
fiber would be deployed, consistent
with our current Phase I incremental
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:23 Dec 27, 2012
Jkt 229001
support requirements? Should they be
required at the time of acceptance to
provide fiber route maps? Should such
maps be required as they reach the twoyear and three-year deployment
milestones? Should they be required,
either the time of initial acceptance or
the two- or three-year deployment
milestones, to provide geocoded
location information for unserved
locations that gain service as a result of
Phase I incremental support? We seek
comment on whether we should require
that any such information be made
available to the public or whether
carriers should be permitted to provide
that information on a confidential basis.
22. In an ex parte letter filed in the
spring, before Phase I acceptances were
submitted, Windstream suggested that
before a carrier would be eligible to
meet buildout obligations by deploying
fiber facilities, it should first be required
to provide broadband to any unserved
location in its territory that could be
connected at a cost below a fixed
benchmark. Only after all those
locations had been served could the
carrier then meet buildout requirements
based on the metric of miles of fiber
deployed. Should we adopt this twostep approach as an alternative to the
single-step proposal, which would
require carriers to meet buildout
obligations through a combination of a
miles of fiber metric and a fixed-cost per
location metric, similar or the same as
that used in the first round of Connect
America Phase I funding?
23. In order to be eligible for funding
under this option, should carriers be
required to provide some level of
matching funding for each mile of fiber
they seek to count toward buildout
obligations? If so, how much matching
funding should be required? Should
carriers be required to disclose the
amount of matching funding either they
or third parties provide for Phase I
buildout?
24. If the Bureau adopts a greenfield
model for Phase II, should fiber built to
meet obligations in Phase I be excluded
from support under any Phase II model
we develop? Excluding Phase I fiber
would avoid the issue of providing
double support for fiber construction
(i.e., providing support to construct a
mile of fiber in Phase I, then providing
support to construct that same mile
again in Phase II). How would such an
exclusion work in practice? One
obstacle to excluding Phase I fiber from
Phase II support is that the Bureau
would not likely receive information
regarding actual fiber deployments in a
time frame needed before finalizing a
cost model to determine support
amounts to be offered to price cap
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76439
carriers. What rule changes would need
to be adopted to address this timing
issue? Finally, if carriers accept Phase I
funding for fiber builds, what is the
likely impact on their willingness to
accept Phase II funding for the
remainder of their qualifying areas?
Does it serve the public interest to
advance broadband deployment in
Phase I even if carriers may be less
likely to accept the funding and service
obligations in Phase II?
25. The second proposal would tie
funding to the estimated costs of
deployment in an area. As the
Commission recognized in the USF/ICC
Transformation Order, distributing
universal service support through a
forward-looking cost model—and
scaling the amount of support to the
costs of serving a particular area—
incentivizes providers to deploy service
efficiently, while advancing our goals to
provide universal access. Because ‘‘CAF
Phase I incremental support is designed
to provide an immediate boost to
broadband deployment in areas that are
unserved by any broadband provider,’’
the Commission declined to await the
development of the more complete
Phase II cost model and instead relied
on the existing high-cost proxy model to
distribute support. The Commission
relied on that model to estimate the
forward-looking costs of serving a
location in each wire center served by
price cap carriers and their affiliates.
Under this proposal, the $775-perlocation-metric would be adjusted based
on the estimated cost to serve a location
in a particular wire center.
26. Using the existing high-cost proxy
model, the Bureau can estimate the
average cost per location of deploying
broadband-capable infrastructure for a
given wire center. By analyzing this data
in aggregate, the Bureau could
determine the mean and median
estimated cost for all wire centers (i.e.,
determine what would be the average
nationwide cost per location of
deploying to locations, at the wire
center level).
27. Under this approach, how should
we determine what is the baseline cost
that would be used to anchor the
upward or downward adjustments in
support per location? In USF/ICC
Transformation Order, the Commission
examined cost estimates from the
National Broadband Plan and the ABC
Plan in determining that $775 per
location was sufficient to cover the
‘‘median cost of a brownfield
deployment of broadband to low-cost
unserved census blocks.’’ Should we set
$775 per location as the baseline
support amounts for wire centers whose
already estimated costs are at or near the
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
76440
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
median (i.e., setting the baseline by
looking at all wire centers)? If we were
to use the median wire center cost figure
as the baseline, a carrier extending
service to unserved locations in a wire
center where the average cost equal to
that baseline would receive $775 in
support per location. A carrier
extending service to locations in a wire
center with below baseline costs would
receive less than $775 of support per
location, while a carrier extending
service to locations in a wire center with
above baseline costs would receive
greater than $775 of support per
location.
28. We already have some data that
may shed some insights into the
estimated costs of deployment given the
acceptances of $775 per location by
many carriers. Should we instead
correlate the locations where carriers
accepted $775 of support with the
already estimated costs to establish the
baseline (i.e., setting the baseline by
looking at the wire centers that carriers
actually deployed to in the first round
of Phase I)?
29. Once we have established a
baseline per-location amount, should
we scale the per-location support
amounts for other wire centers
proportionately (so that an area
expected to cost twice as much as the
baseline would receive twice the
support) or dollar for dollar (so that an
area expected to cost $100 more per year
than the baseline would receive $875
per location)? Should we establish
minimum and maximum support
amounts per location to ensure that we
adequately incentivize deployment in
an efficient manner? We are also
mindful that costs could vary greatly
between locations within a single wire
center: Some locations within a wire
center could cost considerably more to
deploy to than the wire center average,
while other locations could cost
considerably less. We seek comment on
how we should handle this variability.
Is there a more granular metric than
wire center average costs that we could
use to set support amounts?
30. We expect that determining the
per-location support amounts for each
wire center would be relatively trivial
once we have determined a baseline and
scaling mechanism because we have
already estimated the costs of deploying
infrastructure in each price cap wire
center. As such, we would delegate to
the Bureau authority to create a list of
the per-location support amount for
each wire center, based on each wire
center’s average deployment cost,
within fifteen days of adopting an order
if we adopted this proposal. We also
expect that buildout obligations of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:23 Dec 27, 2012
Jkt 229001
carriers would remain the same under
this proposal, with two small changes.
First, the two-year and three-year
commitments would be premised on
serving a sufficient number of locations
to justify two-thirds of the total support
claimed by a carrier. Second, as with
2012 Phase I support, carriers would not
be bound by the initial list of locations
to be served, but the locations actually
served after two years and three years
would be compared to the support
amounts in each wire center for
purposes of fulfilling the buildout
obligations.
31. The third proposal would allow
carriers to accept support based on our
current metric of one unserved location
per $775 accepted. We note that carriers
that accepted funds in the first round of
Phase I incremental support likely will
use those funds to build to the lowercost locations in their territories, leaving
generally higher-cost locations
remaining, which would raise the
average cost to connect to a location in
the next round of funding and militate
in favor of using a figure higher than
$775. However, we also note that if we
expand our definition of eligible areas,
it could reduce the average cost per
location. We accordingly seek comment
on whether we now should modify the
$775 per location metric.
32. Adding Remaining 2012 Phase I
Incremental Support into Phase I
Support for 2013. We propose to
combine the remaining $185 million in
2012 Phase I incremental support with
whatever funding is made available for
Phase I in 2013, employing any revised
rules we adopt in response to this
FNPRM. Our rules currently provide
that if Connect America Phase II is not
implemented to be effective by January
1, 2013, the Bureau would follow the
same rules to conduct a second round
of Phase I support. The amount of
support available would be determined
based on the length of the term the
Bureau establishes for the second
round—set based on the Bureau’s
expectation of when Phase II will
begin—but ordinarily would not exceed
the annual budget of $300 million.
Augmenting any 2013 Phase I support
with the remaining Phase I funds,
however, could dramatically increase
the impact of the next round of Phase
I incremental support. If the Bureau
were, for example, to set a term of six
months for Phase I in 2013, the amount
of money available would, under
existing rules, be $150 million.
Combining the $185 million remaining
from the first round of Phase I with such
an amount would more than double the
scope of a second round of Phase I. We
seek comment on this approach.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33. We seek comment on how funding
should be allocated in the event we add
the remaining funds from the first round
of Phase I into a future round of Phase
I. One approach would be to allocate
any funding a carrier previously
declined to that carrier, in addition to
the funding it would otherwise be
allocated for the future round. An
alternative approach would be to
allocate support to carriers based on
carriers’ original allocations, regardless
of the amount of funding a carrier took
2012. Under such an approach, all
carriers would have their 2013
allocations increased by a fixed
percentage. A third approach would
recalculate the per-carrier support
amounts using the same distribution
process used for the initial round of
Phase I set forth in section 54.312(b)(1)
of our rules, but recalculating the
funding threshold so that the total
amount of incremental support available
in Phase I would be distributed. Under
such an approach, the support available
to a carrier in 2013 would be the
recalculated amount minus the amount
accepted in 2012 Phase I support. We
seek comment on these potential
approaches.
34. We also propose to allow carriers
to accept additional funding if other
carriers choose not to accept their full
allocation. Under existing rules, the
allocation to each carrier serves two
functions: It guarantees a set amount of
funding for each carrier (regardless of
the choices of other carriers) and sets
the upper limit on how much each
carrier may accept. We propose to
modify our rules to eliminate that upper
limit and permit carriers to seek support
up to the entire amount of available
Phase I funding. Under such an
approach, each carrier would still be
guaranteed funding up to their
allocation as described in the previous
paragraph. If the total requested funding
from all carriers is less than the amount
available, each carrier would receive the
amount it requested; if carriers
collectively request support in excess of
the amount available, support above
each carrier’s allocation would be
distributed in proportion to the relative
allocations between carriers requesting
additional support. Such an approach
should enable us to maximize the
benefit to consumers of the limited
funds that are available. We seek
comment on how specifically such an
allocation process should work,
particularly in the case where carriers
request more funding than has been
made available. Should we, for example,
permit carriers to revise their original
proposed acceptances downward once
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
allocations have been set, in order to
ensure that carriers will be able to use
the amounts of support they receive?
35. Timing Issues for Any Future
Round of Support. We anticipate that
we will act promptly in this proceeding.
We recognize, however, that the
effective date of any modifications we
might adopt in this rulemaking would
be after the December 15 deadline by
which the Bureau is currently required
to issue a Public Notice for the next
round of Phase I incremental support
funding. We therefore acknowledge we
need to modify the timing of the
December 15, 2012 announcement
regarding Phase I allocations for 2013.
We hereby waive the current deadline
and postpone such announcement until
after we have had the opportunity to act
on the record developed in response to
this notice.
36. We propose to permit the Bureau
to establish the deadlines for all
necessary announcements and elections
so as to manage efficiently any future
funding opportunities involving Phase I
incremental support. In the USF/ICC
Transformation Order, the Commission
delegated authority to the Bureau to
establish the term lengths of any future
round of incremental support. We
propose to permit the Bureau to
schedule any necessary future round of
Phase I incremental support in its
discretion, provided that: (i) The term of
any round of incremental support
should not exceed a year; (ii) the Bureau
should set the term of rounds so that
Phase I incremental support continues
no later than when Phase II begins
actual disbursements of support; and
(iii) the Bureau shall offer any future
round of Phase I incremental support
subject to the previously established
overall limitation that funding for Phase
I incremental support should not exceed
$300 million per year, excluding any
amounts carried forward from the
previous round consistent with any
direction the Commission provides in
this proceeding. We seek comment on
this proposal.
2. Adding Remaining Phase I
Incremental Support Into Phase II
37. An alternative approach would be
to apply any funding remaining from
Phase I to our overall budget for
Connect America Phase II. In the USF/
ICC Transformation Order, the
Commission established a budget for
Phase II in price cap areas of up to $1.8
billion annually. Increasing that
budgeted amount might allow more
locations to be supported in Phase II
and also potentially encourage carriers
to deploy broadband-capable networks
more rapidly.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:23 Dec 27, 2012
Jkt 229001
38. Phase I incremental support was
designed to be an interim measure until
Phase II can be implemented. Adding
any remaining funds from Phase I into
the budget for Phase II could help to
achieve the longer term goals of Connect
America Phase II. Moreover, as Connect
America Phase I is scheduled to
transition to Phase II in 2013, expanding
the Phase II budget provides a
mechanism to begin distributing the
remaining Phase I funds in a prompt
and seamless manner.
39. We seek comment on whether we
should apply these funds to Phase II,
and, if we were to do so, what
adjustments to Phase II would be
appropriate. Should the public interest
obligations in Phase II should be altered
if additional funding were provided?
Should we use the money to accelerate
deployment milestones, or should we
expand the overall scope of Phase II?
How might different levels of funding
affect these obligations?
40. As another alternative approach,
we also seek comment as to whether the
remaining Phase I incremental support
should be used to reduce high-cost
demand below the $4.5 billion budget
established by the Commission in the
USF–ICC Transformation Order, thereby
reducing the amount contributors need
to pay into the Universal Service Fund.
B. Oversight and Accountability for
Phase I Incremental Support
41. Above, we seek comment on
potential modifications to the rules that
will govern any future incremental
support. In this section, we seek
comment on several issues that have
arisen in the initial implementation of
Phase I. In particular, we seek comment
on measures to ensure we have the tools
to monitor compliance with existing
obligations for support that has already
been accepted, whether certain
reporting requirements should be
modified for recipients of second round
incremental support, and whether
certain Phase I data should be afforded
confidential treatment.
42. Incremental Support Reporting
Requirements. As noted above, under
existing rules, carriers accepting Phase I
incremental support are required to
deploy broadband to a number of
unserved locations equal to the amount
of support they accept, divided by $775.
Carriers are required to deploy to twothirds of the total number of required
locations within two years, and they
must complete deployment within three
years. The acceptance of Connect
America Phase I incremental support
comes with a number of reporting
requirements designed to ensure that
support is targeted appropriately and
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76441
that carriers meet the obligations they
take on when they accept support. First,
when carriers accept support, they are
required to identify, by census block
and wire center, where they intend to
deploy broadband to satisfy their
obligation. Those initial filings,
however, do not bind the carriers to
deploy only to in those areas, or to every
location in those areas. Rather, the
initial filings are only good faith
statements of the carriers’ initial
intentions—carriers may deploy
broadband to other eligible locations
instead, though, if they do so, they are
required to identify where they in fact
deployed. In addition, as part of their
annual filings under section 54.313 of
our rules, carriers are required to certify
that they have met any two- or threeyear deployment milestone that passed
in the year covered by that filing. Along
with their certifications, carriers are
required to specify the number of
locations in each census block and wire
center to which they have deployed
broadband. And, to assist the
Commission and the Administrator in
validating carriers’ deployments,
carriers are required to provide, upon
request, sufficient information about the
location of actual deployments to allow
confirmation of the availability of
service and the eligibility of each
location for support.
43. We propose a minor modification
to the Phase I reporting obligations to
strengthen our ability to monitor
compliance with our rules for carriers
that have already accepted Phase I
incremental support as well as for any
future rounds of funding. Specifically,
we propose that each carrier, with its
two- and three-year milestone
certifications, would provide geocoded
latitude and longitude location
information, along with census block
and wire center information, for each
location the carrier intends to count
toward its deployment requirement.
Specific location information would
assist the Commission and the
Administrator in comparing actual
deployed locations against the National
Broadband Map that was current as of
the date the carrier accepted funding,
confirming that all deployed locations
were eligible for support. We also
propose to clarify that in the event a
carrier intends to deploy to areas other
than those identified in the carrier’s
initial acceptance, it is permitted (but
not required) to make a supplemental
filing providing updated deployment
plans at any time. Compliance with our
rules will be determined based on the
carrier’s final deployment certification,
which would identify where the carrier
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
76442
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
did, in fact, deploy. These changes
should improve accountability in the
program. We do not expect that these
requirements would impose a
significant or unexpected burden on any
carrier that has accepted incremental
support. We seek comment on these
proposals.
44. Confidentiality of Phase I
Elections. Of the seven carriers that
accepted Connect America Phase I
support, four made claims of
confidentiality for the location
information they submitted along with
their election of funding. The carriers
claiming confidentiality alleged that
public disclosure could give
competitors insight into the carriers’
network buildout plans, which the
competitors could then exploit for
operational and marketing purposes. We
note that public disclosure is generally
the preferred option, as it promotes
oversight and accountability of the
parties involved. This is especially true
where public funds are being employed.
We therefore seek comment on whether
to grant or deny the requests for
confidentiality that carriers have made
regarding location data in their Connect
America Phase I incremental support
elections. If we grant these requests for
confidentiality, should such
confidentiality end in two or three
years, when the buildout plans of these
carriers will have been completed
according to the buildout obligations of
Phase I? Additionally, independent of
how we handle the currently pending
requests for confidentiality, we seek
comment as to whether and to what
extent carriers should be permitted to
request confidential treatment of future
Connect America Phase I funding
elections.
III. Procedural Matters
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
45. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in this
FNPRM. Written comments are
requested on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA
and must be filed by the deadlines for
comments on the FNPRM. The
Commission will send a copy of the
FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:23 Dec 27, 2012
Jkt 229001
B. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
46. The FNPRM seeks comment on a
variety of issues relating to
modifications of Connect America. As
discussed in this FNPRM, the
Commission believes that making these
modifications will aid in efficiently
achieving the goals of Connect America
and broadband deployment generally.
Bringing robust, affordable broadband to
all Americans is the infrastructure
challenge of the 21st century. To allow
the Commission to help meet this
challenge, the FNPRM asks for comment
in a number of specific areas.
Modifications for a New Round of
Connect America Phase I
47. In this FNPRM, the Commission
seeks comments on several alternatives
that would allow the remaining funds to
be used in Phase I.
48. The Commission proposes to
expand the definition of unserved
location to include locations that, while
having some access to high-speed
broadband, do not have service meeting
the Connect America goal of 4 Mbps
downstream and 1 Mbps upstream. The
Wireline Competition Bureau would
generate a list of eligible areas that lack
4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps
upstream broadband service, and the
public would be invited to bring
challenges to that list.
49. The Commission seeks comment
on three alternatives to satisfying
Connect America Phase I buildout
obligations. First, the Commission also
seeks comment on allowing carriers to
meet buildout obligations based on the
number of miles of fiber deployed.
Comment is sought on how fiber should
be credited toward buildout obligations,
how much fiber must be built for every
dollar of support received, whether a
minimum number of homes should per
served per mile of fiber, where carriers
should be restricted in building fiber,
what information carriers should be
required to provide, whether carriers
should be required to provide matching
funds, and whether fiber built with
these funds should be excluded from
future Connect America funding
opportunities. Second, the Commission
alternatively seeks comment on scaling
the $775 based on the average
deployment cost for a wire center, such
that costlier wire centers would receive
support per location above $775, while
cheaper wire centers would receive
support per location below $775. Third,
the Commission seeks comment on
changing the requirement that carriers
connect to one unserved location for
every $775 of support receive without
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
regard to the costs of a particular wire
center.
50. The FNPRM proposes that the
remaining funds from the first round of
Connect America Phase I would be
combined with any Phase I support for
2013, and all the funds would be
distributed through a single round of
funding. Comment is sought on how
such funds should be distributed,
especially in light of the fact that
carriers accepted different amounts of
funding for the first round of Phase I. In
the proposed 2013 round of Phase I,
carriers would be allowed to accept
above their originally allocated amount
of funding. Comment is sought on how
funding should be allocated,
particularly in the event that carriers
accept more funds in total than have
been made available.
51. The existing December 15, 2012
deadline for the Wireline Competition
Bureau to announce the 2013 round of
Phase I is waived to allow time for the
rule changes discussed in this FNPRM
to go into effect.
Adding Remaining Phase I Incremental
Support Into Phase II
52. As an alternative to the approach
discussed above, this FNPRM seeks
comment on adding the remaining
funds from Phase I into Connect
America Phase II. Commenters are
encouraged to provide input on how the
obligations for Phase II should be
adjusted in light of this additional
funding. Rather than placing funds into
Phase II, this FNPRM also seeks
comment on using the remaining
incremental support to reduce the
budget for high-cost universal service,
which would reduce the amount of
universal service contribution required
from carriers.
Oversight and Accountability for Phase
I Incremental Support
53. This FNPRM also seeks comment
on modifying the reporting
requirements for carriers accepting
Connect America Phase I incremental
support. A carrier would be required to
provide specific geocoded latitude and
longitude information for locations the
carrier wishes to count toward buildout
obligations. The FNPRM also requests
comment on the extent to which carriers
should be granted confidentiality on
these and other reports.
C. Legal Basis
54. The legal basis for any action that
may be taken pursuant to the FNPRM is
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 214,
218–220, of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, and section 706 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
D. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
55. 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 ‘‘smallbusiness 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 SBA.
56. Small Businesses. Nationwide,
there are a total of approximately 27.5
million small businesses, according to
the SBA.
57. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which
consists of all such companies having
1,500 or fewer employees. According to
Census Bureau data for 2007, there were
3,188 firms in this category, total, that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 3,144 firms had employment of
999 or fewer employees, and 44 firms
had employment of 1,000 employees or
more. Thus, under this size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered
small.
58. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to
local exchange services. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under that size standard, such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to
Commission data, 1,307 carriers
reported that they were incumbent local
exchange service providers. Of these
1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have
1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have
more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of local
exchange service are small entities that
may be affected by the rules and
policies proposed in the FNPRM.
59. Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers (incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a size standard for small businesses
specifically applicable to incumbent
local exchange services. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:23 Dec 27, 2012
Jkt 229001
rules is for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under that size standard, such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to
Commission data, 1,307 carriers
reported that they were incumbent local
exchange service providers. Of these
1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have
1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have
more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of
incumbent local exchange service are
small businesses that may be affected by
rules adopted pursuant to the FNPRM.
60. We have included small
incumbent LECs in this present RFA
analysis. As noted above, a ‘‘small
business’’ under the RFA is one that,
inter alia, meets the pertinent small
business size standard (e.g., a telephone
communications business having 1,500
or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not
dominant in its field of operation.’’ The
SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that,
for RFA purposes, small incumbent
LECs are not dominant in their field of
operation because any such dominance
is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. We have
therefore included small incumbent
LECs in this RFA analysis, although we
emphasize that this RFA action has no
effect on Commission analyses and
determinations in other, non-RFA
contexts.
61. Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers (competitive LECs), Competitive
Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant
Service Providers, and Other Local
Service Providers. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small business size standard
specifically for these service providers.
The appropriate size standard under
SBA rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under
that size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 1,442
carriers reported that they were engaged
in the provision of either competitive
local exchange services or competitive
access provider services. Of these 1,442
carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500
or fewer employees and 186 have more
than 1,500 employees. In addition, 17
carriers have reported that they are
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or
fewer employees. In addition, 72
carriers have reported that they are
Other Local Service Providers. Of the
72, seventy have 1,500 or fewer
employees and two have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most
providers of competitive local exchange
service, competitive access providers,
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76443
Other Local Service Providers are small
entities that may be affected by rules
adopted pursuant to the FNPRM.
62. Internet Service Providers. Since
2007, these services have been defined
within the broad economic census
category of Wired Telecommunications
Carriers; that category is defined as
follows: ‘‘This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to
transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound,
and video using wired
telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies.’’ The SBA has developed
a small business size standard for this
category, which is: All such firms
having 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Census Bureau data for
2007, there were 3,188 firms in this
category, total, that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 3,144 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees,
and 44 firms had employment of 1,000
employees or more. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms can
be considered small. In addition,
according to Census Bureau data for
2007, there were a total of 396 firms in
the category Internet Service Providers
(broadband) that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 394 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees,
and two firms had employment of 1,000
employees or more. Consequently, we
estimate that the majority of these firms
are small entities that may be affected
by rules adopted pursuant to the
FNPRM.
63. All Other Information Services.
The Census Bureau defines this industry
as including ‘‘establishments primarily
engaged in providing other information
services (except news syndicates,
libraries, archives, Internet publishing
and broadcasting, and Web search
portals).’’ Our action pertains to
interconnected VoIP services, which
could be provided by entities that
provide other services such as email,
online gaming, web browsing, video
conferencing, instant messaging, and
other, similar IP-enabled services. The
SBA has developed a small business
size standard for this category; that size
standard is $7.0 million or less in
average annual receipts. According to
Census Bureau data for 2007, there were
367 firms in this category that operated
for the entire year. Of these, 334 had
annual receipts of under $5.0 million,
and an additional 11 firms had receipts
of between $5 million and $9,999,999.
Consequently, we estimate that the
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
76444
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
majority of these firms are small entities
that may be affected by our action.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
E. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
64. In this FNPRM, the Commission
seeks public comment on modifications
to Phase I of Connect America.
Depending on which modifications the
Commission adopts could be subject to
additional compliance requirements.
65. If the Commission puts in place a
system whereby price cap carriers may
meet buildout requirements through
fiber deployment, carriers will likely be
required to report where they intend to
build fiber they wish to count toward
their obligations. This reporting
requirement would affect any small
entities that are also price cap carriers.
Those carriers would also be subject to
compliance requirements in meeting
their buildout obligations.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered
66. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business, alternatives that it has
considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements
under the rules for such small entities;
(3) the use of performance rather than
design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for such small entities.’’
67. The FNPRM seeks comment from
all interested parties. The Commission
is aware that some of the proposals
under consideration may impact small
entities. Small entities are encouraged to
bring to the Commission’s attention any
specific concerns they may have with
the proposals outlined in the FNPRM,
and the Commission will consider
alternatives that reduce the burden on
small entities.
68. The Commission expects to
consider the economic impact on small
entities, as identified in comments filed
in response to the FNPRM, in reaching
its final conclusions and taking action
in this proceeding. The reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements in the FNPRM could have
an impact on both small and large
entities. The Commission believes that
any impact of such requirements is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:23 Dec 27, 2012
Jkt 229001
outweighed by the accompanying public
benefits. Further, these requirements are
necessary to ensure that the statutory
goals of Section 254 of the Act are met
without waste, fraud, or abuse.
69. In the FNPRM, the Commission
seeks comment on several issues and
measures that may apply to small
entities in a unique fashion. If price cap
carriers are permitted to use Connect
America funds to build fiber facilities,
any small businesses accepting funding
would be required to report where they
intend to build such fiber. This is only
a minor burden in addition to the
current requirement of reporting what
unserved locations a carrier plans to
connect to, and that burden is
outweighed by the benefit of funding to
build such facilities.
G. Federal Rules that May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed
Rules
70. None.
H. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
71. This document contains proposed
modified information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, invites the general
public and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) to comment on the
information collection requirements
contained in this document, as required
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4),
we seek specific comment on how we
might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
I. Ex Parte Presentations
72. Permit-But-Disclose. The
proceeding this Notice initiates shall be
treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’
proceeding in accordance with the
Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file
a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
J. Filing Requirements
73. Comments and Replies. Pursuant
to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the
Internet by accessing the ECFS:
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original
and one copy of each filing. If more
than one docket or rulemaking
number appears in the caption of
this proceeding, filers must submit
two additional copies for each
additional docket or rulemaking
number. Filings can be sent by hand
or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal
Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission’s
Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications
Commission.
D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All
hand deliveries must be held
together with rubber bands or
fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes
must be disposed of before entering
the building.
D Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express
Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent
to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
D U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington DC 20554.
74. People with Disabilities. To
request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (braille,
large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov
or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice),
202–418–0432 (tty).
75. Availability of Documents.
Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be publically
available online via ECFS. These
documents will also be available for
public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Information Center, which is located in
Room CY–A257 at FCC Headquarters,
445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC
20554. The Reference Information
Center is open to the public Monday
through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30
a.m.
76. Additional Information. For
additional information on this
proceeding, contact Ryan Yates of the
Wireline Competition Bureau,
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, ryan.yates@fcc.gov, (202) 418–
0886.
IV. Ordering Clauses
77. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 214, and 218–220
of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47
U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 214, 218–220,
and 1302, notice is hereby given of the
proposals and tentative conclusions
described in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.
78. It is further ordered that the
December 15, 2012 deadline for the
Wireline Competition Bureau to
announce future rounds of Phase I
incremental support is waived.
79. It is further ordered that the
authority necessary to perform the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:23 Dec 27, 2012
Jkt 229001
functions described in paragraphs 15
and 16 of this document is delegated to
the Wireline Competition Bureau.
80. It is further ordered that the
Reference Information Center,
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau, shall send a copy of this Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54
Communications common carriers,
reporting and record keeping
requirements, telecommunications,
telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 54, as follows:
PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE
1. The authority citation for part 54
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as
amended; 47 U.S.C. 155.
2. Amend § 54.312 by revising
introductory paragraph (b) and by
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 54.312 Connect America Fund for Price
Cap Territories—Phase I.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Incremental Support Accepted in
2012. Beginning January 1, 2012,
support in addition to baseline support
defined in paragraph (a) of this section
will be available for certain price cap
local exchange carriers and rate-ofreturn carriers affiliated with price cap
local exchange carriers as follows. This
paragraph applies only to support
accepted before January 1, 2013.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Incremental Support After 2012.
Support in addition to baseline support
defined in paragraph (a) of this section
will be available for certain price cap
local exchange carriers and rate-ofreturn carriers affiliated with price cap
local exchange carriers as follows. This
paragraph applies only to support
accepted after December 31, 2012.
(1) A carrier may initially accept any
amount of funding up to the total
amount of funding available, regardless
of the carrier’s initial allocation under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(2) A carrier accepting incremental
support must deploy a mile of fiber for
every $[[X]] in support it accepts,
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76445
providing broadband to [[Y]] locations
unserved by broadband with speeds of
4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps
upstream per mile of fiber.
(3) A carrier may elect to accept or
decline incremental support. A holding
company may do so on a holdingcompany basis on behalf of its operating
companies that are eligible
telecommunications carriers, whose
eligibility for incremental support, for
these purposes, shall be considered on
an aggregated basis. A carrier must
provide notice to the Commission,
relevant state commissions, and any
affected Tribal government, stating the
amount of incremental support it wishes
to accept and identifying the areas by
wire center and census block in which
the designated eligible
telecommunications carrier will deploy
fiber to meet its deployment obligation,
along with a fiber route map of planned
deployments, or stating that it declines
incremental support. Such notification
must be made within 90 days of being
notified of any incremental support for
which it would be eligible. Along with
its notification, a carrier accepting
incremental support must also submit a
certification that the locations to be
served to satisfy the deployment
obligation are within census blocks that
are deemed unserved areas in a public
notice to be published by the Wireline
Competition Bureau; that, to the best of
the carrier’s knowledge, the locations
are, in fact, unserved by fixed
broadband; that the carrier’s current
capital improvement plan did not
already include plans to complete
broadband deployment within the next
three years to the locations to be
counted to satisfy the deployment
obligation; and that incremental support
will not be used to satisfy any merger
commitment or similar regulatory
obligation.
3. Amend § 54.313 by adding
paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) to read as
follows:
§ 54.313 Annual Reporting Requirements
for High-Cost Recipients.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) For a carrier meeting deployment
obligations under § 54.312(c), in its next
annual report due after two years after
filing a notice of acceptance of funding
pursuant to § 54.312(c), a certification
that the company has deployed no fewer
than two-thirds of the required miles of
fiber and connected to no fewer than
two-thirds of the required number of
locations, accompanied by a list of all
locations deployed to, including census
block, wire center, and geocoded
latitude and longitude location
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
76446
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
information for each location, and a
fiber route map for any fiber deployed
to reach those locations; and
(4) In its next annual report due after
three years after filing a notice of
acceptance of funding pursuant to
§ 54.312(c), a certification that the
company has deployed all required
miles of fiber and connected to the
required number of locations,
accompanied by a list of all locations
deployed to, including census block,
wire center, and geocoded latitude and
longitude location information for each
location, and a fiber route map for any
fiber deployed to reach those locations,
and a certification that the company is
offering broadband service of at least 4
Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps
upstream, with latency sufficiently low
to enable the use of real-time
communications, including Voice over
Internet Protocol, and with usage caps,
if any, that are reasonably comparable to
those in urban areas.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–31084 Filed 12–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Part 538
[GSAR Case 2006–G507; Docket 2009–0013;
Sequence 1]
RIN 3090–A177
General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR
Case 2006–G507; Rewrite of GSAR
Part 538, Federal Supply Schedule
Contracting
Office of Acquisition Policy,
General Services Administration (GSA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
AGENCY:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY: The General Services
Administration has agreed to withdraw
GSAR Case 2006–G507; Rewrite of
General Services Acquisition Regulation
(GSAR) Part 538, Federal Supply
Schedule Contracting. Due to the variety
of issues addressed in the GSAR Part
538 Rewrite, and strong stakeholder
interest, the General Services
Administration believes that an agency
review of the current implementation
plan for this GSAR case is appropriate.
DATES: Effective date: December 28,
2012.
Ms.
Dana Munson, Procurement Analyst, at
202–357–9652, for clarification of
content. For information pertaining to
status or publication schedules, contact
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:23 Dec 27, 2012
Jkt 229001
the Regulatory Secretariat Division
(MVCB), 1275 First Street, 7th Floor,
Washington, DC 20417, 202–501–4755.
Please cite GSAR Case 2006–G507,
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: GSA has
agreed to withdraw GSAR Case 2006–
G507; Rewrite of General Services
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) Part 538,
Federal Supply Schedule Contracting,
which was published in the Federal
Register at 74 FR 4596, January 26,
2009. There were 36 public comments
received in response to the Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
This rule proposed amendments to
the GSAR to update text addressing
GSAR Part 538: Subpart 538.1,
Definitions; Subpart 538.4,
Administrative Matters; Subpart 538.7,
Acquisition Planning; Subpart 538.9,
Contractor Qualifications; Subpart
538.12, Acquisition of Commercial
Items—FSS; Subpart 538.15,
Negotiation and Award of Contracts;
Subpart 538.17, Administration of
Evergreen Contracts; Subpart 538.19,
FSS and Small Business Programs;
Subpart 538.25, Requirements for
Foreign Entities; Subpart 538.42,
Contract Administration and Subpart
538.43, Contract Modifications.
GSA is opening a series of new GSAR
cases to modernize the Federal Supply
Schedules (FSS) program. The new
GSAR cases will focus on the areas that
require immediate modernization to
maintain currency in the FSS program
as well as strategically position the FSS
program to meet the current and future
needs of ordering activities.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 538
Government procurement.
Dated: December 18, 2012.
Joseph A. Neurauter,
Senior Procurement Executive & Deputy Chief
Acquisition Officer, Office of Acquisition
Policy, General Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–31056 Filed 12–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–61–P
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Part 552
[GSAR Case 2012–G503; Docket 2012–0018;
Sequence 1]
RIN 3090–AJ31
General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) and Sales
Reporting
Office of Acquisition Policy,
General Services Administration.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The General Services
Administration (GSA) is proposing to
amend the General Services
Administration Acquisition Regulation
(GSAR) to revise the GSAR clause and
to address the use of the Industrial
Funding Fee (IFF) under the Multiple
Award Schedules (MAS) Program. The
proposed revisions will reflect the
current use of the IFF to include the
ability to offset losses in other Federal
Acquisition Service (FAS) programs and
fund initiatives that benefit other FAS
programs. This change will benefit GSA
and the MAS Program by facilitating
transparency and open government, and
more accurately define the current MAS
Program operations while
simultaneously complying with the
recommendations of the GSA Office of
Inspector General (OIG). This proposed
rule is part of the General Services
Administration Acquisition Manual
(GSAM) rewrite Project, in which all
parts of the regulation are being
reviewed and updated to include new
statutes, legislation, policies, and to
delete outdated information and
obsolete forms.
DATES: Interested parties should submit
written comments to the Regulatory
Secretariat on or before February 26,
2013 to be considered in the
formulation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
identified by GSAR Case 2012–G503 by
any of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov: https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
by searching for ‘‘GSAR Case 2012–
G503’’. Follow the instructions provided
to ‘‘Submit a Comment’’. Please include
your name, company name (if any), and
‘‘GSAR Case 2012–G503’’ on your
attached document.
• Fax: 202–501–4067.
• Mail: General Services
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
(MVCB), 1275 First Street NE., 7th
Floor, ATTN: Hada Flowers,
Washington, DC 20417.
Instructions: Please submit comments
only and cite GSAR Case 2012–G503 in
all correspondence related to this case.
All comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal and/or business confidential
information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Dana Munson, General Services
Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, 202–
357–9652 or email
Dana.Munson@gsa.gov, for clarification
of content. For information pertaining to
status or publication schedules, contact
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76435-76446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31084]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 10-90; FCC 12-138]
Connect America Fund
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission seeks
comment in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on potential
modifications to the rules governing Connect America Phase I
incremental support to further accelerate the deployment of broadband
facilities to
[[Page 76436]]
consumers who lack access to robust broadband.
DATES: Comments are due on or before January 28, 2013 and reply
comments are due on or before February 11, 2013. If you anticipate that
you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within
the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the
contact listed below as soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 10-90,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Yates, Wireline Competition
Bureau, (202) 418-0886 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Federal
Communications Commission's (Commission) Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC Docket No. 10-90, and FCC 12-138, adopted
November 14, 2012, and released November 19, 2012. The complete text of
this document is available for inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445
12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may
also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893,
facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via the Internet at https://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available on the Commission's web site at
https://www.fcc.gov.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before
the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be
filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS); (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal; or (3) by
filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/or the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Filers should
follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting
comments.
[cir] For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear
in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic
copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in
the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should
include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an
electronic comment by Internet email. To get filing instructions,
filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
[cir] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission.
[cir] The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue NE, Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing
hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes
must be disposed of before entering the building.
[cir] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express
Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[cir] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
In addition, one copy of each pleading must be sent to the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc, 445
12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; Web site:
www.bcpiweb.com; phone: 1-800-378-3160. Furthermore, two copies of each
pleading must be sent to Charles Tyler, Telecommunications Access
Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room
5-A452, Washington, DC 20554; email: Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov and one copy
to Ryan Yates, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline
Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-B441A, Washington, DC
20554; email: Ryan.Yates@fcc.gov.
Filings and comments are also available for public inspection and
copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC
20554. Copies may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating
contractor, BCPI, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554. Customers may contact BCPI through its Web site:
www.bcpiweb.com, by email at fcc@bcpiweb.com, by telephone at (202)
488-5300 or (800) 378-3160 (voice), (202) 488-5562 (tty), or by
facsimile at (202) 488-5563.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations for filing
comments (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov; phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY:
(202) 418-0432.
I. Introduction
1. On November 18, 2011, the Commission released the USF/ICC
Transformation Order and FNPRM, 76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011 and 76
FR 78384, December 16, 2011, which comprehensively reforms and
modernizes the high-cost universal service and intercarrier
compensation systems. Recognizing, among other facts, that over 80
percent of the more than 18 million Americans unserved by broadband
live in price cap territories,
[[Page 76437]]
the Commission provided for two phases of funding to make broadband-
capable networks available to as many unserved locations as possible in
those areas. In Connect America Phase I, the Commission froze existing
high-cost support for price cap carriers and provided up to $300
million of additional, incremental support in 2012 in order to advance
deployment of broadband-capable infrastructure while it implements
Phase II. In Phase II, the Commission provided for up to $1.8 billion
to be spent each year, over a period of five years, to further advance
deployment of broadband-capable infrastructure and sustain services in
price cap territories through ``a combination of a forward-looking cost
model and competitive bidding.''
2. Of the initial $300 million in Phase I incremental support
allocated to price cap carriers to support the deployment of broadband-
capable networks to currently unserved locations, approximately $115
million was accepted. Because the USF/ICC Transformation Order, 76 FR
73830, November 29, 2001, calls for making the additional incremental
support available in the coming months, we now seek comment in this
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) on potential
modifications to the rules governing Connect America Phase I
incremental support to further accelerate the deployment of broadband
facilities to consumers who lack access to robust broadband. These
changes would expand on the steps already taken in Phase I earlier this
year, while we continue to implement Phase II.
II. Discussion
3. Building on the success of the first round of Phase I, we now
seek comment on rule changes that would provide further opportunities
to advance our overarching goal to use available funds to rapidly and
efficiently deploy broadband networks throughout America. Given our
interest in disbursing the available funds to bring robust broadband-
capable networks to consumers and businesses as soon as possible, we
intend to proceed expeditiously with this rulemaking.
A. Options for Utilizing Remaining 2012 Connect America Phase I Funding
4. Of the $300 million in Connect America Phase I incremental
support initially allocated in 2012 to promote broadband deployment,
approximately $185 million remains. We seek comment on whether to
modify our rules for Phase I incremental support or instead use such
funding in Phase II. Under either option, we propose to use these
remaining funds to support further broadband deployment in the areas
those funds were originally targeted to support--areas served by price
cap carriers and their rate-of-return affiliates that are costly for
the private sector to serve.
1. Modifications for a New Round of Connect America Phase I
5. We propose several changes to Connect America Phase I that build
on the success of the first round of funding and use the remaining $185
million of incremental support and any future Phase I funding with
maximum impact. First, we propose to expand the definition of unserved
areas to include any census block lacking access to broadband with
speeds of 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream, which would be
consistent with the minimum standard for broadband service required
from carriers receiving Connect America Phase I incremental support and
would be in line with the Commission's broadband speed benchmark for
Connect America Phase II recipients. Second, we propose to conduct a
challenge process, to be completed before carriers have the opportunity
to elect to receive additional funding, to develop a list of census
blocks eligible for funding. Third, we seek comment on several
proposals to distribute the next round of Phase I funding, including
tying funding to the construction of second-mile fiber, tying funding
to the estimated costs of deployment in an area, and maintaining the
$775 per unserved location metric. Finally, we propose that the
remaining 2012 funds be made available under these revised rules to
further expand access to broadband-capable networks. We seek comment on
the costs and benefits of each proposal, and how those approaches might
impact small businesses and whether there are alternatives that would
minimize impacts on small businesses. We also seek comment on
alternatives in the event we do not adopt these rule changes.
6. Expanding the Areas Eligible for Phase I. Under our current
rules, carriers accepting Phase I incremental support are required to
deploy broadband to one unserved location for each $775 in incremental
support they accept. For these purposes, the Commission specified that
locations would be eligible if, according to the then-current version
of the National Broadband Map, those locations were in areas that did
not have access to fixed terrestrial broadband with a minimum speed of
768 kbps downstream and 200 kbps upstream. As the Commission explained,
Phase I was initially targeted to bring high-speed Internet access to
consumers who lacked any broadband access at all, even though there are
many other consumers who did not have broadband that meets our standard
of 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream.
7. Given the success of the first round of Phase I in targeting
support to those areas lacking any form of high-speed Internet access,
we now propose to broaden Phase I by permitting carriers to accept
additional funds to target consumers and businesses that are in areas
unserved by broadband that meets our 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps
upstream standard. We seek comment on this proposal.
8. Such an approach would further the objective of ensuring that
all Americans can, at a minimum, take advantage of modern Internet
applications, such as voice over Internet protocol and streaming video.
If we were to take such an approach, we propose to designate an area as
unserved by broadband with speeds of 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps
upstream if it is shown on the National Broadband Map as unserved by
fixed terrestrial broadband with an advertised speed of at least 3 Mbps
downstream and 768 kbps upstream. Using 3 Mbps downstream and 768 kbps
upstream as a proxy for 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream is
consistent with the Commission's prior approach in the USF/ICC
Transformation Order and uses the best data currently available on the
National Broadband Map. This baseline would be the starting point for
the challenge process discussed below. The 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps
upstream standard is consistent with what is required from carriers
receiving Connect America Phase I incremental support and is also in
line with the Commission's broadband speed benchmark for Phase II. Is a
different standard for initially determining what locations are
unserved by 4 Mbps upstream and 1 Mbps downstream broadband more
appropriate?
9. Challenge Process. The Commission relies on the National
Broadband Map in many contexts, including as a tool to target funding
appropriately in Phase I of the Connect America Fund. Some commenters,
however, have suggested the National Broadband Map may contain
inaccuracies that materially impact the targeting of support as the
Commission intended.
10. As an alternative to having carriers rely exclusively on the
National Broadband Map to determine eligible areas, we propose to
utilize a limited
[[Page 76438]]
challenge process to allow interested parties to provide updates to the
National Broadband Map for purposes of any additional round of Phase I
funding. We seek comment on this proposal.
11. Within 15 days of release of this FNPRM, we direct the Bureau
to publish a list of eligible census blocks shown on the current
version of the National Broadband Map as unserved by fixed terrestrial
broadband with an advertised speed of 3 Mbps downstream and 768 kbps
upstream. The Bureau will solicit public input on updates, revisions,
and other potential corrections to the National Broadband Map data. In
particular, the Bureau should seek comment on areas where coverage is
either overstated (i.e., census blocks are listed as served where they
are in fact unserved) or understated (i.e., census blocks are listed as
unserved when they are in fact served). The Bureau also should seek
comment on areas listed as unserved on the map that are served through
the Broadband Initiatives Program or the Broadband Technology
Opportunities Program. The most useful comments will be those that list
specific census blocks that are inaccurately reported on the map, along
with a detailed explanation of why the commenter believes the areas are
inaccurately reported. Comments are also sought on steps parties have
taken to bring the alleged errors to the attention of the relevant
state mapping entity or any other entity, and, if they have, the
outcome of any of those discussions. Finally, commenters claiming that
an entity does not provide service as reflected on the National
Broadband Map are encouraged to serve a copy of their comments on the
entity whose service area the commenter is challenging.
12. Where the Bureau finds that the evidence demonstrates that it
is more probable than not that the National Broadband Map inaccurately
portrays coverage of a particular area, we propose that the Bureau deem
that census block as served or unserved, as appropriate, for purposes
of Phase I incremental support. We propose that the Bureau would give
more weight to comments supported by tests (with the testing
methodology described and the underlying data provided) and/or
engineering certifications where appropriate. We propose that the
Bureau publish a revised list, after the public comment described
above, which will then become the list of areas eligible for Phase I
support going forward. The census blocks on this list would be deemed
unserved, and carriers would meet buildout obligations by deploying to
unserved locations in those areas. We seek comment as to whether this
is a workable approach that can be implemented quickly so that a
finalized list of eligible census blocks would become available shortly
after adoption of the revised rules under consideration in this FNPRM.
13. Alternative Proposals for Distributing Phase I Funding. We seek
comment on several proposals to distribute the next round of Phase I
funding, including tying funding to the construction of second-mile
fiber, tying funding to the estimated costs of deployment in an area,
and maintaining the $775 per location metric.
14. The first proposal would require carriers to satisfy their
buildout obligations for incremental support based on a metric that
measures the number of miles of fiber deployed for a defined dollar
amount, with a requirement to connect to a minimum number of unserved
locations per mile. Under this proposal, carriers accepting Phase I
incremental support would be required to meet their buildout
obligations by building a certain number of miles of fiber for a
specified amount of support accepted. We propose that a carrier would
be permitted to count any fiber it builds between its central office
and an unserved location, where that location is unserved by the
carrier with 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream broadband, and that
location is within a census block not served by any other provider,
which would be determined as proposed above. This would allow carriers
maximum flexibility in determining how to invest Phase I support to
deploy new fiber. We seek comment on this proposal.
15. We seek comment on the specific metric that would be adopted to
implement this approach. We note that Windstream, in its July 2012
request for a waiver of the Phase I incremental support deployment
requirement, has suggested that it could deploy fiber to high-cost
rural areas with a subsidy of $35,784 per mile. Is there any
significant variation in the cost per fiber mile among price cap
carriers? If we were to adopt this proposal, should we adopt a uniform
metric for all recipients of Phase I support and what should that
dollar value per miles of fiber deployed be? Is the figure Windstream
suggests appropriate? We note that the Commission has structured the
Connect America Phase I program in a way that would enable recipients
to seek a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service that such Phase I
incremental support is a contribution to capital under section 118 of
the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The funding is a governmental payment
to private parties for the express purpose of their making capital
investments--the deployment of fiber and related broadband facilities--
to achieve the Commission's public policy purpose of extending
broadband-capable infrastructure to unserved Americans. Should we
establish the dollar amount based on a pre-tax or post-tax figure?
16. If we were to require carriers to satisfy buildout requirements
by reporting on miles of fiber deployed, we propose also to require
that a minimum average number of unserved locations per route mile of
fiber be served, averaged over the entirety of the fiber the carrier
seeks credit for under Connect America Phase I. In this context, we
note that Windstream indicated that, if its waiver petition were
granted, it would deploy broadband, on average, to approximately ten
locations defined as unserved, under our existing definition, per mile
of fiber deployed. We note that requiring service to an average minimum
number of unserved locations would be one way to prevent a carrier from
deploying Connect America fiber almost entirely in areas already served
by an unsubsidized competitor, with just a small number of unserved
customers. It would also support our goal of bringing broadband-capable
infrastructure to as many unserved homes and businesses as possible. Is
requiring deployment to a minimum number of unserved locations per
route mile an appropriate requirement for Phase I support, given the
goal of quickly maximizing the number of locations that become served
with this finite amount of support? How many locations per mile should
be required, and should that figure be altered depending on whether we
update our definition of eligible areas to be those that do not have 4
Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream broadband, as proposed above? Are
there other factors or exceptions to this approach that should be
considered by the Commission?
17. As an alternative or in addition to a predefined requirement to
deploy to a number of unserved locations per mile of fiber deployed,
should we require carriers to certify that they have ranked potential
fiber deployments by the number of unserved locations that would be
served by each route deployment and have selected the fiber routes with
the highest number of unserved locations per mile? If we were to adopt
such a requirement, would we need to adopt additional measures in order
to monitor and enforce the accuracy of such certifications?
[[Page 76439]]
18. We also seek input on any additional rule modifications we
should adopt to prevent subsidizing fiber in areas served by
unsubsidized competitors. Although we wish to avoid providing support
to carriers in areas where an unsubsidized competitor provides service
without support, we are at the same time mindful that if we prohibit
support to any fiber construction that could theoretically benefit a
geographic area with an unsubsidized competitor, such a restriction
could unreasonably deprive many unserved consumers from obtaining
broadband, to the extent the fiber to connect those customers would
need to traverse a geographic area that is served. Given the tradeoff
between encouraging fiber construction and not wanting to provide
subsidies that unfairly skew competition, we seek comment on how to
design a workable standard to meet our policy objectives that could be
implemented quickly and efficiently. For example, should we require
that no more than a specified percentage of the fiber route miles
traverse census blocks where there is an unsubsidized competitor?
Should the carrier be required to build more miles of fiber to meet its
buildout obligations if that fiber could potentially serve areas with
unsubsidized competitors? Should support be reduced on a prorated basis
if a length of fiber serves locations that are both served and unserved
by an unsubsidized competitor?
19. We also invite comment on whether to impose any other
restrictions on where a carrier may build fiber that it wishes to count
toward its buildout obligations.
20. Under our existing rules, carriers are required to deploy
broadband to two-thirds of the required number of locations within two
years, and all required locations within three years. We seek comment
on what deployment milestones would be appropriate if we were to
provide support for fiber deployment with or without a per-location
requirement. Should, for instance, we require that two-thirds of the
route miles be deployed within two years, and all of the route miles be
deployed within three years?
21. We seek comment on what information carriers should be required
to provide about their deployments at the time of acceptance and after
meeting any deployment milestones, if we were to require carriers to
meet buildout obligations based on a metric of miles of fiber deployed.
Should carriers be required at the time of acceptance to specify the
census blocks where the fiber would be deployed, consistent with our
current Phase I incremental support requirements? Should they be
required at the time of acceptance to provide fiber route maps? Should
such maps be required as they reach the two-year and three-year
deployment milestones? Should they be required, either the time of
initial acceptance or the two- or three-year deployment milestones, to
provide geocoded location information for unserved locations that gain
service as a result of Phase I incremental support? We seek comment on
whether we should require that any such information be made available
to the public or whether carriers should be permitted to provide that
information on a confidential basis.
22. In an ex parte letter filed in the spring, before Phase I
acceptances were submitted, Windstream suggested that before a carrier
would be eligible to meet buildout obligations by deploying fiber
facilities, it should first be required to provide broadband to any
unserved location in its territory that could be connected at a cost
below a fixed benchmark. Only after all those locations had been served
could the carrier then meet buildout requirements based on the metric
of miles of fiber deployed. Should we adopt this two-step approach as
an alternative to the single-step proposal, which would require
carriers to meet buildout obligations through a combination of a miles
of fiber metric and a fixed-cost per location metric, similar or the
same as that used in the first round of Connect America Phase I
funding?
23. In order to be eligible for funding under this option, should
carriers be required to provide some level of matching funding for each
mile of fiber they seek to count toward buildout obligations? If so,
how much matching funding should be required? Should carriers be
required to disclose the amount of matching funding either they or
third parties provide for Phase I buildout?
24. If the Bureau adopts a greenfield model for Phase II, should
fiber built to meet obligations in Phase I be excluded from support
under any Phase II model we develop? Excluding Phase I fiber would
avoid the issue of providing double support for fiber construction
(i.e., providing support to construct a mile of fiber in Phase I, then
providing support to construct that same mile again in Phase II). How
would such an exclusion work in practice? One obstacle to excluding
Phase I fiber from Phase II support is that the Bureau would not likely
receive information regarding actual fiber deployments in a time frame
needed before finalizing a cost model to determine support amounts to
be offered to price cap carriers. What rule changes would need to be
adopted to address this timing issue? Finally, if carriers accept Phase
I funding for fiber builds, what is the likely impact on their
willingness to accept Phase II funding for the remainder of their
qualifying areas? Does it serve the public interest to advance
broadband deployment in Phase I even if carriers may be less likely to
accept the funding and service obligations in Phase II?
25. The second proposal would tie funding to the estimated costs of
deployment in an area. As the Commission recognized in the USF/ICC
Transformation Order, distributing universal service support through a
forward-looking cost model--and scaling the amount of support to the
costs of serving a particular area--incentivizes providers to deploy
service efficiently, while advancing our goals to provide universal
access. Because ``CAF Phase I incremental support is designed to
provide an immediate boost to broadband deployment in areas that are
unserved by any broadband provider,'' the Commission declined to await
the development of the more complete Phase II cost model and instead
relied on the existing high-cost proxy model to distribute support. The
Commission relied on that model to estimate the forward-looking costs
of serving a location in each wire center served by price cap carriers
and their affiliates. Under this proposal, the $775-per-location-metric
would be adjusted based on the estimated cost to serve a location in a
particular wire center.
26. Using the existing high-cost proxy model, the Bureau can
estimate the average cost per location of deploying broadband-capable
infrastructure for a given wire center. By analyzing this data in
aggregate, the Bureau could determine the mean and median estimated
cost for all wire centers (i.e., determine what would be the average
nationwide cost per location of deploying to locations, at the wire
center level).
27. Under this approach, how should we determine what is the
baseline cost that would be used to anchor the upward or downward
adjustments in support per location? In USF/ICC Transformation Order,
the Commission examined cost estimates from the National Broadband Plan
and the ABC Plan in determining that $775 per location was sufficient
to cover the ``median cost of a brownfield deployment of broadband to
low-cost unserved census blocks.'' Should we set $775 per location as
the baseline support amounts for wire centers whose already estimated
costs are at or near the
[[Page 76440]]
median (i.e., setting the baseline by looking at all wire centers)? If
we were to use the median wire center cost figure as the baseline, a
carrier extending service to unserved locations in a wire center where
the average cost equal to that baseline would receive $775 in support
per location. A carrier extending service to locations in a wire center
with below baseline costs would receive less than $775 of support per
location, while a carrier extending service to locations in a wire
center with above baseline costs would receive greater than $775 of
support per location.
28. We already have some data that may shed some insights into the
estimated costs of deployment given the acceptances of $775 per
location by many carriers. Should we instead correlate the locations
where carriers accepted $775 of support with the already estimated
costs to establish the baseline (i.e., setting the baseline by looking
at the wire centers that carriers actually deployed to in the first
round of Phase I)?
29. Once we have established a baseline per-location amount, should
we scale the per-location support amounts for other wire centers
proportionately (so that an area expected to cost twice as much as the
baseline would receive twice the support) or dollar for dollar (so that
an area expected to cost $100 more per year than the baseline would
receive $875 per location)? Should we establish minimum and maximum
support amounts per location to ensure that we adequately incentivize
deployment in an efficient manner? We are also mindful that costs could
vary greatly between locations within a single wire center: Some
locations within a wire center could cost considerably more to deploy
to than the wire center average, while other locations could cost
considerably less. We seek comment on how we should handle this
variability. Is there a more granular metric than wire center average
costs that we could use to set support amounts?
30. We expect that determining the per-location support amounts for
each wire center would be relatively trivial once we have determined a
baseline and scaling mechanism because we have already estimated the
costs of deploying infrastructure in each price cap wire center. As
such, we would delegate to the Bureau authority to create a list of the
per-location support amount for each wire center, based on each wire
center's average deployment cost, within fifteen days of adopting an
order if we adopted this proposal. We also expect that buildout
obligations of carriers would remain the same under this proposal, with
two small changes. First, the two-year and three-year commitments would
be premised on serving a sufficient number of locations to justify two-
thirds of the total support claimed by a carrier. Second, as with 2012
Phase I support, carriers would not be bound by the initial list of
locations to be served, but the locations actually served after two
years and three years would be compared to the support amounts in each
wire center for purposes of fulfilling the buildout obligations.
31. The third proposal would allow carriers to accept support based
on our current metric of one unserved location per $775 accepted. We
note that carriers that accepted funds in the first round of Phase I
incremental support likely will use those funds to build to the lower-
cost locations in their territories, leaving generally higher-cost
locations remaining, which would raise the average cost to connect to a
location in the next round of funding and militate in favor of using a
figure higher than $775. However, we also note that if we expand our
definition of eligible areas, it could reduce the average cost per
location. We accordingly seek comment on whether we now should modify
the $775 per location metric.
32. Adding Remaining 2012 Phase I Incremental Support into Phase I
Support for 2013. We propose to combine the remaining $185 million in
2012 Phase I incremental support with whatever funding is made
available for Phase I in 2013, employing any revised rules we adopt in
response to this FNPRM. Our rules currently provide that if Connect
America Phase II is not implemented to be effective by January 1, 2013,
the Bureau would follow the same rules to conduct a second round of
Phase I support. The amount of support available would be determined
based on the length of the term the Bureau establishes for the second
round--set based on the Bureau's expectation of when Phase II will
begin--but ordinarily would not exceed the annual budget of $300
million. Augmenting any 2013 Phase I support with the remaining Phase I
funds, however, could dramatically increase the impact of the next
round of Phase I incremental support. If the Bureau were, for example,
to set a term of six months for Phase I in 2013, the amount of money
available would, under existing rules, be $150 million. Combining the
$185 million remaining from the first round of Phase I with such an
amount would more than double the scope of a second round of Phase I.
We seek comment on this approach.
33. We seek comment on how funding should be allocated in the event
we add the remaining funds from the first round of Phase I into a
future round of Phase I. One approach would be to allocate any funding
a carrier previously declined to that carrier, in addition to the
funding it would otherwise be allocated for the future round. An
alternative approach would be to allocate support to carriers based on
carriers' original allocations, regardless of the amount of funding a
carrier took 2012. Under such an approach, all carriers would have
their 2013 allocations increased by a fixed percentage. A third
approach would recalculate the per-carrier support amounts using the
same distribution process used for the initial round of Phase I set
forth in section 54.312(b)(1) of our rules, but recalculating the
funding threshold so that the total amount of incremental support
available in Phase I would be distributed. Under such an approach, the
support available to a carrier in 2013 would be the recalculated amount
minus the amount accepted in 2012 Phase I support. We seek comment on
these potential approaches.
34. We also propose to allow carriers to accept additional funding
if other carriers choose not to accept their full allocation. Under
existing rules, the allocation to each carrier serves two functions: It
guarantees a set amount of funding for each carrier (regardless of the
choices of other carriers) and sets the upper limit on how much each
carrier may accept. We propose to modify our rules to eliminate that
upper limit and permit carriers to seek support up to the entire amount
of available Phase I funding. Under such an approach, each carrier
would still be guaranteed funding up to their allocation as described
in the previous paragraph. If the total requested funding from all
carriers is less than the amount available, each carrier would receive
the amount it requested; if carriers collectively request support in
excess of the amount available, support above each carrier's allocation
would be distributed in proportion to the relative allocations between
carriers requesting additional support. Such an approach should enable
us to maximize the benefit to consumers of the limited funds that are
available. We seek comment on how specifically such an allocation
process should work, particularly in the case where carriers request
more funding than has been made available. Should we, for example,
permit carriers to revise their original proposed acceptances downward
once
[[Page 76441]]
allocations have been set, in order to ensure that carriers will be
able to use the amounts of support they receive?
35. Timing Issues for Any Future Round of Support. We anticipate
that we will act promptly in this proceeding. We recognize, however,
that the effective date of any modifications we might adopt in this
rulemaking would be after the December 15 deadline by which the Bureau
is currently required to issue a Public Notice for the next round of
Phase I incremental support funding. We therefore acknowledge we need
to modify the timing of the December 15, 2012 announcement regarding
Phase I allocations for 2013. We hereby waive the current deadline and
postpone such announcement until after we have had the opportunity to
act on the record developed in response to this notice.
36. We propose to permit the Bureau to establish the deadlines for
all necessary announcements and elections so as to manage efficiently
any future funding opportunities involving Phase I incremental support.
In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission delegated authority
to the Bureau to establish the term lengths of any future round of
incremental support. We propose to permit the Bureau to schedule any
necessary future round of Phase I incremental support in its
discretion, provided that: (i) The term of any round of incremental
support should not exceed a year; (ii) the Bureau should set the term
of rounds so that Phase I incremental support continues no later than
when Phase II begins actual disbursements of support; and (iii) the
Bureau shall offer any future round of Phase I incremental support
subject to the previously established overall limitation that funding
for Phase I incremental support should not exceed $300 million per
year, excluding any amounts carried forward from the previous round
consistent with any direction the Commission provides in this
proceeding. We seek comment on this proposal.
2. Adding Remaining Phase I Incremental Support Into Phase II
37. An alternative approach would be to apply any funding remaining
from Phase I to our overall budget for Connect America Phase II. In the
USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission established a budget for
Phase II in price cap areas of up to $1.8 billion annually. Increasing
that budgeted amount might allow more locations to be supported in
Phase II and also potentially encourage carriers to deploy broadband-
capable networks more rapidly.
38. Phase I incremental support was designed to be an interim
measure until Phase II can be implemented. Adding any remaining funds
from Phase I into the budget for Phase II could help to achieve the
longer term goals of Connect America Phase II. Moreover, as Connect
America Phase I is scheduled to transition to Phase II in 2013,
expanding the Phase II budget provides a mechanism to begin
distributing the remaining Phase I funds in a prompt and seamless
manner.
39. We seek comment on whether we should apply these funds to Phase
II, and, if we were to do so, what adjustments to Phase II would be
appropriate. Should the public interest obligations in Phase II should
be altered if additional funding were provided? Should we use the money
to accelerate deployment milestones, or should we expand the overall
scope of Phase II? How might different levels of funding affect these
obligations?
40. As another alternative approach, we also seek comment as to
whether the remaining Phase I incremental support should be used to
reduce high-cost demand below the $4.5 billion budget established by
the Commission in the USF-ICC Transformation Order, thereby reducing
the amount contributors need to pay into the Universal Service Fund.
B. Oversight and Accountability for Phase I Incremental Support
41. Above, we seek comment on potential modifications to the rules
that will govern any future incremental support. In this section, we
seek comment on several issues that have arisen in the initial
implementation of Phase I. In particular, we seek comment on measures
to ensure we have the tools to monitor compliance with existing
obligations for support that has already been accepted, whether certain
reporting requirements should be modified for recipients of second
round incremental support, and whether certain Phase I data should be
afforded confidential treatment.
42. Incremental Support Reporting Requirements. As noted above,
under existing rules, carriers accepting Phase I incremental support
are required to deploy broadband to a number of unserved locations
equal to the amount of support they accept, divided by $775. Carriers
are required to deploy to two-thirds of the total number of required
locations within two years, and they must complete deployment within
three years. The acceptance of Connect America Phase I incremental
support comes with a number of reporting requirements designed to
ensure that support is targeted appropriately and that carriers meet
the obligations they take on when they accept support. First, when
carriers accept support, they are required to identify, by census block
and wire center, where they intend to deploy broadband to satisfy their
obligation. Those initial filings, however, do not bind the carriers to
deploy only to in those areas, or to every location in those areas.
Rather, the initial filings are only good faith statements of the
carriers' initial intentions--carriers may deploy broadband to other
eligible locations instead, though, if they do so, they are required to
identify where they in fact deployed. In addition, as part of their
annual filings under section 54.313 of our rules, carriers are required
to certify that they have met any two- or three-year deployment
milestone that passed in the year covered by that filing. Along with
their certifications, carriers are required to specify the number of
locations in each census block and wire center to which they have
deployed broadband. And, to assist the Commission and the Administrator
in validating carriers' deployments, carriers are required to provide,
upon request, sufficient information about the location of actual
deployments to allow confirmation of the availability of service and
the eligibility of each location for support.
43. We propose a minor modification to the Phase I reporting
obligations to strengthen our ability to monitor compliance with our
rules for carriers that have already accepted Phase I incremental
support as well as for any future rounds of funding. Specifically, we
propose that each carrier, with its two- and three-year milestone
certifications, would provide geocoded latitude and longitude location
information, along with census block and wire center information, for
each location the carrier intends to count toward its deployment
requirement. Specific location information would assist the Commission
and the Administrator in comparing actual deployed locations against
the National Broadband Map that was current as of the date the carrier
accepted funding, confirming that all deployed locations were eligible
for support. We also propose to clarify that in the event a carrier
intends to deploy to areas other than those identified in the carrier's
initial acceptance, it is permitted (but not required) to make a
supplemental filing providing updated deployment plans at any time.
Compliance with our rules will be determined based on the carrier's
final deployment certification, which would identify where the carrier
[[Page 76442]]
did, in fact, deploy. These changes should improve accountability in
the program. We do not expect that these requirements would impose a
significant or unexpected burden on any carrier that has accepted
incremental support. We seek comment on these proposals.
44. Confidentiality of Phase I Elections. Of the seven carriers
that accepted Connect America Phase I support, four made claims of
confidentiality for the location information they submitted along with
their election of funding. The carriers claiming confidentiality
alleged that public disclosure could give competitors insight into the
carriers' network buildout plans, which the competitors could then
exploit for operational and marketing purposes. We note that public
disclosure is generally the preferred option, as it promotes oversight
and accountability of the parties involved. This is especially true
where public funds are being employed. We therefore seek comment on
whether to grant or deny the requests for confidentiality that carriers
have made regarding location data in their Connect America Phase I
incremental support elections. If we grant these requests for
confidentiality, should such confidentiality end in two or three years,
when the buildout plans of these carriers will have been completed
according to the buildout obligations of Phase I? Additionally,
independent of how we handle the currently pending requests for
confidentiality, we seek comment as to whether and to what extent
carriers should be permitted to request confidential treatment of
future Connect America Phase I funding elections.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
45. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this FNPRM. Written comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM. The Commission will send a
copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
B. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
46. The FNPRM seeks comment on a variety of issues relating to
modifications of Connect America. As discussed in this FNPRM, the
Commission believes that making these modifications will aid in
efficiently achieving the goals of Connect America and broadband
deployment generally. Bringing robust, affordable broadband to all
Americans is the infrastructure challenge of the 21st century. To allow
the Commission to help meet this challenge, the FNPRM asks for comment
in a number of specific areas.
Modifications for a New Round of Connect America Phase I
47. In this FNPRM, the Commission seeks comments on several
alternatives that would allow the remaining funds to be used in Phase
I.
48. The Commission proposes to expand the definition of unserved
location to include locations that, while having some access to high-
speed broadband, do not have service meeting the Connect America goal
of 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream. The Wireline Competition
Bureau would generate a list of eligible areas that lack 4 Mbps
downstream and 1 Mbps upstream broadband service, and the public would
be invited to bring challenges to that list.
49. The Commission seeks comment on three alternatives to
satisfying Connect America Phase I buildout obligations. First, the
Commission also seeks comment on allowing carriers to meet buildout
obligations based on the number of miles of fiber deployed. Comment is
sought on how fiber should be credited toward buildout obligations, how
much fiber must be built for every dollar of support received, whether
a minimum number of homes should per served per mile of fiber, where
carriers should be restricted in building fiber, what information
carriers should be required to provide, whether carriers should be
required to provide matching funds, and whether fiber built with these
funds should be excluded from future Connect America funding
opportunities. Second, the Commission alternatively seeks comment on
scaling the $775 based on the average deployment cost for a wire
center, such that costlier wire centers would receive support per
location above $775, while cheaper wire centers would receive support
per location below $775. Third, the Commission seeks comment on
changing the requirement that carriers connect to one unserved location
for every $775 of support receive without regard to the costs of a
particular wire center.
50. The FNPRM proposes that the remaining funds from the first
round of Connect America Phase I would be combined with any Phase I
support for 2013, and all the funds would be distributed through a
single round of funding. Comment is sought on how such funds should be
distributed, especially in light of the fact that carriers accepted
different amounts of funding for the first round of Phase I. In the
proposed 2013 round of Phase I, carriers would be allowed to accept
above their originally allocated amount of funding. Comment is sought
on how funding should be allocated, particularly in the event that
carriers accept more funds in total than have been made available.
51. The existing December 15, 2012 deadline for the Wireline
Competition Bureau to announce the 2013 round of Phase I is waived to
allow time for the rule changes discussed in this FNPRM to go into
effect.
Adding Remaining Phase I Incremental Support Into Phase II
52. As an alternative to the approach discussed above, this FNPRM
seeks comment on adding the remaining funds from Phase I into Connect
America Phase II. Commenters are encouraged to provide input on how the
obligations for Phase II should be adjusted in light of this additional
funding. Rather than placing funds into Phase II, this FNPRM also seeks
comment on using the remaining incremental support to reduce the budget
for high-cost universal service, which would reduce the amount of
universal service contribution required from carriers.
Oversight and Accountability for Phase I Incremental Support
53. This FNPRM also seeks comment on modifying the reporting
requirements for carriers accepting Connect America Phase I incremental
support. A carrier would be required to provide specific geocoded
latitude and longitude information for locations the carrier wishes to
count toward buildout obligations. The FNPRM also requests comment on
the extent to which carriers should be granted confidentiality on these
and other reports.
C. Legal Basis
54. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to
the FNPRM is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 214, 218-220, of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
[[Page 76443]]
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
55. 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 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 SBA.
56. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of
approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
57. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers,
which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 3,188 firms in
this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
3,144 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 44 firms had
employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered small.
58. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable size
standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported
that they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of these
1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
301 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of local exchange service are small
entities that may be affected by the rules and policies proposed in the
FNPRM.
59. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to incumbent local exchange
services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to
Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported that they were incumbent local
exchange service providers. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent
local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by
rules adopted pursuant to the FNPRM.
60. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA
analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one
that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer
employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The
SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small
incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any
such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included
small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that
this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations
in other, non-RFA contexts.
61. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these
service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for
the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services
or competitive access provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an
estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have more than
1,500 employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500
or fewer employees. In addition, 72 carriers have reported that they
are Other Local Service Providers. Of the 72, seventy have 1,500 or
fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local
exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities that
may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the FNPRM.
62. Internet Service Providers. Since 2007, these services have
been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows:
``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text,
sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for this category, which is: All such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 3,188
firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of
this total, 3,144 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and
44 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. In
addition, according to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total
of 396 firms in the category Internet Service Providers (broadband)
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 394 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees, and two firms had employment of
1,000 employees or more. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of
these firms are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted
pursuant to the FNPRM.
63. All Other Information Services. The Census Bureau defines this
industry as including ``establishments primarily engaged in providing
other information services (except news syndicates, libraries,
archives, Internet publishing and broadcasting, and Web search
portals).'' Our action pertains to interconnected VoIP services, which
could be provided by entities that provide other services such as
email, online gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant
messaging, and other, similar IP-enabled services. The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for this category; that size
standard is $7.0 million or less in average annual receipts. According
to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 367 firms in this category
that operated for the entire year. Of these, 334 had annual receipts of
under $5.0 million, and an additional 11 firms had receipts of between
$5 million and $9,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the
[[Page 76444]]
majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by our
action.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
64. In this FNPRM, the Commission seeks public comment on
modifications to Phase I of Connect America. Depending on which
modifications the Commission adopts could be subject to additional
compliance requirements.
65. If the Commission puts in place a system whereby price cap
carriers may meet buildout requirements through fiber deployment,
carriers will likely be required to report where they intend to build
fiber they wish to count toward their obligations. This reporting
requirement would affect any small entities that are also price cap
carriers. Those carriers would also be subject to compliance
requirements in meeting their buildout obligations.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
66. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
67. The FNPRM seeks comment from all interested parties. The
Commission is aware that some of the proposals under consideration may
impact small entities. Small entities are encouraged to bring to the
Commission's attention any specific concerns they may have with the
proposals outlined in the FNPRM, and the Commission will consider
alternatives that reduce the burden on small entities.
68. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the FNPRM, in
reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.
The reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements in the
FNPRM could have an impact on both small and large entities. The
Commission believes that any impact of such requirements is outweighed
by the accompanying public benefits. Further, these requirements are
necessary to ensure that the statutory goals of Section 254 of the Act
are met without waste, fraud, or abuse.
69. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on several issues
and measures that may apply to small entities in a unique fashion. If
price cap carriers are permitted to use Connect America funds to build
fiber facilities, any small businesses accepting funding would be
required to report where they intend to build such fiber. This is only
a minor burden in addition to the current requirement of reporting what
unserved locations a carrier plans to connect to, and that burden is
outweighed by the benefit of funding to build such facilities.
G. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules
70. None.
H. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
71. This document contains proposed modified information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees.
I. Ex Parte Presentations
72. Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall
be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with
the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all
persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which
the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
J. Filing Requirements
73. Comments and Replies. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on
the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1,
1998.
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the
[[Page 76445]]
Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
74. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
75. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be publically available online via ECFS. These
documents will also be available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is
located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the
public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday
from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
76. Additional Information. For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Ryan Yates of the Wireline Competition Bureau,
Telecommunications Access Policy Division, ryan.yates@fcc.gov, (202)
418-0886.
IV. Ordering Clauses
77. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 214, and 218-220 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 214,
218-220, and 1302, notice is hereby given of the proposals and
tentative conclusions described in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
78. It is further ordered that the December 15, 2012 deadline for
the Wireline Competition Bureau to announce future rounds of Phase I
incremental support is waived.
79. It is further ordered that the authority necessary to perform
the functions described in paragraphs 15 and 16 of this document is
delegated to the Wireline Competition Bureau.
80. It is further ordered that the Reference Information Center,
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, shall send a copy of this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54
Communications common carriers, reporting and record keeping
requirements, telecommunications, telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 54, as follows:
PART 54--UNIVERSAL SERVICE
1. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155.
2. Amend Sec. 54.312 by revising introductory paragraph (b) and by
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.312 Connect America Fund for Price Cap Territories--Phase I.
* * * * *
(b) Incremental Support Accepted in 2012. Beginning January 1,
2012, support in addition to baseline support defined in paragraph (a)
of this section will be available for certain price cap local exchange
carriers and rate-of-return carriers affiliated with price cap local
exchange carriers as follows. This paragraph applies only to support
accepted before January 1, 2013.
* * * * *
(c) Incremental Support After 2012. Support in addition to baseline
support defined in paragraph (a) of this section will be available for
certain price cap local exchange carriers and rate-of-return carriers
affiliated with price cap local exchange carriers as follows. This
paragraph applies only to support accepted after December 31, 2012.
(1) A carrier may initially accept any amount of funding up to the
total amount of funding available, regardless of the carrier's initial
allocation under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(2) A carrier accepting incremental support must deploy a mile of
fiber for every $[[X]] in support it accepts, providing broadband to
[[Y]] locations unserved by broadband with speeds of 4 Mbps downstream
and 1 Mbps upstream per mile of fiber.
(3) A carrier may elect to accept or decline incremental support. A
holding company may do so on a holding-company basis on behalf of its
operating companies that are eligible telecommunications carriers,
whose eligibility for incremental support, for these purposes, shall be
considered on an aggregated basis. A carrier must provide notice to the
Commission, relevant state commissions, and any affected Tribal
government, stating the amount of incremental support it wishes to
accept and identifying the areas by wire center and census block in
which the designated eligible telecommunications carrier will deploy
fiber to meet its deployment obligation, along with a fiber route map
of planned deployments, or stating that it declines incremental
support. Such notification must be made within 90 days of being
notified of any incremental support for which it would be eligible.
Along with its notification, a carrier accepting incremental support
must also submit a certification that the locations to be served to
satisfy the deployment obligation are within census blocks that are
deemed unserved areas in a public notice to be published by the
Wireline Competition Bureau; that, to the best of the carrier's
knowledge, the locations are, in fact, unserved by fixed broadband;
that the carrier's current capital improvement plan did not already
include plans to complete broadband deployment within the next three
years to the locations to be counted to satisfy the deployment
obligation; and that incremental support will not be used to satisfy
any merger commitment or similar regulatory obligation.
3. Amend Sec. 54.313 by adding paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) to
read as follows:
Sec. 54.313 Annual Reporting Requirements for High-Cost Recipients.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) For a carrier meeting deployment obligations under Sec.
54.312(c), in its next annual report due after two years after filing a
notice of acceptance of funding pursuant to Sec. 54.312(c), a
certification that the company has deployed no fewer than two-thirds of
the required miles of fiber and connected to no fewer than two-thirds
of the required number of locations, accompanied by a list of all
locations deployed to, including census block, wire center, and
geocoded latitude and longitude location
[[Page 76446]]
information for each location, and a fiber route map for any fiber
deployed to reach those locations; and
(4) In its next annual report due after three years after filing a
notice of acceptance of funding pursuant to Sec. 54.312(c), a
certification that the company has deployed all required miles of fiber
and connected to the required number of locations, accompanied by a
list of all locations deployed to, including census block, wire center,
and geocoded latitude and longitude location information for each
location, and a fiber route map for any fiber deployed to reach those
locations, and a certification that the company is offering broadband
service of at least 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream, with latency
sufficiently low to enable the use of real-time communications,
including Voice over Internet Protocol, and with usage caps, if any,
that are reasonably comparable to those in urban areas.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-31084 Filed 12-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
