Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Connect America Phase II Support for Price Cap Areas Outside of the Contiguous United States, 12006-12010 [2013-04034]
Download as PDF
12006
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 10–90; DA 13–162]
Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks
Comment on Connect America Phase
II Support for Price Cap Areas Outside
of the Contiguous United States
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission seeks to
further develop the record on issues
relating to Connect America Phase II
support for price cap carriers serving
areas outside of the contiguous United
States.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
March 11, 2013 and reply comments are
due on or before March 25, 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:
Dania Ayoubi, Wireline Competition
Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or TTY: (202)
418–0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Wireline Competition
Bureau’s Public Notice in WC Docket
No. 10–90, and DA 13–162, released
February 8, 2013. 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. These
documents may also be purchased from
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:43 Feb 20, 2013
Jkt 229001
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.
I. Introduction
1. In this Public Notice, the Wireline
Competition Bureau (Bureau) seeks to
further develop the record on issues
relating to Connect America Phase II
support for price cap carriers serving
areas outside of the contiguous United
States. In particular, we seek comment
on various options for providing
Connect America Phase II support to
price cap carriers serving such areas and
the associated obligations that come
with the receipt of such support.
II. Discussion
2. Application of Cost Model to Areas
Outside the Contiguous United States.
Several parties have argued that the
Connect America Cost Model (CACM)
would provide insufficient support to
areas outside the contiguous United
States. We seek comment on what
objective criteria or factors the Bureau
should consider in determining whether
support determined by the cost model is
sufficient.
3. The Bureau seeks to further
develop the record on two alternative
options for areas outside the contiguous
United States: (1) Modifying the design
of and/or specific inputs used in the
CACM, including incorporating aspects
of the Alaska-specific and Puerto Ricospecific model submissions; or (2)
maintaining existing support levels.
4. What specific changes would need
to be made or data would need to be
incorporated, if the Bureau were to
modify the current version of the
CACM? Some providers have expressed
concern over particular features of the
CACM as related to the areas outside the
contiguous United States that they
serve. Puerto Rico Telephone Company,
Inc. (PRTC) argues, for instance, that its
standalone Puerto Rico-specific cost
model is more accurate because, among
other things, it incorporates actual
customer locations and the cost of
undersea cable transport to Florida.
Likewise, Alaska Communications
Systems Group, Inc. (ACS) argues that a
model that does not include, among
other things, the cost of satellite
backhaul where terrestrial options are
unavailable, would not accurately
predict the costs of serving Alaska.
Should the Bureau incorporate those
modifications into the CACM to better
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
model the forward-looking cost of
serving customers in areas outside of the
contiguous United States? How should
the Bureau proceed if a party has not
submitted any information into the
record regarding the circumstances in a
particular non-contiguous area at the
time the Bureau adopts the cost model?
5. If the Bureau were to incorporate
aspects of the models offered by
interested parties into CACM, how can
it ensure that the inputs utilized reflect
the costs of an efficient provider rather
than current, embedded costs? The mere
fact that current support levels may be
higher now than they would be under
CACM is not necessarily dispositive in
determining whether support in such
areas is ‘‘sufficient.’’ Existing costs may
not reflect the forward-looking costs of
an efficient provider. What specific
metrics or objective data would the
Bureau need to be able to distinguish
between legitimate differences in
operating costs in non-contiguous areas
and those that may not reflect the
forward-looking costs of an efficient
provider?
6. How should the Bureau take into
account the additional time it would
take to modify CACM to address the
unique circumstances of each area
outside of the contiguous United States
at this stage in the process, and the
extent to which a later adoption of
CACM would delay the deployment of
broadband in areas within the
contiguous United States? In order to
move forward more quickly, is there an
administratively feasible way to pursue
implementation of CACM in those areas
where further refinement of the model
is not necessary while developing an
adequate approach in non-contiguous
areas? If so, how would the Bureau
ensure that total support levels remain
within the overall $1.8 billion budget?
7. The Virgin Islands Telephone
Corporation (Vitelco) has argued in the
alternative that we should maintain
support at existing levels. And if we
decline to use its ‘‘Broadband Cost
Model: Puerto Rico’’ (BCMPR), PRTC
recommends that we, ‘‘at a minimum,
maintain legacy high cost universal
service support.’’ In directing the
Bureau to consider the circumstances
facing carriers providing service in areas
outside the contiguous United States,
the Commission required that if existing
support levels are maintained, total
support could not exceed the overall
budget of $1.8 billion per year. We note
that 2011 disbursements for price cap
carriers outside of the contiguous
United States totaled approximately $76
million, which would leave $1.724
billion remaining for price cap carriers
in the contiguous United States. How
E:\FR\FM\21FEP1.SGM
21FEP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules
would freezing support for certain
carriers impact the Commission’s
progress in extending broadbandcapable infrastructure in the United
States?
8. We note that the Commission
recently sought comment on several
options for utilizing funds remaining
from Connect America Phase I, with one
possibility being to use some or all of
those funds to enlarge the budget for
Phase II. Should some of the unused
Phase I monies be made available to
maintain existing support levels for
carriers in non-contiguous areas if the
Commission were to adopt such a rule
increasing the $1.8 billion budget?
9. State-Level Commitment Process.
The state-level commitment process set
forth in the USF/ICC Transformation
Order and FNPRM, 76 FR 73830,
November 29, 2011 and 76 FR 78384,
December 16, 2011, assumes that
carriers would make commitments
based on the model-determined support
amount and the service obligations that
would attach to that support. In the
event the Bureau determines that
support in some or all of the noncontiguous areas should instead be
maintained at existing levels, should
carriers receiving frozen support to
serve those areas make a statewide
commitment to accept or reject the
frozen support? Should there be any
changes in the statewide commitment
process for carriers receiving frozen
support instead of model-based
support?
10. Service Obligations. Some have
suggested that service obligations
should be adjusted if support is frozen
in non-contiguous areas. The Bureau
seeks to further develop the record on
what obligations, if any, should be
adjusted if the Bureau maintains
support at existing levels for some or all
of the price cap carriers operating
outside the contiguous United States.
How many supported locations should
be required to have broadband-capable
infrastructure that can provide speeds of
at least 4 Mbps/1 Mbps, and how should
that figure be determined? Should
recipients of frozen support be required
to deploy infrastructure that can deliver
speeds of at least 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps to
some number of supported locations,
and how should that number be set?
Recognizing that the Bureau has not yet
specified metrics for latency or usage
capacity for carriers making a state-level
commitment, should those requirements
be modified for carriers receiving frozen
support? What measures would need to
be in place to ensure that we have the
ability to monitor compliance with
adjusted service obligations?
Commenters suggesting modified
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:43 Feb 20, 2013
Jkt 229001
obligations for these carriers should
specifically identify which obligations
should be modified and specify
objective metrics that would need to be
met, so that the Commission has the
ability to ensure accountability and
oversight.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
11. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Bureau 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 Notice.
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
Public Notice. The Commission will
send a copy of the Public Notice,
including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In
addition, the Public Notice and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
B. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
12. The Notice seeks comment on a
variety of issues relating to Connect
America Phase II support for price cap
carriers serving areas outside the
contiguous United States. The
Commission directed the Bureau to
design a model to estimate the forwardlooking economic costs of providing
broadband to high-cost areas. In
adopting the cost model, the Bureau was
also to consider the unique
circumstances facing areas outside the
contiguous United States and determine
whether the model adequately accounts
for costs carriers face in serving those
areas.
C. Legal Basis
13. The legal basis for any action that
may be taken pursuant to the Notice is
contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 214, 254,
303(r), 403, and 706 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
214, 254, 303(r), 403, and 706, and
§§ 1.1 and 1.1421 of the Commission’s
rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.421.
D. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
14. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12007
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.
15. Small Businesses. Nationwide,
there are a total of approximately 27.9
million small businesses, according to
the SBA.
16. 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, 3144 firms had employment of 999
or fewer employees, and 44 firms had
employment of 1000 employees or
more. Thus, under this size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered
small.
17. 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 Public Notice.
18. 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
E:\FR\FM\21FEP1.SGM
21FEP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
12008
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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 Public
Notice.
19. 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.
20. 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 Public Notice.
21. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007,
the SBA has recognized wireless firms
within this new, broad, economic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:43 Feb 20, 2013
Jkt 229001
census category. Prior to that time, such
firms were within the now-superseded
categories of Paging and Cellular and
Other Wireless Telecommunications.
Under the present and prior categories,
the SBA has deemed a wireless business
to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this category, census
data for 2007 show that there were 1,383
firms that operated for the entire year.
Of this total, 1,368 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees
and 15 had employment of 1000
employees or more. Similarly, according
to Commission data, 413 carriers
reported that they were engaged in the
provision of wireless telephony,
including cellular service, Personal
Communications Service (PCS), and
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
Telephony services. Of these, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that
approximately half or more of these
firms can be considered small. Thus,
using available data, we estimate that
the majority of wireless firms can be
considered small.
22. Local Multipoint Distribution
Service. Local Multipoint Distribution
Service (‘‘LMDS’’) is a fixed broadband
point-to-multipoint microwave service
that provides for two-way video
telecommunications. The auction of the
986 LMDS licenses began and closed in
1998. The Commission established a
small business size standard for LMDS
licenses as an entity that has average
gross revenues of less than $40 million
in the three previous calendar years. An
additional small business size standard
for ‘‘very small business’’ was added as
an entity that, together with its affiliates,
has average gross revenues of not more
than $15 million for the preceding three
calendar years. The SBA has approved
these small business size standards in
the context of LMDS auctions. There
were 93 winning bidders that qualified
as small entities in the LMDS auctions.
A total of 93 small and very small
business bidders won approximately
277 A Block licenses and 387 B Block
licenses. In 1999, the Commission reauctioned 161 licenses; there were 32
small and very small businesses
winning that won 119 licenses.
23. Satellite Telecommunications.
Since 2007, the SBA has recognized
satellite firms within this revised
category, with a small business size
standard of $15 million. The most
current Census Bureau data are from the
economic census of 2007, and we will
use those figures to gauge the
prevalence of small businesses in this
category. Those size standards are for
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the two census categories of ‘‘Satellite
Telecommunications’’ and ‘‘Other
Telecommunications.’’ Under the
‘‘Satellite Telecommunications’’
category, a business is considered small
if it had $15 million or less in average
annual receipts. Under the ‘‘Other
Telecommunications’’ category, a
business is considered small if it had
$25 million or less in average annual
receipts.
24. The first category of Satellite
Telecommunications ‘‘comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
providing point-to-point
telecommunications services to other
establishments in the
telecommunications and broadcasting
industries by forwarding and receiving
communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite
telecommunications.’’ For this category,
Census Bureau data for 2007 show that
there were a total of 512 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 464 firms had annual receipts of
under $10 million, and 18 firms had
receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.
Consequently, we estimate that the
majority of Satellite
Telecommunications firms are small
entities that might be affected by rules
adopted pursuant to the Public Notice.
25. The second category of Other
Telecommunications ‘‘primarily
engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as
satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation.
This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in
providing satellite terminal stations and
associated facilities connected with one
or more terrestrial systems and capable
of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from,
satellite systems. Establishments
providing Internet services or voice over
Internet protocol (VoIP) services via
client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this
industry.’’ For this category, Census
Bureau data for 2007 show that there
were a total of 2,383 firms that operated
for the entire year. Of this total, 2,346
firms had annual receipts of under $25
million. Consequently, we estimate that
the majority of Other
Telecommunications firms are small
entities that might be affected by our
action.
26. Cable and Other Program
Distribution. 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
E:\FR\FM\21FEP1.SGM
21FEP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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
a total of 955 firms in this previous
category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 939 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees,
and 16 firms had employment of 1000
employees or more. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms can
be considered small and may be affected
by rules adopted pursuant to the Public
Notice.
27. Cable Companies and Systems.
The Commission has developed its own
small business size standards, for the
purpose of cable rate regulation. Under
the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small cable
company’’ is one serving 400,000 or
fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry
data indicate that, of 1,076 cable
operators nationwide, all but eleven are
small under this size standard. In
addition, under the Commission’s rules,
a ‘‘small system’’ is a cable system
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.
Industry data indicate that, of 7,208
systems nationwide, 6,139 systems have
under 10,000 subscribers, and an
additional 379 systems have 10,000–
19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this
second size standard, most cable
systems are small and may be affected
by rules adopted pursuant to the Public
Notice.
28. Cable System Operators. The Act
also contains a size standard for small
cable system operators, which is ‘‘a
cable operator that, directly or through
an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer
than 1 percent of all subscribers in the
United States and is not affiliated with
any entity or entities whose gross
annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.’’ The Commission has
determined that an operator serving
fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be
deemed a small operator, if its annual
revenues, when combined with the total
annual revenues of all its affiliates, do
not exceed $250 million in the
aggregate. Industry data indicate that, of
1,076 cable operators nationwide, all
but ten are small under this size
standard. We note that the Commission
neither requests nor collects information
on whether cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million,
and therefore we are unable to estimate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:43 Feb 20, 2013
Jkt 229001
more accurately the number of cable
system operators that would qualify as
small under this size standard.
29. Open Video Services. The open
video system (‘‘OVS’’) framework was
established in 1996, and is one of four
statutorily recognized options for the
provision of video programming
services by local exchange carriers. The
OVS framework provides opportunities
for the distribution of video
programming other than through cable
systems. Because OVS operators provide
subscription services, OVS falls within
the SBA small business size standard
covering cable services, which is
‘‘Wired Telecommunications Carriers.’’
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 a total
of 955 firms in this previous category
that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 939 firms had employment of 999
or fewer employees, and 16 firms had
employment of 1000 employees or
more. Thus, under this second size
standard, most cable systems are small
and may be affected by rules adopted
pursuant to the Notice. In addition, we
note that the Commission has certified
some OVS operators, with some now
providing service. Broadband service
providers (‘‘BSPs’’) are currently the
only significant holders of OVS
certifications or local OVS franchises.
The Commission does not have
financial or employment information
regarding the entities authorized to
provide OVS, some of which may not
yet be operational. Thus, again, at least
some of the OVS operators may qualify
as small entities.
30. 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, 3144 firms had employment of 999
or fewer employees, and 44 firms had
employment of 1000 employees or
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12009
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 1000 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 Public Notice.
E. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
31. In this Notice, the Commission
seeks public comment on issues relating
to Connect America Phase II support for
price cap carriers serving areas outside
the contiguous United States. The
Notice seeks comment on whether the
Connect America Cost Model can be
modified to account for the unique
circumstances providers serving those
areas face, of whether existing support
levels should be maintained. The Notice
also seeks comment on the associated
obligations that come with the receipt of
such support.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered
32. 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.’’
33. The Notice seeks comment on
CAF Phase II support to price cap
carriers serving areas outside the
contiguous United States. These CAF
Phase II issues are not anticipated to
have a significant economic impact on
small entities insofar as the results
impact high-cost support amounts for
price cap carriers. This is primarily
because most (and perhaps all) of the
affected carriers are not small entities.
Moreover, the choice of alternatives
discussed is not anticipated to
systematically increase or decrease
E:\FR\FM\21FEP1.SGM
21FEP1
12010
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules
support for any particular group of
entities and therefore any significant
economic impact cannot necessarily be
minimized through alternatives.
G. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
34. None.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
35. This document seeks comment on
a potential new or revised information
collection requirement. If the
Commission adopts any new or revised
information collection requirement, the
Commission will publish a separate
notice in the Federal Register inviting
the public to comment on the
requirement, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks
specific comment on how it might
‘‘further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees.’’
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
I. Filing Requirements
36. Comments and Replies. Pursuant
to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and
1.419, interested parties may file
comments on or before the date
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. 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
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:43 Feb 20, 2013
Jkt 229001
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.
37. 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).
In addition, we request that one copy
of each pleading be sent to each of the
following:
(1) Dania Ayoubi,
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau,
445 12th Street SW., Room 6–A322,
Washington, DC 20554; email:
Dania.Ayoubi@fcc.gov;
(2) Charles Tyler,
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau,
445 12th Street SW., Room 5–A452,
Washington, DC 20554; email:
Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov.
38. The proceeding this Notice
initiates shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
Federal Communications Commission.
Kimberly A. Scardino,
Acting Division Chief, Telecommunications
Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013–04034 Filed 2–20–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 13–23; RM–11690;
DA 13–95]
Radio Broadcasting Services;
Pearsall, Texas
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document the
Commission requests comment on a
petition filed by Wendolyn Tellez
(‘‘Petitioner’’), licensee of FM Station
KSAG, Channel 277A, Pearsall, Texas.
Petitioner proposes to amend the FM
Table of Allotments by substituting
Channel 277A for vacant Channel 227A,
at Pearsall. The proposal is part of a
contingently filed ‘‘hybrid’’ application
and rule making petition. Channel 277A
can be allotted at Pearsall, Texas, in
compliance with the Commission’s
minimum distance separation
requirements 28–56–40 NL and 99–11–
44 WL, at a site 11.4 km (7.1 miles)
northwest of Pearsall. Concurrence by
the Government of Mexico is required
because Pearsall, Texas, is located
within 320 kilometers (199 miles) of the
U.S.-Mexican border. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION infra.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or
before March 18, 2013 and reply
comments must be filed on or before
April 2, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by MB Docket No 13–33, by
any of the following methods:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21FEP1.SGM
21FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 35 (Thursday, February 21, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12006-12010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04034]
[[Page 12006]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 13-162]
Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Connect America
Phase II Support for Price Cap Areas Outside of the Contiguous United
States
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission seeks
to further develop the record on issues relating to Connect America
Phase II support for price cap carriers serving areas outside of the
contiguous United States.
DATES: Comments are due on or before March 11, 2013 and reply comments
are due on or before March 25, 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: Dania Ayoubi, Wireline Competition
Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Wireline
Competition Bureau's Public Notice in WC Docket No. 10-90, and DA 13-
162, released February 8, 2013. 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. These documents 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.
I. Introduction
1. In this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau)
seeks to further develop the record on issues relating to Connect
America Phase II support for price cap carriers serving areas outside
of the contiguous United States. In particular, we seek comment on
various options for providing Connect America Phase II support to price
cap carriers serving such areas and the associated obligations that
come with the receipt of such support.
II. Discussion
2. Application of Cost Model to Areas Outside the Contiguous United
States. Several parties have argued that the Connect America Cost Model
(CACM) would provide insufficient support to areas outside the
contiguous United States. We seek comment on what objective criteria or
factors the Bureau should consider in determining whether support
determined by the cost model is sufficient.
3. The Bureau seeks to further develop the record on two
alternative options for areas outside the contiguous United States: (1)
Modifying the design of and/or specific inputs used in the CACM,
including incorporating aspects of the Alaska-specific and Puerto Rico-
specific model submissions; or (2) maintaining existing support levels.
4. What specific changes would need to be made or data would need
to be incorporated, if the Bureau were to modify the current version of
the CACM? Some providers have expressed concern over particular
features of the CACM as related to the areas outside the contiguous
United States that they serve. Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc.
(PRTC) argues, for instance, that its standalone Puerto Rico-specific
cost model is more accurate because, among other things, it
incorporates actual customer locations and the cost of undersea cable
transport to Florida. Likewise, Alaska Communications Systems Group,
Inc. (ACS) argues that a model that does not include, among other
things, the cost of satellite backhaul where terrestrial options are
unavailable, would not accurately predict the costs of serving Alaska.
Should the Bureau incorporate those modifications into the CACM to
better model the forward-looking cost of serving customers in areas
outside of the contiguous United States? How should the Bureau proceed
if a party has not submitted any information into the record regarding
the circumstances in a particular non-contiguous area at the time the
Bureau adopts the cost model?
5. If the Bureau were to incorporate aspects of the models offered
by interested parties into CACM, how can it ensure that the inputs
utilized reflect the costs of an efficient provider rather than
current, embedded costs? The mere fact that current support levels may
be higher now than they would be under CACM is not necessarily
dispositive in determining whether support in such areas is
``sufficient.'' Existing costs may not reflect the forward-looking
costs of an efficient provider. What specific metrics or objective data
would the Bureau need to be able to distinguish between legitimate
differences in operating costs in non-contiguous areas and those that
may not reflect the forward-looking costs of an efficient provider?
6. How should the Bureau take into account the additional time it
would take to modify CACM to address the unique circumstances of each
area outside of the contiguous United States at this stage in the
process, and the extent to which a later adoption of CACM would delay
the deployment of broadband in areas within the contiguous United
States? In order to move forward more quickly, is there an
administratively feasible way to pursue implementation of CACM in those
areas where further refinement of the model is not necessary while
developing an adequate approach in non-contiguous areas? If so, how
would the Bureau ensure that total support levels remain within the
overall $1.8 billion budget?
7. The Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation (Vitelco) has argued in
the alternative that we should maintain support at existing levels. And
if we decline to use its ``Broadband Cost Model: Puerto Rico'' (BCMPR),
PRTC recommends that we, ``at a minimum, maintain legacy high cost
universal service support.'' In directing the Bureau to consider the
circumstances facing carriers providing service in areas outside the
contiguous United States, the Commission required that if existing
support levels are maintained, total support could not exceed the
overall budget of $1.8 billion per year. We note that 2011
disbursements for price cap carriers outside of the contiguous United
States totaled approximately $76 million, which would leave $1.724
billion remaining for price cap carriers in the contiguous United
States. How
[[Page 12007]]
would freezing support for certain carriers impact the Commission's
progress in extending broadband-capable infrastructure in the United
States?
8. We note that the Commission recently sought comment on several
options for utilizing funds remaining from Connect America Phase I,
with one possibility being to use some or all of those funds to enlarge
the budget for Phase II. Should some of the unused Phase I monies be
made available to maintain existing support levels for carriers in non-
contiguous areas if the Commission were to adopt such a rule increasing
the $1.8 billion budget?
9. State-Level Commitment Process. The state-level commitment
process set forth in the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, 76 FR
73830, November 29, 2011 and 76 FR 78384, December 16, 2011, assumes
that carriers would make commitments based on the model-determined
support amount and the service obligations that would attach to that
support. In the event the Bureau determines that support in some or all
of the non-contiguous areas should instead be maintained at existing
levels, should carriers receiving frozen support to serve those areas
make a statewide commitment to accept or reject the frozen support?
Should there be any changes in the statewide commitment process for
carriers receiving frozen support instead of model-based support?
10. Service Obligations. Some have suggested that service
obligations should be adjusted if support is frozen in non-contiguous
areas. The Bureau seeks to further develop the record on what
obligations, if any, should be adjusted if the Bureau maintains support
at existing levels for some or all of the price cap carriers operating
outside the contiguous United States. How many supported locations
should be required to have broadband-capable infrastructure that can
provide speeds of at least 4 Mbps/1 Mbps, and how should that figure be
determined? Should recipients of frozen support be required to deploy
infrastructure that can deliver speeds of at least 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps to
some number of supported locations, and how should that number be set?
Recognizing that the Bureau has not yet specified metrics for latency
or usage capacity for carriers making a state-level commitment, should
those requirements be modified for carriers receiving frozen support?
What measures would need to be in place to ensure that we have the
ability to monitor compliance with adjusted service obligations?
Commenters suggesting modified obligations for these carriers should
specifically identify which obligations should be modified and specify
objective metrics that would need to be met, so that the Commission has
the ability to ensure accountability and oversight.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
11. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Bureau 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 Notice. 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 Public Notice. The Commission will
send a copy of the Public Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In
addition, the Public Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
B. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
12. The Notice seeks comment on a variety of issues relating to
Connect America Phase II support for price cap carriers serving areas
outside the contiguous United States. The Commission directed the
Bureau to design a model to estimate the forward-looking economic costs
of providing broadband to high-cost areas. In adopting the cost model,
the Bureau was also to consider the unique circumstances facing areas
outside the contiguous United States and determine whether the model
adequately accounts for costs carriers face in serving those areas.
C. Legal Basis
13. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to
the Notice is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 214, 254, 303(r), 403,
and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
152, 154(i), 214, 254, 303(r), 403, and 706, and Sec. Sec. 1.1 and
1.1421 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.421.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
14. 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.
15. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of
approximately 27.9 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
16. 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,
3144 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 44 firms had
employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus, under this size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered small.
17. 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
Public Notice.
18. 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
[[Page 12008]]
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 Public Notice.
19. 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.
20. 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 Public Notice.
21. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since
2007, the SBA has recognized wireless firms within this new, broad,
economic census category. Prior to that time, such firms were within
the now-superseded categories of Paging and Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has
deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were
1,383 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,368
firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of
1000 employees or more. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless
telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service
(PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of these,
an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that
approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small.
Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless
firms can be considered small.
22. Local Multipoint Distribution Service. Local Multipoint
Distribution Service (``LMDS'') is a fixed broadband point-to-
multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way video
telecommunications. The auction of the 986 LMDS licenses began and
closed in 1998. The Commission established a small business size
standard for LMDS licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues
of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. An
additional small business size standard for ``very small business'' was
added as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average
gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three
calendar years. The SBA has approved these small business size
standards in the context of LMDS auctions. There were 93 winning
bidders that qualified as small entities in the LMDS auctions. A total
of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 277 A
Block licenses and 387 B Block licenses. In 1999, the Commission re-
auctioned 161 licenses; there were 32 small and very small businesses
winning that won 119 licenses.
23. Satellite Telecommunications. Since 2007, the SBA has
recognized satellite firms within this revised category, with a small
business size standard of $15 million. The most current Census Bureau
data are from the economic census of 2007, and we will use those
figures to gauge the prevalence of small businesses in this category.
Those size standards are for the two census categories of ``Satellite
Telecommunications'' and ``Other Telecommunications.'' Under the
``Satellite Telecommunications'' category, a business is considered
small if it had $15 million or less in average annual receipts. Under
the ``Other Telecommunications'' category, a business is considered
small if it had $25 million or less in average annual receipts.
24. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point
telecommunications services to other establishments in the
telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and
receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or
reselling satellite telecommunications.'' For this category, Census
Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 512 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 464 firms had annual
receipts of under $10 million, and 18 firms had receipts of $10 million
to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of
Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be
affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Public Notice.
25. The second category of Other Telecommunications ``primarily
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as
satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications
from, satellite systems. Establishments providing Internet services or
voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.''
For this category, Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a
total of 2,383 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
2,346 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million. Consequently, we
estimate that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are small
entities that might be affected by our action.
26. Cable and Other Program Distribution. 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
[[Page 12009]]
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 a total
of 955 firms in this previous category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 939 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and 16 firms had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus,
under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small
and may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Public Notice.
27. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has developed its
own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate
regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is
one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry data
indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are
small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's
rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer
subscribers. Industry data indicate that, of 7,208 systems nationwide,
6,139 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 379
systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this second size
standard, most cable systems are small and may be affected by rules
adopted pursuant to the Public Notice.
28. Cable System Operators. The Act also contains a size standard
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that,
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1
percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated
with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the
aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that an
operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small
operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual
revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the
aggregate. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators
nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard. We note
that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on
whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore we are unable to
estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that
would qualify as small under this size standard.
29. Open Video Services. The open video system (``OVS'') framework
was established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized
options for the provision of video programming services by local
exchange carriers. The OVS framework provides opportunities for the
distribution of video programming other than through cable systems.
Because OVS operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within
the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, which is
``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' 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 a total of 955 firms in this previous category that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 939 firms had employment
of 999 or fewer employees, and 16 firms had employment of 1000
employees or more. Thus, under this second size standard, most cable
systems are small and may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the
Notice. In addition, we note that the Commission has certified some OVS
operators, with some now providing service. Broadband service providers
(``BSPs'') are currently the only significant holders of OVS
certifications or local OVS franchises. The Commission does not have
financial or employment information regarding the entities authorized
to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. Thus, again,
at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities.
30. 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, 3144 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 44
firms had employment of 1000 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 1000
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 Public Notice.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
31. In this Notice, the Commission seeks public comment on issues
relating to Connect America Phase II support for price cap carriers
serving areas outside the contiguous United States. The Notice seeks
comment on whether the Connect America Cost Model can be modified to
account for the unique circumstances providers serving those areas
face, of whether existing support levels should be maintained. The
Notice also seeks comment on the associated obligations that come with
the receipt of such support.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
32. 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.''
33. The Notice seeks comment on CAF Phase II support to price cap
carriers serving areas outside the contiguous United States. These CAF
Phase II issues are not anticipated to have a significant economic
impact on small entities insofar as the results impact high-cost
support amounts for price cap carriers. This is primarily because most
(and perhaps all) of the affected carriers are not small entities.
Moreover, the choice of alternatives discussed is not anticipated to
systematically increase or decrease
[[Page 12010]]
support for any particular group of entities and therefore any
significant economic impact cannot necessarily be minimized through
alternatives.
G. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
34. None.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
35. This document seeks comment on a potential new or revised
information collection requirement. If the Commission adopts any new or
revised information collection requirement, the Commission will publish
a separate notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to
comment on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how
it might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
I. Filing Requirements
36. Comments and Replies. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may
file comments on or before the date 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. 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 Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street 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.
37. 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).
In addition, we request that one copy of each pleading be sent to
each of the following:
(1) Dania Ayoubi, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 6-A322,
Washington, DC 20554; email: Dania.Ayoubi@fcc.gov;
(2) Charles Tyler, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-A452,
Washington, DC 20554; email: Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov.
38. 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 Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed
by rule Sec. 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.
Federal Communications Commission.
Kimberly A. Scardino,
Acting Division Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013-04034 Filed 2-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P