Service Obligations for Connect America Phase II and Determining Who Is an Unsubsidized Competitor, 16456-16460 [2013-06047]
Download as PDF
16456
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules
action, if finalized, merely would
approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and would impose no
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law.
This action is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
Again, in this reconsideration, EPA is
proposing to affirm its prior approval of
North Dakota SIP requirements for two
sources in North Dakota. The proposed
action, if finalized, merely would
approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and would impose no
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action would not have
substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, because, if
finalized, it merely would approve state
law as meeting federal requirements and
would impose no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action. In the
spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and state
and local governments, EPA specifically
solicits comment on this action from
state and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 because it does not impose
substantial direct compliance costs and
does not preempt tribal law. In this
reconsideration, EPA is proposing to
affirm its prior approval of North Dakota
SIP requirements for two sources in
North Dakota. The proposed action, if
finalized, merely would approve state
law as meeting federal requirements and
would impose no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment
on this action from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to EO 13045
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because
it implements specific standards
VerDate Mar<14>2013
17:29 Mar 14, 2013
Jkt 229001
established by Congress in statutes. In
addition, it is not an economically
significant regulatory action because it
applies to only two facilities and merely
proposes to approve state law as
meeting federal requirements; it would
impose no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. This
action would not present a
disproportionate health or safety risk to
children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal
agencies to evaluate existing technical
standards when developing a new
regulation. To comply with NTTAA,
EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary
consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available
and applicable when developing
programs and policies unless doing so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical.
VCS are inapplicable to this action
because application of those
requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994), establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
We have determined that this action,
if finalized, will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it increases the level of
environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
on any population, including any
minority or low-income population. The
action, if finalized, merely would
approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and would impose no
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference,
Nitrogen dioxides, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: March 8, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013–06072 Filed 3–14–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 10–90; DA 13–284]
Service Obligations for Connect
America Phase II and Determining Who
Is an Unsubsidized Competitor
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission seeks
comment on how it will determine
which census blocks are served by an
unsubsidized competitor, how price cap
carriers will demonstrate they are
meeting the Commission’s requirements
for reasonable comparability, and what
other providers will need to
demonstrate to be deemed unsubsidized
competitors.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
March 28, 2013 and reply comments are
due on or before April 12, 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
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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 Wireline Competition
Bureau’s Public Notice in WC Docket
No. 10–90, and DA 13–284, released
February 26, 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 a number
of issues relating to implementation of
Connect America Phase II support.
Specifically, the Bureau seeks comment
on how it will determine which census
blocks are served by an unsubsidized
competitor, how price cap carriers will
demonstrate they are meeting the
Commission’s requirements for
reasonable comparability, and what
other providers will need to
demonstrate to be deemed unsubsidized
competitors.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Discussion
2. Unserved Areas. The Commission
directed the Bureau to determine what
areas the forward looking cost model
should treat as unserved by an
unsubsidized competitor ‘‘as of a
specified future date as close as possible
to the completion of the model.’’ To that
end, the next version of the Connect
America Cost Model will incorporate
June 2012 State Broadband Initiative
(SBI) data to assist in determining what
areas have access to broadband-capable
infrastructure meeting specified speed
thresholds. We recognize that in some
VerDate Mar<14>2013
17:29 Mar 14, 2013
Jkt 229001
particular instances, it is possible that
providers have completed network
expansion into unserved areas since
submitting the June 2012 SBI data, but
it is necessary now to incorporate an
existing nationwide data set into the
next version of the model, which
currently is under development.
3. The Bureau seeks to further
develop the record on what speed
threshold in the June 2012 SBI data
should be utilized as a proxy for 4
Mbps/1 Mbps when the Bureau
identifies those census blocks that are
served by an unsubsidized competitor
meeting the specified speed requirement
in the model. In the Phase I context,
several commenters argue that using 3
Mbps/768 kbps as a proxy for 4 Mbps/
1Mbps excludes some areas from
support even though those areas in fact
lack 4 Mbps/1 Mbps service. For
purposes of Phase II, should the model
treat an area as unserved if it is shown
on the National Broadband Map as
lacking broadband with speeds of at
least 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps, instead of using
3 Mbps/768 kbps as a proxy? That
would presumably result in a greater
number of census blocks becoming
eligible for funding under Phase II than
a 3 Mbps/768 kbps threshold.
Commenters are encouraged to address
the implications of using the National
Broadband Map data regarding
availability of broadband providing at
least a 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps speed to
identify census blocks that would be
deemed served by an unsubsidized
competitor under Phase II. If we were to
determine the presence of an
unsubsidized competitor based on a 6
Mbps/1.5 Mbps threshold, to create
parity between unsubsidized
competitors and Phase II buildout
requirements, should we also require
that Phase II support recipients be
required to provide broadband with
speeds of 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps to all
supported locations? This would
prevent a scenario in which a carrier
could use Phase II funds to overbuild an
existing 4 Mbps/1 Mbps network with
its own 4 Mbps/1 Mbps network.
4. To the extent any interested parties
wish to bring to our attention any
information they believe should
supplement the reported June SBI 2012
data, they are invited to submit
comments by the deadline specified for
this Public Notice. We particularly
encourage input from state SBI grantees
and other state authorities that may
have relevant information.
5. For ease of administration, the
Bureau proposes to exclude from
support calculations in the adopted
model any Census block that is served
by a cable broadband provider that
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16457
provides service meeting the defined
speed threshold, with that rebuttable
presumption subject to challenge in a
challenge process. Given the wide
variance in service offerings from fixed
wireless providers, we do not propose to
establish a similar presumption for fixed
wireless providers. Instead, we propose
to address whether a fixed wireless
provider meets the requirements to be
an unsubsidized competitor in a
challenge process. A fixed wireless
provider could demonstrate it is an
unsubsidized competitor by making an
affirmative showing that it meets the
necessary speed, latency, capacity, and
price criteria. That affirmative showing
would be subject to rebuttal by other
parties. We seek comment on this
proposal. Should mobile providers also
be allowed to participate in the
challenge process, giving them the
opportunity to qualify as unsubsidized
competitors and exclude areas from
support if they are able to meet the
performance and pricing requirements?
6. We seek comment on whether
determinations in the challenge process
of whether an unsubsidized competitor
meets the specified service requirements
(speed, latency, usage, price) should be
based on a company’s offerings as of
June 30, 2012, or some later date.
Alternatives could include the date on
which we release an order adopting the
forward looking model, or 30 days prior
to that release. We seek comment on
these alternatives.
7. Pricing and Usage Allowances. We
need to specify pricing and associated
minimum usage allowances that will
apply to price cap carriers that make a
statewide commitment to offer voice
and extend broadband in exchange for
model-determined support for a period
of five years. We also need to specify
what is required for another provider to
be deemed an unsubsidized competitor
that would preclude an area from
receiving any support.
8. With respect to pricing, we seek to
further develop the record on a proposal
to presume that ‘‘a broadband provider
that offers national pricing for its
broadband service offerings is offering
those services in rural and urban areas
at reasonably comparable rates.’’ Should
a Phase II recipient be allowed to
demonstrate that its rates are reasonably
comparable between urban and rural
areas by showing that it offers the same
rates, terms, and conditions on a
nationwide basis? Would such a
presumption be a reasonable way to
implement the statutory goal of
reasonably comparable rates, while
implementing Phase II quickly? Should
we specify a level at which a provider’s
rate is too high to be considered
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
16458
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules
reasonable, even if the provider offers
the same rate in both urban and rural
areas?
9. Should the presumption apply if a
carrier offered different pricing plans in
different regions of the country, so long
as its rates are uniform within a region
across both rural and urban areas?
Should such a presumption apply for
carriers that operate only in one state?
In the latter case, would it be sufficient
if the provider offered uniform pricing
within its footprint, so long as that
included urban areas? If we were to take
such an approach, consistent with our
proposal for the urban rate survey, we
propose to define ‘‘urban’’ as all 2010
Census urban areas and urban clusters
that sit within a Metropolitan Statistical
Area. We seek comment on this
proposal.
10. The Bureau has proposed an
urban rate survey instrument to gather
data relating to fixed voice and fixed
broadband prices and associated usage
allowances, if any, in the urban areas,
but we do not anticipate those data will
be available by the time the Bureau
implements Phase II in the months
ahead. In the absence of data from a rate
survey, should we establish an interim
reasonable comparability benchmark
that a competitive provider would need
to meet in order to be deemed an
unsubsidized competitor? The Bureau
recently sought comment on potential
benchmarks that could be used for the
Remote Areas Fund, at least on an
interim basis until rate survey data
become available. We now seek
comment on benchmarks to use for
determining who is an unsubsidized
competitor in the near term for Phase II
implementation in areas that will not be
served by the Remote Areas Fund.
11. In particular, the Commission’s
prior reasonable comparability
benchmark for voice service for nonrural carriers was $36.52. Would it be
reasonable to presume any provider
offering voice service at or below $37
meets the reasonable comparability
requirement for voice service, at least
for purposes of determining whether a
particular Census block should be
excluded from the state-level offer of
support?
12. We note that several large fixed
terrestrial providers offer broadband at
speeds close to the Commission’s 4
Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream
benchmark at prices ranging from $45 to
$49.95 per month. Would setting a
reasonable comparability benchmark for
broadband service at a somewhat higher
level, such as $60, be a reasonable
approach for determining who is an
unsubsidized competitor when
identifying Census blocks that would be
excluded from the state-level offer of
support in Phase II? Should that figure
be lower or higher?
13. With respect to the Commission’s
usage requirement, we propose to set a
uniform minimum usage allowance that
would apply both to price cap carriers
that make a statewide commitment as
well as to unsubsidized competitors that
would preclude a Census block from
being funded. We seek comment on this
proposal.
14. We propose to adopt a minimum
usage allowance for purposes of
finalizing the locations that will receive
support to be offered to price cap
carriers in Connect America Phase II.
This minimum usage allowance would
be associated with the rate established
for the reasonable comparability
benchmark for broadband service;
consumers in supported areas would be
free to purchase additional gigabytes of
data above the required minimum usage
allowance. We seek comment on this
proposal.
15. One way to set a minimum usage
allowance would be to estimate the
amount of data needed to accomplish
various user activities that the Connect
America Fund will advance. A similar
approach was used to set the minimum
broadband speed requirements for
Connect America. Chart 1 below
provides estimates of what activities are
possible under varying data allowances,
taking into account potential activities
relating to education, health,
employment, e-commerce, and civic
engagement. Chart 1 shows the
cumulative illustrative activities a
household could undertake under
various data allowances. We seek
comment on this analysis.
CHART 1
Data allowance
Critical use category
Activity
20 GB
Online College Coursework
Secondary Schooling .........
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Household’s Other Critical
Uses.
Hours per week of interactive video courses ..............
Web sites loaded per day for course work .................
Emails per day for coursework ....................................
Hours per week of educational video ..........................
Websites loaded per day for homework or learning
management systems.
Emails per day .............................................................
Online medical consultations (30 min.) every two
months.
Web sites loaded per day for job searching, government services, news or banking.
Emails per adult per day .............................................
16. Given the calculations in Chart 1,
would 100 GB be a reasonable upper
bound for a minimum usage allowance?
Using a higher figure, such as 100 GB,
would account for the growth in video
usage for education and communication
purposes over the next five years. It
would also allow for other new and
unanticipated uses that Chart 1 does not
account for. Alternatively, should we
instead adopt a lower value, such as 60
VerDate Mar<14>2013
17:29 Mar 14, 2013
Jkt 229001
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60 GB
80 GB
100 GB
3
45
20
6
30
6
90
40
12
60
9
135
60
18
90
12
180
80
24
120
15
225
100
30
150
20
1
40
2
60
3
80
4
100
5
55
110
165
220
275
20
40
60
80
100
GB, but increase that requirement over
time to reflect growing average data
consumption, as discussed below?
17. As an alternative to setting the
minimum usage allowance based on a
set of potential user activities, we could
set the minimum usage allowance based
on current average usage. We note that
according to one source, during the
second half of 2012, the median
monthly data consumption for fixed
PO 00000
40 GB
services in North America was 16.8 GB
per subscriber. According to the most
recent Commission speed testing data
released in February 2013, the median
weighted consumption of volunteers
participating in the Measuring
Broadband America (MBA) program for
all fixed terrestrial technologies was
32.3 GB per month, with approximately
90 percent of surveyed digital subscriber
line (DSL) subscribers in September
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules
2012 using less than 100 GB per month.
Should we set the Phase II minimum
usage allowance based on such data?
Given that the vast majority of DSL
users in the MBA program today use
less capacity than 100 GB per month,
would that be an appropriate usage
allowance requirement for carriers
electing to make a statewide
commitment in Phase II and for other
providers to be deemed an unsubsidized
competitor? Is such data representative
of typical users, and if not, is there an
alternative data source we should
consider? What would be the
implications of setting the minimum
usage allowance higher or lower? In
particular, what are the technical
constraints that limit the capacity
providers are able to offer, and what are
the factors that would raise or lower
deployment costs if we raise or lower
the minimum usage allowance
requirement? We assume some
percentage of an average household’s
data is consumed in entertainment
purposes. Should that be factored into
our calculations? To the extent
commenters believe the required
minimum usage allowance should be
higher or lower, they should provide
specific data and analyses in support of
their positions.
18. Should we set an initial usage
allowance that would be required for
the first year of Phase II
implementation, but require that usage
allowance to grow in future years,
consistent with the growth in consumer
usage observed in the marketplace? We
note that Cisco projects that North
American consumer usage will grow by
14 percent in 2014, 21 percent in 2015,
and 25 percent in 2016. The model
developed by Commission staff for the
Broadband Plan assumed that customer
usage of fixed broadband would grow by
approximately 30 percent annually.
How could such a requirement be
structured to provide sufficient clarity
to providers at the time they make a
statewide commitment of how their
obligations would evolve over time?
What objective metric or external data
source should determine the growth in
usage allowances over time? If we were
to adopt such an approach, should the
usage level be adjusted annually, biannually, or on some other schedule?
19. Latency. The USF/ICC
Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830,
November 29, 2011, requires ETCs to
provide latency sufficient for real time
applications, such as VoIP. In adopting
this requirement, the Commission noted
that broadband testing results showed
most terrestrial wireline technologies
can reliably provide round trip latency
of less than 100 milliseconds (ms). The
VerDate Mar<14>2013
17:29 Mar 14, 2013
Jkt 229001
June 2012 testing results show that the
average peak period round trip UDP
latency for all wireline terrestrial
technologies is less than 60 ms.
20. To implement the Commission’s
latency requirement when offering
support to price cap carriers in Phase II
and determining who is an
unsubsidized competitor in Phase II,
should we establish a specific numerical
latency standard? Because performance
during peak usage is important to
ensuring the consumers have adequate
service, we believe a testing under load
standard would be appropriate, if we
adopt a specific standard. For instance,
would it meet the Commission’s
requirements if an average of 95 percent
of all measurements of network round
trip latency under load during peak
period (defined as weeknights between
7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. local time)
between the customer premises (or as
close to the customer premises as
technically possible) to the provider’s
transit or peering interconnection point
(often referred to as an Internet
exchange point) were at or below 60 ms?
Should that number be set lower or
higher, and if so, why? To provide a
factual basis for a price cap carrier or
potential unsubsidized carrier to
establish it is meeting the Commission’s
requirements, should a latency test be
conducted over a minimum of two
consecutive weeks during peak hours
for at least 50 randomly-selected
customer premises using existing
network management systems, ping
tests, or other commonly available
network measurement tools? Should the
testing period be longer or shorter?
Should the number of customer premise
be higher or lower? We seek comment
on whether this approach would
provide sufficient clarity to potential
support recipients and unsubsidized
providers regarding their service
obligations.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
21. The USF/ICC Transformation
Order included an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the potential
impact on small entities of the
Commission’s proposal. We invite
parties to file comments on the IRFA in
light of this additional notice.
B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
22. This document seeks comment on
a potential new or revised information
collection requirement. If the
Commission adopts any new or revised
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16459
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.’’
C. Filing Requirements
23. Interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments are to
reference WC Docket No. 10–90 and DA
13–284 and 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
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.
24. 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
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
16460
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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) Ryan Yates, Telecommunications
Access Policy Division, Wireline
Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street
SW., Room 6–B–441A, Washington,
DC 20554; email: Ryan.Yates@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.
25. This matter 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.
VerDate Mar<14>2013
17:29 Mar 14, 2013
Jkt 229001
Federal Communications Commission.
Kimberly A. Scardino,
Acting Division Chief, Telecommunications
Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013–06047 Filed 3–14–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 633
[Docket No. FTA–2009–0030]
RIN 2132–AA92
Capital Project Management
Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit
Administration is withdrawing its
September 13, 2011, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to revise the agency’s
project management oversight
regulations, in light of the recent,
fundamental changes to the statutes that
authorize the discretionary and formula
capital programs at 49 U.S.C. Chapter
53. Given the repeal of the Fixed
Guideway Modernization program, the
creation of the Core Capacity
Improvement and State of Good Repair
programs, and the streamlining of the
New Starts and Small Starts project
development process, FTA must reexamine its proposed definition of
major capital project and its policy and
procedure for risk assessment. Also, the
agency must develop policy and
regulatory proposals for addressing
several explicit directives in the new
surface transportation authorization
statute, the Moving Ahead for Progress
in the 21st Century Act (‘‘MAP–21’’).
FTA will reinitiate a rulemaking for
project management oversight in the
near future. Additionally, FTA may seek
to set policy on major capital projects
through public notice-and-comment,
and provide technical assistance
through guidance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
program matters, Carlos M. Garay at
(202) 366–6471 or carlos.garay@dot.gov.
For legal matters, Scott A. Biehl at (202)
366–0826 or scott.biehl@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The NPRM on Capital Project
Management and the Dear Colleague
Letters on Risk Assessment: On
September 13, 2011, FTA published a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
to transform the current regulation for
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
project management oversight at 49 CFR
part 633 into a discrete set of managerial
principles for sponsors of major capital
projects. (76 FR 56363–56381). The
NPRM was designed to enable FTA to
more clearly identify the necessary
management capacity and capability of
a sponsor of a major capital project;
spell out the many facets of project
management that must be addressed in
a project management plan; tailor the
level of FTA oversight to the costs,
complexities, and risks of a major
capital project; set forth the means and
objectives of risk assessments for major
capital projects; and articulate the roles
and responsibilities of FTA’s project
management oversight contractors.
A critical component of the NPRM
was the proposed definition of major
capital project. Under the current
regulation, 49 CFR 633.5, a major
capital project is defined in pertinent
part as any project funded with any
amount of discretionary New Starts
funds, or any Fixed Guideway
Modernization (FGM) project, of a total
cost of $100 million or more, receiving
funds under the formula FGM program.
In the September 2011 NPRM, FTA
proposed that a major capital project be
redefined as either of the following: Any
New Starts or FGM project for which the
sponsor sought $100 million or more
under the New Starts or FGM programs,
or any capital project the Federal
Transit Administrator found would
benefit from the FTA project
management oversight program, given
the size or complexity of the project, the
uniqueness of the technology, the
previous project management
experience of the sponsor, or any other
risks inherent in the project. Thus, in
the NPRM, the agency suggested that the
level of Federal investment in a project
is a more appropriate benchmark than
the total capital costs of a project, and
that $100 million in Federal grant funds
is an appropriate number for that
purpose. Also, FTA proposed that in his
or her discretion, the Administrator
could designate any capital project
seeking funds under the discretionary
Small Starts program as a major capital
project subject to the 49 CFR part 633
regulations. See generally, 76 FR 56365–
56368.
Another key element of the NPRM
was the proposed rule and guidance on
risk assessment. Specifically, under
proposed Section 633.23, FTA would
have been vested with the discretion to
perform or allow a project sponsor to
perform a risk assessment at a level
commensurate with the size, cost, or
complexity of a major capital project at
any point during project development.
Also, under proposed Section 633.23,
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16456-16460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06047]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 13-284]
Service Obligations for Connect America Phase II and Determining
Who Is an Unsubsidized Competitor
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission seeks
comment on how it will determine which census blocks are served by an
unsubsidized competitor, how price cap carriers will demonstrate they
are meeting the Commission's requirements for reasonable comparability,
and what other providers will need to demonstrate to be deemed
unsubsidized competitors.
DATES: Comments are due on or before March 28, 2013 and reply comments
are due on or before April 12, 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
[[Page 16457]]
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 Wireline
Competition Bureau's Public Notice in WC Docket No. 10-90, and DA 13-
284, released February 26, 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 a number of issues relating to
implementation of Connect America Phase II support. Specifically, the
Bureau seeks comment on how it will determine which census blocks are
served by an unsubsidized competitor, how price cap carriers will
demonstrate they are meeting the Commission's requirements for
reasonable comparability, and what other providers will need to
demonstrate to be deemed unsubsidized competitors.
II. Discussion
2. Unserved Areas. The Commission directed the Bureau to determine
what areas the forward looking cost model should treat as unserved by
an unsubsidized competitor ``as of a specified future date as close as
possible to the completion of the model.'' To that end, the next
version of the Connect America Cost Model will incorporate June 2012
State Broadband Initiative (SBI) data to assist in determining what
areas have access to broadband-capable infrastructure meeting specified
speed thresholds. We recognize that in some particular instances, it is
possible that providers have completed network expansion into unserved
areas since submitting the June 2012 SBI data, but it is necessary now
to incorporate an existing nationwide data set into the next version of
the model, which currently is under development.
3. The Bureau seeks to further develop the record on what speed
threshold in the June 2012 SBI data should be utilized as a proxy for 4
Mbps/1 Mbps when the Bureau identifies those census blocks that are
served by an unsubsidized competitor meeting the specified speed
requirement in the model. In the Phase I context, several commenters
argue that using 3 Mbps/768 kbps as a proxy for 4 Mbps/1Mbps excludes
some areas from support even though those areas in fact lack 4 Mbps/1
Mbps service. For purposes of Phase II, should the model treat an area
as unserved if it is shown on the National Broadband Map as lacking
broadband with speeds of at least 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps, instead of using 3
Mbps/768 kbps as a proxy? That would presumably result in a greater
number of census blocks becoming eligible for funding under Phase II
than a 3 Mbps/768 kbps threshold. Commenters are encouraged to address
the implications of using the National Broadband Map data regarding
availability of broadband providing at least a 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps speed to
identify census blocks that would be deemed served by an unsubsidized
competitor under Phase II. If we were to determine the presence of an
unsubsidized competitor based on a 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps threshold, to create
parity between unsubsidized competitors and Phase II buildout
requirements, should we also require that Phase II support recipients
be required to provide broadband with speeds of 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps to all
supported locations? This would prevent a scenario in which a carrier
could use Phase II funds to overbuild an existing 4 Mbps/1 Mbps network
with its own 4 Mbps/1 Mbps network.
4. To the extent any interested parties wish to bring to our
attention any information they believe should supplement the reported
June SBI 2012 data, they are invited to submit comments by the deadline
specified for this Public Notice. We particularly encourage input from
state SBI grantees and other state authorities that may have relevant
information.
5. For ease of administration, the Bureau proposes to exclude from
support calculations in the adopted model any Census block that is
served by a cable broadband provider that provides service meeting the
defined speed threshold, with that rebuttable presumption subject to
challenge in a challenge process. Given the wide variance in service
offerings from fixed wireless providers, we do not propose to establish
a similar presumption for fixed wireless providers. Instead, we propose
to address whether a fixed wireless provider meets the requirements to
be an unsubsidized competitor in a challenge process. A fixed wireless
provider could demonstrate it is an unsubsidized competitor by making
an affirmative showing that it meets the necessary speed, latency,
capacity, and price criteria. That affirmative showing would be subject
to rebuttal by other parties. We seek comment on this proposal. Should
mobile providers also be allowed to participate in the challenge
process, giving them the opportunity to qualify as unsubsidized
competitors and exclude areas from support if they are able to meet the
performance and pricing requirements?
6. We seek comment on whether determinations in the challenge
process of whether an unsubsidized competitor meets the specified
service requirements (speed, latency, usage, price) should be based on
a company's offerings as of June 30, 2012, or some later date.
Alternatives could include the date on which we release an order
adopting the forward looking model, or 30 days prior to that release.
We seek comment on these alternatives.
7. Pricing and Usage Allowances. We need to specify pricing and
associated minimum usage allowances that will apply to price cap
carriers that make a statewide commitment to offer voice and extend
broadband in exchange for model-determined support for a period of five
years. We also need to specify what is required for another provider to
be deemed an unsubsidized competitor that would preclude an area from
receiving any support.
8. With respect to pricing, we seek to further develop the record
on a proposal to presume that ``a broadband provider that offers
national pricing for its broadband service offerings is offering those
services in rural and urban areas at reasonably comparable rates.''
Should a Phase II recipient be allowed to demonstrate that its rates
are reasonably comparable between urban and rural areas by showing that
it offers the same rates, terms, and conditions on a nationwide basis?
Would such a presumption be a reasonable way to implement the statutory
goal of reasonably comparable rates, while implementing Phase II
quickly? Should we specify a level at which a provider's rate is too
high to be considered
[[Page 16458]]
reasonable, even if the provider offers the same rate in both urban and
rural areas?
9. Should the presumption apply if a carrier offered different
pricing plans in different regions of the country, so long as its rates
are uniform within a region across both rural and urban areas? Should
such a presumption apply for carriers that operate only in one state?
In the latter case, would it be sufficient if the provider offered
uniform pricing within its footprint, so long as that included urban
areas? If we were to take such an approach, consistent with our
proposal for the urban rate survey, we propose to define ``urban'' as
all 2010 Census urban areas and urban clusters that sit within a
Metropolitan Statistical Area. We seek comment on this proposal.
10. The Bureau has proposed an urban rate survey instrument to
gather data relating to fixed voice and fixed broadband prices and
associated usage allowances, if any, in the urban areas, but we do not
anticipate those data will be available by the time the Bureau
implements Phase II in the months ahead. In the absence of data from a
rate survey, should we establish an interim reasonable comparability
benchmark that a competitive provider would need to meet in order to be
deemed an unsubsidized competitor? The Bureau recently sought comment
on potential benchmarks that could be used for the Remote Areas Fund,
at least on an interim basis until rate survey data become available.
We now seek comment on benchmarks to use for determining who is an
unsubsidized competitor in the near term for Phase II implementation in
areas that will not be served by the Remote Areas Fund.
11. In particular, the Commission's prior reasonable comparability
benchmark for voice service for non-rural carriers was $36.52. Would it
be reasonable to presume any provider offering voice service at or
below $37 meets the reasonable comparability requirement for voice
service, at least for purposes of determining whether a particular
Census block should be excluded from the state-level offer of support?
12. We note that several large fixed terrestrial providers offer
broadband at speeds close to the Commission's 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps
upstream benchmark at prices ranging from $45 to $49.95 per month.
Would setting a reasonable comparability benchmark for broadband
service at a somewhat higher level, such as $60, be a reasonable
approach for determining who is an unsubsidized competitor when
identifying Census blocks that would be excluded from the state-level
offer of support in Phase II? Should that figure be lower or higher?
13. With respect to the Commission's usage requirement, we propose
to set a uniform minimum usage allowance that would apply both to price
cap carriers that make a statewide commitment as well as to
unsubsidized competitors that would preclude a Census block from being
funded. We seek comment on this proposal.
14. We propose to adopt a minimum usage allowance for purposes of
finalizing the locations that will receive support to be offered to
price cap carriers in Connect America Phase II. This minimum usage
allowance would be associated with the rate established for the
reasonable comparability benchmark for broadband service; consumers in
supported areas would be free to purchase additional gigabytes of data
above the required minimum usage allowance. We seek comment on this
proposal.
15. One way to set a minimum usage allowance would be to estimate
the amount of data needed to accomplish various user activities that
the Connect America Fund will advance. A similar approach was used to
set the minimum broadband speed requirements for Connect America. Chart
1 below provides estimates of what activities are possible under
varying data allowances, taking into account potential activities
relating to education, health, employment, e-commerce, and civic
engagement. Chart 1 shows the cumulative illustrative activities a
household could undertake under various data allowances. We seek
comment on this analysis.
Chart 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data allowance
Critical use category Activity ------------------------------------------------------
20 GB 40 GB 60 GB 80 GB 100 GB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online College Coursework....... Hours per week of 3 6 9 12 15
interactive video
courses.
Web sites loaded per 45 90 135 180 225
day for course work.
Emails per day for 20 40 60 80 100
coursework.
Secondary Schooling............. Hours per week of 6 12 18 24 30
educational video.
Websites loaded per day 30 60 90 120 150
for homework or
learning management
systems.
Emails per day......... 20 40 60 80 100
Household's Other Critical Uses. Online medical 1 2 3 4 5
consultations (30
min.) every two months.
Web sites loaded per 55 110 165 220 275
day for job searching,
government services,
news or banking.
Emails per adult per 20 40 60 80 100
day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Given the calculations in Chart 1, would 100 GB be a reasonable
upper bound for a minimum usage allowance? Using a higher figure, such
as 100 GB, would account for the growth in video usage for education
and communication purposes over the next five years. It would also
allow for other new and unanticipated uses that Chart 1 does not
account for. Alternatively, should we instead adopt a lower value, such
as 60 GB, but increase that requirement over time to reflect growing
average data consumption, as discussed below?
17. As an alternative to setting the minimum usage allowance based
on a set of potential user activities, we could set the minimum usage
allowance based on current average usage. We note that according to one
source, during the second half of 2012, the median monthly data
consumption for fixed services in North America was 16.8 GB per
subscriber. According to the most recent Commission speed testing data
released in February 2013, the median weighted consumption of
volunteers participating in the Measuring Broadband America (MBA)
program for all fixed terrestrial technologies was 32.3 GB per month,
with approximately 90 percent of surveyed digital subscriber line (DSL)
subscribers in September
[[Page 16459]]
2012 using less than 100 GB per month. Should we set the Phase II
minimum usage allowance based on such data? Given that the vast
majority of DSL users in the MBA program today use less capacity than
100 GB per month, would that be an appropriate usage allowance
requirement for carriers electing to make a statewide commitment in
Phase II and for other providers to be deemed an unsubsidized
competitor? Is such data representative of typical users, and if not,
is there an alternative data source we should consider? What would be
the implications of setting the minimum usage allowance higher or
lower? In particular, what are the technical constraints that limit the
capacity providers are able to offer, and what are the factors that
would raise or lower deployment costs if we raise or lower the minimum
usage allowance requirement? We assume some percentage of an average
household's data is consumed in entertainment purposes. Should that be
factored into our calculations? To the extent commenters believe the
required minimum usage allowance should be higher or lower, they should
provide specific data and analyses in support of their positions.
18. Should we set an initial usage allowance that would be required
for the first year of Phase II implementation, but require that usage
allowance to grow in future years, consistent with the growth in
consumer usage observed in the marketplace? We note that Cisco projects
that North American consumer usage will grow by 14 percent in 2014, 21
percent in 2015, and 25 percent in 2016. The model developed by
Commission staff for the Broadband Plan assumed that customer usage of
fixed broadband would grow by approximately 30 percent annually. How
could such a requirement be structured to provide sufficient clarity to
providers at the time they make a statewide commitment of how their
obligations would evolve over time? What objective metric or external
data source should determine the growth in usage allowances over time?
If we were to adopt such an approach, should the usage level be
adjusted annually, bi-annually, or on some other schedule?
19. Latency. The USF/ICC Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830,
November 29, 2011, requires ETCs to provide latency sufficient for real
time applications, such as VoIP. In adopting this requirement, the
Commission noted that broadband testing results showed most terrestrial
wireline technologies can reliably provide round trip latency of less
than 100 milliseconds (ms). The June 2012 testing results show that the
average peak period round trip UDP latency for all wireline terrestrial
technologies is less than 60 ms.
20. To implement the Commission's latency requirement when offering
support to price cap carriers in Phase II and determining who is an
unsubsidized competitor in Phase II, should we establish a specific
numerical latency standard? Because performance during peak usage is
important to ensuring the consumers have adequate service, we believe a
testing under load standard would be appropriate, if we adopt a
specific standard. For instance, would it meet the Commission's
requirements if an average of 95 percent of all measurements of network
round trip latency under load during peak period (defined as weeknights
between 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. local time) between the customer
premises (or as close to the customer premises as technically possible)
to the provider's transit or peering interconnection point (often
referred to as an Internet exchange point) were at or below 60 ms?
Should that number be set lower or higher, and if so, why? To provide a
factual basis for a price cap carrier or potential unsubsidized carrier
to establish it is meeting the Commission's requirements, should a
latency test be conducted over a minimum of two consecutive weeks
during peak hours for at least 50 randomly-selected customer premises
using existing network management systems, ping tests, or other
commonly available network measurement tools? Should the testing period
be longer or shorter? Should the number of customer premise be higher
or lower? We seek comment on whether this approach would provide
sufficient clarity to potential support recipients and unsubsidized
providers regarding their service obligations.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
21. The USF/ICC Transformation Order included an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the
potential impact on small entities of the Commission's proposal. We
invite parties to file comments on the IRFA in light of this additional
notice.
B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
22. 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.''
C. Filing Requirements
23. Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments
are to reference WC Docket No. 10-90 and DA 13-284 and 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.
24. 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
[[Page 16460]]
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) Ryan Yates, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline
Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 6-B-441A, Washington, DC
20554; email: Ryan.Yates@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.
25. This matter 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.
Federal Communications Commission.
Kimberly A. Scardino,
Acting Division Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013-06047 Filed 3-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P