Connect America Fund, 32991-32995 [2013-12985]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 106 / Monday, June 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: May 7, 2013.
Gregory G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2013–12998 Filed 5–31–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Part 433
[CMS–2327–CN]
RIN 0938–AR38
Medicaid Program; Increased Federal
Medical Assistance Percentage
Changes Under the Affordable Care
Act of 2010; Correction
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
This document corrects a
typographical error that appeared in the
final rule published in the April 2, 2013
Federal Register entitled ‘‘Medicaid
Program; Increased Federal Medical
Assistance Percentage Changes Under
the Affordable Care Act of 2010.’’
DATES: Effective June 3, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Annette Brewer, (410) 786–6580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
In FR Doc. 2013–07599 of April 2,
2013 (78 FR 19918), there was a
typographical error that is identified
and corrected in the Correction of Error
section below. The provision in this
correction notice is effective as if it had
been included in the document
published April 2, 2013. Accordingly,
the correction is effective on June 3,
2013.
II. Summary of Error
we can waive this notice and comment
procedure if the Secretary finds, for
good cause, that the notice and
comment process is impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest, and incorporates a statement of
the finding and the reasons therefore in
the notice.
Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily
requires a 30-day delay in effective date
of final rules after the date of their
publication in the Federal Register.
This 30-day delay in effective date can
be waived, however, if an agency finds
for good cause that the delay is
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest, and the agency
incorporates a statement of the findings
and its reasons in the rule issued.
The correction notice corrects a
typographical error, and does not
warrant an additional notice and
comment period or a delay in the
effective date. The typographical error
was clear and the meaning of the
provision remained evident; so such
procedures are unnecessary. Further,
correction of the typographical error
will serve the public interest by
reducing any potential for confusion.
Therefore, we find good cause to waive
requirements for proposed rulemaking
and the delayed effective date.
Consequently, this correction will be
effective on June 3, 2013.
IV. Correction of Error
In FR Doc. 2013–07599 of April 2,
2013 (78 FR 19918), make the following
correction:
On page 19947, in the 1st column; in
the 1st paragraph, on line 1, the
reference ‘‘§ 433.210(c)(6) of (c)(8),’’
should be corrected to read,
‘‘§ 433.210(c)(6) or (c)(8)’’.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance
Program)
Dated: May 29, 2013.
Jennifer Cannistra,
Executive Secretary to the Department,
Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2013–13151 Filed 5–31–13; 8:45 am]
III. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
In the April 2, 2013, we inadvertently
made a typographical error in the
reference cited in the regulations text at
§ 433.206(h). The text currently states,
‘‘§ 433.210(c)(6) of (c)(8),’’ and it should
be corrected to read, ‘‘§ 433.210(c)(6) or
(c)(8).’’
47 CFR Part 54
We ordinarily publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register to provide a period for public
comment before the provisions of a rule
take effect in accordance with section
553(b) of the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However,
[WC Docket Nos. 10–90; DA 13–1113]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:55 May 31, 2013
Jkt 229001
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Connect America Fund
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32991
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) adopts a framework for
the challenge process that will be used
to finalize the list of areas that will be
eligible for Connect America Phase II
model-based support and adopts the
procedures for a price cap carrier to
elect to make a state-level commitment
to serve the eligible areas.
DATES: Effective July 3, 2013, except for
those rules and requirements involving
Paperwork Reduction Act burdens,
which shall become effective
immediately upon announcement in the
Federal Register of OMB approval.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ryan Yates, Wireline Competition
Bureau, (202) 418–0886 or TTY: (202)
418–0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Report
and Order in WC Docket No. 10–90; DA
13–1113, adopted on May 16, 2013, and
released on May 16, 2013. The full text
of this document is available for public
inspection during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Center,
Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554, or at the
following Internet address: https://
hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
attachmatch/DA–13–1113A1.pdf.
SUMMARY:
I. Introduction
1. In the USF/ICC Transformation
Order, 76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011,
the Commission comprehensively
reformed and modernized the universal
service and intercarrier compensation
systems to maintain voice service and
extend broadband-capable infrastructure
to millions of Americans. As part of the
reform, the Commission adopted a
framework for providing support to
areas served by price cap carriers known
as the Connect America Fund through
‘‘a combination of competitive bidding
and a new forward-looking model of the
cost of constructing modern multipurpose networks.’’ In particular, the
Commission will offer each price cap
carrier monthly model-based support for
a period of five years in exchange for a
state-level commitment to serve
specified areas that are not served by an
unsubsidized competitor, and if that
offer is not accepted, will determine
support through a competitive process.
2. In this Report and Order (Order),
the Wireline Competition Bureau
(Bureau) adopts a framework for the
challenge process that will be used to
finalize the list of areas that will be
eligible for Connect America Phase II
model-based support and adopts the
procedures for a price cap carrier to
elect to make a state-level commitment
E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM
03JNR1
32992
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 106 / Monday, June 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
to serve the eligible areas. We
particularly encourage state public
utility commissions and broadband
mapping authorities to participate in the
challenge process and provide any
information they believe to be relevant
to our consideration of which census
blocks should be eligible for the offer of
Phase II model-based support.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Discussion
A. Phase II Footprint Challenge Process
3. The Phase II footprint challenge
process will allow interested parties to
provide input on the preliminary list of
what areas should be deemed unserved
by an unsubsidized competitor, and
therefore eligible for Phase II modelbased support. Section 54.5 of the
Commission’s rules defines an
unsubsidized competitor as ‘‘a facilitiesbased provider of residential terrestrial
fixed voice and broadband service that
does not receive high-cost support.’’ In
this order, we set forth the basic
framework regarding the use of
presumptions, evidentiary showing, and
timing of the challenge process for
census blocks where Phase II funding
will be offered to price cap carriers.
4. Consistent with the framework
established in the USF/ICC
Transformation Order, an unsubsidized
competitor in areas where the price cap
carrier will be offered model-based
support must meet the speed criteria
established by the Commission for fixed
broadband service (i.e., a provider that
offers 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps
upstream service (4 Mbps/1 Mbps)), as
well as non-speed broadband criteria
(i.e., latency, capacity, and price) and
provide voice service. In order to
conduct the challenge process
efficiently, we will develop the initial
list of eligible census blocks based on
coverage shown on the National
Broadband Map, and the reporting of
voice subscriptions on FCC Form 477,
and then will conduct a challenge
process that will provide an opportunity
for parties to challenge that preliminary
determination.
5. Broadband Service. Under the
Commission’s rules, an unsubsidized
competitor must offer fixed broadband
with speeds of at least 4 Mbps/1 Mbps.
We will presume that the National
Broadband Map is accurate with regard
to the speed of services being offered by
broadband providers, with that
presumption subject to rebuttal. Because
the National Broadband Map does not
contain data specifically for the 4 Mbps/
1 Mbps benchmark, we will use the
National Broadband Map’s 3 Mbps
downstream and 768 kbps upstream (3
Mbps/768 kbps) advertised speed as a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:55 May 31, 2013
Jkt 229001
proxy for 4 Mbps/1 Mbps. After
consideration of the record, we see no
reason to depart, for purposes of Phase
II implementation, from the 3 Mbps/768
kbps proxy generally recognized by
Commission. Therefore, any terrestrial,
fixed provider shown on the National
Broadband Map as offering broadband
with speeds of 3 Mbps/768 kbps will be
presumed to provide broadband service
meeting the speed requirement of 4
Mbps/1 Mbps.
6. While the National Broadband Map
provides valuable information regarding
the availability of broadband service
meeting specified speed tiers, it does
not address the other criteria that the
Commission has indicated are relevant
to determining whether an entity should
be deemed an unsubsidized competitor.
There is no alternative suitable nationallevel source that we can rely upon to
make this determination. There is ample
evidence in the record, however, that
providers that meet the speed
requirement generally meet our other
performance criteria. For administrative
ease, therefore, we conclude that it is
reasonable to presume that providers
that provide broadband of the required
speed also meet the non-speed
broadband criteria, with that
presumption subject to rebuttal in
particular instances.
7. It serves the public interest to
presume existing providers that meet
the speed criteria also meet the nonspeed criteria for broadband service.
This presumption places price cap
carriers in the position of contesting a
preliminary decision to not provide
funding to a particular census block,
rather than requiring unsubsidized
competitors to contest a decision to
fund a census block. This is both
equitable and efficient. First, requiring
price cap carriers to file a challenge
likely will reduce the overall burden on
respondents and the Commission while
placing the burden on the party
potentially receiving funds. Second, we
conclude this presumption is generally
accurate in the majority of cases. The
preliminary classification of a block as
served will serve to err on the side of
not providing funding, while still giving
the opportunity for the price cap carrier
to demonstrate that a block should be
funded.
8. Voice Service. Under the
Commission’s rules, an entity must
provide ‘‘residential terrestrial fixed
voice and broadband service’’ in order
to be deemed an unsubsidized
competitor. We conclude that the ability
of the consumer to obtain voice service
from a third party is not sufficient for
that broadband provider to be deemed
an unsubsidized competitor for
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
purposes of Phase II implementation
because that broadband provider would
not be offering a voice service. Such an
interpretation would effectively read the
requirement that the unsubsidized
competitor be a ‘‘provider’’ of ‘‘voice’’
out of the Commission’s adopted
definition, as all broadband connections
offer the capability to receive an ‘‘over
the top’’ voice over Internet protocol
(VoIP) service from a third party.
Therefore, we interpret the
Commission’s definition as requiring
the provider itself to provide voice
service, in addition to broadband, in
order to be designated an unsubsidized
competitor.
9. We conclude, based on our FCC
Form 477 data, that it would be
unreasonable to presume that all
broadband providers shown on the
National Broadband Map are also
providing voice service. We therefore
will utilize both Form 477 data and the
National Broadband Map when
developing the initial list of blocks that
will be eligible for funding. A provider
will be presumed to be offering voice if
it reports voice subscribers for the
relevant state on its Form 477 filing,
with that presumption subject to
rebuttal. Supplementing the National
Broadband Map with the FCC’s Form
477 data will enable challenges to the
initial list of census blocks eligible for
funding to be more narrowly focused,
thereby reducing burdens on both
interested parties and Commission staff.
10. Given the above presumptions and
requirements, a provider will initially
be presumed an unsubsidized
competitor if (1) it is shown on the
National Broadband Map as offering at
least 3 Mbps/768 kbps and (2) it is
reporting voice subscriptions in the
relevant state on Form 477.
11. Challenges and Evidentiary
Showings. Based on the above
presumptions, the Bureau will publish a
list of census blocks that are
presumptively unserved by an
unsubsidized competitor. The challenge
process will focus on whether an area is
served by an unsubsidized competitor.
Parties may challenge this list in two
ways. They may argue that the list is
underinclusive—that a census block not
included on the list is not served by an
unsubsidized competitor and therefore
should be on the list of blocks eligible
for funding—or they may argue that the
list is overinclusive—that a census
block on the list is in fact served by an
unsubsidized competitor and therefore
should be excluded from the list.
12. We conclude that it is useful,
given the number of census blocks
potentially at issue in Phase II, to
provide some advance guidance
E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM
03JNR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 106 / Monday, June 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
regarding what sorts of evidentiary
showings will be persuasive, and to
define standards so that parties,
including small businesses, seeking to
challenge or rebut the eligibility of a
census block for funding can participate
in this process without unnecessary
burden or expense. Our objective is to
implement the Commission’s
requirement that funding not flow to an
area where there is an unsubsidized
competitor, while at the same time
ensuring that census blocks are not
unnecessarily excluded from funding.
13. To facilitate efficient and swift
review of any challenges, parties must
submit challenges in the format
specified by the Bureau. Challengers
will be required to provide the 15 digit
Federal Information Processing
Standard (FIPS) code and the state of
the block in question; the name of the
entity or entities putatively providing
disqualifying service to that block
according to the National Broadband
Map, if applicable; the service criteria at
issue; the type of supporting evidence
submitted as an attachment; and a
certification under penalty of perjury
that the challenger has engaged in due
diligence to verify statements in the
challenge and that such statements are
accurate to the best knowledge of the
filer. Furthermore, because the
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS) converts all files to .pdf format,
in addition to posting on ECFS, we will
also require parties to submit a copy of
any challenge in a native format to the
Commission, either by email to a
designated Commission staff member or
by delivery of storage media to a
designated Commission staff member or
the Commission Secretary. A proposed
form for filing challenge is available at
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
attachmatch/DA–13–1113A1.docx.
14. We require parties submitting
challenges to include specific evidence
as an attachment to the challenge in
support of their claims. For each
challenged block, parties must provide
evidence specifying the reason for the
challenge. A price cap carrier
contending that a particular census
block is unserved by an unsubsidized
competitor need only show that any one
of the criteria (speed, latency, capacity,
price, or voice) is not met. Given the
difficulty in proving a negative (i.e., that
service meeting defined criteria does not
exist in a particular block), we will
consider a variety of evidence in
determining whether the price cap
carrier has submitted sufficient
evidence to warrant placing the
challenge on public notice to solicit a
response from interested parties. For
example, a price cap carrier’s evidence
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:55 May 31, 2013
Jkt 229001
could consist of a signed certification
that an employee of the company
attempted to obtain service in a
particular block, but was unable to do
so, or that following a good faith search
of a provider’s advertising materials, it
was unable to find any offering
matching the Commission’s Phase II
service requirements. We would also
consider a signed certification from an
officer of the price cap carrier under
penalty of perjury, that it has not ported
a telephone number within the last year
(or a longer period of time) to the
purported unsubsidized competitor, as
relevant to whether that provider is
providing voice service. While we
recognize that some customers may
drop their landline service altogether, it
would be unusual for a competitor
offering voice service in the marketplace
to have no voice customers at all.
15. In those instances where a
potential unsubsidized competitor files
a challenge contending that it does serve
the area, notwithstanding evidence
establishing a presumption that the
block is unserved, evidence that it
actually is providing voice and
broadband service to customers in the
relevant area is likely to be the most
persuasive evidence. Thus,
certifications relating to the number of
customers, revenues received from
customers, or customer lists (with
customer identifying information
redacted to preserve customer privacy)
are likely to be more persuasive than
propagation maps, advertisements of
service offerings, or officer
certifications, standing alone, that
service is actually and immediately
available—although we will consider
each of the latter forms of evidence. We
recognize that producing evidence
demonstrating the existence of actual
customers may be more difficult for
potential competitors that have only
recently begun to serve an area, but also
seek some assurance that a provider is
not merely advertising temporary or
hypothetical service as a means of
precluding Phase II funding for the price
cap carrier.
16. Likewise, parties opposing
challenges must provide, for each
challenged census block they wish to
contest, concrete and verifiable
evidence supporting their claims that
the challenge should not be granted. A
corresponding evidentiary burden
applies: respondents attempting to show
that a block is served must show that all
of the Commission’s criteria are met,
while respondents attempting to show
that a block is unserved need only show
that any one of the criteria is not met.
We will consider an officer certification
that a provider serves a particular
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32993
census block with service meeting all of
the Commission’s criteria as some
evidence that service exists; however,
such a certification would be more
persuasive if supported by other
evidence, such as advertising materials,
certifications relating to the number of
customers and/or revenues received
from customers, or customer lists (with
customer identifying information
redacted to preserve customer privacy).
We also require that an officer of the
company making or opposing a
challenge certify to the accuracy of the
information provided, subject to the
penalties for false statements imposed
under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Challenges and
responses that do not meet these criteria
will not be considered by the Bureau.
17. We conclude this process will
provide the Bureau with an adequate
evidentiary basis for making a
determination that a particular census
block is or is not served by an
unsubsidized competitor, without
unduly delaying implementation of
Phase II. We are not persuaded by
USTelecom’s proposal that state
mapping authorities contact all
broadband providers to determine
whether they meet each element of the
Commission’s service obligation.
Simply put, that suggestion would
potentially delay completion of the
challenge process, and more
importantly, would impose an
unanticipated, unfunded burden on the
state mapping authorities.
18. We will require parties to make a
good faith effort to serve notice of
challenges on interested parties. For a
challenge that a listed census block is in
fact served, the interested party is the
price cap carrier in whose territory the
block falls. For a challenge that a block
not on the list is unserved, the
interested party is any and all entities
that are shown on the National
Broadband Map as providing service to
that census block. This notice will assist
challenged parties who may not
routinely monitor the Commission’s
daily digest for public notices. However,
we recognize that in some
circumstances it may prove impossible
or exceedingly difficult to identify and
locate the particular person that should
be given service for a provider;
therefore, we stop short of requiring
service of actual notice. A challenger
must include a certification along with
its challenge that it has made a good
faith attempt at providing notice to the
interested party.
19. Once the challenges have been
filed in ECFS, the Bureau will review all
submissions to verify that evidence has
been submitted to make a prima facie
case and then issue a Public Notice
E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM
03JNR1
32994
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 106 / Monday, June 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
specifying those blocks for which
rebuttals may be submitted. This Public
Notice will be the official notice of all
challenges, and will specify the date by
which responses must be submitted.
20. Challengers will have 45 days
from the date of the public notice
announcing the initial eligible census
blocks to submit their challenges.
Respondents will have 45 days from the
date of the public notice announcing the
list of census blocks that warrant a
response to submit replies to the
challenges. This time period should give
parties a sufficient opportunity to
formulate their challenges and
responses. This time period is
consistent with that generally requested
by commenters. After the close of the
reply period, the Bureau will consider
the challenges and responses. Where the
Bureau concludes that the evidence
shows it is more likely than not that the
status of a census block should be
changed, the Bureau will make the
appropriate adjustment to the list of
eligible census blocks, which will be
published in a subsequent public notice
setting forth the finalized list of eligible
census blocks.
21. Finally, we conclude that we will
not permit challenges below the census
block level, such as a challenge that a
particular location or group of homes
within a census block is unserved. Any
partially served census block will be
treated as served. There are more than
6 million census blocks in price cap
service territories. Conducting a subblock challenge process on millions of
blocks would pose significant burdens
on both potential unsubsidized
competitors as well as Bureau staff. We
conclude that the administrative burden
of constructing and carrying out a subcensus block challenge process far
outweighs any marginal benefit from
such a process.
B. Process for Electing To Make a Statelevel Commitment
22. We also sought comment in the
Phase II Challenge Process Public
Notice, 78 FR 4100, January 18, 2013,
regarding the procedures for a carrier to
elect to make a state-level commitment
in Phase II of Connect America. In this
Order, we announce the procedures that
a carrier must follow to make such an
election.
23. After completion of the challenge
process described above, the Bureau
will release a public notice announcing
Connect America Cost Modeldetermined support amounts for each
incumbent price cap carrier’s funded
census blocks within a given state. After
the release of that public notice,
incumbent price cap carriers will be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:55 May 31, 2013
Jkt 229001
given 120 days to accept or decline that
support on a state-by-state basis for each
state they serve. While some
commenters argued that a longer
election period is necessary, we
conclude that 120 days strikes a balance
by providing sufficient time for
consideration and ensuring that
transition into Phase II is completed
within a reasonable timetable.
24. To elect to accept the support
amount for a state, a carrier must submit
a letter signed by an officer of the
company declaring that the carrier
accepts the support amount and
commits to satisfy the service
obligations for Phase II. In its
acceptance letter, a carrier accepting
funding must also acknowledge that if it
fails to meet its service obligations, it
will be subject to the penalties and/or
enforcement actions, as specified by the
Commission. If a letter of credit or some
other form of security is required to
ensure compliance with these
obligations, such security must be
submitted along with the letter
accepting Phase II support.
25. We are persuaded that requiring
elections to be publicly disclosed, after
a brief period of Bureau review to
confirm facial completeness, will serve
the public interest by enabling
consumers, state regulators, other
providers in the area, and other
interested parties to know that a
particular area will be served through
Phase II. The Bureau will specify in a
public notice the specific procedures for
submitting acceptances to a designated
Commission staff member. This will
give the Bureau an opportunity to
review the acceptances before elections
are publicly announced. Once this
review is complete, the finalized
elections will not be afforded
confidentiality.
26. We sought comment as to what
information we should require carriers
to submit when making their elections.
After further consideration, we
conclude that it would not be
productive to require carriers to specify
at the time the election is made the
specific locations where they intend to
provide 6 Mbps downstream/1.5 Mbps
upstream service, or where specifically
they anticipate meeting their third year
85 percent buildout milestones.
Deployment plans may change over the
course of the five-year Phase II buildout
period, and requiring carriers to declare
this information up front would impose
a significant burden on carriers
accepting funding, while providing only
limited benefit to the Commission and
the public. Furthermore, by not
requiring this additional information,
carriers should be better able to make
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
their elections within the 120-day
window provided.
27. A carrier may elect to decline
funding for a given state by submitting
a letter signed by an officer of the
company noting it does not accept
Phase II support for that state.
Alternatively, if a carrier fails to submit
any election letter by the close of the
120-day election period, it will be
deemed to have declined support.
28. Carriers are bound by their
election decisions. After the close of the
election period, a carrier may not retract
its election, nor may it return support in
exchange for being relieved of its
obligations under Phase II. Such actions
will have no effect. Thus, in the case of
a carrier that accepted funding, the
carrier will still be obligated to meet its
deployment obligations and will face
the same penalties as any carrier that
fails to satisfy its obligations. This
restriction is necessary not only to
ensure the integrity of the state-level
commitment process, but also to
efficiently conduct the planning and
implementation of auctions for areas in
which carriers declined to make statelevel commitments.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
29. This document contains new
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. It
will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under section 3507(d) of the
PRA. OMB, the general public, and
other Federal agencies are invited to
comment on the new information
collection requirements contained in
this proceeding. In addition, we note
that pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4),
we previously sought specific comment
on how the Commission might further
reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees.
30. In this present document, we have
assessed the effects of the procedures for
electing to make a statewide
commitment under Phase II and find
that no businesses with fewer than 25
employees will be directly affected. We
have structured the challenge process to
minimize burdens on businesses with
fewer than 25 employees. Unsubsidized
competitors, many of which are small
businesses, will face reduced burden
due to the use of presumptions that a
provider meeting the speed requirement
also meets the other non-speed criteria.
Furthermore, specifying the format and
E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM
03JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 106 / Monday, June 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
probative evidence for the challenge
process in advance will likely provide
certainty to small businesses in filing
any challenges and reduce the burden
on such parties.
B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
31. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended (RFA) requires that a
regulatory flexibility analysis be
prepared for rulemaking proceedings,
unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.’’ The RFA generally defines
‘‘small entity’’ as having the same
meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’
‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition,
the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same
meaning as the term ‘‘small business
concern’’ under the Small Business Act.
A small business concern is one which:
(1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the
Small Business Administration (SBA).
32. This Order implements the rules
adopted by the Commission in the USF/
ICC Transformation Order. These
clarifications do not create any burdens,
benefits, or requirements that were not
addressed by the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis attached to the
USF/ICC Transformation Order.
Therefore, we certify that the
requirements of this order will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Commission will send a copy of the
order including a copy of this final
certification, in a report to Congress
pursuant to SBREFA. In addition, the
order and this certification will be sent
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration, and
will be published in the Federal
Register.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. Congressional Review Act
33. The Commission will send a copy
of this order to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act.
IV. Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 201–206,
214, 218–220, 254, 303(r), and 403 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47
U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201–206, 214, 218–
220, 254, 303(r), 403, 1302, sections 0.91
and 0.291 of the Commission’s rules, 47
CFR 0.91, 0.291, and the delegations of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:55 May 31, 2013
Jkt 229001
authority in paragraphs 103, 170, and
171 of the USF/ICC Transformation
Order, FCC 11–161, this Report and
Order is adopted, effective July 3, 2013,
except for those rules and requirements
involving Paperwork Reduction Act
burdens, which shall become effective
immediately upon announcement in the
Federal Register of OMB approval.
Federal Comunications Commission.
Julie Veach,
Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013–12985 Filed 5–31–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 120403249–2492–02]
RIN 0648–XC671
Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South
Atlantic; 2013 Recreational
Accountability Measure and Closure
for South Atlantic Golden Tilefish
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; closure.
AGENCY:
NMFS implements
accountability measures (AMs) for the
recreational sector of golden tilefish in
the South Atlantic for the 2013 fishing
year through this temporary rule.
Recreational landings from 2012, as
estimated by the Science and Research
Director (SRD), exceeded the
recreational annual catch limit (ACL) for
golden tilefish. Furthermore,
information from 2013 recreational
landings indicate that landings are
projected to reach the recreational ACL
on June 3, 2013. To account for the 2012
ACL overage and to prevent an ACL
overage in 2013, NMFS closes the
recreational sector for golden tilefish on
June 3, 2013. This closure is necessary
to protect the golden tilefish resource.
DATES: This rule is effective 12:01 a.m.,
local time, June 3, 2013, until 12:01
a.m., local time, January 1, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Catherine Hayslip, telephone: 727–824–
5305, email:
Catherine.Hayslip@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
snapper-grouper fishery of the South
Atlantic, which includes golden tilefish,
is managed under the Fishery
Management Plan for the SnapperSUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32995
Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic
Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared
by the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council and is
implemented under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations
at 50 CFR part 622.
The recreational ACL for golden
tilefish is 3,019 fish. In accordance with
regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(a)(2), if
recreational landings reach or are
projected to reach the recreational ACL,
the Assistant Administrator, NMFS
(AA) will file a notification with the
Office of the Federal Register to close
the recreational sector for the remainder
of the fishing year. If the recreational
ACL is exceeded, then during the
following fishing year, recreational
landings will be monitored for a
persistence in increased landings and, if
necessary, the AA will file a notification
with the Office of the Federal Register
to reduce the length of the following
fishing season by the amount necessary
to ensure landings do not exceed the
recreational ACL in the following
fishing year. Finalized landings data
from the NMFS Southeast Fisheries
Science Center indicate that the golden
tilefish recreational ACL was exceeded
by 560 fish in 2012. Landings
information received thus far in 2013
indicate 2,985 golden tilefish have been
caught and the recreational ACL of
3,019 fish is projected to be met on June
3, 2013. Therefore, this temporary rule
implements an AM to close the
recreational golden tilefish component
of the snapper-grouper fishery for the
remainder of the 2013 fishing year. As
a result, the recreational sector for
golden tilefish will be closed effective
12:01 a.m., local time June 3, 2013.
During the closure, the bag and
possession limit for golden tilefish in or
from the South Atlantic exclusive
economic zone is zero. The recreational
sector for golden tilefish will reopen on
January 1, 2014, the beginning of the
2014 recreational fishing season.
Classification
The Regional Administrator,
Southeast Region, NMFS, (RA) has
determined this temporary rule is
necessary for the conservation and
management of the South Atlantic
golden tilefish component of the South
Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR
622.193(a)(2) and is exempt from review
under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the
procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility
E:\FR\FM\03JNR1.SGM
03JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 106 (Monday, June 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32991-32995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12985]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket Nos. 10-90; DA 13-1113]
Connect America Fund
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) adopts a framework for the challenge process that will be
used to finalize the list of areas that will be eligible for Connect
America Phase II model-based support and adopts the procedures for a
price cap carrier to elect to make a state-level commitment to serve
the eligible areas.
DATES: Effective July 3, 2013, except for those rules and requirements
involving Paperwork Reduction Act burdens, which shall become effective
immediately upon announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Yates, Wireline Competition
Bureau, (202) 418-0886 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order in WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 13-1113, adopted on May 16, 2013,
and released on May 16, 2013. The full text of this document is
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC
20554, or at the following Internet address: https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1113A1.pdf.
I. Introduction
1. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830, November 29,
2011, the Commission comprehensively reformed and modernized the
universal service and intercarrier compensation systems to maintain
voice service and extend broadband-capable infrastructure to millions
of Americans. As part of the reform, the Commission adopted a framework
for providing support to areas served by price cap carriers known as
the Connect America Fund through ``a combination of competitive bidding
and a new forward-looking model of the cost of constructing modern
multi-purpose networks.'' In particular, the Commission will offer each
price cap carrier monthly model-based support for a period of five
years in exchange for a state-level commitment to serve specified areas
that are not served by an unsubsidized competitor, and if that offer is
not accepted, will determine support through a competitive process.
2. In this Report and Order (Order), the Wireline Competition
Bureau (Bureau) adopts a framework for the challenge process that will
be used to finalize the list of areas that will be eligible for Connect
America Phase II model-based support and adopts the procedures for a
price cap carrier to elect to make a state-level commitment
[[Page 32992]]
to serve the eligible areas. We particularly encourage state public
utility commissions and broadband mapping authorities to participate in
the challenge process and provide any information they believe to be
relevant to our consideration of which census blocks should be eligible
for the offer of Phase II model-based support.
II. Discussion
A. Phase II Footprint Challenge Process
3. The Phase II footprint challenge process will allow interested
parties to provide input on the preliminary list of what areas should
be deemed unserved by an unsubsidized competitor, and therefore
eligible for Phase II model-based support. Section 54.5 of the
Commission's rules defines an unsubsidized competitor as ``a
facilities-based provider of residential terrestrial fixed voice and
broadband service that does not receive high-cost support.'' In this
order, we set forth the basic framework regarding the use of
presumptions, evidentiary showing, and timing of the challenge process
for census blocks where Phase II funding will be offered to price cap
carriers.
4. Consistent with the framework established in the USF/ICC
Transformation Order, an unsubsidized competitor in areas where the
price cap carrier will be offered model-based support must meet the
speed criteria established by the Commission for fixed broadband
service (i.e., a provider that offers 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream
service (4 Mbps/1 Mbps)), as well as non-speed broadband criteria
(i.e., latency, capacity, and price) and provide voice service. In
order to conduct the challenge process efficiently, we will develop the
initial list of eligible census blocks based on coverage shown on the
National Broadband Map, and the reporting of voice subscriptions on FCC
Form 477, and then will conduct a challenge process that will provide
an opportunity for parties to challenge that preliminary determination.
5. Broadband Service. Under the Commission's rules, an unsubsidized
competitor must offer fixed broadband with speeds of at least 4 Mbps/1
Mbps. We will presume that the National Broadband Map is accurate with
regard to the speed of services being offered by broadband providers,
with that presumption subject to rebuttal. Because the National
Broadband Map does not contain data specifically for the 4 Mbps/1 Mbps
benchmark, we will use the National Broadband Map's 3 Mbps downstream
and 768 kbps upstream (3 Mbps/768 kbps) advertised speed as a proxy for
4 Mbps/1 Mbps. After consideration of the record, we see no reason to
depart, for purposes of Phase II implementation, from the 3 Mbps/768
kbps proxy generally recognized by Commission. Therefore, any
terrestrial, fixed provider shown on the National Broadband Map as
offering broadband with speeds of 3 Mbps/768 kbps will be presumed to
provide broadband service meeting the speed requirement of 4 Mbps/1
Mbps.
6. While the National Broadband Map provides valuable information
regarding the availability of broadband service meeting specified speed
tiers, it does not address the other criteria that the Commission has
indicated are relevant to determining whether an entity should be
deemed an unsubsidized competitor. There is no alternative suitable
national-level source that we can rely upon to make this determination.
There is ample evidence in the record, however, that providers that
meet the speed requirement generally meet our other performance
criteria. For administrative ease, therefore, we conclude that it is
reasonable to presume that providers that provide broadband of the
required speed also meet the non-speed broadband criteria, with that
presumption subject to rebuttal in particular instances.
7. It serves the public interest to presume existing providers that
meet the speed criteria also meet the non-speed criteria for broadband
service. This presumption places price cap carriers in the position of
contesting a preliminary decision to not provide funding to a
particular census block, rather than requiring unsubsidized competitors
to contest a decision to fund a census block. This is both equitable
and efficient. First, requiring price cap carriers to file a challenge
likely will reduce the overall burden on respondents and the Commission
while placing the burden on the party potentially receiving funds.
Second, we conclude this presumption is generally accurate in the
majority of cases. The preliminary classification of a block as served
will serve to err on the side of not providing funding, while still
giving the opportunity for the price cap carrier to demonstrate that a
block should be funded.
8. Voice Service. Under the Commission's rules, an entity must
provide ``residential terrestrial fixed voice and broadband service''
in order to be deemed an unsubsidized competitor. We conclude that the
ability of the consumer to obtain voice service from a third party is
not sufficient for that broadband provider to be deemed an unsubsidized
competitor for purposes of Phase II implementation because that
broadband provider would not be offering a voice service. Such an
interpretation would effectively read the requirement that the
unsubsidized competitor be a ``provider'' of ``voice'' out of the
Commission's adopted definition, as all broadband connections offer the
capability to receive an ``over the top'' voice over Internet protocol
(VoIP) service from a third party. Therefore, we interpret the
Commission's definition as requiring the provider itself to provide
voice service, in addition to broadband, in order to be designated an
unsubsidized competitor.
9. We conclude, based on our FCC Form 477 data, that it would be
unreasonable to presume that all broadband providers shown on the
National Broadband Map are also providing voice service. We therefore
will utilize both Form 477 data and the National Broadband Map when
developing the initial list of blocks that will be eligible for
funding. A provider will be presumed to be offering voice if it reports
voice subscribers for the relevant state on its Form 477 filing, with
that presumption subject to rebuttal. Supplementing the National
Broadband Map with the FCC's Form 477 data will enable challenges to
the initial list of census blocks eligible for funding to be more
narrowly focused, thereby reducing burdens on both interested parties
and Commission staff.
10. Given the above presumptions and requirements, a provider will
initially be presumed an unsubsidized competitor if (1) it is shown on
the National Broadband Map as offering at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps and (2)
it is reporting voice subscriptions in the relevant state on Form 477.
11. Challenges and Evidentiary Showings. Based on the above
presumptions, the Bureau will publish a list of census blocks that are
presumptively unserved by an unsubsidized competitor. The challenge
process will focus on whether an area is served by an unsubsidized
competitor. Parties may challenge this list in two ways. They may argue
that the list is underinclusive--that a census block not included on
the list is not served by an unsubsidized competitor and therefore
should be on the list of blocks eligible for funding--or they may argue
that the list is overinclusive--that a census block on the list is in
fact served by an unsubsidized competitor and therefore should be
excluded from the list.
12. We conclude that it is useful, given the number of census
blocks potentially at issue in Phase II, to provide some advance
guidance
[[Page 32993]]
regarding what sorts of evidentiary showings will be persuasive, and to
define standards so that parties, including small businesses, seeking
to challenge or rebut the eligibility of a census block for funding can
participate in this process without unnecessary burden or expense. Our
objective is to implement the Commission's requirement that funding not
flow to an area where there is an unsubsidized competitor, while at the
same time ensuring that census blocks are not unnecessarily excluded
from funding.
13. To facilitate efficient and swift review of any challenges,
parties must submit challenges in the format specified by the Bureau.
Challengers will be required to provide the 15 digit Federal
Information Processing Standard (FIPS) code and the state of the block
in question; the name of the entity or entities putatively providing
disqualifying service to that block according to the National Broadband
Map, if applicable; the service criteria at issue; the type of
supporting evidence submitted as an attachment; and a certification
under penalty of perjury that the challenger has engaged in due
diligence to verify statements in the challenge and that such
statements are accurate to the best knowledge of the filer.
Furthermore, because the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS)
converts all files to .pdf format, in addition to posting on ECFS, we
will also require parties to submit a copy of any challenge in a native
format to the Commission, either by email to a designated Commission
staff member or by delivery of storage media to a designated Commission
staff member or the Commission Secretary. A proposed form for filing
challenge is available at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1113A1.docx.
14. We require parties submitting challenges to include specific
evidence as an attachment to the challenge in support of their claims.
For each challenged block, parties must provide evidence specifying the
reason for the challenge. A price cap carrier contending that a
particular census block is unserved by an unsubsidized competitor need
only show that any one of the criteria (speed, latency, capacity,
price, or voice) is not met. Given the difficulty in proving a negative
(i.e., that service meeting defined criteria does not exist in a
particular block), we will consider a variety of evidence in
determining whether the price cap carrier has submitted sufficient
evidence to warrant placing the challenge on public notice to solicit a
response from interested parties. For example, a price cap carrier's
evidence could consist of a signed certification that an employee of
the company attempted to obtain service in a particular block, but was
unable to do so, or that following a good faith search of a provider's
advertising materials, it was unable to find any offering matching the
Commission's Phase II service requirements. We would also consider a
signed certification from an officer of the price cap carrier under
penalty of perjury, that it has not ported a telephone number within
the last year (or a longer period of time) to the purported
unsubsidized competitor, as relevant to whether that provider is
providing voice service. While we recognize that some customers may
drop their landline service altogether, it would be unusual for a
competitor offering voice service in the marketplace to have no voice
customers at all.
15. In those instances where a potential unsubsidized competitor
files a challenge contending that it does serve the area,
notwithstanding evidence establishing a presumption that the block is
unserved, evidence that it actually is providing voice and broadband
service to customers in the relevant area is likely to be the most
persuasive evidence. Thus, certifications relating to the number of
customers, revenues received from customers, or customer lists (with
customer identifying information redacted to preserve customer privacy)
are likely to be more persuasive than propagation maps, advertisements
of service offerings, or officer certifications, standing alone, that
service is actually and immediately available--although we will
consider each of the latter forms of evidence. We recognize that
producing evidence demonstrating the existence of actual customers may
be more difficult for potential competitors that have only recently
begun to serve an area, but also seek some assurance that a provider is
not merely advertising temporary or hypothetical service as a means of
precluding Phase II funding for the price cap carrier.
16. Likewise, parties opposing challenges must provide, for each
challenged census block they wish to contest, concrete and verifiable
evidence supporting their claims that the challenge should not be
granted. A corresponding evidentiary burden applies: respondents
attempting to show that a block is served must show that all of the
Commission's criteria are met, while respondents attempting to show
that a block is unserved need only show that any one of the criteria is
not met. We will consider an officer certification that a provider
serves a particular census block with service meeting all of the
Commission's criteria as some evidence that service exists; however,
such a certification would be more persuasive if supported by other
evidence, such as advertising materials, certifications relating to the
number of customers and/or revenues received from customers, or
customer lists (with customer identifying information redacted to
preserve customer privacy). We also require that an officer of the
company making or opposing a challenge certify to the accuracy of the
information provided, subject to the penalties for false statements
imposed under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Challenges and responses that do not meet
these criteria will not be considered by the Bureau.
17. We conclude this process will provide the Bureau with an
adequate evidentiary basis for making a determination that a particular
census block is or is not served by an unsubsidized competitor, without
unduly delaying implementation of Phase II. We are not persuaded by
USTelecom's proposal that state mapping authorities contact all
broadband providers to determine whether they meet each element of the
Commission's service obligation. Simply put, that suggestion would
potentially delay completion of the challenge process, and more
importantly, would impose an unanticipated, unfunded burden on the
state mapping authorities.
18. We will require parties to make a good faith effort to serve
notice of challenges on interested parties. For a challenge that a
listed census block is in fact served, the interested party is the
price cap carrier in whose territory the block falls. For a challenge
that a block not on the list is unserved, the interested party is any
and all entities that are shown on the National Broadband Map as
providing service to that census block. This notice will assist
challenged parties who may not routinely monitor the Commission's daily
digest for public notices. However, we recognize that in some
circumstances it may prove impossible or exceedingly difficult to
identify and locate the particular person that should be given service
for a provider; therefore, we stop short of requiring service of actual
notice. A challenger must include a certification along with its
challenge that it has made a good faith attempt at providing notice to
the interested party.
19. Once the challenges have been filed in ECFS, the Bureau will
review all submissions to verify that evidence has been submitted to
make a prima facie case and then issue a Public Notice
[[Page 32994]]
specifying those blocks for which rebuttals may be submitted. This
Public Notice will be the official notice of all challenges, and will
specify the date by which responses must be submitted.
20. Challengers will have 45 days from the date of the public
notice announcing the initial eligible census blocks to submit their
challenges. Respondents will have 45 days from the date of the public
notice announcing the list of census blocks that warrant a response to
submit replies to the challenges. This time period should give parties
a sufficient opportunity to formulate their challenges and responses.
This time period is consistent with that generally requested by
commenters. After the close of the reply period, the Bureau will
consider the challenges and responses. Where the Bureau concludes that
the evidence shows it is more likely than not that the status of a
census block should be changed, the Bureau will make the appropriate
adjustment to the list of eligible census blocks, which will be
published in a subsequent public notice setting forth the finalized
list of eligible census blocks.
21. Finally, we conclude that we will not permit challenges below
the census block level, such as a challenge that a particular location
or group of homes within a census block is unserved. Any partially
served census block will be treated as served. There are more than 6
million census blocks in price cap service territories. Conducting a
sub-block challenge process on millions of blocks would pose
significant burdens on both potential unsubsidized competitors as well
as Bureau staff. We conclude that the administrative burden of
constructing and carrying out a sub-census block challenge process far
outweighs any marginal benefit from such a process.
B. Process for Electing To Make a State-level Commitment
22. We also sought comment in the Phase II Challenge Process Public
Notice, 78 FR 4100, January 18, 2013, regarding the procedures for a
carrier to elect to make a state-level commitment in Phase II of
Connect America. In this Order, we announce the procedures that a
carrier must follow to make such an election.
23. After completion of the challenge process described above, the
Bureau will release a public notice announcing Connect America Cost
Model-determined support amounts for each incumbent price cap carrier's
funded census blocks within a given state. After the release of that
public notice, incumbent price cap carriers will be given 120 days to
accept or decline that support on a state-by-state basis for each state
they serve. While some commenters argued that a longer election period
is necessary, we conclude that 120 days strikes a balance by providing
sufficient time for consideration and ensuring that transition into
Phase II is completed within a reasonable timetable.
24. To elect to accept the support amount for a state, a carrier
must submit a letter signed by an officer of the company declaring that
the carrier accepts the support amount and commits to satisfy the
service obligations for Phase II. In its acceptance letter, a carrier
accepting funding must also acknowledge that if it fails to meet its
service obligations, it will be subject to the penalties and/or
enforcement actions, as specified by the Commission. If a letter of
credit or some other form of security is required to ensure compliance
with these obligations, such security must be submitted along with the
letter accepting Phase II support.
25. We are persuaded that requiring elections to be publicly
disclosed, after a brief period of Bureau review to confirm facial
completeness, will serve the public interest by enabling consumers,
state regulators, other providers in the area, and other interested
parties to know that a particular area will be served through Phase II.
The Bureau will specify in a public notice the specific procedures for
submitting acceptances to a designated Commission staff member. This
will give the Bureau an opportunity to review the acceptances before
elections are publicly announced. Once this review is complete, the
finalized elections will not be afforded confidentiality.
26. We sought comment as to what information we should require
carriers to submit when making their elections. After further
consideration, we conclude that it would not be productive to require
carriers to specify at the time the election is made the specific
locations where they intend to provide 6 Mbps downstream/1.5 Mbps
upstream service, or where specifically they anticipate meeting their
third year 85 percent buildout milestones. Deployment plans may change
over the course of the five-year Phase II buildout period, and
requiring carriers to declare this information up front would impose a
significant burden on carriers accepting funding, while providing only
limited benefit to the Commission and the public. Furthermore, by not
requiring this additional information, carriers should be better able
to make their elections within the 120-day window provided.
27. A carrier may elect to decline funding for a given state by
submitting a letter signed by an officer of the company noting it does
not accept Phase II support for that state. Alternatively, if a carrier
fails to submit any election letter by the close of the 120-day
election period, it will be deemed to have declined support.
28. Carriers are bound by their election decisions. After the close
of the election period, a carrier may not retract its election, nor may
it return support in exchange for being relieved of its obligations
under Phase II. Such actions will have no effect. Thus, in the case of
a carrier that accepted funding, the carrier will still be obligated to
meet its deployment obligations and will face the same penalties as any
carrier that fails to satisfy its obligations. This restriction is
necessary not only to ensure the integrity of the state-level
commitment process, but also to efficiently conduct the planning and
implementation of auctions for areas in which carriers declined to make
state-level commitments.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
29. This document contains new information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public,
and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new
information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In
addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we
previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees.
30. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of the
procedures for electing to make a statewide commitment under Phase II
and find that no businesses with fewer than 25 employees will be
directly affected. We have structured the challenge process to minimize
burdens on businesses with fewer than 25 employees. Unsubsidized
competitors, many of which are small businesses, will face reduced
burden due to the use of presumptions that a provider meeting the speed
requirement also meets the other non-speed criteria. Furthermore,
specifying the format and
[[Page 32995]]
probative evidence for the challenge process in advance will likely
provide certainty to small businesses in filing any challenges and
reduce the burden on such parties.
B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
31. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)
requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.'' The RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having
the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition,
the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small
business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A small business
concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
(SBA).
32. This Order implements the rules adopted by the Commission in
the USF/ICC Transformation Order. These clarifications do not create
any burdens, benefits, or requirements that were not addressed by the
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis attached to the USF/ICC
Transformation Order. Therefore, we certify that the requirements of
this order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the order
including a copy of this final certification, in a report to Congress
pursuant to SBREFA. In addition, the order and this certification will
be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, and will be published in the Federal Register.
C. Congressional Review Act
33. The Commission will send a copy of this order to Congress and
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act.
IV. Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 201-
206, 214, 218-220, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201-206, 214, 218-220, 254, 303(r), 403,
1302, sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91,
0.291, and the delegations of authority in paragraphs 103, 170, and 171
of the USF/ICC Transformation Order, FCC 11-161, this Report and Order
is adopted, effective July 3, 2013, except for those rules and
requirements involving Paperwork Reduction Act burdens, which shall
become effective immediately upon announcement in the Federal Register
of OMB approval.
Federal Comunications Commission.
Julie Veach,
Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013-12985 Filed 5-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P