Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Availability of Version 3.2 of the Connect America Fund Phase II Cost Model Illustrative Results, 56188-56192 [2013-21888]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
56188
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(NOF) published in the Federal Register
of July 19, 2013 (78 FR 43115) (FRL–
9392–9), where EPA issued a notice
pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a
pesticide petition (IN–10544). The
petitioner is now requesting, pursuant
to section 408(d) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part
180 to revise the exemption from the
requirement of tolerances for [alpha]alkyl-[omega]-hydroxypoly
(oxypropylene) and/or poly
(oxyethylene) polymers where the alkyl
chain contains a minimum of six
carbons under 40 CFR 180.910, 180.930,
180.940(a), or 180.960 in or on the raw
agricultural commodities after harvest
or growing crops, animals and food
contact surface sanitizing solutions and
[alpha]-alkyl-[omega]-hydroxypoly
(oxypropylene) and/or poly
(oxyethylene) polymers where the alkyl
chain contains a minimum of six
carbons, minimum number average
molecular weight (in amu) 1,100 under
40 CFR 180.960, when used as a
pesticide inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations, to include the following
Chemical Abstract Service Registry
Numbers (CAS Reg. Nos.): 67254–71–1;
161025–22–5; 68409–59–6; 160901–20–
2; 159653–49–3; 160901–19–9; 103331–
86–8; 126950–62–7; 74499–34–6;
161025–21–4; 176022–76–7; 68603–20–
3; 68526–95–4; 64425–86–1; 139626–
71–4; 152231–44–2; 120944–68–5;
157707–41–0; 288260–45–7; 287935–
46–0; 126646–02–4; 954108–36–2;
71011–10–4; 121617–09–2; 69227–20–9;
116810–32–3; 79771–03–2; 67763–08–0;
68439–48–5; 72066–65–0; 68991–48–0;
303176–75–2; 116810–33–4; 157707–
43–2; 68954–94–9; 160901–09–7;
102782–43–4; 68920–69–4; 154518–36–
2; 157627–88–8; 68439–53–2; 103819–
03–0; 70955–07–6; 74432–13–6; 68439–
30–5; 9038–29–3; 68238–81–3; 68409–
58–5; 68238–82–4; 37311–00–5; 37311–
01–6; 52232–09–4; 73018–31–2; 9038–
43–1; 63303–01–5; 37311–04–9; 65150–
81–4; 63658–45–7; 139381–39–8;
72484–69–6; 59112–62–8; 50861–66–0;
103657–84–7; 103657–85–8; 67784–96–
7; 25190–05–0; 26636–39–5; 64415–24–
3; 65104–72–5; 9040–05–5; 27252–75–1;
64415–25–4; 9035–85–2; 72108–90–8;
25231–21–4; 62648–50–4; 63793–60–2;
63303–00–4; 57455–38–6; 57497–74–2;
70955–69–0; 26401–47–8; 39278–93–8;
9004–87–9; 68987–90–6; 26403–74–7;
9046–09–7; and 288095–59–0. The
petitioner does not expect that the
addition of these CAS numbers to result
in additional exposure or risk. An
analytical method is not required for
enforcement purposes since the Agency
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
is establishing an exemption from the
requirement of tolerances without any
numerical limitation. (RD)
List of Subjects
Environmental protection,
Agricultural commodities, Feed
additives, Food additives, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: September 5, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013–22218 Filed 9–11–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 10–90; DA 13–1846]
Wireline Competition Bureau
Announces Availability of Version 3.2
of the Connect America Fund Phase II
Cost Model Illustrative Results
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Wireline Competition Bureau
announces the availability of the next
version of the Connect America Cost
Model (CAM v3.2), which includes
certain adjustments to the CAM to
reflect the unique circumstances and
operating conditions in the noncontiguous areas of the United States.
The Bureau seeks comment on these
changes, specifically the addition of the
capability to model costs for undersea
cable connecting non-contiguous areas
to the contiguous United States, plant
mix values submitted by Alaska
Communications Systems Group, Inc.
(ACS) for Alaska, and using the default
value of ‘‘1’’ for the regional cost
adjustment for the U.S. Virgin Islands,
which has the effect of increasing labor
costs. Lastly, the Bureau seeks comment
on using the plant mix values that were
filed separately in models previously
filed by Puerto Rico Telephone
Company, Inc. (PRTC) and Virgin
Islands Telephone Corporation d/b/a
Innovative Telephone (Vitelco) in the
next version of the CAM.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
September 12, 2013 and reply
comments are due on or before
September 19, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file
comments on or before September 12,
2013 and reply comments on or before
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
September 19, 2013. All pleadings are to
reference WC Docket No. 10–90.
Comments may be filed using the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper
copies, by any of the following methods:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://fjall
foss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
• People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (Braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (tty).
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:
Katie King, Wireline Competition
Bureau at (202) 418–7491 or TTY (202)
418–0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Wireline Competition
Bureau’s Public Notice (Notice) in WC
Docket No. 10–90; DA 13–1846, released
August 29, 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. The document
may also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800)
378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile
(202) 863–2898, or via Internet at
https://www.bcpiweb.com.
1. The Wireline Competition Bureau
(Bureau) announces the availability of
the next version of the Connect America
Cost Model (CAM v3.2), which includes
certain adjustments to the CAM to
reflect the unique circumstances and
operating conditions in the noncontiguous areas of the United States.
The Bureau seeks comment on these
changes, specifically the addition of the
capability to model costs for undersea
cable connecting non-contiguous areas
to the contiguous United States, plant
mix values submitted by ACS for
Alaska, and using the default value of
‘‘1’’ for the regional cost adjustment for
the U.S. Virgin Islands, which has the
effect of increasing labor costs. The
Bureau also seeks comment on using the
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
plant mix values that were filed
separately in models previously filed
PRTC and Vitelco in the next version of
the CAM.
2. Description of Changes in CAM
v3.2. CAM v3.2 updates the prior
version (CAM v3.1.4) in a number of
respects, and the Bureau seeks comment
on several of the changes. First, this
version adds code changes and a new
Undersea tab in the Capital
Expenditures (Capex) workbook that
includes inputs for undersea cable and
landing stations. These changes and
inputs are used to calculate the
investment and cost for undersea and
landing station facilities that connect
areas outside of the contiguous United
States, including Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and
Northern Mariana Islands, to the
contiguous United States. Second, this
version includes plant mix values for
Alaska that were recently filed by ACS.
3. In addition, this version makes a
number of other changes. It adjusts the
regional cost adjustment table to reflect
that Zip 3 = 008, which had been
previously coded for Puerto Rico, is in
the U.S. Virgin Islands and sets the
value of the cost adjustment for Zip 3
= 008 to 1.0 (i.e., no adjustment) in the
absence of R.S. Means data regarding
labor costs for the Virgin Islands. It
includes minor modifications to some
existing investment calculations to more
accurately reflect network
infrastructure. Finally, it includes
several updates to the documentation
and makes additional clean-up changes
to the Capex workbook. These changes
are reflected in two solution sets that
can be accessed by accessing CAM v3.2,
and visiting the Posted Data Sets page.
These solution sets can be found under
the Model Outputs section of the Posted
Data Sets tab: SSYYYYMMDD
CAM32ACF8UndSeaCpx and SSYYYY
MMDDCAM32ACF9UndSeaCpx
solution sets under Model Outputs.
4. Issue for Comment: Submarine
Cable. CAM v3.2 includes the capability
to model costs for undersea cable to
non-contiguous areas. CAM v3.2 also
adds a new ‘‘Undersea’’ tab in the Capex
workbook, which includes the inputs
used to calculate the investment and
cost for undersea cable and landing
station facilities needed to transport
traffic to and from landing stations in
non-contiguous areas to landing stations
in the contiguous United States. To help
parties understand and comment on the
adjustments incorporated in v3.2, the
Bureau explains the modeling
assumptions below.
5. First, the Bureau seeks comment on
CAM v3.2’s approach to connecting the
non-contiguous areas to the contiguous
United States. In the maps appended to
the Public Notice, CAM v3.2 models
undersea cables: From Alaska to Oregon
and Washington; from the Northern
Marianas to Guam and from Guam to
Oregon; from Hawaii to California; from
the U.S. Virgin Islands to Puerto Rico
and from Puerto Rico to Florida; and
from Puerto Rico to Florida. The
specific endpoints of the undersea
cables are marked on the maps.
6. The length or ‘‘footage’’ of these
undersea cable connections is a key cost
driver. The Bureau seeks comment on
the footage estimates in Table 1. Note
that to ensure resiliency, the footage for
each connection includes the additional
footage needed for path redundancy. In
addition, each spur connects
independently to a tandem location
within the contiguous United States.
7. Table 1: Undersea Cable Footage
9. Next, the Bureau seeks comment on
CAM v3.2’s methodology for modeling
whether a carrier would construct such
an undersea cable or instead lease
capacity on an existing international
undersea cable. This version of the
model input assumes that the presence
and capacity of international undersea
cables are driven primarily by
international traffic demand, not by the
traffic of the local exchange carrier
(LEC) in areas with landing stations.
This version of the model inputs
assumes that, if the demand from the
modeled network would outstrip
capacity on these existing international
undersea systems, without concurrent
increases in demand for bandwidth that
passes through the location, then
construction of a new system would be
economically justifiable. If, however,
the capacity required would amount to
only a fraction of available capacity,
CAM v3.2 assumes that a carrier would
lease capacity on an existing cable.
10. It is assumed that the cost of
transport back to the contiguous United
States would be the fraction of cost
associated with the fraction of the cable
being consumed by peak demand of the
modeled network. This assumes that the
price for a LEC to buy capacity on an
existing cable would be comparable to
the cost of providing that access plus a
rate of return comparable to the one
Undersea
assumed in CAM. Given that each nonArea
cable footage contiguous area with an international
cable route is served by multiple cable
Alaska ...................................
21,206,745
Hawaii ...................................
26,029,830 systems, we believe that this is a
North Marianas Islands ........
61,602,894 reasonable assumption. To the extent
Puerto Rico ...........................
11,258,578 commenters disagree with these
U.S. Virgin Islands ................
12,072,945 assumptions and instead argue that rates
are substantially higher, they should
8. The Bureau also seeks comment on provide specific information on these
CAM v3.2’s assumption that the cost of
rates to the Bureau, including the route
materials and labor per foot of undersea and amount of capacity being
cable is $11.05. This cost per foot is
purchased.
based on publicly available information
11. To make that determination,
regarding AKORN, an undersea cable
Bureau staff first looked at existing
between Alaska and Oregon. It is the
capacity. As seen in Table 2, below,
same for each undersea cable because,
most of the non-contiguous areas have
unlike land-based connections where
international cable routes with landing
costs vary by the soil type in a given
stations on them, and most of the cable
area, CAM v3.2 assumes that the costs
routes have additional capacity
for undersea cable do not vary based on available.
the body of water in which the cable is
12. Table 2: International Cable Route
located.
and Capacity Table
Total capacity
(Tbps)
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Area
Cable route name
Alaska ..........................................................................
Hawaii ..........................................................................
Hawaii ..........................................................................
Hawaii ..........................................................................
Northern Marianas Islands (Guam) .............................
Northern Marianas Islands (Guam) .............................
Puerto Rico ..................................................................
Puerto Rico ..................................................................
N/A ..............................................................................
AAG .............................................................................
Southern Cross ...........................................................
TPC–5 .........................................................................
AAG .............................................................................
TGN-Pacific .................................................................
America Movil-1 ..........................................................
Americas-II ..................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
56189
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
N/A
2.88
6
0.01
2.88
7.68
0.10
0.21
LIT Capacity
(Gbps)
N/A
700
2,000
10
700
5,120
40
80
56190
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Total capacity
(Tbps)
Area
Cable route name
Puerto Rico ..................................................................
Puerto Rico ..................................................................
Puerto Rico ..................................................................
U.S. Virgin Islands .......................................................
U.S. Virgin Islands .......................................................
U.S. Virgin Islands .......................................................
ARCOS–1 ....................................................................
PCCS ..........................................................................
Sam-1 ..........................................................................
Americas-I ...................................................................
Americas-II ..................................................................
MAC ............................................................................
13. Moreover, to evaluate whether
capacity on these existing undersea
cables will be sufficient to meet future
demand during Connect America Phase
II, the same busy hour offered load
assumptions incorporated into CAM
v3.2 were used to compare demand (i.e.
required capacity) to supply (i.e. lit and
total capacity of the international fiber
routes with landing sites on each non-
contiguous area). The comparison of
future demand to current lit capacity (of
the highest capacity fiber in the area)
may over-state the extent to which new
undersea systems are required, while
the comparison to total capacity (of the
highest capacity fiber in the area) may
understate costs in the near-term.
Therefore, the comparisons were
averaged.
Highest total
capacity
(Tbps)
Demand
(Gbps)
Area
Hawaii ..................................................
North Marianas Islands (Guam to Oregon) ................................................
Puerto Rico ..........................................
U.S. Virgin Islands (Puerto Rico to
Florida) .............................................
213.6
6
1.02
80
1.92
0.32
0.21
0.07
14. Table 3, below, shows the
comparisons of capacity to both the lit
and total capacity of the largest single
cable, as well as the average of those
comparisons. The Bureau seeks
comment on this approach to evaluating
capacity and on the calculations
reflected in the table.
15. Table 3: Comparisons of Demand
to Supply
Highest LIT
capacity
(Gbps)
% Demand to
LIT capacity
3.956
2,000
11.867
7.91
0.111
0.816
5,120
310
0.166
100
0.14
50.00
0.028
310
7.168
3.60
Marianas route are not shared with any
international traffic, CAM v3.2 includes
50 percent of the costs of connecting
Alaska to Oregon and Washington, the
Northern Marianas to Guam, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands to Puerto Rico,
which is the default middle mile
allocation in CAM v3.2. Table 4, below,
shows the resulting cost per location per
month. The Commission seeks comment
on these averages and/or allocations and
whether the resulting monthly cost per
location is a reasonable estimate.
17. Table 4: Monthly Cost Per
Location
Investment for
the route
(millions)
Area
Alaska ......................................................................................................................................................................
Hawaii ......................................................................................................................................................................
North Marianas Islands ............................................................................................................................................
Puerto Rico ..............................................................................................................................................................
U.S. Virgin Islands ...................................................................................................................................................
distribution and suburban feeder as
filed did not total 100%. (Total of aerial,
buried and underground plant mix
values for distribution and feeder
equaled 101 percent.) The values shown
in the table reflect a staff adjustment to
force the filed values to equal 100%.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Distribution
State
Density
AK ..................
AK ..................
AK ..................
Rural ..............
Suburban .......
Urban ............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 11, 2013
Aerial
(percent)
25.0
23.8
20.0
Jkt 229001
Underground
(percent)
61.0
48.5
40.0
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Aerial
(percent)
14.0
27.7
40.0
Fmt 4702
25.0
23.8
20.0
Sfmt 4702
Buried
(percent)
61.0
48.5
40.0
Monthly cost
per location
$85.6
24.4
18.9
72.9
20.0
$5.40
0.65
15.44
0.72
6.34
Staff multiplied each of the values by
100/101 to reflect the same relationship
and make the sum of aerial, buried and
underground equal 100%.
19. Table 5: ACS Proposed Plant Mix
Values
Feeder
Buried
(percent)
Average
(percent)
80
20.0
18. Issue for Comment: Plant Mix. As
noted above, CAM v3.2 includes in the
Plant Mix input collection table the
Alaska-specific plant mix values
recently proposed by ACS. These values
are reproduced in Table 5, below. The
ACS filed plant mix values for suburban
80
100
310
120
80
70
7.68
80
7.7
587.9
16. Finally, CAM v3.2 estimates the
cost that carriers will face in securing
transport to and from the contiguous
United States by applying the averages
listed in Table 3 to the CAM-calculated
cost of the total route. Because the
Alaska route and the Northern Marianas
to Guam portion of the Northern
% Demand to
total capacity
LIT Capacity
(Gbps)
IOF
Underground
(percent)
Aerial
(percent)
14.0
27.7
40.0
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
28.0
24.0
15.0
Buried
(percent)
58.0
55.0
50.0
Underground
(percent)
14.0
21.0
35.0
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
20. ACS also submitted its current
plant mix values which are reproduced
in Table 6, below.
56191
21. Table 6: ACS Current Plant Mix
Values
Aerial
(percent)
Density
Buried
(percent)
Underground
(percent)
Plant Mix: All
Rural ............................................................................................................................................
Suburban .....................................................................................................................................
Urban ...........................................................................................................................................
27
32
33
63
64
43
10
4
24
28
33
35
68
64
47
4
3
19
19
16
23
19
62
21
61
22
56
Plant Mix: Copper
Rural ............................................................................................................................................
Suburban .....................................................................................................................................
Urban ...........................................................................................................................................
Plant Mix: Fiber
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Rural ............................................................................................................................................
Suburban .....................................................................................................................................
Urban ...........................................................................................................................................
22. The current plant mix submitted
by ACS differs from what ACS proposes
should be used in the CAM. For the
other carriers, CAM v3.2 uses carriersupplied plant mix values that reflect
their current plant mix. The Bureau
seeks comment on whether to make any
adjustments to the Alaska-specific plant
mix values contained in CAM v3.2, in
light of ACS’s current plant mix.
23. The Bureau also seeks comment
on whether it should incorporate into
the next version of the CAM the plant
mix values for Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands that PRTC and Vitelco
previously submitted in conjunction
with their proposals for standalone
models.
24. Issue for Comment: Cost
Adjustment for the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Because the source that CAM relies on
for regional cost adjustments for the rest
of the United States does not include
values for the U.S. Virgin Islands, CAM
v3.2 sets the value of the cost
adjustment for Zip 3 = 008 to 1.0 (i.e.,
no adjustment). The Bureau seeks
comment on using this value for the
U.S. Virgin Islands.
25. Other Proposals. The Bureau notes
that ACS has proposed additional
modifications to the CAM that it
contends would more appropriately
reflect the costs of serving Alaska. The
Bureau is continuing to evaluate those
proposals.
26. If parties, including carriers
serving other non-contiguous areas,
have other proposals or data that they
wish to file concerning the treatment of
non-contiguous areas in the CAM, such
information should be filed by the reply
comment deadline specified on the first
page of this Public Notice. All
submissions should be in a form that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
can be readily incorporated into the
CAM. Parties should contact Bureau
staff indicated at the beginning of this
summary if they wish to file any
information confidentially in order to
discuss how to submit that information
in a way that can be incorporated into
the next version of the CAM.
27. Access to CAM v3.2. To access
CAM v3.2, parties should follow the
same procedures announced for
previous versions. In particular, parties
may access CAM v3.2 at https://
www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/caf-phase-iimodels or https://cacm.usac.org.
Additionally, authorized users who
have signed the attachments to the
protective order will have access to a
system evaluator package that provides
a test environment populated with a
sample database, allowing users to view
database structures, observe the
processing steps of CAM for a subset of
the country, and see changes in the
database.
28. Updated Documentation. In
conjunction with the release of CAM
v3.2, the Bureau also announces the
availability of updated methodology
documentation for CAM v3.2, to assist
the public in understanding the current
model architecture, processing steps,
and data sources. The methodology
documentation is available at https://
hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
attachmatch/DOC-323071A1.pdf.
29. Illustrative Results. The Bureau
also is releasing illustrative model
outputs from running CAM v3.2 using
different combinations of possible
model inputs and support assumptions.
To demonstrate a range of potential
outcomes, the Bureau is providing
illustrative model outputs with funding
thresholds of $49.15, $52, and $55.40.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The reports show potential support
amounts and number of supported
locations, by carrier, by study area, and
by state, using the default input values
in CAM v3.2. The reports are available
at https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/
connect-america-cost-model-illustrativeresults. Because the Bureau has not yet
finalized and adopted a cost model, the
illustrative results that the Bureau is
releasing are not final support amounts.
I. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
30. The Non-Contiguous Areas PN, 78
FR 12006, February 21, 2013, included
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
603, exploring the possible significant
economic impact on small entities of the
policies and rules proposed therein. The
Commission invites parties to file
comments on the IRFA in light of this
additional Public Notice.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
31. This document does not contain
proposed information collection(s)
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In
addition, therefore, it does not contain
any new or modified information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
C. Filing Requirements
32. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
56192
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments are to
reference WC Docket No. 10–90 and DA
13–1846, and may be filed by paper or
by using the Commission’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS).
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 St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
D Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
D U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
33. In addition, we request that one
copy of each pleading be sent to each of
the following:
(1) Dania Ayoubi,
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau,
445 12th Street SW., Room 6–A322,
Washington, DC 20554; email:
Dania.Ayoubi@fcc.gov;
(2) Charles Tyler,
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau,
445 12th Street SW., Room 5–A452,
Washington, DC 20554; email:
mailto:Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov.
34. People with Disabilities: To
request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (braille,
large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov
or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice),
202–418–0432 (tty).
The proceeding this Notice initiates
shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance
with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
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,
Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013–21888 Filed 9–11–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2013–0100;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–AY72
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Threatened Status for
Arabis georgiana (Georgia rockcress)
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, propose to list Arabis
georgiana (Georgia rockcress), a plant
species in Georgia and Alabama, as
threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
If we finalize this rule as proposed, it
would add this species to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants and
extend the Act’s protections to this
species.
SUMMARY:
We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
November 12, 2013. Comments
submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES section, below) must be
received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on
the closing date. We must receive
requests for public hearings, in writing,
at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by October
28, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R4–ES–2013–0100, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
Then, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document
Type heading, click on the Proposed
Rules link to locate this document. You
may submit a comment by clicking on
‘‘Comment Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2013–
0100; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all information received on
https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Information Requested section
below for more details).
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56188-56192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21888]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 13-1846]
Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Availability of Version 3.2
of the Connect America Fund Phase II Cost Model Illustrative Results
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau announces
the availability of the next version of the Connect America Cost Model
(CAM v3.2), which includes certain adjustments to the CAM to reflect
the unique circumstances and operating conditions in the non-contiguous
areas of the United States. The Bureau seeks comment on these changes,
specifically the addition of the capability to model costs for undersea
cable connecting non-contiguous areas to the contiguous United States,
plant mix values submitted by Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc.
(ACS) for Alaska, and using the default value of ``1'' for the regional
cost adjustment for the U.S. Virgin Islands, which has the effect of
increasing labor costs. Lastly, the Bureau seeks comment on using the
plant mix values that were filed separately in models previously filed
by Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc. (PRTC) and Virgin Islands
Telephone Corporation d/b/a Innovative Telephone (Vitelco) in the next
version of the CAM.
DATES: Comments are due on or before September 12, 2013 and reply
comments are due on or before September 19, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file comments on or before September
12, 2013 and reply comments on or before September 19, 2013. All
pleadings are to reference WC Docket No. 10-90. Comments may be filed
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by
filing paper copies, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).
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: Katie King, Wireline Competition
Bureau at (202) 418-7491 or TTY (202) 418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Wireline
Competition Bureau's Public Notice (Notice) in WC Docket No. 10-90; DA
13-1846, released August 29, 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. The document may also be purchased
from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing,
Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898,
or via Internet at https://www.bcpiweb.com.
1. The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) announces the
availability of the next version of the Connect America Cost Model (CAM
v3.2), which includes certain adjustments to the CAM to reflect the
unique circumstances and operating conditions in the non-contiguous
areas of the United States. The Bureau seeks comment on these changes,
specifically the addition of the capability to model costs for undersea
cable connecting non-contiguous areas to the contiguous United States,
plant mix values submitted by ACS for Alaska, and using the default
value of ``1'' for the regional cost adjustment for the U.S. Virgin
Islands, which has the effect of increasing labor costs. The Bureau
also seeks comment on using the
[[Page 56189]]
plant mix values that were filed separately in models previously filed
PRTC and Vitelco in the next version of the CAM.
2. Description of Changes in CAM v3.2. CAM v3.2 updates the prior
version (CAM v3.1.4) in a number of respects, and the Bureau seeks
comment on several of the changes. First, this version adds code
changes and a new Undersea tab in the Capital Expenditures (Capex)
workbook that includes inputs for undersea cable and landing stations.
These changes and inputs are used to calculate the investment and cost
for undersea and landing station facilities that connect areas outside
of the contiguous United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico,
the U.S. Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana Islands, to the contiguous
United States. Second, this version includes plant mix values for
Alaska that were recently filed by ACS.
3. In addition, this version makes a number of other changes. It
adjusts the regional cost adjustment table to reflect that Zip 3 = 008,
which had been previously coded for Puerto Rico, is in the U.S. Virgin
Islands and sets the value of the cost adjustment for Zip 3 = 008 to
1.0 (i.e., no adjustment) in the absence of R.S. Means data regarding
labor costs for the Virgin Islands. It includes minor modifications to
some existing investment calculations to more accurately reflect
network infrastructure. Finally, it includes several updates to the
documentation and makes additional clean-up changes to the Capex
workbook. These changes are reflected in two solution sets that can be
accessed by accessing CAM v3.2, and visiting the Posted Data Sets page.
These solution sets can be found under the Model Outputs section of the
Posted Data Sets tab: SSYYYYMMDDCAM32ACF8UndSeaCpx and
SSYYYYMMDDCAM32ACF9UndSeaCpx solution sets under Model Outputs.
4. Issue for Comment: Submarine Cable. CAM v3.2 includes the
capability to model costs for undersea cable to non-contiguous areas.
CAM v3.2 also adds a new ``Undersea'' tab in the Capex workbook, which
includes the inputs used to calculate the investment and cost for
undersea cable and landing station facilities needed to transport
traffic to and from landing stations in non-contiguous areas to landing
stations in the contiguous United States. To help parties understand
and comment on the adjustments incorporated in v3.2, the Bureau
explains the modeling assumptions below.
5. First, the Bureau seeks comment on CAM v3.2's approach to
connecting the non-contiguous areas to the contiguous United States. In
the maps appended to the Public Notice, CAM v3.2 models undersea
cables: From Alaska to Oregon and Washington; from the Northern
Marianas to Guam and from Guam to Oregon; from Hawaii to California;
from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Puerto Rico and from Puerto Rico to
Florida; and from Puerto Rico to Florida. The specific endpoints of the
undersea cables are marked on the maps.
6. The length or ``footage'' of these undersea cable connections is
a key cost driver. The Bureau seeks comment on the footage estimates in
Table 1. Note that to ensure resiliency, the footage for each
connection includes the additional footage needed for path redundancy.
In addition, each spur connects independently to a tandem location
within the contiguous United States.
7. Table 1: Undersea Cable Footage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undersea cable
Area footage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska.................................................. 21,206,745
Hawaii.................................................. 26,029,830
North Marianas Islands.................................. 61,602,894
Puerto Rico............................................. 11,258,578
U.S. Virgin Islands..................................... 12,072,945
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. The Bureau also seeks comment on CAM v3.2's assumption that the
cost of materials and labor per foot of undersea cable is $11.05. This
cost per foot is based on publicly available information regarding
AKORN, an undersea cable between Alaska and Oregon. It is the same for
each undersea cable because, unlike land-based connections where costs
vary by the soil type in a given area, CAM v3.2 assumes that the costs
for undersea cable do not vary based on the body of water in which the
cable is located.
9. Next, the Bureau seeks comment on CAM v3.2's methodology for
modeling whether a carrier would construct such an undersea cable or
instead lease capacity on an existing international undersea cable.
This version of the model input assumes that the presence and capacity
of international undersea cables are driven primarily by international
traffic demand, not by the traffic of the local exchange carrier (LEC)
in areas with landing stations. This version of the model inputs
assumes that, if the demand from the modeled network would outstrip
capacity on these existing international undersea systems, without
concurrent increases in demand for bandwidth that passes through the
location, then construction of a new system would be economically
justifiable. If, however, the capacity required would amount to only a
fraction of available capacity, CAM v3.2 assumes that a carrier would
lease capacity on an existing cable.
10. It is assumed that the cost of transport back to the contiguous
United States would be the fraction of cost associated with the
fraction of the cable being consumed by peak demand of the modeled
network. This assumes that the price for a LEC to buy capacity on an
existing cable would be comparable to the cost of providing that access
plus a rate of return comparable to the one assumed in CAM. Given that
each non-contiguous area with an international cable route is served by
multiple cable systems, we believe that this is a reasonable
assumption. To the extent commenters disagree with these assumptions
and instead argue that rates are substantially higher, they should
provide specific information on these rates to the Bureau, including
the route and amount of capacity being purchased.
11. To make that determination, Bureau staff first looked at
existing capacity. As seen in Table 2, below, most of the non-
contiguous areas have international cable routes with landing stations
on them, and most of the cable routes have additional capacity
available.
12. Table 2: International Cable Route and Capacity Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total capacity LIT Capacity
Area Cable route name (Tbps) (Gbps)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska........................................ N/A............................. N/A N/A
Hawaii........................................ AAG............................. 2.88 700
Hawaii........................................ Southern Cross.................. 6 2,000
Hawaii........................................ TPC-5........................... 0.01 10
Northern Marianas Islands (Guam).............. AAG............................. 2.88 700
Northern Marianas Islands (Guam).............. TGN-Pacific..................... 7.68 5,120
Puerto Rico................................... America Movil-1................. 0.10 40
Puerto Rico................................... Americas-II..................... 0.21 80
[[Page 56190]]
Puerto Rico................................... ARCOS-1......................... 1.02 80
Puerto Rico................................... PCCS............................ 80 100
Puerto Rico................................... Sam-1........................... 1.92 310
U.S. Virgin Islands........................... Americas-I...................... 0.32 120
U.S. Virgin Islands........................... Americas-II..................... 0.21 80
U.S. Virgin Islands........................... MAC............................. 0.07 70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Moreover, to evaluate whether capacity on these existing
undersea cables will be sufficient to meet future demand during Connect
America Phase II, the same busy hour offered load assumptions
incorporated into CAM v3.2 were used to compare demand (i.e. required
capacity) to supply (i.e. lit and total capacity of the international
fiber routes with landing sites on each non-contiguous area). The
comparison of future demand to current lit capacity (of the highest
capacity fiber in the area) may over-state the extent to which new
undersea systems are required, while the comparison to total capacity
(of the highest capacity fiber in the area) may understate costs in the
near-term. Therefore, the comparisons were averaged.
14. Table 3, below, shows the comparisons of capacity to both the
lit and total capacity of the largest single cable, as well as the
average of those comparisons. The Bureau seeks comment on this approach
to evaluating capacity and on the calculations reflected in the table.
15. Table 3: Comparisons of Demand to Supply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest total Highest LIT
Area Demand (Gbps) capacity % Demand to capacity % Demand to Average
(Tbps) total capacity (Gbps) LIT capacity (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii.................................................. 213.6 6 3.956 2,000 11.867 7.91
North Marianas Islands (Guam to Oregon)................. 7.7 7.68 0.111 5,120 0.166 0.14
Puerto Rico............................................. 587.9 80 0.816 310 100 50.00
U.S. Virgin Islands (Puerto Rico to Florida)............ 20.0 80 0.028 310 7.168 3.60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Finally, CAM v3.2 estimates the cost that carriers will face in
securing transport to and from the contiguous United States by applying
the averages listed in Table 3 to the CAM-calculated cost of the total
route. Because the Alaska route and the Northern Marianas to Guam
portion of the Northern Marianas route are not shared with any
international traffic, CAM v3.2 includes 50 percent of the costs of
connecting Alaska to Oregon and Washington, the Northern Marianas to
Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to Puerto Rico, which is the default
middle mile allocation in CAM v3.2. Table 4, below, shows the resulting
cost per location per month. The Commission seeks comment on these
averages and/or allocations and whether the resulting monthly cost per
location is a reasonable estimate.
17. Table 4: Monthly Cost Per Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment for
Area the route Monthly cost
(millions) per location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska.................................. $85.6 $5.40
Hawaii.................................. 24.4 0.65
North Marianas Islands.................. 18.9 15.44
Puerto Rico............................. 72.9 0.72
U.S. Virgin Islands..................... 20.0 6.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Issue for Comment: Plant Mix. As noted above, CAM v3.2 includes
in the Plant Mix input collection table the Alaska-specific plant mix
values recently proposed by ACS. These values are reproduced in Table
5, below. The ACS filed plant mix values for suburban distribution and
suburban feeder as filed did not total 100%. (Total of aerial, buried
and underground plant mix values for distribution and feeder equaled
101 percent.) The values shown in the table reflect a staff adjustment
to force the filed values to equal 100%. Staff multiplied each of the
values by 100/101 to reflect the same relationship and make the sum of
aerial, buried and underground equal 100%.
19. Table 5: ACS Proposed Plant Mix Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution Feeder IOF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Density Under- Under- Under-
Aerial Buried ground Aerial Buried ground Aerial Buried ground
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK......................................... Rural......................... 25.0 61.0 14.0 25.0 61.0 14.0 28.0 58.0 14.0
AK......................................... Suburban...................... 23.8 48.5 27.7 23.8 48.5 27.7 24.0 55.0 21.0
AK......................................... Urban......................... 20.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 15.0 50.0 35.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56191]]
20. ACS also submitted its current plant mix values which are
reproduced in Table 6, below.
21. Table 6: ACS Current Plant Mix Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerial Buried Underground
Density (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant Mix: All
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural........................................................... 27 63 10
Suburban........................................................ 32 64 4
Urban........................................................... 33 43 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant Mix: Copper
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural........................................................... 28 68 4
Suburban........................................................ 33 64 3
Urban........................................................... 35 47 19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant Mix: Fiber
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural........................................................... 19 19 61
Suburban........................................................ 16 62 22
Urban........................................................... 23 21 56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. The current plant mix submitted by ACS differs from what ACS
proposes should be used in the CAM. For the other carriers, CAM v3.2
uses carrier-supplied plant mix values that reflect their current plant
mix. The Bureau seeks comment on whether to make any adjustments to the
Alaska-specific plant mix values contained in CAM v3.2, in light of
ACS's current plant mix.
23. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether it should incorporate
into the next version of the CAM the plant mix values for Puerto Rico
and the Virgin Islands that PRTC and Vitelco previously submitted in
conjunction with their proposals for standalone models.
24. Issue for Comment: Cost Adjustment for the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Because the source that CAM relies on for regional cost adjustments for
the rest of the United States does not include values for the U.S.
Virgin Islands, CAM v3.2 sets the value of the cost adjustment for Zip
3 = 008 to 1.0 (i.e., no adjustment). The Bureau seeks comment on using
this value for the U.S. Virgin Islands.
25. Other Proposals. The Bureau notes that ACS has proposed
additional modifications to the CAM that it contends would more
appropriately reflect the costs of serving Alaska. The Bureau is
continuing to evaluate those proposals.
26. If parties, including carriers serving other non-contiguous
areas, have other proposals or data that they wish to file concerning
the treatment of non-contiguous areas in the CAM, such information
should be filed by the reply comment deadline specified on the first
page of this Public Notice. All submissions should be in a form that
can be readily incorporated into the CAM. Parties should contact Bureau
staff indicated at the beginning of this summary if they wish to file
any information confidentially in order to discuss how to submit that
information in a way that can be incorporated into the next version of
the CAM.
27. Access to CAM v3.2. To access CAM v3.2, parties should follow
the same procedures announced for previous versions. In particular,
parties may access CAM v3.2 at https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/caf-phase-ii-models or https://cacm.usac.org. Additionally, authorized
users who have signed the attachments to the protective order will have
access to a system evaluator package that provides a test environment
populated with a sample database, allowing users to view database
structures, observe the processing steps of CAM for a subset of the
country, and see changes in the database.
28. Updated Documentation. In conjunction with the release of CAM
v3.2, the Bureau also announces the availability of updated methodology
documentation for CAM v3.2, to assist the public in understanding the
current model architecture, processing steps, and data sources. The
methodology documentation is available at https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-323071A1.pdf.
29. Illustrative Results. The Bureau also is releasing illustrative
model outputs from running CAM v3.2 using different combinations of
possible model inputs and support assumptions. To demonstrate a range
of potential outcomes, the Bureau is providing illustrative model
outputs with funding thresholds of $49.15, $52, and $55.40. The reports
show potential support amounts and number of supported locations, by
carrier, by study area, and by state, using the default input values in
CAM v3.2. The reports are available at https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/connect-america-cost-model-illustrative-results. Because the Bureau has
not yet finalized and adopted a cost model, the illustrative results
that the Bureau is releasing are not final support amounts.
I. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
30. The Non-Contiguous Areas PN, 78 FR 12006, February 21, 2013,
included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the possible significant economic impact on
small entities of the policies and rules proposed therein. The
Commission invites parties to file comments on the IRFA in light of
this additional Public Notice.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
31. This document does not contain proposed information
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new
or modified information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
C. Filing Requirements
32. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments on or
[[Page 56192]]
before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments
are to reference WC Docket No. 10-90 and DA 13-1846, and may be filed
by paper or by using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS).
[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 St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
33. In addition, we request that one copy of each pleading be sent
to each of the following:
(1) Dania Ayoubi, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 6-A322,
Washington, DC 20554; email: Dania.Ayoubi@fcc.gov;
(2) Charles Tyler, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-A452,
Washington, DC 20554; email: mailto:Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov.
34. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed
by rule Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte
rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Kimberly A. Scardino,
Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013-21888 Filed 9-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
