Connect America Fund, 26653-26656 [2017-11848]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 109 / Thursday, June 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
F. Benefits of the Rule
The proposed revisions in this rule
will maintain the requirements in the
2016 final rule that provide for
transparency in the arbitration process
for LTC residents. Specifically, we are
proposing to maintain that the
agreement must be explained to the
resident or his or her representative in
a form and manner they understand and
that the resident acknowledges that he
or she understands the agreement. We
are also proposing to retain the
requirement that the agreement must
not contain any language that prohibits
or discourages the resident or anyone
else from communicating with federal,
state, or local officials. This proposed
rule will also increase transparency by
adding a requirement that a facility
must post a notice regarding its use of
agreements for binding arbitration in an
area that is visible to residents and
visitors. With this increased
transparency, we believe that many
stakeholder concerns regarding the
fairness of arbitration in LTC facilities
will be addressed. We believe this
proposal is consistent with our
approach to eliminating unnecessary
burden on providers, and supports the
resident’s right to make informed
choices about important aspects of his
or her healthcare.
G. Alternatives Considered
As discussed above, the district court
granted a preliminary injunction against
enforcement of the prohibition against
pre-dispute agreement for arbitration.
The district court’s opinion clearly
indicated that the court questioned
CMS’ authority to regulate arbitration.
We considered proposing to remove all
of the arbitration requirements and
return to the position in the previous
requirements, that is, the requirements
would be silent on arbitration. However,
we believe that transparency between
LTC facilities and their residents in the
arbitration process is essential, and that
CMS may properly exercise its statutory
authority to promote the health and
safety of LTC residents by requiring
appropriate measures to ensure that LTC
residents receive adequate disclosures
of their facility’s arbitration policies.
Removing all of the provisions related to
arbitration would reduce transparency.
Therefore, we have proposed retaining
those requirements that provide for
transparency and adding that the facility
must post a notice regarding its use of
arbitration in an area that is visible to
residents and visitors. We believe the
requirements we are proposing to retain,
as well as the proposed revisions, will
provide sufficient transparency to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Jun 07, 2017
Jkt 241001
protect residents and alleviate many of
the residents and advocates concerns
about the arbitration process.
In accordance with the provisions of
Executive Order 12866, this regulation
was reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. This proposed
rule is not expected to lead to an action
subject to Executive Order 13771 (82 FR
9339, February 3, 2017) because our
estimates indicate that its finalization
would impose no more than de minimis
costs.
List of Subject in 42 CFR Part 483
Grant programs-health, Health
facilities, Health professions, Health
records, Medicaid, Medicare, Nursing
homes, Nutrition, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services proposes to amend
42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below:
PART 483—REQUIREMENTS FOR
STATES AND LONG TERM CARE
FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 483
continues to read as follows:
26653
employees, and representatives of the
Office of the State Long-Term Care
Ombudsman, in accordance with
§ 483.10(k).
(3) When the facility and a resident
resolve a dispute through arbitration, a
copy of the signed agreement for
binding arbitration and the arbitrator’s
final decision must be retained by the
facility for 5 years and be available for
inspection upon request by CMS or its
designee.
(4) A notice regarding the use of
agreements for binding arbitration must
be posted in an area that is visible to
residents and visitors.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: May 2, 2017.
Seema Verma,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
Dated: May 4, 2017.
Thomas E. Price,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
[FR Doc. 2017–11883 Filed 6–5–17; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
■
Authority: Secs. 1102, 1128I, 1819, 1871
and 1919 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1302, 1320a–7, 1395i, 1395hh and
1396r).
2. Section 483.70 is amended by
revising paragraph (n) to read as
follows:
■
§ 483.70
Administration.
*
*
*
*
*
(n) Binding arbitration agreements. If
a facility chooses to ask a resident or his
or her representative to enter into an
agreement for binding arbitration, the
facility must comply with all of the
requirements in this section.
(1) The facility must ensure that:
(i) The agreement for binding
arbitration is in plain language. If an
agreement for binding arbitration is a
condition of admission, it must be
included in plain language in the
admission contract;
(ii) The agreement is explained to the
resident and his or her representative in
a form and manner that he or she
understands, including in a language
the resident and his or her
representative understands; and
(iii) The resident acknowledges that
he or she understands the agreement.
(2) The agreement must not contain
any language that prohibits or
discourages the resident or anyone else
from communicating with federal, state,
or local officials, including but not
limited to, federal and state surveyors,
other federal or state health department
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 10–90; FCC 17–61]
Connect America Fund
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on
whether the Commission should change
the current rate floor methodology or
eliminate the rate floor and its
accompanying reporting obligation.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
July 10, 2017 and reply comments are
due on or before July 24, 2017. If you
anticipate that you will be submitting
comments, but find it difficult to do so
within the period of time allowed by
this document, you should advise the
contact listed below as soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by WC Docket No. 10–90, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Electronic Filers:
Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the
ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08JNP1.SGM
08JNP1
26654
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 109 / Thursday, June 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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.
Æ 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 St. SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexander Minard, Wireline
Competition Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or
TTY: (202) 418–0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC
Docket No. 10–90; FCC 17–61, adopted
on May 18, 2017 and released on May
19, 2017. 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 St. SW., Washington, DC 20554 or
at the following Internet address:
https://www.fcc.gov/document/voicerate-floor-nprm-and-order.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Introduction
1. In 2011, the Commission adopted a
rule intended to ensure that consumers
across the country are not subsidizing
the cost of voice service to rural
customers whose rates are below a set
minimum rate. This requirement is
known as the ‘‘rate floor.’’ If a carrier
chooses to charge its customers less
than the rate floor amount for voice
service, the difference between the
amount charged and the rate floor is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Jun 07, 2017
Jkt 241001
deducted from the amount of support
that carrier receives through the
Universal Service Fund (USF). Since
July 1, 2016, this minimum amount has
been $18, and the Commission
previously scheduled increases to $20
on July 1, 2017 and $22 on July 1, 2018.
After several years of experience with it,
the Commission now revisits it to
ensure the Commission’s policies
continue to further its statutory
obligation to ensure ‘‘[q]uality services
. . . available at just, reasonable, and
affordable rates.’’ The Commission
accordingly seeks comment on whether
it should make any changes to the
current methodology or eliminate the
rate floor and its accompanying
reporting obligation.
II. Discussion
2. The Commission seeks comment on
whether it should change the current
methodology or eliminate the rate floor
and its accompanying reporting
obligation.
3. In adopting the rate floor, the
Commission determined that it is
‘‘inappropriate to provide federal highcost support to subsidize local rates
beyond what is necessary to ensure
reasonable comparability.’’ The
Commission further stated that ‘‘[d]oing
so places an undue burden on the Fund
and consumers that pay into it’’ and
expressed the view that it would not be
equitable ‘‘for consumers across the
country to subsidize the cost of service
for some consumers that pay local
service rates that are significantly lower
than the national urban average.’’
4. On the other hand, stakeholders
ranging from the AARP to the National
Tribal Telecommunications Association,
from the National Consumer Law Center
to small, medium, and large rural
telephone companies, have raised
concerns that the rate floor is
inconsistent with the direction of
section 254(b) of the Communications
Act to advance universal service in
rural, insular, and high cost areas of the
country while ensuring that rates are
just, reasonable, and affordable. These
parties have argued that the rule makes
basic voice service in rural areas less
affordable, does not make voice service
available at reasonably comparable rates
to urban areas, and does not further the
Commission’s objective to ‘‘minimize
the universal service contribution
burden on consumers and businesses.’’
In that same vein, no one disputes that
the rate floor has increased rates for
voice service in rural areas, despite the
Commission’s goal to ‘‘preserve and
advance universal availability of voice
service.’’ Some parties have also
asserted that price increases negatively
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
affect rural consumers and ‘‘could lead
to some customers losing affordable
access to basic service entirely.’’ Others
have noted that the increases caused by
the rate floor rule could have a
particularly deleterious effect on older
Americans on fixed incomes and
customers in Tribal areas.
5. In addition, some parties have
raised concerns about the use of a
single, national rate floor. Some have
argued that incomes are often lower in
rural areas and the rate floor incorrectly
‘‘assumes that what’s affordable in our
country’s largest cities must be
affordable in our small towns.’’ Others
have suggested that the Commission
should consider ‘‘whether more
localized survey data would better serve
the goal of ensuring reasonably
comparable service at reasonably
comparable rates, and what flexibility
the states need to serve users under the
particular circumstances of each state.’’
The Commission observes that nothing
in the statute requires adoption of a
single, national rate floor.
6. Accordingly, the Commission seeks
comment on whether changes to the
current methodology are needed to
address these concerns. If so, what
changes should be made? Should the
Commission allow carriers to charge a
rate that is one standard deviation
below the average urban rate? Should
the Commission replace the single,
national rate floor with state or regional
rate floors? Are there other ideas the
Commission should consider?
Alternatively, should the Commission
eliminate the rate floor altogether?
7. As part of the Commission’s
consideration of possible changes to the
methodology or elimination of the rate
floor, it seeks comment on the
intersection of the rate floor with state
ratemaking and state universal service
funds. The Commission also notes that
states have historically regulated rates
for local telephone service. Indeed, the
Communications Act makes clear that
‘‘nothing in this [Act] shall be construed
to apply, or to give the Commission
jurisdiction,’’ over rates for ‘‘telephone
exchange service,’’ i.e., local service.
States have historically relied on a
variety of regulating methods (including
the use of state universal service funds)
to ensure just and reasonable rates for
that service—and those methods already
by law must not ‘‘rely on or burden
Federal universal service support
mechanisms.’’ The Commission seeks
comment on these arguments. The
Commission also seeks comment on the
Tenth Circuit’s suggestion that ‘‘the FCC
‘remains obligated to create some
inducement . . . for the states to assist
in implementing the goals of universal
E:\FR\FM\08JNP1.SGM
08JNP1
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 109 / Thursday, June 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules
service,’ i.e., in this case to ensure that
rural rates are not artificially low.’’
8. More generally, the Commission
seeks comment on whether the rate floor
is meeting the intended purposes. One
party has argued that ‘‘an increase in the
local rate floor does not impact payment
into the Universal Service Fund or the
budget of the fund, but it does affect
consumer choice, penalizes incumbent
wireline providers and ultimately
broadband deployment.’’ On the other
hand, the Commission notes that the
Commission last year adopted a budget
control mechanism for carriers within
the legacy rate-of-return system,
including those receiving high-cost loop
support. As such, any funding
reductions from the rate floor are
generally redistributed to other carriers
to mitigate the impact of the budget
control mechanism, not returned to
ratepayers as contributions relief. The
Commission notes that the rate floor
both reduces total high-cost loop
support (HCLS) support and reduces the
budget impact on all rate-of-return
carriers for HCLS and Connect America
Fund—Broadband Loop Support (CAF–
BLS). Specifically, based on the data
used to calculate the recently published
rate-of-return budget control
mechanism, the Commission estimates
that the rate floor effectively reduced
total HCLS by 1.3 percent and
effectively increased CAF–BLS by 0.9
percent. The Commission seeks
comment on the impact of this
redistribution on broadband
deployment, both with respect to
carriers receiving higher total USF
support and those impacted directly by
the rate floor and thus receiving lower
total USF support. The Commission also
seeks comment on these arguments
generally.
9. Finally, the Commission seeks
comment on ways to reduce ongoing
administrative and compliance costs on
rural telephone companies, state
commissions, the Commission, the
National Exchange Carrier Association,
and the Universal Service
Administrative Company. Each year,
federal staff must calculate a new rate
floor, which rural telephone companies
must then seek permission from their
state commissions to implement, with
oversight by several entities to ensure
that rural rates are sufficiently high and
universal service payments are
appropriately withheld. Incumbent local
exchange carriers (ILECs) subject to the
rate floor must complete yet another
form specifying each of the carrier’s
rates that fall below the rate floor and
the number of lines for each rate
specified. Stakeholders have previously
detailed impediments to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Jun 07, 2017
Jkt 241001
implementation in a number of states
and have explained that carriers require
time after a rate floor increase to pursue
and implement rate increases. The
Commission seeks comment on these
arguments and whether modifying or
eliminating the rate floor and the
accompanying reporting obligations
would reduce the complexity of the
high-cost program and minimize the
associated administrative and
compliance costs that have stemmed
from implementation of the rate floor.
Alternatively, the Commission seeks
comment on whether updating the rate
floor on a biennial or triennial basis
would accomplish similar goals while
decreasing administrative burdens.
More generally, the Commission seeks
comment on the costs and benefits of
the rate floor, and specifically on a costbenefit analysis of the rule.
III. Procedural Matters
10. This document proposes modified
information collection requirements
subject to the PRA. It will be submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under section 3507(d)
of the PRA. As part of the Commission’s
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, the Commission invites the
general public and OMB to comment on
the proposed information collection
requirements contained in this
document, as required by the PRA. In
addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act, the
Commission seeks specific comment on
how it might further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees. The Commission describes
impacts that might affect small
businesses, which includes most
businesses with fewer than 25
employees, in the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) below.
11. In the NPRM, the Commission
seeks comment on whether to modify or
eliminate two rules: sections 54.313(h)
and 54.318 of the Commission’s rules.
The Commission is seeking comment on
whether it should modify or eliminate
section 54.318, the rate floor rule, to
better advance section 254 of the
Commission’s Act and the goals of the
Commission’s universal service reforms.
Section 54.313(h) requires carriers to
report on the number lines it serves
with rates that fall below the rate floor.
If the Commission modifies or
eliminates the rate floor rule, there may
be no need to for carriers report on rates
that fall below the rate floor.
12. The legal basis for any action that
may be taken pursuant to this NPRM is
contained in sections 201, 219, 220 and
254 of the Communications Act of 1934,
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26655
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 219, 220 and
254.
13. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small-business concern’’
under the Small Business Act (SBA). A
small-business concern’’ is one which:
(1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the
SBA.
14. This NPRM seeks comment on
changes to the Commission’s rules,
which, if adopted, will result in reduced
information collection and reporting
requirements for ILECs.
15. In this NPRM, the Commission
seeks public comment on modifying or
eliminating sections 54.313(h) and
54.318 of the Commission’s rules.
Because the Commission actions here
will likely result in reduced regulatory
burdens, the Commission concludes
that the changes on which it seeks
comment will not result in any
additional recordkeeping requirements
for small entities.
16. Permit-But-Disclose. The
proceeding this NPRM 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
E:\FR\FM\08JNP1.SGM
08JNP1
26656
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 109 / Thursday, June 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Jun 07, 2017
Jkt 241001
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.
17. 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).
PO 00000
IV. Ordering Clauses
18. Accordingly, it is ordered,
pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 201, 219, 220 and 254 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 219, 220, 254,
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Order is adopted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017–11848 Filed 6–7–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\08JNP1.SGM
08JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 109 (Thursday, June 8, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26653-26656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11848]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 10-90; FCC 17-61]
Connect America Fund
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on whether the Commission should change the
current rate floor methodology or eliminate the rate floor and its
accompanying reporting obligation.
DATES: Comments are due on or before July 10, 2017 and reply comments
are due on or before July 24, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be
submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period
of time allowed by this document, you should advise the contact listed
below as soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 10-90,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed
electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[[Page 26654]]
[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.
[cir] 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 St. SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition
Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC Docket No. 10-90; FCC 17-61,
adopted on May 18, 2017 and released on May 19, 2017. 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 St.
SW., Washington, DC 20554 or at the following Internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/voice-rate-floor-nprm-and-order.
I. Introduction
1. In 2011, the Commission adopted a rule intended to ensure that
consumers across the country are not subsidizing the cost of voice
service to rural customers whose rates are below a set minimum rate.
This requirement is known as the ``rate floor.'' If a carrier chooses
to charge its customers less than the rate floor amount for voice
service, the difference between the amount charged and the rate floor
is deducted from the amount of support that carrier receives through
the Universal Service Fund (USF). Since July 1, 2016, this minimum
amount has been $18, and the Commission previously scheduled increases
to $20 on July 1, 2017 and $22 on July 1, 2018. After several years of
experience with it, the Commission now revisits it to ensure the
Commission's policies continue to further its statutory obligation to
ensure ``[q]uality services . . . available at just, reasonable, and
affordable rates.'' The Commission accordingly seeks comment on whether
it should make any changes to the current methodology or eliminate the
rate floor and its accompanying reporting obligation.
II. Discussion
2. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should change the
current methodology or eliminate the rate floor and its accompanying
reporting obligation.
3. In adopting the rate floor, the Commission determined that it is
``inappropriate to provide federal high-cost support to subsidize local
rates beyond what is necessary to ensure reasonable comparability.''
The Commission further stated that ``[d]oing so places an undue burden
on the Fund and consumers that pay into it'' and expressed the view
that it would not be equitable ``for consumers across the country to
subsidize the cost of service for some consumers that pay local service
rates that are significantly lower than the national urban average.''
4. On the other hand, stakeholders ranging from the AARP to the
National Tribal Telecommunications Association, from the National
Consumer Law Center to small, medium, and large rural telephone
companies, have raised concerns that the rate floor is inconsistent
with the direction of section 254(b) of the Communications Act to
advance universal service in rural, insular, and high cost areas of the
country while ensuring that rates are just, reasonable, and affordable.
These parties have argued that the rule makes basic voice service in
rural areas less affordable, does not make voice service available at
reasonably comparable rates to urban areas, and does not further the
Commission's objective to ``minimize the universal service contribution
burden on consumers and businesses.'' In that same vein, no one
disputes that the rate floor has increased rates for voice service in
rural areas, despite the Commission's goal to ``preserve and advance
universal availability of voice service.'' Some parties have also
asserted that price increases negatively affect rural consumers and
``could lead to some customers losing affordable access to basic
service entirely.'' Others have noted that the increases caused by the
rate floor rule could have a particularly deleterious effect on older
Americans on fixed incomes and customers in Tribal areas.
5. In addition, some parties have raised concerns about the use of
a single, national rate floor. Some have argued that incomes are often
lower in rural areas and the rate floor incorrectly ``assumes that
what's affordable in our country's largest cities must be affordable in
our small towns.'' Others have suggested that the Commission should
consider ``whether more localized survey data would better serve the
goal of ensuring reasonably comparable service at reasonably comparable
rates, and what flexibility the states need to serve users under the
particular circumstances of each state.'' The Commission observes that
nothing in the statute requires adoption of a single, national rate
floor.
6. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on whether changes to
the current methodology are needed to address these concerns. If so,
what changes should be made? Should the Commission allow carriers to
charge a rate that is one standard deviation below the average urban
rate? Should the Commission replace the single, national rate floor
with state or regional rate floors? Are there other ideas the
Commission should consider? Alternatively, should the Commission
eliminate the rate floor altogether?
7. As part of the Commission's consideration of possible changes to
the methodology or elimination of the rate floor, it seeks comment on
the intersection of the rate floor with state ratemaking and state
universal service funds. The Commission also notes that states have
historically regulated rates for local telephone service. Indeed, the
Communications Act makes clear that ``nothing in this [Act] shall be
construed to apply, or to give the Commission jurisdiction,'' over
rates for ``telephone exchange service,'' i.e., local service. States
have historically relied on a variety of regulating methods (including
the use of state universal service funds) to ensure just and reasonable
rates for that service--and those methods already by law must not
``rely on or burden Federal universal service support mechanisms.'' The
Commission seeks comment on these arguments. The Commission also seeks
comment on the Tenth Circuit's suggestion that ``the FCC `remains
obligated to create some inducement . . . for the states to assist in
implementing the goals of universal
[[Page 26655]]
service,' i.e., in this case to ensure that rural rates are not
artificially low.''
8. More generally, the Commission seeks comment on whether the rate
floor is meeting the intended purposes. One party has argued that ``an
increase in the local rate floor does not impact payment into the
Universal Service Fund or the budget of the fund, but it does affect
consumer choice, penalizes incumbent wireline providers and ultimately
broadband deployment.'' On the other hand, the Commission notes that
the Commission last year adopted a budget control mechanism for
carriers within the legacy rate-of-return system, including those
receiving high-cost loop support. As such, any funding reductions from
the rate floor are generally redistributed to other carriers to
mitigate the impact of the budget control mechanism, not returned to
ratepayers as contributions relief. The Commission notes that the rate
floor both reduces total high-cost loop support (HCLS) support and
reduces the budget impact on all rate-of-return carriers for HCLS and
Connect America Fund--Broadband Loop Support (CAF-BLS). Specifically,
based on the data used to calculate the recently published rate-of-
return budget control mechanism, the Commission estimates that the rate
floor effectively reduced total HCLS by 1.3 percent and effectively
increased CAF-BLS by 0.9 percent. The Commission seeks comment on the
impact of this redistribution on broadband deployment, both with
respect to carriers receiving higher total USF support and those
impacted directly by the rate floor and thus receiving lower total USF
support. The Commission also seeks comment on these arguments
generally.
9. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on ways to reduce ongoing
administrative and compliance costs on rural telephone companies, state
commissions, the Commission, the National Exchange Carrier Association,
and the Universal Service Administrative Company. Each year, federal
staff must calculate a new rate floor, which rural telephone companies
must then seek permission from their state commissions to implement,
with oversight by several entities to ensure that rural rates are
sufficiently high and universal service payments are appropriately
withheld. Incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) subject to the rate
floor must complete yet another form specifying each of the carrier's
rates that fall below the rate floor and the number of lines for each
rate specified. Stakeholders have previously detailed impediments to
implementation in a number of states and have explained that carriers
require time after a rate floor increase to pursue and implement rate
increases. The Commission seeks comment on these arguments and whether
modifying or eliminating the rate floor and the accompanying reporting
obligations would reduce the complexity of the high-cost program and
minimize the associated administrative and compliance costs that have
stemmed from implementation of the rate floor. Alternatively, the
Commission seeks comment on whether updating the rate floor on a
biennial or triennial basis would accomplish similar goals while
decreasing administrative burdens. More generally, the Commission seeks
comment on the costs and benefits of the rate floor, and specifically
on a cost-benefit analysis of the rule.
III. Procedural Matters
10. This document proposes modified information collection
requirements subject to the PRA. It will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the
PRA. As part of the Commission's continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, the Commission invites the general public and OMB to comment
on the proposed information collection requirements contained in this
document, as required by the PRA. In addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act, the Commission seeks specific comment on
how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The Commission
describes impacts that might affect small businesses, which includes
most businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) below.
11. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether to modify
or eliminate two rules: sections 54.313(h) and 54.318 of the
Commission's rules. The Commission is seeking comment on whether it
should modify or eliminate section 54.318, the rate floor rule, to
better advance section 254 of the Commission's Act and the goals of the
Commission's universal service reforms. Section 54.313(h) requires
carriers to report on the number lines it serves with rates that fall
below the rate floor. If the Commission modifies or eliminates the rate
floor rule, there may be no need to for carriers report on rates that
fall below the rate floor.
12. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to
this NPRM is contained in sections 201, 219, 220 and 254 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 219, 220 and
254.
13. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business
Act (SBA). A small-business concern'' is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.
14. This NPRM seeks comment on changes to the Commission's rules,
which, if adopted, will result in reduced information collection and
reporting requirements for ILECs.
15. In this NPRM, the Commission seeks public comment on modifying
or eliminating sections 54.313(h) and 54.318 of the Commission's rules.
Because the Commission actions here will likely result in reduced
regulatory burdens, the Commission concludes that the changes on which
it seeks comment will not result in any additional recordkeeping
requirements for small entities.
16. Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding this NPRM 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
[[Page 26656]]
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.
17. 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).
IV. Ordering Clauses
18. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained
in sections 201, 219, 220 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 219, 220, 254, this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Order is adopted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11848 Filed 6-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P