[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9020-9024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02686]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 13-69]
Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Further Comment on Specific
Issues Related to the Implementation of the Remote Areas Fund
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau seeks
further comment on specific issues relating to the implementation of
the Remote Areas Fund.
DATES: Comments are due on or before February 19, 2013 and reply
comments are due on or before March 18, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file comments on or before February
19, 2013 and reply comments on or before March 18, 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: http://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 [email protected] 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: Ted Burmeister, Wireline Competition
Bureau at (202) 418-7389 or TTY (202) 418-0484, or Heidi Lankau,
Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-2876 or TTY (202) 418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Public Notice (Notice) in WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 13-69, released
January 17, 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 http://www.bcpiweb.com.
I. Introduction
1. On November 18, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) released the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, 76 FR
73830, November 29, 2011 and 76 FR 78384, December 16, 2011, which
comprehensively reformed and modernized the universal service high-cost
and intercarrier compensation systems. The Commission established the
Connect America Fund to ensure that voice and broadband service is
available throughout the nation. Within Connect America, the Commission
created a Remote Areas Fund with a budget of ``at least $100 million
annually'' to ensure that even Americans living in the most remote
areas of the nation, where the cost of providing terrestrial broadband
service is extremely high, can obtain service. In the accompanying
FNPRM, 76 FR 78384, December 16, 2011, the Commission sought comment on
various issues relating to the Remote Areas Fund, including how to
define the remote areas eligible for support from the Remote Areas
Fund, qualifications for participating providers, the public interest
obligations of these providers, as well as administrative issues.
2. Based on the record generated in response to the FNPRM, the
Bureau now seeks further detailed comment on issues relating to the
implementation of the Remote Areas Fund as a portable consumer subsidy
program, as proposed by the Commission in the FNPRM and supported by a
diverse group of commenters. In particular, we seek to further develop
the record on a number of specific issues, including defining the areas
where Remote Areas funding will be available, how to set the consumer
subsidy, consumer eligibility, measures to keep the program within a
defined annual budget, service provider participation, performance
requirements, and accountability and oversight.
II. Discussion
A. Areas Eligible for Remote Areas Fund Support
3. Discussion. We seek to further develop the record on
administratively feasible ways to identify areas (both those served by
price cap carriers and by rate-of-return carriers) where consumers
would be eligible for the Remote Areas Fund.
4. In lieu of using the cost model to define eligible areas, should
the Commission use the National Broadband Map to identify unserved
census blocks and provide Remote Areas Fund support to those census
areas until they become served with broadband that meets the
Commission's performance requirements (i.e., speed, capacity, latency)
for non-Remote Areas Fund eligible areas?
5. If the Commission chooses to utilize the most current version of
the National Broadband Map available at the time it adopts rules for
the Remote Areas Fund for the purpose of determining areas eligible for
the Remote Areas Fund, should there be a process to contest the
classification of areas as unserved or served on the map before Remote
Areas funding is provided, and how could that process be implemented in
a way to expedite the launch of the Remote Areas Fund? For instance,
should the Commission consider any updates to the National Broadband
Map gathered in conjunction with Connect America Phase I when
finalizing areas eligible for the Remote Areas Fund? Should the
Commission implement a process to allow households to self-report if
data indicate that certain areas are served, if they contend those
areas are unserved?
6. We ask for further comment on other possible data sources that
the Commission could use to identify unserved areas. Should the
Commission take into consideration the unique characteristics of
locations like Alaska or Hawaii in determining areas eligible for
Remote Areas funding, and if so, how? To the extent parties advocate
use of information other than a cost model or the National Broadband
Map to identify remote areas, they should provide specific objective
metrics that could be used under such an approach.
7. Implementing the Remote Areas Fund in Rate-of-Return Areas. We
seek to further develop the record on the suggestion of the National
Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. et al. that the Commission take into
account the $250 per-line per month cap when identifying areas that are
eligible for the Remote Areas Fund. In lieu of relying on a forward
looking cost model, should
[[Page 9021]]
the Commission identify areas for the Remote Areas Fund based on
reported loop cost, such as a rule that all unserved locations in rate-
of-return study areas for which the reported loop cost equals or
exceeds the 95th percentile for average cost be eligible for Remote
Areas Fund support?
8. Alternatively, should the Commission rely on the National
Broadband Map to identify rate-of-return census blocks that would be
eligible for the Remote Areas Fund, as well as price cap census blocks?
9. We anticipate that rate-of-return carriers would be eligible, as
existing eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs), to seek funding
from the Remote Areas Fund and potentially could use alternative
technologies, either directly or through resale, to provide broadband
to their highest cost customers. To the extent an existing ETC receives
funding from the Remote Areas Fund, should any adjustment be made to
its receipt of support under other high-cost support mechanisms? Should
there be any adjustment to an existing rate-of-return ETC's support if
another ETC were to serve some portion of the study area through the
Remote Area Fund?
10. Would the ability to serve customers through the Remote Areas
Fund address concerns raised by rate-of-return carriers regarding their
ability to meet the current rule requiring the deployment of broadband
upon reasonable request?
11. To the extent parties argue that a different method for
identifying remote areas should be used in areas served by rate-of-
return carriers than areas served by price cap carriers, they should
present specific alternative proposals of how to identify those areas
that would be eligible for such funding.
12. Transition Issues. If the Commission were to adopt an approach
that relied on the National Broadband Map in lieu of a cost threshold
in the forward-looking cost model to designate census blocks eligible
for Remote Areas funding, the potential eligibility of specific areas
would change over time with the ongoing deployment of broadband-capable
infrastructure by existing ETCs receiving support under other universal
service mechanisms as well as with expansion by unsubsidized
competitors.
13. How should the rules address the transition where an area that
is initially classified as unserved, and therefore eligible for Remote
Areas Fund support, subsequently becomes served by a terrestrial
broadband provider, and how does the answer differ if the Commission
chooses to structure the Remote Areas Fund as a one-time payment, as
opposed to a monthly subsidy?
14. Would it be a cost-effective use of universal service funds to
provide a Remote Areas Fund voucher to a consumer that resides in a
location that is expected to receive terrestrial broadband at some
point in the future through Connect America Phase I or Phase II? How
would a rule identifying all unserved areas as eligible for the Remote
Areas Fund, at least until they become served, affect the incentives of
existing ETCs to deploy terrestrial broadband? How would it impact
carriers' incentives to participate in other universal service
programs, such as Connect America Phase II or the Mobility Fund Phase
II?
B. Consumer Subsidy
15. Discussion. We seek to further develop the record on
implementation details regarding how a portable consumer subsidy should
be structured, how the amount of the portable consumer subsidy would be
set, what restrictions, if any, should be placed on the service
contracts that are supported by this subsidy, and how such a program
could be designed to stay within a $100 million annual budget. We also
seek to further develop the record on the relative advantages and
disadvantages of structuring the Remote Areas Fund as a one-time
subsidy or a monthly retail subsidy.
1. One-Time Subsidy
16. We seek to further develop the record on setting the subsidy
amount for a one-time payment. Satellite and fixed wireless broadband
services typically include a combination of upfront and monthly set-up
and equipment fees. We note that in its satellite program, RUS awarded
Hughes Network Systems (Hughes) a grant of $58,777,306 and Wildblue
Communications (Wildblue) a grant of $19,533,444. Based on RUS'
estimates of the number of subscribers that would benefit from these
grants, Hughes received an award of approximately $227 per subscriber
and Wildblue received an award of approximately $177 per subscriber.
Would $200 in one-time support per location be an appropriate amount
for the Remote Areas Fund one-time subsidy, or should it be higher or
lower? How should the Commission account for the fact that in some
locations, installation and other upfront costs may be significantly
higher (e.g., due to the extreme remoteness of a location or obstacles
that may make it difficult for a signal to reach the location)? We
encourage commenters to suggest specific dollar amounts and provide
specific factual information in support of their assertions.
17. How would adoption of a consumer voucher structured as a one-
time payment impact providers' existing practices regarding the
amortization of installation costs through monthly rates? Would this
approach avoid distorting providers' business decisions regarding the
relative amounts of upfront and monthly fees charged to the retail
consumer? Would this approach present any unique administrative
challenges?
18. Should the Commission set forth pricing and performance
requirements that would apply over a minimum period of time to ensure
ongoing and acceptable service to the consumer, as a condition of
receiving a one-time payment? We note that RUS' BIP program for
satellite took such an approach, setting pricing restrictions on basic
service packages, prohibiting carriers from requiring customers to
enter into extended contracts (subject to certain exceptions), and
requiring carriers to offer customer premise equipment at no cost for
all their service packages. Would a similar approach be appropriate for
the Remote Areas Fund? Should a condition of receiving the one-time
payment be that the Remote Areas Fund-supported providers offer voice
service at a rate not to exceed the Commission's prior reasonable
comparability benchmark for voice service for non-rural carriers, i.e.,
$36.52? What would be an appropriate amount of time for such pricing
and performance requirements?
19. How would structuring the consumer subsidy as a one-time
payment affect the nature of competition among potential providers to
serve the consumer? Should the Commission adopt any restrictions on the
ability of consumers to obtain a new one-time subsidy if they switch
providers after some amount of time? Would it be wasteful for the
Remote Areas Fund to subsidize the cost of installing a satellite dish
or fixed wireless receiver on a home if the consumer previously has
used a Remote Areas Fund voucher to install equipment from another
provider? What types of reporting or other requirements might the
Commission impose to protect against waste, fraud and abuse? For
example, in the Lifeline program, consumers must certify that they will
notify their service providers within 30 days if they move to a new
address. What kinds of burdens might this requirement impose on service
providers, and particularly on small businesses?
[[Page 9022]]
2. Monthly Retail Subsidy
20. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, the Commission
also sought comment on various issues relating to structuring the
portable consumer subsidy as ``a monthly amount equal to the difference
between the retail price of a `basic' satellite voice-broadband service
and an appropriate reference price for reasonably comparable service in
urban areas.'' We seek to further develop the record on what specific
figure should be used as the urban reference price, pending
implementation of the urban rate survey, if the Commission were to
implement a monthly subsidy?
21. We note that the Commission's prior reasonable comparability
benchmark for voice service for non-rural carriers was $36.52. On an
interim basis, would it be reasonable to set the urban reference price
for voice at $37 for purposes of the Remote Areas Fund? We also note
that several large fixed terrestrial providers offer broadband at
speeds close to the Commission's 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream
benchmark at prices ranging from $45 to $49.95 per month. Would setting
an urban reference price for broadband at a somewhat higher level, such
as $60, be a reasonable interim approach for the Remote Areas Fund?
Should that figure be lower or higher?
22. We also seek further comment on what should be considered
``basic'' satellite voice-broadband service for the purposes of setting
the monthly consumer subsidy amount. Satellite broadband providers
offer a variety of service tiers with different usage limits at
different prices, with the lowest price offerings currently in the $50
range. Should the Commission deem the lowest price offering to be a
``basic'' broadband offering, and therefore focus on the $50 plan in
setting the satellite reference rate? Should consumers be able to use
their monthly voucher to purchase services above the basic offering?
23. How, if at all, should the Commission take into account the
costs of installation and other upfront costs as part of a monthly
retail subsidy? For instance, should the representative retail rate be
determined by adding together the monthly service amount plus any
upfront fees, amortized over a two-year period?
24. Satellite broadband service rates provide a useful framework
for setting the portable consumer subsidy amount because they are
generally uniform nationwide. However, we acknowledge that terrestrial
wireless or wireline service providers may be viable providers for
certain remote areas and may choose to participate in the Remote Areas
Fund. Given that these service providers can charge rates that vary by
geography, we seek comment on whether, and if so, how to account for
these varying rates when setting the rate that will be compared to
reasonably comparable services in urban areas.
25. How, if at all, should the usage amounts associated with
wireless broadband services in urban areas be factored into such an
adjustment?
3. Applying the Subsidy to Consumer Bill
26. Regardless of whether the Commission structures the Remote
Areas Fund as a one-time or monthly subsidy, we seek further comment on
measures to ensure the consumer receives the full benefit of the
subsidy.
27. To discourage service providers from raising their rates in
response to the availability of a consumer subsidy, the Commission
sought comment in the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM on
requiring ``each ETC to establish an `anchor price' for its basic
service offering--including installation and equipment charges--as a
condition of eligibility to receive Remote Areas Fund support.'' Should
the Remote Areas Fund-supported provider be required to apply the
discount to the provider's best available rates, including any
discounts or promotions, at the time the consumer subscribes to the
service? How could the Commission structure this requirement to prevent
service providers from capturing the subsidy and not passing it on to
the consumer? How could it be structured so that it could be audited to
verify that providers are in fact providing consumers their best
available rates?
4. Restrictions on Extended Contracts
28. As the Commission noted in the FNPRM, certain satellite
providers require that consumers enter into 24-month contracts when
they subscribe to their services. We seek to further develop the record
on issues relating to the use of extended contracts by Remote Areas
Fund-supported providers.
29. If Remote Areas Fund-supported providers are permitted to enter
into extended contracts with consumers receiving Remote Areas Fund
subsidies, should the maximum permitted contract term be 24 months? We
note that in implementing its satellite broadband program, RUS only
permitted awardees to enter into one-year contracts in certain
circumstances. Does the answer depend on whether the Commission
structures the Remote Areas Fund as a one-time payment or a monthly
subsidy? If the Commission provides portable consumer subsidies for
extended contracts, how should it handle early termination fees?
C. Consumer Eligibility for the Remote Areas Fund
30. Discussion. Should the Commission adopt the same definition for
household for purposes of the Remote Areas Fund as it did for Lifeline
and associated implementing regulations?
31. Should the Commission require consumer self-certifications that
they do not have terrestrial broadband available at their home meeting
defined requirements (i.e., for capacity, latency, usage, and price) as
a precondition to receiving the Remote Areas Fund consumer subsidy? Are
there any other specific mechanisms the Commission should adopt to
ensure that Remote Areas funding does not go to consumers that already
have terrestrial broadband that meets the Commission's requirements?
32. Should consumers be required to self-certify that they are
using Remote Areas Fund support at their primary address? If consumers
are found to be making false self-certifications, should the Commission
impose penalties for such false statements and misrepresentations?
33. If the Commission did require primary address self-
certifications, would it be reasonable to employ Lifeline requirements
(e.g., 30-day moving notifications, a prohibition on P.O. box
addresses, and a requirement that applicants provide both a primary
address and billing address) to impose the primary address restriction?
How should the Commission account for certain groups like seasonal
workers that may make frequent moves between residences?
34. If the Commission requires consumers to submit a certification
pursuant to a one Remote Areas Fund subsidy per household or primary
address restriction, should the service provider be responsible for
collecting and verifying the certification? We note that USAC is in the
process of developing a database to verify that households do not
receive more than one Lifeline subsidy. Should USAC also develop a
database of Remote Areas Fund-eligible households with associated
addresses, and could the Lifeline database be expanded for this purpose
in a cost-effective way? What steps, if any, should USAC or ETCs take
to verify self-certifications in the interim while the database would
be developed? We also seek comment on whether the costs to ETCs or the
Administrator of
[[Page 9023]]
verifying certifications against such a database or other data source
would outweigh any potential savings associated with restricting Remote
Areas Fund support to one-per-household and/or primary addresses.
35. If a database is employed, should ETCs be required to collect
the data for the database from their customers? How can the Commission
ensure that data that are submitted to the database by ETCs are
uniform? As an alternative to creating a database or utilizing an
expanded version of USAC's Lifeline database, are there other types of
tools or data sources that USAC or ETCs could rely on to verify
consumers' addresses?
D. Designing the Remote Areas Fund Within a Set Budget
36. Discussion. Recognizing that the answer depends on the level of
subsidy provided, what would be the financial impact of making all
census blocks shown as unserved areas on the National Broadband Map
eligible for Remote Areas Fund support, until deployment occurs in
those areas, whether through support from universal service or through
market forces? How likely is it that the Commission would need to limit
the number of locations in remote areas that will be eligible for
support to stay within a defined budget? If so, what criteria should
the Commission use to determine which remote areas will receive support
and which will not? If the demand for the Remote Areas Fund were to
exceed a defined $100 million annual budget, should the Commission
reevaluate and set a higher budget for the following year, or should
the Commission adopt a $100 million hard cap in interest of promoting
fiscal responsibility and controlling the overall size of the universal
service budget?
E. Service Providers Eligible To Receive Support From the Remote Areas
Fund
37. Discussion. Should the Commission impose requirements to
standardize the required showings to be designated an ETC to
participate in the Remote Areas Fund, the procedural aspects of the ETC
application process, the time states take to review ETC applications,
the criteria states use to evaluate ETC applications, and the
obligations that states place on ETCs? If so, what specific
requirements should be adopted? The National Cable & Telecommunications
Association proposes that ETC applications be deemed granted within 30
days of filing; would a more reasonable time frame for such a
requirement be 60 or 90 days?
38. ETCs that receive Remote Areas Fund support will be required to
provide voice service. We seek to update the record on the quality of
the voice service that satellite providers and wireless Internet
Service Providers (WISPs) are able to offer today, and over the next
twelve months. We note that nothing in the Commission's existing
regulations would preclude incumbent voice providers that have already
received an ETC designation and who wish to resell satellite broadband
services or other wireless broadband services from receiving Remote
Areas funding, assuming such services meet specified performance
requirements. What is the likelihood that satellite providers and WISPs
would enter partnerships with traditional voice providers, i.e.,
incumbent telephone companies, to fulfill voice obligations in areas
eligible for Remote Areas funding?
F. Performance Requirements for Remote Areas Fund-Supported Service
Providers
39. Discussion. The International Telecommunication Union has noted
that while latency delays above 400 milliseconds are unacceptable for
network planning, latency up to 300 milliseconds provides acceptable
voice quality for most users with an increasing number of users
becoming dissatisfied if latency exceeds 300 milliseconds. Based on
this information, we seek comment on an appropriate latency standard
for the Remote Areas Fund. How should the Commission address the
increased latency experienced during double hop calls?
40. We also seek to further develop the record on setting required
usage allowances for providers participating in the Remote Areas Fund.
We have not yet established minimum usage requirements that will apply
to price cap carriers that elect to make a statewide commitment to
serve areas in Phase II. Given the Commission's recognition that it may
be appropriate to ``modestly relax'' performance requirements in areas
supported by the Remote Areas Fund, what downward adjustments would
represent an appropriate balancing of the ``economic and technical
characteristics of networks'' likely to serve the most remote areas?
41. We note that according to one source, during the second half of
2012, the median monthly data consumption for fixed services in North
America was 16.8 GB per-subscriber. And according to recent Commission
speed testing data, 75 percent of surveyed DSL subscribers in April
2012 used less than 20 GB per month. Given this historical data and
industry forecasts for future usage, what usage allowance should be a
required minimum for providers participating in the Remote Areas Fund?
Would 20 GB be an appropriate usage allowance requirement for the
Remote Areas Fund, at least in its initial implementation? Should the
Commission periodically adjust the Remote Areas Fund usage allowance
requirement to reflect consumer behavior, and if so, how often?
G. Accountability and Oversight
42. Discussion. Should any of the 47 CFR 54.313 reporting
requirements not apply or be tailored for Remote Areas Fund recipients?
For example, is the requirement that ETCs report detailed information
about outages, and the number of complaints they receive per 1,000
connections, reasonable for Remote Areas Fund-supported participants?
Is there a need to require a five-year build-out plan in a situation
where the subsidy is structured as a consumer subsidy, rather than a
supply-side subsidy for deployment? While recognizing there are
fundamental differences between the Lifeline program and Connect
America high-cost programs, are there lessons that the Commission could
learn from Lifeline's administration of consumer subsidies? What
measures would the Commission need to put in place to ensure that
subsidies are not flowing to consumers that are already served by
terrestrial broadband meeting the Commission's broadband speed
benchmark? What specific kinds of documents should Remote Areas Fund
participants be required to retain in order to facilitate USAC's audits
and investigations of funding recipients? Should Remote Areas Fund
participants be required to maintain date stamped screen shots of Web
site advertisements and/or other documentary evidence of pricing,
including both published and unpublished rates available upon request,
to facilitate the ability of auditors to ensure that consumers have the
benefit of best available rates?
III. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
43. The USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM included an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603,
exploring the potential impact on small entities of the Commission's
proposal. We invite parties to file comments on the IRFA in light of
this additional notice.
[[Page 9024]]
B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
44. This Public Notice contains information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13
that were originally proposed in the USF/ICC Transformation Order and
FNPRM. The USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d)
of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies were
invited to comment on the new information collection requirements
contained in that proceeding and referenced in this Public Notice.
C. Filing Requirements
45. Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments
are to reference WC Docket Nos. 10-90 and DA 13-69 and may be filed
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121,
May 1, 1998.
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing.
[ssquf] 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, DC20554. 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.
In addition, we request that one copy of each pleading be sent to
each of the following:
(1) Ted Burmeister, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-A445,
Washington, DC 20554; email: [email protected];
(2) Heidi Lankau, Telecommunications Access Policy
Division,Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-B511,
Washington, DC 20554; email: [email protected];
(3) Charles Tyler, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-A452,
Washington, DC 20554; email: mail to: [email protected].
46. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
47. This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule section 1.1206(b). In proceedings
governed by rule section 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.
Trent B. Harkrader,
Division Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline
Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013-02686 Filed 2-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P