82 FR 26653 - Connect America Fund
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 109 (June 8, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 109 (June 8, 2017)
| Page Range | 26653-26656 | |
| FR Document | 2017-11848 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 109 (Thursday, June 8, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 26653-26656] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://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: [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 109 / Thursday, June 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 26653
F. Benefits of the Rule protect residents and alleviate many of employees, and representatives of the
The proposed revisions in this rule the residents and advocates concerns Office of the State Long-Term Care
will maintain the requirements in the about the arbitration process. Ombudsman, in accordance with
2016 final rule that provide for In accordance with the provisions of § 483.10(k).
transparency in the arbitration process Executive Order 12866, this regulation (3) When the facility and a resident
for LTC residents. Specifically, we are was reviewed by the Office of resolve a dispute through arbitration, a
proposing to maintain that the Management and Budget. This proposed copy of the signed agreement for
agreement must be explained to the rule is not expected to lead to an action binding arbitration and the arbitrator’s
resident or his or her representative in subject to Executive Order 13771 (82 FR final decision must be retained by the
a form and manner they understand and 9339, February 3, 2017) because our facility for 5 years and be available for
that the resident acknowledges that he estimates indicate that its finalization inspection upon request by CMS or its
or she understands the agreement. We would impose no more than de minimis designee.
costs. (4) A notice regarding the use of
are also proposing to retain the
agreements for binding arbitration must
requirement that the agreement must List of Subject in 42 CFR Part 483 be posted in an area that is visible to
not contain any language that prohibits Grant programs-health, Health residents and visitors.
or discourages the resident or anyone facilities, Health professions, Health
else from communicating with federal, * * * * *
records, Medicaid, Medicare, Nursing
state, or local officials. This proposed homes, Nutrition, Reporting and
Dated: May 2, 2017.
rule will also increase transparency by recordkeeping requirements, Safety. Seema Verma,
adding a requirement that a facility Administrator, Centers for Medicare &
For the reasons set forth in the
must post a notice regarding its use of Medicaid Services.
preamble, the Centers for Medicare &
agreements for binding arbitration in an Dated: May 4, 2017.
Medicaid Services proposes to amend
area that is visible to residents and Thomas E. Price,
42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below:
visitors. With this increased Secretary, Department of Health and Human
transparency, we believe that many PART 483—REQUIREMENTS FOR Services.
stakeholder concerns regarding the STATES AND LONG TERM CARE [FR Doc. 2017–11883 Filed 6–5–17; 4:15 pm]
fairness of arbitration in LTC facilities FACILITIES BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
will be addressed. We believe this
proposal is consistent with our ■ 1. The authority citation for part 483
approach to eliminating unnecessary continues to read as follows: FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
burden on providers, and supports the Authority: Secs. 1102, 1128I, 1819, 1871 COMMISSION
resident’s right to make informed and 1919 of the Social Security Act (42
choices about important aspects of his U.S.C. 1302, 1320a–7, 1395i, 1395hh and 47 CFR Part 54
or her healthcare. 1396r).
[WC Docket No. 10–90; FCC 17–61]
G. Alternatives Considered ■ 2. Section 483.70 is amended by
As discussed above, the district court revising paragraph (n) to read as Connect America Fund
granted a preliminary injunction against follows:
AGENCY: Federal Communications
enforcement of the prohibition against § 483.70 Administration. Commission.
pre-dispute agreement for arbitration. * * * * * ACTION: Proposed rule.
The district court’s opinion clearly (n) Binding arbitration agreements. If
indicated that the court questioned a facility chooses to ask a resident or his SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal
CMS’ authority to regulate arbitration. or her representative to enter into an Communications Commission
We considered proposing to remove all agreement for binding arbitration, the (Commission) seeks comment on
of the arbitration requirements and facility must comply with all of the whether the Commission should change
return to the position in the previous requirements in this section. the current rate floor methodology or
requirements, that is, the requirements (1) The facility must ensure that: eliminate the rate floor and its
would be silent on arbitration. However, (i) The agreement for binding accompanying reporting obligation.
we believe that transparency between arbitration is in plain language. If an DATES: Comments are due on or before
LTC facilities and their residents in the agreement for binding arbitration is a July 10, 2017 and reply comments are
arbitration process is essential, and that condition of admission, it must be due on or before July 24, 2017. If you
CMS may properly exercise its statutory included in plain language in the anticipate that you will be submitting
authority to promote the health and admission contract; comments, but find it difficult to do so
safety of LTC residents by requiring (ii) The agreement is explained to the within the period of time allowed by
appropriate measures to ensure that LTC resident and his or her representative in this document, you should advise the
residents receive adequate disclosures a form and manner that he or she contact listed below as soon as possible.
of their facility’s arbitration policies. understands, including in a language ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
Removing all of the provisions related to the resident and his or her identified by WC Docket No. 10–90, by
arbitration would reduce transparency.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
representative understands; and any of the following methods:
Therefore, we have proposed retaining (iii) The resident acknowledges that • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
those requirements that provide for he or she understands the agreement. www.regulations.gov. Follow the
transparency and adding that the facility (2) The agreement must not contain instructions for submitting comments.
must post a notice regarding its use of any language that prohibits or • Federal Communications
arbitration in an area that is visible to discourages the resident or anyone else Commission’s Web site: http://
residents and visitors. We believe the from communicating with federal, state, fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Electronic Filers:
requirements we are proposing to retain, or local officials, including but not Comments may be filed electronically
as well as the proposed revisions, will limited to, federal and state surveyors, using the Internet by accessing the
provide sufficient transparency to other federal or state health department ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:21 Jun 07, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08JNP1.SGM 08JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_26762/page/1.svg)
![26654 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 109 / Thursday, June 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules
D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to deducted from the amount of support affect rural consumers and ‘‘could lead
file by paper must file an original and that carrier receives through the to some customers losing affordable
one copy of each filing. Universal Service Fund (USF). Since access to basic service entirely.’’ Others
• Filings can be sent by hand or July 1, 2016, this minimum amount has have noted that the increases caused by
messenger delivery, by commercial been $18, and the Commission the rate floor rule could have a
overnight courier, or by first-class or previously scheduled increases to $20 particularly deleterious effect on older
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All on July 1, 2017 and $22 on July 1, 2018. Americans on fixed incomes and
filings must be addressed to the After several years of experience with it, customers in Tribal areas.
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the the Commission now revisits it to 5. In addition, some parties have
Secretary, Federal Communications ensure the Commission’s policies raised concerns about the use of a
Commission. continue to further its statutory single, national rate floor. Some have
Æ All hand-delivered or messenger- obligation to ensure ‘‘[q]uality services argued that incomes are often lower in
delivered paper filings for the . . . available at just, reasonable, and rural areas and the rate floor incorrectly
Commission’s Secretary must be affordable rates.’’ The Commission ‘‘assumes that what’s affordable in our
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 accordingly seeks comment on whether country’s largest cities must be
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, it should make any changes to the affordable in our small towns.’’ Others
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours current methodology or eliminate the have suggested that the Commission
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand rate floor and its accompanying should consider ‘‘whether more
deliveries must be held together with reporting obligation. localized survey data would better serve
rubber bands or fasteners. Any the goal of ensuring reasonably
II. Discussion comparable service at reasonably
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building. 2. The Commission seeks comment on comparable rates, and what flexibility
D Commercial overnight mail (other whether it should change the current the states need to serve users under the
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail methodology or eliminate the rate floor particular circumstances of each state.’’
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 and its accompanying reporting The Commission observes that nothing
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, obligation. in the statute requires adoption of a
MD 20743. 3. In adopting the rate floor, the single, national rate floor.
D U.S. Postal Service first-class, Commission determined that it is 6. Accordingly, the Commission seeks
Express, and Priority mail must be ‘‘inappropriate to provide federal high- comment on whether changes to the
addressed to 445 12th St. SW., cost support to subsidize local rates current methodology are needed to
Washington, DC 20554. beyond what is necessary to ensure address these concerns. If so, what
• People with Disabilities: Contact the reasonable comparability.’’ The changes should be made? Should the
FCC to request reasonable Commission further stated that ‘‘[d]oing Commission allow carriers to charge a
accommodations (accessible format so places an undue burden on the Fund rate that is one standard deviation
documents, sign language interpreters, and consumers that pay into it’’ and below the average urban rate? Should
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov expressed the view that it would not be the Commission replace the single,
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) equitable ‘‘for consumers across the national rate floor with state or regional
418–0432. country to subsidize the cost of service rate floors? Are there other ideas the
for some consumers that pay local Commission should consider?
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
service rates that are significantly lower Alternatively, should the Commission
Alexander Minard, Wireline than the national urban average.’’ eliminate the rate floor altogether?
Competition Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or 4. On the other hand, stakeholders 7. As part of the Commission’s
TTY: (202) 418–0484. ranging from the AARP to the National consideration of possible changes to the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a Tribal Telecommunications Association, methodology or elimination of the rate
synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of from the National Consumer Law Center floor, it seeks comment on the
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC to small, medium, and large rural intersection of the rate floor with state
Docket No. 10–90; FCC 17–61, adopted telephone companies, have raised ratemaking and state universal service
on May 18, 2017 and released on May concerns that the rate floor is funds. The Commission also notes that
19, 2017. The full text of this document inconsistent with the direction of states have historically regulated rates
is available for public inspection during section 254(b) of the Communications for local telephone service. Indeed, the
regular business hours in the FCC Act to advance universal service in Communications Act makes clear that
Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445 rural, insular, and high cost areas of the ‘‘nothing in this [Act] shall be construed
12th St. SW., Washington, DC 20554 or country while ensuring that rates are to apply, or to give the Commission
at the following Internet address: just, reasonable, and affordable. These jurisdiction,’’ over rates for ‘‘telephone
https://www.fcc.gov/document/voice- parties have argued that the rule makes exchange service,’’ i.e., local service.
rate-floor-nprm-and-order. basic voice service in rural areas less States have historically relied on a
affordable, does not make voice service variety of regulating methods (including
I. Introduction available at reasonably comparable rates the use of state universal service funds)
1. In 2011, the Commission adopted a to urban areas, and does not further the to ensure just and reasonable rates for
rule intended to ensure that consumers Commission’s objective to ‘‘minimize that service—and those methods already
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
across the country are not subsidizing the universal service contribution by law must not ‘‘rely on or burden
the cost of voice service to rural burden on consumers and businesses.’’ Federal universal service support
customers whose rates are below a set In that same vein, no one disputes that mechanisms.’’ The Commission seeks
minimum rate. This requirement is the rate floor has increased rates for comment on these arguments. The
known as the ‘‘rate floor.’’ If a carrier voice service in rural areas, despite the Commission also seeks comment on the
chooses to charge its customers less Commission’s goal to ‘‘preserve and Tenth Circuit’s suggestion that ‘‘the FCC
than the rate floor amount for voice advance universal availability of voice ‘remains obligated to create some
service, the difference between the service.’’ Some parties have also inducement . . . for the states to assist
amount charged and the rate floor is asserted that price increases negatively in implementing the goals of universal
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:21 Jun 07, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08JNP1.SGM 08JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_26762/page/2.svg)
![26656 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 109 / Thursday, June 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules
them in the memorandum. Documents be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, IV. Ordering Clauses
shown or given to Commission staff .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 18. Accordingly, it is ordered,
during ex parte meetings are deemed to in this proceeding should familiarize pursuant to the authority contained in
be written ex parte presentations and themselves with the Commission’s ex sections 201, 219, 220 and 254 of the
must be filed consistent with rule parte rules. Communications Act of 1934, as
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 17. People with Disabilities. To amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 219, 220, 254,
rule 1.49(f) or for which the this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
request materials in accessible formats
Commission has made available a Order is adopted.
for people with disabilities (braille,
method of electronic filing, written ex
large print, electronic files, audio Federal Communications Commission.
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov Katura Jackson,
presentations, and all attachments or call the Consumer & Governmental Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the
thereto, must be filed through the Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), Secretary.
electronic comment filing system 202–418–0432 (tty). [FR Doc. 2017–11848 Filed 6–7–17; 8:45 am]
available for that proceeding, and must BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:21 Jun 07, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08JNP1.SGM 08JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_26762/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-14 10:06:27
Document Modified: 2018-11-14 10:06:27
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| 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. | |
| Contact | Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 26653 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR