[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 9, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30949-30956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-14699]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 36

[CC Docket Nos. 96-45 and 96-262; FCC 99-119]


Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Access Charge 
Reform

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission has adopted the principles of a federal support 
mechanism that conforms to the Second Recommended Decision, however, 
the Commission does not believe that an adequate record yet exists to 
make determinations regarding some of the specific elements of the 
support methodology. Accordingly, the Commission has issued this 
document seeking comment on several specific implementation issues. In 
conjunction with our actions to implement an explicit high-cost support 
mechanism based on forward-looking costs, we also take action and seek 
comment on additional issues to permit us to identify implicit support 
remaining in interstate access charges by January 1, 2000.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 2, 1999 and reply comments 
are due on or before July 16, 1999. Written comments by the public on 
the proposed information collections are due on or before July 2, 1999 
and reply comments are due on or before July 16, 1999. Written comments 
must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the 
proposed information collections on or before August 9, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original 
and four copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to the 
Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., TW-A325, 
Washington, D.C. 20554. In addition to filing comments with the 
Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections 
contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal 
Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., 
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected], and to 
Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Zinman, Attorney, Common Carrier 
Bureau, Accounting Policy Division, (202) 418-7400. For additional 
information concerning the information collections contained in this 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contact Judy Boley at 202-418-
0214, or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document released on May 28, 1999. The full text of this document is 
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the 
FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C., 20554.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    1. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains a proposed 
information collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information 
collections contained in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments 
on this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; OMB notification of 
action is due August 9, 1999. Comments should address: (a) whether the 
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the 
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 
Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the 
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or 
other form of information technology.
    OMB Approval Number: None.
    Title: Notification to High Cost Subscriber Lines and Certification 
Letter Accounting for Receipt of Federal Support (Proposals).
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Business or Other for Profit and State, Local or 
Tribal Government.

[[Page 30950]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Number of
                                respondents          Estimate time per response            Total annual burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to High Cost               30   3 hours (Quarterly)......................  1080 hours.
 subscriber Lines.
Certification Letter                    51   3 hours..................................  153 hours.
 Accounting for Receipt of
 Federal Support.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Burden: 1233 hours.
    Estimated costs per respondent: $0.
    Needs and Uses: The Commission proposes that carriers should be 
required to notify high-cost subscribers that their lines have been 
identified as high-cost lines. This information will be used to show 
that federal high-cost support is being provided to the carrier to 
assist in keeping rates affordable in those subscribers' area. Further, 
the proposed collection of information will be used to verify that the 
carriers have accounted for its receipt of federal support in its rates 
or otherwise used the support for the ``provision, maintenance, and 
upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is 
intended'' in accordance with section 254(e).

I. Introduction

    2. Although we are adopting the principles of a federal support 
mechanism that conform to the Second Recommended Decision, 63 FR 67837 
(December 9, 1998), we do not believe that an adequate record yet 
exists to make determinations regarding some of the specific elements 
of the support methodology. Accordingly, we adopt this Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) seeking comment on several specific 
implementation issues. While we are resolving these implementation 
issues, we also are continuing to verify the operation of the cost 
model, including the input data elements. To complete this process, we 
issue separately an additional FNPRM on the model input and operational 
issues. We encourage commenters to consider both of these FNPRMs 
together, and frame their comments to recognize the close relationship 
between the issues discussed in each.
    3. We intend to resolve the remaining methodological issues 
identified in this FNPRM and verify the operation of the cost model, 
including the input data elements, on which comment is being sought in 
the companion Inputs FNPRM. We anticipate adoption this fall of an 
order resolving these remaining issues, so that support may be based on 
forward-looking costs of providing supported services beginning January 
1, 2000. In conjunction with our actions to implement an explicit high-
cost support mechanism based on forward-looking costs, we also take 
action today and seek comment on additional issues to permit us to 
identify implicit support remaining in interstate access charges by 
January 1, 2000.

A. Methodology Issues

National Benchmark
    4. In its Second Recommended Decision, the Joint Board supported 
using a cost-based benchmark, as opposed to one based on revenues, in 
evaluating rate comparability because state jurisdictions vary in how 
they set local rates. The Joint Board explained that forward-looking 
cost estimates for a given area could be compared against the single 
national cost benchmark in order to determine whether the area has 
costs that are significantly above the national average. We adopted the 
Joint Board's recommendation to employ a cost-based benchmark.
    5. In setting the level of the national benchmark, the Joint Board 
recommended that the Commission consider using a range between 115 and 
150 percent of the national weighted average cost per line. Although 
several commenters support the use of a national benchmark, many were 
reluctant to comment on the range proposed by the Joint Board in the 
absence of a finalized cost model. For that reason, we seek further 
comment on the specific cost benchmark that we should adopt, and we 
seek comment on whether the national benchmark should fall within the 
Joint Board's recommended range.
    6. The current high-cost mechanism for large carriers provides 
increasing amounts of support based on the amount by which a carrier's 
loop costs exceed the national average, beginning with loop costs 
between 115 percent and 160 percent of the national average. In 
particular, the current federal support mechanism provides 10 percent 
support (in addition to the 25 percent allocation of all loop costs to 
the interstate jurisdiction) for large incumbent LECs with more than 
200,000 working loops for book loop costs above 115 percent of the 
national average, and provides gradually more support for the portion 
of these carriers' book loop costs exceeding 160 percent of the 
national average. The following chart summarizes the levels of support 
provided by the current high-cost mechanism for large carriers:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Loop cost as a percent of the national   Amount of intrastate loop cost
                average                        supported (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 115%, but not greater than                     10
                         160%
Greater than 160%, but not greater than                     30
                         200%
Greater than 200%, but not greater than                     60
                         250%
           Greater than 250%                                75
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the existing mechanism provides support for loop costs 
beginning at 115 percent of the national average, it considers only 
loop costs, while the forward-looking cost model estimates the forward-
looking cost of all components of the network necessary to provide the 
supported services.
    7. Although we have not yet completed our work verifying the 
results of the forward-looking cost model, the cost model is now 
operational and, in a Report and Order, we have adopted the framework 
of our methodology for its use. The model currently suggests that, 
using this methodology, a cost benchmark level near the center of the 
range recommended by the Joint Board would provide support levels that 
are sufficient to enable reasonably comparable rates, in light of 
current levels of competition to preserve and advance the Commission's 
universal service goals. In addition to general comments on the Joint 
Board's recommended range for the cost benchmark, we also seek specific 
comment on the level at which we should set the national benchmark, 
including comment on what additional factors and considerations we 
should take into account before selecting a final national benchmark 
level. We encourage commenters to use updated model outputs in 
formulating their comments.
    8. To ensure that there are no sudden withdrawals or reallocations 
of federal support to cover costs between the cost benchmark range that 
we ultimately adopt, we also seek comment today on the Joint Board's 
recommendation that the new forward-looking mechanism incorporate a 
hold-harmless provision. We seek comment on the specific operation of 
such a provision. We encourage commenters to consider and discuss the 
interaction between specific cost benchmark levels and the precise 
operation of the hold-harmless provision.

[[Page 30951]]

Area Over Which Costs Should Be Averaged
    9. After further consultation with the Joint Board, we seek further 
comment on whether the federal support mechanism should calculate 
support levels by comparing the forward-looking costs of providing 
supported services to the benchmark at either (1) the wire center 
level; (2) the unbundled network element (UNE) cost zone level; or (3) 
the study area level.
    10. A number of commenters have expressed support for calculating 
costs at the wire center level. As we strive to bring competition to 
local telephone markets while keeping rates for local service 
affordable and reasonably comparable in all regions of the country, we 
recognize two major benefits of such explicit deaveraged high-cost 
support. As competition places downward pressure on rates charged to 
urban, business, and other low-cost subscribers, we believe that 
support deaveraged to the wire center level or below may ensure that 
adequate support is provided specifically to the subscribers most in 
need of support, because the support reflects the costs of specific 
areas. In addition, deaveraged explicit support that is portable among 
all eligible telecommunications carriers and targeted in a granular 
manner to support high-cost subscribers could encourage efficient 
competitive entry in all areas, not just in urban or other low-cost 
areas. By permitting the incumbent's rates to reflect actual costs in 
all areas, subject to explicit support assessments or portable support 
payments, explicit deaveraged support may provide incentives to 
competitors to expand service beyond urban areas and business centers 
into all areas of the country and to all Americans, as envisioned by 
the 1996 Act. We seek comment on this analysis.
    11. As an alternative to computing costs at the wire center level, 
we seek comment on whether we should compare costs to the benchmark at 
the level of UNE cost zones instead. Under this proposal, each wire 
center within a UNE cost zone would receive the same amount of support. 
Thus, support would still be targeted to the general areas that need it 
most, but upward pressure on the size of the federal fund would be 
lessened compared to the wire center approach. This approach would also 
coincide with the rules on the pricing of UNEs. Under our deaveraging 
rules, state commissions must establish different rates for elements in 
at least three defined geographical areas within the state to reflect 
geographic cost differences, and may use existing density-related zone 
pricing plans, or other cost-related zone plans established pursuant to 
state law. Using UNE zones may avoid opportunities for arbitrage, and 
because states are responsible for developing UNE zones, states will be 
able to develop zone boundaries based upon local conditions, including 
cost characteristics and the status of competition. We generally do not 
foresee any difficulty using the cost model to mirror state UNE zones, 
provided that state UNE zones correspond to wire center boundaries. We 
seek comment, however, on how state UNE zones that potentially do not 
correspond to wire center boundaries can be effectively used in the 
cost model. We encourage commenters to use updated model outputs in 
formulating their comments on this proposal. Finally, we ask commenters 
to propose any other cost zones, other than UNE zones, that may be an 
appropriate basis for computing costs.
    12. We also seek comment on whether we should calculate costs at 
the study area level. In recommending that the federal support 
mechanism calculate costs at the study area level, the Joint Board 
suggested that the level of competition today has not eroded implicit 
support flows to such an extent as to threaten universal service. In 
addition, compared to calculating costs at the level of wire centers or 
UNE zones, calculating costs at the larger study area level may be more 
likely to prevent substantial increases in the size of the high-cost 
support mechanism because high-cost areas within the study area are 
averaged with lower-cost areas within the study area. In addition, we 
seek comment on whether comparing costs to the benchmark at the study 
area level is more consistent with a vision of a federal mechanism for 
reasonable rate comparability that focuses on support flows among 
states rather than within states, and whether such a vision is more 
consistent with the Joint Board's Second Recommended Decision. We seek 
specific comment, however, on the extent to which competition is likely 
to place steadily increasing pressure on implicit support flows from 
low-cost areas and the extent to which this pressure suggests that we 
should deaverage support in the implementation of our new mechanism. We 
urge commenters to use updated model outputs when responding to this 
analysis.
    13. We seek specific comment on the impact of using study-area 
averaged costs in a study area where UNEs are available. In the Local 
Competition Order, the Commission determined that UNEs would be priced 
in a minimum of three rate zones within a state. If high-cost support 
is provided using study-area averaged costs, then all lines within the 
study area would be eligible for the same amount of support even though 
the UNE rates for those same lines would vary among rate zones within 
the state. We seek comment on whether this disparity between support 
amounts and UNE rates among different rate zones may create incentives 
for carriers to engage in arbitrage or other uneconomic activities 
unrelated to the purpose of high-cost support.
    14. In recommending that costs be calculated at the study area 
level, the Joint Board was driven by concerns that the amount of 
federal high-cost universal service support be ``properly measured'' in 
light of the current state of local competition. Comparing costs to a 
benchmark when averaged over a smaller area is bound to produce higher 
support calculations, however, because high costs in one area are less 
likely to be diluted by low costs in another area when the area under 
consideration is smaller. As discussed, we agree with the Joint Board 
that federal support to enable reasonably comparable local rates for 
non-rural carriers should not increase significantly from current 
levels. We seek comment, however, on ways to resolve the tension 
between the goal of preventing the fund from increasing significantly 
above current levels, and the goal of ensuring that support is, to the 
extent possible, directly targeted to high-cost areas within study 
areas. In addition, we seek specific comment on four proposals to 
resolve this tension.
    15. First, we propose, if we were to determine total support 
amounts in each study area by running the model to estimate costs at 
the study area level, to distribute support by running the model again 
at the wire center level in order to target support to high-cost wire 
centers within the study area. This approach would not significantly 
increase the size of the fund, but would ensure that support is 
distributed to areas that need it most. As a second alternative, we 
could determine support based on costs averaged at a level more 
granular than the study area, such as UNE zones or wire centers, but 
provide only a uniform percentage of the support so indicated. Such an 
approach would be consistent with the Joint Board's findings that rates 
are presently affordable and that competition has not yet eroded 
support to high-cost customers.
    16. As a third alternative, we could determine support based on 
costs averaged at a level more granular than the study area, such as 
UNE zones or wire centers, but cap the amount of

[[Page 30952]]

support available to any particular state to a fixed percentage of the 
overall fund. As a fourth alternative, if we were to determine support 
based on costs averaged at the UNE zone or wire center level, we could 
limit the size of the fund either by raising the cost benchmark 
appropriately or adopting incremental funding levels for costs above 
the selected benchmark similar to the existing high-cost loop support 
mechanism. As an example of incremental funding levels, were we to 
adopt a cost benchmark of 135 percent of the national weighted average 
cost per line, we could fund 10 percent of the costs that are between 
135 percent and 160 percent of the national average, 30 percent of the 
costs that are between 160 percent and 200 percent of the national 
average, and so forth. We seek comment on each of these proposals, 
including comment on how each meets the statutory requirement that 
support should be ``sufficient.'' We also ask commenters to suggest 
additional methods for preventing the size of the fund from growing 
significantly.
Determining a State's Ability To Support High-Cost Areas
    17. As discussed, we agree with the Joint Board that federal 
support to enable reasonably comparable local rates for non-rural 
carriers should be determined based, in part, on a state's ability to 
support its universal service needs internally and that such federal 
support should be available to the extent the state is unable to 
achieve reasonably comparable rates using its own resources. We 
concluded that a fixed dollar amount per line is a reasonably certain 
and specific means of assessing a state's ability to enable reasonable 
comparability of rates using its own resources.
    18. In this FNPRM, we now seek comment on the fixed per-line dollar 
amount that should be set to estimate a state's ability to internally 
support its high-cost areas, and how the amount should be determined. 
As one option, we observe that in the First Report and Order, 62 FR 
32862 (June 17, 1997), the Commission suggested a revenue benchmark of 
approximately $31. In the Second Recommended Decision, the Joint Board 
considered establishing a state's responsibility based on a percentage 
of revenues, specifically, a range between three and six percent of 
intrastate telecommunications revenues. We seek comment on whether the 
per-line amount should be set so that it amounts to between three and 
six percent of this original $31 revenue benchmark, in order to roughly 
equal, in absolute dollar terms, the amount that a state could 
reasonably have anticipated if measured on a revenue percentage basis. 
For example, a $2.00 per line figure would reflect roughly six percent 
of $31. Under this fixed dollar amount per line approach, the perceived 
need for support in the state is first calculated by comparing costs to 
the benchmark. The state's ability to enable reasonably comparable 
rates in the face of this perceived need would then be estimated by 
multiplying the per-line figure by the total number of non-rural 
carrier lines in the state. If the perceived support need exceeds this 
estimate of the state's own resources, federal support would support 
the difference in accordance with the benchmark methodology described. 
We seek comment on this proposal.
    19. We also seek comment on whether wireless lines should be 
included in the calculation of a state's ability to support universal 
service. If commenters believe that wireless lines should be included, 
we seek comment on whether there should be a distinction between 
wireless lines of an ETC and wireless lines of a non-ETC. Finally, we 
emphasize that the use of a fixed per-line dollar value assessment to 
estimate states' abilities to support their universal service needs 
internally does not mandate the creation of state universal service 
funds for this purpose.

B. Distribution and Application of Support

    20. As discussed, we have concluded that, consistent with section 
254, carriers should be required to use support ``only for the 
provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for 
which the support is intended.'' We seek comment on what specific 
restrictions, if any, are necessary to achieve this statutory 
requirement. Specifically, in the event that the Commission ultimately 
decides to average costs over an area larger than the wire center in 
determining support levels, we seek comment on how this application of 
support should be accomplished given our tentative conclusion to 
require carriers to apply federal high-cost support to the wire centers 
that triggered the need for support.
    21. Although the Commission has the responsibility to ensure that 
support is sufficient to enable reasonable comparability of rates, the 
states establish specific rate levels. Therefore, we seek comment on 
whether making federal support available as carrier revenue, to be 
accounted for by the state in the rate setting process, will 
sufficiently fulfill the section 254(e)'s requirement that federal 
support shall be used ``only for the provision, maintenance, or 
upgrading of facilities and services for which the support was 
intended.'' We tentatively conclude that making support available as 
part of the state rate-setting process would empower state regulators 
to achieve reasonable comparability of rates within their states. For 
example, we expect that states that have adopted price cap regulation 
could require exogenous price cap adjustments to reflect the increased 
support for high-cost areas and that states that retain rate of return 
regulation would count the new support towards carriers' revenue 
requirements. In either case, the state would be able to use federal 
support targeted to high-cost wire centers to enable reasonable 
comparability of local rates, if it so chose. We seek comment on this 
proposal. Specifically, we seek comment on whether all state 
commissions possess the jurisdiction and resources to take the actions 
this approach would require. We also seek comment on whether, under 
this proposal, carriers should be required to notify high-cost 
subscribers that their lines have been identified as high-cost lines 
and that federal high-cost support is being provided to the carrier to 
assist in keeping rates affordable in those subscribers' area.
    22. In addition, we seek comment on what further restrictions, if 
any, we should impose on the use of federal support to ensure that 
recipient carriers use the support in a manner consistent with section 
254. The Joint Board recommended that the Commission require carriers 
to certify that they will apply federal high-cost support in accordance 
with the statute. The Joint Board also recommended that the Commission 
should not require states to provide any certification as a 
``condition'' for carriers in the state to receive high cost support, 
but the Commission should instead permit states to certify that, in 
order to receive federal universal service support, a carrier must use 
such funds in a manner consistent with section 254. We seek comment on 
whether state authority over local rates in a manner cognizant of 
federal support levels will adequately enforce the requirements of 
section 254(e), making additional federal regulation unnecessary. 
Because some states may lack either the authority or the desire to 
impose conditions on the use of high-cost support, we tentatively 
conclude that such state oversight, while valuable and potentially 
sufficient, may not in every case ensure that section 254(e)'s goals 
are met. Therefore, we seek comment on whether

[[Page 30953]]

it would be appropriate to condition the receipt of federal universal 
service high-cost support on any state action, including adjustments to 
local rate schedules reflecting federal support. We believe that 
denying support to states that lack the regulatory authority to ensure 
that federal funds are used appropriately would penalize those states 
and would not be consistent with section 254's mandates. We tentatively 
conclude, however, that even states that lack this authority would be 
able to certify to the Commission that a carrier within the state had 
accounted for its receipt of federal support in its rates or otherwise 
used the support for the ``provision, maintenance, and upgrading of 
facilities and services for which the support is intended'' in 
accordance with section 254(e). Conversely, if the state were unable or 
unwilling to take action to achieve the goals of section 254(e), we 
could allow such states to refuse federal high-cost support. We seek 
comment on these approaches, including comment on whether 
implementation of multiple options might best achieve the goals of 
section 254(e), and comment on whether any carrier-initiated action 
would be necessary in states with limited authority. Finally, we seek 
comment on what carrier or state commission action, if any, may be 
necessary to prevent double-recovery of universal service support at 
both the federal and state level.
    23. Under the approach discussed, we recognize that we may need to 
allocate federal support among high-cost wire centers within a 
carrier's study area. If the federal support amount based on forward-
looking cost provides only a portion of the support for a given wire 
center, or if we choose to fund only a portion of the support otherwise 
indicated by the model, we seek comment on means by which to perform 
this allocation. If a carrier does not receive support equal to the 
full amount of the difference between the forward-looking cost estimate 
for the wire center and the threshold level for federal support, we 
tentatively conclude that it should allocate the support among all 
lines in these high-cost wire centers in a pro rata manner, based upon 
the difference between the federal benchmark, plus state supported 
levels, and the wire center's forward-looking cost of providing 
service. We believe this approach has the potential to foster 
competition because the amount of the support available to competing 
eligible telecommunications carriers would be clearly identified, and 
thus competing carriers would be able to assess more accurately whether 
competitive entry is viable in a particular high-cost area. In 
addition, high-cost support would be distributed in such a manner that 
support levels in each high-cost wire center would be proportionate to 
costs. We seek comment on these proposals and tentative conclusions.

C. Hold-Harmless and Portability of Support

    24. As discussed, we agree with the Joint Board that the federal 
high-cost support mechanism should have a hold-harmless provision to 
prevent immediate and substantial reductions of federal support and 
potentially significant rate increases. Under such a hold-harmless 
provision, the amount of support provided would be the greater of the 
amount generated under the forward-looking mechanism or the explicit 
amount presently received. We seek comment on how we should implement 
such a hold-harmless provision to best accomplish this goal. 
Specifically, we seek comment on whether the hold-harmless provision 
should be implemented on a state-by-state basis or on a carrier-by-
carrier basis.
    25. Under a state-by-state approach, the total amount of federal 
support provided in each state would be the greater of the total amount 
indicated by the forward-looking mechanism or the total amount 
presently received by carriers in the particular state. For example, 
assume a state has two carriers, Carrier A and Carrier B, each 
presently receiving $100 in federal high-cost intrastate support. 
Assume further that under the forward-looking mechanism, Carrier A is 
entitled to $100 and Carrier B is entitled to $95. The total amount of 
support indicated by the forward-looking mechanism ($195) is less than 
the total amount of support under the present mechanism ($200). 
Therefore, the hold-harmless provision would supply an additional $5 of 
support. Assume, however, that under the forward-looking mechanism, 
Carrier A is entitled to $120 and Carrier B is entitled to $90. The 
total amount of support indicated by the forward-looking mechanism 
($210) is greater than the total amount of support under the present 
mechanism ($200). Although Carrier B would receive less support under 
the forward-looking mechanism, the state, as a whole, would receive 
more support under the forward-looking mechanism. Therefore, the hold-
harmless provision does not supply any additional support. We believe 
that such a state-by-state hold-harmless is likely to prevent 
substantial increases in the size of the high-cost support mechanism 
because an increase in support for one carrier can be offset by a 
decrease in support for another carrier when determining the total 
amount of hold-harmless support provided in a particular state. On the 
other hand, the state-by-state approach may not prevent a decrease in 
support for certain carriers within a particular state. Redistribution 
of federal support within the state, however, may be accomplished by 
state commission action.
    26. In contrast, under a carrier-by-carrier hold-harmless approach, 
the amount of federal support provided to each carrier in a state would 
be the greater of the amount indicated by the forward-looking mechanism 
or the explicit amount presently received by the carrier. For example, 
assume a state has two carriers, Carrier A and Carrier B, each 
presently receiving $100 in support. Assume further that, under the 
forward-looking mechanism, Carrier A is entitled to $125 and Carrier B 
is entitled to $75. Under a carrier-by-carrier hold-harmless provision, 
Carrier A would receive $125 pursuant to the forward-looking model, and 
Carrier B would receive $100 pursuant to the hold-harmless provision. 
Thus, the total amount of federal support provided in that state would 
increase to $225. A carrier-by-carrier approach ensures that no carrier 
receives less support under the forward-looking mechanism than it 
receives under the present mechanism. We believe, however, that the 
carrier-by-carrier approach, as opposed to the state-by-state approach, 
is more likely to inflate the size of the high-cost support mechanism 
because the amount of support provided to each carrier can only 
increase under this approach. Using updated model outputs, we ask 
commenters to comment on whether a state-by-state or a carrier-by-
carrier hold-harmless approach is more consistent with universal 
service principles set forth in the Act and the role of the federal 
mechanism in providing high-cost support.
    27. In addition, in the event that the Commission adopts a state-
by-state hold-harmless provision, we seek comment on how such a 
provision should allocate support among carriers in the event that the 
total amount of hold-harmless support provided in a particular state is 
insufficient to fully hold each carrier harmless. Specifically, in the 
event the Commission adopts a state-by-state hold-harmless approach, we 
propose allocating the total amount of support pro rata among such 
carriers based on their relative reductions in support. For example, 
assume that a state has three carriers, Carrier A,

[[Page 30954]]

Carrier B, and Carrier C. Assume further that, under the present 
mechanism, Carrier A receives $150, Carrier B receives $125, and 
Carrier C receives $100. Also assume that, under the forward looking 
mechanism, Carrier A is entitled to $175, Carrier B is entitled to 
$100, and Carrier C is entitled to $75. The total amount of support 
indicated by the forward-looking mechanism ($350) is less than the 
total amount of support under the present mechanism ($375). Therefore, 
a state-by-state hold-harmless provision would provide an additional 
$25 of support. Because Carrier B and Carrier C have experienced a 
combined reduction in support of $50 and Carrier A has experienced no 
reduction in support, the $25 of hold-harmless support must be 
allocated between Carrier B and Carrier C. Under our proposal, the 
hold-harmless support would first be allocated to the carrier 
experiencing the greater relative reduction in support. Here, Carrier B 
received 80 percent ($100/$125) of its previous support amount, and 
Carrier C received 75 percent ($75/$100) of its previous support 
amount. In order to place Carrier B and Carrier C on equal footing, 
therefore, the first $5 of the total hold-harmless amount would be 
allocated to Carrier C, resulting in both Carrier B and Carrier C 
receiving 80 percent of their previous amount of support. The remaining 
$20 of support would be allocated pro rata between Carrier B and 
Carrier C so that both carriers receive the same total percentage of 
the support provided under the present mechanism. Carrier B would 
receive an additional $11.11 ($125/$225  x  $20), for a total of 89 
percent ($111.11/$125) of its support under the present mechanism, and 
Carrier C would receive an additional $8.88 ($100/$225  x  $20), for a 
total of 89 percent ($88.88/$100) of its support under the present 
mechanism. We believe that this method of allocation allows for an 
equitable distribution of support in the event that the total state-by-
state amount is insufficient to fully hold each carrier harmless. We 
seek comment on this proposal.
    28. In the alternative, we seek specific comment on whether, if we 
eventually adopt a state-by-state rather than a carrier-by-carrier 
hold-harmless approach, we should distribute universal service high-
cost support directly to the state commissions, rather than to 
carriers. The Joint Board considered and rejected distributing federal 
support to the states, rather than directly to carriers, because of the 
long-standing practice of distributing federal support directly to 
carriers and the absence of any affirmative evidence in the Act or its 
legislative history that Congress intended to alter this method of 
distribution. In addition, commenters that addressed this issue oppose 
a mechanism that would distribute support to the states. We seek 
additional comment, however, on whether support should be distributed 
to the state commissions for allocation among carriers in each state 
instead of through a federal allocation mechanism, in the event one or 
more carriers in the state experienced a reduction in support as a 
result of a state-by-state hold-harmless mechanism.
    29. We also seek comment on the relationship between the hold-
harmless approaches suggested, and the portability of federal high-cost 
support. As discussed, we concluded that, consistent with the Joint 
Board's recommendations and the policy we established in the First 
Report and Order, federal high-cost support should be portable, and 
available to all eligible telecommunications carriers, regardless of 
the technology used to provide the supported services. To implement 
portability, however, we must first determine the amount of support to 
be ported. Specifically, in the event a competitor wins a customer from 
an incumbent receiving hold-harmless support, we seek comment on 
whether the competitor should receive the incumbent's hold-harmless 
support, or whether the competitor should receive the amount of support 
determined on a forward-looking basis. Making the hold-harmless amount 
available to the competitor appears to be more competitively neutral, 
because both carriers would receive the same amount. However, given 
that the purpose of the hold-harmless provision is to prevent sudden 
rate increases by carriers that have grown dependent on current support 
in designing their rate structures, the hold-harmless amount could 
represent a windfall to an efficient competitor. While making the 
forward-looking amount available to the competitor and providing the 
hold-harmless amount to the incumbent may not be as competitively 
neutral, it would appear to approximate more closely the amount 
necessary to support high-cost service in the area. We seek comment on 
this issue. We encourage commenters to use updated model outputs in 
framing their comments on the issue of portability.

D. Adjusting Interstate Access Charges To Account for Explicit Support

    30. As discussed, we agree with the Joint Board that we have the 
jurisdiction and statutory obligation to identify any universal service 
support that is implicit in interstate access charges and, as far as 
possible, make that support explicit. In this section we seek comment 
on how we should adjust interstate access charges to offset universal 
service support that we subsequently identify in interstate access 
charges and allow carriers to recover through increased support from 
the new federal mechanism. Because of the role access charges have 
played in supporting universal service, it is critical to implement 
changes in the interstate access charge system together with the 
complementary changes in the federal universal service support 
mechanism we adopt today. We seek comment on how we should adjust 
interstate access charges to reflect any increases in federal explicit 
support provided to non-rural carriers under the new federal mechanism 
and methodology.
    31. The Commission determined in the First Report and Order that 
non-rural carriers would begin to receive high-cost support on July 1, 
1999, based on forward-looking costs, and delayed the implementation of 
support based on forward-looking costs for rural carriers until at 
least January 1, 2001. As discussed, more time is needed to verify the 
models that will determine the forward-looking costs on which the 
intrastate high-cost support for non-rural carriers will be based. 
Thus, we are postponing the July 1, 1999, implementation of intrastate 
high-cost support for non-rural carriers until January 1, 2000. Because 
these models may also be used to determine levels of implicit support 
in interstate access charges and the amount of federal support a 
carrier should receive, this will also delay determination of the 
interstate high-cost support for non-rural carriers. This section 
addresses only the question of how to reduce interstate access charges 
to reflect increased explicit federal support for non-rural carriers 
that currently flows within the interstate jurisdiction. We will 
address any necessary interstate access charge reductions for rural 
carriers at a later date.
    32. We tentatively conclude that we should require price cap LECs 
to reduce their interstate access rates to reflect any increased 
explicit federal high-cost support they receive. To do otherwise would 
give these carriers a windfall by allowing them to maintain rates that 
include implicit high-cost support even after the support has been made 
explicit. We tentatively conclude that the carriers should make an 
exogenous downward adjustment to the common line basket. In the short 
run, this will reduce the CCLC and multi-line PICCs.

[[Page 30955]]

In the longer run, this adjustment will keep down scheduled increases 
for the primary residential and single-line business PICC. The PICC is 
often passed on to the end user by the IXC that pays it. This approach 
will serve the dual purpose of eliminating implicit support and holding 
down per-line rates associated with primary residential and single-line 
business lines. This will, therefore, help keep basic telephone service 
affordable and comparable.
    33. We seek comment on whether we should require price cap LECs to 
reflect explicit high-cost support by making the downward exogenous 
adjustment to their common line basket's price cap indexes (PCIs). 
Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should instead permit 
incumbent LECs to reduce their access rates to offset the explicit 
support by lowering their common line charges on a geographically 
deaveraged basis. For example, we could reduce implicit support 
resulting from geographic averaging by permitting carriers to lower 
their SLCs on a deaveraged basis, reducing SLCs in low-cost areas, 
while maintaining the SLC caps in our rules for high-cost areas. We 
seek comment on whether we should allow carriers to determine where 
they lower their rates under such an approach. Alternatively, we seek 
comment on whether we or the state commissions should delineate the 
permissible areas for deaveraged reductions, and how those areas should 
be determined. We could, for example, require the deaveraging to occur 
based on the same rate zones that some states have already identified 
pursuant to our deaveraging requirement for the pricing of unbundled 
network elements and interconnection. We also seek comment on which 
common line rate elements should be deaveraged.
    34. We also seek comment on whether price cap carriers should also 
reduce their base factor portion (BFP). For carriers that calculate 
their SLC based on the BFP, this would result in reductions to the SLC 
for multi-line business and non-primary residential lines, which would 
be offset by smaller reductions in CCL and multi-line PICC rates. We 
also seek comment on whether a downward adjustment to the incumbent 
LECs' PCIs should be across-the-board instead of targeted to the common 
line basket.
    35. We also seek comment on whether we should reduce the SLC on 
primary residential and single-line business lines. Although such a 
reduction is an option, it would not further the goal of reducing 
implicit interstate support, unless it was targeted to low-cost wire 
centers within a study area. The current SLC cap of $3.50 per month on 
primary residential and single-line business lines already creates 
interstate implicit support for most of those lines. A general 
reduction in the SLC would increase the need for such support and would 
not reduce support implicit in the CCLC and the multi-line PICC. 
Although, at the end of the transition initiated by our Access Charge 
Reform Order, 62 FR 31040 (June 6, 1997), the combination of the SLC 
and PICC assessed to each line will permit carriers to recover the full 
interstate-allocated portion of their common line costs from the line 
that caused those costs to be incurred, any reduction in the SLC would 
delay this transitional process and result in a higher PICC on primary 
residential and single-line business lines. We do not expect any 
reductions to the common line basket to reduce common-line recovery 
below $3.50 per month, per line, but we seek comment on whether we 
should limit any reductions to the common line basket to the amount 
needed to reduce common line revenues per line to $3.50. We seek 
comment on how the remainder of the adjustment should be applied if 
that were to occur.
    36. We tentatively conclude that non-rural rate-of-return LECs 
should apply additional interstate explicit high-cost support revenues 
to the CCL element, thus reducing CCL charges. We seek comment on this 
tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on whether these revenues 
should instead be deducted from the BFP, which would reduce the SLC for 
multi-line business lines and diminish the reduction to the CCLC. 
Furthermore, as noted, the Joint Board set forth certain guidelines 
that the Commission should follow when taking action to remove implicit 
support from interstate access rates, including: (1) there should be a 
corresponding dollar-for-dollar reduction in interstate access charges 
as implicit support in interstate access rates is replaced with 
explicit support; (2) any reductions in interstate access rates should 
benefit consumers; (3) universal service should bear no more than a 
reasonable share of joint and common costs; and (4) reasonable 
comparability should not be jeopardized, and neither consumers in 
general nor particular classes of consumers should be harmed. We seek 
comment on whether our proposals in this section conform to the Joint 
Board's guidelines.
    37. Finally, we recognize that some proposals for access reform may 
have the added benefit of directing more federal support to high-cost 
areas, relative to low-cost areas. For example, some parties have 
suggested using the cost proxy model as the basis for converting the 
excess of access rates above the forward-looking cost of access from 
implicit support to geographically deaveraged support amounts. These 
support amounts would be both explicit and portable to competing LECs 
that serve the lines to which these support amounts would be assigned. 
It would appear that these proposals could potentially serve to direct 
more federal support to high-cost areas, relative to low-cost areas, 
much like we believe the use of the cost model in conjunction with an 
appropriate benchmark could direct such additional support to high-cost 
areas. We seek comment on whether and how adoption of an access reform 
proposal that would direct more federal support to high-cost areas, 
relative to low-cost areas, should affect our calculation of high-cost 
universal service support, if at all. To the extent possible, parties 
commenting on this issue should address specific access reform 
proposals that could be used in this manner to reform both high-cost 
universal service and access charges simultaneously.

II. Procedural Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    38. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires a Regulatory 
Flexibility Act analysis whenever an agency publishes a notice of 
proposed rulemaking, or promulgates a final rule, unless the agency 
certifies that the proposed or final rule will not have ``a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,'' and 
includes the factual basis for such certification. The RFA generally 
defines ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the term ``small 
business concern'' under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. The 
Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a ``small business 
concern'' as an enterprise that (1) is independently owned and 
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets 
any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    39. We conclude that neither an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis nor a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis are required here 
because the foregoing FNPRM seeks comment only on the mechanisms that 
the Commission should use to provide high-cost support to non-rural 
LECs. Non-rural LECs generally do not fall within the SBA's definition 
of a small business concern because they are usually large 
corporations, affiliates of such corporations, or dominant in their 
field of operations. Therefore, we certify, pursuant to the RFA, 5 
U.S.C. 605(b),

[[Page 30956]]

that the proposals contained in the FNPRM, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Office 
of Public Affairs, Reference Operation Division, will send a copy of 
this certification, along with this FNPRM, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the SBA in accordance with the RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 
and to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, this 
certification, as well as this FNPRM (or summaries thereof), will be 
published in the Federal Register.

B. Filing Comments

    40. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before 
July 2, 1999, and reply comments on or before July 16, 1999. Comments 
may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24,121 (1998).
    41. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic 
file via the Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. 
Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If 
multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this 
proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of 
the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the 
caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should 
include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an 
electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for 
e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected], and 
should include the following words in the body of the message, ``get 
form