[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 10, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11326-11330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-5009]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[CC Docket No. 96-45, DA 03-4070]


Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 
updates line counts and other input data used in the Commission's 
forward-looking economic cost model for purposes of calculating and 
targeting non-rural high-cost support beginning January 1, 2004. The 
Bureau denies a petition filed by the Maine Public Utilities Commission 
and the Vermont Public Service Board (Joint Commenters) seeking 
reconsideration of the Bureau's 2002 Line Counts Update Order.

ADDRESSES: 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 Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Buckley, Attorney, 
Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 
(202) 418-7400, TTY (202) 418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Bureau's Order and 
Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-45, DA 03-4070 released 
December 24, 2003.

I. Introduction

    1. The Bureau, consistent with action taken in the past, updates 
line counts and other input data used in the Commission's forward-
looking economic cost model for purposes of calculating and targeting 
non-rural high-cost support beginning January 1, 2004. In the Order on 
Reconsideration, the Bureau denies a petition filed by the Maine Public 
Utilities Commission and the Vermont Public Service Board (Joint 
Commenters) seeking reconsideration of the Bureau's 2002 Line Counts 
Update Order, 67 FR 3118, January 23, 2002.

II. Discussion

A. Switched Line Count Updates

    2. Consistent with the framework adopted in the Twentieth 
Reconsideration Order, 65 FR 26513, May 8, 2000, and the 2001 and 2002 
Line Counts Update Orders, 65 FR 81759, December 27, 2000 and 67 FR 
3118, January 23, 2002, we conclude that the cost model should use 
year-end 2002 line counts filed July 31, 2003, as input values for 
purposes of estimating average forward-looking costs and determining 
support for non-rural carriers beginning January 1, 2004. We will 
adjust support amounts every quarter to reflect the lines reported by 
non-rural carriers. In addition, we will allocate switched lines to the 
classes of service used in the model by dividing year-end 2002 lines 
into business lines, residential lines, payphone lines, and single-line 
business lines for each wire center in the same proportion as the lines 
filed pursuant to the 1999 Data Request.
    3. We disagree with BellSouth that line counts should not be 
updated unless the Bureau also updates road and customer location data. 
Updated line count data are readily available, whereas updated road and 
customer location data are not. As we have explained in the past, line 
count data must be updated to reflect cost changes and economies of 
scale associated with changes in line counts, consistent with the 
Commission's forward-looking cost criteria established in the First 
Report and Order, 67 FR 41862, June 20, 1997. Line count data also 
should be updated to avoid increasing the lag between such data and the 
quarterly line count data used to adjust non-rural high-cost support 
amounts. We are not persuaded that updating line counts is 
inappropriate because it may fail to reflect certain costs associated 
with serving new customer locations. The model's use of road surrogate 
data to determine customer locations ensures that the structure costs 
associated with serving new customer locations are reflected in model 
cost estimates unless such locations are along new roads. BellSouth 
contends that recent switched line decreases and new housing growth in 
its service territory undermine the assumption that most new lines are 
either placed at existing customer locations or along existing cable 
routes, but it submits no data in support of this contention. Switched 
lines nationwide decreased by 3.3 percent in 2002, and Commission data 
indicate that households increased by approximately one percent. Based 
on these data, we cannot conclude that the trends identified by 
BellSouth justify not updating line count data. On balance, we find 
that updating line count data is the best approach for estimating 
forward-looking costs and determining non-rural high-cost support 
amounts for 2004.
    4. We also disagree with AT&T's argument that we should use 
projected

[[Page 11327]]

lines for the end of the 2004 funding year, rather than the most recent 
reported year-end lines (end of 2002), to match the line count data 
used to estimate forward-looking costs with the quarterly line count 
data used to adjust non-rural high-cost support amounts. AT&T has not 
proposed a methodology for projecting lines. Verizon argues that any 
such methodology would be complex, difficult, and overly burdensome for 
purposes of estimating forward-looking costs. We also note that, as 
stated above, switched lines have declined recently, suggesting the 
difficulty of accurately projecting lines based on historical data. 
Consistent with the 2001 and 2002 Line Counts Orders, we find that 
year-end 2002 line counts are the appropriate data to use for updating 
the cost model's input values at this time.

B. Special Access Line Count Updates

    5. Consistent with the 2002 and 2001 Line Counts Update Orders, we 
will use year 2002 ARMIS special access line count data as model inputs 
to estimate forward-looking costs and determine non-rural high-cost 
support amounts in 2004. On balance, we conclude that this approach is 
consistent with the Commission's criteria for estimating forward-
looking costs and with applicable universal service principles. We also 
will continue to divide the updated special access lines among wire 
centers in the same proportion as the special lines from the 1999 Data 
Request. As discussed below, we conclude that this methodology is a 
reasonable approach for estimating special access line growth to 
determine non-rural high-cost support amounts in 2004.
    6. Based on our examination of the record, we continue to find that 
it is appropriate to update special access lines for purposes of 
determining non-rural high-cost support in 2004. The First Report and 
Order requires that the model reflect the economies of scale of serving 
all business and residential lines, including special access lines. 
Consistent with this criterion, the Bureau always has included special 
access line count data within its cost estimates. Removing special 
access line count data from the model's cost calculations would ignore 
the demand for special access services. We find that removing special 
access lines would be inconsistent with the Commission's criteria 
requiring that the model reflect the economies of scale of serving all 
business and residential lines, including special access lines.
    7. We also conclude that updating special access line count data 
for purposes of determining non-rural high-cost support in 2004 is 
consistent with the principle set forth in section 254(b)(5) of the Act 
that the universal service support mechanism should be specific and 
predictable. Because different states have different percentages of 
special access lines, removing them has differential effects on costs 
and, therefore, support among states. We decline to adopt an interim 
approach to estimating costs that would significantly change support in 
some states outside the context of a Commission proceeding to address 
the underlying model design issues raised by commenters. We conclude 
that it would be more appropriate to maintain continuity of support 
until these issues can be addressed comprehensively in a future 
Commission proceeding.
    8. The current record is insufficient to permit us to reach a 
conclusion as to what adjustments may be needed, if any, to the model's 
process for counting high-capacity special access lines. Although some 
commenters argue that the model understates costs by counting high-
capacity lines as voice-grade equivalents, it may overstate costs by 
deploying high-capacity lines on copper instead of fiber. Some 
commenters also argue that the model overstates costs because it does 
not include inputs for non-switched services such as digital subscriber 
lines. In other words, to the extent that adjustments to the model may 
be needed, such adjustments may increase some costs and reduce others. 
Consequently, we believe that the most prudent approach is to wait for 
further action by the Commission to consider several model 
improvements, specifically including the process for estimating special 
access demand. In the meantime, we conclude that updating special 
access line count data for purposes of determining non-rural high-cost 
support in 2004 is consistent with the Commission's forward-looking 
cost criteria and with applicable universal service principles.
    9. We reject BellSouth's contention that special access line count 
data should be removed from the model's cost calculations for purposes 
of determining non-rural high-cost support based on the Bureau's 
decision to remove special access demand to set unbundled network 
element (UNE) prices in the Virginia arbitration proceeding. Different 
rules and principles apply in this proceeding that warrant a different 
approach. In that proceeding, the Bureau was faced with two proposals 
for accounting for special access lines and their associated costs in 
setting Verizon Virginia, Inc.'s UNE rates. Under total element long 
range incremental cost (TELRIC) principles, the Bureau had to choose 
the methodology which would result in UNE rates within a range of 
reasonableness. Here, in contrast, we must determine how to treat 
special access lines for purposes of calculating non-rural high-cost 
support. Whereas the Bureau's decision in the Virginia arbitration 
proceeding affected UNE rates in one state, non-rural high-cost support 
is determined based on the relationship between each state's average 
cost per line and the nationwide average. Because different states have 
different percentages of special access lines, removing special access 
lines from the model's cost calculations may significantly change 
support in some states. Our decision here is guided in part by the 
section 254(b)(5) principle that universal service support should be 
specific and predictable. Under the circumstances, we conclude that a 
different approach is warranted for the purpose of determining non-
rural high-cost support.
    10. We also reject Verizon's request that we publish model cost 
estimates with and without special access demand at the study-area 
level before deciding this issue. Verizon argues that it cannot 
determine whether zeroing out special access lines would produce 
reasonable results because the Commission has not provided adequate 
data to allow interested parties to ``run the latest version of the 
model to remove special access demand.'' Contrary to Verizon's claim, 
the Commission provides all the necessary tools and data to run the 
model without special access lines. Specifically, both the model and 
ARMIS special access line data are made available to the public on the 
Commission's Web site. Further, switched line count data are available 
to the public under a protective order.
    11. We also will continue to divide the updated special access 
lines among wire centers in the same proportion as the special access 
lines from the 1999 Data Request. We conclude that allocating year 2002 
ARMIS special access lines based on the 1999 Data Request remains a 
reasonable approach for estimating special access line growth for 
purposes of calculating and targeting non-rural high-cost support for 
2004. In this regard, we have analyzed the Verizon data submitted by 
the Joint Commenters. Based on our analysis, we are not persuaded that 
the Bureau's allocation methodology is unreliable or produces biased 
results.
    12. The Joint Commenters submitted an analysis comparing model cost 
estimates based on (1) Verizon data reflecting the number of high-
capacity

[[Page 11328]]

special access lines in each Maine and Vermont wire center served by 
Verizon at the end of 2001 and (2) year 2000 ARMIS data allocated to 
wire centers using the Bureau's methodology. They contend that their 
analysis demonstrates that the Bureau's allocation methodology produces 
``significant errors'' (defined as line count data requiring a 
correction of 25 percent or more) for 78 percent of the wire centers. 
They further contend that this methodology overestimates special access 
lines within 83 percent of wire centers with less than 3,000 switched 
lines, and underestimates special access lines in 67 percent of wire 
centers with more than 10,000 switched access lines. As a result, they 
claim that the data used by the Bureau to allocate special access lines 
are ``unreliable for both urban and rural areas.'' The Joint Commenters 
also calculated an ``average cost correction'' for wire centers in five 
size groups (based on switched access lines). They contend that the 
correction factors vary according to wire center size, and that their 
application to 2002 support amounts increases support by $0.49 per line 
for Maine and by $0.50 per line for Vermont. They argue that the Bureau 
should use special access line count data used to estimate costs for 
the 2000 funding year, or provide non-rural carriers with the greater 
of the amount calculated with updated data or the amount provided in 
2000.
    13. As an initial matter, we disagree with the premise of the Joint 
Commenters' analysis that the goal of the allocation methodology is to 
achieve an exact correspondence between the lines assigned to a given 
wire center in the model and the actual number of lines served. Rather, 
the goal is to achieve reasonable results that are consistent with the 
Commission's forward-looking cost criteria using the best available 
data. For example, the 1999 Data Request required carriers to report 
intrastate ``private lines'' with special access lines, pursuant to the 
criterion that the model estimate the cost of serving all businesses 
and households, including the cost of special access and private lines. 
The Commission has never used the number of private lines as model 
inputs, however, because nationwide private line data had not been 
available until this year. The Bureau's methodology assigns updated 
ARMIS special access lines to a wire center based on the proportion of 
special access and private lines reported for that wire center in the 
1999 Data Request. Thus, we would expect differences between the number 
of lines the allocation methodology assigns to a given wire center in 
the model and the number of special access lines a carrier serves in 
that wire center.
    14. In addition, because it compares model lines and Verizon lines 
from two different time periods, the analysis is not the ``apples-to-
apples'' comparison that the Joint Commenters set out to achieve. The 
Joint Commenters compared model lines based on year 2000 ARMIS special 
access line count data with year 2001 special access lines obtained 
from Verizon. Furthermore, the analysis focuses on the number of 
special access lines assigned to wire centers, rather than the 
percentages of lines in a study area that are assigned to wire centers. 
Even if the Joint Commenters had compared model and Verizon data from 
the same year, as explained above, we would not expect the number of 
special access lines assigned to a wire center to be the same. The 
Bureau's methodology assigns special access lines to wire centers using 
fractions calculated based on the 1999 Data Request. Thus, a more 
appropriate comparison for evaluating the Bureau's methodology would be 
to compare the percentage of special access lines in a study area that 
are assigned to a wire center using the Bureau's methodology with the 
percentage of total special access lines in the study area that are 
identified in the Verizon data as serving that wire center.
    15. After analyzing the two data sets on which the Joint Commenters 
base their analysis, we cannot conclude that the Bureau's allocation 
methodology produces unreliable or biased results. We first analyzed 
the data sets for differences between the percentages of total special 
access lines assigned to individual wire centers, using the Joint 
Commenters' wire center size categories. We found that for the 45 wire 
centers with less than 3,000 lines, the Bureau's methodology assigns a 
higher percentage of lines than Verizon's special access lines in most 
cases (consistent with the Joint Commenters' contention), but the 
average difference between the model percentages and the Verizon 
percentages is very small--only -0.1 percent. For the 24 wire centers 
with over 10,000 switched lines, we found that the Bureau's methodology 
assigns a lower percentage of lines than the Verizon data in only 33 
percent of the wire centers. Contrary to the Joint Commenters' 
findings, the Bureau's methodology assigns a higher percentage of lines 
than the Verizon data in most wire centers from this group. We also 
analyzed the correlation between wire center size and percentage 
differences between model lines and Verizon lines. Although we found an 
overall correlation of +0.541, this correlation is caused mainly by two 
outlier data points. Thus, although our analysis reveals differences 
between model lines and Verizon's special access lines that are on 
average negative in small wire centers and positive in large wire 
centers, the differences are very small--less than 1 percent--and do 
not reveal a pattern that supports the Joint Commenters'' allegation of 
substantial systematic bias.
    16. Furthermore, our analysis of the Joint Commenters' cost results 
does not show a consistent pattern in the data that would support their 
allegation of bias. Again, for purposes of our analysis, we used the 
Joint Commenters' wire center size categories. As stated above, they 
contend that the differences in model cost estimates based on Verizon 
lines and model lines correlate to wire center size: higher-density 
(urban) wire centers have lower costs and lower-density (rural) wire 
centers have higher costs based on Verizon lines. Although this is 
true, on average, most of the wire centers within their groups do not 
conform to this pattern. For small wire centers with 0 to 1,000 lines, 
the Joint Commenters found that the average difference was +$0.11. 
Twenty-eight of the 34 wire centers in this group have lower costs 
using Verizon data, however. For wire centers with 1,000 to 2,500 
lines, the Joint Commenters found that the average difference was 
+$0.23, but 57 out of the 77 wire centers in this group have lower 
costs using Verizon data. Thus, the majority of small, rural wire 
centers show differences that are counter to the Joint Commenters' 
allegation of bias.
    17. We also analyzed the cost results when the Verizon data are 
adjusted to match the vintage of the other line count data used in the 
Joint Commenters' analysis. As discussed above, they compared two 
vintages of special access lines: year 2000 ARMIS line count data and 
2001 line count data obtained from Verizon. To obtain cost results, 
they used these data in combination with year-end 2000 switched line 
counts. The Bureau runs the model using switched and special access 
lines from the same year, however, which is important for purposes of 
analyzing cost results because it allows one to distinguish between 
effects due to changes in the overall number of lines and changes due 
to the allocation of lines. Accordingly, Bureau staff factored down the 
Verizon year 2001 special access data to reflect the total year 2000 
ARMIS special access line data, and combined this data with year-end 
2000 switched line count data to obtain adjusted cost results.

[[Page 11329]]

Comparing these adjusted results to results based on model lines, we 
again found that although the average differences were consistent with 
the Joint Commenters' findings, most wire centers showed differences 
counter to the allegation of bias. As shown in Attachment B, the 
overall result of our analysis of the relationship between wire center 
size and differences in cost results based on adjusted Verizon lines 
and model lines was a slight statistical correlation of -0.085 percent. 
Given the slight correlation between costs and size in the two states 
and the various directions of cost corrections for wire centers within 
each group, we cannot conclude that the Joint Commenters' cost 
correction factors are reliable. In sum, therefore, we conclude that 
allocating year 2002 ARMIS special access lines based on the 1999 Data 
Request remains a reasonable approach for estimating special access 
line growth for purposes of calculating and targeting non-rural high-
cost support for 2004, and that the Joint Commenters' analysis does not 
establish that this methodology is unreliable or produces biased 
results.
    18. Finally, the Joint Commenters do not establish an alternative 
methodology that would provide fairer or more reasonable results. Even 
if their cost correction factors were reliable for Maine and Vermont, 
there is no reason to believe the same factors would be reliable 
nationwide. The differences in costs based on special access lines and 
costs based on model lines are likely to differ significantly by state 
given the diversity of terrain, population density, and size. Because 
support is determined in relationship to the nationwide average cost, 
we would have concerns about applying cost correction factors derived 
from two states to the nation as a whole. Moreover, if state-specific 
cost correction factors were used, it is not clear that the states of 
Maine and Vermont would see a ``substantial'' increase in support. 
Depending upon the ``corrected'' costs in other states, their support 
could also decrease.
    19. In the absence of new data, the Joint Commenters urge the 
Commission to revert to the special access line counts used to 
distribute support in 2000, that is, year 1998 ARMIS special access 
lines. Using these line counts would provide demonstrably less reliable 
results than the current methodology for two reasons. Prior to ARMIS 
reporting year 2000, some carriers were under-reporting their special 
access lines by reporting special access circuits terminating at 
multiple customer premises as a single special access line, rather than 
as multiple special access lines. As part of its ongoing effort to 
improve data consistency, the Bureau subsequently clarified how special 
access lines should be reported in a consistent fashion. As a result, 
Verizon's special access lines increased substantially between year 
1999 ARMIS reports and year 2000 ARMIS reports. Second, the method used 
to allocate special access lines to wire centers in the model's first 
year of operation was not as reliable as our current method. Because we 
had not yet developed a methodology to use the 1999 Data Request to 
allocate lines to wire centers, we used the only data available at the 
time to allocate lines: the wire center line counts developed by PNR 
Associates, trued-up to year 1998 ARMIS line counts. The allocations in 
the 1999 Data Request are more reliable because the data were filed by 
the carriers, rather than being estimated by PNR's National Access Line 
Model.

C. Other Issues

    20. Consistent with the 2002 Line Counts Update Order, we will 
update the model with year 2002 ARMIS data used to compute general 
support facilities (GSF) investment so that the model's cost estimates 
take into account the current costs of GSF investment associated with 
supported services. In addition, we will update the model with the most 
recent traffic parameters available from the National Exchange Carrier 
Association (NECA) to determine the percentage of the switch allocated 
to supported services and the switch port requirement for interoffice 
transport. We also will use the methodology employed in the 2001 and 
2002 Line Counts Orders to match wire centers reported by non-rural 
carriers in their quarterly line count data used to adjust non-rural 
high-cost support amounts with the wire centers found in the 1999 Data 
Request and in the model's customer location data. Commenters generally 
support these input updates.
    21. Some commenters express concerns regarding reporting of 
unbundled network element (UNE) lines that are sold or leased to 
competitive LECs for purposes of calculating and targeting non-rural 
high-cost support amounts. In particular, AT&T urges that leased lines 
and UNE lines must be reported to ensure that the model's cost 
estimates reflect the demand for total lines. The Maine and Vermont 
Commissions state that some non-rural carriers do not include UNE lines 
in their ARMIS reports, a practice which could reduce support amounts 
by exaggerating per-line costs in urban areas with substantial UNE-
based competition relative to per-line costs in other areas. We clarify 
that the model uses lines reported to NECA pursuant to section 36.611 
to estimate switched line demand, and that NECA requires that carriers 
report both leased lines and UNE lines that are sold to competitive 
LECs for purposes of Sec.  36.611 reporting.
    22. AT&T urges the Commission to initiate a proceeding to consider 
improvements to the model's platform and inputs, arguing that the model 
has ``well-known deficiencies'' and that recent developments confirm 
the inaccuracy of certain model platform and input assumptions. Such a 
proceeding is beyond the scope of the Bureau's delegated authority. The 
Commission has expressed its intention to initiate a proceeding to 
study proposed changes to the model inputs and model platform in a 
comprehensive manner.

III. Petition for Reconsideration of the 2002 Line Counts Update Order

A. Discussion

    23. We do not address Petitioners' arguments that the model input 
data used by the Bureau pursuant to the 2002 Line Counts Update Order 
was unreliable, because these arguments are fully addressed in the 
foregoing Order. As demonstrated in the foregoing Order, there is no 
merit to Petitioners' contention that the Bureau's methodology for 
allocating updated special access lines in the model is unreliable or 
produces biased results. As also explained above, and contrary to 
Petitioners' assertion, it is appropriate to use data sources from 
different years in the model when these are the best available data to 
achieve reasonable results that are consistent with the Commission's 
forward-looking cost criteria and with applicable universal service 
principles. Below, we conclude that Petitioners' contention that the 
Bureau failed to provide adequate notice of its decision to update data 
in the 2002 Line Counts Update Order is without merit.
    24. Petitioners argue that the Bureau's 2002 Line Counts Public 
Notice, 66 FR 48259, September 19, 2001, seeking comment on updating 
line counts for 2002 did not provide adequate notice that ``routine 
updating of line counts would substantially reduce the support 
available for Verizon customers in their states.'' We disagree. The 
Bureau clearly stated in the 2002 Line Counts Update Public Notice that 
it was considering updating line count data in the model using the same 
methodology as the Bureau used in the 2001 Line Counts Update Order. In 
particular, for

[[Page 11330]]

purposes of determining support for the year 2002, the Bureau sought 
comment on updating the switched line counts in the model with year-end 
2000 wire center line count data, updating special access line counts 
with year 2000 ARMIS data, and using the Bureau's 1999 Data Request to 
allocate the updated lines. In the 2002 Line Counts Update Order, the 
Bureau then applied these methodologies to estimate switched line and 
special access line count growth. Therefore, the Bureau provided 
adequate notice in the 2002 Line Counts Public Notice of the method it 
used to update model inputs in the 2002 Line Counts Update Order.
    25. As the Bureau informed the public that it was considering the 
same framework for 2002 updates as it had in the past, we also disagree 
with Petitioners that they lacked adequate notice of the potential 
impact of input updates on 2002 support distributions. Consistent with 
the Commission's criterion that ``[t]he cost study or model and all 
underlying data, formulae, computations, and software associated with 
the model must be available to all interested parties for review and 
comment,'' the model was posted on the Commission's website, and the 
input data used by the Bureau was available to the public either on the 
website or under a protective order or licensing agreement. Petitioners 
were therefore capable of determining the support distributions for 
2002 based on the model's cost calculations before the 2002 Line Counts 
Update Order was adopted. If Petitioners believed the support 
distributions were inappropriate, they had the burden of identifying 
why specific inputs should not have been updated, but Petitioners did 
not meet this burden. We therefore find that Petitioners had adequate 
notice of the potential impact on non-rural high-cost support amounts 
of the model input updates proposed in the 2002 Line Counts Public 
Notice.
    26. Petitioners further argue that the 2002 Line Counts Public 
Notice failed to notify parties that the Bureau would count special 
access lines as voice grade equivalent channels in the model's inputs, 
special access lines would increase in various non-rural wire centers, 
and updated line counts would be matched with older data for purposes 
of assigning such lines to wire centers. We reject these claims for the 
following reasons. First, in the 2002 Line Counts Update Public Notice, 
the Bureau stated it was considering updating special access lines as 
it had done in the past, which was to count special access lines as 
voice grade equivalent channels. In the comment cycle in that 
proceeding, Verizon requested that the Bureau count special access 
lines as facilities for purposes of calculating support for 2002. The 
Bureau, however, noted in the 2002 Line Counts Update Order that such 
an alteration would require a platform change outside the scope of the 
proceeding, and deferred consideration of this issue until a future 
proceeding on possible improvements to the model platform and inputs. 
Similarly, because Petitioners were notified that special access lines 
would be updated using the same methodology as in the past, Petitioners 
could access year 2000 ARMIS special access filings for the non-rural 
carriers in their states on the Commission's website to find out 
whether special access lines increased or decreased for 2002 cost 
estimates. Consequently, we reject Petitioner's argument that the 2002 
Line Counts Update Public Notice failed to apprise interested parties 
of the methodology used to update special access lines in the 2002 Line 
Count Updates Order. We find that the 2002 Line Counts Public Notice 
was clear in seeking comment on whether to update the model's inputs 
consistent with past practice.
    27. Petitioners also argue that the Bureau did not make available 
line count data at the time of release of the 2002 Line Counts Update 
Public Notice due to proprietary treatment of these data. This claim is 
incorrect. In the First Report and Order, the Commission established, 
as one of the criteria in developing a forward-looking economic cost 
model to determine universal service support, that ``all underlying 
data, formulae, computations, and software associated with the model 
should be available to all interested parties for review and comment.'' 
Consistent with this principle, the Commission has determined that line 
count data used for wire centers that receive high-cost support should 
be publicly available. In addition, line count data for wire centers 
that do not receive high-cost support are available pursuant to the 
Bureau's Interim Protective Order, April 7, 2000. Year-end 2000 line 
count data used to estimate high-cost support for 2002 was filed by 
non-rural carriers by July 31, 2001, and therefore was available to 
Petitioners at the time of the release of the 2002 Line Counts Public 
Notice on September 11, 2001.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    28. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4, 201-205, 
214, 218-220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 410 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, and Sec.  1.108 of the Commission's rules, this order 
is adopted.
    28a. Pursuant the authority contained in sections 4, 201-205, 218-
220, 303(r), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and 
405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sec. Sec.  1.106 
and 1.429 of the Commission's rules, that the petition for 
reconsideration filed February 25, 2002, by the Maine Public Utilities 
Commission and Vermont Public Service Board is denied.

Federal Communications Commission.
William Scher,
Assistant Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Telecommunications Access 
Policy Division.
[FR Doc. 04-5009 Filed 3-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P