[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9020-9024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02686]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 13-69]


Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Further Comment on Specific 
Issues Related to the Implementation of the Remote Areas Fund

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau seeks 
further comment on specific issues relating to the implementation of 
the Remote Areas Fund.

DATES: Comments are due on or before February 19, 2013 and reply 
comments are due on or before March 18, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file comments on or before February 
19, 2013 and reply comments on or before March 18, 2013. All pleadings 
are to reference WC Docket No. 10-90. Comments may be filed using the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 
copies, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     People with Disabilities: To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted Burmeister, Wireline Competition 
Bureau at (202) 418-7389 or TTY (202) 418-0484, or Heidi Lankau, 
Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-2876 or TTY (202) 418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Public Notice (Notice) in WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 13-69, released 
January 17, 2013. The complete text of this document is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the 
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 
12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 
378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via Internet 
at http://www.bcpiweb.com.

I. Introduction

    1. On November 18, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) released the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, 76 FR 
73830, November 29, 2011 and 76 FR 78384, December 16, 2011, which 
comprehensively reformed and modernized the universal service high-cost 
and intercarrier compensation systems. The Commission established the 
Connect America Fund to ensure that voice and broadband service is 
available throughout the nation. Within Connect America, the Commission 
created a Remote Areas Fund with a budget of ``at least $100 million 
annually'' to ensure that even Americans living in the most remote 
areas of the nation, where the cost of providing terrestrial broadband 
service is extremely high, can obtain service. In the accompanying 
FNPRM, 76 FR 78384, December 16, 2011, the Commission sought comment on 
various issues relating to the Remote Areas Fund, including how to 
define the remote areas eligible for support from the Remote Areas 
Fund, qualifications for participating providers, the public interest 
obligations of these providers, as well as administrative issues.
    2. Based on the record generated in response to the FNPRM, the 
Bureau now seeks further detailed comment on issues relating to the 
implementation of the Remote Areas Fund as a portable consumer subsidy 
program, as proposed by the Commission in the FNPRM and supported by a 
diverse group of commenters. In particular, we seek to further develop 
the record on a number of specific issues, including defining the areas 
where Remote Areas funding will be available, how to set the consumer 
subsidy, consumer eligibility, measures to keep the program within a 
defined annual budget, service provider participation, performance 
requirements, and accountability and oversight.

II. Discussion

A. Areas Eligible for Remote Areas Fund Support

    3. Discussion. We seek to further develop the record on 
administratively feasible ways to identify areas (both those served by 
price cap carriers and by rate-of-return carriers) where consumers 
would be eligible for the Remote Areas Fund.
    4. In lieu of using the cost model to define eligible areas, should 
the Commission use the National Broadband Map to identify unserved 
census blocks and provide Remote Areas Fund support to those census 
areas until they become served with broadband that meets the 
Commission's performance requirements (i.e., speed, capacity, latency) 
for non-Remote Areas Fund eligible areas?
    5. If the Commission chooses to utilize the most current version of 
the National Broadband Map available at the time it adopts rules for 
the Remote Areas Fund for the purpose of determining areas eligible for 
the Remote Areas Fund, should there be a process to contest the 
classification of areas as unserved or served on the map before Remote 
Areas funding is provided, and how could that process be implemented in 
a way to expedite the launch of the Remote Areas Fund? For instance, 
should the Commission consider any updates to the National Broadband 
Map gathered in conjunction with Connect America Phase I when 
finalizing areas eligible for the Remote Areas Fund? Should the 
Commission implement a process to allow households to self-report if 
data indicate that certain areas are served, if they contend those 
areas are unserved?
    6. We ask for further comment on other possible data sources that 
the Commission could use to identify unserved areas. Should the 
Commission take into consideration the unique characteristics of 
locations like Alaska or Hawaii in determining areas eligible for 
Remote Areas funding, and if so, how? To the extent parties advocate 
use of information other than a cost model or the National Broadband 
Map to identify remote areas, they should provide specific objective 
metrics that could be used under such an approach.
    7. Implementing the Remote Areas Fund in Rate-of-Return Areas. We 
seek to further develop the record on the suggestion of the National 
Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. et al. that the Commission take into 
account the $250 per-line per month cap when identifying areas that are 
eligible for the Remote Areas Fund. In lieu of relying on a forward 
looking cost model, should

[[Page 9021]]

the Commission identify areas for the Remote Areas Fund based on 
reported loop cost, such as a rule that all unserved locations in rate-
of-return study areas for which the reported loop cost equals or 
exceeds the 95th percentile for average cost be eligible for Remote 
Areas Fund support?
    8. Alternatively, should the Commission rely on the National 
Broadband Map to identify rate-of-return census blocks that would be 
eligible for the Remote Areas Fund, as well as price cap census blocks?
    9. We anticipate that rate-of-return carriers would be eligible, as 
existing eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs), to seek funding 
from the Remote Areas Fund and potentially could use alternative 
technologies, either directly or through resale, to provide broadband 
to their highest cost customers. To the extent an existing ETC receives 
funding from the Remote Areas Fund, should any adjustment be made to 
its receipt of support under other high-cost support mechanisms? Should 
there be any adjustment to an existing rate-of-return ETC's support if 
another ETC were to serve some portion of the study area through the 
Remote Area Fund?
    10. Would the ability to serve customers through the Remote Areas 
Fund address concerns raised by rate-of-return carriers regarding their 
ability to meet the current rule requiring the deployment of broadband 
upon reasonable request?
    11. To the extent parties argue that a different method for 
identifying remote areas should be used in areas served by rate-of-
return carriers than areas served by price cap carriers, they should 
present specific alternative proposals of how to identify those areas 
that would be eligible for such funding.
    12. Transition Issues. If the Commission were to adopt an approach 
that relied on the National Broadband Map in lieu of a cost threshold 
in the forward-looking cost model to designate census blocks eligible 
for Remote Areas funding, the potential eligibility of specific areas 
would change over time with the ongoing deployment of broadband-capable 
infrastructure by existing ETCs receiving support under other universal 
service mechanisms as well as with expansion by unsubsidized 
competitors.
    13. How should the rules address the transition where an area that 
is initially classified as unserved, and therefore eligible for Remote 
Areas Fund support, subsequently becomes served by a terrestrial 
broadband provider, and how does the answer differ if the Commission 
chooses to structure the Remote Areas Fund as a one-time payment, as 
opposed to a monthly subsidy?
    14. Would it be a cost-effective use of universal service funds to 
provide a Remote Areas Fund voucher to a consumer that resides in a 
location that is expected to receive terrestrial broadband at some 
point in the future through Connect America Phase I or Phase II? How 
would a rule identifying all unserved areas as eligible for the Remote 
Areas Fund, at least until they become served, affect the incentives of 
existing ETCs to deploy terrestrial broadband? How would it impact 
carriers' incentives to participate in other universal service 
programs, such as Connect America Phase II or the Mobility Fund Phase 
II?

B. Consumer Subsidy

    15. Discussion. We seek to further develop the record on 
implementation details regarding how a portable consumer subsidy should 
be structured, how the amount of the portable consumer subsidy would be 
set, what restrictions, if any, should be placed on the service 
contracts that are supported by this subsidy, and how such a program 
could be designed to stay within a $100 million annual budget. We also 
seek to further develop the record on the relative advantages and 
disadvantages of structuring the Remote Areas Fund as a one-time 
subsidy or a monthly retail subsidy.
1. One-Time Subsidy
    16. We seek to further develop the record on setting the subsidy 
amount for a one-time payment. Satellite and fixed wireless broadband 
services typically include a combination of upfront and monthly set-up 
and equipment fees. We note that in its satellite program, RUS awarded 
Hughes Network Systems (Hughes) a grant of $58,777,306 and Wildblue 
Communications (Wildblue) a grant of $19,533,444. Based on RUS' 
estimates of the number of subscribers that would benefit from these 
grants, Hughes received an award of approximately $227 per subscriber 
and Wildblue received an award of approximately $177 per subscriber. 
Would $200 in one-time support per location be an appropriate amount 
for the Remote Areas Fund one-time subsidy, or should it be higher or 
lower? How should the Commission account for the fact that in some 
locations, installation and other upfront costs may be significantly 
higher (e.g., due to the extreme remoteness of a location or obstacles 
that may make it difficult for a signal to reach the location)? We 
encourage commenters to suggest specific dollar amounts and provide 
specific factual information in support of their assertions.
    17. How would adoption of a consumer voucher structured as a one-
time payment impact providers' existing practices regarding the 
amortization of installation costs through monthly rates? Would this 
approach avoid distorting providers' business decisions regarding the 
relative amounts of upfront and monthly fees charged to the retail 
consumer? Would this approach present any unique administrative 
challenges?
    18. Should the Commission set forth pricing and performance 
requirements that would apply over a minimum period of time to ensure 
ongoing and acceptable service to the consumer, as a condition of 
receiving a one-time payment? We note that RUS' BIP program for 
satellite took such an approach, setting pricing restrictions on basic 
service packages, prohibiting carriers from requiring customers to 
enter into extended contracts (subject to certain exceptions), and 
requiring carriers to offer customer premise equipment at no cost for 
all their service packages. Would a similar approach be appropriate for 
the Remote Areas Fund? Should a condition of receiving the one-time 
payment be that the Remote Areas Fund-supported providers offer voice 
service at a rate not to exceed the Commission's prior reasonable 
comparability benchmark for voice service for non-rural carriers, i.e., 
$36.52? What would be an appropriate amount of time for such pricing 
and performance requirements?
    19. How would structuring the consumer subsidy as a one-time 
payment affect the nature of competition among potential providers to 
serve the consumer? Should the Commission adopt any restrictions on the 
ability of consumers to obtain a new one-time subsidy if they switch 
providers after some amount of time? Would it be wasteful for the 
Remote Areas Fund to subsidize the cost of installing a satellite dish 
or fixed wireless receiver on a home if the consumer previously has 
used a Remote Areas Fund voucher to install equipment from another 
provider? What types of reporting or other requirements might the 
Commission impose to protect against waste, fraud and abuse? For 
example, in the Lifeline program, consumers must certify that they will 
notify their service providers within 30 days if they move to a new 
address. What kinds of burdens might this requirement impose on service 
providers, and particularly on small businesses?

[[Page 9022]]

2. Monthly Retail Subsidy
    20. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, the Commission 
also sought comment on various issues relating to structuring the 
portable consumer subsidy as ``a monthly amount equal to the difference 
between the retail price of a `basic' satellite voice-broadband service 
and an appropriate reference price for reasonably comparable service in 
urban areas.'' We seek to further develop the record on what specific 
figure should be used as the urban reference price, pending 
implementation of the urban rate survey, if the Commission were to 
implement a monthly subsidy?
    21. We note that the Commission's prior reasonable comparability 
benchmark for voice service for non-rural carriers was $36.52. On an 
interim basis, would it be reasonable to set the urban reference price 
for voice at $37 for purposes of the Remote Areas Fund? We also note 
that several large fixed terrestrial providers offer broadband at 
speeds close to the Commission's 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream 
benchmark at prices ranging from $45 to $49.95 per month. Would setting 
an urban reference price for broadband at a somewhat higher level, such 
as $60, be a reasonable interim approach for the Remote Areas Fund? 
Should that figure be lower or higher?
    22. We also seek further comment on what should be considered 
``basic'' satellite voice-broadband service for the purposes of setting 
the monthly consumer subsidy amount. Satellite broadband providers 
offer a variety of service tiers with different usage limits at 
different prices, with the lowest price offerings currently in the $50 
range. Should the Commission deem the lowest price offering to be a 
``basic'' broadband offering, and therefore focus on the $50 plan in 
setting the satellite reference rate? Should consumers be able to use 
their monthly voucher to purchase services above the basic offering?
    23. How, if at all, should the Commission take into account the 
costs of installation and other upfront costs as part of a monthly 
retail subsidy? For instance, should the representative retail rate be 
determined by adding together the monthly service amount plus any 
upfront fees, amortized over a two-year period?
    24. Satellite broadband service rates provide a useful framework 
for setting the portable consumer subsidy amount because they are 
generally uniform nationwide. However, we acknowledge that terrestrial 
wireless or wireline service providers may be viable providers for 
certain remote areas and may choose to participate in the Remote Areas 
Fund. Given that these service providers can charge rates that vary by 
geography, we seek comment on whether, and if so, how to account for 
these varying rates when setting the rate that will be compared to 
reasonably comparable services in urban areas.
    25. How, if at all, should the usage amounts associated with 
wireless broadband services in urban areas be factored into such an 
adjustment?
3. Applying the Subsidy to Consumer Bill
    26. Regardless of whether the Commission structures the Remote 
Areas Fund as a one-time or monthly subsidy, we seek further comment on 
measures to ensure the consumer receives the full benefit of the 
subsidy.
    27. To discourage service providers from raising their rates in 
response to the availability of a consumer subsidy, the Commission 
sought comment in the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM on 
requiring ``each ETC to establish an `anchor price' for its basic 
service offering--including installation and equipment charges--as a 
condition of eligibility to receive Remote Areas Fund support.'' Should 
the Remote Areas Fund-supported provider be required to apply the 
discount to the provider's best available rates, including any 
discounts or promotions, at the time the consumer subscribes to the 
service? How could the Commission structure this requirement to prevent 
service providers from capturing the subsidy and not passing it on to 
the consumer? How could it be structured so that it could be audited to 
verify that providers are in fact providing consumers their best 
available rates?
4. Restrictions on Extended Contracts
    28. As the Commission noted in the FNPRM, certain satellite 
providers require that consumers enter into 24-month contracts when 
they subscribe to their services. We seek to further develop the record 
on issues relating to the use of extended contracts by Remote Areas 
Fund-supported providers.
    29. If Remote Areas Fund-supported providers are permitted to enter 
into extended contracts with consumers receiving Remote Areas Fund 
subsidies, should the maximum permitted contract term be 24 months? We 
note that in implementing its satellite broadband program, RUS only 
permitted awardees to enter into one-year contracts in certain 
circumstances. Does the answer depend on whether the Commission 
structures the Remote Areas Fund as a one-time payment or a monthly 
subsidy? If the Commission provides portable consumer subsidies for 
extended contracts, how should it handle early termination fees?

C. Consumer Eligibility for the Remote Areas Fund

    30. Discussion. Should the Commission adopt the same definition for 
household for purposes of the Remote Areas Fund as it did for Lifeline 
and associated implementing regulations?
    31. Should the Commission require consumer self-certifications that 
they do not have terrestrial broadband available at their home meeting 
defined requirements (i.e., for capacity, latency, usage, and price) as 
a precondition to receiving the Remote Areas Fund consumer subsidy? Are 
there any other specific mechanisms the Commission should adopt to 
ensure that Remote Areas funding does not go to consumers that already 
have terrestrial broadband that meets the Commission's requirements?
    32. Should consumers be required to self-certify that they are 
using Remote Areas Fund support at their primary address? If consumers 
are found to be making false self-certifications, should the Commission 
impose penalties for such false statements and misrepresentations?
    33. If the Commission did require primary address self-
certifications, would it be reasonable to employ Lifeline requirements 
(e.g., 30-day moving notifications, a prohibition on P.O. box 
addresses, and a requirement that applicants provide both a primary 
address and billing address) to impose the primary address restriction? 
How should the Commission account for certain groups like seasonal 
workers that may make frequent moves between residences?
    34. If the Commission requires consumers to submit a certification 
pursuant to a one Remote Areas Fund subsidy per household or primary 
address restriction, should the service provider be responsible for 
collecting and verifying the certification? We note that USAC is in the 
process of developing a database to verify that households do not 
receive more than one Lifeline subsidy. Should USAC also develop a 
database of Remote Areas Fund-eligible households with associated 
addresses, and could the Lifeline database be expanded for this purpose 
in a cost-effective way? What steps, if any, should USAC or ETCs take 
to verify self-certifications in the interim while the database would 
be developed? We also seek comment on whether the costs to ETCs or the 
Administrator of

[[Page 9023]]

verifying certifications against such a database or other data source 
would outweigh any potential savings associated with restricting Remote 
Areas Fund support to one-per-household and/or primary addresses.
    35. If a database is employed, should ETCs be required to collect 
the data for the database from their customers? How can the Commission 
ensure that data that are submitted to the database by ETCs are 
uniform? As an alternative to creating a database or utilizing an 
expanded version of USAC's Lifeline database, are there other types of 
tools or data sources that USAC or ETCs could rely on to verify 
consumers' addresses?

D. Designing the Remote Areas Fund Within a Set Budget

    36. Discussion. Recognizing that the answer depends on the level of 
subsidy provided, what would be the financial impact of making all 
census blocks shown as unserved areas on the National Broadband Map 
eligible for Remote Areas Fund support, until deployment occurs in 
those areas, whether through support from universal service or through 
market forces? How likely is it that the Commission would need to limit 
the number of locations in remote areas that will be eligible for 
support to stay within a defined budget? If so, what criteria should 
the Commission use to determine which remote areas will receive support 
and which will not? If the demand for the Remote Areas Fund were to 
exceed a defined $100 million annual budget, should the Commission 
reevaluate and set a higher budget for the following year, or should 
the Commission adopt a $100 million hard cap in interest of promoting 
fiscal responsibility and controlling the overall size of the universal 
service budget?

E. Service Providers Eligible To Receive Support From the Remote Areas 
Fund

    37. Discussion. Should the Commission impose requirements to 
standardize the required showings to be designated an ETC to 
participate in the Remote Areas Fund, the procedural aspects of the ETC 
application process, the time states take to review ETC applications, 
the criteria states use to evaluate ETC applications, and the 
obligations that states place on ETCs? If so, what specific 
requirements should be adopted? The National Cable & Telecommunications 
Association proposes that ETC applications be deemed granted within 30 
days of filing; would a more reasonable time frame for such a 
requirement be 60 or 90 days?
    38. ETCs that receive Remote Areas Fund support will be required to 
provide voice service. We seek to update the record on the quality of 
the voice service that satellite providers and wireless Internet 
Service Providers (WISPs) are able to offer today, and over the next 
twelve months. We note that nothing in the Commission's existing 
regulations would preclude incumbent voice providers that have already 
received an ETC designation and who wish to resell satellite broadband 
services or other wireless broadband services from receiving Remote 
Areas funding, assuming such services meet specified performance 
requirements. What is the likelihood that satellite providers and WISPs 
would enter partnerships with traditional voice providers, i.e., 
incumbent telephone companies, to fulfill voice obligations in areas 
eligible for Remote Areas funding?

F. Performance Requirements for Remote Areas Fund-Supported Service 
Providers

    39. Discussion. The International Telecommunication Union has noted 
that while latency delays above 400 milliseconds are unacceptable for 
network planning, latency up to 300 milliseconds provides acceptable 
voice quality for most users with an increasing number of users 
becoming dissatisfied if latency exceeds 300 milliseconds. Based on 
this information, we seek comment on an appropriate latency standard 
for the Remote Areas Fund. How should the Commission address the 
increased latency experienced during double hop calls?
    40. We also seek to further develop the record on setting required 
usage allowances for providers participating in the Remote Areas Fund. 
We have not yet established minimum usage requirements that will apply 
to price cap carriers that elect to make a statewide commitment to 
serve areas in Phase II. Given the Commission's recognition that it may 
be appropriate to ``modestly relax'' performance requirements in areas 
supported by the Remote Areas Fund, what downward adjustments would 
represent an appropriate balancing of the ``economic and technical 
characteristics of networks'' likely to serve the most remote areas?
    41. We note that according to one source, during the second half of 
2012, the median monthly data consumption for fixed services in North 
America was 16.8 GB per-subscriber. And according to recent Commission 
speed testing data, 75 percent of surveyed DSL subscribers in April 
2012 used less than 20 GB per month. Given this historical data and 
industry forecasts for future usage, what usage allowance should be a 
required minimum for providers participating in the Remote Areas Fund? 
Would 20 GB be an appropriate usage allowance requirement for the 
Remote Areas Fund, at least in its initial implementation? Should the 
Commission periodically adjust the Remote Areas Fund usage allowance 
requirement to reflect consumer behavior, and if so, how often?

G. Accountability and Oversight

    42. Discussion. Should any of the 47 CFR 54.313 reporting 
requirements not apply or be tailored for Remote Areas Fund recipients? 
For example, is the requirement that ETCs report detailed information 
about outages, and the number of complaints they receive per 1,000 
connections, reasonable for Remote Areas Fund-supported participants? 
Is there a need to require a five-year build-out plan in a situation 
where the subsidy is structured as a consumer subsidy, rather than a 
supply-side subsidy for deployment? While recognizing there are 
fundamental differences between the Lifeline program and Connect 
America high-cost programs, are there lessons that the Commission could 
learn from Lifeline's administration of consumer subsidies? What 
measures would the Commission need to put in place to ensure that 
subsidies are not flowing to consumers that are already served by 
terrestrial broadband meeting the Commission's broadband speed 
benchmark? What specific kinds of documents should Remote Areas Fund 
participants be required to retain in order to facilitate USAC's audits 
and investigations of funding recipients? Should Remote Areas Fund 
participants be required to maintain date stamped screen shots of Web 
site advertisements and/or other documentary evidence of pricing, 
including both published and unpublished rates available upon request, 
to facilitate the ability of auditors to ensure that consumers have the 
benefit of best available rates?

III. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    43. The USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM included an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, 
exploring the potential impact on small entities of the Commission's 
proposal. We invite parties to file comments on the IRFA in light of 
this additional notice.

[[Page 9024]]

B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    44. This Public Notice contains information collection requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13 
that were originally proposed in the USF/ICC Transformation Order and 
FNPRM. The USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM was submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) 
of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies were 
invited to comment on the new information collection requirements 
contained in that proceeding and referenced in this Public Notice.

C. Filing Requirements

    45. Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or 
before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments 
are to reference WC Docket Nos. 10-90 and DA 13-69 and may be filed 
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). 
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, 
May 1, 1998.
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy of each filing.
    [ssquf] Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC20554. The filing hours are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    [ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    In addition, we request that one copy of each pleading be sent to 
each of the following:
    (1) Ted Burmeister, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, 
Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-A445, 
Washington, DC 20554; email: [email protected];
    (2) Heidi Lankau, Telecommunications Access Policy 
Division,Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-B511, 
Washington, DC 20554; email: [email protected];
    (3) Charles Tyler, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, 
Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-A452, 
Washington, DC 20554; email: mail to: [email protected].
    46. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    47. This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written 
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline 
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex 
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule section 1.1206(b). In proceedings 
governed by rule section 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made 
available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations 
and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all 
attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment 
filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their 
native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 
in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's 
ex parte rules.

Federal Communications Commission.
Trent B. Harkrader,
Division Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline 
Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013-02686 Filed 2-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P