[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26705-26708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10851]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket Nos. 09-197; 11-42; FCC 13-44]


 Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Support; Lifeline and 
Link Up Reform and Several Petitions for Forbearance

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this order, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) grants limited forbearance from the requirement of the 
Commission's rules that the service area of an eligible 
telecommunications carrier (ETC) conform to the service area of any 
rural telephone company serving the same area. In particular, this 
grant of forbearance applies to any ETC that has been designated by a 
state or the Commission, as well as pending and future requests by 
telecommunications carriers that seek limited designation, as an ETC to 
participate only in the Lifeline program (Lifeline-only ETC). The 
Commission concludes that forbearance furthers the Act's and 
Commission's goals of ensuring the availability of voice service to 
low-income consumers.

DATES: Effective June 7, 2013, except paragraph 19 which is effective 
upon release of the Memorandum Opinion and Order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, (202) 418-0428 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order (Order) in WC Docket Nos. 09-197;11-42; 
FCC 13-44, released on April 15, 2013. 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. Or at the following Internet address:

[[Page 26706]]

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0415/FCC-13-44A1.pdf.

I. Introduction

    1. In this Order, pursuant to section 10 of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended (the Act), we grant limited forbearance from the 
requirement of section 214(e)(5) of the Act and Sec.  54.207(b) of the 
Commission's rules that the service area of an eligible 
telecommunications carrier (ETC) conform to the service area of any 
rural telephone company serving the same area. In particular, this 
grant of forbearance applies to any ETC that has been designated by a 
state or the Commission, as well as pending and future requests by 
telecommunications carriers that seek limited designation, as an ETC to 
participate only in the Lifeline program (Lifeline-only ETC).
    2. We conclude that forbearance furthers the Act's and Commission's 
goals of ensuring the availability of voice service to low-income 
consumers. Moreover, we find that application of the conformance 
requirements set forth in section 214(e)(5) of the Act and Sec.  
54.207(b) of the Commission's rules is not necessary to ensure that 
rates remain just and reasonable or to protect consumers. We emphasize 
that the forbearance granted herein is limited to a carrier's 
designation as a Lifeline-only ETC. If any carrier petitions to become 
an ETC to receive high-cost support, this forbearance order is 
inapplicable and such carrier must satisfy all of the statutory 
requirements applicable to ETCs under the Act.

II. Discussion

    3. We conclude that forbearing from the conformance requirement of 
section 214(e)(5) of the Act and Sec.  54.207(b) of the Commission's 
rules is appropriate and in the public interest for carriers seeking 
designation, or already designated, as Lifeline-only ETCs. For the 
reasons explained below, we find that all three prongs of section 10(a) 
are satisfied. As a result, if a commission designates a carrier as a 
limited, Lifeline-only ETC in part of a rural service area, that 
designation will not require redefinition of the rural telephone 
company's service area. Because forbearance would apply only to 
designations for the purpose of becoming a limited ETC to participate 
in the Commission's Lifeline program, we examine the conformance 
requirement in light of the statutory goal of providing low-income 
consumers with access to telecommunications services as it relates to 
the Commission's Lifeline program.
    4. Given that designating authorities may have already designated 
carriers as Lifeline-only ETCs in partial rural service areas without 
seeking redefinition, the Commission will not enforce the conformance 
requirement for those previously granted ETC designations. Such ETCs 
need not amend their service area and may rely on this forbearance to 
continue serving partial rural service areas. If the designating 
authority required Lifeline-only ETCs to follow the conformance 
requirement in its designation, the ETCs must abide by its designation 
order. We emphasize, however, that if any carrier seeks designation to 
be an ETC to receive high-cost support in part of a service area served 
by a rural telephone company, we do not forbear from the redefinition 
process that is required by the Act.
    5. Just and Reasonable. Section 10(a)(1) of the Act requires that 
we consider whether enforcement of the provisions from which 
forbearance is sought is necessary to ensure that the charges, 
practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection 
with the carriers or services at issue are just and reasonable and not 
unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. We conclude that compliance 
with the conformance requirement of section 214(e)(5) of the Act and 
Sec.  54.207(b) of the Commission's rules is not necessary to ensure 
that a Lifeline-only carrier's charges, practices, and classifications 
are just and reasonable and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory 
where it is providing Lifeline service only. Lifeline support, designed 
to reduce the monthly cost of telecommunications services for eligible 
consumers, is distributed on a per-subscriber basis and is directly 
reflected in the price that the eligible subscriber pays. As discussed 
below, we find that the factors traditionally taken into account by the 
Commission and the states when reviewing a potential redefinition of a 
rural service area pursuant to section 214(e)(5) of the Act do not 
apply in the context of conditionally designating ETCs in areas 
eligible for Lifeline support. Furthermore, forbearance from the 
service area conformance requirement would not prevent the Commission 
from enforcing sections 201 or 202 of the Act, which require all 
carriers to charge just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rates. The 
Lifeline offerings of carriers subject to this forbearance will 
compete, at a minimum, with the Lifeline offerings of the incumbent 
wireline carrier, as well as other wireline and wireless providers, in 
any given geographic area. We also expect that this competition will 
spur innovation among carriers in their Lifeline offerings, expanding 
the choice of Lifeline products for eligible consumers. The resulting 
competition is likely to help ensure just, reasonable, and 
nondiscriminatory offerings of services. For these reasons, we find 
that the first prong of section 10(a) is met.
    6. Consumer Protection. Section 10(a)(2) requires that we consider 
whether applying the conformance requirement to a voice service 
provider that has previously received designation, or will seek a 
Lifeline-only ETC designation through a pending designation request or 
at some time in the future, is necessary for the protection of 
consumers. Carriers designated as Lifeline-only ETCs offer Lifeline-
eligible consumers an additional choice of providers for discounted 
telecommunications services. Forbearance from the conformance 
requirement for Lifeline-only support may provide additional 
competitive choices to many low-income consumers who cannot afford non-
discounted offerings. Moreover, there is no evidence that forbearance 
from the conformance requirement for the limited purpose of being a 
Lifeline-only ETC would harm consumers currently served by the rural 
telephone companies in the relevant service areas. Finally, every ETC, 
including any carrier receiving Lifeline-only support, must certify 
that it will satisfy applicable consumer protection and service quality 
standards in its service area. For these reasons, we find that the 
second prong of section 10(a) is met.
    7. Public Interest. Section 10(a)(3) requires that we consider 
whether forbearing from the conformance requirement to carriers that 
have previously received designation, have pending designation requests 
or will seek ETC designation for Lifeline support only in the future is 
in the public interest. We find that forbearance from the service area 
conformance requirement in these limited circumstances will promote 
competitive market conditions for the Lifeline program. Requiring 
carriers to conform their service areas to those of the rural carriers 
in the states they seek to participate only in the Lifeline program 
could result in numerous redefinition proceedings, which could delay 
their entry into those markets, make it more difficult to market to 
potential Lifeline consumers on a statewide basis, and deprive low-
income consumers in areas where the incumbent wireline provider is a 
rural telephone company of an additional choice of service provider. 
For example, carriers state that the

[[Page 26707]]

redefinition process for Lifeline-only offerings may take years to 
resolve and, as such, wastes resources of both carriers and regulators. 
Additionally, to avoid disruption of service to low-income consumers 
served by existing Lifeline-only ETCs that were previously designated 
by state designating authorities or the Commission that defined 
carriers' service areas as part of a rural service area in its original 
ETC designation, those ETCs need not amend their service areas and may 
rely on this forbearance to continue serving partial rural service 
areas. We find that applying the conformance requirement to Lifeline-
only ETCs would not be in the public interest when balanced against the 
benefits of maintaining or introducing a competitive alternative 
Lifeline provider to low-income consumers.
    8. We disagree with assertions that granting forbearance from the 
conformance requirement for Lifeline-only ETC designation will have a 
detrimental effect on rural telephone companies. In response to the Cox 
Petition, the Atlas Telephone Company expresses concerns that granting 
forbearance from the conformance requirement and redefinition process 
could cause a rural telephone company to suffer the same adverse 
effects from losing customers to other Lifeline providers, as observed 
under traditional creamskimming analysis, specifically arguing that as 
a rural telephone company's low-income consumers migrate to other 
Lifeline providers, the number of lines served by the rural telephone 
company declines, causing its cost per line to increase. As the 
Commission previously explained, the amount of Lifeline support is not 
tied to the cost of serving an area. Rather, Lifeline support is a 
fixed, per-line amount nationwide, and ETCs are required to pass 
through the Lifeline support they receive to the benefit of their 
subscribers. Any creamskimming concerns in an area of a rural telephone 
company are not relevant in considering the designation of a Lifeline-
only ETC. Creamskimming is not a public-interest consideration in the 
Lifeline context, whether the competing carrier is offering wireline or 
wireless service. We find that the Act contains safeguards to address 
any concerns raised by Atlas or any other rural telephone company that 
questions whether the designation of a carrier as a Lifeline-only ETC 
is in the public interest. The Act already requires designating 
commissions to affirmatively determine that designating a carrier as an 
ETC within a rural service area is in the public interest and that 
determination is not affected by this grant of forbearance. As a 
result, any concerns raised by a rural telephone company will be 
evaluated by the designating authority when considering designating a 
limited, Lifeline-only ETC.
    9. We also disagree with the argument that granting forbearance 
from the conformance requirement will eliminate the role of states in 
ETC designations and redefinition. Forbearance in these limited 
circumstances merely removes the conformance requirement for previously 
designated ETCs receiving Lifeline-only support and carriers with 
pending or future ETC designation requests for Lifeline-only support, 
so that states, which have jurisdiction over most ETCs, may now 
designate Lifeline-only ETCs in a portion of a rural service area 
without requiring redefinition of that rural service area. State 
commissions are still required to consider the public interest, 
convenience and necessity of designating carriers as a competitive ETC 
in a rural area already served by a rural telephone company. Our 
decision here to grant forbearance for Lifeline-only designations does 
not disturb the roles of state commissions and this Commission in the 
ETC designation process or in the redefinition process in other 
circumstances when redefinition is required.
    10. For pending and future Lifeline-only designation requests, 
carriers' service area will no longer be required to conform to the 
service area of the rural telephone companies serving the same area. 
The Commission recognizes all of the important issues raised by 
commenters in determining whether a particular carrier has met the 
requirements to become an ETC for the limited purpose of receiving 
Lifeline support, all of which will be addressed by the designating 
authority when a carrier submits an application requesting designation. 
Designating authorities will continue to make an independent assessment 
as to whether designating a carrier as an ETC within a rural service 
area is in the public interest.
    11. Our decision here to forbear from the service area conformance 
requirement does not affect the findings of any prior ETC designation. 
Virgin Mobile, i-wireless, Q Link and Global Connection seek 
forbearance with respect to those areas previously designated by state 
designating agencies and the Commission. For previously designated 
Lifeline-only ETCs serving partial rural areas, the designating 
authorities have already determined that designating such carriers as 
ETCs is in the public interest. Any carrier that has already been 
designated as an ETC must comply with the obligations of their ETC 
designation orders.
    12. The Commission has made clear its commitment to improve 
accountability for providers receiving universal service support in its 
continued effort to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. In the Commission's 
prior grant of forbearance from the service area conformance 
requirement, it conditioned forbearance on the carriers submitting, and 
having the Wireline Competition Bureau approve, a plan to comply with 
several obligations imposed in that order before it could begin 
providing service in accordance with its grant of forbearance. The 
Commission has since adopted numerous conditions in the Lifeline Reform 
Order, 77 FR 12952, March 2, 2012, to reduce waste, fraud and abuse in 
the Lifeline program, and thus, eliminated the need to impose 
additional conditions in the context of forbearance from the service 
area conformance requirement. Although carriers may now be designated a 
Lifeline-only ETC by either a state commission or this Commission in 
partial rural service areas, no carrier seeking to avail itself of this 
limited forbearance grant may be designated in a part of a rural 
service area to receive federal high-cost support without first seeking 
redefinition of the underlying rural telephone company's study area.
    13. For the reasons stated herein, we find that the statutory 
requirements for forbearance pursuant to section 10 of the Act are met 
and that granting blanket forbearance from the conformance requirement 
for Lifeline-only ETC designations will further the statutory goals of 
providing low-income subscribers access to telecommunications and 
emergency services and promoting more competitive options for low-
income consumers while protecting the universal service fund against 
waste, fraud, and abuse. We also note that state commissions and this 
Commission are still required to make an independent assessment as to 
whether granting a carrier ETC designation is in the public interest 
before including any part of a rural service area in such carrier's 
service area. Furthermore, forbearance from the conformance requirement 
stated herein does not apply if any carrier seeks ETC designation to 
receive high-cost support; in that instance, such carrier must conform 
its service area to that of the rural telephone company or else seek 
redefinition of the service area pursuant to Sec.  54.207 of the 
Commission's rules.

[[Page 26708]]

III. Procedural Matters

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    14. The Memorandum Opinion and Order does not contain new or 
modified information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does 
not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.

B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    15. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') requires that agencies 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment 
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having 
the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small 
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, 
the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small 
business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A small business 
concern is one which (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is 
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).
    16. We hereby certify that the forbearance decision in this 
Memorandum Opinion and Order will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In this Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, the Commission eases the regulatory compliance 
burden on Lifeline-only ETCs by forbearing from the requirement that 
the service area of a Lifeline-only ETC conform to the service area of 
any rural telephone company serving the same area. This Memorandum 
Opinion and Order does not modify any of our reporting requirements. 
The Commission will send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, 
including this certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
SBA. In addition, the Memorandum Opinion and Order (or a summary 
thereof) and certification will be published in the Federal Register.

C. Congressional Review Act

    17. The Commission will send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and 
Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 
the Congressional Review Act.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    18. It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
sections 4(i), 4(j), 10, 201, 214, and 254 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201, 214, 254, we 
forbear from applying the conformance requirement of section 214(e)(5) 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(5), and 
Sec.  54.207(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 54.207(b), to the 
extent discussed herein.
    19. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained 
in sections 4(i), 4(j), 10, 201, 214, and 254 of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201, 214, 254, the 
petitions for forbearance filed by Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., Cox 
Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable, Inc., I-Wireless, LLC, Q Link 
Wireless, LLC and Global Connection Inc. of America are granted to the 
extent discussed herein, effective upon release.
    20. It is further ordered that, except as provided in paragraph 19 
above, this Order shall be effective June 7, 2013.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10851 Filed 5-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P