[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56188-56192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21888]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 13-1846]


Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Availability of Version 3.2 
of the Connect America Fund Phase II Cost Model Illustrative Results

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau announces 
the availability of the next version of the Connect America Cost Model 
(CAM v3.2), which includes certain adjustments to the CAM to reflect 
the unique circumstances and operating conditions in the non-contiguous 
areas of the United States. The Bureau seeks comment on these changes, 
specifically the addition of the capability to model costs for undersea 
cable connecting non-contiguous areas to the contiguous United States, 
plant mix values submitted by Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc. 
(ACS) for Alaska, and using the default value of ``1'' for the regional 
cost adjustment for the U.S. Virgin Islands, which has the effect of 
increasing labor costs. Lastly, the Bureau seeks comment on using the 
plant mix values that were filed separately in models previously filed 
by Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc. (PRTC) and Virgin Islands 
Telephone Corporation d/b/a Innovative Telephone (Vitelco) in the next 
version of the CAM.

DATES: Comments are due on or before September 12, 2013 and reply 
comments are due on or before September 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file comments on or before September 
12, 2013 and reply comments on or before September 19, 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: Katie King, Wireline Competition 
Bureau at (202) 418-7491 or TTY (202) 418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Wireline 
Competition Bureau's Public Notice (Notice) in WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 
13-1846, released August 29, 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.
    1. The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) announces the 
availability of the next version of the Connect America Cost Model (CAM 
v3.2), which includes certain adjustments to the CAM to reflect the 
unique circumstances and operating conditions in the non-contiguous 
areas of the United States. The Bureau seeks comment on these changes, 
specifically the addition of the capability to model costs for undersea 
cable connecting non-contiguous areas to the contiguous United States, 
plant mix values submitted by ACS for Alaska, and using the default 
value of ``1'' for the regional cost adjustment for the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, which has the effect of increasing labor costs. The Bureau 
also seeks comment on using the

[[Page 56189]]

plant mix values that were filed separately in models previously filed 
PRTC and Vitelco in the next version of the CAM.
    2. Description of Changes in CAM v3.2. CAM v3.2 updates the prior 
version (CAM v3.1.4) in a number of respects, and the Bureau seeks 
comment on several of the changes. First, this version adds code 
changes and a new Undersea tab in the Capital Expenditures (Capex) 
workbook that includes inputs for undersea cable and landing stations. 
These changes and inputs are used to calculate the investment and cost 
for undersea and landing station facilities that connect areas outside 
of the contiguous United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, 
the U.S. Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana Islands, to the contiguous 
United States. Second, this version includes plant mix values for 
Alaska that were recently filed by ACS.
    3. In addition, this version makes a number of other changes. It 
adjusts the regional cost adjustment table to reflect that Zip 3 = 008, 
which had been previously coded for Puerto Rico, is in the U.S. Virgin 
Islands and sets the value of the cost adjustment for Zip 3 = 008 to 
1.0 (i.e., no adjustment) in the absence of R.S. Means data regarding 
labor costs for the Virgin Islands. It includes minor modifications to 
some existing investment calculations to more accurately reflect 
network infrastructure. Finally, it includes several updates to the 
documentation and makes additional clean-up changes to the Capex 
workbook. These changes are reflected in two solution sets that can be 
accessed by accessing CAM v3.2, and visiting the Posted Data Sets page. 
These solution sets can be found under the Model Outputs section of the 
Posted Data Sets tab: SSYYYYMMDDCAM32ACF8UndSeaCpx and 
SSYYYYMMDDCAM32ACF9UndSeaCpx solution sets under Model Outputs.
    4. Issue for Comment: Submarine Cable. CAM v3.2 includes the 
capability to model costs for undersea cable to non-contiguous areas. 
CAM v3.2 also adds a new ``Undersea'' tab in the Capex workbook, which 
includes the inputs used to calculate the investment and cost for 
undersea cable and landing station facilities needed to transport 
traffic to and from landing stations in non-contiguous areas to landing 
stations in the contiguous United States. To help parties understand 
and comment on the adjustments incorporated in v3.2, the Bureau 
explains the modeling assumptions below.
    5. First, the Bureau seeks comment on CAM v3.2's approach to 
connecting the non-contiguous areas to the contiguous United States. In 
the maps appended to the Public Notice, CAM v3.2 models undersea 
cables: From Alaska to Oregon and Washington; from the Northern 
Marianas to Guam and from Guam to Oregon; from Hawaii to California; 
from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Puerto Rico and from Puerto Rico to 
Florida; and from Puerto Rico to Florida. The specific endpoints of the 
undersea cables are marked on the maps.
    6. The length or ``footage'' of these undersea cable connections is 
a key cost driver. The Bureau seeks comment on the footage estimates in 
Table 1. Note that to ensure resiliency, the footage for each 
connection includes the additional footage needed for path redundancy. 
In addition, each spur connects independently to a tandem location 
within the contiguous United States.
    7. Table 1: Undersea Cable Footage

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Undersea cable
                          Area                                footage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska..................................................      21,206,745
Hawaii..................................................      26,029,830
North Marianas Islands..................................      61,602,894
Puerto Rico.............................................      11,258,578
U.S. Virgin Islands.....................................      12,072,945
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The Bureau also seeks comment on CAM v3.2's assumption that the 
cost of materials and labor per foot of undersea cable is $11.05. This 
cost per foot is based on publicly available information regarding 
AKORN, an undersea cable between Alaska and Oregon. It is the same for 
each undersea cable because, unlike land-based connections where costs 
vary by the soil type in a given area, CAM v3.2 assumes that the costs 
for undersea cable do not vary based on the body of water in which the 
cable is located.
    9. Next, the Bureau seeks comment on CAM v3.2's methodology for 
modeling whether a carrier would construct such an undersea cable or 
instead lease capacity on an existing international undersea cable. 
This version of the model input assumes that the presence and capacity 
of international undersea cables are driven primarily by international 
traffic demand, not by the traffic of the local exchange carrier (LEC) 
in areas with landing stations. This version of the model inputs 
assumes that, if the demand from the modeled network would outstrip 
capacity on these existing international undersea systems, without 
concurrent increases in demand for bandwidth that passes through the 
location, then construction of a new system would be economically 
justifiable. If, however, the capacity required would amount to only a 
fraction of available capacity, CAM v3.2 assumes that a carrier would 
lease capacity on an existing cable.
    10. It is assumed that the cost of transport back to the contiguous 
United States would be the fraction of cost associated with the 
fraction of the cable being consumed by peak demand of the modeled 
network. This assumes that the price for a LEC to buy capacity on an 
existing cable would be comparable to the cost of providing that access 
plus a rate of return comparable to the one assumed in CAM. Given that 
each non-contiguous area with an international cable route is served by 
multiple cable systems, we believe that this is a reasonable 
assumption. To the extent commenters disagree with these assumptions 
and instead argue that rates are substantially higher, they should 
provide specific information on these rates to the Bureau, including 
the route and amount of capacity being purchased.
    11. To make that determination, Bureau staff first looked at 
existing capacity. As seen in Table 2, below, most of the non-
contiguous areas have international cable routes with landing stations 
on them, and most of the cable routes have additional capacity 
available.
    12. Table 2: International Cable Route and Capacity Table

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Total capacity   LIT Capacity
                     Area                               Cable route name              (Tbps)          (Gbps)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska........................................  N/A.............................          N/A                N/A
Hawaii........................................  AAG.............................            2.88             700
Hawaii........................................  Southern Cross..................            6              2,000
Hawaii........................................  TPC-5...........................            0.01              10
Northern Marianas Islands (Guam)..............  AAG.............................            2.88             700
Northern Marianas Islands (Guam)..............  TGN-Pacific.....................            7.68           5,120
Puerto Rico...................................  America Movil-1.................            0.10              40
Puerto Rico...................................  Americas-II.....................            0.21              80

[[Page 56190]]

 
Puerto Rico...................................  ARCOS-1.........................            1.02              80
Puerto Rico...................................  PCCS............................           80                100
Puerto Rico...................................  Sam-1...........................            1.92             310
U.S. Virgin Islands...........................  Americas-I......................            0.32             120
U.S. Virgin Islands...........................  Americas-II.....................            0.21              80
U.S. Virgin Islands...........................  MAC.............................            0.07              70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Moreover, to evaluate whether capacity on these existing 
undersea cables will be sufficient to meet future demand during Connect 
America Phase II, the same busy hour offered load assumptions 
incorporated into CAM v3.2 were used to compare demand (i.e. required 
capacity) to supply (i.e. lit and total capacity of the international 
fiber routes with landing sites on each non-contiguous area). The 
comparison of future demand to current lit capacity (of the highest 
capacity fiber in the area) may over-state the extent to which new 
undersea systems are required, while the comparison to total capacity 
(of the highest capacity fiber in the area) may understate costs in the 
near-term. Therefore, the comparisons were averaged.
    14. Table 3, below, shows the comparisons of capacity to both the 
lit and total capacity of the largest single cable, as well as the 
average of those comparisons. The Bureau seeks comment on this approach 
to evaluating capacity and on the calculations reflected in the table.
    15. Table 3: Comparisons of Demand to Supply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Highest total                    Highest LIT
                          Area                             Demand (Gbps)     capacity       % Demand to      capacity       % Demand to       Average
                                                                              (Tbps)      total capacity      (Gbps)       LIT capacity      (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii..................................................           213.6            6              3.956           2,000          11.867            7.91
North Marianas Islands (Guam to Oregon).................             7.7            7.68           0.111           5,120           0.166            0.14
Puerto Rico.............................................           587.9           80              0.816             310         100               50.00
U.S. Virgin Islands (Puerto Rico to Florida)............            20.0           80              0.028             310           7.168            3.60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Finally, CAM v3.2 estimates the cost that carriers will face in 
securing transport to and from the contiguous United States by applying 
the averages listed in Table 3 to the CAM-calculated cost of the total 
route. Because the Alaska route and the Northern Marianas to Guam 
portion of the Northern Marianas route are not shared with any 
international traffic, CAM v3.2 includes 50 percent of the costs of 
connecting Alaska to Oregon and Washington, the Northern Marianas to 
Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to Puerto Rico, which is the default 
middle mile allocation in CAM v3.2. Table 4, below, shows the resulting 
cost per location per month. The Commission seeks comment on these 
averages and/or allocations and whether the resulting monthly cost per 
location is a reasonable estimate.
    17. Table 4: Monthly Cost Per Location

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Investment for
                  Area                       the route     Monthly cost
                                            (millions)     per location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska..................................           $85.6           $5.40
Hawaii..................................            24.4            0.65
North Marianas Islands..................            18.9           15.44
Puerto Rico.............................            72.9            0.72
U.S. Virgin Islands.....................            20.0            6.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Issue for Comment: Plant Mix. As noted above, CAM v3.2 includes 
in the Plant Mix input collection table the Alaska-specific plant mix 
values recently proposed by ACS. These values are reproduced in Table 
5, below. The ACS filed plant mix values for suburban distribution and 
suburban feeder as filed did not total 100%. (Total of aerial, buried 
and underground plant mix values for distribution and feeder equaled 
101 percent.) The values shown in the table reflect a staff adjustment 
to force the filed values to equal 100%. Staff multiplied each of the 
values by 100/101 to reflect the same relationship and make the sum of 
aerial, buried and underground equal 100%.
    19. Table 5: ACS Proposed Plant Mix Values

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Distribution                              Feeder                                  IOF
                                                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   State                                 Density                                          Under-                                 Under-                                 Under-
                                                                                Aerial       Buried       ground       Aerial       Buried       ground       Aerial       Buried       ground
                                                                              (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK.........................................  Rural.........................         25.0         61.0         14.0         25.0         61.0         14.0         28.0         58.0         14.0
AK.........................................  Suburban......................         23.8         48.5         27.7         23.8         48.5         27.7         24.0         55.0         21.0
AK.........................................  Urban.........................         20.0         40.0         40.0         20.0         40.0         40.0         15.0         50.0         35.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56191]]

    20. ACS also submitted its current plant mix values which are 
reproduced in Table 6, below.
    21. Table 6: ACS Current Plant Mix Values

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Aerial          Buried        Underground
                             Density                                 (percent)       (percent)       (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Plant Mix: All
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural...........................................................              27              63              10
Suburban........................................................              32              64               4
Urban...........................................................              33              43              24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Plant Mix: Copper
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural...........................................................              28              68               4
Suburban........................................................              33              64               3
Urban...........................................................              35              47              19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Plant Mix: Fiber
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural...........................................................              19              19              61
Suburban........................................................              16              62              22
Urban...........................................................              23              21              56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. The current plant mix submitted by ACS differs from what ACS 
proposes should be used in the CAM. For the other carriers, CAM v3.2 
uses carrier-supplied plant mix values that reflect their current plant 
mix. The Bureau seeks comment on whether to make any adjustments to the 
Alaska-specific plant mix values contained in CAM v3.2, in light of 
ACS's current plant mix.
    23. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether it should incorporate 
into the next version of the CAM the plant mix values for Puerto Rico 
and the Virgin Islands that PRTC and Vitelco previously submitted in 
conjunction with their proposals for standalone models.
    24. Issue for Comment: Cost Adjustment for the U.S. Virgin Islands. 
Because the source that CAM relies on for regional cost adjustments for 
the rest of the United States does not include values for the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, CAM v3.2 sets the value of the cost adjustment for Zip 
3 = 008 to 1.0 (i.e., no adjustment). The Bureau seeks comment on using 
this value for the U.S. Virgin Islands.
    25. Other Proposals. The Bureau notes that ACS has proposed 
additional modifications to the CAM that it contends would more 
appropriately reflect the costs of serving Alaska. The Bureau is 
continuing to evaluate those proposals.
    26. If parties, including carriers serving other non-contiguous 
areas, have other proposals or data that they wish to file concerning 
the treatment of non-contiguous areas in the CAM, such information 
should be filed by the reply comment deadline specified on the first 
page of this Public Notice. All submissions should be in a form that 
can be readily incorporated into the CAM. Parties should contact Bureau 
staff indicated at the beginning of this summary if they wish to file 
any information confidentially in order to discuss how to submit that 
information in a way that can be incorporated into the next version of 
the CAM.
    27. Access to CAM v3.2. To access CAM v3.2, parties should follow 
the same procedures announced for previous versions. In particular, 
parties may access CAM v3.2 at http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/caf-phase-ii-models or https://cacm.usac.org. Additionally, authorized 
users who have signed the attachments to the protective order will have 
access to a system evaluator package that provides a test environment 
populated with a sample database, allowing users to view database 
structures, observe the processing steps of CAM for a subset of the 
country, and see changes in the database.
    28. Updated Documentation. In conjunction with the release of CAM 
v3.2, the Bureau also announces the availability of updated methodology 
documentation for CAM v3.2, to assist the public in understanding the 
current model architecture, processing steps, and data sources. The 
methodology documentation is available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-323071A1.pdf.
    29. Illustrative Results. The Bureau also is releasing illustrative 
model outputs from running CAM v3.2 using different combinations of 
possible model inputs and support assumptions. To demonstrate a range 
of potential outcomes, the Bureau is providing illustrative model 
outputs with funding thresholds of $49.15, $52, and $55.40. The reports 
show potential support amounts and number of supported locations, by 
carrier, by study area, and by state, using the default input values in 
CAM v3.2. The reports are available at http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/connect-america-cost-model-illustrative-results. Because the Bureau has 
not yet finalized and adopted a cost model, the illustrative results 
that the Bureau is releasing are not final support amounts.

I. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    30. The Non-Contiguous Areas PN, 78 FR 12006, February 21, 2013, 
included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 
5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the possible significant economic impact on 
small entities of the policies and rules proposed therein. The 
Commission invites parties to file comments on the IRFA in light of 
this additional Public Notice.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    31. This document does not contain proposed 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, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

C. Filing Requirements

    32. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and 
reply comments on or

[[Page 56192]]

before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments 
are to reference WC Docket No. 10-90 and DA 13-1846, and may be filed 
by paper or by using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS).
    [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. 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, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    [ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    33. In addition, we request that one copy of each pleading be sent 
to each of the following:
    (1) Dania Ayoubi, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, 
Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 6-A322, 
Washington, DC 20554; email: [email protected];
    (2) Charles Tyler, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, 
Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-A452, 
Washington, DC 20554; email: mailto:[email protected].
    34. 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).
    The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy 
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing 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 Sec.  1.1206(b). In proceedings governed 
by rule Sec.  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.
Kimberly A. Scardino,
Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013-21888 Filed 9-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P