[Federal Register: December 15, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 240)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69622-69627]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15de03-14]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[CC Docket No. 96-45; FCC 03-249]
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, in response to the decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and the recommendations
of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, the Commission
modifies the high-cost universal service support mechanism for non-
rural carriers and adopts measures to induce states to ensure
reasonable comparability of rural and urban rates in areas served by
non-rural carriers.
DATES: Effective January 14, 2004, except for Sec. Sec. 54.316(a) and
54.316(c) which contain information collection requirements that have
not been approved by the Office of Management Budget (OMB). The
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing
the effective date of those sections.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Schneider, Attorney, Wireline
Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, (202)
418-7400.
[[Page 69623]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order
on Remand and Memorandum Opinion and Order in CC Docket No. 96-45
released on October 27, 2003. There was also a Companion Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking released in CC Docket No. 96-45 on October 27,
2003. The full text of this document is available for public inspection
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-
A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20554 or at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/universal_service/highcost.html
.
I. Introduction
1. In this Order, in response to the decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and the recommendations of the
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board), we modify
the high-cost universal service support mechanism for non-rural
carriers and adopt measures to induce States to ensure reasonable
comparability of rural and urban rates in areas served by non-rural
carriers. We will continue to determine non-rural support by comparing
statewide average costs to a national cost benchmark, but we establish
a new cost benchmark at two standard deviations above the national
average cost. Our action today ties the cost benchmark more closely to
the data in the record, consistent with the court's directive, but does
not substantially alter the level of non-rural support. Based on
analysis of the relevant data, we explain why the modified non-rural
mechanism will be sufficient to achieve the statutory principle of
making rural and urban rates for non-rural carrier customers reasonably
comparable.
2. In addition, we will implement a rate review, through an
expanded annual certification process, to induce States to achieve
reasonably comparable rates and to assess how successfully the non-
rural high-cost support mechanism ensures reasonably comparable rural
and urban rates. Consistent with the Joint Board recommendation, States
will be required to certify that the basic service rates in their
rural, high-cost areas served by non-rural carriers are reasonably
comparable to a national urban rate benchmark or explain why they are
not. This process will add a dynamic element to the non-rural high-cost
support mechanism. By requiring States to review their rates in rural,
high-cost areas served by non-rural carriers annually in comparison to
a national urban rate benchmark, the Commission will be able to
determine whether Federal and State universal service mechanisms are
resulting in reasonably comparable rural and urban rates as competition
develops and erodes implicit support mechanisms.
II. Executive Summary
1. In this Order, we take the following actions to modify the non-
rural high-cost support mechanism and to induce States to ensure
reasonably comparable rural and urban rates in areas served by non-
rural carriers:
[sbull] Consistent with the Joint Board's recommendations, we
reaffirm that comparing statewide average costs to a nationwide cost
benchmark reflects the appropriate Federal and State roles in
determining Federal non-rural high-cost support. We find no evidence in
the record either for radically altering the current non-rural
mechanism or for establishing a substantially larger Federal subsidy to
lower local telephone service rates, as some commenters advocate.
[sbull] In response to the Tenth Circuit's remand, we define the
relevant statutory terms ``sufficient'' and ``reasonably comparable''
more precisely for purposes of the non-rural mechanism. As recommended
by the Joint Board, we define ``sufficient'' in terms of the statutory
principle in section 254(b)(3), as enough Federal support to enable
States to achieve reasonable comparability of rural and urban rates in
high-cost areas served by non-rural carriers. We also agree with the
Joint Board that the principle of sufficiency means that non-rural
support should be only as large as necessary to achieve the statutory
goal. We define ``reasonably comparable'' in terms of a national urban
rate benchmark recommended by the Joint Board. As part of the rate
review process discussed below, the rate benchmark will be used in
determining whether a State's local rates in rural, high-cost areas
served by non-rural carriers are reasonably comparable to urban rates
nationwide.
[sbull] We modify the non-rural mechanism by basing the cost
benchmark, which is used to determine the amount of non-rural high-cost
support, on two standard deviations above the national average cost per
line. Modifying the cost benchmark ties it more directly to the
relevant data, consistent with the court's directive, but does not
alter the level of non-rural support in a major way. We agree with the
Joint Board that the current level of non-rural support is supported by
data from a General Accounting Office (GAO) Report indicating that
rural and urban rates generally are reasonably comparable today.
[sbull] To induce States to achieve reasonably comparable rates, we
adopt with minor changes the rate review and expanded certification
process recommended by the Joint Board. Each State will be required to
review its rates in rural, high-cost areas served by non-rural carriers
annually to assess their comparability to urban rates nationwide, and
then to file a certification with the Commission stating whether its
rural rates are reasonably comparable to urban rates nationwide or
explaining why they are not.
[sbull] For purposes of the rate review process, we adopt the Joint
Board's recommendation that we establish an annually-adjusted
nationwide rate benchmark based on the most recent urban residential
rates in the Reference Book, the Wireline Competition Bureau's annual
rate survey. Specifically, we adopt a rate benchmark of two standard
deviations above the average urban rate, which, based on the most
recent Reference Book survey, is $32.28 or 138 percent of the average
urban rate. The rate benchmark will establish a ``safe harbor,'' that
is, a presumption that rates in rural, high-cost areas that are below
the rate benchmark are reasonably comparable to urban rates nationwide.
States with rural rates below the rate benchmark may certify that their
rates are reasonably comparable without providing additional
information, or rebut the presumption by demonstrating that factors
other than basic service rates affect the comparability of their rates.
[sbull] For purposes of the rate review process, we also establish
a basic service rate template for states to use in comparing rates in
rural, high-cost areas served by non-rural carriers to the nationwide
urban rate benchmark. In addition, we adopt, with slight modifications,
the definition of ``rural area'' already contained in Sec. 54.5 of the
Commission's rules for purposes of the rate review process.
[sbull] We adopt the Joint Board's recommendation to permit States
to request further Federal action, if necessary, based on a
demonstration that the State's rates in rural, high-cost areas served
by non-rural carriers are not reasonably comparable to urban rates
nationwide and that the State has taken all reasonable steps to achieve
reasonable comparability through State action and existing Federal
support.
[sbull] In response to the Tenth Circuit's remand, we review and
explain our comprehensive plan for supporting universal service in
high-cost areas.
[[Page 69624]]
III. Procedural Matters
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
4. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the Remand Notice, 67 FR 10846, March 11, 2002. The
Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Remand
Notice, including comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
5. This Order is necessary to respond to the remand by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit of the Ninth Report and
Order, 64 FR 67416, December 12, 1999, and also to respond to the Joint
Board's Recommended Decision. Along with fulfilling the court's remand
requirements, the objectives of this Order are to implement a non-rural
high-cost support mechanism that fulfills the relevant principles in
section 254(b) of the Act. The rules we adopt in this Order reflect the
Commission's careful and considered determination to implement the
mechanism consistently with section 254(b) and with the Joint Board's
recommendations.
6. In this Order, we take the following actions in response to the
Tenth Circuit's remand and the Joint Board's recommendations to modify
the non-rural high-cost support mechanism and to induce States to
ensure reasonably comparable rural and urban rates in areas served by
non-rural carriers:
[sbull] Consistent with the Joint Board's recommendations, we
reaffirm that comparing statewide average costs to a nationwide cost
benchmark reflects the appropriate Federal and State roles in
determining Federal non-rural high-cost support. We find no evidence in
the record either for radically altering the current non-rural
mechanism or for establishing a substantially larger Federal subsidy to
lower local telephone service rates, as some commenters advocate.
[sbull] In response to the Tenth Circuit's remand, we define the
relevant statutory terms ``sufficient'' and ``reasonably comparable''
more precisely for purposes of the non-rural mechanism. As recommended
by the Joint Board, we define ``sufficient'' in terms of the statutory
principle in section 254(b)(3), as enough Federal support to enable
States to achieve reasonable comparability of rural and urban rates in
high-cost areas served by non-rural carriers. We also agree with the
Joint Board that the principle of sufficiency means that non-rural
support should be only as large as necessary to achieve the statutory
goals. We define ``reasonably comparable'' in terms of a national urban
rate benchmark recommended by the Joint Board. As part of the rate
review process discussed, the rate benchmark will be used in
determining whether a State's local rates in rural, high-cost areas
served by non-rural carriers are reasonably comparable to urban rates
nationwide.
[sbull] We modify the non-rural mechanism by basing the cost
benchmark, which is used to determine the amount of non-rural high-cost
support, on two standard deviations above the national average cost per
line. Modifying the cost benchmark ties it more directly to the
relevant data, consistent with the court's directive, but does not
alter the level of non-rural support in a major way. We agree with the
Joint Board that the current level of non-rural support is supported by
data from the GAO Report indicating that rural and urban rates
generally are reasonably comparable today.
[sbull] To induce States to achieve reasonably comparable rates, we
adopt with minor changes the rate review and expanded certification
process recommended by the Joint Board. Each State will be required to
review its rates in rural, high-cost areas served by non-rural carriers
annually to assess their comparability to urban rates nationwide, and
then to file a certification with the Commission stating whether its
rural rates are reasonably comparable to urban rates nationwide or
explaining why they are not.
[sbull] For purposes of the rate review process, we adopt the Joint
Board's recommendation that we establish an annually-adjusted
nationwide rate benchmark based on the most recent urban residential
rates in the Reference Book, the Wireline Competition Bureau's annual
rate survey. Specifically, we adopt a rate benchmark of two standard
deviations above the average urban rate, which, based on the most
recent Reference Book survey, is $32.28 or 138 percent of the average
urban rate. The rate benchmark will establish a ``safe harbor,'' that
is, a presumption that rates in rural, high-cost areas that are below
the rate benchmark are reasonably comparable to urban rates nationwide.
States with rural rates below the rate benchmark may certify that their
rates are reasonably comparable without providing additional
information, or rebut the presumption by demonstrating that factors
other than basic service rates affect the comparability of their rates.
[sbull] For purposes of the rate review process, we also establish
a basic service rate template for States to use in comparing rates in
rural, high-cost areas served by non-rural carriers to the nationwide
urban rate benchmark. In addition, we adopt, with slight modifications,
the definition of ``rural area'' already contained in Sec. 54.5 of the
Commission's rules for purposes of the rate review process.
[sbull] We adopt the Joint Board's recommendation to permit States
to request further Federal action, if necessary, based on a
demonstration that the State's rates in rural, high-cost areas served
by non-rural carriers are not reasonably comparable to urban rates
nationwide and that the State has taken all reasonable steps to achieve
reasonable comparability through State action and existing Federal
support.
[sbull] In response to the Tenth Circuit's remand, we review and
explain our comprehensive plan for supporting universal service in
high-cost areas.
2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
7. The Commission received no comments specifically addressing the
IRFA. Nonetheless, the Commission considered the potential impact of
the adopted rules on small entities and, based on analysis of the
relevant data, determined that the compliance burden for small entities
directly impacted will not be significant.
8. We note that the Commission did receive some general small
entity-related comments not specifically addressing the rules and
policies presented in the IRFA. Some commenters suggested that eligible
communications carriers (ETCs) should be treated differently than the
incumbent non-rural carriers. CUSC stated that the certification
process should apply only to the incumbent non-rural carriers. RICA
stated that ETCs and incumbent non-rural carriers should receive
support through separate mechanisms. In making the determination
reflected in the Order, we have considered the impact of our actions on
these small entities. We have determined that any impact on small
entities will be negligible.
9. Other small-entity related comments concerned the rural high-
cost support mechanism and were not relevant to this Order, which
modifies the non-rural high-cost support mechanism only. The Federal
non-rural high-cost support mechanism, revised and implemented by this
Order,
[[Page 69625]]
calculates and distributes Federal support to non-rural carriers
providing service in high-cost areas. For purposes of the mechanism,
``non-rural carriers'' are those that do not meet the statutory
definition of a rural telephone company. As stated, the rural and non-
rural high-cost support mechanisms are separate.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
Rules Will Apply
10. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will
be directly affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally
defines the term ``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, unless the Commission has developed one or more
definitions that are appropriate to its activities. Under the Small
Business Act, a ``small business concern'' is one that: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the
Small Business Administration (SBA).
11. The Commission has determined that the group of small entities
directly affected by the rules adopted in this Order are eligible
telecommunications carriers (ETCs) providing service in areas served by
non-rural carriers. Within the category of ETCs we find competitive
local exchange carriers (CLECs), which are all wired telecommunications
carriers, and wireless carriers. Further descriptions of these entities
are provided.
12. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers,
which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 2,225 firms in
this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
2,201 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional
24 firms had employment of 1,000 or more. Thus, under this size
standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small.
13. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access
Providers (CAPs) and ``Other Local Exchange Carriers.'' Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to providers of competitive exchange
services or to competitive access providers or to ``Other Local
Exchange Carriers.'' The closest applicable size standard under SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 532 companies reported that they were
engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services
or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 532 companies,
an estimated 411 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 121 have more than
1,500 employees. In addition, 55 carriers reported that they were
``Other Local Exchange Carriers.'' Of the 55 ``Other Local Exchange
Carriers,'' an estimated 53 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have
more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that
most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive
access providers, and ``Other Local Exchange Carriers'' are small
entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
14. Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications Carriers. The
SBA has developed a small size standard for Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers which consists of all such companies having
1,500 or fewer employees. According to the Commission's most recent
data, 1,761 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision
of wireless service. Of these, 1,761 companies, and estimated 1,175
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 586 have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most wireless service
providers are small entities that may be affected by the rules and
policies adopted herein.
15. Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs) that Provide
Service in Areas Serviced by Non-Rural Carriers. Neither the SBA nor
the Commission has developed a definition of small entities
specifically applicable to ETCs. ETC designation allows a carrier to
receive universal service support in accordance with section 254 of the
Act. An entity is designated as an ETC by a State commission or, if
there is no State jurisdiction, by the Commission upon meeting the
requirements of section 214(e) of the Act. Any entity offering services
supported by Federal universal service mechanisms that uses its own
facilities or a combination of its own facilities and resale of another
carrier's services and advertises such charges and rates can seek
designation as an ETC. ETCs are competitive carriers that are not
dominant in the field. The group of ETCs providing service in areas
served by non-rural carriers is composed of mostly competitive local
exchange carriers (CLECs) and wireless carriers. We have indicated
above that, pursuant to SBA standards, ETCs are CLECs or wireless
carriers. In addition, we note that the only ETCs affected by this
Order are those that provide service in areas served by non-rural
carriers. If we had no further information concerning the specific ETCs
affected by this rulemaking, we would estimate that numerous ETCs,
which are either CLECs or wireless service providers that provide
service in areas served by non-rural carriers, are small businesses
that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.
16. At this time, however, the Commission is aware of approximately
30 ETCs providing service in areas served by non-rural carriers. We
have determined that at least 9 of these ETCs are subsidiaries of
public companies--not independently owned and operated--and, therefore,
not small businesses under the Small Business Act. We do not have data
specifying whether the remaining ETCs, or other ETCs not accounted for,
are independently owned and operated, and therefore we are unable to
estimate with greater precision the number of these carriers that would
qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition.
Consequently, we estimate that there are 20 or fewer small entities
that may be affected directly by the proposed rules herein adopted.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
17. This Order does not impose directly any change in projected
reporting, record keeping or other compliance requirements on small
entities. No changes have been made to the reporting or recordkeeping
requirements of carriers receiving Federal non-rural high-cost support.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
18. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
[[Page 69626]]
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.''
19. In this Order, in response to the Tenth Circuit's remand and
the Joint Board's Recommended Decision, we modify the high-cost
universal service support mechanism for non-rural carriers and adopt
measures to induce states to ensure reasonable comparability of rural
and urban rates in areas served by non-rural carriers. Our actions may
affect the amount of support distributed to non-rural carriers and ETCs
providing service in areas served by non-rural carriers. Based on our
analysis of the relevant data, the Commission believes that there will
be minimal, if any, economic impact on small entities in adopting
modifications to the Federal non-rural high-cost support mechanism and
rate review and expanded certification process. The modifications to
the current Federal non-rural high-cost support mechanism, as adopted
in the Order, should maintain or increase the current level of non-
rural high-cost support to carriers receiving such support. As such,
based on the relevant data, we anticipate little, if any, negative
economic effects on any small businesses directly affected by the
modifications to the non-rural high-cost mechanism implemented by this
Order.
6. Report to Congress
20. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including the
FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order,
including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. A copy of this Order and FRFA (or summaries
thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
21. The action contained herein has been analyzed with respect to
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found to impose new or modified
reporting and recordkeeping requirements or burdens on the public.
Implementation of these new or modified reported and recordkeeping
requirements will be subject to approval by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) as prescribed by the Act, and will go into effect upon
announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval.
IV. Ordering Clauses
22. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
201-205, 214, 218-220, 254, 403 and 405 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, this Order on Remand is hereby adopted.
23. Part 54 of the Commission's rules is amended as set forth
attached hereto, effective January 14, 2004, except for Sec. Sec.
54.316(a) and 54.316(c) which contain information collection
requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management
Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the Federal
Register announcing the effective date of those sections.
24. Pursuant to Sec. 1.106(j) of the Commission's rules, the
Petitions for Reconsideration of the Ninth Report and Order and
Eighteenth Order on Reconsideration filed by AT&T Corp., Personal
Communications Industry Association, Puerto Rico Telephone Company, and
the Wyoming Public Service Commission on January 3, 2000, are denied,
and the Petition for Reconsideration of the Ninth Report and Order and
Eighteenth Order on Reconsideration filed by SBC Communications Inc. on
January 3, 2000, is denied in part and dismissed as moot in part.
25. Pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and Sec. 1.3 of the Commission's rules, the Petition for
Waiver of Sec. 36.631 of the Commission's Rules Governing the
Universal Service Fund, filed by the Vermont Department of Public
Service and the Vermont Public Service Board, September 21, 1993, AAD
93-103, is dismissed as moot.
26.The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Order on Remand
and Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications,
Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as follows:
PART 54--UNIVERSAL SERVICE
0
1. The authority citations continue to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 201, 205, 214, and 254 unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 54.309 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.309 Calculation and distribution of forward-looking support
for non-rural carriers.
(a) * * *
(3) The national cost benchmark shall equal two weighted standard
deviations above the national average FLEC per line.
* * * * *
0
3. Add Sec. 54.316 to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 54.316 Rate comparability review and certification for areas
served by non-rural carriers.
(a) Certification. Each state will be required annually to review
the comparability of residential rates in rural areas of the state
served by non-rural incumbent local exchange carriers to urban rates
nationwide, and to certify to the Commission and the Administrator as
to whether the rates are reasonably comparable, for purposes of section
254(b)(3) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. If a state does not
rely on the safe harbor described in paragraph (b) of this section, or
certifies that the rates are not reasonably comparable, the state must
fully explain its rate comparability analysis and provide data
supporting its certification, including but not limited to residential
rate data for rural areas within the state served by non-rural
incumbent local exchange carriers. If a state certifies that the rates
are not reasonably comparable, it must also explain why the rates are
not reasonably comparable and explain what action it intends to take to
achieve rate comparability.
(b) Safe harbor. For the purposes of its certification, a state may
presume that the residential rates in rural areas served by non-rural
incumbent local exchange carriers are reasonably comparable to urban
rates nationwide if the rates are below the nationwide urban rate
benchmark. The nationwide urban rate benchmark shall equal the most
recent average urban rate plus two weighted standard deviations. The
benchmark shall be calculated using the average urban rate and standard
deviation shown in the most recent annual Reference Book of Rates,
Price Indices, and Expenditures for Telephone Service published by the
Wireline Competition Bureau. To the extent that a state relies
[[Page 69627]]
on the safe harbor, the rates that it compares to the nationwide urban
rate benchmark shall include the access charges and other mandatory
monthly rates included in the rate survey published in the most recent
annual Reference Book of Rates, Price Indices, and Expenditures for
Telephone Service. The Reference Book of Rates, Price Indices, and
Expenditures for Telephone Service is available for public inspection
at the Commission's Reference Center at 445 12th Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554 and on the Commission Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/lec.html
.
(c) Definition of ``rural area.'' For the purposes of this section,
a ``rural area'' is a non-metropolitan county or county equivalent, as
defined in the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Revised
Standards for Defining Metropolitan Areas in the 1990s and identifiable
from the most recent Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) list released
by OMB. At a state's discretion, a ``rural area'' may also include any
wire center designated by the state as rural for the purposes of this
section. In the event that a state designates a wire center as rural,
it must provide an explanation supporting such designation in its
certification pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) Schedule for certification. Annual certifications are required
on the schedule set forth in Sec. 54.313(d)(3), beginning October 1,
2004. Certifications due on October 1 of each year shall pertain to
rates as of the prior July 1. Certifications filed during the remainder
of the schedule set forth in Sec. 54.313(d)(3) shall pertain to the
same date as if they had been filed on October 1.
(e) Effect of failure to certify. In the event that a state fails
to certify, no eligible telecommunications carrier in the state shall
receive support pursuant to Sec. 54.309.
[FR Doc. 03-30826 Filed 12-12-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P