Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26513

§ 520.2 Definitions

* * * * *

Ocean common carrier means a

common carrier that operates, for all or

part of its common carrier service, a

vessel on the high seas or the Great

Lakes between a port in the United

States and a port in a foreign country,

except that the term does not include a

common carrier engaged in ocean

transportation by ferry boat, ocean

tramp, or chemical parcel-tanker.

* * * * *

PART 530—SERVICE CONTRACTS

1. The authority citation for part 530

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. app.

1704, 1705, 1707, 1716.

2. In § 530.3 revise paragraph (n) to

read as follows:

§ 530.3 Definitions.

* * * * *

(n) Ocean common carrier means a

common carrier that operates, for all or

part of its common carrier service, a

vessel on the high seas or the Great

Lakes between a port in the United

States and a port in a foreign country,

except that the term does not include a

common carrier engaged in ocean

transportation by ferry boat, ocean

tramp, or chemical parcel-tanker.

* * * * *

PART 535—AGREEMENTS BY OCEAN

COMMON CARRIERS AND OTHERS

SUBJECT TO THE SHIPPING ACT OF

1984

1. The authority citation for part 535

is amended to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. app.

1701–1707; 1709–1710, 1712 and 1714–1718;

Pub. L. 105–383, 112 Stat. 3411.

2. Revise § 535.101 to read as follows:

§ 535.101 Authority.

The rules in this part are issued

pursuant to the authority of section 4 of

the Administrative Procedure Act (5

U.S.C. 553), sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,

10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 19 of the

Shipping Act of 1984 (‘‘the Act’’), and

the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998,

Pub. L. 105–258, 112 Stat. 1902.

3. In § 535.104 revise paragraph (u) to

read as follows:

§ 535.104 Definitions.

* * * * *

(u) Ocean common carrier means a

common carrier that operates, for all or

part of its common carrier service, a

vessel on the high seas or the Great

Lakes between a port in the United

States and a port in a foreign country,

except that the term does not include a

common carrier engaged in ocean

transportation by ferry boat, ocean

tramp, or chemical parcel-tanker.

* * * * *

By the Commission.

Bryant L. VanBrakle,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–11338 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[CC Docket No. 96–45; FCC 00–126]

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal

Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This document concerning

the Federal-State Joint Board on

Universal Service clarifies the method

by which quarterly line count data will

be incorporated in the new high-cost

mechanism for purposes of calculating

and targeting support amounts. It also

clarifies that, until the Commission

adopts new line count input values,

forward-looking costs for universal

service support purposes shall be

estimated using the line count input

values adopted in the Tenth Report and

Order. Finally, it clarifies that high-cost

support shall be available on a regular

quarterly basis for competitive eligible

telecommunications carriers serving

lines in areas served by non-rural

incumbent local exchange carriers.

DATES: Effective May 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Katie King, Attorney, Common Carrier

Bureau, Accounting Policy Division,

(202) 418–7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s

Twentieth Order Reconsideration, CC

Docket No. 96–45; FCC 00–126, released

on April 7, 2000. 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,

S.W., Washington, D.C., 20554.

I. Introduction

1. In this Order, we clarify certain

aspects of the new high-cost universal

service support mechanism for nonrural carriers adopted in the Ninth

Report and Order, 64 FR 67416

(December 1, 1999), on October 21,

1999. Specifically, we clarify the

method by which quarterly line count

data will be incorporated in the new

high-cost mechanism for purposes of

calculating and targeting support

amounts.

We also clarify that, until the

Commission adopts new line count

input values, forward-looking costs for

universal service support purposes shall

be estimated using the line count input

values adopted in the Tenth Report and

Order, 64 FR 67372 (December 1, 1999).

This clarification does not alter the

methodology adopted in the Ninth

Report and Order except to account for

line growth when the wire center line

count data reported quarterly by the

carriers differs from the input values

used to estimate forward-looking cost.

Finally, we clarify that high-cost

support shall be available on a regular

quarterly basis for competitive eligible

telecommunications carriers serving

lines in areas served by non-rural

incumbent local exchange carriers.

II. Discussion

2. In general, there are four stages in

the forward-looking high-cost

mechanism for non-rural carriers where

line count information is required: (1)

To estimate forward-looking costs of

providing supported services; (2) to

determine statewide support amounts;

(3) to target those statewide support

amounts to individual wire centers; and

(4) to determine the per-line support

amounts in individual wire centers.

In addition, the interim hold-harmless

provision uses line counts to target

carrier-by-carrier hold-harmless support

amounts to individual wire centers. The

interim hold-harmless provision also

uses line counts to determine the perline support amounts in individual wire

centers. As discussed, we provide

specific guidance on how these line

counts are used in the four stages of the

forward-looking mechanism and the

interim hold-harmless provision.

3. Estimating Forward-Looking Costs.

We clarify that the line counts used in

the model to estimate forward-looking

economic costs shall be used to

calculate average forward-looking costs

in all the cost calculations in the

methodology adopted in the Ninth

Report and Order for determining

support. This approach is consistent

with the Commission’s and the FederalState Joint Board’s decision to use a cost

model. The model estimates the

forward-looking costs of providing the

supported services in each wire center

served by non-rural carriers. We clarify

that model lines shall be used in

26514 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

determining the wire center average cost

per line, the statewide average cost per

line, the nationwide average cost per

line, and the national cost benchmark.

The statewide average cost per line is

determined by adding the costs in the

wire centers in the state and dividing by

the number of non-rural model lines in

the state. Similarly, the nationwide

average cost per line is determined by

adding the costs in all states and

dividing by the total number of nonrural model lines. The national

benchmark equals 135 percent of the

nationwide average cost.

4. Calculating Statewide Support

Amounts. We clarify that, to the extent

that the reported line counts differ from

the line counts used in the model to

estimate forward-looking costs,

statewide support amounts shall be

adjusted to reflect any changes between

the number of model lines and the

number of reported lines. This ensures

that the new mechanism provides

sufficient support and that support is

portable. We shall incorporate the

number of lines reported by non-rural

carriers on a quarterly basis in

calculating statewide support amounts.

Statewide support amounts shall be

determined by calculating the average

per-line support amount in the state and

multiplying this support amount by the

number of lines reported by non-rural

carriers in the state.

5. This clarification of the

methodology can be illustrated by using

the example in the Ninth Report and

Order illustrating the targeting of

forward-looking support. We assume, in

that example, that there are 30 lines in

the state, the average cost per line is $30

and thus the total statewide cost as

estimated by the model is $900. We

assume further that the national

benchmark equates to $25 per line.

Using the statewide methodology

adopted in the Ninth Report and Order,

the total amount of support provided to

carriers in the state would be

($30¥$25)×30 lines×76%=$114 or $3.80

per line of untargeted support. In order

to adjust the total statewide support

amount to reflect quarterly line counts,

we clarify that the average per-line

amount of untargeted support shall be

multiplied by the number of lines

reported by non-rural carriers in the

state. For example, assume that nonrural carriers in the state report that they

have 35 lines, rather than the 30 lines

used in the model to estimate forwardlooking costs. Basing support on

reported lines, the statewide support

amount would be $3.80×35=$133, rather

than $3.80×30=$114.

6. Targeting Forward-Looking

Support. After statewide forwardlooking support is calculated as

described, that statewide support

amount must be targeted to individual

wire centers. Under this targeting

approach, we clarify that the line counts

used in the model to estimate forwardlooking economic costs shall be used to

target support to high-cost wire centers.

This approach is consistent with the

Commission’s and the Federal-State

Joint Board’s decision to use a cost

model. The model estimates the

forward-looking costs of providing the

supported services in each wire center

served by non-rural carriers. From this

information, we identify the high-cost

wire centers. Although we do not alter

the targeting methodology adopted in

the Ninth Report and Order, we now

clarify that the model is used to estimate

relative costs among wire centers, rather

than relative support amounts. We also

clarify how the per-line targeted support

amount should be calculated.

7. As discussed, we have concluded

that support amounts should be

adjusted to reflect the number of lines

reported by non-rural carriers, in those

situations when the number of lines

used in the model to estimate forwardlooking costs differs from the number of

reported lines. The example used to

illustrate targeting in the Ninth Report

and Order was based on the assumption

that the number of model lines and the

number of reported lines did not differ,

so we clarify how the targeting

calculations will be made, even if the

line counts differ. In identifying highcost wire centers for purposes of

targeting support, instead of using pro

rata factors based on wire center scale

support, we will calculate ratios based

on the wire center’s cost above the

national cost benchmark. As explained,

this approach does not change support

amounts.

8. This clarification of the

methodology is best provided by using

the example in the Ninth Report and

Order to illustrate the targeting of

forward-looking support and the

example for determining statewide

support discussed. Assume that the

estimated total cost of $900 in the state

is derived from the costs in three wire

centers as follows:

Wire Center 1 has 10 lines, with an

average cost of $20 per line, and a

total cost in the wire center of $200;

Wire Center 2 has 10 lines, with an

average cost of $30 per line, and a

total cost of $300; and

Wire Center 3 has 10 lines, with an

average cost of $40 per line, and a

total cost of $400.

As in the example, the statewide

average cost per line is $30, the national

benchmark is $25, and the statewide

support amount is based on an average

untargeted support amount of $3.80 per

line. Because the number of lines

reported by non-rural carriers in the

State is assumed to be 35, the statewide

support amount is $133. The proportion

of the statewide support amount

targeted to each wire center is

determined by first calculating the ratio

of the wire center’s estimated cost above

the benchmark to the total cost above

the benchmark in the State. Therefore,

the estimated costs above the

benchmark would be as follows:

Wire Center 1 has an average cost below

the benchmark, so the cost above

the benchmark is $0;

Wire Center 2 has an estimated cost

above the benchmark of

($30¥$25)×10 model lines=$50;

Wire Center 3 has an estimated cost

above the benchmark of

($40¥$25)×10 model lines=$150;

and the total estimated cost above

the benchmark in the State is

$0+$50+$150=$200.

Then the ratios used to determine the

percentage of statewide support each

wire center will receive are calculated

as follows:

Wire Center 1 receives $0/$200=0%;

Wire Center 2 receives $50/

$200=25%; and Wire Center 3

receives $150/$200=75%.

Thus, of the $133 of support the State

receives, Wire Center 1 receives $0

support; Wire Center 2 receives

25%×$133=$33.25; and Wire Center 3

receives 75%×$133=$99.75.

9. We clarify that we shall use the

number of reported lines, rather than

model lines, to calculate the targeted

per-line support amount available in the

wire center. Otherwise, support

amounts could differ depending upon

whether the line is provided by an

incumbent local exchange carrier or by

a competitive eligible

telecommunications carrier.

Using the example, we know that, of

the $133 statewide support amount,

$33.25 is targeted to Wire Center 2, and

$99.75 targeted to Wire Center 3.

Assume that the 35 reported lines are

distributed as follows:

Wire Center 1 has 15 reported lines;

Wire Center 2 has 6 reported lines; and

Wire Center 3 has 14 reported lines.

Dividing the support amounts

available in each wire center, by the

number of reported lines results in the

following per-line support amounts:

Wire Center 1 receives $0 per line;

Wire Center 2 receives $33.25/6=$5.54

per line; and

Wire Center 3 receives $99.75/

14=$7.125 per line.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26515

This methodology produces a

competitively neutral result, whereas,

using model lines to calculate the perline support would not. This can be

illustrated with one of the wire centers

in the example. If model lines were used

to calculate the per-line support amount

in Wire Center 3, the per-line amount

would be $99.75/10=$9.975. If the

incumbent local exchange carrier were

serving all lines, the incumbent, in

effect, would be receiving $99.75/

14=$7.125 per line. If a competitor were

serving one line and receiving $9.975 in

support, the incumbent local exchange

carrier would receive $6.905 per line for

serving the remaining 13 lines

(($99.75¥$9.975=$89.775)/13). To

ensure that all non-rural carriers in a

wire center receive the same per-line

support amount for the lines they serve,

we clarify that the total wire center

support amount shall be divided by the

number of reported lines in that wire

center.

10. Targeting Hold-Harmless Support.

We similarly clarify how hold-harmless

support is targeted to high-cost wire

centers. Although hold-harmless

support is not based upon costs

estimated by the model, it is consistent

with our decision to target holdharmless support to high-cost wire

centers to use model lines in identifying

high-cost wire centers, as we do for

targeting forward-looking support. In

addition, we clarify that the portable

per-line amount of targeted holdharmless support shall be determined

by dividing the total hold-harmless

support amount targeted to the wire

center by the number of lines reported

in that wire center.

11. We use the example presented in

the Ninth Report and Order to illustrate

the targeting of hold-harmless support.

We use model lines to determine

relative costs among wire centers and

reported lines to determine the per-line

support amount available in each wire

center. We assume that a State has a

single carrier with three wire centers in

the State. Assume that the model

estimates the average forward-looking

cost per line in each wire center as

follows:

Wire Center 1—$15,

Wire Center 2—$20,

Wire Center 3—$25.

Assume that these cost estimates were

based on input values of 10 lines in

each wire center. Thus, the statewide

average cost per line is

($150+$200+$250)/30 lines=$20.

Assume further that the national

benchmark equates to $22 per line, and

therefore the carrier receives no support

under the forward-looking methodology

in part 54 of our rules, which averages

costs at the statewide level. Also assume

that the carrier receives a total of $90 of

interim hold-harmless support as

determined pursuant to part 36 of our

rules.

Under the targeting approach, the

hold-harmless support is distributed

first to the wire center that the model

estimates to have the highest costs in

the State until that wire center’s average

costs, net of support, equal the average

costs in the next most expensive wire

center. This process continues in a

cascading fashion until all support has

been distributed. In this example, the

first $50 of hold-harmless support

would be distributed to Wire Center 3,

so that the average forward-looking cost

in Wire Center 3, net of hold-harmless

support, is reduced to $250¥$50=$200,

an average cost of $200/10 lines=$20 per

line. This places Wire Center 3 on equal

footing with Wire Center 2, which also

has an average cost of $200/10

lines=$20 per line. The remaining holdharmless support, $90—$50 = $40,

would be divided between the wire

centers, so that the average cost as

estimated by the model, net of holdharmless support, would be the same in

Wire Center 2 and Wire Center 3, that

is, $18 per line.

Thus, Wire Center 2 would receive a

total of $20 in support and Wire Center

3 would receive a total of $50+$20=$70

in support. The average forward-looking

cost in Wire Center 2, net of holdharmless support, is reduced to

$200¥$20=$180, an average cost of

$180/10 lines=$18 per line. The average

forward-looking cost in Wire Center 3,

net of hold-harmless support, is reduced

to $250¥$70=$180, an average cost of

$180/10 lines=$18 per line.

Now assume that the carrier reports

that Wire Center 2 has 6 lines and that

Wire Center 3 has 14 lines. The portable

per-line support amount in Wire Center

2 would be $20/6 lines=$3.33 per line.

The portable per-line support amount in

Wire Center 3 would be $70/14

lines=$5.00 per line.

12. Reporting Quarterly Line Counts.

As discussed, the line counts used in

the model to estimate forward-looking

costs are trued-up to 1998 ARMIS line

counts. As of December 30, 1999, nonrural incumbent local exchange carriers

and competitive eligible

telecommunications carriers seeking to

receive support are now required to file

updated line counts every quarter.

USAC shall determine statewide

support amounts by calculating the

average per-line support amount in the

state and multiplying the average

support amount by the number of lines

reported by non-rural carriers in the

State. For the year 2000, forwardlooking support will be distributed for

the first and second quarters of the year

2000 based on the line counts non-rural

carriers filed on December 30, 1999.

Similarly, forward-looking support for

the third and fourth quarters of the year

2000, will be based on the line counts

non-rural carriers file on March 30,

2000, and July 31, 2000, respectively.

13. Although section 54.307(b) of the

Commission’s rules refers to an annual

July 31st deadline for the submission of

competitive eligible

telecommunications carriers’ line count

data, we clarify that high-cost support

shall be available on a regular quarterly

basis for competitive eligible

telecommunications carriers serving

lines in areas served by non-rural

incumbent local exchange carriers. In

the Ninth Report and Order, the

Commission adopted uniform,

mandatory quarterly reporting

requirements for all carriers seeking

support for serving lines in non-rural

areas. To ensure ‘‘equitable, nondiscriminatory, and competitively

neutral treatment[,]’’ support must be

available to all eligible

telecommunications carriers on a

quarterly basis, rather than on an annual

basis. Therefore, competitive eligible

telecommunications carriers serving

lines in non-rural areas may submit line

count data under the filing schedule

described in § 54.307(c) and receive

support on a regular quarterly basis.

This approach is consistent with our

decision to require uniform quarterly

reporting and is essential to ensure

portability of support among carriers.

We amend § 54.307 accordingly.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Certification

14. The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA) requires an Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) whenever an

agency publishes a notice of proposed

rulemaking, and a Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) whenever

an agency subsequently promulgates a

final rule, unless the agency certifies

that the proposed or final rule will not

have ‘‘a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities,’’

and includes the factual basis for such

certification. 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

26516 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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). The SBA defines

a small telecommunications entity in

SIC code 4813 (Telephone

Communications, Except

Radiotelephone) as an entity with 1,500

or fewer employees.

15. In the Ninth Report and Order, the

Commission certified pursuant to the

RFA that the final rules adopted in that

order would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. We concluded

that the Ninth Report and Order

adopted a final rule affecting only the

amount of high-cost support provided to

non-rural LECs. Non-rural LECs

generally do not fall within the SBA’s

definition of a small business concern

because they are usually large

corporations or affiliates of such

corporations. In a companion Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted

in this docket, the Commission prepared

an IRFA seeking comment on the

economic impacts on small entities. No

comments were received in response to

that IRFA.

16. The rule changes adopted by this

order implement our clarifications to

the Ninth Report and Order, as

described in the text of this Twentieth

Order on Reconsideration. The changes

adopted in this order will affect only

non-rural LECs. As mentioned, nonrural LECs generally do not fall within

the definition of a small business

concern. Therefore, we certify pursuant

to Section 605(b) of the RFA, that the

final rules adopted in this order will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

The Consumer Information Bureau,

Reference Information Center, will send

a copy of the Twentieth Order on

Reconsideration, including a copy of

this final certification, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA in

accordance with the RFA. In addition,

this certification and order will be

published in the Federal Register.

Finally, the Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, will send a copy of

the Twentieth Order on

Reconsideration, including a copy of

this final certification, in a report to

Congress pursuant to the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996.

B. Effective Date of Final Rules

17. We conclude that the amendments

to our rules adopted herein shall be

effective May 8, 2000. In this order, we

make minor amendments to the rules

adopted in the Ninth Report and Order,

which implement a new forwardlooking high-cost support mechanism,

effective January 1, 2000. Making the

amendments effective 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register

would jeopardize the implementation of

the new mechanism. Accordingly,

pursuant to the Administrative

Procedure Act, we find good cause to

depart from the general requirement that

final rules take effect not less than 30

days after their publication in the

Federal Register.

IV. Ordering Clauses

18. The authority contained in

sections 1–4, 201–205, 214, 218–220,

254, 303(r), 403, and 410 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, and section 1.108 of the

Commission’s rules, the Twentieth

Order on Reconsideration is adopted.

19. Part 54 of the Commission’s rules,

47 CFR Part 54, is amended as set forth,

effective May 8, 2000.

20. The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, shall send a copy of

this Twentieth Order on

Reconsideration, including the Final

Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54

Universal service.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Final Rules

Part 54 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE

1. The authority citation for part 54

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 201, 205, 214,

and 254 unless otheriwse noted.

2. Amend § 54.307 by revising

paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:

§ 54.307 Support to a competitive eligible

telecommunications carrier.

* * * * *

(b) In order to receive support

pursuant to this subpart, a competitive

eligible telecommunications carrier

must report to the Administrator the

number of working loops it serves in a

service area pursuant to the schedule set

forth in paragraph (c) of this section. For

a competitive eligible

telecommunications carrier serving

loops in the service area of a rural

telephone company, as that term is

defined in § 51.5 of this chapter, the

carrier must report the number of

working loops it serves in the service

area. For a competitive eligible

telecommunications carrier serving

loops in the service area of a non-rural

telephone company, the carrier must

report the number of working loops it

serves in the service area and the

number of working loops it serves in

each wire center in the service area. For

universal service support purposes,

working loops are defined as the

number of working Exchange Line

C&WF loops used jointly for exchange

and message telecommunications

service, including C&WF subscriber

lines associated with pay telephones in

C&WF Category 1, but excluding WATS

closed end access and TWX service.

(c) For a competitive eligible

telecommunications carrier serving

loops in the service area of a rural

telephone company, as that term is

defined in § 51.5 of this chapter, the

carrier must submit no later than July

31st of each year the data required

pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section

as of December 30th of the previous

calendar year, and the carrier may

update on a quarterly basis the data

required pursuant to paragraph (b) of

this section according to the schedule.

For a competitive eligible

telecommunications carrier serving

loops in the service area of a non-rural

telephone company, the carrier must

submit the data required pursuant to

paragraph (b) of this section according

to the schedule.

(1) No later than July 31 of each year,

submit data as of December 30th of the

previous calendar year;

(2) No later than September 30th of

each year, submit data as of March 30th

of the existing calendar year;

(3) No later than December 30th of

each year, submit data as of July 31st of

the existing calendar year;

(4) No later than March 30th of each

year, submit data as of September 30th

of the previous year.

3. Amend § 54.309 by revising

paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4), (b)(1),

(b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4) to read as

follows:

§ 54.309 Calculation and distribution of

forward-looking support for non-rural

carriers.

(a) * * *

(1) For each State, the Commission’s

cost model shall determine the

statewide average forward-looking

economic cost (FLEC) per line of

providing the supported services. The

statewide average FLEC per line shall

equal the total FLEC for non-rural

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26517

carriers to provide the supported

services in the State, divided by the

number of switched lines used in the

Commission’s cost model. The total

FLEC shall equal average FLEC

multiplied by the number of switched

lines used in the Commission’s cost

model.

(2) The Commission’s cost model

shall determine the national average

FLEC per line of providing the

supported services. The national

average FLEC per line shall equal the

total FLEC for non-rural carriers to

provide the supported services in all

States, divided by the total number of

switched lines in all States used in the

Commission’s cost model.

* * * * *

(4) Support calculated pursuant to

this section shall be provided to nonrural carriers in each State where the

statewide average FLEC per line exceeds

the national cost benchmark. The total

amount of support provided to nonrural carriers in each State where the

statewide average FLEC per line exceeds

the national cost benchmark shall equal

76 percent of the amount of the

statewide average FLEC per line that

exceeds the national cost benchmark,

multiplied by the number of lines

reported pursuant to § 36.611, § 36.612,

and § 54.307 of this chapter.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) The Commission’s cost model

shall determine the percentage of the

total amount of support available in the

State for each wire center by calculating

the ratio of the wire center’s FLEC above

the national cost benchmark to the total

FLEC above the national cost

benchmark of all wire centers within the

State. A wire center’s FLEC above the

national cost benchmark shall be equal

to the wire center’s average FLEC per

line above the national cost benchmark,

multiplied by the number of switched

lines in the wire center used in the

Commission’s cost model;

(2) The total amount of support

distributed to each wire center shall be

equal to the percentage calculated for

the wire center pursuant to paragraph

(b)(1) of this section multiplied by the

total amount of support available in the

state;

(3) The total amount of support for

each wire center pursuant to paragraph

(b)(2) of this section shall be divided by

the number of lines in the wire center

reported pursuant to § 36.611, § 36.612,

and § 54.307 of this chapter to

determine the per-line amount of

forward-looking support for that wire

center;

(4) The per-line amount of support for

each wire center pursuant to paragraph

(b)(3) of this section shall be multiplied

by the number of lines served by a nonrural incumbent local exchange carrier

in that wire center, or by an eligible

telecommunications carrier in that wire

center, as reported pursuant to § 36.611,

§ 36.612, and § 54.307 of this chapter, to

determine the amount of forwardlooking support to be provided to that

carrier.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–11100 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P