Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 49401 

17A blank copy of the 2000 EO Survey will be 

posted in www.regulations.gov as a supporting 

document to this ANPRM. To view the EO Survey 

in http://www.regulations.gov search by RIN 

number 1250–AA03. 

specific industries for industry-focused 

compensation reviews. What specific 

categories of data would be most useful 

for identifying contractors in specific 

industries for industry focused 

compensation reviews? 

7. OFCCP is exploring the possibility 

of using the data collected through the 

tool to identify opportunities for 

nationwide multi-establishment 

compensation reviews. 

(a) What specific categories of data 

would be most useful for conducting 

compensation analyses across a 

contractor’s various establishments? 

(b) What are the benefits and 

drawbacks of collecting contractor’s 

compensation data on a nationwide 

basis rather than on an individual 

establishment basis? 

(c) What are the benefits and 

drawbacks of collecting contractor’s 

compensation data on a nationwide 

basis in addition to an individual 

establishment basis? 

8. The data collection tool may 

require contractors to submit data on an 

establishment basis. Given the possible 

designs of the tool and its proposed 

uses, OFCCP is interested in learning of 

any practical concerns contractors may 

have regarding responding to the 

compensation data request and how 

contractors currently record and 

maintain compensation data. 

Specifically: 

(a) What general tasks would be 

required by a contractor in order to 

provide the compensation data? 

(b) What categories of compensationrelated data are currently maintained in 

computer-based personnel or payroll 

systems? 

(c) What specific costs and/or benefits 

would be associated with collecting this 

type of data? 

9. OFCCP is considering designing the 

tool so that it may be used by 

contractors to conduct self-assessments 

of their compensation decisions. What 

specific categories of data would be 

most useful to contractors interested in 

using the tool in this manner? 

10. What were the strengths and 

weaknesses of the compensation section 

of the 2000 EO Survey? 17

11. OFCCP is considering requiring 

contractors to submit data 

electronically. What factors should 

OFCCP take into consideration when 

designing this data collection tool? 

Interested parties should suggest 

preferred formats—i.e., a web-based 

form (like the EEO–1), excel 

spreadsheet, etc. What types of 

databases are currently used, if any, to 

maintain personnel and payroll data? 

12. An option that OFCCP is 

considering is the possibility of 

requiring businesses that are bidding on 

future Federal contracts to submit 

compensation data as part of the 

Request for Proposal process. In such a 

case, the data collected may be used for 

trend analyses as well as targeting 

contractors for post-award compliance 

reviews. What are the benefits and 

drawbacks of administering the data 

collection tool in this manner? 

13. Should OFCCP decide to expand 

the scope of the compensation data 

collection tool beyond supply and 

service contractors to include 

construction contractors, what factors or 

issues particularly relevant to such 

contractors should OFCCP keep in mind 

when designing and implementing the 

tool? 

14. Are there other constructive 

suggestions for the design, content, 

analysis, and implementation of a 

compensation data collection tool? 

15. Consistent with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, OFCCP must consider 

the impact of any proposed rule on 

small entities, including small 

businesses, small nonprofit 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions with populations under 

50,000. In response to this ANPRM, 

OFCCP encourages small entities to 

provide data on how they may be 

impacted by the requirement to provide 

the compensation data requested by the 

new data collection tool. 

(a) The Department seeks public 

comment on the types of small entities 

and any estimates of the numbers of 

small entities that may be impacted by 

this rule. 

(b) The Department seeks public 

comment on the potential identifiable 

costs of the data collection on small 

entities. 

(c) The Department seeks public 

comment on any possible alternatives to 

the proposed measures that would allow 

OFCCP to achieve its objectives while 

minimizing any likely adverse impact to 

small businesses such as allowing 

smaller establishments to submit 

administrative data—for example, 

quarterly unemployment insurance tax 

payments that would include wage 

information—augmented by gender and 

race/ethnicity identification, but 

without other compensation details. 

OFCCP encourages interested parties 

to comment on these questions and the 

related questions of how OFCCP can 

maximize the potential value of this 

data collection tool while taking into 

account the reporting burden created for 

contractors and the technology and/or 

analytic burdens placed on the agency. 

Dated: August 5, 2011 

Patricia A. Shiu, 

Director, Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20299 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–45–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 36, 54, 61, 64, and 69 

[WC Docket No. 10–90; DA 11–1348] 

Universal Service—Intercarrier 

Compensation Transformation 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks targeted comment 

on certain issues in the Universal 

Service—Intercarrier Compensation 

Transformation proceeding. The 

Commission has received several 

proposals in the record in this 

proceeding to which we would like to 

receive comment from interested 

parties. This opportunity for additional, 

targeted comment will facilitate 

comprehensive universal service and 

intercarrier compensation reform. 

DATES: Comments on the Pubic Notice 

are due on or before August 24, 2011, 

and reply comments are due on or 

before August 31, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 

07–135, 05–337, 03–109; GN Docket No. 

09–51; CC Docket Nos. 01–92, 96–45, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the notice process, see 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katie King, Telecommunications Access 

Policy Division, Wireline Competition 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49402 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Bureau, (202) 418–7400, Daniel Ball, 

Pricing Policy Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, (202) 418–1520 or 

Sue McNeil, Auctions and Spectrum 

Access Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau at (202) 

418–0660, or TTY: (202) 418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Public Notice in WC 

Docket No. 10–90, GN Docket No. 09– 

51, WC Docket No. 07–135, WC Docket 

No. 05–337, CC Docket No. 01–92, CC 

Docket No. 96–45, and WC Docket No. 

03–109, DA 11–1348 released August 3, 

2011. 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 the Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.fcc.gov. 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, interested parties 

may file comments and reply comments 

on or before the dates indicated on the 

first page of this document. Comments 

may be filed using: (1) The 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS); (2) the Federal 

Government’s eRulemaking Portal; or (3) 

by filing paper copies. See Electronic 

Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet 

by accessing the ECFS: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Filers should 

follow the instructions provided on 

the website for submitting comments. 

Æ For ECFS filers, if multiple docket 

or rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

Æ Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

• Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). All filings must be addressed to 

the Commission’s Secretary, Office of 

the Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

Æ All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered 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 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

Æ 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. 

Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail should be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

In addition, one copy of each pleading 

must be sent to the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554; 

Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com; 

phone: 1–800–378–3160. Furthermore, 

one copy of each pleading must be sent 

to Charles Tyler, Telecommunications 

Access Policy Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street, 

SW., Room 5–A452, Washington, DC 

20554; e-mail: Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov. 

Filings and comments are also 

available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

at the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

Copies may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

BCPI, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY– 

B402, Washington, DC 20554. 

Customers may contact BCPI through its 

Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com, by 

e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com, by 

telephone at (202) 488–5300 or (800) 

378–3160 (voice), (202) 488–5562 (tty), 

or by facsimile at (202) 488–5563. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an e-mail to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice) or (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). Contact the FCC to request 

reasonable accommodations for filing 

comments (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov; 

phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

This matter shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentation and 

not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented generally is 

required. Other rules pertaining to oral 

and written ex parte presentations in 

permit-but-disclose proceedings are set 

forth in section 1.1206(b) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Discussion 

In order to comprehensively reform 

and modernize the universal service 

fund (USF) and intercarrier 

compensation (ICC) system in light of 

recent technological, market, and 

regulatory changes, on February 9, 2011, 

the Commission released the Universal 

Service and Intercarrier Compensation 

Transformation Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (USF–ICC Transformation 

NPRM). The NPRM sought public 

comment on reforms to modernize USF 

and ICC for broadband, control the size 

of the USF as it transitions to support 

broadband, require accountability from 

companies receiving support, and use 

market-driven and incentive-based 

policies that maximize the value of 

scarce program resources for the benefit 

of consumers. Previously, on October 

14, 2010, the Commission released the 

Universal Service Reform—Mobility 

Fund Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Mobility Fund NPRM), 75 FR 67060, 

which proposed to expand mobile voice 

and data service availability by using a 

market-based mechanism to award onetime support from accumulated USF 

reserves. In response to the USF–ICC 

Transformation NPRM, a number of 

parties have offered specific proposals 

for reform, including a proposal by the 

State Members of the Federal-State 

Universal Service Joint Board (State 

Members), the ‘‘RLEC Plan’’ put forward 

by the Joint Rural Associations, and the 

‘‘America’s Broadband Connectivity 

Plan’’ filed by six Price Cap Companies 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 49403 

(‘‘ABC Plan’’). We seek comment on 

how these proposals comport with the 

Commission’s articulated objectives and 

statutory requirements. We invite 

comment on specific aspects of the 

proposals and on additional issues that 

are not fully developed in the record. 

I. Universal Service 

A. Separate Support for Mobile 

Broadband 

• Several parties propose that the 

Commission create two separate 

components of the Connect America 

Fund, one focused on ensuring that 

consumers receive fixed voice and 

broadband service (which could be 

wired or wireless) from a single 

provider of last resort in areas that are 

uneconomic to serve with fixed service, 

and one focused on providing ongoing 

support for mobile voice and broadband 

service in areas that are uneconomic to 

serve with mobile service (i.e., a Mobile 

Connect America Fund), with the two 

components together providing annual 

support under a defined budget. We 

seek comment on providing separate 

funding for fixed broadband (wired or 

wireless) and mobility. How should the 

Commission set the relative budgets of 

two separate components? How should 

the budgets be revised over time? 

• In the USF/ICC Transformation 

NPRM, the Commission sought 

comment on phasing down high-cost 

support for competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers 

(competitive ETCs) over 5 years and 

transitioning such support to the CAF. 

To what extent would projected savings 

associated with intercarrier 

compensation reform for wireless 

carriers as proposed in the ABC Plan 

help offset reductions in high-cost 

support for competitive ETCs? We ask 

parties to substantiate their comments 

with data and remind parties that they 

may file data under the protective order 

issued in this proceeding. 

B. Elimination of Rural and Non-Rural 

Carrier Distinctions 

• In the USF/ICC Transformation 

NPRM, the Commission sought 

comment on two potential paths for the 

long term CAF: (1) Use a competitive, 

technology-neutral bidding process to 

determine CAF recipients; or (2) offer 

the current voice carrier of last resort a 

right of first refusal to serve the area for 

an amount of ongoing support 

determined by a cost model, with a 

competitive process if the incumbent 

refuses the offer. Several parties that 

jointly filed a letter proposing a path for 

reform propose a hybrid system in 

which support would be determined 

under a combination of a forwardlooking cost model and competitive 

bidding in areas served by price cap 

companies, while companies that today 

are regulated under a rate of return 

methodology would continue to receive 

support based on embedded costs, albeit 

with greater accountability and cost 

controls. Similarly, the State Members 

suggest that a forward-looking model be 

used for price cap companies, while rate 

of return companies would have the 

option of receiving support under a 

model or based on embedded costs. We 

seek comment on the policy 

implications of eliminating the current 

references to rural and non-rural carriers 

in our rules and of adopting two 

separate approaches to determining 

support for carriers that operate in rural 

areas that are uneconomic to serve, 

based on whether a company is 

regulated under rate of return or price 

caps in the interstate jurisdiction. 

C. CAF Support for Price Cap Areas 

1. Use of a Model. 

Æ Both the State Members and the 

ABC Plan would use a forward-looking 

model to determine support amounts for 

areas where there is no private sector 

business case to offer broadband. We 

seek comment on what information 

would need to be filed in the record 

regarding the CostQuest Broadband 

Analysis Tool (CQBAT model) for the 

Commission to consider adopting it, as 

proposed in the ABC Plan. 

Æ The ABC Plan proposes using one 

technology to determine the modeled 

costs of 4 Mbps download/768 kbps 

upload service, while permitting 

support recipients to use any technology 

capable of meeting those requirements. 

Should the amounts determined by a 

model be adjusted to reflect the 

technology actually deployed? Is ten 

years an appropriate time frame for 

determining support levels, given 

statutory requirements for an evolving 

definition of universal service? Should 

the model reflect the costs of building 

a network capable of meeting future 

consumer demand for higher bandwidth 

that reasonably can be anticipated five 

years from now? 

2. Right of First Refusal (ROFR). 

Æ The ABC Plan would give an 

incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) 

the opportunity to accept or decline a 

model-determined support amount in a 

wire center if the incumbent LEC has 

already made high-speed Internet 

service available to more than 35 

percent of the service locations in the 

wire center. We seek comment on this 

proposal. Would aggregating census 

blocks to something other than a wire 

center be an improvement to the 

proposal? Is 35 percent a reasonable 

threshold? Should areas that are 

overlapped by an unsubsidized 

facilities-based provider be excluded 

when calculating the percentage? Is the 

opportunity to exercise a ROFR 

reasonable consideration for an 

incumbent LEC’s ongoing responsibility 

to serve as a voice carrier of last resort 

throughout its study areas, even as 

legacy support flows are being phased 

down? Should any ROFR go to the 

provider with the most broadband 

deployment in the relevant area rather 

than automatically to the incumbent 

LEC? Alternatively, if there are at least 

two providers in the relevant area that 

exceed the threshold, should the 

Commission use competitive bidding to 

select the support recipient? 

3. Public Interest Obligations. 

Æ Last year, the Federal-State Joint 

Board on Universal Service 

recommended that the Commission 

adopt a principle ‘‘that universal service 

support should be directed where 

possible to networks that provide 

advanced services, as well as voice 

services.’’ If that recommendation is 

adopted, how could the CQBAT model 

be improved to account for the costs of 

providing both broadband and voice 

service? 

Æ The State Members propose that 

recipients of support meet specific 

broadband build-out milestones at years 

1, 3 and 5 of deployment. A company 

that exceeded a specified minimum 

standard, but failed to meet the higher 

standard at a given milestone would 

receive a pro rata share of support. We 

seek comment on what specific interim 

milestones would be effective in 

ensuring that carriers receiving CAF 

support are building out broadband at a 

reasonable rate during the specified 

build-out period. 

Æ The ABC Plan proposes that CAF 

recipients provide broadband service 

that meets specified bandwidth 

requirements to all locations within a 

supported area, but does not address the 

pricing of such services or usage 

allowances. Should the Commission 

adopt reporting requirements for 

supported providers regarding pricing 

and usage allowances to facilitate its 

ability to ensure that consumers in rural 

areas are receiving reasonably 

comparable services at reasonably 

comparable rates? 

4. Eligible Telecommunications 

Carrier (ETC) Requirements. 

Æ The ABC Plan proposes a 

procurement model, in which recipients 

of CAF support incur service obligations 

only to the extent they agree to perform 

them in explicit agreements with the 

Commission, and CAF recipients are 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49404 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

free to use any technology, wireline or 

wireless, that meets specified 

bandwidth and service requirements. 

What specific rule changes to the 

Commission’s rules, including part 54, 

subpart C of the Commission’s rules, 

would be necessary to implement such 

a proposal? 

5. State Role. 

Æ The State Members and other 

commenters propose an ongoing role for 

states in monitoring and oversight over 

recipients of universal service support. 

We seek comment on specific 

illustrative areas where the states could 

work in partnership with the 

Commission in advancing universal 

service, subject to a uniform national 

framework, and invite comments on 

other suggestions. For example: 

• Were the Commission to adopt a 

ROFR mechanism, could the states 

determine whether a provider has 

already made a substantial broadband 

investment in a particular area, and 

therefore would be eligible to be offered 

support amounts determined under a 

forward-looking model? 

• Should ETCs be required to file 

copies of all information submitted to 

the Commission regarding compliance 

with public interest obligations with the 

states, as well as with USAC? 

• The ABC Plan contemplates that 

CAF recipients would serve all business 

and residential locations within a 

supported area, but does not specifically 

address the obligation to serve newly 

built locations within a supported area 

over the ten-year term of the funding. 

Should states be charged with 

determining whether any charges for 

extending service to newly constructed 

buildings are reasonable, based on local 

conditions? 

• Should states collect information 

regarding customer complaints, 

including complaints about unfulfilled 

service requests and inadequate service? 

D. Reforms for Rate-of-Return Carriers 

• In light of the RLEC Plan and the 

Joint Letter, as well as proposals by the 

State Members, we seek comment below 

on specific issues relating to universal 

service support for rate-of-return 

companies. 

Æ Re-examining the Interstate Rate of 

Return. The Joint Letter proposes that 

CAF calculations for areas served by 

rate-of-return companies would be 

calculated using a 10 percent interstate 

rate of return. The State Members 

recommended that the rate of return for 

universal service calculations be set at 

8.5 percent. We seek comment on what 

data the Commission would need to 

have in the record to enable it to waive 

the requirements in part 65 of the 

Commission’s rules for a rate of return 

prescription proceeding, so that the 

Commission could quickly adopt a 

particular rate of return. 

Æ Corporate Operations Expense 

Limitation Formula. We seek comment 

on applying the following formula to 

limit recovery of corporate operations 

expenses for high-cost loop support 

(HCLS), interstate common line support 

(ICLS), and local switching support 

(LSS). 

For study areas with 6,000 or fewer 

working loops, the monthly amount per 

loop shall be limited to; 

$42.337¥(.00328 × the number of 

working loops) or $50,000/the 

number of working loops, 

whichever is greater 

For study areas with more than 6,000 

working loops, but fewer than 17,888 

working loops, the monthly amount per 

loop shall be limited to: 

$3.007 + (117,990/number of working 

loops) 

For study areas with 17,888 or more 

working loops, the monthly amount per 

loop shall be limited to: 

$9.52 per working loop. 

Æ Eliminating Support for Areas with 

an Unsubsidized Competitor. In 

responding to the NPRM, the RLEC Plan 

suggested that the Commission could 

establish a process to reduce an 

incumbent’s support if another 

facilities-based provider proves that it 

provides sufficient broadband and voice 

service to at least 95 percent of the 

households in the incumbent’s study 

area without any support or crosssubsidy. We seek comment on such a 

process, including how to allocate costs 

to the remaining portions of the 

incumbent’s study area for purposes of 

determining universal service support. 

Would a cost model be a way to allocate 

costs between the subsidized and 

unsubsidized portion of a rate-of-return 

study area that overlaps substantially 

with an unsubsidized competitor? 

Could state commissions administer 

proceedings to consider such 

challenges, similar to the suggestion in 

the ABC Plan that state commissions 

could elect to determine which census 

blocks served by price cap companies 

have unsubsidized competitors, and 

therefore are not eligible for CAF 

support? 

Æ Limits on Reimbursable Operating 

and Capital Costs. We seek comment on 

limiting reimbursable levels of capital 

investment and operating expenses for 

LSS. 

E. Ensuring Consumer Equity 

• Rate Benchmark. In the USF/ICC 

Transformation NPRM, the Commission 

sought comment on the use of a rate 

benchmark to encourage states to 

rebalance their rates and ensure that 

universal service does not subsidize 

carriers with artificially low rates. In 

response to the NPRM, one commenter 

suggested that we should develop a 

benchmark for voice service and reduce 

a carrier’s high-cost support by the 

amount that its rate falls below the 

benchmark. Under such an approach, 

the Commission would reduce intrastate 

universal service support (specifically, 

HCLS for rural carriers and high-cost 

model support (HCMS) for non-rural 

carriers) dollar for dollar during the 

transition to CAF to the extent the 

company’s local rates do not meet the 

specified benchmark. These reductions 

would not flow to other recipients. We 

seek comment on this proposal and 

proposed variations on it. Should we set 

the initial benchmark using the most 

recently available data that the 

Commission has regarding local rates? 

For example, according to the 2008 

Reference Book of Rates, the average 

monthly charge for flat-rate service was 

$15.62 per month. Using the same data, 

the average monthly charge for flat-rate 

service, plus subscriber line charges of 

$5.74 per month, would total $21.36 per 

month. Should the benchmark rise over 

a period of three years, for instance, 

with an end point of $25–$30 (or some 

other amount) for the total of the local 

residential rate, federal subscriber line 

charge (SLC), state subscriber line 

charge, mandatory extended area service 

charges, and per-line contribution to a 

state’s high cost fund, if one exists? 

Should this benchmark be the same as 

the ICC benchmark? 

• Total company earnings review. 

The State Members recommended that a 

Provider of Last Resort Fund include a 

total company earnings review to limit 

a supported carrier from earning more 

than a reasonable return. We seek to 

further develop the record on the 

mechanics of conducting an earnings 

review to ensure that universal service 

is not providing excessive support to the 

detriment of consumers across the 

United States. 

Æ We seek comment on the State 

Members’ recommendation that, at least 

initially, the support mechanism should 

not factor in either the revenues or 

marginal costs of video operations to 

avoid the risk of subsidizing video 

operating losses attributable to 

unregulated programming costs. 

Æ We seek comment on what total 

company rate of return should be used, 

what the mechanism should be for 

reducing support to the extent that total 

company rate of return is exceeded, and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 49405 

how often a total company earnings 

review should be conducted. 

Æ We seek comment on what carriers 

should be required to submit to USAC, 

in a standard format, to facilitate a total 

company earnings review. For example, 

should we require submission of the 

audited financial statements for the 

incumbent LEC, a consolidated balance 

sheet and income statement for the 

incumbent LEC and its affiliates, a list 

of affiliates, a schedule showing 

dividends paid to shareholders or 

patronage refunds distributed to 

members of cooperatives for the last five 

years, a Cost Allocation Manual, an 

explanation of how revenues from 

bundled services are booked, a trial 

balance of accounts at a Class B 

accounting level or greater, and the 

number of retail customers served by 

the incumbent LEC and its affiliates for 

voice and broadband service? 

F. Highest-Cost Areas 

• The ABC Plan would rely on 

satellite broadband to serve extremely 

high-cost areas. We seek comment on a 

proposal by ViaSat to create a 

Competitive Technologies Fund to 

distribute support through a 

combination of a reverse auction and 

consumer vouchers to enable consumers 

in highest-cost areas to obtain service 

from wireless, satellite, or other 

providers. 

• We also seek comment on what 

obligations are appropriate to impose on 

recipients of funding, as a condition of 

receiving support, to facilitate 

provisioning by others in areas the 

recipients are not obligated to serve. For 

example, Public Knowledge has 

proposed to require recipients to make 

interconnection points and backhaul 

capacity available so that unserved 

high-cost communities could deploy 

their own broadband networks. Should 

recipients’ Acceptable Use Policies also 

be required to allow customers to share 

their broadband connections with 

unserved customers nearby, for 

example, through the use of WiFi 

combined with directional antenna 

technology? 

G. CAF Support for Alaska, Hawaii, 

Tribal Lands, U.S. Territories, and Other 

Areas 

• GCI has proposed an Alaskaspecific set of universal service reforms 

that it asserts better reflect the operating 

conditions in Alaska and the lower level 

of broadband and mobile deployment in 

that state. We seek comment on this 

proposal for Alaska, and ask whether 

this, or a similar approach, would also 

be warranted for Hawaii, Tribal lands, 

the U.S. Territories, or other particular 

areas, and how we should consider such 

proposals in light of the Tribal lands 

exclusion from the current cap on highcost support for competitive ETCs. We 

further seek comment on other 

proposals relating to Alaska and Hawaii 

that have been proposed in the record. 

We further seek comment on how such 

proposals could be improved, if the 

Commission were to adopt a plan to 

constrain the size of the CAF and access 

restructuring within a $4.5 billion 

annual budget, and whether, in the 

alternative, other modifications are 

warranted to the national policy to 

better reflect operating conditions in 

these areas. 

H. Implementing Reform Within a 

Defined Budget 

• The ABC Plan recommends a fiveyear transition for phasing down legacy 

funding, concomitant with a phase-in of 

potential CAF support, including 

potential access recovery associated 

with intercarrier compensation reform; 

the Joint Letter suggests several 

potential measures that could be taken 

to keep support totals within a budget, 

such as phasing in funding for mobility, 

deferring CAF funding for study areas 

served by particular price cap 

companies, or deferring reductions in 

intercarrier compensation. We seek 

comment on the implications of these 

and alternative proposals, including 

variations to the Commission’s prior 

proposals regarding safety net additive 

(SNA) and LSS, for ensuring that total 

funding remains within a defined 

budget. 

I. Interim Reforms for Price Cap Carriers 

• As an interim step, Windstream, 

Frontier and CenturyLink suggest that 

the Commission could immediately 

target support that currently flows to 

price cap carriers to the highest-cost 

wire centers within their service 

territories, using a regression analysis 

based on the Commission’s existing 

high-cost model to estimate wire center 

forward-looking costs for both rural and 

non-rural price cap carriers. We seek 

comment on this proposal and how it 

relates to other proposals in the record 

for comprehensive reform. 

Æ In addition to combining and 

distributing HCLS and HCMS, should 

the Commission also include funds 

currently provided through LSS and 

SNA to price cap carriers? Should we 

also include funds currently provided to 

price cap carriers through interstate 

access support (IAS) and frozen ICLS? 

Æ Should the Commission increase 

annual HCMS support by an additional 

amount, such as $100 to $200 million, 

to be repurposed from ongoing 

reductions in support for companies 

that have chosen to relinquish universal 

service funding? Should we impose a 

cap on the amount of support a carrier 

is eligible to receive for a wire center? 

For instance, should that cap be set at 

$250 per line per month, similar to the 

Commission’s proposal for a cap in total 

support for all existing recipients? 

Æ What public interest obligations for 

using funding for broadband-capable 

networks should apply to carriers 

receiving support under this approach? 

Should carriers receiving such support 

be prohibited from using the funds in 

areas that are served by an unsubsidized 

facilities-based broadband provider? 

Æ Do any special circumstances exist 

in the states of Alaska and Hawaii, or 

Territories and Tribal lands generally, or 

other areas, that warrant a different 

approach for price cap carriers serving 

such areas, if the Commission were to 

adopt this interim measure? 

II. Intercarrier Compensation 

A. Federal-State Roles 

1. Federal Framework. 

• The ABC Plan proposes that the 

Commission set the framework to 

reduce intrastate access rates, and 

recovery to the extent necessary for 

those reduced intrastate access revenues 

would come from the federal 

jurisdiction through a combination of 

federal SLC increases and federal 

universal service support. 

Æ How would this aspect of the ABC 

Plan affect states in different stages of 

intrastate access reform—those that 

have undertaken significant reform and 

moved intrastate rates to parity with 

interstate rates, those in the process of 

reform, and states that have not yet 

initiated reform? 

Æ The ABC Plan provides a uniform, 

consistent framework for reform across 

all states. We seek comment on whether 

the ABC Plan could be improved by 

providing states incentives to increase 

artificially low consumer rates or create 

state USFs for example through the use 

of a consumer monthly rate ceiling or 

benchmark or by requiring states to 

contribute a certain amount per line of 

recovery to offset intrastate rate 

reductions? 

• In calculating access recovery, the 

ABC Plan proposes a $30 ‘‘rate 

benchmark’’ for price cap carriers, and 

the Rate-of-Return plan proposes a $25 

benchmark, both of which are 

structured as a ceiling on consumer rate 

increases (via a federal SLC), to limit 

increases on consumer rates in states 

where such rates have already been 

raised as part of intrastate access reform. 

Is this ceiling sufficient to mitigate any 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49406 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

potential impact on consumers in states 

that have already begun reforms (and 

thus are already paying increased local 

rates and/or state universal service 

contributions associated with such 

reform) relative to consumers in states 

that have not yet undertaken such 

reforms (for which all recovery would 

come through the federal mechanism in 

the ABC Plan)? Should there be 

different rate benchmarks for different 

carriers or should there be a single 

benchmark? 

• In the ABC Plan, in calculating 

access recovery, the initial consumer 

monthly rate is taken as a snapshot in 

time as of January 1, 2012. In lieu of a 

snapshot, and in order to avoid 

deterring states from rebalancing local 

rates and/or establishing state USFs, 

should the rate used to determine access 

recovery be the ‘‘higher of’’ (1) The rate 

as of January 2012 and (2) the rate at 

future points before annual access 

recovery amounts are calculated? In this 

scenario, any increased consumer rates 

as a result of state reforms, would count 

toward the benchmark, more accurately 

reflecting the actual consumer burden at 

that time. 

• A rate benchmark could also be 

used as an imputation for a certain level 

of end-user recovery for intrastate rate 

reductions, rather than as a ceiling on 

federal SLC increases. For instance, the 

Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users 

Committee proposes a local rate 

benchmark that could be imputed, 

rather than used as a ceiling, and 

commenters propose a range of possible 

benchmarks from $25–$30. Would an 

imputation approach better encourage 

states that currently depend on long 

distance consumers to help subsidize 

local phone service for their local 

consumers to bring consumer rates to 

levels more comparable to the national 

average? What would be the appropriate 

level for such a benchmark, and should 

it be phased in over time? 

• Instead of or in addition to a rate 

benchmark, should states be responsible 

for contributing a certain dollar amount 

per line to aid in access recovery? The 

State Members, for example, suggest 

that states contribute $2 per line for 

purposes of universal service. In this 

scenario, a state would be responsible 

for recovery of $2 per line of reduced 

intrastate access revenues, which could 

be imputed to carriers before they 

become eligible for federal recovery. 

Does this approach appropriately 

balance the interests of consumers in 

states that already have implemented 

some reforms, with the associated 

burden of reform being born by 

consumers in those states, rather than 

federal recovery mechanisms? If so, 

should states that already have a state 

universal service fund be exempted 

completely from this per-line 

contribution, or only to the extent of, for 

example, the $2 per line state 

contribution to recovery? 

2. State-Federal Framework. 

• In the alternative, the State 

Members propose that the states reform 

intrastate rates and that the Commission 

facilitate this reform through state 

inducements rather than a federal 

framework. We seek comment on this 

proposal. 

Æ To address concerns that some 

states may not reform intrastate access 

charges, we seek comment on a 

framework, similar to a proposal in the 

USF/ICC Transformation NPRM, under 

which states have three years to develop 

an intrastate reform plan. Under this 

alternative, after three years, the 

Commission would set a transition for 

reducing intrastate access rates and 

deny any further federal recovery to 

offset reduced intrastate revenue. 

Æ If the Commission adopts the statefederal framework approach advocated 

by the State Members, how can the 

Commission best incent states to reform 

intrastate access rates? Should the 

Commission match some federal 

universal service dollars to a state 

universal service fund for states that are 

using such a fund to reform intrastate 

access charges? Such matching could be 

structured in several different ways, 

including on a per-line basis (such as 

$1–2), as a percentage of the state 

contribution, or on an aggregate state 

basis. We seek further comment on how 

such a match should be structured to 

provide adequate inducements and 

maintain our commitment to control the 

size of the federal high cost fund. 

• Under the framework of leaving 

reform of intrastate rates initially to the 

states, the Commission would begin 

immediate reforms of interstate access 

charges. We seek comment on a glide 

path for the Commission to reduce all 

interstate access rate elements. Should 

the length of the rate transition vary, 

providing three years for price cap 

carriers and five years for rate-of-return 

carriers, given that rate of return 

carriers’ interstate access rates are 

higher at the outset? What should the 

transition be for competitive LECs? 

Would an approach that provides 

different transitions for different types 

of carriers, whether competitive, price 

cap or rate-of-return LEC raise any 

policy concerns? We also seek comment 

on whether the Commission should 

reduce originating interstate access rates 

and, if so, whether we should require 

the reductions at the same time or only 

after terminating rates have been 

reduced. 

B. Scope of Reform 

• We seek comment on the approach 

outlined in the ABC Plan to reform 

substantially terminating rates for end 

office switching while taking a more 

limited approach to reforming certain 

transport elements and originating 

access. Would any problematic 

incentives, such as arbitrage schemes, 

arise from or be left in place by such an 

approach, and if so, what could be done 

to mitigate them? 

C. Recovery Mechanism 

• We seek comment on the 

appropriate recovery mechanism for ICC 

reform, including the ABC Plan’s and 

the Joint Letter’s recovery proposals. We 

also seek comment on the relative 

merits and incentives for carriers 

associated with an alternative approach 

that provides more predictable recovery 

amounts, such as the alternative 

described below. 

1. Federal-State Role in Recovery. 

Æ As noted above, the ABC Plan 

proposes to shift recovery for reduced 

intrastate access charge revenues to the 

federal jurisdiction. Could the 

Commission achieve more 

comprehensive reform of intercarrier 

compensation rate elements if recovery 

is achieved through a federal-state 

partnership? We seek comment above 

on different means by which states 

could share responsibility for recovery 

of reduced intrastate access revenues. 

2. Price Cap Carriers. 

Æ For price cap carriers electing to 

receive support from the transitional 

access replacement mechanism, the 

ABC Plan’s recovery proposal includes 

annual true-ups to adjust for possible 

increases or decreases in minutes of use. 

Although minutes of use for incumbent 

LECs have been declining, the ABC 

Plan’s proposal establishing how VoIP 

minutes are included in the intercarrier 

compensation system prospectively and 

addressing phantom traffic could cause 

minutes of use to flatten or possibly 

even increase. In addition, the ABC Plan 

would treat all VoIP traffic as interstate, 

which potentially could reduce the 

minutes billed at intrastate access rates 

(depending upon existing payment 

practices). Thus the true-up approach 

could result in the need for additional 

recovery, including additional federal 

universal service funding. We seek 

comment on alternatives to the true-up 

process. 

Æ For example, as an alternative to 

true ups, we seek comment on a 

baseline for recovery that would be 2011 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 49407 

access revenues subject to reform, 

reduced by 10% annually to account for 

decline in demand (i.e., 90% of 2011 

revenues in year one (2012), 81.0% in 

year two (2013), 72.9% in year three 

(2014), 65.6% in year four (2015), etc.). 

This (or a similar framework that may 

be suggested by commenters) would be 

a brightline, predictable approach that 

would not include true-ups, regardless 

of whether demand declines more 

quickly or more slowly. If carriers 

reduce costs or are more efficient, this 

approach would enable carriers to 

realize the benefits of these savings. 

3. Rate of Return Carriers. 

Æ We seek comment below on an 

alternative approach for recovery (or 

other approaches that commenters 

might suggest) that would maintain the 

predictable revenue stream associated 

with rate of return principles while also 

providing carriers with better incentives 

for efficient investment and operations. 

This option would provide a fixed 

percentage of recovery (which could be 

100%) of all reduced terminating access 

charges (both intrastate and interstate) 

based on year 2011 revenues, but 

without true-ups to reflect changes in 

the revenue requirement historically 

used for interstate access charges. This 

recovery mechanism would lock in 

revenue streams, including intrastate 

access revenues, which have been 

declining annually for many interstate 

rate-of-return carriers. It thus provides 

more predictable revenue recovery 

while also providing incentives for 

carriers to reduce costs and realize the 

benefits of these cost savings. The 

eligible recovery amount would be 

recovered through end-user charges and 

universal service support as described 

in the Joint Letter’s proposal. We also 

seek comment on the duration of 

recovery funding under this alternative. 

Should it be phased out over time 

following the completion of rate 

reforms, such as with the loss of 

demand? 

4. Reciprocal Compensation. 

Æ The ABC Plan’s proposal provides 

recovery for reductions in reciprocal 

compensation rates to the extent they 

are above $0.0007, but the ABC Plan 

estimates on the impact of the federal 

universal service fund do not include 

estimated recovery from reciprocal 

compensation. We ask whether 

providing federal universal service 

support for reductions in reciprocal 

compensation rates strikes the 

appropriate policy balance as we seek to 

control the size of the universal service 

fund, and whether there are alternatives 

to such an approach. 

5. Originating Access. 

Æ If the Commission were to address 

originating access as part of 

comprehensive reform, should the 

Commission treat originating access 

revenues differently from terminating 

access revenues for recovery purposes 

since, in many cases, the originating 

incumbent LEC’s affiliate is offering the 

long distance service? For example, is it 

necessary to provide any recovery for 

the originating access that an incumbent 

LEC historically charged for originating 

calls from the retail long distance 

customers of its affiliate? 

Æ Alternatively, should recovery for 

such originating access take the form of 

a flat per-customer charge imposed on 

the incumbent LEC’s long distance 

affiliate for each of its presubscribed 

customers? Should such a flat 

originating access replacement charge 

be used for recovery of all originating 

access revenues more generally? How 

would any of these approaches be 

implemented? Should any flat 

originating access replacement charge 

differ by end-user customer class (such 

as residential vs. business), by level of 

demand, or otherwise? 

Æ We seek the following data to help 

us evaluate originating access reform: 

• Separately for price cap and rate-ofreturn incumbent LECs, the number of 

(1) Long distance minutes that the 

average customer originates; (2) 8YY 

minutes that the average customer 

originates; and (3) long distance and 

8YY minutes that the average customer 

receives (terminating minutes); and 

• Whether the ratio of originated long 

distance minutes to originated 8YY 

minutes varies materially with the level 

of the customers’ expenditure on 

telecommunications services. 

D. Impact on Consumers 

• We seek comment on how to ensure 

that consumers realize benefits of 

reduced long distance and wireless rates 

as part of intercarrier compensation 

reform. The ABC Plan attaches a paper 

by Professor Jerry Hausman analyzing 

the consumer benefits of intercarrier 

compensation reform. Should the 

potential realization of consumer pass 

through benefits from intercarrier 

compensation reform be left to the 

market, as Professor Hausman asserts, or 

should any steps be taken to ensure that 

such benefits are realized by 

consumers? If so, what steps should be 

taken? 

• The ABC Plan permits incumbent 

carriers to increase the consumer SLC 

up to $9.20 before increasing the 

multiline business SLC, although 

multiline business SLCs potentially 

could increase once consumer SLCs 

reach that level. To decrease the 

potential burden on consumers and the 

federal universal service fund, should 

multiline business customers also see a 

modest SLC increase and, if so, how 

much? 

• The ABC Plan permits incumbent 

carriers to increase consumer SLC rates 

$0.50–0.75 per year for five years or 

until the consumer’s rate reaches the 

rate benchmark of $30. Similarly, the 

Joint Letter permits incumbent carriers 

to increase consumer SLC rates $0.75 

per year for six years or until the 

consumer’s rate reaches the rate 

benchmark of $25. Professor Hausman’s 

paper indicates that companies are 

constrained by competition, which 

could mean that companies may not be 

able to increase SLC rates on consumers. 

We seek comment on the actual likely 

consumer impact of SLC increases, in 

the aggregate and with as much 

granularity (e.g., by company, by type of 

state, by specific state) as can be 

provided. We also seek comment on 

proposals that the need for any recovery 

should be based on the carrier’s 

showing of need based on its operations 

more broadly. 

• We seek the following data to help 

us quantify consumer benefits from 

intercarrier compensation reform: 

Æ If ICC termination rates that 

currently exceed $0.0007 are reduced to 

$0.0007, the services where pass 

through is likely to occur (perhaps, for 

example, long distance, wireless service, 

8YY services and monthly line rentals) 

and the likely extent of that pass 

through; and 

Æ Estimates of demand elasticities for 

those services where pass through is 

likely to occur. 

E. VoIP ICC 

• Implementation. We seek comment 

on the implementation of the ABC 

Plan’s proposal for VoIP intercarrier 

compensation. Under that proposal, 

VoIP access traffic would be subject to 

intercarrier compensation rates different 

from rates applied to other access traffic 

during the first part of the transition. 

Æ How would VoIP traffic subject to 

the ICC framework be identified for 

purposes of the proposed tariffing 

regime? 

Æ Would it be feasible to use call 

record information or factors or ratios to 

identify the portion of overall traffic that 

is (or reasonably is considered to be) 

relevant VoIP traffic, perhaps subject to 

certification or audits? 

Æ Should the Commission identify a 

‘‘safe harbor’’ percentage of VoIP traffic 

for use in this context? If so, what 

should be the factual basis for such a 

safe harbor? For example, Global 

Crossing estimates ‘‘that on average 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49408 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

roughly fifty to sixty percent of the 

traffic [on its network] is VoIP.’’ Would 

that, or other data, provide a basis for 

a safe harbor? 

Æ Are there alternative mechanisms 

besides tariffs that could be used to 

determine the amount of VoIP traffic 

exchanged between two carriers for 

purposes of the VoIP ICC framework, 

and if so, what would be the relative 

merits of such an approach? 

• Call Signaling. In the USF/ICC 

Transformation NPRM the Commission 

proposed to apply new call signaling 

rules designed to address phantom 

traffic to telecommunications carriers 

and interconnected VoIP providers. 

Some commenters have expressed 

concerns about whether and how the 

proposed rules would apply to one-way 

interconnected VoIP providers. In 

particular, we seek to further develop 

the record regarding possible 

implementation of any new call 

signaling rules that apply to one-way 

interconnected VoIP providers. 

Æ If call signaling rules apply to oneway interconnected VoIP providers, 

how could these requirements be 

implemented? Would one-way 

interconnected VoIP providers be 

required to obtain and use numbering 

resources? If not, how could the new 

signaling rules operate for originating 

callers that do not have a telephone 

number? 

Æ If one-way interconnected VoIP 

providers were permitted to use a 

number other than an actual North 

American Numbering Plan (NANP) 

telephone number associated with an 

originating caller in required signaling, 

would such use lead to unintended or 

undesirable consequences? If so, should 

other types of carriers or entities also be 

entitled to use alternate numbering? 

Æ Would there need to be numbering 

resources specifically assigned in the 

context of one-way VoIP services? Are 

there other signaling issues that we 

should consider with regard to one-way 

VoIP calls? 

Æ If call signaling rules were to apply 

signaling obligations to one-way 

interconnected VoIP providers, at what 

point in a call path should the required 

signaling originate, i.e., at the gateway 

or elsewhere? 

Æ To what extent are such 

requirements necessary to implement 

the ABC Plan’s and Joint Letter’s 

proposals that billing for VoIP traffic be 

based on call detail information? More 

broadly, what particular call detail 

information would be used for this 

purpose? What are the relative 

advantages or disadvantages of treating 

such call detail information as 

dispositive for determining whether 

access charges or reciprocal 

compensation rates apply? 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marcus Maher, 

Deputy Chief, Pricing Policy Division, 

Wireline Competition Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20322 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0043; MO 

92210–0–0008] 

RIN 1018–AX83 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Listing of the 

Miami Blue Butterfly as Endangered, 

and Proposed Listing of the Cassius 

Blue, Ceraunus Blue, and Nickerbean 

Blue Butterflies as Threatened Due to 

Similarity of Appearance to the Miami 

Blue Butterfly 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

public comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus 

thomasi bethunebakeri) as endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). An emergency 

rule listing this subspecies as 

endangered for 240 days is published 

concurrently in this issue of the Federal 

Register. We also propose to list the 

cassius blue butterfly (Leptotes cassius 

theonus), ceraunus blue butterfly 

(Hemiargus ceraunus antibubastus), and 

nickerbean blue butterfly (Cyclargus 

ammon) as threatened due to similarity 

of appearance to the Miami blue, with 

a special rule pursuant to section 4(d) of 

the Act. We solicit additional data, 

information, and comments that may 

assist us in making a final decision on 

this proposed action. 

DATES: Comments from all interested 

parties must be received by October 11, 

2011. Public hearing requests must be 

received by September 26, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on docket number FWS–R4–ES–2011– 

0043. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R4– 

ES–2011–0043; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax 

Drive, MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 

22203. 

We will post all comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Paula Halupa, Fish and Wildlife 

Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, South Florida Ecological 

Services Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero 

Beach, Florida 32960–3559 by 

telephone 772–562–3909, ext. 257 or by 

electronic mail: miamiblueinfo@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

Our intent is to use the best available 

commercial and scientific data as the 

foundation for all endangered and 

threatened species classification 

decisions. Therefore, we request 

comments or suggestions from other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning this 

proposed rule to list the Miami blue 

butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi 

bethunebakeri) as endangered. We 

particularly seek comments concerning: 

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threat (or lack thereof) to the Miami blue 

butterfly; 

(2) The location of any additional 

populations of the Miami blue butterfly 

within or outside the United States; 

(3) Additional information regarding 

the taxonomy, genetics, life history (e.g., 

dispersal capabilities, host plants, 

nectar sources, dependence on ants), 

range, distribution, population size, and 

metapopulation dynamics of the Miami 

blue; 

(4) Current or planned activities in 

occupied or potential habitat and their 

possible impacts to the Miami blue; 

(5) The reasons why any habitat 

should or should not be determined to 

be critical habitat for the Miami blue as 

provided by section 4 of the Act, 

including physical and biological 

features within areas occupied or 

specific areas outside of the geographic 

area occupied that are essential for the 

conservation of the subspecies; 

(6) Threats to the Miami blue butterfly 

from collection of or commercial trade 

involving the cassius blue butterfly 

(Leptotes cassius theonus), ceraunus 

blue butterfly (Hemiargus ceraunus 

antibubastus), and nickerbean blue 

butterfly (Cyclargus ammon), due to the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS