Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20551 

■ 2. Section 1340.2 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 1340.2 Applicability. 

This part applies to State surveys of 

seat belt use beginning in calendar year 

2013 and continuing annually 

thereafter. However, a State may elect to 

conduct its calendar year 2012 seat belt 

use survey using a survey design 

approved under this part. 

Issued on: March 28, 2012. 

David L. Strickland, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8137 Filed 4–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 54 and 61 

[WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 07–135, 05–337, 

03–109; GN Docket No. 09–51; CC Docket 

Nos. 01–92, 96–45; WT Docket No. 10–208; 

DA 12–298] 

Connect America Fund; A National 

Broadband Plan for Our Future; 

Establishing Just and Reasonable 

Rates for Local Exchange Carriers; 

High-Cost Universal Service Support 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission clarifies 

certain rules. The order clarifies, but 

does not otherwise modify, the USF/ICC 

Transformation Order. The petition for 

Clarification or, in the Alternative, for 

Reconsideration of Verizon is granted in 

part and dismissed in part, and the 

Petition for Reconsideration of United 

States Telecom Association is dismissed 

in part. 

DATES: Effective May 7, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Bender, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, (202) 418–1469, Victoria 

Goldberg, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

(202) 418–7353. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Wireline Competition 

Bureau’s Order in WC Docket Nos. 10– 

90, 07–135, 05–337, 03–109; GN Docket 

No. 09–51; CC Docket Nos. 01–92, 96– 

45; WT Docket No. 10–208; DA 12–298, 

released on February 27, 2012. The full 

text of this document is available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street 

SW., Washington, DC 20554. Or at the 

following Internet address: http:// 

transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/ 

Daily_Business/2012/db0227/DA-12- 

298A1.pdf. 

I. Introduction 

1. In the USF/ICC Transformation 

Order, the Commission delegated to the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 

the authority to revise and clarify rules 

as necessary to ensure that the reforms 

adopted in the Order are properly 

reflected in the rules. In this Order, the 

Bureau acts pursuant to this delegated 

authority to revise and clarify certain 

rules, and acts pursuant to authority 

delegated to the Bureau in §§ 0.91, 

0.201(d), and 0.291 of the Commission’s 

rules to clarify certain rules. 

II. Discussion 

A. Intercarrier Compensation 

2. In the USF/ICC Transformation 

Order, the Commission adopted a 

prospective transitional intercarrier 

compensation framework for VoIP– 

PSTN traffic. This transitional 

framework included default 

compensation rates and addressed a 

number of implementation issues, 

including explaining the scope of 

charges that local exchange carrier (LEC) 

partners of affiliated or unaffiliated 

retail VoIP providers are able to include 

in tariffs. In particular, the Commission 

determined that it was appropriate to 

adopt a ‘‘symmetric’’ framework for 

VoIP–PSTN traffic. This symmetric 

approach means that ‘‘providers that 

benefit from lower VoIP–PSTN rates 

when their end-user customers’ traffic is 

terminated to other providers’ end-user 

customers also are restricted to charging 

the lower VoIP–PSTN rates when other 

providers’ traffic is terminated to their 

end-user customers.’’ 

3. As part of its symmetric regime, the 

Commission adopted rules that ‘‘permit 

a LEC to charge the relevant intercarrier 

compensation for functions performed 

by it and/or its retail VoIP partner, 

regardless of whether the functions 

performed or the technology used 

correspond precisely to those used 

under a traditional TDM architecture.’’ 

The Commission cautioned, however, 

that ‘‘although access services might 

functionally be accomplished in 

different ways depending upon the 

network technology, the right to charge 

does not extend to functions not 

performed by the LEC or its retail VoIP 

service provider partner.’’ The 

Commission adopted this limitation to 

address concerns in the record regarding 

double billing. This limitation was 

codified as part of the VoIP–PSTN 

framework in § 51.913(b) of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission 

also modified its tariffing rules in Part 

61 for competitive LECs to implement 

the VoIP symmetry rule. 

4. On February 3, 2012, YMax 

Communications Corp. (YMax) filed an 

ex parte letter seeking confirmation of 

its interpretation that ‘‘under [the 

Commission’s] new VoIP–PSTN 

‘symmetry’ rule, a LEC is performing the 

functional equivalent of ILEC access 

service, and therefore entitled to charge 

the full ‘benchmark’ rate level, 

whenever it is providing telephone 

numbers and some portion of the 

interconnection with the PSTN, and 

regardless of how or by whom the lastmile transmission is provided.’’ Stated 

differently, YMax seeks guidance from 

the Commission as to whether the 

revised rule language in Part 61, 

specifically, § 61.26(f) permits a 

competitive LEC to tariff and charge the 

full benchmark rate even if it includes 

functions that neither it nor its VoIP 

retail partner are actually providing. 

YMax asserts that the purpose of the 

Commission’s revisions to § 61.26(f) was 

to ‘‘defin[e] the minimum access 

functionality necessary in order for a 

CLEC to be allowed to collect access 

charges at the full benchmark level 

under the VoIP–PSTN symmetry rule.’’ 

We disagree. The Commission revised 

§ 61.26(f) to reflect the change in the 

tariffing process to implement the VoIP 

symmetry rule, which included 

limitations to prevent double billing. 

Interpreting the rule in the manner 

proposed by YMax could enable double 

billing. The Commission made clear in 

adopting the VoIP-symmetry rule that it 

intended to prevent double billing and 

charging for functions not actually 

provided. Indeed, § 51.913(b) expressly 

states that ‘‘[t]his rule does not permit 

a local exchange carrier to charge for 

functions not performed by the local 

exchange carrier itself or the affiliated or 

unaffiliated provider of interconnected 

VoIP service or non-interconnected 

VoIP service.’’ 

5. YMax’s letter does, however, 

highlight a potential ambiguity because 

the amended rule § 61.26(f), which is 

the tariffing provision intended to 

implement the VoIP symmetry rule, did 

not include an express cross reference to 

§ 51.913(b). Although § 51.913(b) makes 

clear that its terms apply 

notwithstanding any other Commission 

rule, to remove any ambiguity regarding 

the scope of what competitive LECs are 

permitted to assess in their tariffs, we 

amend § 61.26(f) to make clear that the 

ability to charge under the tariff is 

limited by § 51.913(b). In so doing, we 

address and reject YMax’s interpretation 

of § 61.26(f). 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
20552 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

B. Universal Service 

6. Verizon Petition for Clarification or, 

in the Alternative, for Reconsideration. 

In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, 

the Commission adopted rules to phase 

down existing high-cost support for 

competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers (ETCs), and 

addressed the phase down of existing 

high-cost support to Verizon Wireless 

and Sprint pursuant to those carriers’ 

prior merger commitments, as clarified 

by the Corr Wireless Order. On 

December 29, 2011, Verizon Wireless 

filed a petition for clarification or, in the 

alternative, for reconsideration of this 

aspect of the Order as it applies to 

Verizon Wireless. Verizon Wireless 

argues that there are two permissible 

interpretations of the USF/ICC Order as 

it bears on the phase down of support 

for Verizon Wireless: That the general 

phase down of the competitive ETC 

support applies but Verizon Wireless’s 

merger commitment no longer does, or 

that Verizon Wireless’s merger 

commitment remains in effect but 

general phase down of competitive ETC 

support does not. Verizon Wireless 

states that a Bureau-level clarification is 

the appropriate means of resolving this 

ambiguity. 

7. The Bureau clarifies that, pursuant 

to paragraph 520 of the USF/ICC 

Transformation Order, only Verizon 

Wireless’s merger commitment applies. 

Specifically, the Bureau clarifies that 

Verizon Wireless will receive support in 

2012 based on its merger commitments, 

as clarified by the Corr Wireless Order, 

not based on the general phase down of 

competitive ETC support described in 

the USF/ICC Transformation Order. 

Verizon Wireless will not receive highcost competitive ETC support after 

2012. The Universal Service 

Administrative Company (USAC) shall 

disburse to Verizon Wireless in 2012 20 

percent of the support it would have 

received for each ETC service area in the 

absence of its merger commitment and 

the USF/ICC Transformation Order. As 

a proxy for the amount Verizon Wireless 

would have received in 2012 in the 

absence of its merger commitment and 

the USF/ICC Transformation Order, 

USAC shall use the amount of support 

it calculated for Verizon Wireless in 

2011 pursuant to the identical support 

rule and the interim cap, including any 

support not actually disbursed to 

Verizon Wireless as a result of the 

merger commitment. 

8. Accordingly, the Bureau grants 

Verizon’s Petition to the extent it 

requests clarification of the phase down 

of competitive ETC support and 

dismisses Verizon’s Petition to the 

extent it alternatively requests 

reconsideration of the same issue. 

9. Other Matters. First, the Bureau 

amends the definition of ‘‘rate-of-return 

carrier’’ in § 54.5 of our rules to correct 

an erroneous cross-reference to the 

definition of price cap regulation. 

10. Second, the Bureau dismisses in 

part the petition for reconsideration 

filed by the United States Telecom 

Association (USTelecom), which, 

among other things, asked the 

Commission to clarify that reductions in 

legacy support resulting from a failure 

to meet the urban rate floor will, at 

most, extend only to high-cost loop 

support and high-cost model support. 

11. In the USF/ICC Clarification 

Order, the Bureaus addressed this issue 

by amending § 54.318(d) to clarify that 

support reductions associated with the 

rate floor will offset frozen CAF Phase 

I support only to the extent that the 

recipient’s frozen CAF Phase I support 

replaced HCLS and HCMS. The Bureaus 

further stated that the offset does not 

apply to frozen CAF Phase I support to 

the extent that it replaced IAS and ICLS. 

Because the USF/ICC Clarification 

Order addressed this issue, the Bureau 

dismisses as moot that portion of the 

USTelecom petition for reconsideration. 

III. Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

12. This document does not contain 

new or modified information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it 

does not contain any new or modified 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification 

13. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires 

that a regulatory flexibility analysis be 

prepared for rulemaking proceedings, 

unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities.’’ The RFA generally defines 

‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ 

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition, 

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same 

meaning as the term ‘‘small business 

concern’’ under the Small Business Act. 

A small business concern is one which: 

(1) Is independently owned and 

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 

of operation; and (3) satisfies any 

additional criteria established by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

14. This Order clarifies, but does not 

otherwise modify, the USF/ICC 

Transformation Order. These 

clarifications do not create any burdens, 

benefits, or requirements that were not 

addressed by the Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis attached to USF/ 

ICC Transformation Order. Therefore, 

we certify that the requirements of this 

Order will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

Order including a copy of this final 

certification in a report to Congress 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In 

addition, the Order and this certification 

will be sent to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration, and will be published 

in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 

605(b). 

C. Congressional Review Act 

15. The Commission will send a copy 

of this Order to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act. 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

16. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201–206, 214, 218– 

220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, and 

403 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, and section 706 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 

U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201–206, 214, 

218–220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 

403, 1302, and pursuant to §§ 0.91, 

0.201(d), 0.291, 1.3, and 1.427 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 

0.201(d), 0.291, 1.3, 1.427 and pursuant 

to the delegation of authority in 

paragraph 1404 of FCC 11–161 (rel. Nov. 

18, 2011), that this Order is adopted, 

effective May 7, 2012. 

17. It is further ordered, that parts 54 

and 61 of the Commission’s rules, 47 

CFR parts 54, 61 are amended as set 

forth, and such rule amendments shall 

be effective 30 days after the date of 

publication of the rule amendments in 

the Federal Register. 

18. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to the authority contained in section 254 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 254, and the 

authority delegated in §§ 0.91 and 0.291 

of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 

0.291, the Petition for Clarification or, in 

the Alternative, for Reconsideration of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20553 

Verizon is granted in part and 

dismissed in part and the Petition for 

Reconsideration of United States 

Telecom Association is dismissed in 

part. 

19. It is further ordered, that the 

Commission shall send a copy of this 

Order to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

20. It is further ordered, that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Order, including the Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

List of Subjects 47 CFR Parts 54 and 61 

Communications common carriers, 

Reporting and record keeping 

requirements, Telecommunications, 

Telephone. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Sharon E. Gillett, 

Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR parts 54 

and 61 to read as follows: 

PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 54 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201, 205, 

214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 54.5 by revising the 

definition of ‘‘rate-of-return carrier’’ to 

read as follows. 

§ 54.5 Terms and definitions. 

* * * * * 

Rate-of-return carrier. ‘‘Rate-of-return 

carrier’’ shall refer to any incumbent 

local exchange carrier not subject to 

price cap regulation as that term is 

defined in § 61.3(ee) of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

PART 61—TARIFFS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201–205 and 

403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201– 

205 and 403, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 4. Revise § 61.26(f) to read as follows: 

§ 61.26 Tariffing of competitive interstate 

switched exchange access services. 

* * * * * 

(f) If a CLEC provides some portion of 

the switched exchange access services 

used to send traffic to or from an end 

user not served by that CLEC, the rate 

for the access services provided may not 

exceed the rate charged by the 

competing ILEC for the same access 

services, except if the CLEC is listed in 

the database of the Number Portability 

Administration Center as providing the 

calling party or dialed number, the 

CLEC may, to the extent permitted by 

§ 51.913(b) of this chapter, assess a rate 

equal to the rate that would be charged 

by the competing ILEC for all exchange 

access services required to deliver 

interstate traffic to the called number. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–7057 Filed 4–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket No. 10–210; DA 12–430] 

Relay Services for Deaf-Blind 

Individuals 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; waiver of 

requirement. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission conditionally waives the 

requirement for National Deaf Blind 

Equipment Distribution Program 

(NDBEDP) certified programs to submit 

reimbursement claims only once every 

six months, to permit certified programs 

to submit reimbursement claims as 

frequently as monthly. The Commission 

waives this requirement for good cause 

shown, to reduce the financial burden 

on programs that the Commission 

certifies to participate in the NDBEDP, 

and to better enable selected 

participants to fully meet the needs of 

eligible low-income, deaf-blind 

individuals in a timely manner. 

DATES: This document is effective May 

7, 2012, except the modified reporting 

requirement in 47 CFR 64.610(f)(2), 

published at 76 FR 26641, May 9, 2011, 

has not been approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). The 

modified information collection 

requirement shall become effective 

when the Commission publishes a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing OMB approval and the 

effective date of the requirement. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rosaline Crawford, Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability 

Rights Office, at (202) 418–2075 or 

email Rosaline.Crawford@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s document 

DA 12–430, adopted March 20, 2012, 

and released March 20, 2012, in CG 

Docket No. 10–210. 

The full text of document DA 12–430 

and copies of any subsequently filed 

documents in this matter will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying via ECFS, and during regular 

business hours at the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. They may also 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554, telephone: (800) 378–3160, fax: 

(202) 488–5563, or Internet: 

www.bcpiweb.com. Document DA 12– 

430 can also be downloaded in Word or 

Portable Document Format (PDF) at 

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/ 

headlines.html and at http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/cvaa.html. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer 

and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 

202–418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 

(TTY). 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

Document DA 12–430 contains a 

modified information collection 

requirement. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public to comment on the modified 

information collection requirement 

contained in document DA 12–430 as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA), Public Law 104–13 in a 

separate published Federal Register 

Notice (Notice). Public and agency 

comments are due on or before May 29, 

2012. See Information Collection Being 

Reviewed by the Federal 

Communications Commission, Notice, 

published at 77 FR 18813, March 28, 

2012. In addition, the Commission notes 

that pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, the Commission 

previously sought specific comment on 

how the Commission might ‘‘further 

reduce the information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees.’’ See 44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). In the present 

document, the Commission has assessed 

the effects of the rules for the NDBEDP 

pilot program and finds that the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES