Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69091 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that 

if at all possible, you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nacosta Ward, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9140. 

Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic 

mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov. For 

information regarding the I/M program, 

contact Ms. Amanetta Somerville, Air 

Quality Modeling and Transportation 

Section, at the same address above. 

Telephone number: (404) 562–9025; 

email address: somerville.amanetta@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information see the 

associated direct final rule which is 

published in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register. A detailed rationale 

for the approval is set forth in the direct 

final rule. If no relevant adverse 

comments are received in response to 

this rule by December 22, 2014, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives relevant adverse comments by 

December 22, 2014, the direct final rule 

will be withdrawn and all relevant 

adverse comments received during the 

public comment period will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this document must do 

so by December 22, 2014. 

Dated: October 23, 2014. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27027 Filed 11–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 10–90; DA 14–1499] 

Proposed Methodology for Connect 

America High-Cost Universal Service 

Support Recipients To Measure and 

Report Speed and Latency 

Performance to Fixed Locations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau, the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

and the Office of Engineering and 

Technology seek to further develop the 

record on how compliance with speed 

obligations should be determined for 

recipients of high-cost support that 

deploy broadband networks to serve 

fixed locations. 

DATES: Comments due December 22, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file 

comments on or before December 22, 

2014. All pleadings are to reference WC 

Docket No. 10–90. Comments may be 

filed using the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by 

filing paper copies, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (tty). 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Minard, Wireline 

Competition Bureau at (202) 418–7400 

or TTY (202) 418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Wireline Competition 

Bureau’s Public Notice (Notice) in WC 

Docket No. 10–90; DA 14–1499, released 

October 16, 2014. The complete text of 

this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The document 

may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile 

(202) 863–2898, or via Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. 

I. Introduction 

1. In this document, the Wireline 

Competition Bureau, the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, and the 

Office of Engineering and Technology 

(together, the Bureaus) seek to further 

develop the record on how compliance 

with speed (also referred to as 

bandwidth) obligations should be 

determined for recipients of high-cost 

support that deploy broadband 

networks to serve fixed locations. In 

addition, the Bureaus seek comment on 

whether the same testing methodologies 

adopted for price cap carriers accepting 

model-based Phase II support should be 

applied to other recipients of support to 

serve fixed locations, such as rate-ofreturn providers and those that are 

awarded Connect America support 

through a competitive bidding process. 

Finally, the Bureaus seek comment on 

the circumstances that would trigger an 

audit of the speed and latency metrics. 

II. Measuring Compliance With Service 

Obligations 

A. Speed Performance Measurement 

2. The record received in response to 

the 2011 USF/ICC Transformation Order 

and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 76 FR 73830, November 

29, 2011 and 76 FR 78384, December 16, 

2011, on the methodology to be 

implemented for testing compliance 

with service obligations was not well 

developed. The Bureaus now seek to 

refresh the record on the methodology 

to be used for demonstrating 

compliance with the speed obligation 

for ETCs that receive high cost support 

to deploy broadband networks to fixed 

locations. Should internal network 

management system (NMS) tools be 

used to measure speed performance? 

Alternatively, should external 

measurement tools such as Speedtest/

Ookla or Network Diagnostic Tests 

(NDT) by M-Labs? Are there better and 

more reliable methods of measuring 

speed? 

3. Internal NMS tools vary among 

providers. How can the Commission 

ensure that internal NMS tool 

measurements are valid? Will such tools 

account for multiple transmission 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69092 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

control protocol (TCP) streams, TCP 

window sizes, TCP slow start, and other 

factors in speed measurement? How 

would measurements from such tools be 

verified? Are these types of tools too 

burdensome or complex for speed 

measurements? Would such tools have 

any effect on customer service if used 

during peak periods? If external testing 

is adopted, how would measurements 

be verified? Are there better external 

measurement tools than those identified 

above? 

4. What testing parameters should be 

used for speed testing? Should they be 

different for internal and external 

testing? 

5. What testing parameters should be 

used to measure broadband performance 

for wireless providers offering service at 

a given address? Should the testing 

parameters be different if the service 

utilizes a fixed attachment to the 

building? 

6. The Bureaus propose to require all 

ETCs subject to broadband performance 

obligations to serve fixed locations to 

utilize testing parameters for speed 

similar to those already adopted for 

latency for price cap carriers. 

Specifically, the Bureaus propose to 

adopt a methodology that would require 

measurements to be made once hourly 

during peak periods, 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 

p.m. daily local time, over four 

consecutive weeks, require 95 percent of 

the observations to be at or above the 

specified minimum speed, define the 

endpoints for the measurement as the 

customer premises to Commissiondesignated IXP locations, require testing 

to occur at least annually, and require 

a minimum of 50 randomly selected 

customers locations to be tested within 

the geographic area being funded in a 

given state. To the extent parties argue 

that the process adopted for latency 

testing be adjusted and used for speed 

testing, they should describe with 

specificity what changes should be 

made. The Bureaus also seek comment 

on whether the data usage in the 

proposed tests would have a significant 

effect on consumers and, if so, how such 

effects could be mitigated. Should any 

data caps or monthly usage limits be 

adjusted to prevent the testing from 

affecting consumers? 

7. The Bureaus propose to allow 

ETCs, including but not limited to price 

cap carriers, the option of testing 

compliance with speed requirements 

through the MBA program, similar to 

what WCB adopted for latency 

obligations. If the Bureaus were to do so, 

could they apply the same conditions 

and parameters as adopted for latency 

testing? Would any changes be needed? 

8. Should the testing options and 

parameters be the same for rate-of-return 

carriers and providers awarded support 

through the Phase II competitive 

bidding process as for price cap 

carriers? If not, what should they be and 

why? 

9. The Bureaus seek to augment the 

record received in response to the 2011 

USF/ICC Transformation Order and 

FNPRM based on the considerations 

outlined above. Specifically, parties 

such as AT&T and Alaska 

Communications Systems argued that 

the testing mechanism should not 

require measuring service at all end-user 

locations. A testing mechanism for 

speed similar to that adopted for latency 

would only require testing at a certain 

number of locations. Frontier advocated 

that the Commission provide a choice of 

measurement test options. A speedtesting mechanism similar to that 

adopted for latency would provide two 

options for testing. A number of rural 

associations stated that the Commission 

should not impose measurement 

requirements until technically feasible, 

less burdensome testing procedures 

were available. A speed testing 

mechanism similar to that adopted for 

latency should be easily manageable for 

even very small carriers. The Bureaus 

seek comment on these tentative 

conclusions. 

B. Latency Performance Testing for 

Rate-of-Return Carriers and Providers 

Awarded Connect America Support 

Through Competitive Bidding 

10. The Bureaus seek comment on 

whether the two methods adopted to 

test price cap carrier compliance with 

latency service obligations should also 

be used to test compliance with latency 

service obligations for other recipients 

of high-cost support with a broadband 

public interest obligation to serve fixed 

locations. If so, should the testing 

parameters be the same for rate-of-return 

providers and those that are awarded 

Phase II support through a competitive 

bidding process as adopted for price cap 

carriers? If not, what should those 

parameters be and why? 

11. The latency-testing options 

adopted for price cap carriers should 

provide at least one readily achievable 

method suitable for small, rural carriers. 

The Bureaus seek comment on this 

tentative conclusion. In response to the 

2011 USF/ICC Transformation FNPRM, 

rural carriers argued that broadband 

performance should only be measured 

for those portions of the network 

controlled by the provider or its 

commonly-controlled affiliates. The 

Bureaus note that in the Phase II Price 

Cap Order, 78 FR 70881, November 27, 

2013, WCB rejected this argument for 

price cap carriers because (1) testing 

only part of the network will not 

demonstrate the quality of service being 

provided to the end user and (2) carriers 

have a number of options to influence 

the quality of service from their transit 

and/or peering providers. Would that 

same reasoning be applicable to other 

providers, such as rate-of-return carriers 

and non-traditional providers that may 

receive support through a competitive 

bidding process? 

C. Use of MBA Program for Testing and 

Reporting 

12. The MBA program developed out 

of a recommendation by the National 

Broadband Plan to improve the 

availability of information for 

consumers about their broadband 

service. The program examines service 

offerings from the largest broadband 

providers—which collectively account 

for over 80 percent of all U.S. wireline 

broadband connections—using 

automated, direct measurements of 

broadband performance delivered to the 

homes of thousands of volunteer 

broadband subscribers. The 

methodology for the program focuses on 

measuring broadband performance of an 

Internet service provider’s network, 

specifically performance from the 

consumer Internet access point, or 

consumer gateway, to a close major 

Internet gateway point. A collaborative 

process involving Commission staff, 

industry representatives, and academics 

was used to determine the test suite and 

operations for the MBA program. 

13. The MBA program uses 

whiteboxes deployed to individual 

consumers, called panelists, to collect 

data on service levels. These whiteboxes 

perform periodic tests to determine the 

speed and latency of the service at a 

particular panelist’s location, and the 

results of the tests are automatically sent 

to and recorded by an independent 

vendor. Panelists are selected via a 

process that allows for consumer 

registration and verification by the 

service provider followed by activation 

as a testing panelist. More than 13,000 

whiteboxes have been shipped since the 

MBA program began. 

14. Currently, the MBA program tests 

wireline offerings of 15 large broadband 

providers and one satellite-based 

provider. If the Bureaus were to adopt 

a regime in which ETCs subject to 

broadband public interest obligations 

could demonstrate compliance with 

broadband testing requirements through 

their MBA results, would that encourage 

additional providers, including smaller 

providers, to seek to join the MBA? 

Could the MBA accommodate a large 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69093 

number of additional participants? Is it 

feasible for smaller providers to 

participate in the MBA, particularly if 

they must pay the administrative and 

hardware costs of the whiteboxes? Are 

these costs likely to be greater or less 

than the cost of performing ping-type 

tests from 50 locations for latency and 

the testing that will be required to verify 

speed? Would allowing additional 

providers to join the MBA provide more 

detailed and more accurate information 

on provider performance at lower total 

cost? 

15. If additional providers join the 

MBA program for performance testing, 

should their data be make public and 

reported in the annual MBA reports as 

is done for other MBA providers? 

Should the MBA program consider 

creating a separate category of 

membership for providers that want to 

limit testing to Connect Americasupported areas? 

16. The Bureaus seek comment on 

these and any other issues surrounding 

additional provider participation in the 

MBA program. 

D. Commission-Developed Testing 

Mechanism 

17. In the event that joining the MBA 

program proves infeasible for additional 

providers, the Bureaus seek comment on 

whether the Commission should 

implement a performance testing 

platform specifically for Connect 

America-supported broadband services. 

One possibility is to implement an 

oversight mechanism that would be 

similar to the MBA program. Like the 

MBA program, this could be a 

hardware-based test infrastructure 

administered by one or more service 

vendors with whiteboxes deployed to 

consumers throughout Connect 

America-supported areas. Having a 

single entity, such as USAC, procure the 

necessary vendor and infrastructure to 

administer this program would 

minimize the overall cost of the program 

as well as the costs to participating 

providers. The Bureaus seek comment 

on whether such a program would be 

feasible. If so, should it be similar to the 

MBA program, or is there a better way 

to measure broadband performance? 

18. If the Commission were to 

implement such a testing mechanism, 

should all ETCs subject to broadband 

public interest obligations to serve fixed 

locations be required to participate? To 

the extent commenters argue that any 

ETCs should be exempt, they should 

identify with specificity the costs and 

benefits of requiring them to participate, 

and identify alternative means of 

achieving the Commission’s oversight 

objectives. 

19. The Bureaus estimate that the total 

costs for an MBA-type performance 

oversight program for ETCs receiving 

high-cost support to serve fixed 

locations would be approximately $4.2 

million, which would include the 

necessary hardware and software as 

well as an initial allocation of 5,000 

whiteboxes, in the first year and 

approximately $5.9 million each year 

thereafter (which incorporates an 

additional 5,000 whiteboxes per year). 

Our total cost calculation was based on 

the following estimates: 

Year 1 

expenses 

(millions) 

Annual 

expenses 

after year 1 

(millions) 

Whiteboxes (client testing devices) ................................................................................................................ $1.2 ...................... $1 

Core Servers ................................................................................................................................................... 1.7 ........................ 1.65 

Program Administrative Expenses (could be performed by USAC) ............................................................... 1.3 ........................ 1.3 

Total Cost ................................................................................................................................................ 4.2 ........................ 3.9 

The cost estimates above are based on 

having a single entity contract for the 

necessary hardware and services to 

minimize costs through streamlined 

administration and bulk hardware 

purchases. If the Commission were to 

implement such a centralized testing 

program, should these costs be borne by 

participating providers or by USAC as 

part of its oversight over the universal 

service fund? Should USAC pay the 

costs of the core servers, with 

participating providers paying the costs 

of the whiteboxes deployed in their 

service areas? If USAC were to pay all 

of the equipment costs, including the 

whiteboxes, the Bureaus anticipate that 

the only cost for providers would be 

primarily to verify the services of the 

panelists selected in a particular 

provider’s service territory. 

20. If the Commission were to adopt 

such an approach, how many 

whiteboxes should be deployed in each 

supported area? Should the number be 

the same for all providers, vary based on 

the number of customers in the 

supported area, or be based on some 

other calculation? Should individual 

consumers or consumer groups located 

in areas served by a Connect Americasupported provider be allowed to 

participate in such an MBA-type 

mechanism by purchasing their own 

whiteboxes? Such ‘‘citizen testing’’ 

would allow interested individuals to 

evaluate the quality of their services 

while providing additional testing data. 

21. The Bureaus seek comment on the 

initial performance measurement test 

suite that should be used, if the 

Commission were to implement an 

MBA-type testing mechanism. The 

MBA’s current test suite includes 13 

tests that measure various aspects of 

network performance with respect to 

speed and latency and was developed 

on a consensus basis by academics, 

regulators, and industry participants. 

Would the MBA’s test suite be an 

appropriate for a Connect America 

testing mechanism, or could it be 

modified in some fashion? What aspects 

of the MBA test suite are necessary to 

meet the Commission’s objectives that 

ETCs meet their broadband public 

interest obligations? 

22. The MBA program has found that 

allowing consumers with whiteboxes 

(referred to as panelists) access to their 

testing data is an incentive to obtaining 

a high number of volunteers. Should a 

Commission-designed testing 

mechanism for high-cost recipients 

allow end user participants access to 

their own testing data? MBA results are 

currently made publically available via 

the Commission’s Web site. Should the 

Commission publish test results? 

Making such data public would allow 

consumers and policy makers to 

evaluate whether ETCs are meeting their 

service obligations and allow 

comparisons of service quality among 

providers. Is there any reason that such 

performance results should be kept 

confidential? If so, should the results be 

treated as confidential for a particular 

period of time? 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69094 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

III. Auditing Speed and Latency 

23. In the USF/ICC Transformation 

Order, the Commission concluded that 

the results of speed and latency metric 

testing ‘‘will be subject to audit.’’ The 

Bureaus seek to further develop the 

record on procedures for implementing 

this requirement for all recipients of 

Connect America funding. In particular, 

the Bureaus seek comment on how to 

incorporate this requirement into the 

existing Beneficiary Compliance Audit 

Program (BCAP), and whether 

additional audits specifically focused on 

broadband performance should be 

implemented outside of BCAP. 

24. High-cost recipients today are 

subject to random and for-cause USAC 

audits. The Bureaus seek comment on 

the circumstances that would warrant 

examining broadband performance for 

cause. In particular, what events should 

trigger a for cause audit of speed and 

latency metrics? For example, failure to 

file a certification that service 

obligations are being met or a 

certification that standards are not being 

met would likely require an immediate 

audit. Similarly, because MBA results 

are publicly available, should MBA test 

results that demonstrate a failure to 

meet service obligations trigger an 

audit? Should consumer or other 

credible complaints regarding the 

quality of service result in an audit? If 

customer complaints are used to initiate 

an audit, the Bureaus seek comment on 

how this should be done. Should 

complaints to state/local regulatory 

agencies, the Commission, and/or 

public watchdog organizations trigger 

audits? If so, how many complaints over 

what time period and what type of 

complaints should be triggering events 

for a performance audit? Should 

requests from local, state, or tribal 

authorities be sufficient to trigger an 

audit? Are there other events that 

should trigger an audit? Proposed audit 

triggers should address both ensuring 

that performance standards are met and 

minimizing administrative costs. 

25. In addition, the Bureaus seek 

comment on whether a provider whose 

audit demonstrates a need for ongoing 

monitoring be required to pay the costs 

of this additional monitoring. Should 

results of audits be made publicly 

available? If not, what justifications 

support keeping such results private 

and for how long? 

IV. Procedural Matters 

26. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis. The USF/ICC Transformation 

Order included an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the potential 

impact on small entities of the 

Commission’s proposal. The Bureaus 

invite parties to file comments on the 

IRFA in light of this additional notice. 

27. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis. This document seeks 

comment on a potential new or revised 

information collection requirement. If 

the Commission adopts any new or 

revised information collection 

requirement, the Commission will 

publish a separate notice in the Federal 

Register inviting the public to comment 

on the requirement, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). In addition, pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, the 

Commission seeks specific comment on 

how it might ‘‘further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

28. Filing Requirements. Pursuant to 

§§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties may file 

comments on or before the dates 

indicated on the first page of this 

document. Comments may be filed 

using the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 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. 

29. Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th Street SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

D 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. 

D U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

30. People with Disabilities: 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 & Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 

(voice), (202) 418–0432 (tty). 

31. In addition, one copy of each 

pleading must be sent to each of the 

following: 

(1) Alexander Minard, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

445 12th Street SW., 5–B442, 

Washington, DC 20554; email: 

alexander.minard@fcc.gov. 

(2) Suzanne Yelen, Industry Analysis 

and Technology Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street 

SW., Room 6–B115, Washington, DC 

20554; email: suzanne.yelen@fcc.gov. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69095 

32. The proceeding shall be treated as 

a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making ex parte 

presentations must file a copy of any 

written presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule § 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Ryan B. Palmer, 

Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27429 Filed 11–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS