WPC 2MBERKZ#|j X-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""\4  pG;\5hC:,%rXh*f9 xr G;XXW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hP H5!,),5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%BZW*f9 xr G;X No Item Found Item FoundNo Text Supplied &To Text: yO-+b X-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#w  Federal Communications Commission``(#DA 972538 ă  yxdddy+  Њv3 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  yOaWashington, D.C. 20554 #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#у  X-In the Matter of hh@) x` `  hh@)  X-Federal State Joint Boardhh@)  X-on Universal Service hh@)hppCC Docket No. 9645 x` `  hh@)  X -ForwardLooking Mechanismhh@)  X -for High Cost Support forhh@)hppCC Docket No. 97160  Xr -NonRural LECs hh@)  X--; ORDER ĐTP Adopted: December 3, 1997`(#Released: December 3, 1997 By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:  X- I.XxINTRODUCTION (#  Xu-x1.` ` In the Universal Service Order (Order),u {O-ԍ Federal State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report & Order, CC Docket No. 9645, 12 FCC Rcd 8776 (1997). the Commission concluded that high cost support for nonrural carriers should be based on forwardlooking economic costs beginning January 1, 1999, and adopted criteria for the economic cost models and studies that  X2-will be used to calculate these forwardlooking costs.B2" yO-ԍ Universal service support for nonrural carriers will be calculated based on forwardlooking economic  {O-costs beginning January 1, 1999. Order at paras 224226. Support for rural carriers will continue to be based on existing support levels until a model that accurately predicts rural carriers' forwardlooking economic costs can be developed. In no event will rural carriers receive support based on forwardlooking economic costs  {O' -before January 1, 2001. Order at paras. 252256. B The Commission currently is developing a federal mechanism for determining nonrural carriers' forwardlooking cost of  X-providing the supported services.?\ yO#-ԍ FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service, Forward LookingMechanism for High Cost Support for  {OS$-NonRural LECs, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket Nos. 9645, 97160, FCC 97256 (rel.  {O%-July 18, 1997) (FNPRM).? Pursuant to the Order, the Commission will complete work  X-on the federal mechanism, including all inputs, by August 31, 1998. The Order also" 0*o(o(qqm"Ԍ permitted state regulatory commissions to develop their own statespecific cost studies that they wish to use to determine the forwardlooking cost of providing the supported services  X-within their respective jurisdictions.J" {OK-ԍ Order at paras. 247251. J The Commission concluded in the Order that the state cost studies would be subject to public comment and that the Commission would determine  X-whether such cost studies meet the Order's criteria before they could be used to calculate  X-federal universal service support.4Z" {O-ԍ Id..4 The Order required state commissions that elect to submit  X|-cost studies to do so on or before February 6, 1998.3|" {O -ԍ Id.3 In this Order, the Common Carrier Bureau extends until April 24, 1998, the deadline by which states that choose to submit cost studies must file such studies.  X - II.xPOSITIONS OF THE PARTIES  X -x2.` ` The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), on behalf of its members, and the state commissions of Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee, Maine, and New Mexico have filed petitions for extensions of time to file these state cost  X -studies. ~" yO-ԍ The petitions were filed on October 9, 1997, October 1, 1997, September 24, 1997, September 26, 1997, October 15, 1997, October 30, 1997, and November 5, 1997, respectively. NARUC requests a general extension for all state commissions until September 1,  X-1998.S" yO-ԍ NARUC Request for Extension of Time at 5.S NARUC asserts that state commissions require additional time because the final versions of the models under consideration in the federal proceeding will not be available  Xh-until November 1997 at the earliest and because petitions for reconsideration of the Order are still pending before the Commission. NARUC also argues that the Commission's experience in the federal proceeding to select a model suggests that the states' proceedings to develop  X%-cost models will take a significant amount of time.3 %f " {O<-ԍ Id.3  X-x3.` ` The state commissions request extensions of the deadline based on the status of their state proceedings, staffing constraints, and the amount of work required to complete their cost studies. The Minnesota Commission states that it has already begun a proceeding to develop a cost model, but that additional time is needed to develop a complete and accurate  X-study.  " yOD%-ԍ Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, Request for Extension of Time, CC Docket Nos. 9645 and 97160 (filed October 1, 1997). The Nebraska and the Nevada Commissions state that they have begun to coordinate"P 0*&&qqo" the development of cost studies for pricing unbundled network elements, and the Nebraska  X-Commission has contracted with an economist to assist with reviewing the cost studies. " yOb-ԍ Nebraska Public Service Commission Request for Extension of Time at 1; Public Service Commission of Nevada Request for Extension of Time at 1.  X-They state that they may not complete their studies by February 6, 1998 and therefore request  X-a three month extension.3  " {O-ԍ Id.3 The Tennessee Commission states that it is currently considering  X-cost studies in three dockets.l " yO -ԍ Tennessee Regulatory Authority Request for Extension of Time at 2.l The Tennessee Commission asserts that, although it is working diligently on its universal service forwardlooking cost study, constraints on staff time and available resources make it highly unlikely that it will complete the necessary work by  X_-February 6, 1998.3_B" {OR-ԍ  Id.3 The Maine Commission reports that it opened a docket on August 4,  XH-1997, to examine forwardlooking cost studies.SH" yO-ԍ Maine Request for Extension of Time at 2.S The Maine Commission explains that, due to the complexity of the issues raised in this proceeding, the docket is not expected to be  X -complete until April 15, 1998, and therefore requests an extension until May 6, 1998.9 d " {O/-ԍ Id. at 3.9 The  X -New Mexico Commission requests an extension until June 6, 1997.u " yO-ԍ New Mexico State Corporation Commission Request for Extension of Time at 5.u It notes that it has  X -opened several dockets to consider pricing of unbundled network elements and universal  X -service issues in New Mexico.= " {O -ԍ Id. at 23. = The New Mexico Commission states that it has consolidated these dockets to comply with the Commission's direction that universal service cost studies be  X -coordinated with the cost studies used to price unbundled network elements.= " {Op-ԍ Id. at 34. = The New Mexico Commission also maintains that it requires additional time to fully consider the  Xy-platform that will be adopted by the Commission for the federal forwardlooking cost  Xb-mechanism.;b" {O!-ԍ Id. at 45.; "K<0*&&qq"Ԍ X-x4.` ` On November 5, 1997, the Commission requested comment on these extension  X-requests." {Ob-ԍ States Request Extension of Time for Submission of ForwardLooking Economic Cost Studies, Public  {O,-Notice, DA 972329 (rel. Nov. 5, 1997). Commenters generally supported states' need for additional time to complete their  X-cost studies.$" {O-ԍ See, e.g., Comments by the Nebraska Public Service Commission; State of Alabama comments at 12; Comments of the Illinois Commerce Commission at 12; Comments of Ameritech at 2. Some commenters argued, however, that extensions should not be granted beyond a date that would permit the Commission to implement support for nonrural carriers  X-based on forwardlooking economic costs on January 1, 1999.~" {O -ԍ See, e.g., Comments of U S West, Inc., to Requests for Extension of Time; Comments of MCI Telecommunications Corporation.  Xv- III.XxDISCUSSION (#  XH-x5.` ` As a matter of Commission policy, requests for extension of time are not  X1-routinely granted.A1" yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  1.46(a).A NARUC and the state commissions have argued convincingly, however, that the February 6, 1998 deadline does not provide states with sufficient time to complete the proceedings necessary, many of which are underway, to develop reasonably accurate cost studies. Given the importance and complexity of these proceedings, we conclude that the public interest would be served by extending the deadline for filing state cost studies.  X -x6.` ` The length of the extension, however, must not impede the Commission's ability to meet its January 1, 1999, deadline for implementing high cost support for nonrural carriers based on forwardlooking costs. After state cost studies have been submitted, a significant amount of work for the Commission and carriers will remain to be completed before January 1, 1999. The Commission must seek and receive public comment on the cost studies. The Commission must then evaluate the cost studies to determine whether they are  X-consistent with the criteria specified in the Order. Once the mechanism for determining the forwardlooking cost of providing the supported services has been determined for each state, incumbent local exchange carriers and other carriers must have sufficient time to make any necessary changes to their tariffs. The Commission must then review any changes to incumbent local exchange carriers' interstate access tariffs so that they can go into effect on January 1, 1999.  X~-x7.` ` In light of these considerations, we extend the deadline for state commissions to submit their cost studies to and including April 24, 1998. We believe that this elevenweek extension will provide state commissions with substantially more time to complete their cost studies while still ensuring that a forwardlooking mechanism for determining high cost"9h 0*&&qq" support can be implemented by January 1, 1999. Because NARUC sought an extension on behalf of all state commissions and because the public interest will best be served by a general extension of the deadline, this extension applies to all state commissions. To facilitate our review of state cost studies, however, we strongly encourage state commissions to file their cost studies as soon as possible.  Xv- IV.XxORDERING CLAUSES (#  XH-x8.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. section 154(i), and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.46 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.46, that the deadline for states to file cost studies for determining the forwardlooking cost of providing the services supported by federal universal service support mechanism IS EXTENDED to and including April #LA10 #LA 24 #LA , 1998.  X -x9.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. section 154(i), and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.46 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.46, that the requests for extension filed by NARUC and the state commissions of Minnesota, Nebraska, Tennessee, Nevada, and Maine ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and otherwise ARE DENIED.  X- x` `  hh@vFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@A. Richard Metzger, Jr. x` `  hh@Chief, Common Carrier Bureauv