16 Tex. Admin. Code § 26.409 - Review of Texas Universal Service Fund Support Received by Competitive Eligible Telecommunications Providers
(a) Purpose. This
section implements PURA §56.023(p) and (r) and establishes the criteria
and process for determining whether Texas Universal Service Fund (TUSF) support
under §
26.403 of this title (relating to
Texas High Cost Universal Service Plan (THCUSP)) to a competitive Eligible
Telecommunications Provider (ETP) should be eliminated.
(b) Application. This section applies to
exchanges in which an incumbent local exchange company or cooperative is
ineligible for support under PURA §56.021(1) and a competitive ETP
receives TUSF support under §
26.403 of this title. This section
expires on December 31, 2023.
(c)
Commission review.
(1) The commission must
review the per-line TUSF support amount for each exchange identified by
subsection (d)(1)(B) of this section to determine whether support should be
eliminated. The first review of an exchange must be completed not later than
the end of the year following the year in which the exchange was reported under
subsection (d)(1)(B) of this section.
(2) The commission must base its decision on
the following criteria:
(A) The total number
of access lines in the exchange served by competitive ETPs receiving TUSF
support;
(B) The number of
competitors providing comparable service in the exchange; and
(C) Whether continuing the TUSF support is in
the public interest.
(d) Identification of exchanges for review.
(1) No later than April 30 of each year,
commission staff must report:
(A) Each
exchange in which the number of access lines served by competitive ETPs has
decreased by at least 50% from the number of access lines that were served in
that exchange by competitive ETPs on December 31, 2016; and
(B) The number of access lines served by
those competitive ETPs identified in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph on
December 31 of the prior calendar year.
(2) Commission staff must file its report in
central records under a control number designated for that purpose.
(e) Initiation of proceeding. For
each exchange identified under subsection (d)(1)(B) of this section, commission
staff will file an application to initiate a proceeding to review the per-line
TUSF support amount for that exchange.
(1)
The application must be supported by an affidavit and describe commission
staff's determination that the number of access lines served by competitive
ETPs in the exchange decreased by at least 50% compared to the number of access
lines served by competitive ETPs in that exchange on December 31,
2016.
(2) Commission staff must
serve a copy of the application, at the time of filing, to the competitive ETPs
receiving TUSF support in the exchange by email, regular mail, and certified
mail.
(f) Competitive
ETP's response to commission staff's application.
(1) A competitive ETP serving access lines in
an exchange identified under subsection (d)(1)(B) may respond to commission
staff's application no later than 30 days after the application is
filed.
(2) A competitive ETP's
response must address the criteria listed in subsection (c) of this
section.
(3) The response must be
in writing, supported by affidavit, and filed with the commission as prescribed
by 16 TAC §
22.71 of this title (relating to
Filing of Pleadings, Documents, and Other Materials).
(g) Commission staff's recommendation. In
accordance with the schedule established by the presiding officer, but no
earlier than 40 days after filing the application described in subsection (e)
of this section, commission staff will file a recommendation, supported by
affidavit, on whether the commission should eliminate TUSF support in the
identified exchange. In its recommendation, commission staff must address the
criteria listed in subsection (c) of this section.
(h) Competitive ETP's response to commission
staff's recommendation. No later than 20 days after commission staff files its
recommendation, a competitive ETP may file a response to commission staff's
recommendation. The response must state whether the competitive ETP agrees or
disagrees with commission staff's recommendation and may include a request for
a hearing.
(i) Commission
determination.
(1) If a competitive ETP does
not request a hearing within the time prescribed by subsection (h) of this
section, the commission will determine whether to eliminate TUSF support for
the exchange based on the filings submitted by commission staff and the
competitive ETPs.
(2) If a
competitive ETP requests a hearing, the proceeding will be conducted as a
contested case.
(j)
Further review. If the commission does not eliminate TUSF support for an
exchange after a review conducted under subsections (c) - (i) of this section,
the commission must repeat the review of the TUSF per-line support amount for
that exchange at least every three years.
Notes
State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.
No prior version found.