(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 subparagraph (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
subparagraph (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 subparagraph (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 subparagraph (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), 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).
(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), 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.
|