Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board, 16152-16155 [2017-06532]
Download as PDF
16152
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules
13771 requires an agency, unless
prohibited by law, to identify at least
two existing regulations to be repealed
when the agency publicly proposes for
notice and comment or otherwise
promulgates a new regulation. In
furtherance of this requirement, section
2(c) of Executive Order 13771 requires
that the new incremental costs
associated with new regulations shall, to
the extent permitted by law, be offset by
the elimination of existing costs
associated with at least two prior
regulations. OMB’s interim guidance,
issued on February 2, 2017, https://
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/
2017/02/02/interim-guidanceimplementing-section-2-executive-orderjanuary-30-2017, explains that for Fiscal
Year 2017 the above requirements only
apply to each new ‘‘significant
regulatory action that imposes costs.’’ It
has been determined that this proposed
rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action that imposes costs’’ and thus
does not trigger the above requirements
of Executive Order 13771.
In accordance with the provisions of
Executive Order 12866, this regulation
was reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
42 CFR Part 410
Health facilities, Health professions,
Kidney diseases, Laboratories,
Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rural areas, X-rays.
42 CFR Part 418
Health facilities, Hospice care,
Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
42 CFR Part 440
Grant programs—health, Medicaid.
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and
1395(hh)) unless otherwise indicated.
§ 484.65
[Amend]
2. In § 484.65, amend paragraph (d) by
removing the date ‘‘January 13, 2018’’
and adding in its place ‘‘July 13, 2018’’.
■
§ 484.115
[Amend]
3. In § 484.115, amend paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) by removing the date ‘‘July
13, 2017’’ and adding in its place
‘‘January 13, 2018’’.
■
Dated: March 28, 2017.
Seema Verma,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
Dated: March 28, 2017.
Thomas E. Price,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
42 CFR Part 485
Grant programs—health, Health
facilities, Medicaid, Medicare,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
42 CFR Part 488
Administrative practice and
procedure, Health facilities, Medicare,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services proposes to delay the
Jkt 241001
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 36
[CC Docket No. 80–286; FCC 17–22]
Jurisdictional Separations and Referral
to the Federal-State Joint Board
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Commission proposes a
further eighteen month extension of the
current freeze of category relationships
and allocation factors for price cap
carriers and all allocation factors for
rate-of-return carriers and seeks
comment on several issues regarding the
potential effects of the freeze extension.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
April 17, 2017. Reply comments are due
on or before April 24, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th St. SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rhonda Lien, Wireline Competition
Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at (202)
418–1540 or at rhonda.lien@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This a
summary of the Commission Further
SUMMARY:
42 CFR Part 484
Health facilities, Health professions,
Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
1. The authority citation for part 484
continues to read as follows:
■
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
42 CFR Part 409
Health facilities, Medicare.
16:05 Mar 31, 2017
PART 484—HOME HEALTH SERVICES
[FR Doc. 2017–06540 Filed 3–31–17; 8:45 am]
List of Subjects
VerDate Sep<11>2014
effective date for the final rule
published on January 13, 2017 (82 FR
4504) and to further amend 42 CFR
chapter IV as set forth below:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released
on March 20, 2017. The full text of this
document may be accessed at the
following internet address: https://
apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/
FCC-17-22A1.docx.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419
of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply 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). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998). Section 1.415(b) of
the Commission’s rules does not
establish a minimum time period for the
Commission to receive comments on
proposed rules. Rather, the rule states
that a ‘‘reasonable time will be provided
for submission of comments.’’ In this
proceeding, because the current
separations freeze will otherwise expire
on June 30, 2017, and because we
expect our proposal to extend the freeze
will not generate controversy, we find
that it is reasonable to allow 14 days
after Federal Register publication for
the filing of comments and seven days
after that for the filing of any reply
comments.
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
D 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.
D 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 St. 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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM
03APP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules
D U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
Accessible Formats. 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).
Ex Parte Presentations. The
proceeding this Further Notice initiates
shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ 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.
We propose to extend the existing
separations freeze for an additional
eighteen months while we work to
reform the separations rules. As with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Mar 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
our prior freezes, we propose that the
freeze extension be implemented as
described in the 2001 Separations
Freeze Order. Specifically, we propose
to direct rate-of-return ILECs to continue
to use the same frozen jurisdictional
allocation factors, and the same frozen
category relationships if they had opted
previously to freeze those relationships.
We seek comment on this proposal. Are
there adjustments we should make on a
going-forward basis to the current
freeze?
The policy changes adopted by the
Commission in recent years, particularly
those arising from the Commission’s
fundamental reform of the high cost
universal service support program and
intercarrier compensation systems in
the USF/ICC Transformation Order and
from our recent changes to the Part 32
accounting rules, will significantly
affect the Commission’s and the Joint
Board’s analysis of interim and
comprehensive separations reform. We
believe that extending the freeze for
eighteen months will allow the Joint
Board sufficient time to consider the
impact of our recent reforms on the
separations rules and will allow us the
opportunity to fashion a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking that benefits from
the Joint Board’s consideration of how
best to approach separations reform. We
seek comment on this proposed path
forward, and invite commenters to
identify alternative approaches.
One significant benefit of extending
the freeze while we undertake reform
will be to provide stability and
regulatory certainty for ILECs during the
reform process. As the Commission has
observed, if the frozen category
relationships and allocation factors were
unfrozen, ILECs would be required to
reinstitute their separations processes
that have not been used since the
inception of the freeze almost sixteen
years ago. Reinstating these
requirements would require substantial
training and investment. Moreover,
given the significant changes in
technologies and investment decisions,
as well as changes in regulatory
approaches at both the state and federal
levels, the existing separations rules are
likely outdated. We anticipate that
extending the jurisdictional separations
freeze would provide rate-of-return
ILECs with certainty in the near future
as they continue apportioning costs as
they have since the 2001 Separations
Freeze Order, and would be preferable
to re-imposing the burden of the
separations rules. We seek comment on
these on other benefits or drawbacks to
a continued freeze.
We also seek comment on the effect
that our proposal to extend the freeze
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16153
would have on small entities, and
whether any rules that we adopt should
apply differently to small entities. We
seek comment on the costs and burdens
of an extension on small ILECs and
whether the extension would
disproportionately affect specific types
of carriers or ratepayers.
The Joint Board has a pending referral
to consider broadly any appropriate
changes to the separations rules. We
will evaluate whether other discrete
issues should be referred to the Joint
Board. We anticipate that the Joint
Board will meet in July 2017 to consider
reform of the separations process. We
expect to receive the Joint Board’s
recommendations for comprehensive
separations reform within nine months
thereafter, that is, in April 2018.
Procedureal Matters
Paperwork Reduction Act. This
document does not contain proposed
information collection(s) 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).
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the
Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
for this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, of the possible significant
economic impact on small entities of the
policies and rules addressed in this
document.
Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
In the 1997 Separations Notice, the
Commission noted that the network
infrastructure by that time had become
vastly different from the network and
services used to define the cost
categories appearing in the
Commission’s Part 36 jurisdictional
separations rules, and that the
separations process codified in Part 36
was developed during a time when
common carrier regulation presumed
that interstate and intrastate
telecommunications service must be
provided through a regulated monopoly.
Thus, the Commission initiated a
proceeding with the goal of reviewing
comprehensively the Commission’s Part
36 procedures to ensure that they meet
the objectives of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996
Act). The Commission sought comment
on the extent to which legislative
E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM
03APP1
16154
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules
changes, technological changes, and
market changes might warrant
comprehensive reform of the
separations process. More than eighteen
years have elapsed since the closing of
the comment cycle on the 1997
Separations Notice, and more than
fifteen years have elapsed since the
imposition of the freeze. The industry
has experienced myriad changes during
that time, including reform of universal
service and intercarrier compensation;
therefore, we ask for comment on the
impact of a further extension of the
freeze. The purpose of the proposed
extension of the freeze is to ensure that
the Commission’s separations rules
meet the objectives of the 1996 Act, and
to allow the Commission additional
time to consider changes that may need
to be made to the separations process in
light of changes in the law, technology,
and market structure of the
telecommunications industry.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Legal Basis
The legal basis for the Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking is contained in
sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201–205, 215, 218,
220, and 410 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended.
Description and Estimate of the Number
of Small Entities to Which Rules May
Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide
a description of, and, where feasible, an
estimate of the number of small entities
that may be affected by the proposed
rules, if adopted. The RFA generally
defines the term ‘‘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). Nationwide,
there are a total of approximately 27.9
million small businesses, according to
the SBA.
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers
(Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small business size standard
specifically for providers of incumbent
local exchange services. The closest
applicable size standard under the SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under the SBA definition, a
carrier is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to the FCC’s
Telephone Trends Report data, 1,307
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Mar 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
incumbent LECs reported that they were
engaged in the provision of local
exchange services. Of these 1,307
carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500
or fewer employees and 301 have more
than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most
incumbent LECs are small entities that
may be affected by the rules and
policies adopted herein.
We have included small incumbent
LECs in this RFA analysis. As noted
above, a ‘‘small business’’ under the
RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the
pertinent small business size standard
(e.g., a telephone communications
business having 1,500 or fewer
employees), and ‘‘is not dominant in its
field of operation.’’ The SBA’s Office of
Advocacy contends that, for RFA
purposes, small incumbent LECs are not
dominant in their field of operation
because any such dominance is not
‘‘national’’ in scope. Because our
proposals concerning the Part 36
separations process will affect all
incumbent LECs providing interstate
services, some entities employing 1,500
or fewer employees may be affected by
the proposals made in this Further
Notice. We have therefore included
small incumbent LECs in this RFA
analysis, although we emphasize that
this RFA action has no effect on the
Commission’s analyses and
determinations in other, non-RFA
contexts.
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
None.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance and reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for
small entities.
As described above, more than fifteen
years have elapsed since the imposition
of the freeze, thus, we are seeking
comment on the impact of a further
extension of the freeze. We seek
comment on the effects our proposals
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would have on small entities, and
whether any rules that we adopt should
apply differently to small entities. We
direct commenters to consider the costs
and burdens of an extension on small
incumbent LECs and whether the
extension would disproportionately
affect specific types of carriers or
ratepayers.
We believe that implementation of the
proposed freeze extension would ease
the administrative burden of regulatory
compliance for LECs, including small
incumbent LECs. The freeze has
eliminated the need for all incumbent
LECs, including incumbent LECs with
1,500 employees or fewer, to complete
certain annual studies formerly required
by the Commission’s rules. If an
extension of the freeze can be said to
have any effect under the RFA, it is to
reduce a regulatory compliance burden
for small incumbent LECs by relieving
these carriers from the burden of
preparing separations studies and
providing these carriers with greater
regulatory certainty.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
None.
Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA
and must be filed by the deadlines for
comments on the Further Notice
indicated on the first page of this
document. The Commission’s Consumer
and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, will send
a copy of this Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, including the
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration
(SBA).
For further information regarding this
proceeding, contact Rhonda J. Lien,
Pricing Policy Division, Wireline
Competition Bureau, at (202) 418–1520,
or rhonda.lien@fcc.gov.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201–205, 215, 218,
220, and 410 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
152, 154(i), 201–205, 215, 218, 220, 410,
this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.
It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, SHALL SEND a
copy of this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM
03APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
It is further ordered that, pursuant to
sections 1.4(b)(1) and 1.103(a) of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1),
1.103(a), this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking shall be effective on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Mar 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
16155
date of publication in the Federal
Register.
requirements; Telephone; Uniform
System of Accounts.
List of Subjects
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
Communications common carriers,
Reporting and recordkeeping
PO 00000
[FR Doc. 2017–06532 Filed 3–31–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM
03APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 62 (Monday, April 3, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16152-16155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06532]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 36
[CC Docket No. 80-286; FCC 17-22]
Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State
Joint Board
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission proposes a further eighteen month extension of
the current freeze of category relationships and allocation factors for
price cap carriers and all allocation factors for rate-of-return
carriers and seeks comment on several issues regarding the potential
effects of the freeze extension.
DATES: Comments are due on or before April 17, 2017. Reply comments are
due on or before April 24, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St. SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhonda Lien, Wireline Competition
Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at (202) 418-1540 or at
rhonda.lien@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This a summary of the Commission Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released on March 20, 2017. The full text
of this document may be accessed at the following internet address:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-22A1.docx.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
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). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Section 1.415(b) of the
Commission's rules does not establish a minimum time period for the
Commission to receive comments on proposed rules. Rather, the rule
states that a ``reasonable time will be provided for submission of
comments.'' In this proceeding, because the current separations freeze
will otherwise expire on June 30, 2017, and because we expect our
proposal to extend the freeze will not generate controversy, we find
that it is reasonable to allow 14 days after Federal Register
publication for the filing of comments and seven days after that for
the filing of any reply comments.
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] 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.
[ssquf] 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.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. 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.
[ssquf] 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.
[[Page 16153]]
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Accessible Formats. 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).
Ex Parte Presentations. The proceeding this Further Notice
initiates 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.
We propose to extend the existing separations freeze for an
additional eighteen months while we work to reform the separations
rules. As with our prior freezes, we propose that the freeze extension
be implemented as described in the 2001 Separations Freeze Order.
Specifically, we propose to direct rate-of-return ILECs to continue to
use the same frozen jurisdictional allocation factors, and the same
frozen category relationships if they had opted previously to freeze
those relationships. We seek comment on this proposal. Are there
adjustments we should make on a going-forward basis to the current
freeze?
The policy changes adopted by the Commission in recent years,
particularly those arising from the Commission's fundamental reform of
the high cost universal service support program and intercarrier
compensation systems in the USF/ICC Transformation Order and from our
recent changes to the Part 32 accounting rules, will significantly
affect the Commission's and the Joint Board's analysis of interim and
comprehensive separations reform. We believe that extending the freeze
for eighteen months will allow the Joint Board sufficient time to
consider the impact of our recent reforms on the separations rules and
will allow us the opportunity to fashion a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking that benefits from the Joint Board's consideration of how
best to approach separations reform. We seek comment on this proposed
path forward, and invite commenters to identify alternative approaches.
One significant benefit of extending the freeze while we undertake
reform will be to provide stability and regulatory certainty for ILECs
during the reform process. As the Commission has observed, if the
frozen category relationships and allocation factors were unfrozen,
ILECs would be required to reinstitute their separations processes that
have not been used since the inception of the freeze almost sixteen
years ago. Reinstating these requirements would require substantial
training and investment. Moreover, given the significant changes in
technologies and investment decisions, as well as changes in regulatory
approaches at both the state and federal levels, the existing
separations rules are likely outdated. We anticipate that extending the
jurisdictional separations freeze would provide rate-of-return ILECs
with certainty in the near future as they continue apportioning costs
as they have since the 2001 Separations Freeze Order, and would be
preferable to re-imposing the burden of the separations rules. We seek
comment on these on other benefits or drawbacks to a continued freeze.
We also seek comment on the effect that our proposal to extend the
freeze would have on small entities, and whether any rules that we
adopt should apply differently to small entities. We seek comment on
the costs and burdens of an extension on small ILECs and whether the
extension would disproportionately affect specific types of carriers or
ratepayers.
The Joint Board has a pending referral to consider broadly any
appropriate changes to the separations rules. We will evaluate whether
other discrete issues should be referred to the Joint Board. We
anticipate that the Joint Board will meet in July 2017 to consider
reform of the separations process. We expect to receive the Joint
Board's recommendations for comprehensive separations reform within
nine months thereafter, that is, in April 2018.
Procedureal Matters
Paperwork Reduction Act. This document does not contain proposed
information collection(s) 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).
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, of the possible significant economic
impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this
document.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
In the 1997 Separations Notice, the Commission noted that the
network infrastructure by that time had become vastly different from
the network and services used to define the cost categories appearing
in the Commission's Part 36 jurisdictional separations rules, and that
the separations process codified in Part 36 was developed during a time
when common carrier regulation presumed that interstate and intrastate
telecommunications service must be provided through a regulated
monopoly. Thus, the Commission initiated a proceeding with the goal of
reviewing comprehensively the Commission's Part 36 procedures to ensure
that they meet the objectives of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
(1996 Act). The Commission sought comment on the extent to which
legislative
[[Page 16154]]
changes, technological changes, and market changes might warrant
comprehensive reform of the separations process. More than eighteen
years have elapsed since the closing of the comment cycle on the 1997
Separations Notice, and more than fifteen years have elapsed since the
imposition of the freeze. The industry has experienced myriad changes
during that time, including reform of universal service and
intercarrier compensation; therefore, we ask for comment on the impact
of a further extension of the freeze. The purpose of the proposed
extension of the freeze is to ensure that the Commission's separations
rules meet the objectives of the 1996 Act, and to allow the Commission
additional time to consider changes that may need to be made to the
separations process in light of changes in the law, technology, and
market structure of the telecommunications industry.
Legal Basis
The legal basis for the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201-205, 215, 218, 220, and 410 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules
May Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``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). Nationwide, there are a total of approximately
27.9 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
specifically for providers of incumbent local exchange services. The
closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under the SBA definition, a carrier is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's
Telephone Trends Report data, 1,307 incumbent LECs reported that they
were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these
1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
301 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most incumbent LECs are small entities that may be
affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
We have included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis. As
noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one that, inter
alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a
telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and
``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of
Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not
dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not
``national'' in scope. Because our proposals concerning the Part 36
separations process will affect all incumbent LECs providing interstate
services, some entities employing 1,500 or fewer employees may be
affected by the proposals made in this Further Notice. We have
therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although
we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on the Commission's
analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
None.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The
establishment of differing compliance and reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for small
entities.
As described above, more than fifteen years have elapsed since the
imposition of the freeze, thus, we are seeking comment on the impact of
a further extension of the freeze. We seek comment on the effects our
proposals would have on small entities, and whether any rules that we
adopt should apply differently to small entities. We direct commenters
to consider the costs and burdens of an extension on small incumbent
LECs and whether the extension would disproportionately affect specific
types of carriers or ratepayers.
We believe that implementation of the proposed freeze extension
would ease the administrative burden of regulatory compliance for LECs,
including small incumbent LECs. The freeze has eliminated the need for
all incumbent LECs, including incumbent LECs with 1,500 employees or
fewer, to complete certain annual studies formerly required by the
Commission's rules. If an extension of the freeze can be said to have
any effect under the RFA, it is to reduce a regulatory compliance
burden for small incumbent LECs by relieving these carriers from the
burden of preparing separations studies and providing these carriers
with greater regulatory certainty.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments on the Further Notice indicated on the first
page of this document. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
For further information regarding this proceeding, contact Rhonda
J. Lien, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202)
418-1520, or rhonda.lien@fcc.gov.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201-205, 215, 218, 220, and 410 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
201-205, 215, 218, 220, 410, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
IS ADOPTED.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a
copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
[[Page 16155]]
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
It is further ordered that, pursuant to sections 1.4(b)(1) and
1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), 1.103(a), this
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking shall be effective on the date of
publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements; Telephone; Uniform System of Accounts.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-06532 Filed 3-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P