Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime, 14185-14189 [2018-06488]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in Executive Order 12866. This
rule renders certain Privacy Act
requirements inapplicable to certain
agency records (in this case, certain
confidential source-identifying records
in NIH research and development award
records) in accordance with criteria
established in subsection (k)(5) of the
Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5)), based
on a showing that agency compliance
with those Privacy Act requirements
with respect to those records would
harm the effectiveness or integrity of the
agency function or process for which
the records are maintained (in this case,
NIH research and development award
processes).
II. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612)
III. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Section
202, Pub. L. 104–4)
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that agencies prepare a written
statement, which includes an
assessment of anticipated costs and
benefits, before proposing ‘‘any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may
result in the expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100,000,000
or more (adjusted annually for inflation)
in any one year.’’ The current threshold
after adjustment for inflation is $144
million, using the most current (2015)
Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross
Domestic Product. The agency does not
expect that this final rule would result
in any 1-year expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments that would
meet or exceed this amount.
IV. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35–1
et seq.)
This rule does not contain any
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
13:13 Apr 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
This rule will not have any direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore,
the requirements of Executive Order
13132 are inapplicable.
List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 5b
Privacy.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Department amends part
5b of title 45 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
In this document, the
Commission reconsiders rules adopted
in the Rate-of-Return Reform Order.
Specifically, the Commission replaces
the surrogate cost methods for
Consumer Only Broadband Loops,
revises CBOL imputation rules, and
lastly, clarifies matters concerning
reductions in the Connect America
Fund Broadband Loop Support. Further
review of the record supports the
adjustments, and further promotes the
Commission’s goals of providing
certainty and stability for carriers and
continued consumer access to advanced
telecommunications and information
services.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
PART 5b—PRIVACY ACT
REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 5b
continues to read as follows:
■
2. Amend § 5b.11 by:
a. Removing ‘‘and,’’ from the end of
paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(A);
■ b. Removing the period at the end of
paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(B) and adding ‘‘;
and’’ in its place; and
■ c. Adding paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(C).
The addition reads as follows:
■
■
§ 5b.11
Exempt systems.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) * * *
(C) NIH Electronic Research
Administration (eRA) Records, HHS/
NIH/OD/OER, 09–25–0225.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: February 5, 2018.
Francis S. Collins,
Director, National Institutes of Health.
Approved: March 28, 2018.
Alex M. Azar II,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
[FR Doc. 2018–06676 Filed 4–2–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 51, 54, and 69
[WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 14–58; CC Docket
No. 01–92; FCC 18–13]
Developing a Unified Intercarrier
Compensation Regime
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Effective May 3, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires agencies to analyze regulatory
options that would minimize any
significant regulatory impacts of a rule
on small entities. Because the rule
imposes no duties or obligations on
small entities, we have determined, and
the Director certifies, that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
V. Review Under Executive Order
13132, Federalism
14185
Victoria Goldberg, Wireline Competition
Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at (202)
418–1540 or at Victoria.goldberg@
fcc.gov.
This is a
summary of the Commission’s Second
Order on Reconsideration and
Clarification, WC Docket Nos. 10–90
and 14–58, CC Docket No. 01–92; FCC
18–13, released on February 16, 2018. A
full-text copy of this document may be
obtained at the following internet
address: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_
public/attachmatch/FCC-18-13A1.docx.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. By the Second Order on
Reconsideration and Clarification
(Order), we reconsider rules adopted in
the Rate-of-Return Reform Order
relating to rate-of-return local exchange
carriers’ (LECs) provision of consumer
broadband-only loops (CBOLs). First,
we revise our rules to replace the
surrogate cost method for determining
the cost of CBOLs with rules employing
existing separations and cost allocation
procedures. Second, we revise the rule
requiring rate-of-return carriers to
impute on CBOLs an amount equal to
the Access Recovery Charge (ARC) that
could have been assessed on a voice or
voice/broadband line to better
implement our intent to maintain the
balance between end user charges and
universal service adopted in the USF/
ICC Transformation Order. Finally, we
clarify two matters pertaining to
reductions in Connect America Fund
Broadband Loop Support (CAF BLS)
due to competitive overlap. Making
these adjustments to the rules for rateof-return carriers serves the
Commission’s goals of providing more
certainty and stability for carriers
investing for the future, thereby
ensuring that all consumers have access
E:\FR\FM\03APR1.SGM
03APR1
14186
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
to advanced telecommunications and
information services.
II. Background
2. In the Rate-of-Return Reform Order,
the Commission revised its approach to
providing universal service support to
rate-of-return LECs. The Commission
adopted a voluntary path under which
rate-of-return carriers could elect modelbased support for a term of 10 years in
exchange for meeting defined build-out
obligations. For carriers not electing
model-based support, among other
things, the Commission modernized the
existing interstate common line support
rules to provide support in situations
where customers subscribe to standalone broadband service, instead of
traditional regulated local exchange
voice service.
3. To implement the provision of
universal service support for standalone broadband, the Commission
defined a new type of service that
would receive such support—CBOL
service. Because CBOL costs were
included in the Special Access category
by the separations and Part 69 cost
allocation rules, the Commission
required carriers to shift CBOL costs
from the Special Access category to a
new CBOL category. The goal was to
avoid including such CBOL costs in the
determination of just and reasonable
rates for special access services and to
develop the support mechanism and
tariff rates for CBOL service. Reasoning
that CBOL costs were similar to
common line costs, the Commission
decided to use common line costs as a
surrogate for identifying the CBOL costs
to be shifted from the Special Access
category to the CBOL category for each
CBOL. This process is referred to as the
‘‘surrogate method.’’ The surrogate
method included the broadest definition
of loop costs feasible based on the
Commission’s then-current cost
accounting rules. It also was intended to
identify those costs in an expansive
manner, to segregate the broadband-only
loop investment and expenses from
other special access costs currently
included in the Special Access category,
and to preclude cross-subsidization. The
Commission recognized, however, that
it might be appropriate to revisit the
surrogate method in the future if it was
not working as intended.
4. In the course of implementing the
new rules and carrier introduction of
the new CBOL service, it became
apparent that, in certain limited
situations, the surrogate cost
methodology over-allocated costs out of
the Special Access category, thereby
reducing the revenue requirement and
resulting special access services rates
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:13 Apr 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
more than intended; indeed, in the
worst case scenario, rates would have
been reduced to zero. Concluding that it
would be unreasonable to apply the
surrogate method in such
circumstances, the Wireline
Competition Bureau (Bureau) granted a
limited waiver of sections 69.311 and
69.416 of the Commission’s rules in
cases where use of the surrogate cost
method would result in such
unintended rate reductions. The Bureau
granted a similar limited waiver of the
rules concerning use of the surrogate
cost method for the 2017 annual access
charge tariff filing, and any later tariff
filings related to the development of the
CBOL revenue requirement.
5. In the Rate-of-Return Reform Order,
the Commission also adopted a rule
requiring that rate-of-return carriers
impute an amount equal to the ARC on
CBOL service as part of the process of
calculating their CAF ICC Support. The
Commission anticipated the migration
of some end users from their current
voice/broadband offerings to supported
broadband-only lines due to increased
affordability of these services. It
recognized that as such migration
occurred, the reduction in the number
of ARC-eligible lines would require
carriers to recover more from CAF ICC
support. To help maintain the careful
balance between end-user charges and
universal service support adopted in the
USF/ICC Transformation Order, the
Commission adopted the ARC
imputation rule for CBOL service. Those
rules do not distinguish between
carriers’ revenue from new and existing
broadband only loop subscribers.
6. NTCA—The Rural Broadband
Association filed a petition asking the
Commission to reconsider portions of
the Rate-of-Return Reform Order.
Among other things, NTCA asks that the
Commission reconsider the surrogate
method for estimating CBOL costs, and
instead adopt a more cost-based
method. NTCA also requests that the
Commission reconsider the ARC
imputation rule and grandfather standalone broadband connections in place as
of September 30, 2011 from imputation
of the ARC amounts.
7. Further, the Commission also
adopted rules in the Rate-of-Return
Reform Order to eliminate CAF BLS in
census blocks served by an
unsubsidized competitor. The
Commission recognized that the census
blocks served by an unsubsidized
competitor are likely to be lower cost
areas, as compared to the other census
blocks in the carrier’s study area.
Accordingly, the Commission provided
that a carrier subject to competitive
overlap may elect one of three
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
methodologies to ‘‘disaggregate’’ its
support into competitive census blocks
(in which support would be eliminated)
and non-competitive census blocks (in
which support would not be
eliminated). The Commission further
adopted a plan for transitioning support
reductions for areas subject to
competitive overlap.
III. Discussion
8. Upon review of the record, we
modify our rules by replacing the
surrogate cost method for determining
the cost of CBOLs and revise the rule
requiring rate-of-return carriers to
impute an amount equal to the ARC that
could have been assessed on a voice or
voice/broadband line. We also clarify
two matters pertaining to the manner in
which competitive overlap can lead to
a reduction in CAF BLS. These actions
will further advance our goal of
ensuring deployment of advanced
telecommunications and information
services networks throughout ‘‘all
regions of the nation.’’
A. Replacing the Surrogate Method
9. First, we revise sections 69.311 and
69.416 as set forth in the Appendix to
determine CBOL costs from the Part 36
and Part 69 cost studies without using
a surrogate method. While the surrogate
method produced CBOL cost estimates
in the expected ranges for many, if not
most, carriers, in other situations the
estimates were problematic. For a few
carriers, particularly those that elected
to freeze their separations category
relationships, use of the surrogate
method would have eliminated the
Special Access revenue requirement
thereby requiring carriers to offer
special access services at no charge. The
costs shifted to the CBOL category are
also an input into the amount of CAF
BLS a carrier is eligible to receive;
accordingly, this over-allocation would
have had the unintended effect of
increasing the projected revenue
requirement for CAF BLS. Because use
of the surrogate method does not result
in an appropriate cost allocation for
some rate-of-return carriers, we now
reconsider and adopt a different
approach for identifying CBOL costs
that should be shifted from the Special
Access category to the CBOL category
commencing with the 2018 annual
access charge tariff filings.
10. We find the approach suggested
by NTCA to be a significantly better
approach than the surrogate method.
NTCA proposes that the Commission
revise section 69.311(b) to specify that
broadband-only investment shall equal
the amount of broadband-only loop
investment included in CWF Category 2
E:\FR\FM\03APR1.SGM
03APR1
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Wideband and COE Category 4.11
Wideband Exchange Line Circuit
Equipment, and related reserves and
other investment, assigned to interstate
special access pursuant to Parts 36 and
69 of the Commission’s rules. It further
proposes that broadband-only loop
expenses should then be determined by
reference to such investments. We note
that the National Exchange Carrier
Association (NECA) supported a similar
concept for moving forward. No party
has opposed this approach.
11. Rate-of-return carriers, other than
average schedule carriers and those that
elected to freeze their separations
category relationships, perform cost
studies to implement the Part 36 and 69
cost allocations in the process of
establishing interstate access rates. The
approach proposed by NTCA and
supported by NECA would use existing
cost categories and allocation
procedures to identify the costs shifted
to the CBOL category. Because this
approach takes the actual costs from the
cost studies into consideration rather
than using common line costs as a
surrogate, it should produce a more
accurate means of identifying and
allocating these costs. Under this
approach, carriers can identify and track
CBOL investment costs that are directly
assigned to the Special Access category,
as well as track indirect costs to the new
CBOL category. Once investments are
assigned, the existing rules provide
procedures for allocating expenses
among categories in a consistent manner
that will allow carriers to determine the
expenses associated with CBOL services
and shift them to the CBOL category. In
addition to producing more accurate
results, using the current cost study
process minimizes the burden on
carriers and the likelihood of cost
variability and distortions in future
years.
12. While NTCA proposes specific
assignment categories—separations
category 2.1, cable and wire facilities,
and category 4.1.1, circuit equipment—
we find that the better approach is to be
less specific concerning permitted cost
categories. The Federal-State Joint Board
on Jurisdictional Separations is
considering reforms of the separations
procedures that have been frozen since
2000. More generic rule language will
simplify harmonization of any reforms
adopted in that proceeding with the cost
allocation rules in Part 69. Therefore,
the new rules will require rate-of-return
carriers to use direct assignment
principles to the extent possible before
making any indirect allocations.
13. Rate-of-return carriers shall use
the revised procedures for determining
broadband-only line costs to be shifted
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:13 Apr 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
beginning July 1, 2018. Such carriers
have already completed the cost studies
necessary for developing data related to
support amounts and access rates for
tariff year 2017 and the Second Cost
Surrogate Waiver Order mitigated the
most significant short-term concerns
with the surrogate method. Moreover,
the changes we adopt largely reflect
longer-term considerations. Making the
revisions to these rules applicable
beginning July 1, 2018 allows carriers to
plan for these changes as part of the
next annual access tariff filings.
B. ARC Imputation
14. Upon further consideration, we
also revise, effective for a period of five
years, section 51.917(f) of our rules to
address NTCA’s concern that, under the
existing rule, a carrier’s CAF ICC
support is reduced because of the
imputation of an amount on CBOLs that
was not part of the balance struck in the
USF/ICC Transformation Order. NTCA
argues that ‘‘[a] standalone broadband
connection in place as of September 30,
2011 was never included within the
CAF–ICC baseline and thus was not part
of the ‘careful balancing’ that went into
establishing the mechanism.’’ Other
parties support reconsideration of the
ARC imputation rule and the solution
proposed by NTCA.
15. We agree with NTCA that our
focus on reconsideration should be on
the goal of balancing end-user and
universal service support adopted in the
USF/ICC Transformation Order. The
ARC imputation for CBOLs was
intended to ensure that new support for
CBOLs would not unduly increase CAF
ICC. Although the ARC imputation
achieves that goal, we agree with NTCA
that, as implemented, the ARC
imputation may unduly penalize rate-ofreturn carriers that offered stand-alone
broadband connections before the Rateof-Return Reform Order. As such, we
believe adjusting the ARC imputation
calculation is appropriate. At the same
time, however, we are mindful of the
concerns raised by NTCA regarding the
need to ensure that any exemption that
we create ‘‘be properly targeted and
limit potential adverse impacts on
carriers that do not qualify for such an
exemption.’’
16. We limit the ARC imputation
amount so that the total ARC revenues
and imputation for the current tariff
period will not exceed a pre-Rate-ofReturn Reform Order baseline as a result
of CBOL imputation. Specifically, we
set the baseline as the ARC revenues
from the most recent tariff period prior
to the effective date of the CBOL
imputation rule (tariff year 2015–16).
Under this approach, a rate-of-return
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14187
carrier’s CAF ICC support will be
reduced by the ARC imputation on
CBOLs only if a carrier’s maximum
assessable ARCs and imputed CBOL
ARCs falls short of the baseline amount.
We revise section 51.917(f) of the
Commission’s rules to explain the
process for making the necessary
comparisons and any resulting
imputation on CBOLs.
17. The revisions to section 51.917(f)
rules will take effect on July 1, 2018, the
date that the upcoming annual access
tariffs will take effect. This effective
date will simplify implementation and
avoid any complications that would
occur as a result of a need to true-up
such amounts in 2019. All rate-of-return
carriers must reflect the effects of these
rule revisions in their Tariff Review
Plans for the June 2018 annual access
charge tariff filings. We adopt NTCA’s
recommendation to sunset section
51.917(f)(5), the provision implementing
our revisions to the imputation
requirement, after five years. We believe
that such a limitation is warranted in
light of our currently-limited experience
with CAF-supported CBOL-based
service. We will monitor the effects of
section 51.917(f)(5) during that period
and take further action as necessary.
18. We reject the grandfathering
approach suggested by NTCA. That
approach raises unnecessarily
complicated administrative issues with
respect to the determination and
verification of the number of standalone broadband lines in service on
September 30, 2011. We also question
whether a simple frozen number of lines
is the best approach since some
turnover would be expected over time.
For these reasons, we decline to adopt
the grandfathering solution suggested by
NTCA.
C. Clarification of Competitive Overlap
Procedures
19. In addition to the issues on
reconsideration addressed above, we
also clarify two matters related to
reductions in support due to the
competitive overlap procedure adopted
in the Rate-of-Return Reform Order.
20. First we clarify the reduction
amounts associated with the second
disaggregation method. In the Rate-ofReturn Reform Order, the Commission
published a table showing the
‘‘reduction ratio’’ for specified
‘‘competitive ratios’’ (i.e., the ratio of
competitive square miles to noncompetitive square miles in a study
area). While the table sets forth a precise
reduction ratio for each competitive
ratio that was listed, it did not clearly
reflect the intent of the Commission
with respect to the reduction ratios that
E:\FR\FM\03APR1.SGM
03APR1
14188
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
should apply to competitive ratios in
between the specified competitive
ratios. The table below fills in the gaps
in accordance with the Commission’s
clear intent and replaces the table in the
Rate-of-Return Reform Order.
Competitive ratio
Reduction
But no more
than
(%)
More than
(%)
0 ........................
20 ......................
25 ......................
30 ......................
35 ......................
40 ......................
45 ......................
50 ......................
55 ......................
60 ......................
65 ......................
70 ......................
75 ......................
80 ......................
85 ......................
90 ......................
95 ......................
Ratio
(%)
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
N/A
3.3
6.7
10.0
13.3
16.7
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
62.5
75.0
87.5
100
21. Second, in discussing the
transition to support reductions and in
the associated rule, the Commission
referred to the transition schedule
where the CAF BLS subject to
competitive overlap is ‘‘more than 25
percent’’ of total CAF BLS. This
reference was in contrast to areas
‘‘where the reduction of CAF BLS from
competitive census block(s) represents
less than 25 percent of the total CAF
BLS support the carrier would have
received in the study area in the absence
of this rule.’’ To prevent a gap when the
reduction is exactly 25 percent, we
clarify that that schedule applies where
the CAF BLS subject to competitive
overlap is 25 percent or more of total
CAF BLS, and modify section 54.319(g)
to reflect that clarification.
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
22. This document does not contain
new or modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13. Therefore, it does not
contain any new or modified
information collection burdens 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).
B. Congressional Review Act
23. The Commission will send a copy
of this Second Order on Reconsideration
and Clarification to Congress and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:13 Apr 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
C. Final Regulatory Flexibility
Certification
24. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended (RFA), requires
agencies to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for rulemaking
proceedings, unless the agency certifies
that ‘‘the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.’’ The RFA
generally defines ‘‘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).
25. This Order amends rules adopted
in the Rate-of-Return Reform Order by
replacing the surrogate cost method for
calculating the costs of Consumer
Broadband-only Loops (CBOLs) and
revising the Access Recovery Charge
(ARC) imputation rules for CBOLs.
These revisions do not create any
burdens, benefits, or requirements that
were not addressed by the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis attached
to the Rate-of-Return Reform Order.
Therefore, we certify that the rule
revisions adopted in this Second Order
on Reconsideration and Clarification
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
26. The Commission will send a copy
of the Second Order on Reconsideration
and Clarification, including a copy of
this Final Certification, in a report to
Congress pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act. In addition, the Second
Order on Reconsideration and
Clarification and this Final Certification
will be sent to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA, and will be
published in the Federal Register.
V. Ordering Clauses
27. Accordingly, it is ordered,
pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 1, 2, 4(i), 205, 214, 218–220,
251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, and
405 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, and section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47
U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 155, 205, 214,
218–220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332,
403, 405, 1302, that this Second Order
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
on Reconsideration and Clarification is
adopted, effective thirty (30) days after
publication of the text or summary
thereof in the Federal Register.
28. It is further ordered that Parts 51,
54, and 69 of the Commission’s rules, 47
CFR parts 51, 54, and 69, are amended
as set forth in the Appendix, and such
rule amendments shall be effective
thirty (30) days after publication of the
rules amendments in the Federal
Register.
29. It is further ordered that the
Commission shall send a copy of this
Second Order on Reconsideration and
Clarification to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
30. It is further ordered, that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Second Order on Reconsideration
and Clarification, including the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
31. It is further ordered that the
Petition for Reconsideration and/or
Clarification of NTCA—The Rural
Broadband Association filed May 25,
2016, is granted in part as described
herein.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 51
Communications common carriers,
Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 54
Communications common carriers,
Health facilities, Infants and children,
Internet, Libraries, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Schools,
Telecommunications, Telephone.
47 CFR Part 69
Communications common carriers,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the
Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR parts 51,
54 and 69 as follows:
PART 51—INTERCONNECTION
1. The authority citation for part 51
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151–55, 201–05, 207–
09, 218, 220, 225–27, 251–54, 256, 271,
303(r), 332, 1302.
E:\FR\FM\03APR1.SGM
03APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Consumer Broadband-Only Loop
category.
■
2. Amend § 51.917 by revising the first
sentence of paragraph (f)(4) and adding
paragraph (f)(5) to read as follows:
■
§ 51.917 Revenue recovery for Rate-ofReturn Carriers.
§ 54.319 Elimination of high-cost support
in areas with 100 percent coverage by an
unsubsidized competitor.
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
*
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(4) Except as provided in paragraph
(f)(5) of this section, a Rate-of-Return
Carrier must impute an amount equal to
the Access Recovery Charge for each
Consumer Broadband-Only Loop line
that receives support pursuant to
§ 54.901 of this chapter, with the
imputation applied before CAF–ICC
recovery is determined. * * *
(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (f)(4)
of this section, commencing July 1, 2018
and ending June 30, 2023, the maximum
total dollar amount a carrier must
impute on supported consumer
broadband-only loops is limited as
follows:
(i) For the affected tariff year, the
carrier shall compare the amounts in
paragraphs (f)(5)(i)(A) and (B) of this
section.
(A) The sum of the revenues from
projected Access Recovery Charges
assessed pursuant to paragraph (e) of
this section, any amounts imputed
pursuant to paragraph (f)(2) of this
section, and any imputation pursuant to
paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
(B) The sum of the revenues from
Access Recovery Charges assessed
pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section
and any amounts imputed pursuant to
paragraph (f)(2) of this section for tariff
year 2015–16, after being trued-up.
(ii) If the amount determined in
paragraph (f)(5)(i)(A) of this section is
greater than the amount determined in
paragraph (f)(5)(i)(B), the sum of the
revenues from projected Access
Recovery Charges assessed pursuant to
paragraph (e) of this section and any
amounts imputed pursuant to paragraph
(f)(2) of this section for the affected year
must be compared to the amount
determined in paragraph (f)(5)(ii)(B) of
this section.
(A) If the former amount is greater
than the latter amount, no imputation is
made on Consumer Broadband-Only
Loops.
(B) If the former amount is equal to or
less than the latter amount, the
imputation on Consumer BroadbandOnly Loops is limited to the difference
between the two amounts.
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
*
PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE
3. The authority citation for part 54
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201,
205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302
unless otherwise noted.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:13 Apr 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
4. Amend § 54.319 by revising
paragraph (g) introductory text to read
as follows:
14189
*
*
*
*
(g) For any incumbent local exchange
carrier for which the disaggregated
support for competitive census blocks
represents 25 percent or more of the
support the carrier would have received
in the study area in the absence of this
rule, support shall be reduced for each
competitive census block according to
the following schedule:
*
*
*
*
*
PART 69—ACCESS CHARGES
[FR Doc. 2018–06488 Filed 4–2–18; 8:45 am]
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2017–0017;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–BB45
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Threatened Species Status
for Yellow Lance
■
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 203,
205, 218, 220, 254, 403.
SUMMARY:
5. The authority citation for part 69
continues to read as follows:
6. Amend § 69.311 by revising the
introductory text of paragraph (b) and
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 69.311 Consumer Broadband-Only Loop
investment.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Until June 30, 2018, the consumer
broadband-only loop investment to be
removed from the special access
category shall be determined using the
following estimation method.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Beginning July 1, 2018, each
carrier shall determine, consistent with
the Part 36 and Part 69 cost allocation
rules, the amount of Consumer
Broadband-Only Loop investment and
related reserves and other investment
assigned to the interstate Special Access
category that is to be shifted to the
Consumer Broadband-Only Loop
category.
■ 7. Amend § 69.416 by revising the
introductory text of paragraph (b) and
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 69.416 Consumer Broadband-Only Loop
expenses.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Until June 30, 2018, the consumer
broadband-only loop expenses to be
removed from the special access
category shall be determined using the
following estimation method.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Beginning July 1, 2018, each
carrier shall determine, consistent with
the Part 36 and Part 69 cost allocation
rules, the amount of Consumer
Broadband-Only Loop expenses
assigned to the interstate Special Access
category that are to be shifted to the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), determine
threatened species status under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA or Act), for yellow lance
(Elliptio lanceolata), a mussel species
from Maryland, Virginia, and North
Carolina. The effect of this regulation
will be to add this species to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
DATES: This rule is effective May 3,
2018.
This final rule is available
on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov in Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2017–0017 and https://
www.fws.gov/southeast/. Comments and
materials we received, as well as
supporting documentation we used in
preparing this rule, are available for
public inspection at https://
www.regulations.gov. Comments,
materials, and documentation that we
considered in this rulemaking will be
available by appointment, during
normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological
Services Field Office, 551F Pylon Drive,
Raleigh, NC 27606; 919–856–4520.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete
Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological
Services Field Office, 551F Pylon Drive,
Raleigh, NC 27606 or telephone 919–
856–4520. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Supporting Documents
A species status assessment (SSA)
team prepared an SSA report for the
yellow lance. The SSA team was
E:\FR\FM\03APR1.SGM
03APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14185-14189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06488]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 51, 54, and 69
[WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58; CC Docket No. 01-92; FCC 18-13]
Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission reconsiders rules adopted in
the Rate-of-Return Reform Order. Specifically, the Commission replaces
the surrogate cost methods for Consumer Only Broadband Loops, revises
CBOL imputation rules, and lastly, clarifies matters concerning
reductions in the Connect America Fund Broadband Loop Support. Further
review of the record supports the adjustments, and further promotes the
Commission's goals of providing certainty and stability for carriers
and continued consumer access to advanced telecommunications and
information services.
DATES: Effective May 3, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Goldberg, Wireline
Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at (202) 418-1540 or at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Order on Reconsideration and Clarification, WC Docket Nos. 10-90 and
14-58, CC Docket No. 01-92; FCC 18-13, released on February 16, 2018. A
full-text copy of this document may be obtained at the following
internet address: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-18-13A1.docx.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. By the Second Order on Reconsideration and Clarification
(Order), we reconsider rules adopted in the Rate-of-Return Reform Order
relating to rate-of-return local exchange carriers' (LECs) provision of
consumer broadband-only loops (CBOLs). First, we revise our rules to
replace the surrogate cost method for determining the cost of CBOLs
with rules employing existing separations and cost allocation
procedures. Second, we revise the rule requiring rate-of-return
carriers to impute on CBOLs an amount equal to the Access Recovery
Charge (ARC) that could have been assessed on a voice or voice/
broadband line to better implement our intent to maintain the balance
between end user charges and universal service adopted in the USF/ICC
Transformation Order. Finally, we clarify two matters pertaining to
reductions in Connect America Fund Broadband Loop Support (CAF BLS) due
to competitive overlap. Making these adjustments to the rules for rate-
of-return carriers serves the Commission's goals of providing more
certainty and stability for carriers investing for the future, thereby
ensuring that all consumers have access
[[Page 14186]]
to advanced telecommunications and information services.
II. Background
2. In the Rate-of-Return Reform Order, the Commission revised its
approach to providing universal service support to rate-of-return LECs.
The Commission adopted a voluntary path under which rate-of-return
carriers could elect model-based support for a term of 10 years in
exchange for meeting defined build-out obligations. For carriers not
electing model-based support, among other things, the Commission
modernized the existing interstate common line support rules to provide
support in situations where customers subscribe to stand-alone
broadband service, instead of traditional regulated local exchange
voice service.
3. To implement the provision of universal service support for
stand-alone broadband, the Commission defined a new type of service
that would receive such support--CBOL service. Because CBOL costs were
included in the Special Access category by the separations and Part 69
cost allocation rules, the Commission required carriers to shift CBOL
costs from the Special Access category to a new CBOL category. The goal
was to avoid including such CBOL costs in the determination of just and
reasonable rates for special access services and to develop the support
mechanism and tariff rates for CBOL service. Reasoning that CBOL costs
were similar to common line costs, the Commission decided to use common
line costs as a surrogate for identifying the CBOL costs to be shifted
from the Special Access category to the CBOL category for each CBOL.
This process is referred to as the ``surrogate method.'' The surrogate
method included the broadest definition of loop costs feasible based on
the Commission's then-current cost accounting rules. It also was
intended to identify those costs in an expansive manner, to segregate
the broadband-only loop investment and expenses from other special
access costs currently included in the Special Access category, and to
preclude cross-subsidization. The Commission recognized, however, that
it might be appropriate to revisit the surrogate method in the future
if it was not working as intended.
4. In the course of implementing the new rules and carrier
introduction of the new CBOL service, it became apparent that, in
certain limited situations, the surrogate cost methodology over-
allocated costs out of the Special Access category, thereby reducing
the revenue requirement and resulting special access services rates
more than intended; indeed, in the worst case scenario, rates would
have been reduced to zero. Concluding that it would be unreasonable to
apply the surrogate method in such circumstances, the Wireline
Competition Bureau (Bureau) granted a limited waiver of sections 69.311
and 69.416 of the Commission's rules in cases where use of the
surrogate cost method would result in such unintended rate reductions.
The Bureau granted a similar limited waiver of the rules concerning use
of the surrogate cost method for the 2017 annual access charge tariff
filing, and any later tariff filings related to the development of the
CBOL revenue requirement.
5. In the Rate-of-Return Reform Order, the Commission also adopted
a rule requiring that rate-of-return carriers impute an amount equal to
the ARC on CBOL service as part of the process of calculating their CAF
ICC Support. The Commission anticipated the migration of some end users
from their current voice/broadband offerings to supported broadband-
only lines due to increased affordability of these services. It
recognized that as such migration occurred, the reduction in the number
of ARC-eligible lines would require carriers to recover more from CAF
ICC support. To help maintain the careful balance between end-user
charges and universal service support adopted in the USF/ICC
Transformation Order, the Commission adopted the ARC imputation rule
for CBOL service. Those rules do not distinguish between carriers'
revenue from new and existing broadband only loop subscribers.
6. NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association filed a petition asking
the Commission to reconsider portions of the Rate-of-Return Reform
Order. Among other things, NTCA asks that the Commission reconsider the
surrogate method for estimating CBOL costs, and instead adopt a more
cost-based method. NTCA also requests that the Commission reconsider
the ARC imputation rule and grandfather stand-alone broadband
connections in place as of September 30, 2011 from imputation of the
ARC amounts.
7. Further, the Commission also adopted rules in the Rate-of-Return
Reform Order to eliminate CAF BLS in census blocks served by an
unsubsidized competitor. The Commission recognized that the census
blocks served by an unsubsidized competitor are likely to be lower cost
areas, as compared to the other census blocks in the carrier's study
area. Accordingly, the Commission provided that a carrier subject to
competitive overlap may elect one of three methodologies to
``disaggregate'' its support into competitive census blocks (in which
support would be eliminated) and non-competitive census blocks (in
which support would not be eliminated). The Commission further adopted
a plan for transitioning support reductions for areas subject to
competitive overlap.
III. Discussion
8. Upon review of the record, we modify our rules by replacing the
surrogate cost method for determining the cost of CBOLs and revise the
rule requiring rate-of-return carriers to impute an amount equal to the
ARC that could have been assessed on a voice or voice/broadband line.
We also clarify two matters pertaining to the manner in which
competitive overlap can lead to a reduction in CAF BLS. These actions
will further advance our goal of ensuring deployment of advanced
telecommunications and information services networks throughout ``all
regions of the nation.''
A. Replacing the Surrogate Method
9. First, we revise sections 69.311 and 69.416 as set forth in the
Appendix to determine CBOL costs from the Part 36 and Part 69 cost
studies without using a surrogate method. While the surrogate method
produced CBOL cost estimates in the expected ranges for many, if not
most, carriers, in other situations the estimates were problematic. For
a few carriers, particularly those that elected to freeze their
separations category relationships, use of the surrogate method would
have eliminated the Special Access revenue requirement thereby
requiring carriers to offer special access services at no charge. The
costs shifted to the CBOL category are also an input into the amount of
CAF BLS a carrier is eligible to receive; accordingly, this over-
allocation would have had the unintended effect of increasing the
projected revenue requirement for CAF BLS. Because use of the surrogate
method does not result in an appropriate cost allocation for some rate-
of-return carriers, we now reconsider and adopt a different approach
for identifying CBOL costs that should be shifted from the Special
Access category to the CBOL category commencing with the 2018 annual
access charge tariff filings.
10. We find the approach suggested by NTCA to be a significantly
better approach than the surrogate method. NTCA proposes that the
Commission revise section 69.311(b) to specify that broadband-only
investment shall equal the amount of broadband-only loop investment
included in CWF Category 2
[[Page 14187]]
Wideband and COE Category 4.11 Wideband Exchange Line Circuit
Equipment, and related reserves and other investment, assigned to
interstate special access pursuant to Parts 36 and 69 of the
Commission's rules. It further proposes that broadband-only loop
expenses should then be determined by reference to such investments. We
note that the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) supported a
similar concept for moving forward. No party has opposed this approach.
11. Rate-of-return carriers, other than average schedule carriers
and those that elected to freeze their separations category
relationships, perform cost studies to implement the Part 36 and 69
cost allocations in the process of establishing interstate access
rates. The approach proposed by NTCA and supported by NECA would use
existing cost categories and allocation procedures to identify the
costs shifted to the CBOL category. Because this approach takes the
actual costs from the cost studies into consideration rather than using
common line costs as a surrogate, it should produce a more accurate
means of identifying and allocating these costs. Under this approach,
carriers can identify and track CBOL investment costs that are directly
assigned to the Special Access category, as well as track indirect
costs to the new CBOL category. Once investments are assigned, the
existing rules provide procedures for allocating expenses among
categories in a consistent manner that will allow carriers to determine
the expenses associated with CBOL services and shift them to the CBOL
category. In addition to producing more accurate results, using the
current cost study process minimizes the burden on carriers and the
likelihood of cost variability and distortions in future years.
12. While NTCA proposes specific assignment categories--separations
category 2.1, cable and wire facilities, and category 4.1.1, circuit
equipment--we find that the better approach is to be less specific
concerning permitted cost categories. The Federal-State Joint Board on
Jurisdictional Separations is considering reforms of the separations
procedures that have been frozen since 2000. More generic rule language
will simplify harmonization of any reforms adopted in that proceeding
with the cost allocation rules in Part 69. Therefore, the new rules
will require rate-of-return carriers to use direct assignment
principles to the extent possible before making any indirect
allocations.
13. Rate-of-return carriers shall use the revised procedures for
determining broadband-only line costs to be shifted beginning July 1,
2018. Such carriers have already completed the cost studies necessary
for developing data related to support amounts and access rates for
tariff year 2017 and the Second Cost Surrogate Waiver Order mitigated
the most significant short-term concerns with the surrogate method.
Moreover, the changes we adopt largely reflect longer-term
considerations. Making the revisions to these rules applicable
beginning July 1, 2018 allows carriers to plan for these changes as
part of the next annual access tariff filings.
B. ARC Imputation
14. Upon further consideration, we also revise, effective for a
period of five years, section 51.917(f) of our rules to address NTCA's
concern that, under the existing rule, a carrier's CAF ICC support is
reduced because of the imputation of an amount on CBOLs that was not
part of the balance struck in the USF/ICC Transformation Order. NTCA
argues that ``[a] standalone broadband connection in place as of
September 30, 2011 was never included within the CAF-ICC baseline and
thus was not part of the `careful balancing' that went into
establishing the mechanism.'' Other parties support reconsideration of
the ARC imputation rule and the solution proposed by NTCA.
15. We agree with NTCA that our focus on reconsideration should be
on the goal of balancing end-user and universal service support adopted
in the USF/ICC Transformation Order. The ARC imputation for CBOLs was
intended to ensure that new support for CBOLs would not unduly increase
CAF ICC. Although the ARC imputation achieves that goal, we agree with
NTCA that, as implemented, the ARC imputation may unduly penalize rate-
of-return carriers that offered stand-alone broadband connections
before the Rate-of-Return Reform Order. As such, we believe adjusting
the ARC imputation calculation is appropriate. At the same time,
however, we are mindful of the concerns raised by NTCA regarding the
need to ensure that any exemption that we create ``be properly targeted
and limit potential adverse impacts on carriers that do not qualify for
such an exemption.''
16. We limit the ARC imputation amount so that the total ARC
revenues and imputation for the current tariff period will not exceed a
pre-Rate-of-Return Reform Order baseline as a result of CBOL
imputation. Specifically, we set the baseline as the ARC revenues from
the most recent tariff period prior to the effective date of the CBOL
imputation rule (tariff year 2015-16). Under this approach, a rate-of-
return carrier's CAF ICC support will be reduced by the ARC imputation
on CBOLs only if a carrier's maximum assessable ARCs and imputed CBOL
ARCs falls short of the baseline amount. We revise section 51.917(f) of
the Commission's rules to explain the process for making the necessary
comparisons and any resulting imputation on CBOLs.
17. The revisions to section 51.917(f) rules will take effect on
July 1, 2018, the date that the upcoming annual access tariffs will
take effect. This effective date will simplify implementation and avoid
any complications that would occur as a result of a need to true-up
such amounts in 2019. All rate-of-return carriers must reflect the
effects of these rule revisions in their Tariff Review Plans for the
June 2018 annual access charge tariff filings. We adopt NTCA's
recommendation to sunset section 51.917(f)(5), the provision
implementing our revisions to the imputation requirement, after five
years. We believe that such a limitation is warranted in light of our
currently-limited experience with CAF-supported CBOL-based service. We
will monitor the effects of section 51.917(f)(5) during that period and
take further action as necessary.
18. We reject the grandfathering approach suggested by NTCA. That
approach raises unnecessarily complicated administrative issues with
respect to the determination and verification of the number of stand-
alone broadband lines in service on September 30, 2011. We also
question whether a simple frozen number of lines is the best approach
since some turnover would be expected over time. For these reasons, we
decline to adopt the grandfathering solution suggested by NTCA.
C. Clarification of Competitive Overlap Procedures
19. In addition to the issues on reconsideration addressed above,
we also clarify two matters related to reductions in support due to the
competitive overlap procedure adopted in the Rate-of-Return Reform
Order.
20. First we clarify the reduction amounts associated with the
second disaggregation method. In the Rate-of-Return Reform Order, the
Commission published a table showing the ``reduction ratio'' for
specified ``competitive ratios'' (i.e., the ratio of competitive square
miles to non-competitive square miles in a study area). While the table
sets forth a precise reduction ratio for each competitive ratio that
was listed, it did not clearly reflect the intent of the Commission
with respect to the reduction ratios that
[[Page 14188]]
should apply to competitive ratios in between the specified competitive
ratios. The table below fills in the gaps in accordance with the
Commission's clear intent and replaces the table in the Rate-of-Return
Reform Order.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Competitive ratio Reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
But no more
More than (%) than (%) Ratio (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............................................. 20 N/A
20............................................ 25 3.3
25............................................ 30 6.7
30............................................ 35 10.0
35............................................ 40 13.3
40............................................ 45 16.7
45............................................ 50 20.0
50............................................ 55 25.0
55............................................ 60 30.0
60............................................ 65 35.0
65............................................ 70 40.0
70............................................ 75 45.0
75............................................ 80 50.0
80............................................ 85 62.5
85............................................ 90 75.0
90............................................ 95 87.5
95............................................ 100 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Second, in discussing the transition to support reductions and
in the associated rule, the Commission referred to the transition
schedule where the CAF BLS subject to competitive overlap is ``more
than 25 percent'' of total CAF BLS. This reference was in contrast to
areas ``where the reduction of CAF BLS from competitive census block(s)
represents less than 25 percent of the total CAF BLS support the
carrier would have received in the study area in the absence of this
rule.'' To prevent a gap when the reduction is exactly 25 percent, we
clarify that that schedule applies where the CAF BLS subject to
competitive overlap is 25 percent or more of total CAF BLS, and modify
section 54.319(g) to reflect that clarification.
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
22. This document does not contain new or modified information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. Therefore, it does not contain any new or
modified information collection burdens 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).
B. Congressional Review Act
23. The Commission will send a copy of this Second Order on
Reconsideration and Clarification to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification
24. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
requires agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.'' The RFA generally defines ``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).
25. This Order amends rules adopted in the Rate-of-Return Reform
Order by replacing the surrogate cost method for calculating the costs
of Consumer Broadband-only Loops (CBOLs) and revising the Access
Recovery Charge (ARC) imputation rules for CBOLs. These revisions do
not create any burdens, benefits, or requirements that were not
addressed by the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis attached to the
Rate-of-Return Reform Order. Therefore, we certify that the rule
revisions adopted in this Second Order on Reconsideration and
Clarification will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
26. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Order on
Reconsideration and Clarification, including a copy of this Final
Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act. In addition, the Second Order on Reconsideration and
Clarification and this Final Certification will be sent to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, and will be published in the Federal
Register.
V. Ordering Clauses
27. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained
in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 205, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r),
332, 403, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and
section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
154(i), 155, 205, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403,
405, 1302, that this Second Order on Reconsideration and Clarification
is adopted, effective thirty (30) days after publication of the text or
summary thereof in the Federal Register.
28. It is further ordered that Parts 51, 54, and 69 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR parts 51, 54, and 69, are amended as set
forth in the Appendix, and such rule amendments shall be effective
thirty (30) days after publication of the rules amendments in the
Federal Register.
29. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of
this Second Order on Reconsideration and Clarification to Congress and
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
30. It is further ordered, that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Second Order on Reconsideration and Clarification,
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
31. It is further ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration
and/or Clarification of NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association filed May
25, 2016, is granted in part as described herein.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 51
Communications common carriers, Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 54
Communications common carriers, Health facilities, Infants and
children, Internet, Libraries, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Schools, Telecommunications, Telephone.
47 CFR Part 69
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 51, 54 and 69 as follows:
PART 51--INTERCONNECTION
0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-55, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 220, 225-27,
251-54, 256, 271, 303(r), 332, 1302.
[[Page 14189]]
0
2. Amend Sec. 51.917 by revising the first sentence of paragraph
(f)(4) and adding paragraph (f)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.917 Revenue recovery for Rate-of-Return Carriers.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(4) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(5) of this section, a Rate-
of-Return Carrier must impute an amount equal to the Access Recovery
Charge for each Consumer Broadband-Only Loop line that receives support
pursuant to Sec. 54.901 of this chapter, with the imputation applied
before CAF-ICC recovery is determined. * * *
(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (f)(4) of this section, commencing
July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2023, the maximum total dollar amount
a carrier must impute on supported consumer broadband-only loops is
limited as follows:
(i) For the affected tariff year, the carrier shall compare the
amounts in paragraphs (f)(5)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) The sum of the revenues from projected Access Recovery Charges
assessed pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, any amounts imputed
pursuant to paragraph (f)(2) of this section, and any imputation
pursuant to paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
(B) The sum of the revenues from Access Recovery Charges assessed
pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section and any amounts imputed
pursuant to paragraph (f)(2) of this section for tariff year 2015-16,
after being trued-up.
(ii) If the amount determined in paragraph (f)(5)(i)(A) of this
section is greater than the amount determined in paragraph
(f)(5)(i)(B), the sum of the revenues from projected Access Recovery
Charges assessed pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section and any
amounts imputed pursuant to paragraph (f)(2) of this section for the
affected year must be compared to the amount determined in paragraph
(f)(5)(ii)(B) of this section.
(A) If the former amount is greater than the latter amount, no
imputation is made on Consumer Broadband-Only Loops.
(B) If the former amount is equal to or less than the latter
amount, the imputation on Consumer Broadband-Only Loops is limited to
the difference between the two amounts.
PART 54--UNIVERSAL SERVICE
0
3. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220,
254, 303(r), 403, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.
0
4. Amend Sec. 54.319 by revising paragraph (g) introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 54.319 Elimination of high-cost support in areas with 100
percent coverage by an unsubsidized competitor.
* * * * *
(g) For any incumbent local exchange carrier for which the
disaggregated support for competitive census blocks represents 25
percent or more of the support the carrier would have received in the
study area in the absence of this rule, support shall be reduced for
each competitive census block according to the following schedule:
* * * * *
PART 69--ACCESS CHARGES
0
5. The authority citation for part 69 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 220, 254,
403.
0
6. Amend Sec. 69.311 by revising the introductory text of paragraph
(b) and adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 69.311 Consumer Broadband-Only Loop investment.
* * * * *
(b) Until June 30, 2018, the consumer broadband-only loop
investment to be removed from the special access category shall be
determined using the following estimation method.
* * * * *
(c) Beginning July 1, 2018, each carrier shall determine,
consistent with the Part 36 and Part 69 cost allocation rules, the
amount of Consumer Broadband-Only Loop investment and related reserves
and other investment assigned to the interstate Special Access category
that is to be shifted to the Consumer Broadband-Only Loop category.
0
7. Amend Sec. 69.416 by revising the introductory text of paragraph
(b) and adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 69.416 Consumer Broadband-Only Loop expenses.
* * * * *
(b) Until June 30, 2018, the consumer broadband-only loop expenses
to be removed from the special access category shall be determined
using the following estimation method.
* * * * *
(c) Beginning July 1, 2018, each carrier shall determine,
consistent with the Part 36 and Part 69 cost allocation rules, the
amount of Consumer Broadband-Only Loop expenses assigned to the
interstate Special Access category that are to be shifted to the
Consumer Broadband-Only Loop category.
[FR Doc. 2018-06488 Filed 4-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
