31458 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED ALABAMA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State 

effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

Chapter No. 335–1–1 Organization 

Section 335–1–1–.03 .............. Organization and Duties of 

the Commission.

12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Section 335–1–1–.04 .............. Organization of the Department.12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED ALABAMA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal date/ 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing the state board 

requirements of sections 

128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing the state board 

requirements of sections 

128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2012 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing the state board 

requirements of sections 

128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS.

Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing the state board 

requirements of sections 

128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.

Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing the state board 

requirements of sections 

128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS.

Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing the state board 

requirements of sections 

128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS.

Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing the state board 

requirements of sections 

128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

only. 

§ 52.53 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 52.53 is amended by 

removing paragraphs (a) through (e). 

[FR Doc. 2018–14525 Filed 7–5–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 10–90; FCC 18–53] 

Connect America Fund 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) addresses the petition for 

reconsideration filed by Alaska 

Communications Systems (ACS) of the 

October 31, 2016 Commission’s ACS 

Connect America Fund (CAF) Phase II 

Order. The Commission denies the 

petition. 

DATES: The denial of the petition for 

reconsideration is effective August 6, 

2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Minard, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or 

TTY: (202) 418–0484. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31459 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order on 

Reconsideration in WC Docket Nos. 10– 

90; FCC 18–53, adopted on April 25, 

2018 and released on April 26, 2018. 

The full text of this document is 

available for public inspection during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445 

12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554 

or at the following internet address: 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fccaddresses-alaska-communicationssystems-high-cost-petition. 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Order, the Commission 

addresses the petition for 

reconsideration filed by ACS of the 

October 31, 2016 Commission ACS CAF 

Phase II Order. The ACS CAF II Order, 

81 FR 83706, November 22, 2016, 

established the CAF Phase II voice and 

broadband service obligations for ACS. 

In its petition, ACS seeks 

reconsideration of the Commission’s 

definition of ‘‘high-cost,’’ which the 

Commission adopted to provide ACS 

flexibility to meet its service 

commitment by deploying to certain 

locations within census blocks that 

otherwise have been identified as ‘‘low 

cost.’’ The Commission required ACS to 

certify, in order to take advantage of that 

flexibility, that its minimum capital 

expenditure (capex) for each location in 

the ‘‘low cost’’ census block was at least 

$5,000, whereas ACS asks that the 

threshold be lowered to $2,577.79. 

2. The Commission hereby denies the 

ACS petition. In denying the petition, 

the Commission determines that it 

struck an appropriate balance in 

providing ACS some flexibility in 

meeting its service commitment, while 

ensuring that high-cost support is 

targeted to areas that need it most. 

II. Discussion 

3. The Commission denies ACS’ 

petition to reconsider the conditions the 

Commission placed on the flexibility it 

granted ACS. In structuring support, the 

Commission adopted a tailored 

approach that reflects the unique 

challenges of serving Alaska, while 

preserving and adhering to its 

fundamental universal service 

principles and policies—including 

targeting support to locations that are 

truly in need of support. In its petition, 

ACS states that it ‘‘objects to none of 

[the] conditions [of substituting highcost locations in low-cost census 

blocks], but seeks reconsideration only 

of the meaning of ‘high-cost’ in [that] 

context.’’ 

4. As a matter of policy, the 

Commission decided that the minimum 

capex for permitting ACS to substitute 

a location in a low-cost census block for 

a location in a high-cost census block 

would be $5,000 as a way of prioritizing 

support going to higher-cost unserved 

locations even when allowing ACS to 

forego deploying to locations in modelidentified eligible census blocks. Setting 

the threshold at or near the lower bound 

of what ACS estimates is the capex 

required to serve a location in a highcost census block would counter the 

Commission’s objective in the ACS CAF 

II Order, because it would allow funding 

to be re-directed to relatively lower cost 

locations while leaving higher cost 

locations unserved. These relatively 

lower cost locations that would be 

eligible under the revised threshold are 

precisely the locations that are more 

likely to be served even in the absence 

of universal service support. 

Particularly given that ACS does not 

propose that their support levels be 

adjusted to account for the fact that they 

would be serving relatively lower cost 

locations, granting the ACS request 

would work against the Commission’s 

efforts to efficiently serve the higher 

cost locations which are least likely to 

be served apart from universal service 

support. Therefore, the Commission 

chose to set the minimum threshold at 

the average capex for locations in highcost areas otherwise available to ACS, 

instead of at the lower bound otherwise 

used for determining funded locations. 

This decision thus made sure such 

flexibility was available to ACS only in 

instances where the location is among 

the more costly to serve. 

5. As the steward of the limited 

Universal Service Fund (USF), the 

Commission has discretion to tailor 

high-cost support to areas that are the 

most costly to serve. It is reasonable and 

entirely within the Commission’s 

authority to limit the flexibility by 

prioritizing deployment to locations 

with a greater need for funding, based 

on the amount of capex ACS actually 

spends. ACS seems to concede this is a 

lawful and proper exercise of the 

Commission’s discretion as it seeks even 

greater flexibility. The $5,000 minimum 

threshold ensures that ACS is meeting 

its obligation to serve the locations in 

model-determined high-cost areas, 

while allowing ACS some flexibility to 

exchange some unserved locations in 

adjacent census blocks for which the 

cost model did not calculate support, 

but which nevertheless ultimately are 

among the costliest for ACS to serve. As 

the flexibility to swap locations is an 

exception based on the unique 

circumstance of ACS in Alaska, the 

Commission finds that establishing this 

limit is reasonable and consistent with 

its overarching universal service 

principal and policies. The Commission 

is not persuaded by ACS’s arguments 

that there is no reasonable basis for the 

$5,000 minimum capex certification 

requirement or that this obligation is 

contrary to the public interest. 

6. ACS is also misguided in arguing 

that the $5,000 minimum threshold will 

leave certain locations unserved and 

deny support to locations that are 

otherwise entitled to it. ACS is not 

required to substitute any locations, and 

regardless of whether it does, must still 

deploy to 31,571 locations by the end of 

the term of support. The Commission 

made a limited exception in the ACS 

CAF II Order that allows ACS to use 

high-cost support in model-determined 

low-cost census blocks where the 

population is lacking service and where 

it is very costly. Although the level of 

the threshold will affect which specific 

locations are served and counted toward 

the requirement, the public interest is 

served because the number of locations 

ACS is required to serve remains the 

same. 

7. ACS has long argued that the CAM 

does not appropriately account for the 

significantly higher costs required to 

build and operate in Alaska. It is due, 

in part, to this advocacy that the 

Commission adopted an ACS-specific 

order. However, accepting ACS’s 

premise that the CAM underestimates 

locations’ costs would counsel against 

establishing a threshold at the lower end 

of what ACS’s own analysis of the CAM 

would define as a high-cost location. To 

use a threshold at such a level would 

imply that the Commission should 

allow ACS the flexibility to substitute 

locations that may not even require 

support while abandoning locations that 

are clearly in need of high-cost support. 

This is because accepting the premise 

that the CAM underestimates costs 

would suggest the lower bound 

threshold ACS proposes is likely too 

low. By setting the threshold at $5,000 

per location, the Commission was able 

to allow for some flexibility while also 

reducing subsidization of lower cost 

locations. Based on ACS’ 

representations regarding capex costs in 

Alaska and the costs to build to these 

unserved locations, meeting this 

threshold should not be problematic. 

Therefore, the Commission finds its 

decision was reasoned and serves the 

public interest. ACS provided nothing 

in its Petition that persuades us to alter 

this requirement. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31460 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

III. Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

8. This document does not contain 

new information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it 

does not contain any new or 

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). 

B. Congressional Review Act 

9. The Commission will send a copy 

of this Report and Order to Congress 

and the Government Accountability 

Office pursuant to the Congressional 

Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

10. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1, 4(j), 214, 254, and 405 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(j), 214, 

254, and 405 and § 1.429 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.429, that 

this Order is adopted. 

11. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to the authority contained in sections 1, 

4(j), 214, 254, and 405 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(j), 214, 

254, and 405, and § 1.429 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the 

Petition for Reconsideration of the 

Commission’s Order, filed by Alaska 

Communications, is denied as discussed 

herein. 

12. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to the authority contained in § 1.103 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.103, 

this Order shall be effective August 6, 

2018. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14148 Filed 7–5–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 170714670–8561–02] 

RIN 0648–BH05 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Reclassifying Squid 

Species in the BSAI and GOA 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues regulations to 

implement Amendment 117 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(BSAI FMP), implement Amendment 

106 to the Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA 

FMP), and update the species code 

tables for octopus. This final rule 

prohibits directed fishing for the squid 

species complex (squids) by Federally 

permitted groundfish fishermen, 

specifies a squid retention limit in the 

Gulf of Alaska (GOA) groundfish 

fisheries consistent with the existing 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area (BSAI) squid 

retention limit, and makes minor 

corrections to the octopus species code 

tables. This action is intended to 

promote the goals and objectives of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, the 

FMPs, and other applicable laws. 

DATES: Effective August 6, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of 

Amendment 117 to the BSAI FMP, 

Amendment 106 to the GOA FMP, and 

the Environmental Assessment/ 

Regulatory Impact Review (collectively 

the ‘‘Analysis’’) prepared for this action 

may be obtained from 

www.regulations.gov. 

Electronic copies of the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analyses for the 

BSAI and GOA Groundfish Harvest 

Specifications for 2018 and 2019 may be 

obtained from www.regulations.gov. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this final rule 

may be submitted by mail to NMFS, 

Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, 

AK 99082–1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, 

Records Officer; in person at NMFS, 

Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, 

Room 420A, Juneau, AK; by email to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov; or by 

fax to (202) 395–5806. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan Mackey, (907) 586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for Action 

NMFS manages the groundfish 

fisheries in the exclusive economic 

zones of the BSAI and GOA under the 

BSAI FMP and GOA FMP (collectively 

the FMPs). The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

prepared the FMPs under the authority 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq. Regulations implementing the 

FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. 

General regulations governing U.S. 

fisheries appear at 50 CFR part 600. 

This final rule implements 

Amendments 117/106 and updates the 

species code for octopus in several 

tables to 50 CFR part 679. The Council 

submitted Amendments 117/106 for 

review by the Secretary of Commerce, 

and the notice of availability of these 

amendments was published in the 

Federal Register on March 27, 2018, 

with comments invited through May 29, 

2018 (83 FR 13117). NMFS published 

the proposed rule for this action on 

April 11, 2018 (83 FR 15538), with 

comments invited through May 11, 

2018. NMFS received three comment 

letters from three members of the 

public. The comments are summarized 

and responded to under the heading 

‘‘Comments and Responses’’ below. 

A detailed review of the provisions 

and rationale for this action is provided 

in the preamble to the proposed rule 

and is briefly summarized in this final 

rule. 

Background 

In June 2017, the Council voted 

unanimously to recommend FMP 

Amendments 117/106 to reclassify 

squids as non-target ecosystem 

component species, not in need of 

conservation and management. Squids 

are currently classified as target species 

in the FMPs, though as discussed below, 

squids are currently only caught 

incidental to other target fisheries. To 

implement FMP Amendments 117/106, 

NMFS implements regulations to 

prohibit directed fishing for squids by 

Federally permitted groundfish 

fishermen and to specify a squid 

retention limit in the GOA groundfish 

fisheries consistent with the existing 

BSAI squid retention limit. The 

following sections of this preamble 

describe (1) groundfish stock 

classification in FMPs and a brief 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES