35582 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 

2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 

3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 

FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

Dated: July 19, 2018. 

Arturo Blanco, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16121 Filed 7–26–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2003–0010; FRL–9981– 

25—Region 5] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Partial 

Deletion of the Peters Cartridge 

Factory Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notification of 

intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 5 is issuing a 

Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of 

the Former Process Area (FPA) of the 

Peters Cartridge Factory Superfund Site 

(Peters Cartridge Site) located in Kings 

Mills, Ohio from the National Priorities 

List (NPL) and requests public 

comments on this proposed action. The 

NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 

105 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an 

appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and 

the State of Ohio, through the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(OEPA), have determined that all 

appropriate response actions at the FPA 

under CERCLA, other than 

maintenance, monitoring and five-year 

reviews, have been completed. 

However, this deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 27, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2003–0010, by mail to 

Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion 

Coordinator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 5 (SR–6J), 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 

60604. Comments may also be 

submitted electronically or through 

hand delivery/courier by following the 

detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES

section of the direct final rule located in 

the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion 

Coordinator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 5 (SR–6J), 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 

60604, Phone: (312) 886–6036, email: 

cano.randolph@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

today’s Federal Register, we are 

publishing a direct final Notice of 

Partial Deletion for the FPA of the Peters 

Cartridge Site simultaneously with this 

Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion 

because EPA views this as a 

noncontroversial revision and 

anticipates no adverse comment. We 

have explained our reasons for this 

partial deletion in the preamble to the 

direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, 

and those reasons are incorporated 

herein. If we receive no adverse 

comment(s) on this partial deletion 

action, we will not take further action 

on this Notice of Intent for Partial 

Deletion. If we receive adverse 

comment(s), we will withdraw the 

direct final Notice of Partial Deletion 

and it will not take effect. We will, as 

appropriate, address all public 

comments in a subsequent final Notice 

of Partial Deletion based on this Notice 

of Intent for Partial Deletion. We will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this Notice of Intent for Partial 

Deletion. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final Notice of Partial Deletion 

which is located in the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 

2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 

3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 

FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

Dated July 17, 2018. 

Cathy Stepp, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16122 Filed 7–26–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 36 

[WC Docket No. 80–286; FCC 18–99] 

Jurisdictional Separations and Referral 

to the Federal-State Joint Board 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission proposes to extend the 

freeze of jurisdictional separations 

category relationships and cost 

allocation factors for 15 years. The 

Commission also proposes to provide 

rate-of-return carriers who elected to 

freeze their category relationships a time 

limited opportunity to opt out of that 

freeze. The Commission invites 

comment on these proposals, on 

whether it should modify any other 

aspects of the separations freeze, and on 

whether it should alter the scope of its 

referral to the Federal State Joint Board 

on Jurisdictional Separations (Joint 

Board) regarding comprehensive 

separations reform. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

August 27, 2018. Reply comments are 

due on or before September 10, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by WC Docket 80–286, by any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Website: http://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: 888– 

835–5322. 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marvin Sacks, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at (202) 

418–2017 or via email at marvin.sacks@

fcc.gov. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35583 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further 

Notice), FCC 18–99, released July 18, 

2018. A full-text version of the 

document can be obtained at the 

following internet address: https://

www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposesextend-jurisdictional-separations-freeze. 

I. Background 

A. The Jurisdictional Separations 

Process 

1. Rate-of-return incumbent local 

exchange carriers (LECs) use their 

networks and other resources to provide 

both interstate and intrastate services. 

To help prevent the recovery of the 

same costs from both the interstate and 

intrastate jurisdictions, the 

Commission’s rules require that rate-ofreturn incumbent LECs divide their 

costs and revenues between the 

respective jurisdictions. These 

‘‘jurisdictional separations’’ rules were 

designed to ensure that rate-of-return 

incumbent LECs apportion the costs of 

their regulated services between the 

interstate or intrastate jurisdictions in a 

manner that reflects the relative use of 

their networks to provide interstate or 

intrastate services. 

2. Jurisdictional separations is the 

third step in a four-step regulatory 

process. First, a rate-of-return carrier 

records its costs and revenues in various 

accounts using the Uniform System of 

Accounts prescribed by the 

Commission’s part 32 rules. Second, the 

carrier divides the costs and revenues in 

these accounts between regulated and 

nonregulated activities in accordance 

with the Commission’s part 64 rules, a 

step that helps ensure that the costs of 

nonregulated activities will not be 

recovered through regulated interstate 

rates. Third, the carrier separates the 

regulated costs and revenues between 

the interstate and intrastate jurisdictions 

using the Commission’s part 36 

jurisdictional separations rules. Finally, 

the carrier apportions the interstate 

regulated costs among the interexchange 

services and the rate elements that form 

the cost basis for its exchange access 

tariffs. Carriers subject to rate-of-return 

regulation perform this apportionment 

in accordance with the Commission’s 

part 69 rules. 

3. Rate-of-return incumbent LECs 

perform annual cost studies that include 

jurisdictional separations. The 

jurisdictional separations analysis 

begins with the categorization of the 

incumbent LEC’s regulated costs and 

expenses, requiring the incumbent LEC 

to assign the regulated costs and 

revenues recorded in its part 32 

accounts to various investment, 

expense, and revenue categories. The 

incumbent LEC then allocates the costs 

or revenues in each category between 

the interstate and intrastate 

jurisdictions. Amounts in categories that 

are used exclusively for interstate or 

intrastate communications are directly 

assigned to the appropriate jurisdiction. 

Amounts in categories that support both 

interstate and intrastate services are 

allocated between the jurisdictions 

using relative use factors or fixed 

allocators. 

4. The vast majority of the 

jurisdictional separations rules were last 

updated more than 30 years ago and 

reflect the mix of services and the 

marketplace circumstances of that time. 

In 1997, the Commission initiated a 

proceeding to comprehensively reform 

those rules to ensure that they reflected 

the statutory, technological, and 

marketplace changes that had affected 

the telecommunications industry. In the 

2001 Separations Freeze Order, the 

Commission, pursuant to a Joint Board 

recommendation, froze the part 36 

separations rules for a five-year period 

beginning July 1, 2001, or until the 

Commission completed comprehensive 

separations reform, whichever came 

first (‘‘the separations freeze’’). 

5. More specifically, the Commission 

adopted a freeze of all part 36 category 

relationships and allocation factors for 

price cap carriers, and a freeze of all 

allocation factors for rate-of-return 

carriers. It also gave rate-of-return 

carriers a one-time option to freeze their 

category relationships, enabling each of 

these carriers to determine whether 

such a freeze would be beneficial 

‘‘based on its own circumstances and 

investment plans.’’ The election 

deadline to opt into the category 

relationships freeze was June 30, 2001. 

6. In adopting the separations freeze, 

the Commission concluded that several 

issues, including the separations 

treatment of internet traffic, should be 

addressed in the context of 

comprehensive separations reform. The 

Commission further concluded that the 

freeze would provide stability and 

regulatory certainty for incumbent LECs 

by minimizing any impacts on 

separations results that might occur due 

to circumstances not contemplated by 

the Commission’s part 36 rules, such as 

growth in local competition and the 

adoption of new technologies. The 

Commission also found that a freeze of 

the separations process would reduce 

regulatory burdens on incumbent LECs 

during the transition from a regulated 

monopoly to a deregulated, competitive 

environment in the local 

telecommunications marketplace. 

7. The Commission has since granted 

price cap carriers forbearance from the 

part 36 jurisdictional separations rules. 

As a result, the separations freeze 

applies only to rate-of-return carriers, all 

of whom have frozen allocation factors. 

Those rate-of-return carriers that chose 

to freeze their category relationships in 

2001 assign investment and expenses 

within their part 32 accounts to 

categories using their separations 

category relationships from 2000, and 

allocate their categorized costs between 

the interstate and intrastate jurisdictions 

using their allocation factors from 2000. 

This use of ‘‘frozen’’ category 

relationships and allocation factors frees 

carriers from conducting separations 

studies for the duration of the freeze. 

B. Declining Applicability of 

Jurisdictional Separations Results 

8. Over the years, the Commission has 

undertaken initiatives that reduce the 

role a carrier’s costs play in the 

regulation of rates and in the 

distribution of high-cost universal 

service support. Consequently, the 

significance of jurisdictional separations 

results has declined. The first of these 

initiatives was the application of price 

cap regulation to the largest local 

exchange carriers, a step that eventually 

severed the link between separations 

results and interstate rates for those 

carriers. Subsequently, as noted above, 

the Commission forbore from 

application of the jurisdictional 

separations rules to price cap incumbent 

LECs, leaving rate-of-return incumbent 

LECs as the only carriers required to 

comply with the separations rules. More 

recent Commission reforms have 

eliminated the need for cost data for 

large portions of rate-of-return carriers’ 

operations as well. Specifically, in 2011, 

as part of comprehensive reform and 

modernization of the universal service 

and intercarrier compensation systems, 

the Commission adopted rate caps 

(including a transition to bill-and-keep 

for certain rate elements) for switched 

access services for rate-of-return 

carriers, thereby severing the 

relationship between cost and switched 

access rates. In addition, in 2016, the 

Commission gave rate-of-return carriers 

the option of receiving high-cost 

universal service support based on the 

Alternative-Connect America Cost 

Model (A–CAM). More than 200 carriers 

opted to receive A–CAM support, which 

eliminated the need for those carriers to 

perform cost studies that required 

jurisdictional separations to quantify the 

amount of high-cost support for their 

common line offerings. 

9. As a result of these reforms, rateof-return carriers now use separations 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
35584 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

cost results only for the following 

limited purposes: (a) Establishing their 

business data services (special access) 

rates; (b) calculating interstate common 

line support for those carriers that have 

not elected A–CAM support; and (c) 

calculating subscriber line charge (SLC) 

levels for the minority of carriers whose 

SLCs are below the maximum level. The 

Universal Service Administrative 

Company (USAC) uses categorization 

results for calculating high-cost loop 

support, but without applying 

jurisdictional allocations. States also use 

separations results to determine the 

amount of intrastate universal service 

support and to calculate regulatory fees, 

and some states perform rate-of-return 

ratemaking using intrastate costs. 

10. The Commission expects that the 

use of jurisdictional separations will 

continue to decline. For example, earlier 

this year, the Commission adopted a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that 

seeks comment on migrating additional 

rate-of-return carriers to model-based 

support. In a more recent Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission 

proposed to allow A–CAM carriers to 

transition their business data services 

offerings from rate-of-return to 

incentive-based regulation. 

C. Procedural History 

11. The Commission has extended the 

separations freeze seven times, with the 

most recent extension set to expire on 

December 31, 2018. In adopting and 

extending the freeze, the Commission 

has reasoned that the freeze would 

stabilize and simplify the separations 

process while the Joint Board and the 

Commission continued to work on 

separations reform. In its most recent 

freeze extension order, the Commission 

also explained that an extension until 

December 31, 2018, would provide the 

Joint Board with sufficient time to 

consider what effects the Commission’s 

most recent reforms to the high-cost 

universal service program and 

intercarrier compensation should have 

on the separations rules. 

12. Since the Commission initiated 

this proceeding in 1997, the Joint 

Board—comprised of both state and 

federal members—has been attempting 

to develop recommendations for 

comprehensive reform. In response to 

the Commission’s initial referral, the 

State Members of the Joint Board filed 

a report identifying issues they believed 

should be addressed. Over the years, the 

State Members filed policy papers 

setting out options for reform, the 

Commission or the Joint Board sought 

comment, and the Joint Board held 

hearings and meetings to consider the 

various proposals. Nevertheless, despite 

the Commission’s repeated extensions 

of the separations freeze to provide the 

Joint Board with additional time to issue 

a Recommended Decision, the Joint 

Board has not recommended 

comprehensive reforms. 

13. The Commission has twice waived 

the category relationships freeze to 

allow individual carriers to adjust the 

amounts assigned to separations 

categories to reflect network upgrades. 

In 2010, the Commission waived that 

freeze to allow Gila River 

Telecommunications, Inc., a tribally 

owned carrier that had upgraded its 

local loop plant in order to increase the 

telephone penetration rate in its 

extremely high-cost service territory, to 

increase the high-cost loop support it 

received from the Universal Service 

Fund (USF) consistent with prior 

waivers of other universal service rules 

for carriers serving tribal lands. In 2012, 

the Wireline Competition Bureau 

(Bureau) also waived the category 

relationships freeze to allow Eastex 

Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Eastex), a 

rural cooperative that had upgraded its 

network with soft switches and fiber to 

improve its broadband services, to 

increase its settlements from the 

National Exchange Carrier Association, 

Inc. (NECA) special access pool, 

reducing Eastex’s reliance on the USF. 

II. Discussion 

14. The Commission views 

jurisdictional separations reform, and 

the question of whether to extend the 

separations freeze, in light of its ongoing 

efforts to transition from rate-of-return 

to incentive regulation and to eliminate 

or avoid imposing any unnecessary 

burdens on carriers. After weighing the 

likely benefits of extending the freeze 

against the likely costs of allowing it to 

end on December 31, 2018, the 

Commission proposes to extend the 

separations freeze for 15 years and to 

provide a time-limited opportunity for 

carriers that elected the category 

relationships freeze to opt out of that 

freeze. The Commission invites 

comment on these proposals and on the 

proposed rule changes set forth in 

Appendix A. The Commission also 

invites comment on whether it should 

modify any other aspects of the 

separations freeze if it adopts the 

proposal to extend it. 

A. Further Extending the Separations 

Freeze 

15. Completion of comprehensive 

separations reform by the expiration of 

the freeze on December 31, 2018 is 

highly unlikely. Most fundamentally, 

the Commission would prefer not to 

move forward on separations reform 

without a Joint Board recommendation 

on an approach to such reform, and the 

Board is not close to reaching a 

recommendation. As Commissioner 

Michael O’Rielly, Chairman of the Joint 

Board, recently observed, ‘‘the 

viewpoints’’ within the Joint Board ‘‘are 

so vastly different on this complex issue 

that finding commonality is not going to 

[be] possible in the near term.’’ 

Moreover, even if the Joint Board were 

to offer a recommendation for the 

Commission’s consideration, the 

Commission would then likely seek 

comment on that recommendation 

before issuing an order revising the 

separations rules. Therefore, as a 

practical matter, the Commission must 

choose between extending the 

separations freeze and allowing longunused separations rules to take effect 

on January 1, 2019. 

16. The Commission has previously 

found that letting the freeze expire and 

allowing largely outmoded separations 

rules to be reinstated would impose 

significant burdens on rate-of-return 

carriers and create undue instability. In 

extending the freeze in 2017, the 

Commission explained that reinstating 

the separations rules would require 

substantial training and investment by 

rural incumbent LECs, and could cause 

significant disruptions in regulated 

rates, cost recovery, and other operating 

conditions. The Commission found that 

the ‘‘clear benefits that will result from 

granting a further extension’’ of the 

freeze outweighed any possible harms. 

It concluded that requiring carriers to 

reinstate their separations systems 

‘‘would be unduly burdensome when 

there is a significant likelihood that 

there would be no lasting benefit to 

doing so.’’ 

17. The Commission finds its prior 

analysis compelling and, similarly, that 

the benefits of an additional extension 

of the freeze likely would far outweigh 

any potential harms. The Commission 

therefore proposes to extend the 

separations freeze and to direct rate-ofreturn incumbent LECs to continue to 

use the same frozen jurisdictional 

allocation factors. The Commission 

invites comment on this proposal and 

on the relative costs and benefits of 

continuing the separations freeze. 

18. In view of these circumstances, 

the Commission proposes to extend the 

freeze for 15 years and invites comment 

on this proposal. The Commission also 

invites comment on whether a shorter 

extension would be preferable. The 

Commission asks that commenters 

discuss the advantages and 

disadvantages of a long or short 

extension period, and provide specific 

reasons in support of their 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35585 

recommended timeframes. What effect, 

if any, would particular extension 

periods have on ratepayers? Is the 

Commission’s choice of an extension 

period likely to distort rate levels? 

Commenters supporting relatively short 

extension periods should also take into 

account the time necessary for the 

Commission and the industry to 

implement any separations decisions 

and rule changes. 

19. In this regard, the Commission 

recognizes that the issues before the 

Joint Board are extremely complex, and 

the Federal and State members of the 

Joint Board have not issued a 

Recommended Decision on 

comprehensive separations reform in 

the two decades since the Commission 

originally proposed such reform. As 

such, how likely is it that the Joint 

Board will issue a Recommended 

Decision on comprehensive separations 

reform within a relatively short 

extension period? If consensus within 

that timeframe is unlikely, should the 

Commission adopt a relatively long 

extension? Or should the Commission 

permanently extend the separations 

freeze, as USTelecom suggests? Would a 

relatively long or permanent extension 

be inconsistent with section 201(b) of 

the Act’s prohibition on unjust and 

unreasonable charges? 

20. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether it should change 

the scope of the issues referred to the 

Joint Board. In April 2017, the Joint 

Board issued a public notice seeking 

comment to refresh the record on issues 

related to comprehensive, permanent 

separations reform. Several commenters 

in response to that public notice 

recognized the steadily diminishing role 

of separations results in federal and 

state regulation, and argued that the 

Commission should not undertake 

comprehensive separations reform at the 

present time because it would be 

premature, disruptive, and 

counterproductive. In view of that 

opposition, should the Commission find 

that any separations reform in the 

foreseeable future should be narrowly 

targeted and change the scope of the 

issues referred to the Joint Board 

accordingly? If so, how should the 

Commission modify the referral to the 

Joint Board? 

B. Allowing Carriers That Elected the 

Category Relationships Freeze an 

Opportunity To Change Their Elections 

21. The Commission proposes to 

provide a one-time opportunity for 

carriers that opted to freeze their 

category relationships in 2001 to opt out 

of that freeze, so that they can categorize 

their costs based on current 

circumstances rather than their 

circumstances in 2000. Presently, rateof-return carriers in approximately 45 

study areas operate under the category 

relationships freeze. When the 

Commission granted rate-of-return 

carriers the opportunity to elect the 

category relationships freeze, it 

specified that the freeze would be an 

interim, ‘‘transitional measure’’ lasting 

no more than five years. But the freeze 

has now lasted 17 years, and carriers 

that elected it are prohibited from 

withdrawing from their elections. Many 

of these carriers have since invested in 

network upgrades or are considering 

future upgrades. As a result of the 

category relationships freeze, these 

carriers may be unable to recover the 

costs of those investments from the 

ratepayers that will benefit from those 

upgrades, or from the USF. 

Consequently, these carriers may lack 

incentives to improve service and 

deploy advanced technologies like 

broadband for their customers. The 

Commission therefore proposes and 

invites comment on allowing carriers to 

opt out of the category relationships 

freeze. What are the costs and benefits 

of this proposal? 

22. In the past, commenters have 

urged the Commission to allow carriers 

that elected the category relationships 

freeze to unfreeze those relationships. 

For example, ITTA points out that the 

Commission originally allowed rate-ofreturn carriers the flexibility to decide 

whether or not to freeze their category 

relationships because those carriers’ size 

and investment patterns vary widely. 

ITTA argues that the Commission 

should provide these carriers with the 

flexibility to unfreeze their category 

relationships for similar reasons. ITTA 

explains that some carriers with frozen 

category relationships ‘‘will embrace the 

opportunity to more accurately allocate 

their investment,’’ while others ‘‘will 

find reinstating their separations 

systems unduly burdensome.’’ Moss 

Adams, NTCA, WTA, and USTelecom 

argue that unfreezing category 

relationships will allow carriers to 

assign costs in a manner that reflects 

how they offer services today and will 

enable carriers to take greater advantage 

of universal service funds that support 

broadband deployment. The 

Commission invites commenters to 

elaborate on why the Commission 

should allow carriers to unfreeze their 

category relationships. The Commission 

also seeks input from any commenters 

that oppose such action. The 

Commission seeks input on the costs 

and benefits of permitting carriers to 

unfreeze their category relationships— 

both from carriers that believe they may 

benefit from an unfreeze and from 

carriers, if applicable, that believe 

unfreezing category relationships would 

not be beneficial for them. 

23. In the years since 2000, many, and 

perhaps all, carriers subject to the 

category relationships freeze have made 

substantial investments to modernize 

their networks and to improve and 

expand their service offerings. In at least 

some instances, these investments are 

more weighted toward business data 

services, and away from switched access 

and common line categories, than the 

carriers’ investments were as of 2000. If 

that is the case, under the category 

relationships freeze, disproportionate 

percentages of those carriers’ 

investments are currently assigned to 

the common line and switched access 

categories. Are carriers that elected the 

category relationships freeze 

consequently unable to recover the costs 

of network upgrades from their business 

data services customers and from 

NECA’s special access pool? If so, how 

does that circumstance impact their 

switched access rates? How many 

carriers subject to the category 

relationships freeze face these 

conditions, and how many would 

benefit from opting out of that freeze? 

24. The Commission asks commenters 

to specifically describe their current 

network investments compared to their 

investments in 2000 and to specify how 

their category relationships would 

change without a freeze. The 

Commission invites comment on what 

effect allowing carriers to opt out of the 

category relationships freeze would 

have on future investment. For example, 

would lifting the category relationships 

freeze promote greater investment in 

newer technologies and increased 

broadband deployment, and if so, how? 

The Commissions also seeks input on 

what impact unfreezing category 

relationships would have on how 

carriers recover their costs. For example, 

if carriers are allowed to update their 

network cost assignments to more 

accurately reflect the services they 

provide today, how would the pricing of 

services—particularly business data 

services—be affected? Would carriers 

seek to better align their rates for 

specific services with the underlying 

costs of those services? Would opting 

out of the freeze result in more efficient 

pricing, and how would it affect 

consumers in terms of service and 

pricing? 

25. Allowing carriers to opt out of the 

category relationships freeze will 

necessarily shift costs between 

jurisdictions and among access 

elements, and may affect the universal 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
35586 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

service funding the carrier receives. The 

Commission asks parties to describe the 

direction of these changes and, where 

possible, to quantify them. More 

specifically, to what extent would 

unfreezing carriers’ category 

relationships shift costs from the 

intrastate jurisdiction to the interstate 

jurisdiction, and from common line to 

special access? In the event of such 

shifts, what would be the effect on the 

carriers’ receipt of CAF BLS and other 

universal service funding? 

26. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether it should impose measures 

to prevent carriers that opt out of the 

category relationships freeze from 

double-recovering costs through enduser charges and Connect America Fund 

intercarrier compensation (CAF ICC) 

support. If so, what specific measures 

should it adopt? For example, in the 

Eastex Waiver Order, the Bureau 

addressed the concern that a rate-ofreturn carrier might receive an 

inappropriate amount of universal 

service funding or double-recover its 

costs when its category relationships 

were unfrozen. This situation could 

occur because, under the USF/ICC 

Transformation Order, a carrier can in 

certain situations recover its reduced 

intercarrier compensation revenue 

through CAF ICC support based on a 

cost recovery mechanism that is tied to 

a carrier’s interstate switched access 

revenue requirement for October 1, 2010 

through September 30, 2011 (FY2011). 

Thus, there is a risk that, as a carrier 

moves costs from the interstate switched 

access category into different categories, 

it could double-recover the same costs— 

once through CAF ICC support and 

again through special access rates and 

related NECA settlements. 

27. To prevent such a double 

recovery, in granting a waiver of the 

category relationships freeze to Eastex, 

the Bureau required Eastex to 

recalculate its 2011 Rate-of-Return 

Carrier Base Period Revenue (BPR) 

using actual, unfrozen categories and to 

file a revised interstate switched access 

revenue requirement. The Bureau 

expected that the recalculation would 

reduce the interstate switched access 

revenue requirement included in 

Eastex’s BPR and shift costs from 

interstate common line to interstate 

special access. The Bureau concluded 

that removing ‘‘an amount 

representative of the FY2011 interstate 

revenue attributable to the investment 

being shifted from interstate switched 

access to other categories’’ from possible 

recovery though CAF ICC support 

would protect consumers and the USF. 

28. Consistent with this precedent, 

should the Commission require any 

carrier that opts out of the category 

relationships freeze to recalculate its 

BPR using unfrozen category 

relationships and to file a revised 

interstate switched access revenue 

requirement with the Commission? If 

the Commission requires carriers that 

are allowed to unfreeze their category 

relationships to recalculate their BPRs, 

it proposes to use 2011 cost study data 

because those are the most recent data 

that do not reflect the effects of the USF/ 

ICC Transformation Order. The 

Commission invites parties to comment 

on this approach. While some carriers 

may have the necessary data to perform 

the study, others may not. For those that 

do not, the Commission invites parties 

to propose an alternative means of 

estimating the BPR adjustment that 

should be made. 

29. To the extent that a carrier’s BPR 

is adjusted by the preceding 

calculations, should the Commission 

require that the carrier adjust its 

interstate switched access rate cap by a 

percentage amount equal to the 

adjustment made to the interstate 

projected revenue requirement 

component of the BPR? The carrier 

would then revise its rates to reflect the 

transitions mandated by the USF/ICC 

Transformation Order as of the date of 

the next annual access tariff filing. The 

Commission invites parties to comment 

on this approach and on whether it 

would provide a reasonable method for 

eliminating potential double recoveries 

resulting from unfreezing category 

relationships. 

30. In the interest of simplicity, the 

Commission proposes to allow carriers 

subject to the category relationships 

freeze a single opportunity to unfreeze 

their frozen category relationships. The 

Commission seeks comment on that 

approach. If the Commission provides 

this one-time opportunity, should it 

require that carriers electing to unfreeze 

their category relationships make 

conforming changes to their tariffs 

effective on July 1, 2019? If so, should 

it require that carriers with frozen 

categories notify the Commission and 

NECA (if a carrier participates in 

NECA’s special access pool) by March 1, 

2019 of their decisions to opt out of the 

category relationships freeze? Would a 

July 1, 2019 effective date provide 

carriers with sufficient time to 

implement any changes needed to 

update category relationships? 

31. In the alternative, should the 

Commission allow carriers subject to the 

category relationships freeze to unfreeze 

their category relationships at any date 

they choose in the future? What would 

be the benefits and drawbacks of such 

an approach? Should the Commission 

allow a carrier presently subject to the 

category relationships freeze that opts to 

unfreeze its category relationships to 

refreeze those relationships at some 

future date? What would be the costs 

and benefits of this approach? 

32. Instead of allowing carriers the 

option of unfreezing their category 

relationships, should the Commission 

require all rate-of-return carriers that 

currently operate under the category 

relationships freeze to unfreeze their 

category relationships? What would be 

the impact of lifting the category 

relationships freeze for all carriers that 

elected the relationships freeze in 2001? 

Would it significantly increase the 

accuracy of separations results and, if 

so, would any benefits from that 

increased accuracy outweigh any costs 

that a mandatory unfreeze would 

impose? 

33. In adopting the separations freeze 

in 2001, the Commission anticipated 

that its ‘‘waiver process [would] provide 

a mechanism for relief when special 

circumstances warrant a deviation from 

the freeze.’’ The Commission previously 

granted two petitions for waiver to 

allow carriers to withdraw from the 

category relationships freeze and have 

two waiver requests pending. If the 

Commission does not allow all affected 

carriers to unfreeze their category 

relationships in this rulemaking, would 

other carriers subject to this 

relationships freeze feel the need to seek 

relief of the freeze through the waiver 

process? Are there particular facts or 

circumstances that the Commission 

should consider in assessing whether a 

carrier has demonstrated sufficient 

‘‘good cause’’ to justify a waiver under 

the Commission’s rules that would 

allow a carrier to unfreeze its category 

relationships? 

34. The Commission also seeks input 

on whether there is any reason to allow 

carriers not currently subject to the 

category relationships freeze to elect to 

freeze their categories. The Commission 

asks carriers to provide detailed 

information about any costs they 

encounter in categorizing their regulated 

costs and revenues as well as 

information on how their category 

relationships have changed over time. 

These carriers should address whether 

the benefits from eliminating those 

administrative costs would outweigh 

any loss in the accuracy of separations 

results that would arise from freezing 

their category relationships. Further, the 

Commission seeks input on what base 

period of data carriers should use for 

their calculations if it allows them to 

elect to freeze their category 

relationships. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35587 

35. If the Commission allows carriers 

not currently subject to the category 

relationships freeze to elect to freeze 

their categories, what opportunities 

should the Commission provide for 

unfreezing them going forward? What 

procedures should the Commission 

adopt if it decides to allow changes in 

elections? For instance, should the 

Commission allow carriers to change 

their elections on a periodic basis—for 

example, every three years? Finally, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should allow carriers that opt to 

unfreeze their category relationships the 

option to update those category 

relationships and then refreeze them 

immediately or at some later date. What 

would be the costs and benefits to the 

carriers and to the public of allowing 

carriers to unfreeze and then refreeze 

their category relationships? 

C. Changes to Other Aspects of the 

Separations Freeze 

36. If the Commission adopts its 

proposal to extend the separations 

freeze, are there any other aspects of the 

freeze it should modify? The 

Commission asks commenters to 

identify any specific problems with the 

freeze as well as potential solutions. 

37. In the 2001 Separations Freeze 

Order, the Commission required that all 

rate-of-return incumbent LECs 

apportion their categorized costs using 

their allocation factors for the year 2000. 

Should the Commission allow, or 

require, rate-of-return LECs to reset their 

jurisdictional allocation factors using 

current data? The Commission asks 

commenters to describe in detail the 

benefits and costs of such actions. The 

Commission invites comment on 

whether the Commission should allow, 

or require, carriers to refreeze their 

jurisdictional allocation factors once 

they are reset. The Commission also 

seeks comment on how any reset of 

jurisdictional allocation factors should 

be implemented, including providing 

information regarding timeframes, 

deadlines, period of data to be used, and 

any other related details. 

D. Effect on Small Entities 

38. The Commission seeks comment 

on the effect that its proposals to extend 

the separations freeze and to allow rateof-return carriers to opt out of the 

category relationships freeze would 

have on small entities, and whether any 

rules that the Commission adopts 

should apply differently to small 

entities. The Commission seeks 

comment on the costs and burdens of 

these proposals on small incumbent 

LECs and whether these proposals 

would disproportionately affect specific 

types of carriers or ratepayers. The 

Commission also seeks input on the 

effect, if any, on small entities of any 

other aspects of the separations freeze 

that it inquires about in this Further 

Notice. 

III. Procedural Matters 

A. Deadlines and Filing Procedures 

39. Pursuant to §§ 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 in CC Docket No. 

80–286. Comments may be filed using 

the Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. 

• 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. 

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. 

• 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. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• People with Disabilities: 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). 

40. Ex Parte Requirements. This 

proceeding shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-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. 

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

41. Pursuant to the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission 

has prepared an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

small entities of the policies and actions 

considered in this Further Notice. The 

text of the IRFA is set forth in Appendix 

B of the Further Notice. 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 comment provided 

in the Further Notice. The 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, will send a copy of 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
35588 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

this Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

42. This document may contain 

proposed new or modified information 

collection requirements. The 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 

invites the general public and the Office 

of Management and Budget to comment 

on the information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, the Commission 

seeks specific comment on how it might 

further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

43. The vast majority of the part 36 

jurisdictional separations rules were last 

updated more than 30 years ago. In 

1997, the Commission initiated a 

proceeding to comprehensively reform 

those rules in light of the statutory, 

technological, and marketplace changes 

that had affected the 

telecommunications industry. In 2001, 

the Commission, pursuant to a 

recommendation by the Federal-State 

Joint Board on Jurisdictional 

Separations (Joint Board), froze the part 

36 separations rules for a five-year 

period beginning July 1, 2001, or until 

the Commission completed 

comprehensive separations reform, 

whichever came first. 

44. The Commission has extended the 

freeze seven times, with the most recent 

extension set to expire on December 31, 

2018. The Commission would prefer not 

to move forward on separations reform 

without a Joint Board recommendation 

on an approach to such reform, and the 

Board is not close to reaching a 

recommendation. Therefore, as a 

practical matter, completion of 

comprehensive separations reform by 

the expiration of the freeze on December 

31, 2018 is highly unlikely, and the 

Commission must choose between 

extending the separations freeze and 

allowing long-unused separations rules 

to take effect on January 1, 2019. 

45. Because the Commission expects 

that the benefits of further extending the 

jurisdictional separations freeze likely 

outweigh the costs of allowing it to end, 

the Commission in this Further Notice 

proposes to extend the freeze for 15 

years, and invites comment on whether 

a shorter extension would be preferable. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

whether it should alter the scope of the 

referral to the Joint Board regarding 

comprehensive separations reform. The 

Commission also proposes to permit 

rate-of-return carriers that elected to 

freeze their category relationships in 

2001 to opt out of this freeze, and it 

seeks comment on that proposal. 

B. Legal Basis 

46. The legal basis for the Further 

Notice is contained in sections 1, 4(i) 

and (j), 205, 220, 221(c), 254, 303(r), 

403, and 410 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 

154(i) and (j), 205, 220, 221(c), 254, 

303(r), 403, 410, and section 706 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which 

Rules May Apply 

47. 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 SBA. Nationwide, 

there are 28.8 million small businesses, 

according to the SBA. 

48. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers. 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 

local exchange carriers (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 addressed in this 

Further Notice. 

49. The Commission has 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 the 

Commission’s proposals concerning the 

Part 36 separations process will affect 

all rate-of-return incumbent LECs 

providing interstate services, some 

entities employing 1,500 or fewer 

employees may be affected by the 

proposals made in this Further Notice. 

The Commission has therefore included 

small incumbent LECs in this RFA 

analysis, although it emphasizes that 

this RFA action has no effect on the 

Commission’s analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

50. If a rate-of-return carrier were 

allowed to opt out of the category 

relationships freeze, it would be able to 

update its Part 36 category relationships 

annually by doing new cost studies and 

then adjusting its rates. The Further 

Notice elicits comment on whether rates 

based on the updated relationships 

should take effect with the July 1, 2019 

tariff filing. If so, as part of that filing, 

rate-of-return carriers will need to 

explain the new studies in the 

Description & Justification section and 

submit the results of these studies in 

their tariff review plans. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

51. 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35589 

coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for 

small entities. 

52. The jurisdictional freeze has 

eliminated the need for all incumbent 

LECs, including incumbent LECs with 

1,500 employees or fewer, to complete 

certain annual separations studies that 

otherwise would be required by the 

Commission’s rules. Thus, an extension 

of this freeze would avoid increasing the 

administrative burden of regulatory 

compliance for rate-of-return incumbent 

LECs, including small incumbent LECs. 

53. Presently, rate-of-return carriers in 

about 45 study areas operate under a 

category relationships freeze. When the 

Commission granted rate-of-return 

carriers the opportunity to elect the 

category relationships freeze, it 

specified the freeze would be an 

interim, ‘‘transitional measure’’ lasting 

no more than five years. But, the freeze 

has now lasted 17 years, and carriers 

that elected it are prohibited from 

withdrawing from that election. The 

Commission proposes to grant these 

carriers the opportunity to opt out of 

this freeze. The Commission recognizes 

that the size and investment patterns of 

these carriers vary widely, and 

implementation of this proposal would 

enable an individual carrier to decide 

for itself if the economic benefits of 

unfreezing its category relationships 

outweigh any costs. 

54. The Commission seeks comment 

on the effect of its proposals on small 

entities, and whether any rules that the 

Commission adopts should apply 

differently to small entities. The 

Commission directs commenters to 

consider the costs and burdens of these 

proposals on small incumbent LECs and 

whether the proposals would 

disproportionately affect specific types 

of carriers or ratepayers. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

55. None. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

56. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 205, 

220, 221(c), 254, 303(r), 403, and 410 of 

the Communication Act of 1934, as 

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

205, 220, 221(c), 254, 303(r), 403, 410, 

and section 706 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302, that this 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

is adopted. 

57. It is further ordered, pursuant to 

section 220(i) of the Communications 

Act, 47 U.S.C. 220(i), that notice be 

given to each state commission of the 

above rulemaking proceeding, and that 

the Secretary shall serve a copy of this 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

on each state commission. 

58. 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 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects for CFR Part 36 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Telephone, Uniform 

system of accounts. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 36 as follows: 

PART 36—JURISDICTIONAL 

SEPARATIONS PROCEDURES; 

STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR 

SEPARATING 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROPERTY 

COSTS, REVENUES, EXPENSES, 

TAXES AND RESERVES FOR 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 36 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 

205, 220, 221(c), 254, 303(r), 403, 410, and 

1302 unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 36.3 by revising paragraph 

(b) to read as follows: 

§ 36.3 Freezing of jurisdictional 

separations category relationships and/or 

allocation factors. 

* * * * * 

(b) Effective July 1, 2001, through 

December 31, 2033, local exchange 

carriers subject to price cap regulation, 

pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall 

assign costs from the part 32 accounts 

to the separations categories/subcategories, as specified herein, based on 

the percentage relationships of the 

categorized/sub-categorized costs to 

their associated part 32 accounts for the 

twelve month period ending December 

31, 2000. If a part 32 account for 

separations purposes is categorized into 

more than one category, the percentage 

relationship among the categories shall 

be utilized as well. Local exchange 

carriers that invest in types of 

telecommunications plant during the 

period July 1, 2001, through December 

31, 2033, for which it had no 

separations category investment for the 

twelve month period ending December 

31, 2000, shall assign such investment 

to separations categories in accordance 

with the separations procedures in 

effect as of December 31, 2000. Local 

exchange carriers not subject to price 

cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of 

this chapter, may elect to be subject to 

the provisions of paragraph (b) of this 

section. Such election must be made 

prior to July 1, 2001. Any local 

exchange carrier that elected to be 

subject to paragraph (b) of this section 

may withdraw from that election by 

notifying the Commission prior to 

March 1, 2019 of its intent to withdraw 

from that election, and that withdrawal 

will be effective as of July 1, 2019. Any 

local exchange carrier choosing to 

withdraw from its election under 

paragraph (b) of this section that 

participates in an Association tariff, 

pursuant to § 69.601 et seq., also shall 

notify the Association prior to March 1, 

2019, of such intent. Subject to that one 

exception, local exchange carriers that 

previously elected to become subject to 

paragraph (b) shall not be eligible to 

withdraw from such regulation for the 

duration of the freeze. 

* * * * * 

§ 36.126 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 36.126(b)(5) by removing 

the date ‘‘June 30, 2014’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘December 31, 2033.’’ 

§§ 36.3, 36.123, 36.124, 36.125, 36.126, 

36.141, 36.142, 36.152, 36.154, 36.155, 

36.156, 36.157, 36.191, 36.212, 36.214, 

36.372, 36.374, 36.375, 36.377, 36.378, 

36.379, 36.380, 36.381, and 36.382 

[Amended] 

■ 3. In 47 CFR part 36, remove the date 

‘‘December 31, 2018’’ and add in its 

place everywhere it appears the date 

‘‘December 31, 2033’’ in the following 

places: 

■ a. Section 36.3(a), (c), (d) introductory 

text, and (e); 

■ b. Section 36.123(a)(5) and (6); 

■ c. Section 36.124(c) and (d); 

■ d. Section 36.125(h) and (i); 

■ e. Section 36.126(b)(6), (c)(4), (e)(4), 

and (f)(2); 

■ f. Section 36.141(c); 

■ g. Section 36.142(c); 

■ h. Section 36.152(d); 

■ i. Section 36.154(g); 

■ j. Section 36.155(b); 

■ k. Section 36.156(c); 

■ l. Section 36.157(b); 

■ m. Section 36.191(d); 

■ n. Section 36.212(c); 

■ o. Section 36.214(a); 

■ p. Section 36.372; 

■ q. Section 36.374(b) and (d); 

■ r. Section 36.375(b)(4) and (5); 

■ s. Section 36.377(a) introductory text, 

(a)(1)(ix), (a)(2)(vii), (a)(3)(vii), 

(a)(4)(vii); (a)(5)(vii), and (a)(6)(vii); 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
35590 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

■ t. Section 36.378(b)(1); 

■ u. Section 36.379(b)(1) and (2); 

■ v. Section 36.380(d) and (e); 

■ w. Section 36.381(c) and (d); and 

■ x. Section 36.382(a) 

[FR Doc. 2018–16040 Filed 7–26–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 180212159–8159–01] 

RIN 0648–BH75 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Shortfin Mako Shark Management 

Measures; Proposed Amendment 11 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is proposing to amend 

the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly 

Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) based on the 

results of the 2017 stock assessment and 

a subsequent binding recommendation 

by the International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 

for North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks. 

The North Atlantic shortfin mako shark 

stock is overfished and is experiencing 

overfishing. Consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the 

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), 

NMFS is proposing management 

measures that would reduce fishing 

mortality on shortfin mako sharks and 

establish a foundation for rebuilding the 

shortfin mako shark population 

consistent with legal requirements. The 

proposed measures could affect U.S. 

commercial and recreational fishermen 

who target and harvest shortfin mako 

sharks in the Atlantic Ocean, including 

the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea 

by increasing live releases and reducing 

landings. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by October 1, 2018. NMFS will 

hold six public hearings and an 

operator-assisted public hearing via 

conference call and webinar on this 

proposed rule for Draft Amendment 11 

to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP 

(Amendment 11) in August and 

September 2018. For specific dates and 

times see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2018–0011, by any one of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018- 

0011, click the ‘‘Comment Now’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Guy ́ DuBeck, NMFS/SF1, 1315 EastWest Highway, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, SSMC3, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910. 

Instructions: Please include the 

identifier NOAA–NMFS–2018–0011 

when submitting comments. Comments 

sent by any other method, to any other 

address or individual, or received after 

the close of the comment period, may 

not be considered by NMFS. All 

comments received are a part of the 

public record and generally will be 

posted for public viewing on 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address), confidential 

business information, or otherwise 

sensitive information submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats 

only. 

NMFS will hold six public hearings 

and one operator-assisted public hearing 

via conference call and webinar on this 

proposed rule and Draft Amendment 11. 

NMFS will hold public hearings in 

Corpus Christi, TX; Linwood, NJ; 

Manteo, NC; Morehead City, NC; 

Gloucester, MA; and St. Petersburg, FL. 

For specific locations, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Copies of the supporting documents— 

including the draft environmental 

impact statement (DEIS), Regulatory 

Impact Review (RIR), Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the 

2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP 

and amendments are available from the 

HMS website at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantichighly-migratory-speciesor by 

contacting Guy ́ DuBeck at (301) 427– 

8503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy ́

DuBeck or Karyl Brewster-Geisz at (301) 

427–8503. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The North Atlantic shortfin mako 

stock is managed primarily under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

and also under ATCA. The 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP and its 

amendments are implemented by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 635. A brief 

summary of the background of this 

proposed rule is provided below. 

Additional information regarding 

Atlantic shark management can be 

found in the DEIS accompanying this 

proposed rule for Amendment 11, the 

2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its 

amendments, the annual HMS Stock 

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 

(SAFE) Reports, and online at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantichighly-migratory-species. 

North Atlantic Shortfin Mako Shark 

Stock Status and Emergency Interim 

Final Rule 

The North Atlantic shortfin mako 

shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) is a highly 

migratory species that ranges across the 

entire North Atlantic Ocean and is 

caught by numerous countries. The 

stock is predominantly caught offshore 

in association with fisheries that 

primarily target tunas and tuna-like 

species. While these sharks are a valued 

component of U.S. recreational and 

commercial fisheries, U.S. catch 

represents only approximately 11 

percent of the species’ total catch in the 

North Atlantic by all reporting 

countries. International measures are, 

therefore, critical to the species’ 

effective conservation and management. 

In August 2017, ICCAT’s Standing 

Committee on Research and Statistics 

(SCRS) conducted a new benchmark 

stock assessment on the North Atlantic 

shortfin mako stock. At its November 

2017 annual meeting, ICCAT accepted 

this stock assessment and determined 

the stock to be overfished, with 

overfishing occurring. On December 13, 

2017, based on this assessment, NMFS 

issued a status determination finding 

the stock to be overfished and 

experiencing overfishing applying 

domestic criteria. The assessment 

specifically indicated that biomass 

(B2015) is substantially less than the 

biomass at maximum sustainable yield 

(BMSY) for eight of the nine models used 

for the assessment (B2015/BMSY = 

0.57¥0.85). In the ninth model, 

spawning stock fecundity (SSF) was less 

than SSFMSY (SSF2015/SSFMSY = 0.95). 

Additionally, the assessment indicated 

that fishing mortality (F2015) was greater 

than FMSY (1.93–4.38), with a combined 

90 percent probability from all models 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1