15906 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

investigation to assess the nature and 

extent of public health and 

environmental risks associated with a 

release of hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is 

of only limited significance as it does 

not assign liability to any party. Also, 

placing a site on the NPL does not mean 

that any remedial or removal action 

necessarily need be taken. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Provisions of the Congressional 

Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of 

CERCLA may alter the effective date of 

this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 

801(b)(1), a rule shall not take effect, or 

continue in effect, if Congress enacts 

(and the President signs) a joint 

resolution of disapproval, described 

under section 802. Another statutory 

provision that may affect this rule is 

CERCLA section 305, which provides 

for a legislative veto of regulations 

promulgated under CERCLA. Although 

INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 

2764 (1983), and Bd. of Regents of the 

University of Washington v. EPA, 86 

F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cast the 

validity of the legislative veto into 

question, the EPA has transmitted a 

copy of this regulation to the Secretary 

of the Senate and the Clerk of the House 

of Representatives. 

If action by Congress under either the 

CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the 

effective date of this regulation into 

question, the EPA will publish a 

document of clarification in the Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

Intergovernmental relations, Natural 

resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: March 16, 2015. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. 

40 CFR part 300 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 

POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 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. 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 

is amended by adding entries for 

‘‘Kokomo Contaminated Ground Water 

Plume’’ and ‘‘DSC McLouth Steel 

Gibraltar Plant’’ in alphabetical order by 

state to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 300—National 

Priorities List 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes a

*******

IN ........................ Kokomo Contaminated Ground Water Plume ....................................... Kokomo 

*******

MI ........................ DSC McLouth Steel Gibraltar Plant ...................................................... Gibraltar 

*******

aA = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be greater 

than or equal to 28.50). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–06696 Filed 3–25–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 51 

[WC Docket No. 10–90, CC Docket No. 01– 

92; DA 15–249] 

Connect America Fund; Developing a 

Unified Intercarrier Compensation 

Regime 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission’s 

Wireline Competition Bureau clarifies 

certain rules related to the 

implementation of the intercarrier 

compensation transition for rate-ofreturn local exchange carriers adopted 

in the USF/ICC Transformation Order. 

Specifically, the Bureau clarifies the 

Commission’s rules governing Eligible 

Recovery calculations to address limited 

unanticipated results of the application 

of the true-up process evidenced by the 

rate-of-return carriers’ 2014 annual 

access tariff filings. 

DATES: Effective April 27, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pamela Arluk, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202) 

418–1520 or (202) 418–0484 (TTY); or 

Robin Cohn, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202) 

418–1520 or (202) 418–0484 (TTY). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order in 

WC Docket No. 10–90 and CC Docket 

No. 01–92, adopted and released on 

February 24, 2015. The full text of this 

document can be viewed at the 

following Internet address: https://

apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/

DA-15-249A1.docx. The full text of this 

document is also available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 

12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (e.g. braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format, etc.) or to request reasonable 

accommodations (e.g. accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.), send an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice) or (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

I. Introduction 

1. In the USF/ICC Transformation 

Order, the Commission delegated to the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 

the authority to make any rule revisions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15907 

necessary to ensure that the intercarrier 

compensation (ICC) reforms adopted by 

the Commission are properly reflected 

in the Commission’s rules, including 

correction of any conflicts between the 

new or revised rules and addressing any 

omissions or oversights. In the Order, 

the Bureau acts pursuant to its delegated 

authority to clarify certain rules relating 

to implementation of the ICC transition 

for rate-of-return local exchange carriers 

(LECs) adopted in the USF/ICC 

Transformation Order. We clarify the 

Commission’s rules governing Eligible 

Recovery calculations under § 51.917(d) 

to address a limited number of 

unanticipated results associated with 

application of the true-up process that 

became apparent in rate-of-return 

carriers’ 2014 annual access tariff 

filings. Specifically, we clarify that a 

rate-of-return carrier that received too 

much Eligible Recovery in 2012–13 

because of an under-projection of 

demand for that tariff period, and does 

not have sufficient Eligible Recovery in 

2014–15 to fully offset the 2012–13 

amount of over-recovery, must refund 

the amount that is not offset to the 

Universal Service Administrative 

Company (USAC) to avoid duplicative 

recovery. Additionally, to ensure a 

carrier receives the Eligible Recovery it 

was entitled to in 2012–13, we clarify 

that a rate-of-return carrier that received 

too little Eligible Recovery in 2012–13 

because of an over-projection of demand 

for that tariff period may seek recovery 

for any amounts it was not able to 

recover through its 2014–15 Eligible 

Recovery from USAC. We also revise 

§ 51.917 of the Commission’s rules to 

address similar discrepancies that may 

occur in future years as a result of the 

true-up process. 

II. Background 

2. In the USF/ICC Transformation 

Order, the Commission adopted, among 

other things, rules to implement the ICC 

reform timeline that require carriers to 

adjust, over a period of years, many of 

their legacy ICC rates effective on July 

1 of each of those years, with the 

ultimate goal of transitioning to a billand-keep regime. The Commission also 

adopted a recovery mechanism to 

mitigate the impact of reduced ICC 

revenues on carriers and to facilitate 

continued investment in broadband 

infrastructure while providing greater 

certainty and predictability going 

forward. The recovery mechanism 

allows incumbent LECs to recover ICC 

revenues reduced due to the ICC 

reforms, up to an amount defined for 

each year of the transition, which is 

referred to as ‘‘Eligible Recovery.’’ A 

Rate-of-Return carrier initially may 

recover its Eligible Recovery each year 

from its end users through the Access 

Recovery Charge (ARC) subject to an 

annual cap. If the projected ARC 

revenues do not recover the entire 

Eligible Recovery amount, the carrier 

may elect to collect the remainder from 

Connect America Fund ICC support. 

3. For rate-of-return LECs, the 

calculation each year of a carrier’s 

Eligible Recovery begins with its Base 

Period Revenue (BPR). A rate-of-return 

carrier’s BPR is the sum of certain ICC 

intrastate switched access revenues and 

net reciprocal compensation revenues 

received by March 31, 2012, for services 

provided during FY 2011, and the 

projected revenue requirement for 

interstate switched access services 

provided during the 2011–2012 tariff 

period. The BPR for rate-of-return 

carriers was reduced by 5% initially and 

is reduced by an additional 5% in each 

year of the transition. A rate-of-return 

LEC’s Eligible Recovery is equal to the 

adjusted BPR for the year in question 

less, for each relevant year of the 

transition, the sum of (1) projected 

intrastate switched access revenue; (2) 

projected interstate switched access 

revenue; and (3) projected net reciprocal 

compensation revenue. 

4. Beginning in 2014, the recovery 

mechanism also incorporates in the 

Eligible Recovery calculation a true-up 

of the revenue difference between 

projected and actual demand for 

interstate and intrastate switched access 

services, reciprocal compensation, and 

the ARC for the tariff period that began 

two years earlier. This adjustment 

measures the extent to which a carrier 

received more or less than the revenues 

it projected for the earlier period and 

thus whether it received too little, or too 

much, Eligible Recovery through ARCs 

and/or Connect America Fund ICC 

support for that period. The true-up is 

achieved by adjusting the later tariff 

period’s Eligible Recovery to account for 

the carrier’s revenue variance resulting 

from differences between projected and 

actual demand for the prior period. The 

true-up process ensures that rate-ofreturn carriers at a minimum have the 

opportunity to receive their adjusted 

BPR, notwithstanding changes in 

demand for their intercarrier 

compensation rates being capped or 

reduced. The true-up process does not 

require that a carrier that has negative 

Eligible Recovery, meaning the carrier 

received revenues in excess of its 

adjusted BPR from its interstate and 

intrastate switched access and 

reciprocal compensation alone and not 

through an ARC or Connect America 

Fund ICC support, to refund any of the 

revenues it received. 

5. To provide context for how the 

true-up process works, the following 

two examples demonstrate scenarios in 

which the carrier either under-projected 

or over-projected its revenues, and thus 

must engage in a true-up calculation 

pursuant to § 51.917(d)(1)(iii)–(iv) of the 

Commission’s rules. In this first 

example, Carrier A under-projected its 

actual revenues and received too much 

Eligible Recovery for the 2012–2013 

tariff period. Carrier A had a BPR of 

$100.00, a projected revenue amount of 

$80.00 and an actual revenue amount of 

$85.00: 

2012–2013 BPR is $100.00 × .95 = 

$95.00 (Adjusted BPR) 

2012–2013 Total Projected Revenues = 

$80.00 

2012–2013 Eligible Recovery 

(Adjusted BPR-Projected Revenues) = 

$15.00 

2012–2013 Total Actual Revenues = 

$85.00 

Projected Revenue—Actual Revenue = 

$¥5.00 (true-up amount) 

2014–2015 Eligible Recovery adjusted 

by $¥5.00 

As a result of its under-projection, 

Carrier A would need to reduce its 

2014–2015 tariff period Eligible 

Recovery by five dollars to reflect the 

difference between its actual revenues 

and projected revenues for the 2012– 

2013 tariff period. 

6. Conversely, in the second example, 

Carrier B over-projected its revenue 

amounts in the 2012–2013 tariff period, 

and it would need to increase its 2014– 

2015 Eligible Recovery amounts to 

reflect the difference. Carrier B had a 

BPR of $100.00, a projected revenue 

amount of $85.00 and an actual revenue 

amount of $80.00: 

2012–2013 BRP is $100.00 × .95 = 

$95.00 (Adjusted BPR) 

2012–2013 Total Projected Revenues = 

$85.00 

2012–2013 Eligible Recovery 

(Adjusted BPR-Projected Revenues) = 

$10.00 

2012–2013 Total Actual Revenues = 

$80.00 

Projected Revenue¥Actual Revenue = 

$5.00 (true-up amount) 

2014–2015 Eligible Recovery adjusted 

by $5.00 

Thus, in this example, the carrier will 

need to increase its 2014–2015 Eligible 

Recovery amount by five dollars to 

reflect the difference between its actual 

revenues and projected revenues for the 

2012–2013 tariff period. 

III. Discussion 

7. As noted above, the 2014 annual 

tariff filing was the first time that 

Eligible Recovery was adjusted to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

15908 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

incorporate a true-up of projected 

demand used in calculating Eligible 

Recovery for an earlier tariff period. The 

true-up process is designed to provide 

certainty to rate-of-return carriers by 

accounting for any difference between 

projected and actual switched access 

revenues, reciprocal compensation 

revenues, or ARC revenues due to 

demand variations. As the above 

examples and the illustration in the 

USF/ICC Transformation Order (which 

similarly shows operation of the true-up 

process when a carrier both 

overestimated and underestimated its 

projected revenues for the first year of 

the ICC reforms adopted by the 

Commission) demonstrate, a carrier’s 

Eligible Recovery was to be adjusted 

either upward or downward based on 

any such differences. As the illustration 

in the USF/ICC Transformation Order 

reflects, the Commission expected that 

the amount of any adjustment could be 

completely offset through adjustments 

to the amount of Eligible Recovery for 

which ARC rates could be assessed and 

Connect America Fund ICC support 

could be received. 

8. In conjunction with the 2014 

annual tariff filing process, NECA 

informally sought clarification 

concerning a limited number of cases in 

which the true-up process did not work 

as outlined above and for which the 

rules do not provide an unambiguous 

resolution. In the Order, we clarify how 

rate-of-return carriers and USAC should 

address the 2014–15 fact scenarios 

described below, consistent with the 

policy goals of the USF/ICC 

Transformation Order, and revise the 

Commission’s rules, as set forth in the 

Appendix, to provide clarity for future 

tariff periods. 

9. The first set of facts identified by 

NECA involves several carriers whose 

2012–13 tariff period projected demand 

was underestimated compared to their 

ultimate actual demand. Each carrier 

therefore received too much Eligible 

Recovery in 2012–13, and, under the 

rules, their 2014–15 Eligible Recovery 

should be reduced by the amount of 

revenues associated with the demand 

difference. The carriers’ Eligible 

Recovery for 2014–15 before reflecting 

the true-up adjustment, however, was 

not large enough to offset completely 

the true-up reduction from the 2012–13 

tariff period. Thus, the excess Eligible 

Recovery carriers received during the 

2012–13 tariff period has not been fully 

offset, and the carriers would be left 

with duplicative recovery in 

contravention of § 51.917(d)(1)(vii) of 

the rules absent clarification to specify 

the procedures to be followed under 

these circumstances. We accordingly 

clarify that carriers that are in this 

situation with respect to their 2014–15 

Eligible Recovery calculation must 

refund to USAC the amount of the 

excess recovery that was not offset 

within thirty (30) days of the effective 

date of the Order. Consistent with the 

rules we adopt, as set forth in the 

Appendix, in the future a carrier in this 

situation must refund excess amounts to 

USAC by August 1 following the date of 

the annual access tariff filing. 

10. The second set of facts that NECA 

sought clarification on involves several 

carriers who overestimated their 2012– 

13 tariff period projected demand 

compared to the resulting actual 

demand. Thus, to the extent carriers 

would have been entitled to Eligible 

Recovery for tariff period 2012–13 if 

they had accurately projected their 

demand, these carriers received too 

little Eligible Recovery in tariff period 

2012–13. The affected carriers also have 

negative Eligible Recovery in the 2014– 

15 tariff period before adjusting for any 

true-ups. Absent a clarification of our 

rules, these carriers would not receive 

the same level of revenues they would 

have been entitled to if they had 

projected their demand accurately in the 

2012–13 tariff period. This occurs 

because the positive amount of the 

2012–13 under-recovery would be 

reduced by the negative 2014–15 

Eligible Recovery amount before further 

Eligible Recovery would be possible in 

tariff period 2014–15. This would 

deprive such carriers of the cash flow 

certainty the Commission sought to 

provide carriers through the recovery 

mechanism. As explained above, 

carriers that have negative Eligible 

Recovery were allowed to retain any 

revenues received through intercarrier 

revenue payments, consistent with the 

transition from strict rate-of-return 

regulation to incentive regulation. We 

accordingly clarify that those carriers 

that were in this situation with respect 

to their tariff period 2014–15 Eligible 

Recovery calculation may seek recovery 

of 2012–13 true-up under-recovery from 

USAC and are not required to offset the 

2012–13 amounts they could have 

received in Eligible Recovery in the 

2012–13 tariff period if they had 

projected demand correctly against their 

2014–15 negative Eligible Recovery. The 

carrier’s Eligible Recovery from USAC 

shall be equal to the amount of the 

2012–13 true-up that a carrier could 

have recovered through Eligible 

Recovery in the 2012–13 tariff period if 

it had accurately projected demand and 

which amount a carrier was unable to 

recover as Eligible Recovery in tariff 

period 2014–15. Consistent with the 

rules we adopt in the Appendix, in the 

future a carrier in this situation must 

treat the amount eligible for true-up as 

its Eligible Recovery for the true-up 

tariff period and flow that amount 

through the normal procedures 

associated with the recovery 

mechanism. This is consistent with the 

priorities established for recovery of 

Eligible Recovery in the USF/ICC 

Transformation Order. 

11. Finally, we clarify how ARC rates 

are to be handled in making Eligible 

Recovery calculations in light of midyear revisions that some carriers have 

made to their ARC rates after 

discovering errors in the rates that were 

charged. The Commission’s rules do not 

address applicable procedures for 

addressing such rate changes. If a carrier 

assessed an ARC rate that was too high 

for part of a tariff period, it must use 

this higher rate and the associated 

demand for that time period in 

calculating future true-ups for that tariff 

period. Failure to account for the higher 

ARC rates for the period in question 

would constitute impermissible 

duplicative recovery because, without 

this treatment, the carrier would have 

received the ARC revenues without 

having to offset Eligible Recovery to 

reflect their receipt. We also take this 

opportunity to remind carriers that if 

they charge ARCs that are below the 

maximum rate that could have been 

charged, whether for the whole year or 

for part of a year, they are required to 

impute the maximum rate that they 

could have assessed for purposes of 

determining the carrier’s Eligible 

Recovery. These clarifications help to 

ensure that the recovery mechanism 

adopted for rate-of-return carriers in the 

USF/ICC Transformation Order works 

as intended. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

12. This document does not contain 

any new or modified information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA). In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any new or modified 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002. 

B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification 

13. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a 

regulatory flexibility analysis be 

prepared for rulemaking proceedings, 

unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15909 

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). 

14. We hereby certify that the rule 

revisions adopted in the Order will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The Order amends rules adopted in the 

USF/ICC Transformation Order by 

correcting conflicts between the new or 

revised rules and existing rules, as well 

as addressing omissions or oversights. 

These revisions do not create any 

burdens, benefits, or requirements that 

were not addressed by the Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis attached 

to the USF/ICC Transformation Order. 

The Commission will send a copy of the 

Order, including a copy of this final 

certification, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA. In addition, the 

Order (or a summary thereof) and 

certification will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

C. Congressional Review Act 

15. The Commission will send a copy 

of the Order to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

16. Accordingly, it is ordered, that 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201–203, 220, 251, 

252, 254, 303(r) and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

201–203, 220, 251, 252, 254, 303(r) and 

403, and pursuant to §§ 0.91, 0.201(d), 

0.291, 1.3, and 1.427 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 

0.201(d), 0.291, 1.3 and 1.427, and 

pursuant to the delegation of authority 

in paragraph 1404 of 26 FCC Rcd 17663 

(2011), the Order and the rules revising 

part 51 of the Commission’s rules are 

adopted, effective April 27, 2015. 

17. It is further ordered that the 

Commission shall send a copy of this 

Order to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act. 

18. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

the Order, including the Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 51 

Communications common carriers, 

Telecommunications. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Deena M. Shetler, 

Associate Chief, Wireline Competition 

Bureau. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 51 as 

follows: 

PART 51—INTERCONNECTION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 1–5, 7, 201–05, 207– 

09, 218, 220, 225–27, 251–54, 256, 271, 

303(r), 332, 706 of the Telecommunication 

Act of 1996, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 

47 U.S.C. 151–55, 157, 201–05, 207–09, 218, 

220, 225–27, 251–54, 256, 271, 303(r), 332, 

1302, 47 U.S.C. 157 note, unless otherwise 

noted. 

Subpart J—Transitional Access 

Service Pricing 

■ 2. Section 51.917 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (d)(1)(viii)(A) and (B) 

to read as follows: 

§ 51.917 Revenue recovery for rate-ofreturn carriers. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(viii) * * * 

(A) If a Rate-of-Return Carrier in any 

tariff period underestimates its 

projected demand for services covered 

by § 51.917(b)(6) or 51.915(b)(13), and 

thus has too much Eligible Recovery in 

that tariff period, it shall refund the 

amount of any such True-up Revenues 

or True-up Revenues for Access 

Recovery Charge that are not offset by 

the Rate-of-Return Carrier’s Eligible 

Recovery (calculated before including 

the true-up amounts in the Eligible 

Recovery calculation) in the true-up 

tariff period to the Administrator by 

August 1 following the date of the Rateof-Return Carrier’s annual access tariff 

filing. 

(B) If a Rate-of-Return Carrier in any 

tariff period receives too little Eligible 

Recovery because it overestimates its 

projected demand for services covered 

by § 51.917(b)(6) or 51.915(b)(13), which 

True-up Revenues and True-up 

Revenues for Access Recovery Charge it 

cannot recover in the true-up tariff 

period because the Rate-of-Return 

Carrier has a negative Eligible Recovery 

in the true-up tariff period (before 

calculating the true-up amount in the 

Eligible Recovery calculation), the Rateof-Return Carrier shall treat the 

unrecoverable true-up amount as its 

Eligible Recovery for the true-up tariff 

period. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–06642 Filed 3–25–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 225 and 236 

RIN 0750–AI52 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Use of Military 

Construction Funds (DFARS Case 

2015–D006) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Interim rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is issuing an interim rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to implement sections of the 

Military Construction and Veterans 

Affairs and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2015, that require 

offerors bidding on DoD military 

construction contracts to provide 

opportunity for competition to 

American steel producers, fabricators, 

and manufacturers; and restrict use of 

military construction funds in certain 

foreign countries, including countries 

that border the Arabian Gulf. 

DATES: Effective March 26, 2015. 

Comment Date: Comments on the 

interim rule should be submitted in 

writing to the address shown below on 

or before May 26, 2015, to be considered 

in the formation of a final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by DFARS Case 2015–D006, 

using any of the following methods: 

Æ Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

entering ‘‘DFARS Case 2015–D006’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or 

ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the 

link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2015– 

D006.’’ Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. 

Please include your name, company 

name (if any), and ‘‘DFARS Case 2015– 

D006’’ on your attached document. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES