15236 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 63 / Friday, April 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

specified in the FEMA–State Agreement 

for the disaster. 

(iv) Expenses incurred by the local 

government which are reimbursed on 

the applicant’s project application. 

(c) Cancellation application. A local 

government which has drawn loan 

funds from the U.S. Treasury may 

request cancellation of the principal and 

related interest by submitting an 

Application for Loan Cancellation 

through the Governor’s Authorized 

Representative to the Regional 

Administrator prior to the expiration 

date of the loan. 

(1) Financial information submitted 

with the application shall include the 

following: 

(i) Annual Operating Budgets for the 

fiscal year of the disaster and the 3 

subsequent fiscal years; 

(ii) Annual Financial Reports 

(Revenue and Expense and Balance 

Sheet) for each of the above fiscal years. 

Such financial records must include 

copies of the local government’s annual 

financial reports, including operating 

statements balance sheets and related 

consolidated and individual 

presentations for each fund account. In 

addition, the local government must 

include an explanatory statement when 

figures in the Application for Loan 

Cancellation form differ from those in 

the supporting financial reports. 

(iii) The following additional 

information concerning annual real 

estate property taxes pertaining to the 

community for each of the above fiscal 

years: 

(A) The market value of the tax base 

(dollars); 

(B) The assessment ratio (percent); 

(C) The assessed valuation (dollars); 

(D) The tax levy rate (mils); 

(E) Taxes levied and collected 

(dollars). 

(iv) Audit reports for each of the 

above fiscal years certifying to the 

validity of the Operating Statements. 

The financial statements of the local 

government shall be examined in 

accordance with generally accepted 

auditing standards by independent 

certified public accountants. The report 

should not include recommendations 

concerning loan cancellation or 

repayment. 

(v) Other financial information 

specified in the Application for Loan 

Cancellation. 

(2) Narrative justification. The 

application may include a narrative 

presentation to supplement the financial 

material accompanying the application 

and to present any extenuating 

circumstances which the local 

government wants the Assistant 

Administrator for the Disaster 

Assistance Directorate to consider in 

rendering a decision on the cancellation 

request. 

(d) Determination. (1) If, based on a 

review of the Application for Loan 

Cancellation and FEMA audit, the 

Assistant Administrator for the Disaster 

Assistance Directorate or a designee 

determines that all or part of the Special 

Community Disaster Loan funds should 

be canceled, the amount of principal 

canceled and the related interest will be 

forgiven. The Assistant Administrator 

for the Disaster Assistance Directorate, 

or a designee’s determination 

concerning loan cancellation will 

specify that any uncancelled principal 

and related interest must be repaid in 

accordance with the terms and 

conditions of the Promissory Note, and 

that, if repayment will constitute a 

financial hardship, the local government 

must submit for FEMA review and 

approval, a repayment schedule for 

settling the indebtedness on timely 

basis. Such repayments must be made to 

the Treasurer of the United States and 

be sent to FEMA, Attention: Office of 

the Chief Financial Officer. 

(2) A loan or cancellation of a loan 

does not reduce or affect other disasterrelated grants or other disaster 

assistance. However, no cancellation 

may be made that would result in a 

duplication of benefits to the applicant. 

(3) The uncancelled portion of the 

loan must be repaid in accordance with 

§ 206.377. 

(4) Appeals. If an Application for 

Loan Cancellation is disapproved, in 

whole or in part, by the Assistant 

Administrator for the Disaster 

Assistance Directorate or designee, the 

local government may submit any 

additional information in support of the 

application within 60 days of the date 

of disapproval. The decision by the 

Assistant Administrator for the Disaster 

Assistance Directorate or designee on 

the additional information is final. 

7. Amend § 206.377 by revising the 

first sentence of paragraph (b) 

introductory text, the last sentence of 

paragraph (b)(2), paragraph (b)(4) and 

(c)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 206.377 Loan repayment. 

* * * * * 

(b) Repayment. To the extent not 

otherwise cancelled, loan funds become 

due and payable in accordance with the 

terms and conditions of the Promissory 

Note. * * * 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * If any portion of the loan is 

cancelled, the interest amount due will 

be computed on the remaining principal 

with the shortest outstanding term. 

* * * * * 

(4) The Assistant Administrator for 

the Disaster Assistance Directorate may 

defer payments of principal and interest 

until FEMA makes its final 

determination with respect to any 

Application for Loan Cancellation 

which the borrower may submit.* * * 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

* * * * * 

(2) The principal amount shall be the 

original uncancelled principal plus 

related interest less any payments made. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 26, 2009. 

Nancy Ward, 

Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. E9–7286 Filed 4–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–23–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 36 

[CC Docket No. 80–286; FCC 09–24] 

Jurisdictional Separations and Referral 

to the Federal-State Joint Board 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Jurisdictional separations is 

the process by which incumbent local 

exchange carriers (incumbent LECs) 

apportion regulated costs between the 

intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. In 

this document, the Commission seeks 

comment on extending until June 30, 

2010 the current freeze of part 36 

category relationships and jurisdictional 

cost allocation factors used in 

jurisdictional separations, which freeze 

would otherwise expire on June 30, 

2009. Extending the freeze would allow 

the Commission to provide stability for, 

and avoid imposing undue burdens on, 

carriers that must comply with the 

Commission’s separations rules while 

the Commission considers issues 

relating to comprehensive reform of the 

jurisdictional separations process. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

April 17, 2009. Reply comments are due 

on or before April 24, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 80–286, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 63 / Friday, April 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 15237 

• E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov, and include 

the following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

Include the docket number in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

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: 

Daniel Ball, Attorney Advisor, at 202– 

418–1577, Pricing Policy Division, 

Wireline Competition Bureau. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in CC 

Docket No. 80–286, FCC 09–24, released 

on March 27, 2009. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 

Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

Background 

1. Jurisdictional separations is the 

process by which incumbent LECs 

apportion regulated costs between the 

intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. 

The NPRM proposes extending the 

current freeze of part 36 category 

relationships and jurisdictional cost 

allocation factors used in jurisdictional 

separations, which freeze would 

otherwise expire on June 30, 2009, until 

June 30, 2010. Extending the freeze will 

allow the Commission to provide 

stability for, and avoid imposing undue 

burdens on, carriers that must comply 

with the Commission’s separations rules 

while the Commission considers issues 

relating to comprehensive separations 

reform. 

2. The 2001 Separations Freeze Order, 

66 FR 33202, June 21, 2001, froze all 

part 36 category relationships and 

allocation factors for price cap carriers 

and all allocation factors for rate-ofreturn carriers. Rate-of-return carriers 

had the option to freeze their category 

relationships at the outset of the freeze. 

The freeze was originally established 

July 1, 2001 for a period of five years, 

or until the Commission completed 

separations reform, whichever occurred 

first. The 2006 Separations Freeze 

Extension Order, 71 FR 29843, May 24, 

2006, extended the freeze for three years 

or until the Commission completed 

separations reform, whichever occurred 

first. 

3. In this NPRM the Commission 

seeks comment on extending the freeze 

for one year, until June 30, 2010. The 

proposed extension would allow the 

Commission to work with the FederalState Joint Board on Separations to 

achieve comprehensive separations 

reform. Pending comprehensive reform, 

the Commission tentatively concludes 

that the existing freeze should be 

extended on an interim basis to avoid 

the imposition of undue administrative 

burdens on incumbent LECs. The 

Commission asks commenters to 

consider how costly and burdensome an 

extension of the freeze, or a reversion to 

the pre-freeze part 36 rules, would be 

for small incumbent LECs, and whether 

an extension would disproportionately 

affect specific types of carriers or 

ratepayers. Incumbent LECs have not 

been required to utilize the programs 

and expertise necessary to prepare 

separations information since the 

inception of the freeze almost eight 

years ago. If the Commission does not 

extend the separations freeze, and 

instead allows the earlier separations 

rules to return to force, incumbent LECs 

would be required to reinstitute their 

separations processes, and they may no 

longer have the necessary employees 

and systems in place to do so. Given the 

imminent expiration of the current 

separations freeze, it is unlikely that 

incumbent LECs would have sufficient 

time to reinstitute the separations 

processes necessary to comply with the 

earlier separations rules. 

4. The extended freeze would be 

implemented as described in the 2001 

Separations Freeze Order. Specifically, 

price-cap carriers would use the same 

relationships between categories of 

investment and expenses within part 32 

accounts and the same jurisdictional 

allocation factors that have been in 

place since the inception of the current 

freeze on July 1, 2001. Rate-of-return 

carriers would use the same frozen 

jurisdictional allocation factors, and 

would use the same frozen category 

relationships if they had opted 

previously to freeze those as well. 

Comment Filing Procedures 

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 in the DATES

section of this document. Comments 

may be filed using: (1) The 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS); (2) the Federal 

Government’s eRulemaking Portal; or (3) 

by filing paper copies. See Electronic 

Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

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

cgb/ecfs/or the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Filers should follow the instructions 

provided on the Web site for submitting 

comments. 

• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket 

or rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies 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 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). All filings must be addressed to 

the Commission’s Secretary, Office of 

the Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes 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 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
15238 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 63 / Friday, April 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

Ex Parte Requirements 

This matter shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. See 47 CFR 1.1200, 1.1206. 

Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented generally is 

required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other 

rules pertaining to oral and written ex 

parte presentations in permit-butdisclose proceedings are set forth in 

section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s 

rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b). 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in this 

NPRM. Written public comments are 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments on the NPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). See 

5 U.S.C. 603(a). 

Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

In the 1997 Separations NPRM, the 

Commission noted that the network 

infrastructure by that time had become 

vastly different from the network and 

services used to define the cost 

categories appearing in the 

Commission’s part 36 jurisdictional 

separations rules, and that the 

separations process codified in part 36 

was developed during a time when 

common carrier regulation presumed 

that interstate and intrastate 

telecommunications service must be 

provided through a regulated monopoly. 

Thus, the Commission initiated a 

proceeding with the goal of reviewing 

comprehensively the Commission’s part 

36 procedures to ensure that they meet 

the objectives of the 1996 Act. The 

Commission sought comment on the 

extent to which legislative changes, 

technological changes, and market 

changes might warrant comprehensive 

reform of the separations process. 

Because over eleven years have elapsed 

since the closing of the comment cycle 

on the 1997 Separations NPRM, and 

over seven years have elapsed since the 

imposition of the freeze, and because 

the industry has experienced myriad 

changes during that time, we ask that 

commenters, in their comments on the 

present NPRM, comment on the impact 

of a further extension of the freeze. 

The purpose of proposed extension of 

the freeze is to ensure that the 

Commission’s separations rules meet 

the objectives of the 1996 Act, and to 

allow the Commission additional time 

to consider changes that may need to be 

made to the separations process in light 

of changes in the law, technology, and 

market structure of the 

telecommunications industry. 

Legal Basis 

The legal basis for the NPRM is 

contained in sections 1, 2, 4, 201–205, 

215, 218, 220, 229, 254, and 410 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201– 

205, 215, 218, 220, 229, 254 and 410, 

and 1.1200–1.1216 of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.411–1.429, 1.1200– 

1.1216. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which Rules May 

Apply 

The RFA directs agencies to provide 

a description of, and, where feasible, an 

estimate of the number of small entities 

that may be affected by the proposed 

rules, if adopted. The RFA generally 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ 

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ 

has the same meaning as the term 

‘‘small business concern’’ under section 

3 of the Small Business Act. Under the 

Small Business Act, a ‘‘small business 

concern’’ is one that: (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). 

We have included small incumbent 

LECs in this RFA analysis. As noted 

above, a ‘‘small business’’ under the 

RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the 

pertinent small business size standard 

established by the SBA, and is not 

dominant in its field of operation. 

Section 121.201 of the SBA regulations 

defines a small wireline 

telecommunications business as one 

with 1,500 or fewer employees. In 

addition, the SBA’s Office of Advocacy 

contends that, for RFA purposes, small 

incumbent LECs are not dominant in 

their field of operation because any such 

dominance is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. 

Because our proposals concerning the 

part 36 separations process will affect 

all incumbent LECs providing interstate 

services, some entities employing 1,500 

or fewer employees may be affected by 

the proposals made in this NPRM. We 

therefore have included small 

incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, 

although we emphasize that this RFA 

action has no effect on the 

Commission’s analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. 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, 1,311 incumbent 

LECs reported that they were engaged in 

the provision of local exchange services. 

Of these 1,311 carriers, an estimated 

1,024 have 1,500 or fewer employees 

and 287 have more than 1,500 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

incumbent LECs are small entities that 

may be affected by the rules and 

policies adopted herein. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

None. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance and reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for 

small entities. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 63 / Friday, April 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 15239 

As described above, seven years have 

elapsed since the imposition of the 

freeze, thus, we ask commenters, in 

their comments on the present NPRM, 

to address the impact of a further 

extension of the freeze. We seek 

comment on the effects our proposals 

would have on small entities, and 

whether any rules that we adopt should 

apply differently to small entities. We 

direct commenters to consider the costs 

and burdens of an extension on small 

incumbent LECs and whether the 

extension would disproportionately 

affect specific types of carriers or 

ratepayers. 

Implementation of the proposed 

freeze extension would ease the 

administrative burden of regulatory 

compliance for LECs, including small 

incumbent LECs. The freeze has 

eliminated the need for all incumbent 

LECs, including incumbent LECs with 

1500 employees or fewer, to complete 

certain annual studies formerly required 

by the Commission’s rules. If an 

extension of the freeze can be said to 

have any effect under the RFA, it is to 

reduce a regulatory compliance burden 

for small incumbent LECs, by abating 

the aforementioned separations studies 

and providing these carriers with greater 

regulatory certainty. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

None. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The NPRM does not propose any new 

or modified information collections 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new, modified, or proposed 

‘‘information collection burden for 

small business concerns with fewer than 

25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 36 

Communications common carriers, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Telephone, and Uniform 

System of Accounts. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

William F. Caton, 

Deputy 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 

continues to read: 

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

(j), 205, 221(c), 254, 403, and 410. 

2. In 47 CFR part 36 remove the words 

‘‘June 30, 2006’’ where ever they appear 

and add, in their place, the words ‘‘June 

30, 2010’’ in the following places: 

a. Section 36.3(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e); 

b. Section 36.123(a)(5), and (a)(6); 

c. Section 36.124(c), and (d); 

d. Section 36.125(h), (i), and (j); 

e. Section 36.126(b)(5), (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 (b)(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); 

t. Section 36.378(b)(1); 

u. Section 36.379(b)(1), and (b)(2); 

v. Section 36.380(d), and (e); 

w. Section 36.381(c) and (d); and 

x. Section 36.382(a). 

[FR Doc. E9–7450 Filed 4–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS