[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 10, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57982-57986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27050]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 36 and 54

[WC Docket No. 05-337; FCC 09-89]


High-Cost Universal Service Support

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission 
addresses the effect of line loss on universal service Local Switching 
Support (LSS) received by incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) that 
are designated as eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs). Pursuant 
to the LSS mechanism, an incumbent LEC ETC serving 50,000 or fewer 
lines in a study area may recover a portion of its switching costs from 
the universal service fund. Under the Commission's rules, as an 
incumbent LEC ETC's access lines increase above certain thresholds, the 
amount of LSS it may receive decreases, but its support does not 
increase if its number of access lines falls below the same thresholds. 
In this notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission tentatively 
concludes that the LSS rules should be modified to permit incumbent LEC 
ETCs that lose lines to increase their LSS, and we seek comment on 
these proposed rule changes.

DATES: Comments are due on or before November 24, 2009 and reply 
comments are due on or before December 1, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 05-337, 
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.
     E-mail: [email protected], 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: [email protected] 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: Ted Burmeister, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, 202-418-7389 or TTY: 
202-418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 05-337, FCC 09-89, 
adopted October 2, 2009, and released October 9, 2009. The complete 
text of this document is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals 
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554.
    The document may also be purchased from the Commission's 
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, 
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or 
(202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via e-mail at: http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available on the Commission's Web site at: 
http://www.fcc.gov.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This notice of proposed rulemaking does not contain new, modified, 
or proposed information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995. 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.

[[Page 57983]]

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Introduction

    1. In this order and notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission 
addresses the effect of line loss on universal service Local Switching 
Support (LSS) received by incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) that 
are designated as eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs). Pursuant 
to the LSS mechanism, an incumbent LEC ETC serving 50,000 or fewer 
lines in a study area may recover a portion of its switching costs from 
the universal service fund. 47 CFR 54.301. Under the Commission's 
rules, as an incumbent LEC ETC's access lines increase above certain 
thresholds, the amount of LSS it may receive decreases. 47 CFR 36.125, 
54.301. In the order portion of this item, the Commission denies the 
Coalition for Equity in Switching Support's (Coalition's) petition 
seeking clarification that the Commission's rules also allow an 
incumbent LEC ETC's LSS to increase if the carrier's access lines 
decrease below those thresholds. As described below, the Commission 
finds no basis in the rules or the record of the Commission's 
proceedings to support the clarification the Coalition seeks. In the 
notice of proposed rulemaking portion of this item, however, the 
Commission tentatively concludes that the LSS rules should be modified 
to permit incumbent LEC ETCs that lose lines to increase their LSS, and 
the Commission seeks comment on these proposed rule changes.

Background

    2. Pursuant to the Commission's jurisdictional separations rules, 
see 47 CFR 36.1 et seq., incumbent LECs apportion their switching costs 
to the interstate jurisdiction based on the ratio of interstate dial 
equipment minutes of use (DEM) to total DEM. 47 CFR 36.125(f). The 
incumbent LECs then recover their interstate switching costs through 
interstate tariffs, and recover the remaining intrastate switching 
costs as provided by the relevant state ratemaking authority. Incumbent 
LECs serving 50,000 access lines or fewer are permitted to allocate a 
higher portion of their switching costs to the interstate jurisdiction. 
47 CFR 36.125(f), (j). The precise amount of the extra allocation 
depends on a weighting factor determined by the number of access lines 
served by the incumbent LEC, with key thresholds established at 10,000, 
20,000, and 50,000 lines. See 47 CFR 36.125(f). A smaller DEM weighting 
factor allowed fewer switching costs to be recovered through interstate 
access charges and a larger DEM weighting factor allowed more switching 
costs to be recovered through interstate access charges. Prior to 1998, 
the costs allocated to the interstate jurisdiction, including the 
higher portion allocated pursuant to DEM weighting, were recovered 
through interstate access charges.
    3. In the Universal Service First Report and Order, the Commission 
determined that recovering switching costs allocated based on the 
weighted DEM factor through interstate access charges constituted an 
implicit support mechanism disfavored by Congress when it adopted the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public 
Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). Accordingly, the Commission created 
LSS, which explicitly supports the additional switching costs allocated 
to the interstate jurisdiction through the universal service fund. 
Universal Service First Report and Order, 62 FR 32861. LSS retained DEM 
weighting as the method of calculating switching support with minor 
modifications. Specifically relevant to the discussion below, the 
Commission adopted the rule, now codified in nearly identical language 
at both Sec.  36.125(j) (governing the allocation of switching costs) 
and Sec.  54.301 (LSS), that ``if * * * the number of a study area's 
access lines increased or will increase such that * * * the weighting 
factor would be reduced, that lower weighting factor shall be applied 
to the study area's 1996 unweighted interstate DEM factor to derive a 
new local switching support factor.'' 47 CFR 36.125(j). Under this rule 
section, if an incumbent LEC ETC's access lines exceeded the relevant 
threshold, the DEM weighting factor would decrease and this would also 
decrease the amount of LSS received by the incumbent LEC ETC.
    4. In the 2001 Separations Freeze Order, the Commission froze the 
jurisdictional allocation factors used by incumbent LECs, while it 
considered comprehensive jurisdictional separations reform. Separations 
Freeze Order, 66 FR 33202. It codified the extension by adding 
effective dates, ending June 30, 2006, to each of the relevant rules. 
In 2006, the Commission adopted the Separations Freeze Extension Order, 
extending the effective date of the freeze to June 30, 2009, or upon 
completion of comprehensive jurisdictional separations reform, 
whichever occurred earlier. 2006 Separations Freeze Extension Order, 71 
FR 29882. Recently, the Commission adopted an order extending the 
freeze again, to June 30, 2010. 2009 Separations Freeze Extension 
Order, 74 FR 23956.
    5. Coalition for Equity in Switching Support Petition. The 
Coalition contends that there is no clear evidence of the Commission's 
intent to create a ``one-way rule'' that would limit the amount of LSS 
available to an incumbent LEC ETC if its number of access lines 
increased, but would not correspondingly increase its amount of LSS if 
its access lines decreased, and that the rules themselves are silent on 
the treatment of carriers that experience declining line counts. The 
Coalition argues that its proposed clarification, or in the 
alternative, an amendment to the Commission's rules, is necessary to 
provide incumbent LEC ETCs the level of support consistent with the 
rationale for LSS, thereby avoiding hardship to those carriers and 
inconsistent treatment of those carriers as compared to other carriers 
of similar size. Citing the Universal Service First Report and Order, 
the Coalition argues that the Commission has recognized that ``rural 
carriers generally serve fewer subscribers, serve more sparsely 
populated areas, and do not generally benefit [as much] from economies 
of scale and scope.'' The Coalition maintains that the one-way rule 
prevents some small incumbent LEC ETCs from receiving the full amount 
of LSS intended by the Commission when it adopted the rule.
    6. The Coalition also asserts that the ``best reading'' of Sec.  
36.125(j) is that the one-way rule expired on June 30, 2006. 
Specifically, the Coalition notes that, on its face, the rule adopted 
in the 2006 Separations Freeze Order is effective ``during the period * 
* * through June 30, 2006.'' It asserts that the rule therefore ``fails 
to provide guidance for carriers whose number of access lines decreases 
below a threshold after June 30, 2006.'' It further asserts that 
because the Commission did not revise Sec.  36.125 or specifically 
discuss LSS eligibility in the 2006 Separations Freeze Extension Order, 
Sec.  36.125 is ambiguous with respect to ``what happens after June 30, 
2006.'' The Coalition argues that, given this ambiguity, the phrase 
``during the duration of the freeze period'' in the final sentence of 
Sec.  36.125(j) should not be read to include the extended freeze 
period, only the initial freeze period ending June 30, 2006, as that 
would be consistent with the date certain in the first sentence.

Discussion

    7. We deny the Coalition's petition seeking clarification that 
Sec. Sec.  36.125 and 54.301 of the Commission's rules allow an 
incumbent LEC ETC's DEM

[[Page 57984]]

weighting factor and LSS to increase if the carrier's access lines 
decrease below the thresholds set out in the rules. We do not agree 
that the existing rules are ambiguous or otherwise provide a basis for 
the clarification the Coalition seeks.
    8. We find that the Coalition's contention that Sec.  36.125(j) did 
not apply after June 30, 2006, is not supported by the record in the 
Commission's proceedings. Prior to the adoption of the 2009 Separations 
Freeze Extension Order the text of that section stated:

    If during the period from January 1, 1997, through June 30, 
2006, the number of a study area's access lines increased or will 
increase such that, under Sec.  36.125(f) the weighting factor would 
be reduced, that lower weighting factor shall be applied to the 
study area's 1996 unweighted interstate DEM factor to derive a new 
local switching support factor. The study area will restate its 
Category 3, Local Switching Equipment factor under Sec.  36.125(f) 
and use that factor for the duration of the freeze period. 47 CFR 
36.125(j) (2008).

    The Coalition argues that, given the specific date reference in the 
first sentence of the paragraph, the ``duration of the freeze'' should 
be read to refer only to the initial freeze period and not the extended 
freeze period. It further notes that there is no specific discussion or 
reference to Sec.  36.125 in the Separations Freeze Extension Order.
    9. The Coalition mistakenly believes that the June 30, 2006 date in 
the first sentence of Sec.  36.125(j) is unaffected by the extended 
separations freeze. The Commission first codified the separations 
freeze by amending literally dozens of rules in part 36 to read 
``through June 30, 2006.'' See Separations Freeze Order, 66 FR 33202. 
When it later adopted the 2006 Separations Freeze Extension Order, the 
Commission did not change the text of each affected rule. 2006 
Separations Freeze Extension Order, 71 FR 29882. However, although the 
Commission did not specifically reference Sec.  36.125 or any other 
specific rule in the 2006 Separations Freeze Extension Order, it 
expressly extended the entire freeze beyond June 30, 2006. The extended 
freeze therefore applied to all affected part 36 rules, including Sec.  
36.125. Accordingly, limiting the applicability of Sec.  36.125(j) only 
to June 30, 2006, as the Coalition suggests, is inconsistent with the 
Commission's action in the 2006 Separations Freeze Extension Order.
    10. Moreover, under the Coalition's interpretation of the freeze 
period's application to Sec.  36.125, incumbent LEC ETCs would be 
subject to different DEM weighting factors for jurisdictional 
separations (under Sec.  36.125) and LSS (under Sec.  54.301). If the 
one-way rule ceased to apply to Sec.  36.125(j), an incumbent LEC ETC 
might be able to shift additional switching costs to the interstate 
jurisdiction if its number of access lines decreased below a relevant 
threshold under the part 36 separations rules, but the one-way rule in 
Sec.  54.301(a)(2)(ii) would still apply and the carrier could not 
recover those additional switching costs from LSS under the part 54 
universal service rules. We find no evidence that the Commission 
intended such an anomaly.
    11. Although the Coalition explicitly argues that the Commission 
should adopt the Coalition's interpretation of the June 30, 2006 
limitation on Sec.  36.125 discussed above, many of its arguments 
suggest that the Commission should instead clarify that the DEM 
weighting thresholds were always intended to apply to carriers with 
either increasing or decreasing numbers of access lines. We find no 
evidence that the Commission intended its rules to be so construed, nor 
do we find that the rules contain any ambiguity that would permit such 
a clarification. The plain language of Sec.  54.301(a)(2)(ii) refers 
only to increases in line counts, and is silent on decreases in line 
counts:

    If the number of a study area's access lines increases such 
that, under Sec.  36.125(f) of this chapter, the weighted interstate 
DEM factor for 1997 or any successive year would be reduced, that 
lower weighted interstate DEM factor shall be applied to the 
carrier's 1996 unweighted interstate DEM factor to derive a new 
local switching support factor. 47 CFR 54.301(a)(2)(ii).

    Similarly, in the Universal Service First Report and Order, the 
Commission is silent on decreases in line counts, concluding only that 
``[i]f the number of a carrier's lines increases during 1997 or any 
successive year, either through the purchase of exchanges or through 
other growth in lines, such that the current DEM weighting factor would 
be reduced, the carrier must apply the lower weighting factor to the 
1996 unweighted interstate DEM factor in order to derive the local 
switching support factor used to calculate universal service support.'' 
Universal Service First Report and Order, 62 FR 32861.
    12. The Coalition notes that the Commission likely did not consider 
a circumstance in which incumbent LECs suffered declining numbers of 
access lines, noting that ``local exchange carriers' access lines had 
risen virtually without exception for over half a century.'' Assuming, 
arguendo, that this is true, the fact that the Commission never 
considered such a circumstance would likely indicate that it never 
intended to adopt a specific rule to govern declining numbers in access 
lines. We do not find, in this case, that silence results in ambiguity, 
as the Coalition contends. We further do not find any basis for 
applying the rule in a manner that is manifestly contrary to the rule's 
express language.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    13. The Coalition requests, in the alternative, that the Commission 
amend its rules to permit an incumbent LEC ETC with declining numbers 
of access lines to use a higher DEM weighting factor in performing 
jurisdictional separations and calculating LSS. We believe that public 
policy supports doing so. We therefore tentatively conclude that 
Sec. Sec.  36.125(j) and 54.301(a)(2)(ii) should be amended 
accordingly. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion, on the 
proposed rules attached in the appendix, and on the analysis below. We 
emphasize that this analysis applies only to our current consideration 
of a relatively minor change to an existing rule, and nothing herein is 
intended to reflect or prejudge our consideration of LSS as part of any 
comprehensive universal service reform. In support of this request, the 
Coalition states that the one-way rule provides small incumbent LEC 
ETCs that suffer declining numbers of access lines with less LSS than 
they would be eligible to receive if their number of access lines had 
not exceeded the thresholds established in the rules. The Coalition 
states in addition that the calculation of LSS and the DEM weighting 
factors assume that small incumbent LEC ETCs have higher local 
switching costs than larger carriers. Thus, the Coalition asserts that 
if size is a driving factor behind high switching costs, then the fact 
that a carrier has gained and later lost access lines does not mitigate 
those high costs.
    14. The Coalition has provided evidence that failing to provide the 
higher level of LSS has caused or threatens to cause small incumbent 
LEC ETCs some hardship. Moreover, the Coalition asserts that a small 
carrier that gains, then loses, access lines is not in a meaningfully 
different situation than a similarly-sized small carrier that suffers 
no gain or loss. Indeed, a carrier that purchases equipment designed to 
support a greater number of access lines but then loses those access 
lines may be even more disadvantaged than a carrier that had never made 
purchasing decisions based upon a higher access line count.
    15. We therefore seek comment on amending our rules to allow an 
incumbent LEC ETC's DEM weighting

[[Page 57985]]

factor and LSS to increase if the carrier's access lines decrease below 
the thresholds set out in the rules. We seek comment on the potential 
effect of such a change, and ask commenters to provide specific data 
regarding the amount by which such a change will increase universal 
service high-cost support disbursements, and an analysis as to why any 
such increase in the size of the universal service fund is justified.

Procedural Matters

    16. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  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. 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, May 1, 
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.
    [cir] 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 e-mail to [email protected], and include the following 
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and 
directions will be sent in response.
    [cir] 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.
    [cir] The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or 
messenger-delivered 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.
    [cir] 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.
    [cir] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    17. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be sent to the 
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc, 445 
12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com; phone: 1-800-378-3160. Furthermore, three copies of 
each pleading must be sent to Antoinette Stevens, Telecommunications 
Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Room 5-B521, Washington, DC 20554; e-mail: 
[email protected].
    18. Filings and comments are also available for public inspection 
and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference 
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. Copies may also be purchased from the 
Commission's duplicating contractor, BCPI, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI through its 
Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com, by e-mail at: [email protected], by 
telephone at (202) 488-5300 or (800) 378-3160 (voice), (202) 488-5562 
(tty), or by facsimile at (202) 488-5563.
    19. To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). 
Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations for filing 
comments (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, 
CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected]; phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: 
(202) 418-0432.
    20. For further information regarding this proceeding, contact Ted 
Burmeister, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications Access Policy 
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7389, or 
[email protected].

Ex Parte Presentations

    21. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 
1.1200-1.1216. 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 is generally required. 47 CFR 
1.1206(b)(2). Other requirements pertaining to oral and written 
presentations are set forth in Sec.  1.1206(b) of the Commission's 
rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    22. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), See 5 U.S.C. 603, 
requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for 
notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies 
that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' See 5 U.S.C. 
605(b). The RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having the same 
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and 
``small governmental jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the 
term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small 
business concern'' under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 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). 15 U.S.C. 632.
    23. In this notice of proposed rulemaking we propose to revise two 
of the Commission's rules to permit small incumbent LECs whose access 
lines decrease below specific thresholds to receive LSS based on their 
current number of lines. The revisions do not increase the incumbent 
LECs' administrative burdens.
    24. The Commission therefore certifies, pursuant to the RFA, that 
the proposals in this notice of proposed

[[Page 57986]]

rulemaking, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. If commenters believe that the 
proposals discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking require 
additional RFA analysis, they should include a discussion of these 
issues in their comments and additionally label them as RFA comments. 
The Commission will send a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking, 
including a copy of this initial certification, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the SBA. In addition, a copy of the notice of proposed 
rulemaking and this initial certification will be published in the 
Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

Ordering Clauses

    25. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in Sec. Sec.  1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 214, 220, and 254 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 
154(j), 201-205, 214, 220, and 254, the petition for clarification 
filed by the Coalition for Equity in Switching Support is denied as 
discussed herein.
    26. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained 
in Sec. Sec.  1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 214, 220, and 254 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 
154(j), 201-205, 214, 220, and 254, this notice of proposed rulemaking 
is adopted.
    27. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this notice of proposed rulemaking, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration.
    28. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.103(a) and 
1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.103(a) and 1.4(b)(1), 
this notice of proposed rulemaking shall be effective upon publication 
in the Federal Register.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 parts 36 and 54 as 
follows:

PART 36--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 36 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 205, 221(c), 254, 403, 
and 410.

    2. Section 36.125 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  36.125  Local switching equipment--Category 3.

* * * * *
    (j) If the number of a study area's access lines increases or 
decreases such that, under Sec.  36.125(f) of this part, the weighted 
interstate DEM factor for 1997 or any successive year would change, the 
weighted interstate DEM factor appropriate to the study area's current 
access line count shall be applied to the study area's 1996 unweighted 
interstate DEM factor to derive a new local switching support factor.

PART 54--[AMENDED]

    3. The authority citation for Part 54 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201, 205, 214, and 254 unless 
otherwise noted.
    4. Section 54.301 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  54.301  Local switching support.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) If the number of a study area's access lines increases or 
decreases such that, under section 36.125(f) of this chapter, the 
weighted interstate DEM factor for 1997 or any successive year would 
change, the weighted interstate DEM factor appropriate to the study 
area's current access line count shall be applied to the study area's 
1996 unweighted interstate DEM factor to derive a new local switching 
support factor.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-27050 Filed 11-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P