[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 2, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18498-18503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07456]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 36
[CC Docket No. 80-286; FCC 14-27]
Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State
Joint Board
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks public comment on a proposal to extend the freeze of
jurisdictional separations category relationships and cost allocation
factors in the Commission's rules for three years, through June 30,
2017. This document also proposes to direct the Wireline Competition
Bureau to open a filing ``window'' to encourage (but not require) rate-
of-return incumbent LECs that desire waivers of the category
relationships freeze to file during the window.
DATES: Comments are due on or before April 16, 2014. Reply comments are
due on or before April 23, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by CC Docket No. 80-286
by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
[ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [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: Greg Haledjian, Wireline Competition
Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202) 418-1520 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 80-286,
dated on March 26, 2014 and released on March 27, 2014. The full text
of this document is available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street
SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. The full text of this
document may be downloaded at the following Internet address: http://
www.fcc.gov/documents/
[[Page 18499]]
-----. The complete text may be purchased from Best Copy and Printing,
Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington DC, 20554. To
request alternative formats for persons with disabilities (e.g.,
accessible format documents, sign language, interpreters, CARTS, etc.),
send an email to [email protected] or call the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Pursuant to sections 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 the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See, Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] 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.
[cir] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street, 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.
[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
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 [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
The proceeding this FNPRM initiates shall be treated as a ``permit-
but-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 Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
Sec. . 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.
I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Introduction
1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose to
extend the freeze of jurisdictional separations category relationships
and cost allocation factors in part 36 of the Commission's rules for
three years, through June 30, 2017. We also propose to direct the
Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) to open a filing ``window'' for
rate-of-return incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) to file waiver
requests to unfreeze their jurisdictional separations category
relationships. That filing window would invite and encourage any rate-
of-return incumbent LEC that opted, in 2001, to freeze its category
relationships and no longer wishes to continue the freeze to submit its
waiver petition within the filing window, so that such requests may be
considered in a consistent and coordinated manner. We seek comment on
these proposals.
2. The Commission notes the need for expediency in completing this
rulemaking because the freeze of our separations rules expires on July
1, 2014. In addition, interested parties are familiar with the issues
involved in extending the freeze of our separations rules as the
Commission has previously extended them multiple times.
B. Background
3. Jurisdictional separations is the process by which incumbent
LECs apportion regulated costs between the intrastate and interstate
jurisdictions. Incumbent LECs record their costs pursuant to part 32 of
the Commission's regulations. These costs are then divided between
regulated and unregulated costs pursuant to part 64 of the Commission's
regulations. Incumbent LECs then perform the jurisdictional separations
process pursuant to part 36 of the Commission's rules.
4. The jurisdictional separations process itself has two parts.
First, incumbent LECs assign regulated costs to various categories of
plant and expenses. In certain instances, costs are further
disaggregated among service categories. Second, the costs in each
category are apportioned between the intrastate and interstate
jurisdictions. These jurisdictional apportionments of categorized costs
are based upon either a relative use factor, a fixed allocator, or,
when specifically allowed in the part 36 of the Commission's rules, by
direct assignment.
5. The statute requires the Commission to refer to the Federal-
State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations (Joint Board)
proceeding regarding ``the jurisdictional separations of common carrier
property and expenses between interstate and intrastate operations''
that the Commission institutes pursuant to a notice of proposed
rulemaking. In 1997, the Commission initiated a proceeding seeking
comment on the extent to which legislative, technological, and market
changes warranted comprehensive reform of the separations process. The
Commission also invited the State
[[Page 18500]]
Members of the Joint Board to develop a report that would identify
additional issues that should be addressed by the Commission in its
comprehensive separations reform effort. The State Members filed a
report setting forth additional issues that they believed should be
addressed by the Joint Board and proposing an interim freeze, among
other things, to reduce the impact of changes in telephone usage
patterns and resulting cost shifts from year to year. The Commission
noted that the current network infrastructure was vastly different from
the network and services used to define the cost categories appearing
in the Commission's part 36 rules.
6. On July 21, 2000, the Joint Board issued its 2000 Separations
Recommended Decision, recommending that, until comprehensive reform
could be achieved, the Commission: (i) freeze part 36 category
relationships and jurisdictional allocation factors for incumbent LECs
subject to price cap regulation (price cap incumbent LECs); and (ii)
freeze the allocation factors for incumbent LECs subject to rate-of-
return regulation (rate-of-return incumbent LECs). In the 2001
Separations Freeze Order, the Commission generally adopted the Joint
Board's recommendation. The Commission 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 new technologies. Further, the
Commission 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. Under the freeze, price cap
incumbent LECs calculate: (1) the relationships between categories of
investment and expenses within part 32 accounts; and (2) the
jurisdictional allocation factors, as of a specific point in time, and
then lock or ``freeze'' those category relationships and allocation
factors in place for a set period of time. The carriers use the
``frozen'' category relationships and allocation factors for their
calculations of separations results and therefore are not required to
conduct separations studies for the duration of the freeze. Rate-of-
return incumbent LECs are only required to freeze their allocation
factors, but were given the option of also freezing their category
relationships at the outset of the freeze.
7. The Commission ordered that the freeze would be in effect for a
five-year period beginning July 1, 2001, or until the Commission
completed comprehensive separations reform, whichever came first. In
addition, the Commission stated that, prior to the expiration of the
separations freeze, the Commission would, in consultation with the
Joint Board, determine whether the freeze period should be extended.
The Commission further stated that any decision to extend the freeze
beyond the five-year period in the 2001 Separations Freeze Order would
be based ``upon whether, and to what extent, comprehensive reform of
separations has been undertaken by that time.''
8. On May 16, 2006, in the 2006 Separations Freeze Extension and
FNPRM, the Commission extended the freeze for three years or until
comprehensive reform could be completed, whichever came first. The
Commission concluded that extending the freeze would provide stability
to LECs that must comply with the Commission's jurisdictional
separations rules pending further Commission action to reform the part
36 rules, and that more time was needed to study comprehensive reform.
The freeze was subsequently extended by one year in 2009, 2010, and
2011 and by two years in 2012.
9. When it extended the freeze in 2009, the Commission referred a
number of issues to the Joint Board and asked the Joint Board to
prepare a recommended decision. The Commission asked the Joint Board to
consider comprehensive jurisdictional separations reform, as well as an
interim adjustment of the current jurisdictional separations freeze,
and whether, how, and when the Commission's jurisdictional separations
rules should be modified. On March 30, 2010, the State Members of the
Joint Board released a proposal for interim and comprehensive
separations reform. The Joint Board sought comment on the proposal. On
September 24, 2010, the Joint Board held a roundtable meeting with
consumer groups, industry representatives, and state regulators to
discuss interim and comprehensive jurisdictional separations reform.
The Joint Board staff conducted an extensive analysis of various
approaches to separations reform, and the Joint Board is evaluating
that analysis.
10. In addition, in 2011, the Commission comprehensively reformed
the universal service and intercarrier compensation systems and
proposed additional reforms. The Joint Board is considering the impact
of the reforms proposed by the USF/ICC Transformation Order and any
subsequent changes on its analysis of the various approaches to
separations reform.
C. Discussion
1. Jurisdictional Separations Freeze Extension
11. We believe that the Commission's fundamental reform of the
universal support and intercarrier compensation systems in the USF/ICC
Transformation Order and the ongoing reform we proposed in the FNPRM
significantly affect the Joint Board's analysis of interim and
comprehensive separations reform. We therefore propose extending the
freeze to allow the Joint Board to consider these recent and proposed
reforms before it issues a Recommended Decision. We propose to extend
the freeze for three years, through June 30, 2017.
12. We also believe that a three-year freeze extension serves the
public interest. The Commission has observed that, if the frozen
separations rules were to take effect again, incumbent LECs would be
required to reinstitute their separations processes that have not been
used since the inception of the freeze more than twelve years ago.
Reinstating these requirements would require substantial training and
investment. Moreover, given the significant changes in technologies and
investment decisions, as well as changes in regulatory approaches at
both the State and federal levels, the existing separations rules are
likely outdated. We thus question whether reinstating the rules would
serve the public interest. The Joint Board on Jurisdictional
Separations has a pending referral to consider broadly what changes to
the separations rules are appropriate. It will take significant time to
address any recommendations that the Joint Board may ultimately
propose. We thus believe that a three-year extension is appropriate. We
seek comment on these proposals.
13. We seek comment on the effect that our proposal to extend the
freeze would have on small entities, and whether any rules that we
adopt should apply differently to small entities. We seek comment on
the costs and burdens of an extension on small incumbent LECs and
whether the extension would disproportionately affect specific types of
carriers or ratepayers.
14. We anticipate that extending the jurisdictional separations
freeze would provide rate-of-return incumbent LECs with a reasonable
methodology to
[[Page 18501]]
apportion costs and--due to the burden it would impose on incumbent
LECs--would be preferable to allowing the previous separations
requirements to resume. We seek comment on this matter. In addition, we
propose that the freeze extension be implemented as described in the
2001 Separations Freeze Order. Specifically, price cap incumbent LECs
will 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 incumbent LECs will use the same
frozen jurisdictional allocation factors, and will (absent a waiver)
use the same frozen category relationships if they had opted previously
to freeze those. We seek comment on these proposals.
B. Filing Window for Rate-of-Return Incumbent LECs To Petition To
Unfreeze Their Cost Category Relationships
15. In 2001, when the Commission initiated the freeze, rate-of-
return incumbent LECs were given the option of freezing their cost
category relationships. Fewer than 100 rate-of-return incumbent LECs
elected to freeze their category relationships. Some of those incumbent
LECs have since converted to price cap regulation. Since 2006, four
rate-of-return incumbent LECs have sought waivers to unfreeze their
category relationships. We granted two waiver petitions and two remain
pending.
16. Rate-of-return incumbent LECs that elected to freeze their cost
category relationships did so with the expectation that the freeze
would likely last only five years. Instead the freeze has remained in
effect for 13 years. Since 2006, there have been many changes in
technology, customer demand and investment decisions that could not
have been anticipated in 2001 when rate-of-return carriers had to
decide whether to elect the cost category relationships freeze. In
addition, the USF/ICC Transformation Order modified rules that affect
rate-of-return incumbent LECs' opportunities to recover costs assigned
to switched services.
17. We thus recognize that rate-of-return carriers that elected to
freeze their cost category relationships did so with the expectation
that the election would be limited in duration. Because the freeze has
been extended multiple times, those carriers may be at a disadvantage
relative to rate-of-return carriers that did not elect the freeze.
Based on these facts, we propose to direct the Bureau to provide
``frozen'' rate-of-return incumbent LECs a specific opportunity (a
filing window) to request approval to unfreeze their cost category
relationships. Such petitions must contain the necessary documentation
to support a waiver, including: the unique circumstances of
petitioner's service area, such as size and configuration; changes made
to petitioner's network since initiation of the 2001 freeze and the
reasons for those changes; and demonstration of the impact that a
waiver would have on petitioner's rates, revenue recovery and the
Universal Service Fund. To prevent overrecovery, the Bureau will also
require, as a condition of receiving a waiver, that the carrier file
certain revised 2011 rate-of-return Base Period Revenue data reflecting
changes in category relationships the carrier makes pursuant to any
relief granted. Opening a filing window would permit the Bureau to
consider waivers in a consistent and coordinated manner. Carriers would
not be required to seek waivers during the window nor barred from
filing waivers after the window has closed, but we believe that a
filing window would create a more efficient process for all interested
parties. We seek comment on this proposal.
II. Procedural Matters
A. Filing Instructions
18. Comment Filing Procedures. Pursuant to sections 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 the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
19. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 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.
23. 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.
24. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.
25. Accessible Formats. To request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432
(tty).
26. Ex Parte Presentations. The proceeding this FNPRM initiates
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-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 Sec. 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission
has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
[[Page 18502]]
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. Paperwork Reduction Act
27. This document does not contain proposed information
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. 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, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
28. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in
this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). 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 FNPRM provided above. The Commission will send a copy of the
FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and the
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
29. In the 1997 Separations Notice, 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 Telecommunications Act of 1996
(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. More than
fourteen years have elapsed since the closing of the comment cycle on
the 1997 Separations Notice, and over twelve years have elapsed since
the imposition of the freeze. The industry has experienced myriad
changes during that time, including reform of universal service and
intercarrier compensation; therefore, we ask for comment on the impact
of a further extension of the freeze.
30. The purpose of the 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.
B. Legal Basis
31. The legal basis for the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201-205, 215, 218, 220, and 410 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
Rules May Apply
32. 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 Small Business
Administration (SBA). Nationwide, there are a total of approximately
27.9 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
33. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (incumbent LECs). 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 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 adopted herein.
34. 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 (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 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 FNPRM. We have therefore
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.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
35. None.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
36. 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.
[[Page 18503]]
37. As described above, more than twelve years have elapsed since
the imposition of the freeze, thus, we are seeking comment on 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.
38. We believe that 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 1,500 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 relieving these carriers from the
burden of preparing separations studies and providing these carriers
with greater regulatory certainty.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
39. None.
III. Ordering Clauses
40. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201-205, 215, 218, 220, and 410 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
201-205, 215, 218, 220, 410, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
is adopted.
41. 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.
42. It is further ordered, pursuant to sections 1.4(b)(1) and
1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), 1.103(a), that
this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking shall be effective on the
date of publication in the Federal Register.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-07456 Filed 4-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P