[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