83 FR 14185 - Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 64 (April 3, 2018)

In this document, the Commission reconsiders rules adopted in the Rate-of-Return Reform Order. Specifically, the Commission replaces the surrogate cost methods for Consumer Only Broadband Loops, revises CBOL imputation rules, and lastly, clarifies matters concerning reductions in the Connect America Fund Broadband Loop Support. Further review of the record supports the adjustments, and further promotes the Commission's goals of providing certainty and stability for carriers and continued consumer access to advanced telecommunications and information services.

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14185-14189]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06488]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 51, 54, and 69

[WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58; CC Docket No. 01-92; FCC 18-13]


Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission reconsiders rules adopted in 
the Rate-of-Return Reform Order. Specifically, the Commission replaces 
the surrogate cost methods for Consumer Only Broadband Loops, revises 
CBOL imputation rules, and lastly, clarifies matters concerning 
reductions in the Connect America Fund Broadband Loop Support. Further 
review of the record supports the adjustments, and further promotes the 
Commission's goals of providing certainty and stability for carriers 
and continued consumer access to advanced telecommunications and 
information services.

DATES: Effective May 3, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Goldberg, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at (202) 418-1540 or at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Order on Reconsideration and Clarification, WC Docket Nos. 10-90 and 
14-58, CC Docket No. 01-92; FCC 18-13, released on February 16, 2018. A 
full-text copy of this document may be obtained at the following 
internet address: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-18-13A1.docx.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. By the Second Order on Reconsideration and Clarification 
(Order), we reconsider rules adopted in the Rate-of-Return Reform Order 
relating to rate-of-return local exchange carriers' (LECs) provision of 
consumer broadband-only loops (CBOLs). First, we revise our rules to 
replace the surrogate cost method for determining the cost of CBOLs 
with rules employing existing separations and cost allocation 
procedures. Second, we revise the rule requiring rate-of-return 
carriers to impute on CBOLs an amount equal to the Access Recovery 
Charge (ARC) that could have been assessed on a voice or voice/
broadband line to better implement our intent to maintain the balance 
between end user charges and universal service adopted in the USF/ICC 
Transformation Order. Finally, we clarify two matters pertaining to 
reductions in Connect America Fund Broadband Loop Support (CAF BLS) due 
to competitive overlap. Making these adjustments to the rules for rate-
of-return carriers serves the Commission's goals of providing more 
certainty and stability for carriers investing for the future, thereby 
ensuring that all consumers have access

[[Page 14186]]

to advanced telecommunications and information services.

II. Background

    2. In the Rate-of-Return Reform Order, the Commission revised its 
approach to providing universal service support to rate-of-return LECs. 
The Commission adopted a voluntary path under which rate-of-return 
carriers could elect model-based support for a term of 10 years in 
exchange for meeting defined build-out obligations. For carriers not 
electing model-based support, among other things, the Commission 
modernized the existing interstate common line support rules to provide 
support in situations where customers subscribe to stand-alone 
broadband service, instead of traditional regulated local exchange 
voice service.
    3. To implement the provision of universal service support for 
stand-alone broadband, the Commission defined a new type of service 
that would receive such support--CBOL service. Because CBOL costs were 
included in the Special Access category by the separations and Part 69 
cost allocation rules, the Commission required carriers to shift CBOL 
costs from the Special Access category to a new CBOL category. The goal 
was to avoid including such CBOL costs in the determination of just and 
reasonable rates for special access services and to develop the support 
mechanism and tariff rates for CBOL service. Reasoning that CBOL costs 
were similar to common line costs, the Commission decided to use common 
line costs as a surrogate for identifying the CBOL costs to be shifted 
from the Special Access category to the CBOL category for each CBOL. 
This process is referred to as the ``surrogate method.'' The surrogate 
method included the broadest definition of loop costs feasible based on 
the Commission's then-current cost accounting rules. It also was 
intended to identify those costs in an expansive manner, to segregate 
the broadband-only loop investment and expenses from other special 
access costs currently included in the Special Access category, and to 
preclude cross-subsidization. The Commission recognized, however, that 
it might be appropriate to revisit the surrogate method in the future 
if it was not working as intended.
    4. In the course of implementing the new rules and carrier 
introduction of the new CBOL service, it became apparent that, in 
certain limited situations, the surrogate cost methodology over-
allocated costs out of the Special Access category, thereby reducing 
the revenue requirement and resulting special access services rates 
more than intended; indeed, in the worst case scenario, rates would 
have been reduced to zero. Concluding that it would be unreasonable to 
apply the surrogate method in such circumstances, the Wireline 
Competition Bureau (Bureau) granted a limited waiver of sections 69.311 
and 69.416 of the Commission's rules in cases where use of the 
surrogate cost method would result in such unintended rate reductions. 
The Bureau granted a similar limited waiver of the rules concerning use 
of the surrogate cost method for the 2017 annual access charge tariff 
filing, and any later tariff filings related to the development of the 
CBOL revenue requirement.
    5. In the Rate-of-Return Reform Order, the Commission also adopted 
a rule requiring that rate-of-return carriers impute an amount equal to 
the ARC on CBOL service as part of the process of calculating their CAF 
ICC Support. The Commission anticipated the migration of some end users 
from their current voice/broadband offerings to supported broadband-
only lines due to increased affordability of these services. It 
recognized that as such migration occurred, the reduction in the number 
of ARC-eligible lines would require carriers to recover more from CAF 
ICC support. To help maintain the careful balance between end-user 
charges and universal service support adopted in the USF/ICC 
Transformation Order, the Commission adopted the ARC imputation rule 
for CBOL service. Those rules do not distinguish between carriers' 
revenue from new and existing broadband only loop subscribers.
    6. NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association filed a petition asking 
the Commission to reconsider portions of the Rate-of-Return Reform 
Order. Among other things, NTCA asks that the Commission reconsider the 
surrogate method for estimating CBOL costs, and instead adopt a more 
cost-based method. NTCA also requests that the Commission reconsider 
the ARC imputation rule and grandfather stand-alone broadband 
connections in place as of September 30, 2011 from imputation of the 
ARC amounts.
    7. Further, the Commission also adopted rules in the Rate-of-Return 
Reform Order to eliminate CAF BLS in census blocks served by an 
unsubsidized competitor. The Commission recognized that the census 
blocks served by an unsubsidized competitor are likely to be lower cost 
areas, as compared to the other census blocks in the carrier's study 
area. Accordingly, the Commission provided that a carrier subject to 
competitive overlap may elect one of three methodologies to 
``disaggregate'' its support into competitive census blocks (in which 
support would be eliminated) and non-competitive census blocks (in 
which support would not be eliminated). The Commission further adopted 
a plan for transitioning support reductions for areas subject to 
competitive overlap.

III. Discussion

    8. Upon review of the record, we modify our rules by replacing the 
surrogate cost method for determining the cost of CBOLs and revise the 
rule requiring rate-of-return carriers to impute an amount equal to the 
ARC that could have been assessed on a voice or voice/broadband line. 
We also clarify two matters pertaining to the manner in which 
competitive overlap can lead to a reduction in CAF BLS. These actions 
will further advance our goal of ensuring deployment of advanced 
telecommunications and information services networks throughout ``all 
regions of the nation.''

A. Replacing the Surrogate Method

    9. First, we revise sections 69.311 and 69.416 as set forth in the 
Appendix to determine CBOL costs from the Part 36 and Part 69 cost 
studies without using a surrogate method. While the surrogate method 
produced CBOL cost estimates in the expected ranges for many, if not 
most, carriers, in other situations the estimates were problematic. For 
a few carriers, particularly those that elected to freeze their 
separations category relationships, use of the surrogate method would 
have eliminated the Special Access revenue requirement thereby 
requiring carriers to offer special access services at no charge. The 
costs shifted to the CBOL category are also an input into the amount of 
CAF BLS a carrier is eligible to receive; accordingly, this over-
allocation would have had the unintended effect of increasing the 
projected revenue requirement for CAF BLS. Because use of the surrogate 
method does not result in an appropriate cost allocation for some rate-
of-return carriers, we now reconsider and adopt a different approach 
for identifying CBOL costs that should be shifted from the Special 
Access category to the CBOL category commencing with the 2018 annual 
access charge tariff filings.
    10. We find the approach suggested by NTCA to be a significantly 
better approach than the surrogate method. NTCA proposes that the 
Commission revise section 69.311(b) to specify that broadband-only 
investment shall equal the amount of broadband-only loop investment 
included in CWF Category 2

[[Page 14187]]

Wideband and COE Category 4.11 Wideband Exchange Line Circuit 
Equipment, and related reserves and other investment, assigned to 
interstate special access pursuant to Parts 36 and 69 of the 
Commission's rules. It further proposes that broadband-only loop 
expenses should then be determined by reference to such investments. We 
note that the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) supported a 
similar concept for moving forward. No party has opposed this approach.
    11. Rate-of-return carriers, other than average schedule carriers 
and those that elected to freeze their separations category 
relationships, perform cost studies to implement the Part 36 and 69 
cost allocations in the process of establishing interstate access 
rates. The approach proposed by NTCA and supported by NECA would use 
existing cost categories and allocation procedures to identify the 
costs shifted to the CBOL category. Because this approach takes the 
actual costs from the cost studies into consideration rather than using 
common line costs as a surrogate, it should produce a more accurate 
means of identifying and allocating these costs. Under this approach, 
carriers can identify and track CBOL investment costs that are directly 
assigned to the Special Access category, as well as track indirect 
costs to the new CBOL category. Once investments are assigned, the 
existing rules provide procedures for allocating expenses among 
categories in a consistent manner that will allow carriers to determine 
the expenses associated with CBOL services and shift them to the CBOL 
category. In addition to producing more accurate results, using the 
current cost study process minimizes the burden on carriers and the 
likelihood of cost variability and distortions in future years.
    12. While NTCA proposes specific assignment categories--separations 
category 2.1, cable and wire facilities, and category 4.1.1, circuit 
equipment--we find that the better approach is to be less specific 
concerning permitted cost categories. The Federal-State Joint Board on 
Jurisdictional Separations is considering reforms of the separations 
procedures that have been frozen since 2000. More generic rule language 
will simplify harmonization of any reforms adopted in that proceeding 
with the cost allocation rules in Part 69. Therefore, the new rules 
will require rate-of-return carriers to use direct assignment 
principles to the extent possible before making any indirect 
allocations.
    13. Rate-of-return carriers shall use the revised procedures for 
determining broadband-only line costs to be shifted beginning July 1, 
2018. Such carriers have already completed the cost studies necessary 
for developing data related to support amounts and access rates for 
tariff year 2017 and the Second Cost Surrogate Waiver Order mitigated 
the most significant short-term concerns with the surrogate method. 
Moreover, the changes we adopt largely reflect longer-term 
considerations. Making the revisions to these rules applicable 
beginning July 1, 2018 allows carriers to plan for these changes as 
part of the next annual access tariff filings.

B. ARC Imputation

    14. Upon further consideration, we also revise, effective for a 
period of five years, section 51.917(f) of our rules to address NTCA's 
concern that, under the existing rule, a carrier's CAF ICC support is 
reduced because of the imputation of an amount on CBOLs that was not 
part of the balance struck in the USF/ICC Transformation Order. NTCA 
argues that ``[a] standalone broadband connection in place as of 
September 30, 2011 was never included within the CAF-ICC baseline and 
thus was not part of the `careful balancing' that went into 
establishing the mechanism.'' Other parties support reconsideration of 
the ARC imputation rule and the solution proposed by NTCA.
    15. We agree with NTCA that our focus on reconsideration should be 
on the goal of balancing end-user and universal service support adopted 
in the USF/ICC Transformation Order. The ARC imputation for CBOLs was 
intended to ensure that new support for CBOLs would not unduly increase 
CAF ICC. Although the ARC imputation achieves that goal, we agree with 
NTCA that, as implemented, the ARC imputation may unduly penalize rate-
of-return carriers that offered stand-alone broadband connections 
before the Rate-of-Return Reform Order. As such, we believe adjusting 
the ARC imputation calculation is appropriate. At the same time, 
however, we are mindful of the concerns raised by NTCA regarding the 
need to ensure that any exemption that we create ``be properly targeted 
and limit potential adverse impacts on carriers that do not qualify for 
such an exemption.''
    16. We limit the ARC imputation amount so that the total ARC 
revenues and imputation for the current tariff period will not exceed a 
pre-Rate-of-Return Reform Order baseline as a result of CBOL 
imputation. Specifically, we set the baseline as the ARC revenues from 
the most recent tariff period prior to the effective date of the CBOL 
imputation rule (tariff year 2015-16). Under this approach, a rate-of-
return carrier's CAF ICC support will be reduced by the ARC imputation 
on CBOLs only if a carrier's maximum assessable ARCs and imputed CBOL 
ARCs falls short of the baseline amount. We revise section 51.917(f) of 
the Commission's rules to explain the process for making the necessary 
comparisons and any resulting imputation on CBOLs.
    17. The revisions to section 51.917(f) rules will take effect on 
July 1, 2018, the date that the upcoming annual access tariffs will 
take effect. This effective date will simplify implementation and avoid 
any complications that would occur as a result of a need to true-up 
such amounts in 2019. All rate-of-return carriers must reflect the 
effects of these rule revisions in their Tariff Review Plans for the 
June 2018 annual access charge tariff filings. We adopt NTCA's 
recommendation to sunset section 51.917(f)(5), the provision 
implementing our revisions to the imputation requirement, after five 
years. We believe that such a limitation is warranted in light of our 
currently-limited experience with CAF-supported CBOL-based service. We 
will monitor the effects of section 51.917(f)(5) during that period and 
take further action as necessary.
    18. We reject the grandfathering approach suggested by NTCA. That 
approach raises unnecessarily complicated administrative issues with 
respect to the determination and verification of the number of stand-
alone broadband lines in service on September 30, 2011. We also 
question whether a simple frozen number of lines is the best approach 
since some turnover would be expected over time. For these reasons, we 
decline to adopt the grandfathering solution suggested by NTCA.

C. Clarification of Competitive Overlap Procedures

    19. In addition to the issues on reconsideration addressed above, 
we also clarify two matters related to reductions in support due to the 
competitive overlap procedure adopted in the Rate-of-Return Reform 
Order.
    20. First we clarify the reduction amounts associated with the 
second disaggregation method. In the Rate-of-Return Reform Order, the 
Commission published a table showing the ``reduction ratio'' for 
specified ``competitive ratios'' (i.e., the ratio of competitive square 
miles to non-competitive square miles in a study area). While the table 
sets forth a precise reduction ratio for each competitive ratio that 
was listed, it did not clearly reflect the intent of the Commission 
with respect to the reduction ratios that

[[Page 14188]]

should apply to competitive ratios in between the specified competitive 
ratios. The table below fills in the gaps in accordance with the 
Commission's clear intent and replaces the table in the Rate-of-Return 
Reform Order.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Competitive ratio                        Reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                But no more
                 More than (%)                    than (%)    Ratio (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.............................................           20          N/A
20............................................           25          3.3
25............................................           30          6.7
30............................................           35         10.0
35............................................           40         13.3
40............................................           45         16.7
45............................................           50         20.0
50............................................           55         25.0
55............................................           60         30.0
60............................................           65         35.0
65............................................           70         40.0
70............................................           75         45.0
75............................................           80         50.0
80............................................           85         62.5
85............................................           90         75.0
90............................................           95         87.5
95............................................          100          100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Second, in discussing the transition to support reductions and 
in the associated rule, the Commission referred to the transition 
schedule where the CAF BLS subject to competitive overlap is ``more 
than 25 percent'' of total CAF BLS. This reference was in contrast to 
areas ``where the reduction of CAF BLS from competitive census block(s) 
represents less than 25 percent of the total CAF BLS support the 
carrier would have received in the study area in the absence of this 
rule.'' To prevent a gap when the reduction is exactly 25 percent, we 
clarify that that schedule applies where the CAF BLS subject to 
competitive overlap is 25 percent or more of total CAF BLS, and modify 
section 54.319(g) to reflect that clarification.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    22. This document does not contain new or modified information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. Therefore, it does not contain any new or 
modified information collection burdens 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).

B. Congressional Review Act

    23. The Commission will send a copy of this Second Order on 
Reconsideration and Clarification to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    24. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 
requires agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for 
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.'' The RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having 
the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small 
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, 
the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small 
business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A small business 
concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is 
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).
    25. This Order amends rules adopted in the Rate-of-Return Reform 
Order by replacing the surrogate cost method for calculating the costs 
of Consumer Broadband-only Loops (CBOLs) and revising the Access 
Recovery Charge (ARC) imputation rules for CBOLs. These revisions do 
not create any burdens, benefits, or requirements that were not 
addressed by the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis attached to the 
Rate-of-Return Reform Order. Therefore, we certify that the rule 
revisions adopted in this Second Order on Reconsideration and 
Clarification will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    26. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Order on 
Reconsideration and Clarification, including a copy of this Final 
Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act. In addition, the Second Order on Reconsideration and 
Clarification and this Final Certification will be sent to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, and will be published in the Federal 
Register.

V. Ordering Clauses

    27. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained 
in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 205, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 
332, 403, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and 
section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 
154(i), 155, 205, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 
405, 1302, that this Second Order on Reconsideration and Clarification 
is adopted, effective thirty (30) days after publication of the text or 
summary thereof in the Federal Register.
    28. It is further ordered that Parts 51, 54, and 69 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR parts 51, 54, and 69, are amended as set 
forth in the Appendix, and such rule amendments shall be effective 
thirty (30) days after publication of the rules amendments in the 
Federal Register.
    29. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of 
this Second Order on Reconsideration and Clarification to Congress and 
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    30. It is further ordered, that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Second Order on Reconsideration and Clarification, 
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    31. It is further ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration 
and/or Clarification of NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association filed May 
25, 2016, is granted in part as described herein.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 51

    Communications common carriers, Telecommunications.

47 CFR Part 54

    Communications common carriers, Health facilities, Infants and 
children, Internet, Libraries, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Schools, Telecommunications, Telephone.

47 CFR Part 69

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Telephone.


Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 51, 54 and 69 as follows:

PART 51--INTERCONNECTION

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151-55, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 220, 225-27, 
251-54, 256, 271, 303(r), 332, 1302.

[[Page 14189]]


0
2. Amend Sec.  51.917 by revising the first sentence of paragraph 
(f)(4) and adding paragraph (f)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  51.917  Revenue recovery for Rate-of-Return Carriers.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (4) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(5) of this section, a Rate-
of-Return Carrier must impute an amount equal to the Access Recovery 
Charge for each Consumer Broadband-Only Loop line that receives support 
pursuant to Sec.  54.901 of this chapter, with the imputation applied 
before CAF-ICC recovery is determined. * * *
    (5) Notwithstanding paragraph (f)(4) of this section, commencing 
July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2023, the maximum total dollar amount 
a carrier must impute on supported consumer broadband-only loops is 
limited as follows:
    (i) For the affected tariff year, the carrier shall compare the 
amounts in paragraphs (f)(5)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) The sum of the revenues from projected Access Recovery Charges 
assessed pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, any amounts imputed 
pursuant to paragraph (f)(2) of this section, and any imputation 
pursuant to paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
    (B) The sum of the revenues from Access Recovery Charges assessed 
pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section and any amounts imputed 
pursuant to paragraph (f)(2) of this section for tariff year 2015-16, 
after being trued-up.
    (ii) If the amount determined in paragraph (f)(5)(i)(A) of this 
section is greater than the amount determined in paragraph 
(f)(5)(i)(B), the sum of the revenues from projected Access Recovery 
Charges assessed pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section and any 
amounts imputed pursuant to paragraph (f)(2) of this section for the 
affected year must be compared to the amount determined in paragraph 
(f)(5)(ii)(B) of this section.
    (A) If the former amount is greater than the latter amount, no 
imputation is made on Consumer Broadband-Only Loops.
    (B) If the former amount is equal to or less than the latter 
amount, the imputation on Consumer Broadband-Only Loops is limited to 
the difference between the two amounts.

PART 54--UNIVERSAL SERVICE

0
3. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 
254, 303(r), 403, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.

0
4. Amend Sec.  54.319 by revising paragraph (g) introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec.  54.319   Elimination of high-cost support in areas with 100 
percent coverage by an unsubsidized competitor.

* * * * *
    (g) For any incumbent local exchange carrier for which the 
disaggregated support for competitive census blocks represents 25 
percent or more of the support the carrier would have received in the 
study area in the absence of this rule, support shall be reduced for 
each competitive census block according to the following schedule:
* * * * *

PART 69--ACCESS CHARGES

0
5. The authority citation for part 69 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 220, 254, 
403.

0
6. Amend Sec.  69.311 by revising the introductory text of paragraph 
(b) and adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  69.311   Consumer Broadband-Only Loop investment.

* * * * *
    (b) Until June 30, 2018, the consumer broadband-only loop 
investment to be removed from the special access category shall be 
determined using the following estimation method.
* * * * *
    (c) Beginning July 1, 2018, each carrier shall determine, 
consistent with the Part 36 and Part 69 cost allocation rules, the 
amount of Consumer Broadband-Only Loop investment and related reserves 
and other investment assigned to the interstate Special Access category 
that is to be shifted to the Consumer Broadband-Only Loop category.

0
7. Amend Sec.  69.416 by revising the introductory text of paragraph 
(b) and adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  69.416  Consumer Broadband-Only Loop expenses.

* * * * *
    (b) Until June 30, 2018, the consumer broadband-only loop expenses 
to be removed from the special access category shall be determined 
using the following estimation method.
* * * * *
    (c) Beginning July 1, 2018, each carrier shall determine, 
consistent with the Part 36 and Part 69 cost allocation rules, the 
amount of Consumer Broadband-Only Loop expenses assigned to the 
interstate Special Access category that are to be shifted to the 
Consumer Broadband-Only Loop category.

[FR Doc. 2018-06488 Filed 4-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P