83_FR_31588 83 FR 31458 - Connect America Fund

83 FR 31458 - Connect America Fund

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 130 (July 6, 2018)

Page Range31458-31460
FR Document2018-14148

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) addresses the petition for reconsideration filed by Alaska Communications Systems (ACS) of the October 31, 2016 Commission's ACS Connect America Fund (CAF) Phase II Order. The Commission denies the petition.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 130 (Friday, July 6, 2018) 
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31458-31460]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14148]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket Nos. 10-90; FCC 18-53]


Connect America Fund

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) addresses the petition for reconsideration filed by Alaska 
Communications Systems (ACS) of the October 31, 2016 Commission's ACS 
Connect America Fund (CAF) Phase II Order. The Commission denies the 
petition.

DATES: The denial of the petition for reconsideration is effective 
August 6, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.

[[Page 31459]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
on Reconsideration in WC Docket Nos. 10-90; FCC 18-53, adopted on April 
25, 2018 and released on April 26, 2018. The full text of this document 
is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the 
FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 
20554 or at the following internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-addresses-alaska-communications-systems-high-cost-petition.

I. Introduction

    1. In this Order, the Commission addresses the petition for 
reconsideration filed by ACS of the October 31, 2016 Commission ACS CAF 
Phase II Order. The ACS CAF II Order, 81 FR 83706, November 22, 2016, 
established the CAF Phase II voice and broadband service obligations 
for ACS. In its petition, ACS seeks reconsideration of the Commission's 
definition of ``high-cost,'' which the Commission adopted to provide 
ACS flexibility to meet its service commitment by deploying to certain 
locations within census blocks that otherwise have been identified as 
``low cost.'' The Commission required ACS to certify, in order to take 
advantage of that flexibility, that its minimum capital expenditure 
(capex) for each location in the ``low cost'' census block was at least 
$5,000, whereas ACS asks that the threshold be lowered to $2,577.79.
    2. The Commission hereby denies the ACS petition. In denying the 
petition, the Commission determines that it struck an appropriate 
balance in providing ACS some flexibility in meeting its service 
commitment, while ensuring that high-cost support is targeted to areas 
that need it most.

II. Discussion

    3. The Commission denies ACS' petition to reconsider the conditions 
the Commission placed on the flexibility it granted ACS. In structuring 
support, the Commission adopted a tailored approach that reflects the 
unique challenges of serving Alaska, while preserving and adhering to 
its fundamental universal service principles and policies--including 
targeting support to locations that are truly in need of support. In 
its petition, ACS states that it ``objects to none of [the] conditions 
[of substituting high-cost locations in low-cost census blocks], but 
seeks reconsideration only of the meaning of `high-cost' in [that] 
context.''
    4. As a matter of policy, the Commission decided that the minimum 
capex for permitting ACS to substitute a location in a low-cost census 
block for a location in a high-cost census block would be $5,000 as a 
way of prioritizing support going to higher-cost unserved locations 
even when allowing ACS to forego deploying to locations in model-
identified eligible census blocks. Setting the threshold at or near the 
lower bound of what ACS estimates is the capex required to serve a 
location in a high-cost census block would counter the Commission's 
objective in the ACS CAF II Order, because it would allow funding to be 
re-directed to relatively lower cost locations while leaving higher 
cost locations unserved. These relatively lower cost locations that 
would be eligible under the revised threshold are precisely the 
locations that are more likely to be served even in the absence of 
universal service support. Particularly given that ACS does not propose 
that their support levels be adjusted to account for the fact that they 
would be serving relatively lower cost locations, granting the ACS 
request would work against the Commission's efforts to efficiently 
serve the higher cost locations which are least likely to be served 
apart from universal service support. Therefore, the Commission chose 
to set the minimum threshold at the average capex for locations in 
high-cost areas otherwise available to ACS, instead of at the lower 
bound otherwise used for determining funded locations. This decision 
thus made sure such flexibility was available to ACS only in instances 
where the location is among the more costly to serve.
    5. As the steward of the limited Universal Service Fund (USF), the 
Commission has discretion to tailor high-cost support to areas that are 
the most costly to serve. It is reasonable and entirely within the 
Commission's authority to limit the flexibility by prioritizing 
deployment to locations with a greater need for funding, based on the 
amount of capex ACS actually spends. ACS seems to concede this is a 
lawful and proper exercise of the Commission's discretion as it seeks 
even greater flexibility. The $5,000 minimum threshold ensures that ACS 
is meeting its obligation to serve the locations in model-determined 
high-cost areas, while allowing ACS some flexibility to exchange some 
unserved locations in adjacent census blocks for which the cost model 
did not calculate support, but which nevertheless ultimately are among 
the costliest for ACS to serve. As the flexibility to swap locations is 
an exception based on the unique circumstance of ACS in Alaska, the 
Commission finds that establishing this limit is reasonable and 
consistent with its overarching universal service principal and 
policies. The Commission is not persuaded by ACS's arguments that there 
is no reasonable basis for the $5,000 minimum capex certification 
requirement or that this obligation is contrary to the public interest.
    6. ACS is also misguided in arguing that the $5,000 minimum 
threshold will leave certain locations unserved and deny support to 
locations that are otherwise entitled to it. ACS is not required to 
substitute any locations, and regardless of whether it does, must still 
deploy to 31,571 locations by the end of the term of support. The 
Commission made a limited exception in the ACS CAF II Order that allows 
ACS to use high-cost support in model-determined low-cost census blocks 
where the population is lacking service and where it is very costly. 
Although the level of the threshold will affect which specific 
locations are served and counted toward the requirement, the public 
interest is served because the number of locations ACS is required to 
serve remains the same.
    7. ACS has long argued that the CAM does not appropriately account 
for the significantly higher costs required to build and operate in 
Alaska. It is due, in part, to this advocacy that the Commission 
adopted an ACS-specific order. However, accepting ACS's premise that 
the CAM underestimates locations' costs would counsel against 
establishing a threshold at the lower end of what ACS's own analysis of 
the CAM would define as a high-cost location. To use a threshold at 
such a level would imply that the Commission should allow ACS the 
flexibility to substitute locations that may not even require support 
while abandoning locations that are clearly in need of high-cost 
support. This is because accepting the premise that the CAM 
underestimates costs would suggest the lower bound threshold ACS 
proposes is likely too low. By setting the threshold at $5,000 per 
location, the Commission was able to allow for some flexibility while 
also reducing subsidization of lower cost locations. Based on ACS' 
representations regarding capex costs in Alaska and the costs to build 
to these unserved locations, meeting this threshold should not be 
problematic. Therefore, the Commission finds its decision was reasoned 
and serves the public interest. ACS provided nothing in its Petition 
that persuades us to alter this requirement.

[[Page 31460]]

III. Procedural Matters

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    8. This document does not contain new information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new 
or 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).

B. Congressional Review Act

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

IV. Ordering Clauses

    10. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained 
in sections 1, 4(j), 214, 254, and 405 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(j), 214, 254, and 405 and Sec.  
1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, that this Order is 
adopted.
    11. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained 
in sections 1, 4(j), 214, 254, and 405 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(j), 214, 254, and 405, and Sec.  
1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the Petition for 
Reconsideration of the Commission's Order, filed by Alaska 
Communications, is denied as discussed herein.
    12. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained 
in Sec.  1.103 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.103, this Order 
shall be effective August 6, 2018.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14148 Filed 7-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

31458 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations (c) * * * EPA-APPROVED ALABAMA REGULATIONS State State citation Title/subject EPA approval date Explanation effective date Chapter No. 335–1–1 Organization Section 335–1–1–.03 .............. Organization and Duties of 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of the Commission. publication]. Section 335–1–1–.04 .............. Organization of the Depart- 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of ment. publication]. * * * * * * * * * * * * (e) * * * EPA-APPROVED ALABAMA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS State Name of nonregulatory SIP Applicable geographic or submittal date/ EPA approval date Explanation provision nonattainment area effective date * * * * * * * 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastruc- Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of Addressing the state board ture Requirements for the publication]. requirements of sections 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) only. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastruc- Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of Addressing the state board ture Requirements for the publication]. requirements of sections 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) only. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastruc- Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of Addressing the state board ture Requirements for the publication]. requirements of sections 2012 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) only. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastruc- Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of Addressing the state board ture Requirements for the publication]. requirements of sections 2008 Lead NAAQS. 128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) only. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastruc- Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of Addressing the state board ture Requirements for the publication]. requirements of sections 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. 128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) only. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastruc- Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of Addressing the state board ture Requirements for the publication]. requirements of sections 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) only. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastruc- Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of Addressing the state board ture Requirements for the publication]. requirements of sections 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) only. § 52.53 [Amended] FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS (Commission) addresses the petition for COMMISSION reconsideration filed by Alaska ■ 3. Section 52.53 is amended by Communications Systems (ACS) of the removing paragraphs (a) through (e). 47 CFR Part 54 October 31, 2016 Commission’s ACS [FR Doc. 2018–14525 Filed 7–5–18; 8:45 am] Connect America Fund (CAF) Phase II BILLING CODE 6560–50–P [WC Docket Nos. 10–90; FCC 18–53] Order. The Commission denies the petition. Connect America Fund DATES: The denial of the petition for sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES AGENCY: Federal Communications reconsideration is effective August 6, Commission. 2018. ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Minard, Wireline In this document, the Federal SUMMARY: Competition Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or Communications Commission TTY: (202) 418–0484. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Jul 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06JYR1.SGM 06JYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31459 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a capex for permitting ACS to substitute limit is reasonable and consistent with summary of the Commission’s Order on a location in a low-cost census block for its overarching universal service Reconsideration in WC Docket Nos. 10– a location in a high-cost census block principal and policies. The Commission 90; FCC 18–53, adopted on April 25, would be $5,000 as a way of prioritizing is not persuaded by ACS’s arguments 2018 and released on April 26, 2018. support going to higher-cost unserved that there is no reasonable basis for the The full text of this document is locations even when allowing ACS to $5,000 minimum capex certification available for public inspection during forego deploying to locations in model- requirement or that this obligation is regular business hours in the FCC identified eligible census blocks. Setting contrary to the public interest. Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445 the threshold at or near the lower bound 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554 of what ACS estimates is the capex 6. ACS is also misguided in arguing or at the following internet address: required to serve a location in a high- that the $5,000 minimum threshold will https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc- cost census block would counter the leave certain locations unserved and addresses-alaska-communications- Commission’s objective in the ACS CAF deny support to locations that are systems-high-cost-petition. II Order, because it would allow funding otherwise entitled to it. ACS is not to be re-directed to relatively lower cost required to substitute any locations, and I. Introduction locations while leaving higher cost regardless of whether it does, must still 1. In this Order, the Commission locations unserved. These relatively deploy to 31,571 locations by the end of addresses the petition for lower cost locations that would be the term of support. The Commission reconsideration filed by ACS of the eligible under the revised threshold are made a limited exception in the ACS October 31, 2016 Commission ACS CAF precisely the locations that are more CAF II Order that allows ACS to use Phase II Order. The ACS CAF II Order, likely to be served even in the absence high-cost support in model-determined 81 FR 83706, November 22, 2016, of universal service support. low-cost census blocks where the established the CAF Phase II voice and Particularly given that ACS does not population is lacking service and where broadband service obligations for ACS. propose that their support levels be In its petition, ACS seeks it is very costly. Although the level of adjusted to account for the fact that they the threshold will affect which specific reconsideration of the Commission’s would be serving relatively lower cost definition of ‘‘high-cost,’’ which the locations are served and counted toward locations, granting the ACS request the requirement, the public interest is Commission adopted to provide ACS would work against the Commission’s flexibility to meet its service served because the number of locations efforts to efficiently serve the higher ACS is required to serve remains the commitment by deploying to certain cost locations which are least likely to locations within census blocks that same. be served apart from universal service otherwise have been identified as ‘‘low support. Therefore, the Commission 7. ACS has long argued that the CAM cost.’’ The Commission required ACS to chose to set the minimum threshold at does not appropriately account for the certify, in order to take advantage of that the average capex for locations in high- significantly higher costs required to flexibility, that its minimum capital cost areas otherwise available to ACS, build and operate in Alaska. It is due, expenditure (capex) for each location in instead of at the lower bound otherwise in part, to this advocacy that the the ‘‘low cost’’ census block was at least used for determining funded locations. Commission adopted an ACS-specific $5,000, whereas ACS asks that the This decision thus made sure such order. However, accepting ACS’s threshold be lowered to $2,577.79. flexibility was available to ACS only in premise that the CAM underestimates 2. The Commission hereby denies the instances where the location is among locations’ costs would counsel against ACS petition. In denying the petition, the more costly to serve. establishing a threshold at the lower end the Commission determines that it struck an appropriate balance in 5. As the steward of the limited of what ACS’s own analysis of the CAM providing ACS some flexibility in Universal Service Fund (USF), the would define as a high-cost location. To meeting its service commitment, while Commission has discretion to tailor use a threshold at such a level would ensuring that high-cost support is high-cost support to areas that are the imply that the Commission should targeted to areas that need it most. most costly to serve. It is reasonable and allow ACS the flexibility to substitute entirely within the Commission’s locations that may not even require II. Discussion authority to limit the flexibility by support while abandoning locations that 3. The Commission denies ACS’ prioritizing deployment to locations are clearly in need of high-cost support. petition to reconsider the conditions the with a greater need for funding, based This is because accepting the premise Commission placed on the flexibility it on the amount of capex ACS actually that the CAM underestimates costs granted ACS. In structuring support, the spends. ACS seems to concede this is a would suggest the lower bound Commission adopted a tailored lawful and proper exercise of the threshold ACS proposes is likely too approach that reflects the unique Commission’s discretion as it seeks even low. By setting the threshold at $5,000 challenges of serving Alaska, while greater flexibility. The $5,000 minimum per location, the Commission was able preserving and adhering to its threshold ensures that ACS is meeting to allow for some flexibility while also fundamental universal service its obligation to serve the locations in reducing subsidization of lower cost principles and policies—including model-determined high-cost areas, while allowing ACS some flexibility to locations. Based on ACS’ targeting support to locations that are exchange some unserved locations in representations regarding capex costs in truly in need of support. In its petition, ACS states that it ‘‘objects to none of adjacent census blocks for which the Alaska and the costs to build to these sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES [the] conditions [of substituting high- cost model did not calculate support, unserved locations, meeting this cost locations in low-cost census but which nevertheless ultimately are threshold should not be problematic. blocks], but seeks reconsideration only among the costliest for ACS to serve. As Therefore, the Commission finds its of the meaning of ‘high-cost’ in [that] the flexibility to swap locations is an decision was reasoned and serves the context.’’ exception based on the unique public interest. ACS provided nothing 4. As a matter of policy, the circumstance of ACS in Alaska, the in its Petition that persuades us to alter Commission decided that the minimum Commission finds that establishing this this requirement. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Jul 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06JYR1.SGM 06JYR1

31460 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations III. Procedural Matters DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov; or by fax to (202) 395–5806. A. Paperwork Reduction Act National Oceanic and Atmospheric FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 8. This document does not contain Administration Megan Mackey, (907) 586–7228. new information collection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 50 CFR Part 679 requirements subject to the Paperwork Authority for Action Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public [Docket No. 170714670–8561–02] Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it NMFS manages the groundfish RIN 0648–BH05 does not contain any new or fisheries in the exclusive economic information collection burden for small Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic zones of the BSAI and GOA under the business concerns with fewer than 25 Zone Off Alaska; Reclassifying Squid BSAI FMP and GOA FMP (collectively employees, pursuant to the Small Species in the BSAI and GOA the FMPs). The North Pacific Fishery Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Management Council (Council) AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries prepared the FMPs under the authority Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 3506(c)(4). of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Conservation and Management Act B. Congressional Review Act Commerce. (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 ACTION: Final rule. et seq. Regulations implementing the 9. The Commission will send a copy FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. of this Report and Order to Congress SUMMARY: NMFS issues regulations to General regulations governing U.S. and the Government Accountability implement Amendment 117 to the fisheries appear at 50 CFR part 600. Office pursuant to the Congressional Fishery Management Plan for This final rule implements Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Amendments 117/106 and updates the Aleutian Islands Management Area species code for octopus in several IV. Ordering Clauses (BSAI FMP), implement Amendment tables to 50 CFR part 679. The Council 106 to the Fishery Management Plan for submitted Amendments 117/106 for 10. Accordingly, it is ordered, Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA review by the Secretary of Commerce, pursuant to the authority contained in FMP), and update the species code sections 1, 4(j), 214, 254, and 405 of the and the notice of availability of these tables for octopus. This final rule amendments was published in the Communications Act of 1934, as prohibits directed fishing for the squid amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(j), 214, Federal Register on March 27, 2018, species complex (squids) by Federally with comments invited through May 29, 254, and 405 and § 1.429 of the permitted groundfish fishermen, Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.429, that 2018 (83 FR 13117). NMFS published specifies a squid retention limit in the the proposed rule for this action on this Order is adopted. Gulf of Alaska (GOA) groundfish April 11, 2018 (83 FR 15538), with 11. It is further ordered that, pursuant fisheries consistent with the existing comments invited through May 11, to the authority contained in sections 1, Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 2018. NMFS received three comment 4(j), 214, 254, and 405 of the Management Area (BSAI) squid letters from three members of the Communications Act of 1934, as retention limit, and makes minor public. The comments are summarized amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(j), 214, corrections to the octopus species code and responded to under the heading 254, and 405, and § 1.429 of the tables. This action is intended to ‘‘Comments and Responses’’ below. Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the promote the goals and objectives of the A detailed review of the provisions Petition for Reconsideration of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and rationale for this action is provided Conservation and Management Act, the in the preamble to the proposed rule Commission’s Order, filed by Alaska FMPs, and other applicable laws. and is briefly summarized in this final Communications, is denied as discussed DATES: Effective August 6, 2018. rule. herein. ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of 12. It is further ordered that, pursuant Background Amendment 117 to the BSAI FMP, to the authority contained in § 1.103 of Amendment 106 to the GOA FMP, and In June 2017, the Council voted the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.103, the Environmental Assessment/ unanimously to recommend FMP this Order shall be effective August 6, Regulatory Impact Review (collectively Amendments 117/106 to reclassify 2018. the ‘‘Analysis’’) prepared for this action squids as non-target ecosystem Federal Communications Commission. may be obtained from component species, not in need of Marlene Dortch, www.regulations.gov. conservation and management. Squids Electronic copies of the Initial are currently classified as target species Secretary, Office of the Secretary. Regulatory Flexibility Analyses for the in the FMPs, though as discussed below, [FR Doc. 2018–14148 Filed 7–5–18; 8:45 am] BSAI and GOA Groundfish Harvest squids are currently only caught BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Specifications for 2018 and 2019 may be incidental to other target fisheries. To obtained from www.regulations.gov. implement FMP Amendments 117/106, Written comments regarding the NMFS implements regulations to burden-hour estimates or other aspects prohibit directed fishing for squids by of the collection-of-information Federally permitted groundfish sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES requirements contained in this final rule fishermen and to specify a squid may be submitted by mail to NMFS, retention limit in the GOA groundfish Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, fisheries consistent with the existing AK 99082–1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, BSAI squid retention limit. The Records Officer; in person at NMFS, following sections of this preamble Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, describe (1) groundfish stock Room 420A, Juneau, AK; by email to classification in FMPs and a brief VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Jul 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06JYR1.SGM 06JYR1


Document Created: 2018-07-06 00:46:15
Document Modified: 2018-07-06 00:46:15
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionRules and Regulations
ActionDenial of petition for reconsideration.
DatesThe denial of the petition for reconsideration is effective August 6, 2018.
ContactAlexander Minard, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.
FR Citation83 FR 31458 
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR