C.F.R. » Title 47 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER B—COMMON CARRIER SERVICES › PART 36—JURISDICTIONAL SEPARATIONS PROCEDURES; STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR SEPARATING TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROPERTY COSTS, REVENUES, EXPENSES, TAXES AND RESERVES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES 1 › Subpart B—Telecommunications Property

47 C.F.R. § 36.154

Exchange Line Cable and Wire Facilities (C&WF)—Category 1—apportionment procedures

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Exchange Line C&WF—Category 1. The first step in apportioning the cost of exchange line cable and wire facilities among the operations is the determination of an average cost per working loop. This average cost per working loop is determined by dividing the total cost of exchange line cable and wire Category 1 in the study area by the sum of the working loops described in subcategories listed below. The subcategories are:

Subcategory 1.1—State Private Lines and State WATS Lines. This subcategory shall include all private lines and WATS lines carrying exclusively state traffic as well as private lines and WATS lines carrying both state and interstate traffic if the interstate traffic on the line involved constitutes ten percent or less of the total traffic on the line.

Subcategory 1.2—Interstate private lines and interstate WATS lines. This subcategory shall include all private lines and WATS lines that carry exclusively interstate traffic as well as private lines and WATS lines carrying both state and interstate traffic if the interstate traffic on the line involved constitutes more than ten percent of the total traffic on the line.

Subcategory 1.3—Subscriber or common lines that are jointly used for local exchange service and exchange access for state and interstate interexchange services.

(b) The costs assigned to subcategories 1.1 and 1.2 shall be directly assigned to the appropriate jurisdiction.

(c) Effective January 1, 1986, 25 percent of the costs assigned to subcategory 1.3 shall be allocated to the interstate jurisdiction.

(d)-(f) [Reserved]

(g) Effective July 1, 2001, through December 31, 2030, all study areas shall apportion Subcategory 1.3 Exchange Line C&WF among the jurisdictions as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. Direct assignment of subcategory Categories 1.1 and 1.2 Exchange Line C&WF to the jurisdictions shall be updated annually as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.

[52 FR 17229, May 6, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 33012, Aug. 29, 1988; 54 FR 31033, July 26, 1989; 66 FR 33206, June 21, 2001; 67 FR 17014, Apr. 9, 2002; 71 FR 65746, Nov. 9, 2006; 75 FR 30301, June 1, 2010; 76 FR 30841, May 27, 2011; 79 FR 36237, June 26, 2014; 83 FR 63585, Dec. 11, 2018; 89 FR 92845, Nov. 25, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2004–2012 · leading case: Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. T-Mobile Puerto Rico LLC, 678 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. T-Mobile Puerto Rico LLC, 678 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2012). “47 C.F.R. § 36.154 (a) (“State Private Lines” include “all private lines .”
Off. of Regulatory Staff v. South Carolina Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 647 S.E.2d 223 (S.C. 2007). · cites it 3× “The Consumer Advocate cites 47 C.F.R. § 36.154 (c) (2003) in support of its argument.”
Qwest Corp. v. WorldCom, Inc., 380 F.3d 367 (8th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “at ¶¶ 2, 6-7; see also 47 C.F.R. § 36.154 (a)-(b). The FCC concluded that the new rule would “resolve existing concerns in a manner that reasonably recognizes state and federal regulatory interests and fosters administrative simplicity and economic efficiency.”
Telstar Resource Grp., Inc. v. MCI, Inc., 476 F. Supp. 2d 261 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). · cites it 4× “47 C.F.R. § 36.154 (a)-(b). The Ten Percent Rule comprises part of the FCC’s “jurisdictional separations” procedures, which “are designed primarily for the allocation of property costs, revenues, expenses, taxes and reserves between state and interstate jurisdictions.”
MCImetro Access Transmission Servs. of Virginia, Inc. v. Christie, 310 F. App'x 601 (4th Cir. 2009). “” 47 C.F.R. § 36.154 (a). 4 . As the VSSC states, ‘‘[h]aving .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.