8872 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

re-signs the document for publication, 

as an official document of the 

Environmental Protection Agency. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Philadelphia, PA, on November 

17, 2020 by: 

Cosmo Servidio, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

Dated: February 3, 2021, 

Diana Esher, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 

52 as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(e)(1) is amended by adding the entry 

for ‘‘CTG Negative Declarations 

Certification for the 2008 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard’’ at the end of the table to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision Applicable geographic area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Additional 

explanation 

*******

CTG Negative Declarations 

Certification for the 2008 

Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard.

Northern Virginia VOC emissions control area.04/02/20 2/10/21, [insert Federal Register citation].Certifies negative declarations 

for CTG and ACT source 

categories in Northern Virginia, including the 2016 Oil 

and Gas CTG. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–02594 Filed 2–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 51 

[WC Docket No. 19–308; FCC 20–152; FRS 

17457] 

Modernizing Unbundling and Resale 

Requirements in an Era of NextGeneration Networks and Services; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission published a document in 

the Federal Register on January 8, 2021, 

announcing the elimination of 

unbundling and resale requirements 

where they stifle technology transitions 

and broadband deployment, and the 

preservation of unbundling 

requirements where they are still 

necessary to realize the 1996 Act’s goal 

of robust intermodal competition 

benefiting all Americans. There is a 

typographical error in the rules section 

of this document, incorrectly referring 

to the heading as ‘‘Availability of DS1 

loops’’ when it should read 

‘‘Availability of DS3 loops.’’ 

DATES: This correction is effective on 

February 8, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, please contact 

Megan Danner, Competition Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

at Megan.Danner@fcc.gov, 202–418– 

1151. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction 

In the Federal Register of January 8, 

2021, in FR doc. 2020–25254, on page 

1674, in the first column, correct the 

subject heading for § 51.319(a)(5)(i) to 

read: ‘‘Availability of DS3 loops’’. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02772 Filed 2–8–21; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 63 

[WC Docket No. 17–84; DA 20–1241; FRS 

17275] 

Accelerating Wireline Broadband 

Deployment by Removing Barriers to 

Infrastructure Investment 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission 

ACTION: Denial of reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau of the 

Federal Communications Commission 

(Commission) denies Public 

Knowledge’s Petition for 

Reconsideration of the Wireline 

Infrastructure Second Report and Order, 

published on July 9, 2018, and 

dismisses as moot Public Knowledge’s 

companion Motion to Hold in Abeyance 

the same Order pending an appeal that 

has now been denied. 

DATES: The Commission denies the 

petition for reconsideration as of March 

12, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Competition Policy Division, Michele 

Levy Berlove, at (202) 418–1477, 

michele.berlove@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Wireline Competition 

Bureau’s Order on Reconsideration in 

WC Docket No. 17–84, adopted October 

20, 2020 and released October 20, 2020. 

The full text of this document is 

available on the Commission’s website 

at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/DA-20-1241A1.docx. To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (Braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an email to FCC504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 8873 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY). 

The Wireline Competition Bureau 

adopted the Order on Reconsideration 

in conjunction with an Order and a 

Declaratory Ruling in WC Docket No. 

17–84. 

This document does not contain new 

or modified 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 modified 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

The Commission will not send a copy 

of this Order on Reconsideration to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A), because the adopted rules 

are rules of particular applicability. This 

document denying the Order on 

Reconsideration applies to one 

petitioner, Public Knowledge. 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. Next-generation networks hold the 

promise of new and improved service 

offerings for American consumers, and 

encouraging the deployment of these 

facilities as broadly as possible has long 

been a priority of the Commission. The 

COVID–19 pandemic has served to 

underscore the importance of ensuring 

that people throughout the country can 

reap the benefits of these nextgeneration networks, which provide 

increased access to economic 

opportunity, healthcare, education, 

civic engagement, and connections with 

family and friends. Removing 

unnecessary regulatory barriers faced by 

carriers seeking to transition legacy 

networks and services to modern 

broadband infrastructure is therefore a 

key component of the Commission’s 

work to improve access to advanced 

communications services and to close 

the digital divide. 

2. In the Order on Reconsideration, 

the Wireline Competition Bureau denies 

a petition by Public Knowledge 

(Petitioner) seeking reconsideration of 

the Wireline Infrastructure Second 

Report and Order (Second Report and 

Order or Order), 83 FR 31659, July 9, 

2018, and dismisses as moot its 

accompanying motion to have the 

Commission hold that Order in 

abeyance pending the outcome of an 

appeal. 

II. Background 

3. Section 214(a) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, requires that carriers seek 

Commission authorization before 

discontinuing, reducing, or impairing 

service to a community or part of a 

community. Unless otherwise noted, 

this item uses the term ‘‘discontinue’’ or 

‘‘discontinuance’’ as a shorthand for the 

statutory language ‘‘discontinue, reduce, 

or impair.’’ The Commission will grant 

such authorization only if it determines 

that ‘‘neither the present nor future 

public convenience and necessity will 

be adversely affected.’’ This requirement 

is ‘‘directed at preventing a loss or 

impairment of a service offering to a 

community or part of a community 

without adequate public interest 

safeguards.’’ Reference to ‘‘the 

Commission’’ with respect to 

administering its section 214 

discontinuance rules throughout this 

item includes actions taken by the 

Bureau pursuant to its delegated 

authority to accept, process, and act on 

section 214 applications. 

4. The Commission’s rules 

implementing section 214(a) provide 

that a carrier’s application seeking 

Commission discontinuance authority 

will be automatically granted after sixty 

or thirty days, depending on whether 

the carrier is considered dominant or 

nondominant, respectively, unless the 

Commission notifies the applicant 

otherwise. This automatic grant feature 

has become known as streamlined 

processing. The Commission may 

remove an application from streamlined 

processing based on the contents of the 

application itself, responsive or 

oppositional comments, or other issues 

associated with the application that 

warrant further scrutiny prior to acting. 

The Commission will normally 

authorize the discontinuance, however, 

‘‘unless it is shown that customers 

would be unable to receive service or a 

reasonable substitute from another 

carrier or that the public convenience or 

necessity is otherwise adversely 

affected.’’ 

5. In evaluating whether a planned 

discontinuance of service will adversely 

affect the public convenience or 

necessity, the Commission traditionally 

employs a five-factor balancing test. 

These five factors analyze: (1) The 

financial impact on the common carrier 

of continuing to provide the service; (2) 

the need for the service in general; (3) 

the need for the particular facilities in 

question; (4) increased charges for 

alternative services; and (5) the 

existence, availability, and adequacy of 

alternatives. While analysis of these five 

factors ‘‘generally provides the basis for 

reviewing discontinuance applications, 

our ‘public interest evaluation 

necessarily encompasses the broad aims 

of the Communications Act.’ ’’ In 2016, 

the Commission revised its streamlined 

discontinuance rules to create a process 

applicable specifically to technology 

transition discontinuance applications. 

These applications seek to discontinue 

legacy time-division multiplexing 

(TDM)-based voice services in a 

community, replacing them instead 

with a voice service using a different, 

next-generation technology. In adopting 

a new process specifically for 

technology transition discontinuance 

applications, the Commission 

concluded that the existence, 

availability, and adequacy of 

alternatives has ‘‘heightened 

importance’’ in evaluating the impact on 

the public interest, as consumers in the 

affected community would typically 

need to transition to more modern voice 

service alternatives having different 

characteristics. As a result, carriers 

could get streamlined treatment of a 

technology transition discontinuance 

application only by complying with a 

set of requirements intended to focus 

heightened scrutiny on the replacement 

service to which end-user customers 

would have access. In order to get 

streamlined treatment via the adequate 

replacement test, a technology transition 

discontinuance applicant must certify or 

demonstrate that one or more 

replacement services in the area offers 

all of the following: (1) Substantially 

similar levels of network infrastructure 

and service quality as the applicant 

service; (2) compliance with existing 

Federal and/or industry standards 

required to ensure that critical 

applications such as 911, network 

security, and applications for 

individuals with disabilities remain 

available; and (3) interoperability and 

compatibility with an enumerated list of 

applications and functionalities 

determined to be key to consumers and 

competitors. 

6. In furtherance of its commitment to 

encouraging a more rapid transition to 

next-generation voice technologies and 

services, the Commission further 

amended its technology transition 

discontinuance rules in 2018 to provide 

an additional, more streamlined option 

for carriers seeking to discontinue 

legacy voice services. This option 

encompassed ‘‘appropriate limitations 

to protect consumers and the public 

interest,’’ while enabling carriers to 

work more responsively to ‘‘redirect 

resources to next-generation networks,’’ 

ultimately benefitting the public. Via a 

8874 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

new ‘‘alternative options test,’’ a 

carrier’s technology transition 

discontinuance application is eligible 

for streamlined processing when: (1) 

The discontinuing carrier offers a standalone, facilities-based interconnected 

Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 

service throughout the affected service 

area, and (2) at least one stand-alone 

facilities-based voice service is available 

from an unaffiliated provider 

throughout the affected service area. A 

carrier seeking streamlined treatment for 

a technology transition discontinuance 

application can choose to satisfy either 

the adequate replacement test or the 

alternative options test. All carriers, 

regardless of status as dominant or nondominant, are eligible for the 

streamlined options for the 

discontinuance of legacy TDM-based 

voice service. We note that seeking 

streamlined treatment for a technology 

transition discontinuance application is 

optional. If a discontinuing carrier 

cannot, or elects not to attempt to, 

satisfy the requirements associated with 

seeking one of the streamlined treatment 

alternatives, the carrier may always 

proceed with its discontinuance 

application on a non-streamlined basis, 

under the traditional five-factor test. In 

addition, neither the 2016 nor the 2018 

technology transition discontinuance 

rules limited their applicability to 

incumbent local exchange carriers 

(LECs). An incumbent LEC is any local 

exchange carrier in a specific area that: 

(A) On February 8, 1996, provided 

telephone exchange service in such 

area; and (B)(i) on February 8, 1996, was 

deemed to be a member of the exchange 

carrier association pursuant to 

§ 69.601(b) of the Commission’s 

regulations (47 CFR 69.601(b)); or (ii) is 

a person or entity that, on or after 

February 8, 1996, became a successor or 

assign of a member described in clause 

(i). By contrast, a competitive LEC is a 

carrier that intends to compete directly 

with the incumbent LEC for its 

customers and its control of the local 

market. 

III. Order on Reconsideration 

7. In this Order on Reconsideration, 

the Wireline Competition Bureau 

(Bureau) denies Public Knowledge’s 

Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of 

the Wireline Infrastructure Second 

Report and Order. We also dismiss as 

moot Public Knowledge’s companion 

Motion to Hold in Abeyance (Motion) 

the same Order pending an appeal that 

has now been denied. 

8. On June 7, 2018, the Commission 

adopted the Second Report and Order, 

in which, among other things, it 

established a new, alternative path for 

carriers to obtain streamlined treatment 

of applications to discontinue legacy 

TDM-based voice services as part of a 

technology transition. Public 

Knowledge subsequently sought 

reconsideration of that Order and to 

have the Commission hold it in 

abeyance pending the outcome of an 

appeal of the Wireless Infrastructure 

First Report and Order (First Report and 

Order) (82 FR 61453, Dec. 28, 2017) in 

the same Commission proceeding. The 

Wireline Competition Bureau sought 

comment on Public Knowledge’s 

Petition on September 19, 2018 (83 FR 

47325). While the Public Notification 

seeking comment on the Petition did not 

also seek comment on the Motion, 

certain filers responded to the Motion. 

No commenters other than Public 

Knowledge filed in support of the 

Petition. Three commenters filed 

oppositions to the Petition, generally 

arguing that it ‘‘offers no basis for the 

Commission to reverse any of its 

decisions.’’ We agree and deny the 

Petition. Moreover, we deny the Motion 

as moot for the additional independent 

reason that the pending appeal upon 

which it was based has been denied. 

A. The Petition Rehashes Issues Already 

Addressed 

9. In support of its Petition, Public 

Knowledge raises several arguments that 

the Commission previously addressed 

in the Second Report and Order. 

Specifically, the Petition argues that: (1) 

‘‘the Commission’s changes to its rules 

. . . pose a threat to the ability of 

[F]ederal agencies to complete their 

missions;’’ (2) the ‘‘alternative options’’ 

test adopted in the Second Report and 

Order is deficient in various ways; and 

(3) the Commission improperly relied 

on ‘‘market-based incentives [as] 

sufficient to ensure that customers will 

retain access to adequate service.’’ 

USTelecom noted that ‘‘[m]any of the 

complaints in the Petition have already 

been considered by the Commission.’’ 

The Wireline Competition Bureau 

denies the Petition because all of Public 

Knowledge’s arguments were fully 

considered, and rejected, by the 

Commission in the underlying 

proceeding. 

10. First, Public Knowledge argues in 

its Petition that a filing by the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA), submitted after 

the Second Report and Order was 

adopted, raises concerns that Federal 

agencies ‘‘are likely to be negatively 

impacted by the fact that the Order’s 

discontinuance process does not require 

carriers to prove that replacement 

services will provide service 

substantially similar those being 

discontinued.’’ The Wireline 

Competition Bureau disagrees with 

Public Knowledge’s characterization of 

the NTIA letter, and with the assertion 

that government agencies will be 

negatively affected by the changes 

adopted in the Second Report and 

Order. 

11. As an initial matter, the 

Commission fully considered, and 

rejected, arguments that government 

agencies would be negatively impacted 

by the rules adopted in the Second 

Report and Order. In that Order, the 

Commission found unpersuasive 

‘‘concerns that large enterprise or 

government customers will be adversely 

affected by further streamlined 

processing of legacy voice 

discontinuance applications that do not 

meet the adequate replacement test.’’ 

The Commission found in the Second 

Report and Order that ‘‘carriers are 

accustomed to working with . . . 

government users . . . to avoid service 

disruptions’’ and noted the 

Commission’s expectation that under 

the new streamlined discontinuance 

processing rules ‘‘carriers will ‘continue 

to collaborate with their [enterprise or 

government] customers . . . to ensure 

that they are given sufficient time to 

accommodate the transition to [nextgeneration services] such that key 

functionalities are not lost during this 

period of change.’ ’’ The Commission 

went on to note that ‘‘as with all 

discontinuance applications, [Federal 

agency] customers are able to file 

comments in opposition to a 

discontinuance application and seek to 

have the Commission remove the 

application from streamlined 

processing.’’ The NTIA letter referenced 

by the Petition raises no new concerns 

about these findings. 

12. Moreover, several commenters 

point out that the Petition misconstrues 

NTIA’s filing, which, ‘‘[c]ontrary to 

Public Knowledge’s assertions, . . . 

generally supports the Commission’s 

approach’’ in the Second Report and 

Order. For example, NTIA ‘‘support[s] 

the Commission’s decision to extend 

. . . streamlined processing rules . . . 

for legacy voice and data services 

operating at speeds less than 1.544 

Mbps to carrier applications to 

discontinue data services at speeds 

below 25/3 Mbps.’’ NTIA observes that 

‘‘if carriers’ conduct impairs . . . 

critical national security and public 

safety functions, the Commission retains 

‘flexibility to address [agencies’] 

circumstances on a case-by-case basis.’ ’’ 

More generally, NTIA recognizes the 

Second Report and Order’s discussion 

of Federal agencies ‘‘as a commitment to 

sanction conduct impinging on’’ critical 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 8875 

agency functions, expressing confidence 

‘‘that the Commission will continue to 

recognize and address the specific needs 

of [F]ederal [G]overnment users during 

the IP transition.’’ In particular, NTIA’s 

letter endorses the Commission’s 

discussion of Federal agencies in the 

Second Report and Order, noting that 

the Commission retains flexibility to 

address issues related to national 

security and public safety raised by 

legacy voice service discontinuances on 

a case-by-case basis. As Verizon notes, 

‘‘NTIA agreed [with the Commission’s 

finding that] the [F]ederal [G]overnment 

‘generally is well-positioned to protect 

its interests through large-scale service 

contracts with carriers.’ ’’ While the 

NTIA letter cited in the Petition notes 

that some Federal agencies in remote or 

less populated areas may not enjoy the 

level of competition for 

communications services that exists in 

other areas of the country, NTIA goes on 

to state that it is ‘‘encouraged’’ by the 

Commission’s discussion of Federal 

agencies’ interests regarding service 

discontinuances in the Second Report 

and Order. The letter likewise expresses 

confidence that the Commission’s 

procedures for processing service 

discontinuances will be sufficient to 

safeguard the interests of Federal 

agencies in maintaining mission critical 

communications infrastructure. In its 

reply comments in support of its 

Petition, Public Knowledge seems to 

suggest that despite its ‘‘amicable tone’’ 

we should nonetheless read the NTIA 

letter as constituting an implied 

opposition to the alternative options test 

adopted in the Second Report and 

Order. The Wireline Competition 

Bureau declines, however, to read into 

NTIA’s letter arguments that do not 

appear in its text. And although NTIA 

suggests that the Bureau ‘‘should hold 

in abeyance any copper retirement if a 

[F]ederal user credibly alleges that the 

carrier’s proposed retirement date does 

not give the user ‘sufficient time to 

accommodate the transition to new 

network facilities,’ ’’ nowhere does 

NTIA argue that the framework adopted 

in the Second Report and Order ‘‘is 

likely’’ to adversely impact Federal 

agencies, nor does NTIA argue that ‘‘any 

replacement test without quantifiable 

performance standards has inherent 

shortcomings,’’ as claimed in the 

Petition. Copper retirements are subject 

to the Commission’s section 251 

network change disclosure rules rather 

than the section 214 discontinuance 

rules. Those rules contain objection 

procedures that allow for a limited 

extension of the proposed copper 

retirement effective date. 

13. The Wireline Competition Bureau 

also disagrees with arguments in the 

Petition that the Commission’s 

alternative options test and consumer 

comment period for discontinuances are 

arbitrary, inconsistent with the public 

interest, or unsupported by the record 

underlying the Second Report and 

Order. The Commission already 

considered, and rejected, these 

arguments in the underlying Order. As 

the Commission found in that Order, the 

record ‘‘shows strong support for further 

streamlining the section 214(a) 

discontinuance process for legacy voice 

services for carriers in the midst of a 

technology transition.’’ The Commission 

observed that ‘‘the number of switched 

access lines has continued to plummet’’ 

since the adequate replacement test was 

adopted, ‘‘while the number of 

interconnected VoIP and mobile voice 

subscriptions have continued to climb,’’ 

and concluded that ‘‘providing 

additional opportunities to streamline 

the discontinuance process for legacy 

voice services, with appropriate 

limitations to protect consumers and the 

public interest, [will] allow carriers to 

more quickly redirect resources to nextgeneration networks, and the public to 

receive the benefit of those new 

networks.’’ Based on these findings, the 

Commission adopted the alternative 

options test for carriers seeking 

streamlined treatment of applications to 

discontinue legacy voice services, while 

retaining the preexisting adequate 

replacement test as an option for 

carriers. 

14. We also dismiss Petitioner’s 

arguments that we must reconsider the 

Second Report and Order because of 

perceived deficiencies regarding the 

Commission’s broadband maps. 

Petitioner offers no support for its 

speculation that these maps ‘‘would 

presumably guide [the Commission’s] 

analysis regarding whether another 

stand-alone facilities-based service is 

available.’’ Indeed, nothing in the 

Second Report and Order suggests that 

the Commission’s broadband maps 

would provide the basis for this 

determination, and the burden falls on 

the provider seeking discontinuance to 

demonstrate the existence of alternative 

service options. 

15. The Petition argues that the 

absence of specific performance metrics 

in the alternative options test indicates 

that the Commission has ‘‘abdicated its 

statutory duty to promote the public 

interest.’’ The Wireline Competition 

Bureau disagrees. As Verizon notes in 

its opposition, the Petition ‘‘ignores the 

Commission’s explanation for why the 

. . . compliance obligations that it 

found necessary for the . . . adequate 

replacement test are not necessary 

under the alternative options test,’’ 

which, unlike the adequate replacement 

test, requires the existence of at least 

two alternative services. The alternative 

options test complements, rather than 

replaces, the adequate replacement test, 

both of which ensure that the public 

interest is protected when carriers seek 

to discontinue legacy voice services that 

are part of a technology transition. As 

the Commission explained in the 

Second Report and Order, ‘‘[w]here only 

one potential replacement service exists, 

a carrier must meet the more rigorous 

demands of the adequate replacement 

test in order to receive streamlined 

treatment of its discontinuance 

application. But where there is more 

than one facilities-based alternative . . . 

we expect customers will benefit from 

competition between facilities-based 

providers.’’ The Commission went on to 

explain that ‘‘[t]he stand-alone 

interconnected VoIP service option 

required to meet the alternative options 

test embodies managed service quality 

and underlying network infrastructure, 

and disabilities access and 911 access 

requirements, key components of the 

Commission’s 2016 streamlining 

action.’’ For these reasons, the 

Commission explained, ‘‘under either 

test, customers will be assured a smooth 

transition to a voice replacement service 

that provides capabilities comparable to 

legacy TDM-based voice services and, 

often, numerous additional advanced 

capabilities.’’ For this reason, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau also 

disagrees with Petitioner’s argument 

that there are ‘‘instances of specific 

harm that the Commission appeared to 

purposefully overlook during its 2018 

rulemaking,’’ citing ‘‘critical functions 

like medical device support, fire alarms, 

and connecting credit card readers for 

small businesses’’ and the effects of 

natural disasters like hurricanes and 

wildfires. As the Commission explained 

in the Second Report and Order, ‘‘[t]he 

two parts of the alternative options test 

. . . address commenters’ concerns 

about potentially inadequate mobile 

wireless replacement services for 

customers requiring service quality 

guarantees and their concerns that 

vulnerable populations will be unable to 

use specialized equipment for people 

with disabilities, such as TTYs or analog 

captioned telephone devices or will be 

left without access to 911.’’ 

16. The Wireline Competition Bureau 

also disagrees with arguments in the 

Petition that we should reconsider the 

10-day consumer comment period 

adopted in the Second Report and Order 

and ‘‘reinstate the 180-day notice period 

8876 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

for customers of discontinued services.’’ 

There has never been a 180-day 

customer notice period for 

discontinuance applications. As Verizon 

notes, Petitioner’s arguments regarding 

customer notification seem to conflate 

copper retirement with service 

discontinuance. The Second Report and 

Order provided for a streamlined 10-day 

comment period for applications to 

grandfather legacy voice services, which 

had previously been subject to the 

default of 15 days for non-dominant 

providers and 30 days for dominant 

providers. The Commission had 

previously adopted streamlined 

comment and automatic grant periods 

for applications to grandfather or to 

discontinue previously grandfathered 

low-speed legacy voice and data 

services. In the Second Report and 

Order, the Commission extended this 

streamlined treatment to all legacy voice 

services. The Commission explained in 

the Second Report and Order, ‘‘as 

existing customers will be entitled to 

maintain their legacy voice services, 

they will not be harmed by 

grandfathering applications.’’ It did not, 

however, shorten the comment period 

applicable to non-grandfathering 

technology transition discontinuance 

applications. Such applications are still 

subject to the default comment period. 

And, while the First Report and Order 

revised the Commission’s copper 

retirement rules to ‘‘eliminate the 

requirement of direct notice to retail 

customers’’ and reduced the copper 

retirement waiting period from 180 to 

90 days, these changes did not affect the 

requirement or timing within which 

consumers receive notice of service 

discontinuance applications under 

section 214. 

17. Finally, the Wireline Competition 

Bureau dismisses the Petition’s 

argument that the Commission ‘‘must 

reconsider its belief that market-based 

incentives are sufficient to ensure that 

carriers provide adequate replacement 

services to consumers in the event of a 

service discontinuance.’’ The 

Commission has previously considered 

and rejected Petitioner’s claims in this 

regard. Nevertheless, judgments 

concerning the nature and impact of 

market incentives as they relate to 

public policy are well within the 

Commission’s discretion. The rules 

adopted in the Second Report and Order 

were based on an extensive record, and 

in the absence of any new data or facts, 

the Wireline Competition Bureau rejects 

Petitioner’s request to reconsider those 

rules based solely on the fact that it 

disagrees with the Commission’s 

assessment of competition in the market 

for telecommunications services. 

B. The Motion To Hold in Abeyance Is 

Moot 

18. The Wireline Competition Bureau 

dismisses as moot Public Knowledge’s 

accompanying Motion to hold the 

Second Report and Order ‘‘in abeyance 

until pending litigation is resolved.’’ 

The Motion refers to a challenge in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit of the Commission’s 2017 

Wireline Infrastructure First Report and 

Order, which was then pending but has 

since been dismissed for lack of 

standing. We note that some 

commenters argue that Public 

Knowledge’s Motion was an improper 

motion for a stay, or is procedurally 

defective in other ways. We need not 

reach determination of these issues, 

however, as we instead merely dismiss 

this accompaniment to the Public 

Knowledge Petition as moot. 

19. This action is taken pursuant to 

the authority delegated by §§ 0.91 and 

0.291 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

0.91 and 0.291. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

20. This document does not contain 

new or modified 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 modified 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

21. Contact Person. For further 

information about this proceeding, 

please contact Michele Levy Berlove, 

Competition Policy Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, at (202) 418–1477. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

22. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to sections 1–4 and 214 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154 and 214, 

this Order on Reconsideration is 

adopted. 

23. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

Public Knowledge is denied. 

24. It is further ordered that this Order 

on Reconsideration shall be effective 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

Federal Communications Commission 

Daniel Kahn, 

Associate Chief, Wireline Competition 

Bureau. 

Editorial note: This document was 

received for publication by the Office of the 

Federal Register on January 6, 2021. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00287 Filed 2–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 120404257–3325–02] 

RTID 0648–XA849 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2021 

Commercial Longline Closure for 

South Atlantic Golden Tilefish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS implements an 

accountability measure for the 

commercial longline component for 

golden tilefish in the exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ) of the South 

Atlantic. Commercial longline landings 

for golden tilefish are projected to reach 

the longline component’s commercial 

quota by February 10, 2021. Therefore, 

NMFS closes the commercial longline 

component of golden tilefish in the 

South Atlantic EEZ on February 10, 

2021, at 12:01 a.m. local time. This 

closure is necessary to protect the 

golden tilefish resource. 

DATES: This temporary rule is effective 

from 12:01 a.m. local time on February 

10, 2021, until 12:01 a.m. local time on 

January 1, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional 

Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email: 

mary.vara@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

snapper-grouper fishery of the South 

Atlantic includes golden tilefish and is 

managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for the SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic 

Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared 

by the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) and is 

implemented by NMFS under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 622.