Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31659 

Kevin K. McAleenan, 

Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection. 

Approved: July 3, 2018. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14637 Filed 7–6–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2018–0639] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Black Narrows and Lewis Creek 

Channel, Chincoteague Island, VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of deviation from 

drawbridge regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporary deviation from the operating 

schedule that governs the SR 175 

Bridge, which carries SR 175 across the 

Black Narrows and Lewis Creek 

Channel, mile 0.0, at Chincoteague 

Island, VA. The deviation is necessary 

to facilitate the 2018 Annual Pony Run 

and Auction. This deviation allows the 

bridge to remain in the closed-tonavigation position. 

DATES: The deviation is effective from 6 

a.m. on July 25, 2018, through 6 p.m. on 

July 26, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

deviation, USCG–2018–0639 is available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the 

docket number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box 

and click ‘‘SEARCH’’. Click on Open 

Docket Folder on the line associated 

with this deviation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

deviation, call or email Mr. Michael 

Thorogood, Bridge Administration 

Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, 

telephone 757–398–6557, email 

Michael.R.Thorogood@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Virginia Department of Transportation, 

owner and operator of the SR 175 Bridge 

that carries SR 175 across the Black 

Narrows and Lewis Creek Channel, mile 

0.0, at Chincoteague Island, VA, has 

requested a temporary deviation from 

the current operating regulations to 

ensure the safety of the participants and 

spectators associated with the 2018 

Annual Pony Run and Auction on July 

25, 2018, and July 26, 2018. This bridge 

is a single-span bascule drawbridge, 

with a vertical clearance of 15 feet above 

mean high water in the closed position 

and unlimited vertical clearance in the 

open position. 

The current operating regulation is set 

out in 33 CFR 117.5. Under this 

temporary deviation, the bridge will be 

maintained in the closed-to-navigation 

position from 6 a.m. through 6 p.m. on 

July 25, 2018, and July 26, 2018. 

The Black Narrows and Lewis Creek 

Channel is used by a variety of vessels 

including recreational vessels. The 

Coast Guard has carefully coordinated 

the restrictions with waterway users in 

publishing this temporary deviation. 

Vessels able to pass through the 

bridge in the closed-to-navigation 

position may do so at anytime. The 

bridge will not be able to open for 

emergencies and there is no immediate 

alternative route for vessels unable to 

pass through the bridge in the closed 

position. The Coast Guard will also 

inform the users of the waterway 

through our Local and Broadcast 

Notices to Mariners of the change in 

operating schedule for the bridge so that 

vessel operators can arrange their 

transits to minimize any impact caused 

by the temporary deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: July 2, 2018. 

Hal R. Pitts, 

Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14616 Filed 7–6–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 51, 63, and 68 

[WC Docket No. 17–84; FCC 18–74] 

Accelerating Wireline Broadband 

Deployment by Removing Barriers to 

Infrastructure Investment 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: In this document, a Second 

Report and Order takes a number of 

actions to accelerate the deployment of 

next-generation networks and services 

through removing barriers to 

infrastructure investment. The Second 

Report and Order takes further action to 

revise the discontinuance process, 

network change notification processes, 

and the customer notice process. It also 

forbears from applying discontinuance 

requirements for services with no 

customers and no reasonable requests 

for service during the preceding 30 

days. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 8, 

2018, except for the amendments to 47 

CFR 51.333(g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(2), 

63.71(f), (h), (k) introductory text, (k)(1) 

and (3), and (l), which contain 

information collection requirements that 

have not been approved by OMB. The 

Federal Communications Commission 

will publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date. 

The amendments to 47 CFR 63.19(a) 

introductory text published at 81 FR 

62656, Sept. 12, 2016, are effective 

August 8, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Competition Policy Division, Michele 

Berlove, at (202) 418–1477, 

michele.berlove@fcc.gov. For additional 

information concerning the Paperwork 

Reduction Act information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, send an email to PRA@

fcc.gov or contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 

418–2991. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Report and Order in WC Docket No. 17– 

84, FCC 18–74, adopted June 7, 2018 

and released June 8, 2018. The full text 

of this document is available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

It is available on the Commission’s 

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

attachments/FCC-18-74A1.pdf. 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. Removing regulatory barriers 

causing unnecessary costs or delay 

when carriers seek to transition from 

legacy networks and services to 

broadband networks and services is an 

important piece of our work to 

encourage deployment of nextgeneration networks and to close the 

digital divide. In this Report and Order, 

we continue to act on our commitment 

by further reforming regulatory 

processes that unnecessarily stand in 

the way of this important transition that 

benefits the American public. 

2. The actions we take today focus on 

further streamlining our processes by 

which carriers discontinue outdated 

services, eliminating unnecessary and 

burdensome or redundant requirements, 

and helping ensure that our network 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31660 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

change notification rules take into 

account the challenges carriers face in 

the wake of catastrophic and unforeseen 

events. Providing additional 

opportunities for streamlined treatment 

for discontinuance and grandfathering 

of legacy voice and lower-speed data 

services and forbearing from applying 

our discontinuance requirements to 

services no longer being used by any 

customers, with appropriate limitations 

to protect consumers and the public 

interest, will allow carriers to more 

quickly redirect resources to nextgeneration networks and for the public 

to receive the benefits of those new 

networks. 

II. Background 

3. The Commission initiated this 

proceeding last spring by adopting a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Notice 

of Inquiry, and Request for Comment 

(Wireline Infrastructure NPRM) seeking 

comment on a number of potential 

regulatory reforms to our rules and 

procedures regarding pole attachments, 

copper retirement, and discontinuances 

of legacy services. The NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 16, 2017 (82 FR 22453). 

4. On November 16, 2017, the 

Commission adopted a Report and 

Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Wireline Infrastructure Order) enacting 

reforms to our pole attachment, network 

change disclosure, and discontinuance 

processes to better enable providers to 

invest in next-generation networks. The 

Order was published in the Federal 

Register on December 28, 2017 (82 FR 

61453). At the same time, the 

Commission adopted the Wireline 

Infrastructure FNPRM and sought 

comment on additional steps to 

streamline our network change and 

discontinuance processes, including 

with respect to discontinuing legacy 

voice services. At this time, in the 

interest of removing barriers to 

broadband infrastructure deployment as 

quickly as possible, we focus 

specifically on continuing to reform our 

discontinuance and network change 

notification rules. We are committed to 

and working toward addressing other 

important issues raised by the Wireline 

Infrastructure FNPRM and for which the 

Commission’s Broadband Deployment 

Advisory Committee offered 

recommendations, including revisions 

to our pole attachment rules. We expect 

to address those issues in the near 

future. 

III. Report and Order 

A. Further Streamlining the Section 

214(a) Discontinuance Process 

5. Today, we take additional steps to 

eliminate unnecessary regulatory 

burdens when carriers decide to replace 

legacy voice and lower-speed data 

services with improved technological 

alternatives. The reforms we adopt here, 

like those adopted late last year, reflect 

the reality of today’s marketplace and 

the decreasing demand for legacy voice 

and lower-speed data services as 

customers move towards more advanced 

competing alternatives. As demand for 

legacy services declines, expediting the 

discontinuance process for such 

services will allow carriers to focus their 

resources on providing next-generation 

IP-based services. The revisions we 

make today to our rules implementing 

the section 214(a) discontinuance 

approval process decrease needless 

costs and delay in transitioning from 

legacy voice services and lower-speed 

data services to next-generation IP-based 

services so that customers can receive 

innovative services that meet their 

needs. As a matter of convenience, 

unless otherwise noted, in this Report 

and Order, we use the terms 

‘‘discontinue’’ or ‘‘discontinuance’’ as a 

shorthand for the statutory language 

‘‘discontinue, reduce, or impair.’’ 

6. At the outset, we reiterate that 

section 214(a)’s discontinuance 

obligations apply to interstate voice and 

data telecommunications services, and 

to interconnected VoIP service to which 

the Commission has extended section 

214(a)’s discontinuance requirements. 

Our rules governing the discontinuance 

process do not preempt state 

requirements regarding the 

discontinuance of intrastate services. 

They do not apply to any carrier’s 

provision of information services, to 

data or other services offered on a 

private carriage basis, or to any other 

communications or noncommunications lines of business in 

which a carrier is engaged that do not 

come within the purview of Title II of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (the Act). 

1. Expediting Applications That 

Grandfather, or Discontinue PreviouslyGrandfathered, Data Services at Speeds 

Below 25/3 Mbps 

7. To encourage carriers to transition 

to next-generation technologies, and to 

reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens 

and costs that would otherwise be 

imposed on carriers as part of a 

technology transition, we revise our 

rules to provide streamlined treatment 

for lower-speed services in 

circumstances where the carrier already 

provides replacement data services at 

speeds of at least 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. 

Specifically, we streamline our 

discontinuance processes for 

applications seeking to (i) grandfather 

data services with download/upload 

speeds below 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, and (ii) 

subsequently discontinue on a 

permanent basis such data services once 

they have been grandfathered for at least 

180 days. Previously, the Commission 

adopted streamlined comment and 

automatic grant periods of 10 and 25 

days, respectively, for applications to 

grandfather voice and data services 

below 1.544 Mbps. We now extend this 

same streamlined treatment to 

applications seeking to grandfather data 

services with speeds below 25 Mbps/3 

Mbps, so long as the applying carrier 

provides fixed replacement data 

services at speeds of at least 25 Mbps/ 

3 Mbps throughout the affected service 

area. We recognize that data services 

subject to section 214 discontinuance 

authority typically have symmetrical 

upload and download speeds. We 

nevertheless specify a non-symmetrical 

speed threshold here to provide 

maximum flexibility to carriers to the 

extent they now or in the future offer 

any non-symmetrical common carrier 

data service having download speeds 

less than 25 Mbps and upload speeds 

less than 3 Mbps that is subject to our 

discontinuance rules. The Commission 

also previously adopted streamlined 

comment and automatic grant periods of 

10 and 31 days, respectively, for 

applications to permanently discontinue 

data services below 1.544 Mbps, 

provided the Commission has 

previously authorized such services to 

be grandfathered for at least the prior 

180-day period. We now revise our rules 

to provide the same expedited 10-day 

comment and 31-day automatic grant 

periods to all previously-grandfathered 

data services with download/upload 

speeds below 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. 

8. The record strongly supports 

extending this streamlined processing to 

these additional grandfathered and 

previously-grandfathered data services. 

Most importantly, these streamlining 

measures meet our objective of 

providing carriers with incentives to 

develop and deploy higher-speed data 

services at or above 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. 

Expediting the discontinuance process 

for additional data services provided 

that the carrier offers replacement data 

services at or above our specified speed 

threshold will spur the ongoing 

technology transition to next-generation 

IP-based services and promote 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31661 

competition in the market for higherspeed replacement services. 

9. We reject some commenters’ 

suggestion that extending the 

streamlined treatment to this class of 

data services ‘‘does not strike the 

appropriate balance between providing 

carriers flexibility and ensuring that 

customers have access to adequate 

alternatives.’’ Because carriers seeking 

to use this streamlined process must 

provide replacement data services at 

speeds of at least 25 Mbps/3 Mbps 

throughout the affected service area, 

concerns about adequate alternatives are 

misplaced. Moreover, as other 

commenters recognize, extending our 

expedited discontinuance process to 

cover additional grandfathered and 

previously-grandfathered data services 

below 25 Mbps/3 Mbps protects existing 

customers in the same manner as our 

expedited process for grandfathered and 

previously-grandfathered low-speed 

legacy voice and data services. 

Commenters also note that more flexible 

speed thresholds are justified by the fact 

that grandfathering has no impact on 

existing services. We have thus heeded 

concerns that we proceed with caution 

in extending relief to higher speed data 

services. Existing customers will be 

grandfathered and they will have 

sufficient time to raise concerns, if any, 

about the carrier’s grandfathering plans 

if they are impacted. What’s more, the 

grandfathering period provides 

customers a far longer actual notice 

period and opportunity to transition to 

alternative services than our existing, 

more general, streamlined processing 

rules. It also provides us with sufficient 

time to conduct a thorough examination 

as to whether the proposed 

discontinuance would adversely affect 

the present or future public convenience 

and necessity during the application 

review process. 

10. Carriers, of course, remain free to 

seek approval to discontinue a data 

service below 25 Mbps/3 Mbps without 

first grandfathering such service. But if 

they choose to do so, they are not 

eligible for the further streamlined 

processing we adopt today for 

previously-grandfathered data services 

below this speed threshold. Our further 

streamlining actions reflect commonsense reforms that balance the needs of 

customers and carriers in fulfilling our 

section 214(a) discontinuance 

obligations. 

11. The Commission proposed the 25 

Mbps/3 Mbps threshold in the Wireline 

Infrastructure FNPRM to encourage and 

incentivize carriers seeking to 

discontinue lower-speed services to 

deploy and offer data services meeting 

our current benchmark for fixed 

advanced telecommunications 

capability under section 706 of the Act. 

A data service having download/upload 

speeds of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps ‘‘enables 

users to originate and receive high 

quality voice, data, graphics, and video 

telecommunications.’’ If the 

discontinuing carrier offers replacement 

data services at speeds of at least 25 

Mbps/3 Mbps, then the streamlined 

discontinuance process serves as an 

additional tool to close the digital 

divide by ensuring customers in the 

affected area have access to fixed 

services offering advanced 

telecommunications capability. We find 

that limiting the extension of expedited 

treatment for grandfathered and 

previously-grandfathered services to 

data services below 25 Mbps/3 Mbps 

strikes the appropriate balance at this 

time to provide regulatory relief to 

incentivize carriers to transition from 

the provision of legacy or lower-speed 

data services and allow them to free up 

resources to devote to higher-speed 

more advanced services. We thus 

decline at present to extend these same 

streamlining measures to certain higherspeed data services or ‘‘all data services 

regardless of speed.’’ We proceed 

incrementally to focus regulatory relief 

where it is most needed first—on lowerspeed data services for which customer 

demand is rapidly declining. 

12. Similarly, we decline requests to 

apply an expedited discontinuance 

process where the proposed 

replacement data services are below 25 

Mbps/3 Mbps as long as the 

discontinuing carrier offers ‘‘another 

data service of at least the same . . . 

speed throughout the affected service 

area as the service being discontinued.’’ 

Allowing carriers that do not commit to 

provide replacement data services 

having speeds of at least 25 Mbps/3 

Mbps to qualify for this streamlined 

treatment would not encourage carriers 

to deploy and offer data services 

meeting at least our current benchmark 

speed threshold for fixed advanced 

telecommunications capability of 25 

Mbps/3 Mbps. As the Commission has 

explained, data services having 

download/upload speeds of 25 Mbps/3 

Mbps ‘‘enable[ ] users to originate and 

receive high quality voice, data, 

graphics, and video 

telecommunications’’—capabilities that 

consumers demand. We recognize 

commenter concerns that a higher-speed 

data service may be more costly than a 

service providing speeds of less than 25 

Mbps/3 Mbps. However, this is 

precisely the type of concern that can be 

addressed during the section 214 

discontinuance public comment period. 

We also note that while the cost of the 

replacement service might be 

outweighed by other considerations, the 

Commission will consider whether the 

price for the replacement service is so 

high as to be unaffordable to most users. 

13. In the Wireline Infrastructure 

FNPRM, the Commission proposed 

specifying that the replacement data 

service at or above 25 Mbps/3 Mbps that 

an applicant must provide to qualify for 

streamlined treatment must be of 

‘‘equivalent quality.’’ We decline to 

adopt the ‘‘equivalent quality’’ 

descriptive language in the condition to 

qualify for streamlined treatment. In 

proposing that the replacement data 

service be of ‘‘equivalent quality,’’ the 

Commission did not intend to impose 

new rigid or prescriptive requirements 

on replacement services at or above 25 

Mbps/3 Mbps that a carrier must meet 

to obtain streamlined processing to 

grandfather these additional data 

services. We note that no commenter 

objects to Verizon’s request that we 

eliminate this qualifier in extending 

streamlined processing to additional 

data services below 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. 

We do not intend to modify our existing 

precedent governing the requirements of 

a replacement service or how we 

analyze and evaluate a carrier’s 

application under our traditional fivefactor test. For example, Commission 

precedent does not require that a 

replacement service constitute a likefor-like alternative to the service being 

discontinued. In determining whether a 

discontinuance will harm the public 

interest, the Commission has 

traditionally utilized a five-factor 

balancing test to analyze a section 

214(a) discontinuance application: (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. We agree that including 

the ‘‘equivalent quality’’ descriptor in 

the condition requiring the carrier’s 

availability of a replacement data 

service at or above 25 Mbps/3 Mbps 

would inject unintended uncertainty 

into this streamlined process and could 

lead to further confusion given the 

absence of a similar descriptor as a 

condition for grandfathering data 

services below 1.544 Mbps. We clarify 

that the adequacy of the alternative data 

service offered by the carrier will 

continue to be evaluated like any other 

replacement data service under our 

rules—according to our traditional fiveVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:03 Jul 06, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09JYR1.SGM 09JYR1

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31662 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

factor test, and consistent with 

precedent. 

14. Finally, Windstream and Ad Hoc 

urge us again to incorporate specific 

prescribed safeguards in any further 

streamlining of data service applications 

to protect grandfathered business 

customers. The Commission rejected 

these same recommendations in its most 

recent wireline infrastructure item 

because they are inconsistent with the 

goal of streamlining processes and 

because businesses—like other 

consumers—benefit overall when 

carriers invest in deployment of nextgeneration services rather than outdated 

technologies. There is nothing in the 

current record that leads us to a 

different conclusion. We therefore 

decline to adopt these proposals here, as 

the Commission did just over six 

months ago. 

2. Forbearing From Applying 

Discontinuance Approval Obligations 

for Services With No Customers 

15. We forbear from applying the 

discontinuance approval obligations set 

forth in section 214(a) of the Act and 

section 63.60 through 63.602 of our 

rules to carriers choosing to discontinue 

services for which the carrier has had no 

customers and no reasonable requests 

for service for at least the immediately 

preceding 30 days. When we refer to 

services without customers in this 

subsection, we are referring to 

applications for services having both no 

existing customers and no reasonable 

request for the service for the preceding 

30-day period. The Commission 

exercised its ancillary authority to 

extend discontinuance obligations to 

interconnected VoIP providers. We see 

no reason to treat interconnected VoIP 

services subject to our discontinuance 

authority prior to today differently than 

telecommunications services having no 

customers for the purpose of this 

forbearance relief. In so doing, we 

relieve carries of the burden of filing 

discontinuance applications and leave 

them free to focus their funding and 

attention on newer, more popular 

services rather than maintain a service 

for which there is no demand during the 

pendency of a discontinuance 

application. This action does not impact 

the requirements associated with 

emergency discontinuances where a 

carrier’s existing customers are without 

service for a period of time exceeding 30 

days. The rules governing such 

occurrences are separately set forth in 

section 63.63 of our rules. Section 

63.63’s requirements will continue to 

govern such situations. 

16. The Act requires us to forbear 

from applying any requirement of the 

Act or of our regulations to a 

telecommunications carrier or 

telecommunications service if and only 

if we determine that: (1) Enforcement of 

the requirement is not necessary to 

ensure that the charges, practices, 

classifications, or regulations by, for, or 

in connection with that 

telecommunications carrier or 

telecommunications service are just and 

reasonable and are not unjustly or 

unreasonably discriminatory; (2) 

enforcement of that requirement is not 

necessary for the protection of 

consumers; and (3) forbearance from 

applying that requirement is consistent 

with the public interest. In making the 

public interest determination, we must 

also consider, pursuant to section 10(b) 

of the Act, ‘‘whether forbearance from 

enforcing the provision or regulation 

will promote competitive market 

conditions.’’ As discussed below, we 

find that the criteria for forbearance are 

satisfied here. 

17. Section 10(a)(1). We agree with 

commenters that ‘‘[w]hen a service has 

no customers, it necessarily follows that 

the section 214 discontinuance 

processes are not necessary to ensure 

just and reasonable and 

nondiscriminatory terms of service . . . 

for the simple reason that customers 

have demonstrated by their actions in 

the marketplace that they do not need 

or want the service.’’ Thus, we find 

enforcement of the discontinuance 

requirements in this context could 

hardly be ‘‘necessary’’ when, in fact, 

there are ‘‘no subscribers who pay 

charges or who are subject to ‘practices’ 

or other terms.’’ 

18. Section 10(a)(2). We find that 

enforcement of the discontinuance 

obligations in this context is not 

necessary to protect consumers. Section 

214(a)’s discontinuance provision is 

meant to prevent communities from 

being deprived of critical links to the 

larger public communications 

infrastructure. When a service with no 

existing customers is eliminated, it 

follows that ‘‘no community or part of 

a community would be cut off from the 

public communications infrastructure.’’ 

Moreover, although a key component of 

the section 214(a) discontinuance 

process is notifying all affected 

customers, we agree with AT&T that 

attempts at customer notice ‘‘would be 

futile in the context of services without 

existing customers.’’ 

19. CWA’s assertion that it is only 

through Commission review and public 

comment during the discontinuance 

process that the Commission can 

determine whether a service has no 

customers is at odds with our 

experience with discontinuance 

applications for services identified as 

having no customers. To date, we have 

not received a single comment in 

opposition to any application to 

discontinue service with no customers. 

We previously took more incremental 

steps to streamline discontinuance 

obligations for certain services with no 

customers, and the record does not 

identify any harms that arose as a result. 

In the Wireline Infrastructure FNPRM, 

the Commission revised its rules so that 

applications to discontinue legacy voice 

and data services below 1.544 Mbps that 

have had no customers and no 

reasonable requests for service for at 

least 30 days would be automatically 

granted 15 days after acceptance for 

filing absent further action by 

Commission staff to remove the 

application from streamlined treatment. 

Moreover, there is no evidence in the 

current record that services without 

customers are likely to be in demand 

sometime in the future. Therefore, we 

find that neither current nor future 

customers will be harmed by forbearing 

from applying discontinuance 

obligations for services with no 

customers. 

20. Section 10(a)(3) and 10(b). We 

agree with commenters that forbearance 

from the discontinuance approval 

requirements for services with no 

customers will serve the public interest 

by ‘‘eliminating superfluous regulation 

that slows the transition to more 

modern services’’ with growing demand 

for services that customers want to 

purchase. We also find that forbearance 

in this instance will promote 

competitive market conditions by 

enabling carriers to redirect resources 

from services with no demand to more 

rapidly bringing next-generation 

services and networks to all customers 

or ‘‘other endeavors where the public 

interest is expressed through consumer 

demand.’’ Freeing carriers to invest in 

services people want, instead of services 

nobody wants, promotes competition 

and benefits the public. 

21. Our decision to forbear from the 

discontinuance requirements for 

services with no customers, obviates our 

need to consider further streamlining 

applications for discontinuance of 

services with no customers. For the 

same reason, it obviates the rationale for 

the Commission’s previous decision to 

streamline applications for certain 

services with no customers. We 

therefore revise the present text of 

section 63.71(g) and remove section 

63.71(k)(5), which created varying 

degrees of streamlining for 

discontinuance applications for services 

with no customers. We take this action 

to make clear to carriers that they need 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31663 

not file an application to discontinue a 

service for which they have had no 

customers and no reasonable requests 

for service during the 30-day period 

immediately preceding the 

discontinuance. 

3. Eliminating 2016 Outreach 

Requirements 

22. We also eliminate the uncodified 

education and outreach mandates 

adopted in the 2016 Technology 

Transitions Order applicable to carriers 

discontinuing TDM voice services. 

These education and outreach 

requirements are not yet in effect 

because they have not been approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). The OMB approval process is a 

transparent and public process. The 

record confirms that these requirements 

are unduly burdensome in light of 

current marketplace incentives and 

carriers’ normal business practices of 

providing their customers with timely 

and necessary information regarding 

replacement voice services in a 

technology transition. These mandates 

include: (1) The development and 

dissemination of Commissionprescribed educational materials to all 

affected customers containing specific 

information about the replacement 

service; (2) the creation of an accessible 

telephone hotline, staffed 12 hours per 

day, to answer questions regarding the 

transition; and (3) designated staff, 

trained in disabilities access issues, to 

answer consumer questions about the 

technology transition. Moreover, 

existing regulatory requirements ensure 

that such information is available to 

consumers. 

23. We agree with commenters that 

argue that service providers have strong 

marketplace incentives to communicate 

with, and educate, customers about 

replacement services related to their 

technology transitions. As the 

Commission found in the Wireline 

Infrastructure Order, intermodal 

competition encourages carriers to 

communicate with customers to retain 

them and stay competitive. This finding 

is not surprising, as even the 2016 

Technology Transitions Order 

acknowledged carriers ‘‘strong business 

incentives to answer customers’ 

questions in a competent and timely 

manner.’’ The record here further 

substantiates this finding and belies the 

claims that marketplace competition or 

carriers’ existing customer relationships 

may not ensure that carriers provide the 

information required by the rules. 

Indeed, one opponent of eliminating the 

outreach requirements specifically 

acknowledges that carriers have made 

‘‘comprehensive, and multi-faceted’’ 

efforts to educate and inform consumers 

in a technology transitions situation 

even before the adoption of the 2016 

requirements. Another opponent 

mistakenly credits the 2016 outreach 

mandates with helping achieve the 

‘‘relatively smooth and seamless’’ 

technology transitions in its state. 

However, because the 2016 outreach 

requirements are not yet effective, the 

commenter’s observations actually 

demonstrate that carriers engage in 

effective customer communications 

about their technology transitions 

without the need for mandatory 

prescriptive requirements. Opponents of 

eliminating the 2016 outreach 

requirements fail to offer any examples 

of ‘‘any actual harms for the 

requirements to redress.’’ 

24. In the face of carriers’ incentives 

to communicate with customers, onesize-fits-all regulatory intrusion is 

unnecessarily burdensome. We disagree 

with those commenters that claim that 

the 2016 requirements provide 

consumers with ‘‘the minimum amount 

of information’’ they need to transition 

from legacy to alternative services and 

provide carriers ‘‘with a flexible 

blueprint to follow.’’ The record 

demonstrates that the 2016 outreach 

obligations translate to a long list of 

inflexible and burdensome mandates. 

We are therefore persuaded by those 

commenters that argue that the outreach 

requirements impose real, and in some 

cases, quite burdensome, costs on 

service providers. 

25. Furthermore, our discontinuance 

obligations and accessibility and 911 

rules also protect customers by 

requiring their carriers to provide timely 

and necessary information regarding 

replacement voice services when those 

carriers seek to cease offering legacy 

TDM voice service. The Commission 

extended section 255 accessibility 

requirements to interconnected VoIP 

services in 2007. For example, our rules 

require carriers seeking to discontinue a 

legacy voice service to provide 

substantially similar information about 

available replacement service 

alternatives in their application, 

including price, as the separate outreach 

requirement mandates. The Commission 

also puts discontinuance applications 

on public notice, thus triggering its 

discontinuance review process which 

gives affected customers the opportunity 

to comment or object to the application. 

Carriers also must ensure, through 

accessible call centers and customer 

support—akin to the 2016 telephone 

hotline accessibility requirement—that 

information about their voice services 

and accessibility features are accessible 

to individuals with disabilities at no 

additional cost. Carriers must also train 

customer service representatives to 

communicate with individuals with 

disabilities in order to comply with our 

accessibility rules. In developing 

training programs, carriers ‘‘are 

encouraged to consider topics on 

accessibility requirements, means of 

communicating with individuals with 

disabilities, commonly used adaptive 

technology, designing for accessibility, 

and solutions for accessibility and 

compatibility.’’ 

26. If customers facing a 

discontinuance of their legacy voice 

service do not believe that they have 

sufficient information about a 

replacement service from a carrier 

seeking Commission approval to 

discontinue a legacy voice service, then 

they can raise these issues in objections 

to the carrier’s discontinuance 

application and seek to have the 

Commission remove the application 

from streamlined processing. Thus, the 

discontinuance process provides an 

additional backstop that encourages 

carriers to communicate with their 

customers up-front. We agree with 

USTelecom that ‘‘there is no evidence in 

the record that existing applicable 

notice requirements are inadequate to 

notify consumers of service changes.’’ 

Consequently, we find it unnecessary to 

continue to impose prescriptive 

outreach obligations when our rules 

already obligate carriers to ensure that 

customers are appropriately informed. 

We reject the argument that we should 

retain the education and outreach 

requirements because ‘‘public safety and 

public welfare are at stake’’ when 

carriers transition from legacy TDM 

voice to IP-based or other voice 

technologies. These objections are 

irrelevant here because they concern the 

circumstances in which transitions are 

permitted, rather than education and 

outreach requirements concerning those 

transitions. We note that the Act and 

our existing rules protect vulnerable 

consumers during technology 

transitions—for instance, voice service 

providers have independent consumer 

protection obligations addressing 

important accessibility and public safety 

issues, even when they use IP to deliver 

their voice services. 

27. PK/CRS state that ‘‘the test to 

eliminate these rules is not simply 

whether they impose cost but whether 

the public understands what is going 

on, [and] maintains critical services.’’ 

Our decision to eliminate these outreach 

rules meets that ‘‘test.’’ The record 

reflects that carriers’ ongoing customer 

relationship experience best positions 

them, not the Commission, to 

understand and implement effective 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31664 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

customer education and 

communications strategies, and other 

rules ensure that carriers make available 

necessary information regarding 

replacement voice services when those 

carriers seek to cease offering legacy 

TDM voice service. We thus disagree 

with commenters that assert that the 

education requirements remain 

necessary and that absent such 

requirements carriers are unlikely to 

provide the information customers need 

to understand the changes in their 

legacy voice services without these 

enforceable outreach requirements. 

28. What’s more, by eliminating these 

prescriptive and unnecessary 

requirements, we help accelerate the 

important and ongoing process of 

technology transitions to nextgeneration IP-based services and 

networks by significantly reducing 

additional costs and unnecessary 

regulatory burdens that would be 

imposed on carriers as part of this 

transition. Eliminating unnecessary 

costs and burdens having scant apparent 

countervailing benefits, frees up carrier 

resources to devote to a more rapid and 

efficient transition to next-generation 

networks and services. Apart from 

duplicating information already 

provided to customers through normal 

business practices or other Commission 

requirements, one carrier submits that 

this ‘‘exhaustive information’’ may so 

overwhelm its customers that they 

ignore it altogether. At the same time, 

we reiterate that we expect and 

encourage carriers to continue to 

collaborate with and educate their 

customers and state entities to ensure 

that customers are given sufficient time 

to accommodate the transition to new 

technologies, such that key 

functionalities are not lost during this 

period of change. 

4. Streamlining Applications To 

Discontinue Legacy Voice Services 

29. In the interest of further 

encouraging deployment of nextgeneration networks, we amend our 

rules to allow carriers to use either the 

‘‘adequate replacement test’’ or a new 

‘‘alternative options test’’ to qualify for 

streamlined treatment of applications to 

discontinue legacy voice services. 

Under the adequate replacement test, 

applications seeking to discontinue a 

legacy TDM-based voice service as part 

of a transition to a newer technology, 

such as VoIP, wireless, or some other 

advanced service (technology transition 

discontinuance applications), are 

required to satisfy a three-pronged test 

in order to be entitled to streamlined 

treatment. Specifically, the adequate 

replacement test requires a technology 

transition discontinuance application to 

‘‘certify[ ] or show[ ] that one or more 

replacement service(s) offers all of the 

following: (i) Substantially similar 

levels of network infrastructure and 

service quality as the applicant service; 

(ii) 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 (iii) interoperability and 

compatibility with an enumerated list of 

applications and functionalities 

determined to be key to consumers and 

competitors.’’ We clarify that we are not 

making any findings that the standalone interconnected VoIP service 

necessary for the discontinuing carrier 

to meet the first prong of the test and 

whatever alternative voice service(s) 

meets the second prong of the test are 

necessarily substitutes or in the same 

product market for all potential 

customers in the affected service area. 

Rather, we merely intend to ensure that 

under this streamlined test, the 

community has, at a minimum, at least 

one alternative voice service to the 

discontinuing carrier’s replacement 

service, as distinguished from the 

adequate replacement test where only a 

single voice replacement service need 

be available to meet that test. We also 

further streamline applications to 

grandfather legacy voice services at or 

above speeds of 1.544 Mbps. 

30. New Streamlining Option. Under 

the new alternative options test, if a 

discontinuing carrier shows in its 

application that (1) it provides a standalone interconnected VoIP service 

throughout the affected service area, and 

(2) at least one other stand-alone 

facilities-based voice service is available 

from another provider throughout the 

affected service area, the discontinuance 

application will be entitled to 15-day 

comment and 31-day automatic grant 

processing periods unless the 

Commission notifies the applicant 

otherwise. For purposes of the option 

for streamlined treatment of 

applications to discontinue legacy voice 

services that we adopt today, ‘‘standalone’’ means that a customer is not 

required to purchase a separate 

broadband service to access the voice 

service. ‘‘Interconnected VoIP’’ is 

defined in section 9.3 of our rules. To 

be clear, while over-the-top VoIP can 

meet the definition of interconnected 

VoIP in section 9.3 of our rules, it does 

not satisfy the requirement of ‘‘standalone’’ for purposes of the alternative 

streamlined option we adopt today. The 

provider of the alternative stand-alone 

facilities-based voice service must be 

unaffiliated with the discontinuing 

carrier. These streamlined processing 

timeframes apply uniformly to all 

carriers meeting the alternative options 

test, regardless of whether the carrier is 

considered dominant or non-dominant 

with respect to the legacy voice service 

it is seeking to discontinue. Thus, for 

example, to the extent incumbent LECs 

offer enterprise voice services such as 

ISDN PRI over legacy TDM special 

access facilities for which they are still 

considered dominant and otherwise 

subject to the longer dominant carrier 

processing timeframes of 30/60 days, 

they now will be entitled to the 15/31 

day processing periods under the option 

we adopt today. 

31. Importantly, the alternative 

options test complements, rather than 

replaces, the adequate replacement test 

adopted in the 2016 Technology 

Transitions Order. Pursuant to the 

adequate replacement test, an applicant 

can receive streamlined treatment by 

demonstrating that a single adequate 

replacement service exists in the 

affected service area. 

32. As the record, and our own data, 

clearly demonstrate, the number of 

switched access lines has ‘‘continued to 

plummet,’’ while the ‘‘number of 

interconnected VoIP and mobile voice 

subscriptions have continued to climb.’’ 

According to the most recent statistics 

released by the Commission’s Industry 

Analysis and Technology Division of 

the Wireline Competition Bureau, there 

were 58 million traditional ‘‘switched 

access’’ lines in service, 63 million 

interconnected VoIP subscriptions, and 

341 million mobile subscriptions in the 

United States as of December 2016. 

These figures represented a three-year 

compound annual growth rate of 10 

percent for interconnected VoIP 

subscriptions and 3 percent for mobile 

voice subscriptions, while retail 

switched access lines declined at 12 

percent per year over the same period. 

The record also 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. By providing 

additional opportunities to streamline 

the discontinuance process for legacy 

voice services, with appropriate 

limitations to protect consumers and the 

public interest, we allow carriers to 

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

receive the benefit of those new 

networks. 

33. Some commenters urge us to 

eliminate the adequate replacement test 

in favor of a simpler approach to 

streamlined treatment of applications to 

discontinue legacy voice services. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31665 

Others urge us to retain the adequate 

replacement test, expressing concerns 

about the potential impact on, for 

example, utilities and vulnerable 

populations. 

34. We find the better course is to 

retain the adequate replacement test and 

give applicants the choice of seeking 

streamlined treatment under either the 

adequate replacement test or the 

alternative options test. This action is 

consistent with the Commission’s 

requests for comment on ways to further 

streamline the discontinuance process 

for legacy voice services. Applicants 

seeking streamlined treatment under the 

adequate replacement test must engage 

in testing and other regulatory 

compliance obligations to demonstrate 

the existence of at least one adequate 

replacement service. In addition, the 

streamlined treatment afforded such 

carriers depends on whether they are 

treated as dominant or non-dominant 

with respect to the legacy voice service 

they are seeking to discontinue. By 

contrast, applicants seeking streamlined 

treatment under the alternative options 

test must themselves offer stand-alone 

interconnected VoIP, and at least one 

other stand-alone facilities-based voice 

service must be available from another 

unaffiliated provider throughout the 

affected service area. Where 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, at 

least one of which is a stand-alone 

interconnected VoIP offering provided 

by the discontinuing carrier, we expect 

customers will benefit from competition 

between facilities-based providers. For 

example, where the alternative voice 

option is another facilities-based VoIP 

service offered by a competing wireline 

provider, consumers will benefit from 

both choice and competition between 

the two providers. The 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. 

The managed nature of the stand-alone 

interconnected VoIP service option 

embodies the concept articulated in the 

2016 Technology Transitions Order that 

‘‘consumers expect and deserve a 

replacement that will provide 

comparable network quality and service 

performance.’’ Because state 

commissions will continue to receive 

notices of planned discontinuances, 

they will also remain in a position ‘‘to 

bring to our attention the effects of 

discontinuances upon customers who 

may be unable themselves to inform us 

that they lack substitute service.’’ In 

such instances, we have the ability to 

delay grant of discontinuance 

authorization if we believe customers 

would otherwise face an unreasonable 

degree of hardship. The two parts of the 

alternative options test thus 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. As 

a result, under either test, customers 

will be assured a smooth transition to a 

voice replacement service that provides 

capabilities comparable to legacy TDMbased voice services and, often, 

numerous additional advanced 

capabilities. This action is also 

consistent with the Commission’s 

finding in the Competitive Carrier 

proceeding that ‘‘simplifying 

applications for discontinuance of 

service, when service alternatives are 

likely to exist, is consistent with 

congressional intent.’’ At least one 

commenter has asked that we include a 

requirement that the services that meet 

the alternative options test are 

interoperable with third-party devices 

and services such as alarm monitoring 

services. We are unconvinced of the 

necessity for such a requirement. As the 

Commission previously found, ‘‘there is 

significant intermodal competition in 

the provision of alarm monitoring 

services, including provision of such 

services over media other than copper.’’ 

Moreover, the marketplace has already 

recognized the value of such 

interoperability, and carriers have 

largely designed their networks and 

services accordingly. 

35. We recognize that some 

commenters have advocated for an even 

simpler approach to qualifying for 

streamlined treatment of legacy voice 

discontinuance applications. Most 

notably, there is some support in the 

record for AT&T’s recommendation that 

a discontinuing carrier only be required 

to show that any ‘‘fixed or mobile voice 

service, including interconnected VoIP’’ 

be available to qualify for streamlined 

treatment. We do not think this 

approach strikes the right balance 

between facilitating the technology 

transition and our statutory obligation to 

ensure that ‘‘neither the present nor 

future public convenience and necessity 

will be adversely affected’’ by 

discontinuance of legacy voice services. 

AT&T’s approach would allow further 

streamlined processing for 

discontinuance applications where only 

one replacement voice service is 

available, and where the replacement 

service could be any voice service, 

including over-the-top VoIP or mobile 

wireless. Consequently, it fails to ensure 

the availability of a voice replacement 

service in the community as a condition 

to obtaining streamlined treatment that 

sufficiently addresses commenters’ 

concerns raised in this proceeding about 

the characteristics of the replacement 

voice service, and it does not carry the 

added benefit of ensuring the 

availability of multiple alternatives to 

affected customers, whether present or 

future. 

36. We also disagree with AT&T’s 

assertion that our requirement that 

carriers must offer stand-alone 

interconnected VoIP service in order to 

qualify for the alternative options test 

‘‘warrants further notice and comment.’’ 

In the Wireline Infrastructure NPRM, the 

Commission sought comment on the 

‘‘types of fiber, IP-based, or wireless 

services [that] would constitute 

acceptable alternatives, and under what 

circumstances’’ when seeking comment 

on ways to further streamline the 

discontinuance process. Second, the 

requirements we adopt for the 

alternative options test do not preclude 

a carrier that cannot meet those 

requirements from seeking to 

discontinue its legacy voice service. 

Instead, the carrier has two other 

options for seeking discontinuance: (1) 

Seek streamlined treatment pursuant to 

the adequate replacement test; or (2) 

proceed with its application on a nonstreamlined basis. Given these other 

options, we find that AT&T’s argument 

that the availability of multiple voice 

alternatives is unnecessary because 

consumer demand demonstrates that 

wireless voice constitutes an adequate 

replacement for legacy voice service is 

misplaced. It also fails to recognize the 

needs of enterprise customers. 

37. We also reject certain commenters’ 

requests that we make a generalized 

finding that discontinuing a legacy 

voice service in favor of any type of 

voice replacement service would not 

adversely affect the public convenience 

and necessity, effectively amounting to 

blanket discontinuance authority for 

legacy voice services. Likewise, to be 

clear, the alternative options test we 

adopt today makes no such generalized 

finding about the services meeting the 

two-part test, thereby eliminating any 

concern regarding such a potential 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31666 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

finding. While a carrier may use the 

alternative options test to receive 

streamlined treatment of its 

discontinuance application, customers 

that have concerns about a particular 

carrier’s stand-alone interconnected 

VoIP replacement service may still file 

comments or objections to that carrier’s 

discontinuance application, and the 

Commission will evaluate those 

comments or objections to determine 

whether to remove the application at 

issue from streamlined processing for 

further evaluation under the traditional 

five-factor test. We determine whether 

approving a discontinuance application 

is in the public interest based on several 

factors, not just the adequacy of the 

replacement service. We decline to 

ignore the other factors, as commenters’ 

request would require, and reach a 

blanket public interest determination 

based on a single factor. 

38. Finally, we are unpersuaded by 

commenter 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. By 

our actions today, like all our 

streamlining actions, we do not intend 

to disturb existing contractual 

obligations between carriers and their 

customers. Large enterprise and 

government customers generally enter 

into negotiated contracts for the 

provision of telecommunications 

services given their unique 

requirements. And as the Commission 

has found, carriers are accustomed to 

working with customers, such as 

government users, to avoid service 

disruptions. We have no reason to 

depart from the expectation that carriers 

will ‘‘continue to collaborate with their 

[enterprise or government] customers, 

especially utilities and public safety and 

other 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 record confirms 

such collaborations routinely occur. 

Moreover, as with all discontinuance 

applications, customers are able to file 

comments in opposition to a 

discontinuance application and seek to 

have the Commission remove the 

application from streamlined 

processing. 

39. Streamlining Additional 

Grandfathering Applications. We also 

further streamline our discontinuance 

processes for applications seeking to 

grandfather legacy voice services. As 

discussed above, last fall the 

Commission adopted streamlined 

comment and automatic grant periods of 

10 and 25 days, respectively, for 

applications seeking to grandfather 

legacy voice services at speeds below 

1.544 Mbps. We now extend this same 

streamlined processing to applications 

seeking to grandfather any legacy voice 

service, including enterprise voice 

services such as T1 CAS and Integrated 

Service Digital Network (ISDN) used for 

voice. The record supports this action. 

40. As the Commission found in the 

Wireline Infrastructure Order, 

compliance with our section 214(a) 

discontinuance rules imposes costs on 

carriers and diverts carriers’ resources 

away from investment in deploying 

next-generation networks and services. 

Moreover, as existing customers will be 

entitled to maintain their legacy voice 

services, they will not be harmed by 

grandfathering applications. When a 

carrier chooses to grandfather a legacy 

voice service to its existing customers, 

it effectively chooses to notify those 

customers twice of its ultimate intent to 

discontinue their service—once when 

the carrier provides notice of its 

grandfathering application and once 

when it provides notice of its 

application to permanently discontinue 

the service. Each application must 

separately comply with our section 

214(a) discontinuance rules. Once that 

carrier seeks to permanently 

discontinue the grandfathered legacy 

voice service, streamlined processing is 

only available if that carrier meets either 

the alternative options test we adopt 

today or the adequate replacement test 

adopted in 2016. 

41. Other Issues—Forbearance. We 

reject certain commenters’ proposal that 

we forbear from applying section 

214(a)’s discontinuance requirements to 

carriers seeking to transition from legacy 

voice services to next-generation 

replacement services. The criteria 

necessary to satisfy a grant of 

forbearance are not met at this time. 

42. Commenters seeking forbearance 

assume the ubiquitous availability of 

next-generation advanced services. 

However, this assumption does not bear 

out in many rural areas of this country, 

thus implicating our statutory obligation 

to ensure that ‘‘[c]onsumers in all 

regions of the Nation, including lowincome consumers and those in rural, 

insular, and high cost areas, should 

have access to telecommunications and 

information services, including 

interexchange services and advanced 

telecommunications and information 

services, that are reasonably comparable 

to those services provided in urban 

areas and that are available at rates that 

are reasonably comparable to rates 

charged for similar services in urban 

areas.’’ The Commission has previously 

recognized Congress’ concern that 

‘‘discontinuance by the only carrier 

serving a market . . . would leave the 

public without adequate 

communications service.’’ We thus find 

that forbearance would not ‘‘promote 

competitive market conditions’’ because 

it would eliminate our ability to ensure 

the existence of any alternatives. We 

reject NTCA’s argument that we should 

look only to whether a discontinuance 

will result in the cessation of voice 

service for the same reasons we reject 

forbearance. Moreover, if we forbear 

from our section 214(a) discontinuance 

requirements, we will be unable to 

ensure that there is adequate notice of 

a planned discontinuance, regardless of 

the availability of multiple alternatives. 

And should we forbear from requiring 

that discontinuing carriers file 

applications and related certifications 

before discontinuing service, we would 

lose the opportunity to ensure the 

accuracy of carriers’ own 

determinations regarding, among other 

things, the reliability and affordability 

of the replacement services and the 

availability of those services to all 

affected customers. Thus, on this record, 

enforcement of our section 214(a) 

discontinuance requirements is 

‘‘necessary for the protection of 

consumers’’ and forbearance would not 

be consistent with the public interest, 

making forbearance from those 

requirements inappropriate at this time. 

Indeed, because the service at issue is 

basic telephone service, we must be 

given the opportunity to scrutinize 

whether the planned discontinuance 

would result in an unreasonable degree 

of consumer hardship, including 

considering ‘‘the availability of 

reasonable substitutes, and whether 

customers have had a reasonable 

opportunity to migrate.’’ 

43. Other Issues—Notice Only. For the 

same reason that we decline to forbear 

from section 214(a), we reject 

commenters’ proposal that we require 

no more than a notice to the 

Commission that affected customers 

have been ‘‘properly notified’’ about the 

transition or about the alternative 

services available in the affected service 

area. Requiring a simple notice to the 

Commission rather than an application 

seeking Commission authorization of 

the planned discontinuance would 

abrogate our responsibility under 

section 214(a) to ensure that the 

discontinuance will not adversely affect 

the present or future public convenience 

or necessity. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31667 

B. Network Change Disclosure Reforms 

44. Today, recognizing significant 

changes in the marketplace and 

technology over the past several years, 

we take additional actions to further 

reduce unnecessary and redundant 

regulatory burdens and delay on 

incumbent LECs when making network 

changes while continuing to ensure that 

interconnecting carriers have adequate 

information and time to accommodate 

such changes. We also eliminate 

unnecessary notice requirements 

pertaining to the connection of customer 

premises equipment (CPE) to the public 

switched telephone network (PSTN). 

And we take action to ensure that 

carriers can expeditiously return their 

communications networks to working 

order in the face of events beyond their 

control. Finally, we retain the way in 

which the Commission calculates the 

waiting period for short-term network 

change notices. 

1. Eliminating Section 51.325(a)(3) 

45. We eliminate the provision in 

section 51.325 of our rules requiring 

incumbent LECs to provide public 

notice of network changes that ‘‘will 

affect the manner in which customer 

premises equipment is attached to the 

interstate network.’’ As the record 

demonstrates, incumbent LECs’ 

engagement and collaboration with CPE 

manufacturers today renders this 

separate notice requirement 

unnecessary. 

46. When the Commission adopted 

section 51.325(a)(3), it was concerned 

that an incumbent LEC controlling the 

underlying transmission facilities that 

also had affiliates engaged in the 

manufacture of CPE might give those 

affiliates a competitive advantage. This 

is no longer the case. The record 

confirms that incumbent LECs no longer 

have the same control of the PSTN, nor 

do they enjoy the market power they did 

two decades ago with respect to the 

manufacture of CPE. 

47. We find that CPE manufacturers, 

including those engaged in providing 

essential communications equipment 

and assistive technologies, will have the 

same access to information when 

changes to a provider’s network or 

operations have the potential to render 

certain devices incompatible to ensure 

their ability to develop new compatible 

equipment. Incumbent LECs remain 

subject to sections 201 (interconnection) 

and 202 (non-discrimination) of the Act, 

and the Commission has held that the 

obligations imposed by these statutory 

provisions apply in the context of CPE. 

Moreover, CPE manufacturers have 

never been entitled to direct notice of 

network changes of any type, even those 

that might affect the compatibility of 

CPE. To the extent any manufacturers 

actively monitor carrier network change 

notice web pages or Commission 

announcements of network change 

notices, they will have the same access 

to these notices as they have always 

had. Significantly, no CPE manufacturer 

opposes the elimination of section 

51.325(a)(3). Indeed, the only CPE 

manufacturer that submitted comments 

on this issue supports its elimination. 

48. The role played by the 

Administrative Council for Terminal 

Attachments (ACTA) in overseeing the 

adoption of specific technical criteria 

for terminal equipment further justifies 

elimination of section 51.325(a)(3). The 

Commission established ACTA, a nongovernmental entity whose membership 

fairly and impartially represents all 

segments of the telecommunications 

industry, for the express purpose of 

privatizing the standards development 

and terminal equipment approval 

processes for the connection of CPE to 

the PSTN and certain private-line 

services. Through ACTA, incumbent 

LECs and other service providers work 

collaboratively with CPE manufacturers, 

independent testing labs, and other 

interested industry segments, to openly 

share the information necessary to 

ensure CPE compliance and 

compatibility with the incumbent LEC 

and other service providers’ networks. 

Equipment manufacturers must also 

ensure that their products are registered 

in the ACTA database. ACTA must 

publish public notice of submitted 

technical criteria, and interested parties 

may appeal any aspect of those 

submissions to the Commission. 

49. We similarly find that 

manufacturers will have the opportunity 

to develop modified or upgraded CPE 

ahead of network changes in the 

absence of section 51.325(a)(3), and thus 

that consumers will not be harmed. 

Incumbent LECs facing increasing 

competition from a variety of sources 

must engage their customers and keep 

them fully informed if they hope to 

retain their business. Because 

incumbent LECs no longer have a 

significant presence in the market for 

the manufacture of CPE, and they wish 

to remain competitive in today’s everchanging marketplace, they lack a 

significant incentive to hide changes to 

their networks that may impair the 

compatibility of CPE used by their 

customers. And as the Commission 

found in eliminating the requirement 

that incumbent LECs provide direct 

notice to retail customers of planned 

copper retirements, incumbent LECs 

already must engage their retail 

customers as a normal business practice 

in order to install the equipment 

necessary to accommodate fiber lines, at 

which time they also address CPE 

compatibility issues. 

50. Unlike section 51.325(a)’s other 

delineated types of network changes 

that were adopted to protect 

interoperability and interconnection 

with other carriers’ networks and 

facilities, the Commission adopted 

section 51.325(a)(3) specifically to 

protect competitive CPE manufacturers. 

That rationale no longer justifies the 

rule. Some commenters misunderstand 

the history of section 51.325(a)(3) and 

erroneously assert that the 

Commission’s intention in promulgating 

section 51.325(a)(3) was ‘‘to maintain 

interoperability and uninterrupted, high 

quality service to the public.’’ While 

that was the Commission’s articulated 

intention when it adopted section 

51.325 in 1996, it was not until three 

years later that the Commission added 

subsection (a)(3). When the Commission 

first adopted its part 51 network change 

disclosure rules in 1996, it did not 

include section 51.325(a)(3) related to 

CPE. At that time, a different section of 

the Commission’s rules already required 

incumbent LECs, and other facilitiesbased carriers, to publicly disclose, inter 

alia, network information that would 

affect CPE compatibility. When the 

Commission subsequently relieved nonincumbent LEC facilities-based carriers 

of section 64.702(d)(2) obligations three 

years later, rather than retain CPE notice 

obligations just for incumbent LECs in 

part 64 of its rules, the Commission 

rolled the requirement into the part 51 

network change disclosure rules by 

adding section 51.325(a)(3). When 

adding that new provision, the 

Commission was clear that ‘‘[t]he 

primary purpose of network information 

disclosure in this context is not to 

protect intercarrier interconnection, but 

rather to give competitive manufacturers 

of CPE adequate advance notice when a 

carrier intends to alter its network in a 

way that may affect the manner in 

which CPE is attached to the network.’’ 

51. Finally, our rules separately 

require that incumbent LECs and other 

service providers and equipment 

manufacturers ensure the accessibility 

and usability of their services and 

equipment by people with disabilities, 

which of necessity requires 

collaboration between these two groups, 

as well as with individuals with 

disabilities and disability-related 

organizations. In this regard, we expect 

that incumbent LECs and other service 

providers will communicate with state 

centers that distribute specialized 

customer premises equipment (SCPE) or 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31668 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

peripheral devices commonly used by 

people with disabilities (such as TTYs 

and analog captioned telephones), as 

well as with state telecommunications 

relay service programs, to alert these 

entities when there is an expectation 

that legacy devices routinely used by 

people with disabilities may no longer 

work after network changes are in place. 

When accessibility and usability are not 

achievable or readily achievable, as 

applicable, incumbent LEC service 

providers have an independent 

obligation to ensure their services are 

compatible with assistive technologies, 

so any network change that would 

impact service accessibility would 

necessarily need to also ensure CPE 

compatibility. 

2. Eliminating Section 68.110(b) Notice 

to Customers 

52. We also eliminate the requirement 

that carriers give notice to customers of 

changes to their facilities, equipment, 

operations, or procedures ‘‘[i]f such 

changes can be reasonably expected to 

render any customer’s terminal 

equipment incompatible with the 

communications facilities of the 

provider of wireline 

telecommunications . . . to allow the 

customer to maintain uninterrupted 

service.’’ Part 68 applies to all wireline 

providers, not just incumbent LECs. We 

find that changes to the 

communications marketplace generally 

and to the market for terminal 

equipment specifically render this over 

42 year old notice requirement 

unworkable and unnecessary. Indeed, 

consumers have available to them a vast 

range of CPE devices and, in many 

cases, have the option of using converter 

boxes to the extent they choose to keep 

their analog CPE after their service has 

been migrated to IP. The terms 

‘‘terminal equipment’’ and ‘‘customer 

premises equipment (CPE)’’ are used 

interchangeably. 

53. The rule made some sense when 

it was adopted in 1975 as part of the 

Commission’s decision to require 

carriers to allow third partymanufactured terminal equipment to be 

directly connected to the network as 

long as the equipment met specific 

technical standards set forth by the 

Commission to prevent network harm. 

As part of that regime, the Commission 

required telephone company customers 

to notify their provider before 

connecting any third-party terminal 

equipment to the network to ensure that 

the equipment had been registered with 

the Commission under its new part 68 

rules. At the same time, the Commission 

adopted the reciprocal section 68.110(b) 

requirement for telephone companies to 

notify those customers if the telephone 

company was making any changes to its 

operations that might affect the 

compatibility of the customer’s thirdparty equipment. This notice 

requirement imposed no obligation on 

the carrier to refrain from or delay 

making its network change to 

accommodate its customer, nor was 

there any obligation on the part of the 

telephone company to ensure that other 

compatible CPE was available. 

54. Attachment of third-party 

equipment is now the norm. Customers 

are no longer required to notify their 

carriers of the CPE they connect to their 

providers’ networks unless their carrier 

has specifically required that they do so. 

In 1985, the Commission relaxed the 

customer requirement to notify the 

telephone company upon the 

development of a robust CPE 

registration database, but the 

corresponding notice to customers went 

unaddressed. When the Commission 

revised the part 68 rules in 2001, it 

again did not address section 68.110(b). 

Moreover, given the current universe of 

registered CPE that customers could 

potentially connect to their provider’s 

network, as commenters explain, 

carriers cannot reasonably know which 

of their subscribers use which, if any, of 

that equipment. There are tens of 

thousands of approved pieces of 

terminal equipment listed in the ACTA 

database. Indeed, the database was not 

established for the purpose of enabling 

carriers to identify the CPE used by 

particular customers. Rather, it was 

intended to allow consumers and 

providers to identify the supplier of a 

particular piece of equipment. As a 

result, the only way a carrier could be 

certain of complying with section 

68.110(b) was if it notified each and 

every one of its customers whenever any 

service or network change was about to 

occur, an unduly burdensome and 

impractical requirement. 

55. What’s more, there are other 

safeguards in place to reduce the 

likelihood that manufacturers and 

customers will be left unaware of 

carriers’ changes to their facilities, 

equipment, operations, or procedures 

that can be reasonably expected to 

render any terminal equipment 

incompatible with the carrier’s facilities. 

Most significantly, ACTA’s privatized, 

open, and balanced collaborative 

process among CPE manufacturers, 

service providers, testing laboratories, 

and other interested stakeholders 

ensures the adoption of technical 

criteria for compatible CPE that 

accommodates service providers’ 

network evolutions, thus avoiding 

customer service interruptions. 

56. Also, the types of network or 

operational changes that could impact 

customers’ CPE will still result in notice 

to customers. Specifically, our rules 

require customer notice of service 

discontinuances, and the Commission 

has found that carriers must as a 

business necessity communicate with 

customers regarding copper retirements. 

Further, carriers have strong incentives 

to keep their customers informed of 

technology transitions, including 

changes in their networks, that might 

affect CPE compatibility if they hope to 

retain their customers in today’s 

competitive marketplace. And as 

discussed earlier, other regulatory 

requirements are designed to ensure that 

covered services are accessible to and 

usable by individuals with disabilities, 

or compatible with SCPE and peripheral 

devices commonly used by individuals 

with disabilities, such as TTYs and 

analog captioned telephones. And 

manufacturers of specialized equipment 

designed to ensure accessibility can 

refer to technical standards made 

available through ACTA to also ensure 

that their equipment is compatible with 

the network in accordance with part 68. 

Regardless, mandated notice 

requirements do not affect whether 

customers will have to replace their 

devices. 

57. We are unpersuaded by 

commenter concerns that, if we 

eliminate this rule, large enterprise 

customers will be ‘‘required to redesign 

their networks on the fly and after the 

fact’’ or that ‘‘the reliability and security 

of utility applications’’ will be 

undermined. As the Commission has 

already found, such customers generally 

enter into contracts with their 

telecommunications carriers in which 

they can specify the amount of notice 

the carrier must provide about changes 

to its network. As the Commission 

noted in the Wireline Infrastructure 

Order, it would be absurd to suggest that 

carriers ‘‘would risk public safety or fail 

to work cooperatively and diligently to 

accommodate critical needs of their 

public-safety related customers absent a 

mandatory Commission notice 

obligation.’’ We do not intend for our 

network change disclosure and section 

214(a) discontinuance rules to disturb 

contractual obligations. And incumbent 

LECs are now free, as all other 

telecommunications carriers always 

were, to engage their enterprise 

customers in advance of providing 

public notice of potential network 

changes that might affect terminal 

equipment compatibility. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31669 

3. Extending Streamlined Notice 

Procedures for Force Majeure Events to 

All Network Changes 

58. Today, we extend to all types of 

network changes the streamlined notice 

procedures the Commission recently 

adopted for copper retirements when 

force majeure events occur. Throughout 

this section, we use the phrase ‘‘force 

majeure’’ to refer generally to the full 

range of unforeseen events outside 

incumbent LECs’ control, e.g., natural 

disasters, terrorist attacks, governmental 

mandates or unintentional third-party 

damage, that may give rise to unplanned 

network changes. The record 

overwhelmingly supports this action. 

The same considerations that led the 

Commission to adopt force majeure 

copper retirement procedures apply 

equally to all network changes. 

Facilitating rapid restoration of 

communications networks in the face of 

natural disasters and other unforeseen 

events warrants swift removal of 

unnecessary regulatory barriers that 

inhibit incumbent LECs from restoring 

service as quickly as possible when 

networks are damaged or destroyed by 

events beyond the LECs’ control. 

59. We find no reason in the record 

to further impede carriers’ efforts to 

restore service necessitating network 

changes other than copper retirements 

in the face of force majeure events. 

While CWA posits that these 

streamlined procedures may reduce 

Commission oversight ‘‘over network 

changes after immediate recovery 

efforts,’’ the streamlined procedures we 

adopt today merely eliminate the 

advance notice and waiting period 

requirements in exigent circumstances. 

Incumbent LECs availing themselves of 

this limited relief must still comply 

with section 51.325(a)’s public notice 

requirement as soon as practicable. 

Moreover, we agree that the safeguards 

included within the force majeure 

notice rule ensure that only genuine 

force majeure events necessitating a 

network change will justify streamlined 

procedures. Finally, should the network 

changes occurring from a force majeure 

event result in a discontinuance of 

service to customers in the affected area, 

section 63.63 dictates that the carrier 

remains subject to our discontinuance 

rules. 

4. Retaining Current Calculation of 

Waiting Period for Short Term Network 

Changes 

60. We retain the current rule that 

calculates the waiting period for shortterm network change notices from the 

date the Commission issues its public 

notice after an incumbent LEC files its 

network change notification, and we 

decline to calculate the waiting period 

from the date of filing. We agree with 

commenters that urge us to retain this 

rule to ensure sufficient and complete 

public notice of short-term network 

changes, given the already short 10-day 

waiting period. Commencing the 

waiting period at the same time as an 

incumbent LEC files its network change 

notification, as proposed by AT&T and 

supported by others, fails to provide 

Commission staff an opportunity to first 

review the notice for compliance with 

our rules or for unintentional errors, 

potentially ‘‘depriving notice recipients 

of information they need to 

accommodate the network change.’’ 

61. We reject ITTA’s assertion that 

because the Commission retained a 

distinction between copper retirement 

notice rules and other types of network 

change notice rules, this difference 

alone constitutes a basis for deviating 

from how we calculate the 

commencement of the waiting period 

for each. The record demonstrates that 

the reasons we declined to revise the 

calculation of the waiting period for 

copper retirement notices similarly 

warrant retaining the long-standing way 

in which we calculate the waiting 

period for short-term network change 

notices as well. Reducing the alreadyshort waiting period further limits the 

notice to interconnecting carriers, 

affecting their ability to accommodate 

the planned network change or to 

object, if necessary, to the timing of the 

planned network change. Staff has as 

much need to ‘‘routinely contact filers 

to clarify or correct information 

contained in filings or to add required 

information that is missing’’ for shortterm network change notices as for 

copper retirements. 

62. Finally, we decline to adopt a 

requirement that the Commission 

release a public notice within a 

specified period of time after an 

incumbent LEC files a short-term 

network change notice. In the Wireline 

Infrastructure Order, the Commission 

found that commenters had not 

identified ‘‘any specific instance in 

which a planned copper retirement had 

to be delayed due to the timing of our 

release of the relevant public notice.’’ 

Similarly, commenters here do not 

identify any instance in which a carrier 

has had to delay planned network 

changes because of the Commission’s 

failure to timely release a public notice 

after a LEC has filed its short-term 

network change notice. We therefore 

decline to adopt a rule to solve a nonexistent problem. 

C. Non-Substantive Changes to the Code 

of Federal Regulations 

63. We also make certain nonsubstantive updates and corrections to 

our codified rules required by the 

actions we take today and actions taken 

in the Wireline Infrastructure Order and 

the 2016 Technology Transitions Order. 

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the 

Administrative Procedures Act permits 

agencies to issue rule changes without 

notice and comment upon a finding of 

good cause that notice and associated 

procedures are ‘‘impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest.’’ We find that notice and 

comment is unnecessary for rule 

changes that reflect prior Commission 

decisions that inadvertently were not 

reflected in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR). Similarly, we find 

notice and comment is not necessary for 

rule amendments to ensure consistency 

in terminology and cross references 

across various rules or to correct 

inadvertent failures to make conforming 

changes when prior rule amendments 

occurred. 

64. In light of our elimination today 

of section 68.110(b) of our rules, we 

redesignate that current rule’s paragraph 

(c) as paragraph (b). In turn, we must 

adjust any cross-references to section 

68.110(c) elsewhere in our rules to 

reflect its redesignation as 68.110(b). We 

thus make the necessary changes to 

such cross-reference in section 

68.105(d)(4). Similarly, in eliminating 

section 51.325(a)(3) today, we 

redesignate paragraph (a)(4) of that 

section as paragraph (a)(3). We thus 

adjust the cross-references to section 

51.325(a)(4) that appear in section 

51.333(b)(2) and (f). 

65. Additionally, in the Wireline 

Infrastructure Order, the Commission 

eliminated section 51.332 of our rules, 

pertaining to the copper retirement 

process. A cross-reference to that rule 

appears in section 63.71(i). Rules 

governing the copper retirement process 

now appear in section 51.333. We now 

revise section 63.71(i) to cross-reference 

section 51.333 rather than section 

51.332. 

66. We also make an administrative 

change to correct an inaccurate crossreference in section 63.71(k)(1), adopted 

in the Wireline Infrastructure Order, 

changing its reference to paragraph 

(k)(4) of that section to paragraph (k)(2). 

We find good cause for correcting this 

cross-reference without prior notice and 

comment because the inaccurate crossreference will likely confuse and 

mislead applicants seeking to 

discontinue, reduce, or impair a legacy 

data service if not corrected promptly. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31670 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

67. To shorten the number of 

unnecessary subsections in our rules, 

we also revise section 63.71(a) by 

combining paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) 

into one consolidated new paragraph 

(a)(6). We also update any crossreferences to paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) 

in section 63.71(a) to reflect this 

consolidation. We similarly update any 

cross-references to section 63.60(h) in 

section 63.71 to reflect the redesignation 

of paragraph (h) in section 63.60 as 

paragraph (i). This administrative 

change makes no substantive changes to 

the language or underlying requirements 

of the rule. 

68. Finally, we correct an inadvertent 

error in the ordering clause of the 2016 

Technology Transitions Order 

specifying which revised rules adopted 

in that order require approval by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) before they can become effective. 

In that ordering clause, the Commission 

indicated that the revision to section 

63.19(a) required such approval. 

However, the revision in that rule, to 

change a cross-reference from section 

63.601 to the then newly-adopted 

section 63.602, did not impact that 

section’s reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. It therefore does not fall 

within the purview of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act and does not require 

OMB approval. 

IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

69. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into 

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

Notice of Inquiry, and Request for 

Comment (Wireline Infrastructure 

NPRM) and into the Report and Order, 

Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (Wireline 

Infrastructure Order or Wireline 

Infrastructure FNPRM) for the wireline 

infrastructure proceeding. The 

Commission sought written public 

comment on the proposals in the 

Wireline Infrastructure NPRM and in the 

Wireline Infrastructure FNPRM, 

including comment on the IRFAs. The 

Commission received no comments on 

the IRFAs. Because the Commission 

amends its rules in this Order, the 

Commission has included this Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). 

This present FRFA conforms to the 

RFA. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules 

70. In the Wireline Infrastructure 

NPRM, the Commission continued its 

efforts to close the digital divide by 

removing barriers to broadband 

infrastructure investment. To this end, 

the Commission proposed numerous 

regulatory reforms to existing rules and 

procedures regarding copper retirement, 

and discontinuances of legacy services. 

In so doing, the Commission sought to 

better enable broadband providers to 

build, maintain, and upgrade their 

networks, leading to more affordable 

and available internet access and other 

broadband services for consumers and 

businesses alike. On November 16, 

2017, the Commission adopted the 

Wireline Infrastructure Order, which 

adopted reforms to speed the 

replacement of copper with fiber and 

internet Protocol (IP) technologies. In 

the accompanying Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission 

sought comment on additional steps to 

streamline the network change 

disclosure and discontinuance 

processes, including the process for 

transitioning legacy services to new 

advanced IP services. 

71. Pursuant to the objectives set forth 

in the Wireline Infrastructure NPRM, 

this Second Report and Order (Order) 

adopts changes to Commission rules 

regarding section 214 discontinuance 

procedures, network change disclosures, 

and part 68 notice requirements. The 

Order adopts changes to the current 

section 214(a) discontinuance process to 

further streamline the review and 

approval process by: (1) Extending the 

previously-adopted streamlined 

comment and automatic grant periods 

for applications seeking to grandfather 

or discontinue previously-grandfathered 

data services to certain higher-speed 

data services, (2) forbearing from section 

214(a)’s discontinuance requirements 

for services with no customers, (3) 

eliminating the uncodified education 

and outreach mandates adopted in the 

2016 Technology Transitions Order, (4) 

adopting an alternative to the ‘‘adequate 

replacement test’’ adopted in the 2016 

Technology Transitions Order for where 

the discontinuing carrier offers a standalone interconnected VoIP service 

throughout the affected service area and 

at least one other stand-alone facilitiesbased voice service is available 

throughout the affected service area, and 

(5) extending the streamlined comment 

and automatic grant periods of 10 and 

25 days to applications seeking to 

grandfather all legacy voice services. 

The Order also adopts changes to the 

Commission’s part 51 network change 

notification rules and part 68 rules 

pertaining to connecting terminal 

equipment to the public switched 

telephone network (PSTN) that 

eliminate unnecessary notice 

requirements pertaining to the 

connection of customer premises 

equipment to the PSTN, and reduce 

regulatory burdens and delay on 

incumbent LECs when making network 

changes while continuing to ensure that 

interconnecting carriers have adequate 

information and time to accommodate 

such changes. Finally, the Order revises 

its network change disclosure rules to 

extend to all types of network changes 

the streamlined notice procedures the 

Commission recently adopted for 

copper retirements when force majeure 

and other unforeseen events occur. 

These additional steps will further the 

Commission’s goal of eliminating 

unnecessary regulatory burdens, 

decrease needless costs and delay in 

transitioning from legacy services to 

next-generation IP-based services, and 

better reflect the reality of today’s 

marketplace and the decreasing demand 

for legacy services as customers move 

towards more advanced competing 

alternatives. 

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA 

72. The Commission did not receive 

comments specifically addressing the 

rules and policies proposed in the 

IRFAs in either the Wireline 

Infrastructure NPRM or the Wireline 

Infrastructure FNPRM. 

C. Response to Comments by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration 

73. The Chief Counsel did not file any 

comments in response to this 

proceeding. 

D. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rules Will Apply 

74. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the final rules adopted pursuant to the 

Order. The RFA generally defines the 

term ‘‘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. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the 

statutory definition of a small business 

applies ‘‘unless an agency, after 

consultation with the Office of 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration and after opportunity 

for public comment, establishes one or 

more definitions of such term which are 

appropriate to the activities of the 

agency and publishes such definition(s) 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31671 

in the Federal Register.’’ A ‘‘smallbusiness 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 SBA. 

75. The changes to our section 214 

discontinuance, network change 

notification, and part 68 customer 

notification rules will affect obligations 

on incumbent LECs and, in some cases, 

competitive LECs. Other entities that 

choose to object to network change 

notifications for copper retirement or 

section 214 discontinuance applications 

may be economically impacted by the 

rules in the Order. 

76. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, 

may affect small entities that are not 

easily categorized at present. We 

therefore describe here, at the outset, 

three comprehensive small entity size 

standards that could be directly affected 

herein. First, while there are industry 

specific size standards for small 

businesses that are used in the 

regulatory flexibility analysis, according 

to data from the SBA’s Office of 

Advocacy, in general a small business is 

an independent business having fewer 

than 500 employees. These types of 

small businesses represent 99.9% of all 

businesses in the United States which 

translates to 29.6 million businesses. 

77. Next, the type of small entity 

described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ Nationwide, as of August 2016, 

there were approximately 356,494 small 

organizations based on registration and 

tax data filed by nonprofits with the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Data 

from the Urban Institute, National 

Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) 

reporting on nonprofit organizations 

registered with the IRS was used to 

estimate the number of small 

organizations. Reports generated using 

the NCCS online database indicated that 

as of August 2016 there were 356,494 

registered nonprofits with total revenues 

of less than $100,000. Of this number, 

326,897 entities filed tax returns with 

65,113 registered nonprofits reporting 

total revenues of $50,000 or less on the 

IRS Form 990–N for Small Exempt 

Organizations and 261,784 nonprofits 

reporting total revenues of $100,000 or 

less on some other version of the IRS 

Form 990 within 24 months of the 

August 2016 data release date. 

78. Finally, the small entity described 

as a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ 

is defined generally as ‘‘governments of 

cities, counties, towns, townships, 

villages, school districts, or special 

districts, with a population of less than 

fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census Bureau 

data from the 2012 Census of 

Governments indicates that there were 

90,056 local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. The 

Census of Government is conducted 

every five (5) years compiling data for 

years ending with ‘‘2’’ and ‘‘7.’’ Local 

governmental jurisdictions are classified 

in two categories—General purpose 

governments (county, municipal and 

town or township) and Special purpose 

governments (special districts and 

independent school districts). Of this 

number there were 37,132 general 

purpose governments (county, 

municipal and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,184 special purpose governments 

(independent school districts and 

special districts) with populations of 

less than 50,000. There were 2,114 

county governments with populations 

less than 50,000. There were 18,811 

municipal and 16,207 town and 

township governments with populations 

less than 50,000. There were 12,184 

independent school districts with 

enrollment populations less than 

50,000. The U.S. Census Bureau data 

did not provide a population breakout 

for special district governments. The 

2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most 

types of governments in the local 

government category shows that the 

majority of these governments have 

populations of less than 50,000. While 

U.S. Census Bureau data did not 

provide a population breakout for 

special district governments, if the 

population of less than 50,000 for this 

category of local government is 

consistent with the other types of local 

governments the majority of the 38,266 

special district governments have 

populations of less than 50,000. Based 

on this data we estimate that at least 

49,316 local government jurisdictions 

fall in the category of ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

79. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines this industry as ‘‘establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 

consists of all such companies having 

1,500 or fewer employees. Census data 

for 2012 show that there were 3,117 

firms that operated that year. Of this 

total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this size 

standard, the majority of firms in this 

industry can be considered small. 

80. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a size standard for small 

businesses specifically applicable to 

local exchange services. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is for 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as 

defined in paragraph 79 of this FRFA. 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Census data for 2012 show 

that there were 3,117 firms that operated 

that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. The 

Commission therefore estimates that 

most providers of local exchange carrier 

service are small entities that may be 

affected by the rules adopted. 

81. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers (incumbent LECs). Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for incumbent local 

exchange services. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers as 

defined in paragraph 79 of this FRFA. 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. According to Commission 

data, 3,117 firms operated in that year. 

Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. Consequently, 

the Commission estimates that most 

providers of incumbent local exchange 

service are small businesses that may be 

affected by the rules and policies 

adopted. One thousand three hundred 

and seven (1,307) Incumbent Local 

Exchange Carriers reported that they 

were incumbent local exchange service 

providers. Of this total, an estimated 

1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

82. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (competitive LECs), Competitive 

Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant 

Service Providers, and Other Local 

Service Providers. Neither the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31672 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for these service providers. 

The appropriate NAICS Code category is 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as 

defined in paragraph 79 of this FRFA. 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 

indicate that 3,117 firms operated 

during that year. Of that number, 3,083 

operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Based on this data, the 

Commission concludes that the majority 

of Competitive LECs, CAPs, SharedTenant Service Providers, and Other 

Local Service Providers are small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

1,442 carriers reported that they were 

engaged in the provision of either 

competitive local exchange services or 

competitive access provider services. Of 

these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. In 

addition, 17 carriers have reported that 

they are Shared-Tenant Service 

Providers, and all 17 are estimated to 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. In 

addition, 72 carriers have reported that 

they are Other Local Service Providers. 

Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of competitive local exchange 

service, competitive access providers, 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 

Other Local Service Providers are small 

entities that may be affected by the 

adopted rules. 

83. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a definition for 

Interexchange Carriers. The closest 

NAICS Code category is Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers as defined 

in paragraph 79 of this FRFA. The 

applicable size standard under SBA 

rules is that such a business is small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to Commission data, 359 

companies reported that their primary 

telecommunications service activity was 

the provision of interexchange services. 

Of this total, an estimated 317 have 

1,500 or fewer employees and 42 have 

more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of 

interexchange service providers are 

small entities that may be affected by 

rules adopted. 

84. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a size standard for small businesses 

specifically applicable to Other Toll 

Carriers. This category includes toll 

carriers that do not fall within the 

categories of interexchange carriers, 

operator service providers, prepaid 

calling card providers, satellite service 

carriers, or toll resellers. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is for 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as 

defined in paragraph 79 of this FRFA. 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Census data for 2012 shows 

that there were 3,117 firms that operated 

that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, 

under this category and the associated 

small business size standard, the 

majority of Other Toll Carriers can be 

considered small. According to 

Commission data, 284 companies 

reported that their primary 

telecommunications service activity was 

the provision of other toll carriage. Of 

these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most Other 

Toll Carriers that may be affected by our 

rules are small. 

85. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). This industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

operating and maintaining switching 

and transmission facilities to provide 

communications via the airwaves, such 

as cellular services, paging services, 

wireless internet access, and wireless 

video services. The appropriate size 

standard under SBA rules is that such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. For this industry, 

Census data for 2012 show that there 

were 967 firms that operated for the 

entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had 

fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, 

under this category and the associated 

size standard, the Commission estimates 

that the majority of wireless 

telecommunications carriers (except 

satellite) are small entities. Similarly, 

according to internally developed 

Commission data, 413 carriers reported 

that they were engaged in the provision 

of wireless telephony, including cellular 

service, Personal Communications 

Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile 

Radio (SMR) services. Of this total, an 

estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that 

approximately half of these firms can be 

considered small. Thus, using available 

data, we estimate that the majority of 

wireless firms can be considered small. 

86. Cable Companies and Systems 

(Rate Regulation). The Commission has 

developed its own small business size 

standards for the purpose of cable rate 

regulation. Under the Commission’s 

rules, a ‘‘small cable company’’ is one 

serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers 

nationwide. Industry data indicate that 

there are currently 4,600 active cable 

systems in the United States. Of this 

total, all but nine cable operators 

nationwide are small under the 400,000- 

subscriber size standard. In addition, 

under the Commission’s rate regulation 

rules, a ‘‘small system’’ is a cable system 

serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 

Current Commission records show 4,600 

cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 

3,900 cable systems have fewer than 

15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems 

have 15,000 or more subscribers, based 

on the same records. Thus, under this 

standard as well, we estimate that most 

cable systems are small entities. 

87. Cable System Operators (Telecom 

Act Standard). The Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, also contains 

a size standard for small cable system 

operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator 

that, directly or through an affiliate, 

serves in the aggregate fewer than one 

percent of all subscribers in the United 

States and is not affiliated with any 

entity or entities whose gross annual 

revenues in the aggregate exceed 

$250,000,000 are approximately 

52,403,705 cable video subscribers in 

the United States today. Accordingly, an 

operator serving fewer than 524,037 

subscribers shall be deemed a small 

operator if its annual revenues, when 

combined with the total annual 

revenues of all its affiliates, do not 

exceed $250 million in the aggregate. 

Based on available data, we find that all 

but nine incumbent cable operators are 

small entities under this size standard. 

We note that the Commission neither 

requests nor collects information on 

whether cable system operators are 

affiliated with entities whose gross 

annual revenues exceed $250 million. 

The Commission does receive such 

information on a case-by-case basis if a 

cable operator appeals a local franchise 

authority’s finding that the operator 

does not qualify as a small cable 

operator pursuant to section 76.901(f) of 

the Commission’s rules. Although it 

seems certain that some of these cable 

system operators are affiliated with 

entities whose gross annual revenues 

exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at 

this time to estimate with greater 

precision the number of cable system 

operators that would qualify as small 

cable operators under the definition in 

the Communications Act. 

88. All Other Telecommunications. 

‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ is 

defined as follows: ‘‘This U.S. industry 

is comprised of establishments that are 

primarily engaged in providing 

specialized telecommunications 

services, such as satellite tracking, 

communications telemetry, and radar 

station operation. This industry also 

includes establishments primarily 

engaged in providing satellite terminal 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31673 

stations and associated facilities 

connected with one or more terrestrial 

systems and capable of transmitting 

telecommunications to, and receiving 

telecommunications from, satellite 

systems. Establishments providing 

internet services or voice over internet 

protocol (VoIP) services via client 

supplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for ‘‘All 

Other Telecommunications,’’ which 

consists of all such firms with gross 

annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. 

For this category, Census Bureau data 

for 2012 show that there were 1,442 

firms that operated for the entire year. 

Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had 

annual receipts less than $25 million. 

Consequently, we conclude that the 

majority of All Other 

Telecommunications firms can be 

considered small. 

E. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

89. Section 214(a) Discontinuance 

Process. The Order streamlines the 

discontinuance process for applications 

seeking to grandfather certain data 

services with speeds at or above 1.544 

Mbps in both directions and to 

subsequently permanently discontinue 

such services once they have been 

grandfathered for at least 180 days. 

Specifically, the Order extends the 

previously-adopted streamlined 

comment and automatic grant period of 

10 and 25 days, respectively, for 

applications to grandfather voice and 

data services below 1.544 Mbps, to 

applications to grandfather data services 

at or above speeds of 1.544 Mbps and 

with download/upload speeds below 25 

Mbps/3 Mbps, provided the applying 

carrier offers data services at speeds of 

at least 25 Mbps/3 Mbps throughout the 

affected service area. The Order also 

extends previously-adopted streamlined 

comment and automatic grant periods of 

10 and 31 days, respectively, for 

applications to permanently discontinue 

data services below 1.544 Mbps 

provided such services have been 

grandfathered for at least 180 days, to 

previously-grandfathered data services 

at or above speeds of 1.544 Mbps and 

with download/upload speeds below 25 

Mbps/3 Mbps. The Order finds that 

these changes will incentivize carriers 

to provide higher-speed data services at 

or above the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps mark, 

without sacrificing the customer 

protections under the previous rules. 

The Order also forbears from section 

214(a) discontinuance requirements for 

all services with no customers and no 

reasonable requests for service for at 

least 30 days. Carriers thus will not be 

required to file applications to 

discontinue such services. The Order 

finds enforcement of the section 214(a) 

discontinuance requirements is 

unnecessary to protect consumers when 

the service in question has no 

customers. It also finds that forbearance 

in such situations is consistent with the 

public interest. The Order also 

eliminates the uncodified education and 

outreach mandates adopted in the 2016 

Technology Transitions Order 

applicable to carriers discontinuing 

TDM voice services. These requirements 

have not yet been in effect because they 

have not been approved by OMB. The 

Order finds these mandates 

unnecessary, as customers already 

receive or can easily obtain from their 

carriers the information encompassed 

by these requirements. The Order 

further streamlines applications to 

discontinue legacy voice services by 

adopting an alternative to the ‘‘adequate 

replacement test’’ where (1) the 

discontinuing carrier offers a standalone interconnected VoIP service 

throughout the affected service area, and 

(2) there is at least one other stand-alone 

facilities-based voice service available 

throughout the affected service area. 

These applications will be treated in the 

same manner as other discontinuance 

applications. Customers will have 15 

days from filing of the application to 

submit comments in response to the 

application, and the application will be 

automatically granted on the 31st day 

after filing unless the Commission 

notifies otherwise. Through this 

alternative to the ‘‘adequate replacement 

test,’’ the Commission incents carriers to 

deploy broadband facilities and ensures 

that customers in the affected service 

area have multiple voice alternatives. 

Additionally, the Order extends the 

streamlined comment and automatic 

grant periods of 10 and 25 days to 

applications seeking to grandfather any 

legacy voice services. 

90. Network Change Notification and 

Part 68 Notification Requirement 

Reforms. The Order adopts changes to 

the Commission’s part 51 network 

change notification rules to eliminate 

unnecessary notice requirements 

pertaining to the connection of customer 

premises equipment to the public 

switched telephone network, and to 

reduce regulatory burdens and delay on 

incumbent LECs when making network 

changes while continuing to ensure that 

interconnecting carriers have adequate 

information and time to accommodate 

such changes. The Order eliminates the 

section 51.325(a)(3) requirement that 

incumbent LECs provide public notice 

of network changes that will affect CPE 

connection to the interstate network. 

Section 51.325(a)(3) is no longer 

necessary to ensure that CPE 

manufacturers receive sufficient notice 

of incumbent LECs’ planned network 

changes that may affect CPE 

compatibility because incumbent LECs’ 

engagement and collaboration with CPE 

manufacturers today renders this 

separate notice requirement 

superfluous. Section 51.325(a)(3) was 

specifically adopted to protect 

competitive CPE manufacturers, and 

this rationale no longer justifies the rule. 

The Order also eliminates the section 

68.110(b) requirement that carriers give 

notice to customers when changes to 

their facilities, equipment operations, or 

procedures can be reasonably expected 

to render any customer’s terminal 

equipment incompatible with the 

communications facilities of the 

provider. As with section 51.325(a)(3), 

changes to the marketplace render the 

purpose of this requirement obsolete. 

The Order revises section 51.333(g) to 

allow all types of network changes to be 

subject to streamlined notice procedures 

recently adopted for copper retirements 

when force majeure and other 

unforeseen events occur. This 

streamlined procedure eliminates the 

advance notice and waiting period 

requirements for incumbent LECs 

during exigent circumstances. 

Incumbent LECs will still be required to 

comply with section 51.325(a)’s public 

notice requirement, as well as standard 

discontinuance rules in the event such 

changes result in a discontinuance of 

services to customers in the affected 

area. 

F. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

91. In this Order, the Commission 

modifies its section 214 discontinuance 

and network change disclosure rules to 

improve the efficiency of these 

processes, as well as to increase 

broadband deployment. It also 

eliminates unnecessary and burdensome 

section 214 discontinuance, network 

change disclosure, and part 68 

notification regulations that inhibit 

carriers from implementing the 

transition to next-generation networks 

and IP-based broadband services. 

Finally, it forbears from section 214 

discontinuance requirements in limited 

circumstances, thus further reducing the 

burden on carriers seeking to 

discontinue services for which they 

have no customers and have had no 

reasonable request for customers for the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31674 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

preceding 30 days. Overall, we expect 

the actions in this document will reduce 

burdens on the affected carriers, 

including any small entities. 

92. Section 214(a) Discontinuance 

Process. The Order streamlines 

applications to grandfather data services 

with download/upload speeds below 25 

Mbps/3 Mbps, provided the applying 

carrier offers data services at download/ 

upload speeds of at least 25 Mbps/3 

Mbps throughout the affected service 

area by extending the previously 

streamlined public comment period of 

10 days and automatic grant period of 

25 days for all carriers seeking to 

grandfather these data services. For 

applications seeking authorization to 

discontinue services with download/ 

upload speeds below 25 Mbps/3 Mbps 

that have previously been grandfathered 

for a period of 180 days, the Order 

extends the streamlined public 

comment period of 10 days and the 

auto-grant period of 31 days to all such 

applications. The Order finds that these 

changes do not sacrifice the customer 

protections under the previous rules. 

For applications to discontinue any 

service with no customers and no 

reasonable requests for service for at 

least 30 days, the Order finds that 

forbearance from section 214(a)’s 

discontinuance requirements is 

appropriate. The Commission finds 

enforcement of those requirements is 

not necessary to protect consumers, is 

consistent with the public interest, and 

will enable carriers to cease devoting 

resources to services no longer having 

any customer interest. The Order also 

eliminates the uncodified education and 

outreach requirements adopted in the 

2016 Technology Transitions Order, 

finding that these mandates are 

unnecessary as customers already 

receive or can easily obtain from their 

carriers the information encompassed 

by these requirements. The Order 

further streamlines applications to 

discontinue legacy voice services by 

adopting an alternative to the ‘‘adequate 

replacement test’’ where (1) the 

discontinuing carrier offers a standalone interconnected VoIP service 

throughout the affected service area, and 

(2) there is at least one other stand-alone 

facilities-based voice service available 

throughout the affected service area. 

These applications will be treated in the 

same manner as other discontinuance 

applications. Customers will have 15 

days from filing of the application to 

submit comments in response to the 

application, and the application will be 

automatically granted on the 31st day 

after filing unless the Commission 

notifies otherwise. Through this 

alternative to the adequate replacement 

test, the Commission incents carriers to 

deploy broadband facilities and ensures 

that customers in the affected service 

area have competitive voice alternatives. 

Additionally, the Order extends the 

streamlined comment and automatic 

grant periods of 10 and 25 days to 

applications seeking to grandfather any 

legacy voice services. 

93. Network Change Notifications and 

Part 68 Notification Requirements. The 

Order adopts network change 

notification rule revisions that eliminate 

the requirement that incumbent LECs 

provide public notice of network 

changes that ‘‘will affect the manner in 

which customer premises equipment is 

attached to the interstate network’’ and 

eliminates the requirement that carriers 

give notice to customers of changes to 

their facilities, equipment, operations, 

or procedures ‘‘[i]f such changes can be 

reasonably expected to render any 

customer’s terminal equipment 

incompatible with the communications 

facilities of the provider of wireline 

telecommunications . . . to allow the 

customer to maintain uninterrupted 

service’’ because the Order finds these 

rules are unnecessary. The Order also 

finds that extending the streamlined 

notice procedures recently adopted for 

copper retirements when force majeure 

and other unforeseen events occur to all 

types of network changes reduces 

regulatory burdens and delay on 

incumbent LECs when making network 

changes. However, the Order further 

determines that these rules continue to 

ensure that interconnecting carriers 

have adequate information and time to 

accommodate such changes. 

Report to Congress 

94. The Commission will send a copy 

of the Second Report and Order, 

including this FRFA, in a report to be 

sent to Congress pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act. In addition, 

the Commission will send a copy of the 

Report and Order, including this FRFA, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

SBA. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will also be 

published in the Federal Register. 

V. Procedural Matters 

95. Congressional Review Act. The 

Commission will send a copy of this 

Report and Order, including a copy of 

the Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis, in a report to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In 

addition, the Report and Order and this 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

will be sent to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA), and will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

96. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the 

Commission has prepared a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

relating to this Report and Order. The 

FRFA is contained in section IV above. 

97. Paperwork Reduction Act. The 

Report and Order contains modified 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. It 

will be submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under section 3507(d) of the 

PRA. OMB, the general public, and 

other Federal agencies will be invited to 

comment on the new or modified 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proceeding. In 

addition, we note that pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), the Commission previously 

sought specific comment on how the 

Commission might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

98. In this document, we have 

assessed the effects of reforming our 

network change notification and section 

214(a) discontinuance rules, and find 

that doing so will serve the public 

interest and is unlikely to directly affect 

businesses with fewer than 25 

employees. 

VI. Ordering Clauses 

99. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to sections 1–4, 10, 201, 202, 

214, 251, and 303(r) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–54, 160, 201, 

202, 214, 251, and 303(r), this Second 

Report and Order is adopted. 

100. It is further ordered that parts 51, 

63, and 68 of the Commission’s rules are 

amended as set forth in Appendix A, 

and that any such rule amendments that 

contain new or modified information 

collection requirements that require 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act shall be effective after 

announcement in the Federal Register 

of OMB approval of the rules, and on 

the effective date announced therein. 

101. It is further ordered that this 

Report and Order shall be effective 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register, except for 47 CFR 

51.333(g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(2), 

63.71(f), (h), (k) introductory text, (k)(1) 

and (3), and (l), which contain 

information collection requirements that 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31675 

have not been approved by OMB. The 

Federal Communications Commission 

will publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date. 

102. It is further ordered that section 

63.19(a), as revised in the 2016 

Technology Transitions Order, shall be 

effective 30 days after publication of 

this Report and Order in the Federal 

Register. 

103. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Second 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). 

104. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Second Report and Order, including 

the Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 

List of Subjects 

47 CFR Part 51 

Communications common carriers, 

Telecommunications. 

47 CFR Part 63 

Cable television, Communications 

common carriers, Radio, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Telegraph, 

Telephone. 

47 CFR Part 68 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Communications common 

carriers, Communications equipment, 

Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Telecommunications, 

Telephone. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons set forth above, Parts 

51, 63, and 68 of Title 47 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations are amended as 

follows: 

PART 51—INTERCONNECTION 

■ 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. 

§ 51.325 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 51.325 by removing 

paragraph (a)(3) and redesignating 

paragraph (a)(4) as paragraph (a)(3). 

■ 3. Amend § 51.333 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(2), (f), (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(iii), 

and (g)(2), to read as follows: 

§ 51.333 Notice of network changes: Short 

term notice, objections thereto and 

objections to copper retirement notices. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Copper retirement notice. Notices 

of copper retirement, as defined in 

§ 51.325(a)(3), shall be deemed final on 

the 90th day after the release of the 

Commission’s public notice of the filing, 

unless an objection is filed pursuant to 

paragraph (c) of this section, except that 

notices of copper retirement involving 

copper facilities not being used to 

provision services to any customers 

shall be deemed final on the 15th day 

after the release of the Commission’s 

public notice of the filing. Incumbent 

LEC copper retirement notices shall be 

subject to the short-term notice 

provisions of this section, but under no 

circumstances may an incumbent LEC 

provide less than 90 days’ notice of such 

a change except where the copper 

facilities are not being used to provision 

services to any customers. 

* * * * * 

(f) Resolution of objections to copper 

retirement notices. An objection to a 

notice that an incumbent LEC intends to 

retire copper, as defined in 

§ 51.325(a)(3) shall be deemed denied 

90 days after the date on which the 

Commission releases public notice of 

the incumbent LEC filing, unless the 

Commission rules otherwise within that 

time. Until the Commission has either 

ruled on an objection or the 90-day 

period for the Commission’s 

consideration has expired, an 

incumbent LEC may not retire those 

copper facilities at issue. 

(g) Limited exemption from advance 

notice and timing requirements—(1) 

Force majeure events. (i) 

Notwithstanding the requirements of 

this section, if in response to a force 

majeure event, an incumbent LEC 

invokes its disaster recovery plan, the 

incumbent LEC will be exempted during 

the period when the plan is invoked (up 

to a maximum 180 days) from all 

advanced notice and waiting period 

requirements under this section 

associated with network changes that 

result from or are necessitated as a 

direct result of the force majeure event. 

* * * * * 

(iii) If an incumbent LEC requires 

relief from the notice requirements 

under this section longer than 180 days 

after it invokes the disaster recovery 

plan, the incumbent LEC must request 

such authority from the Commission. 

Any such request must be accompanied 

by a status report describing the 

incumbent LEC’s progress and 

providing an estimate of when the 

incumbent LEC expects to be able to 

resume compliance with the notice 

requirements under this section. 

* * * * * 

(2) Other events outside an incumbent 

LEC’s control. (i) Notwithstanding the 

requirements of this section, if in 

response to circumstances outside of its 

control other than a force majeure event 

addressed in paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section, an incumbent LEC cannot 

comply with the timing requirement set 

forth in paragraphs (b)(1) or (2) of this 

section, hereinafter referred to as the 

waiting period, the incumbent LEC must 

give notice of the network change as 

soon as practicable and will be entitled 

to a reduced waiting period 

commensurate with the circumstances 

at issue. 

(ii) A short term network change or 

copper retirement notice subject to 

paragraph (g)(2) of this section must 

include a brief explanation of the 

circumstances necessitating the reduced 

waiting period and how the incumbent 

LEC intends to minimize the impact of 

the reduced waiting period on directly 

interconnected telephone exchange 

service providers. 

(iii) For purposes of this section, 

circumstances outside of the incumbent 

LEC’s control include federal, state, or 

local municipal mandates and 

unintentional damage to the incumbent 

LEC’s network facilities not caused by 

the incumbent LEC. 

PART 63—EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW 

LINES, AND DISCONTINUANCE, 

REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND 

IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY 

COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS 

OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE 

OPERATING AGENCY STATUS 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 63 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

160, 201–205, 214, 218, 403, and 571, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 5. Amend § 63.71 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(6), (f) through (h), (i) 

introductory text, (k) introductory text, 

and (k)(1) and (3), removing paragraphs 

(a)(7) and (k)(5), and adding new 

paragraph (1) to read as follows: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31676 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 63.71 Procedures for discontinuance, 

reduction or impairment of service by 

domestic carriers. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(6) For applications to discontinue, 

reduce, or impair an existing retail 

service as part of a technology 

transition, as defined in § 63.60(i), 

except for applications meeting the 

requirements of paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of 

this section, in order to be eligible for 

automatic grant under paragraph (f) of 

this section: 

(i) A statement that any service 

offered in place of the service being 

discontinued, reduced, or impaired may 

not provide line power; 

(ii) The information required by 

§ 12.5(d)(1) of this chapter; 

(iii) A description of any security 

responsibilities the customer will have 

regarding the replacement service; and 

(iv) A list of the steps the customer 

may take to ensure safe use of the 

replacement service. 

* * * * * 

(f)(1) The application to discontinue, 

reduce, or impair service, if filed by a 

domestic, non-dominant carrier, or any 

carrier meeting the requirements of 

paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section, shall 

be automatically granted on the 31st day 

after its filing with the Commission 

without any Commission notification to 

the applicant unless the Commission 

has notified the applicant that the grant 

will not be automatically effective. The 

application to discontinue, reduce, or 

impair service, if filed by a domestic, 

dominant carrier, shall be automatically 

granted on the 60th day after its filing 

with the Commission without any 

Commission notification to the 

applicant unless the Commission has 

notified the applicant that the grant will 

not be automatically effective. For 

purposes of this section, an application 

will be deemed filed on the date the 

Commission releases public notice of 

the filing. 

(2) An application to discontinue, 

reduce, or impair an existing retail 

service as part of a technology 

transition, as defined in § 63.60(i), may 

be automatically granted only if: 

(i) The applicant provides affected 

customers with the notice required 

under paragraph (a)(6) of this section, 

and the application contains the 

showing or certification described in 

§ 63.602(b); or 

(ii) The applicant: 

(A) Offers a stand-alone 

interconnected VoIP service, as defined 

in § 9.3 of this chapter, throughout the 

affected service area, and 

(B) At least one other alternative 

stand-alone facilities-based wireline or 

wireless voice service is available from 

another unaffiliated provider 

throughout the affected service area. 

(iii) For purposes of this paragraph 

(f)(2), ‘‘stand-alone’’ means that a 

customer is not required to purchase a 

separate broadband service to access the 

voice service. 

(g) Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this section, a carrier is not 

required to file an application to 

discontinue, reduce, or impair a service 

for which the requesting carrier has had 

no customers or reasonable requests for 

service during the 30-day period 

immediately preceding the 

discontinuance. 

(h) An application to discontinue, 

reduce, or impair an existing retail 

service as part of a technology 

transition, as defined in § 63.60(i), 

except for an application meeting the 

requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and 

(k) of this section, shall contain the 

information required by § 63.602. The 

certification or showing described in 

§ 63.602(b) is only required if the 

applicant seeks eligibility for automatic 

grant under paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this 

section. 

(i) An application to discontinue, 

reduce, or impair a service filed by a 

competitive local exchange carrier in 

response to a copper retirement notice 

filed pursuant to § 51.333 of this chapter 

shall be automatically granted on the 

effective date of the copper retirement; 

provided that: 

* * * * * 

(k) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(5), 

(a)(6), and (f) of this section, the 

following requirements apply to 

applications for legacy voice services or 

data services operating at speeds lower 

than 1.544 Mbps: 

(1) Where any carrier, dominant or 

non-dominant, seeks to: 

(i) Grandfather any legacy voice 

service; 

(ii) Grandfather any data service 

operating at speeds lower than 1.544 

Mbps; or 

(iii) Discontinue, reduce, or impair a 

legacy data service operating at speeds 

lower than 1.544 Mbps that has been 

grandfathered for a period of no less 

than 180 days consistent with the 

criteria established in paragraph (k)(2) 

of this section, the notice shall state: 

The FCC will normally authorize this 

proposed discontinuance of service (or 

reduction or impairment) unless it is 

shown that customers would be unable 

to receive service or a reasonable 

substitute from another carrier or that 

the public convenience and necessity is 

otherwise adversely affected. If you 

wish to object, you should file your 

comments as soon as possible, but no 

later than 10 days after the Commission 

releases public notice of the proposed 

discontinuance. You may file your 

comments electronically through the 

FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing 

System using the docket number 

established in the Commission’s public 

notice for this proceeding, or you may 

address them to the Federal 

Communications Commission, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, Competition 

Policy Division, Washington, DC 20554, 

and include in your comments a 

reference to the § 63.71 Application of 

(carrier’s name). Comments should 

include specific information about the 

impact of this proposed discontinuance 

(or reduction or impairment) upon you 

or your company, including any 

inability to acquire reasonable substitute 

service. 

* * * * * 

(3) An application filed by any carrier 

seeking to grandfather any legacy voice 

service or to grandfather any data 

service operating at speeds lower than 

1.544 Mbps for existing customers shall 

be automatically granted on the 25th 

day after its filing with the Commission 

without any Commission notification to 

the applicant unless the Commission 

has notified the applicant that the grant 

will not be automatically effective. 

* * * * * 

(l) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(5), 

(a)(6), and (f) of this section, the 

following requirements apply to 

applications for data services operating 

at or above 1.544 Mbps in both 

directions but below 25 Mbps 

download, and 3 Mbps upload, 

provided that the carrier offers 

alternative fixed data services in the 

affected service area at speeds of at least 

25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload: 

(1) Where any carrier, dominant or 

non-dominant, seeks to: 

(i) Grandfather such data service; or 

(ii) Discontinue, reduce, or impair 

such data service that has been 

grandfathered for a period of no less 

than 180 days consistent with the 

criteria established in paragraph (l)(2) of 

this section, the notice to all affected 

customers shall state: 

The FCC will normally authorize this 

proposed discontinuance of service (or 

reduction or impairment) unless it is 

shown that customers would be unable 

to receive service or a reasonable 

substitute from another carrier or that 

the public convenience and necessity is 

otherwise adversely affected. If you 

wish to object, you should file your 

comments as soon as possible, but no 

later than 10 days after the Commission 

releases public notice of the proposed 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31677 

discontinuance. You may file your 

comments electronically through the 

FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing 

System using the docket number 

established in the Commission’s public 

notice for this proceeding, or you may 

address them to the Federal 

Communications Commission, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, Competition 

Policy Division, Washington, DC 20554, 

and include in your comments a 

reference to the § 63.71 Application of 

(carrier’s name). Comments should 

include specific information about the 

impact of this proposed discontinuance 

(or reduction or impairment) upon you 

or your company, including any 

inability to acquire reasonable substitute 

service. 

(2) For applications to discontinue, 

reduce, or impair such data service that 

has been grandfathered for a period of 

no less than 180 days, in order to be 

eligible for automatic grant under 

paragraph (l)(4) of this section, an 

applicant must include in its 

application a statement confirming that 

it received Commission authority to 

grandfather the service at issue at least 

180 days prior to filing the current 

application. 

(3) An application seeking to 

grandfather such a data service shall be 

automatically granted on the 25th day 

after its filing with the Commission 

without any Commission notification to 

the applicant unless the Commission 

has notified the applicant that the grant 

will not be automatically effective. 

(4) An application seeking to 

discontinue, reduce, or impair such a 

data service that has been grandfathered 

under this section for 180 days or more 

preceding the filing of the application, 

shall be automatically granted on the 

31st day after its filing with the 

Commission without any Commission 

notification to the applicant, unless the 

Commission has notified the applicant 

that the grant will not be automatically 

effective. 

PART 68—CONNECTION OF 

TERMINAL EQUIPMENT TO THE 

TELEPHONE NETWORK 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 68 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 610. 

■ 7. Amend § 68.105 by revising 

paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 68.105 Minimum point of entry (MPOE) 

and demarcation point. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) The provider of wireline 

telecommunications services shall make 

available information on the location of 

the demarcation point within ten 

business days of a request from the 

premises owner. If the provider of 

wireline telecommunications services 

does not provide the information within 

that time, the premises owner may 

presume the demarcation point to be at 

the MPOE. Notwithstanding the 

provisions of § 68.110(b), provider of 

wireline telecommunications services 

must make this information freely 

available to the requesting premises 

owner. 

* * * * * 

§ 68.110 [Amended] 

■ 8. Amend § 68.110 by removing 

paragraph (b) and redesignating 

paragraph (c) as paragraph (b). 

[FR Doc. 2018–14570 Filed 7–6–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 170703617–8097–01] 

RIN 0648–BG97 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Final Rule To Revise Atlantic Shark 

Fishery Closure Regulations 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the 

current closure regulations for 

commercial shark fisheries. These 

changes affect commercial shark 

fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, 

including the Gulf of Mexico and 

Caribbean. Revisions include changes to 

the landings threshold that prompts a 

closure and the minimum time between 

filing of the closure with the Federal 

Register and the closure becoming 

effective. This action is necessary to 

allow more flexibility when closing 

shark fisheries and to facilitate the use 

of available quota while still preventing 

overharvests. 

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

8, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the supporting 

documents, including the Final 

Environmental Assessment (EA), 

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), 

and the 2006 Consolidated Highly 

Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) and 

amendments are available from the 

HMS website at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantichighly-migratory-species or by 

contacting Lauren Latchford at (301) 

427–8503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lauren Latchford, Guy ́ DuBeck, Chante ́

Davis, or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone 

at (301) 427–8503 or Delisse Ortiz at 

(240) 681–9037. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic 

sharks are directly managed under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). NMFS 

published in the Federal Register (71 

FR 59058, October 2, 2006) final 

regulations, effective November 1, 2006, 

implementing the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP, which details management 

measures for Atlantic HMS fisheries. 

The implementing regulations for the 

2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its 

amendments are at 50 CFR part 635. 

This final rule modifies the current 

regulations related to closures for 

commercial shark fisheries. 

Background 

A brief summary of the background of 

this action is provided below; more 

detailed information can be found in the 

proposed rule (83 FR 8037, February 23, 

2018) and is not repeated here. 

Additional information regarding 

Atlantic HMS management, specifically 

the commercial fisheries season 

structure, can be found in the Final EA 

for this action and the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP and its 

amendments, found on the HMS 

website (see ADDRESSES). 

On February 23, 2018, NMFS 

published a proposed rule (83 FR 8037) 

that proposed (1) changing the 

regulations from requiring a shark 

fishery species and/or management 

group to close when landings have 

reached or are projected to reach 80 

percent of the available overall, 

regional, and/or sub-regional quota, and 

instead allowing the fishery to remain 

open in such circumstances if the 

species and/or management group’s 

landings are not projected to reach 100 

percent before the end of the 

commercial fishing season, and (2) 

changing the minimum notice time 

between filing and the closure going 

into effect from five days to three. A 30- 

day public comment period closed on 

March 26, 2018. The comments received 

on the Draft EA and proposed rule, and 

our responses to those comments, are 

summarized below in the section 

labeled ‘‘Response to Comments.’’ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES