450 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is extending the existing 

public comment period for a proposal 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 9, 2014. In that action, 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act, EPA 

proposed to determine that the Los 

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (South 

Coast) air quality planning area in 

California has attained the 1997 annual 

and 24-hour fine particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. This proposed determination 

is based upon complete (or otherwise 

validated), quality-assured, and certified 

ambient air monitoring data showing 

that the area has monitored attainment 

of the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5

standards based on the 2011–2013 

monitoring period. If the EPA finalizes 

this determination of attainment, the 

requirements for the area to submit 

certain State implementation plan 

revisions shall be suspended for so long 

as the area continues to attain the 1997 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. 

One commentor requested an extension 

of the comment period for this proposed 

rulemaking. EPA is now extending the 

public comment period for fourteen 

days. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published on December 9, 

2014 (79 FR 72999) is extended. 

Comments must be received on or 

before January 22, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0708, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Wienke Tax, Air 

Planning Office, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9, Mailcode 

AIR–2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and 

EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send an email comment directly to EPA, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web site 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105. While all documents 

in the docket are listed in the index, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material), and some 

may not be publicly available at either 

location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, Mail Code AIR–2, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105–3901, 415–947–4192, 

tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA 

published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register on December 9, 2014 

(79 FR 72999). EPA is extending the 

existing public comment period for that 

proposal. In that action, pursuant to the 

Clean Air Act, EPA proposed to 

determine that the Los Angeles-South 

Coast Air Basin (South Coast) air quality 

planning area in California has attained 

the 1997 annual and 24-hour fine 

particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. This proposed 

determination is based upon complete 

(or otherwise validated), qualityassured, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data showing that the area 

has monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards 

based on the 2011–2013 monitoring 

period. If the EPA finalizes this 

determination of attainment, the 

requirements for the area to submit 

certain State implementation plan 

revisions shall be suspended for so long 

as the area continues to attain the 1997 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. 

One commentor requested an extension 

of the comment period for this proposed 

rulemaking. EPA is now extending the 

public comment period for fourteen 

days for the December 9, 2014, proposed 

clean data determination for the 1997 

PM2.5 standards for the South Coast 

area, California. 

Dated: December 18, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30951 Filed 1–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 51 

[PS Docket No. 14–174, GN Docket No. 13– 

5, RM–11358, WC Docket No. 05–25, RM– 

10593; FCC 14–185] 

Ensuring Customer Premises 

Equipment Backup Power; Technology 

Transitions; Copper Retirement; and 

Discontinuance of Service 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) initiates a rulemaking 

seeking public comment on: Ensuring 

reliable back-up power for consumers of 

IP-based voice and data services across 

networks that provide residential fixed 

service that substitutes for and improves 

upon the kind of traditional telephony 

used by people to dial 911; protecting 

consumers by ensuring they are 

informed about their choices and the 

services provided to them when carriers 

retire legacy facilities (e.g., copper 

networks) and seek to discontinue 

legacy services (e.g., basic voice 

services); and protecting competition 

where it exists today, so that the mere 

change of a network facility or 

discontinuance of a legacy service does 

not deprive small- and medium-sized 

businesses, schools, libraries, and other 

enterprises of the ability to choose the 

kinds of innovative services that best 

suit their needs. The proposed rules and 

the comment process that follows will 

help the Commission ensure that the 

fundamental values of competition, 

consumer protection, public safety, and 

national security are not lost merely 

because technology changes. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

February 5, 2015. Submit reply 

comments on or before March 9, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by PS Docket No. 14–174, GN 

Docket No. 13–5, RM–11358, WC 

Docket No. 05–25, RM–10593, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http:// 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 451 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Levy Berlove, Competition 

Policy Division, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, at (202) 418–1477 or by email 

at Michele.Berlove@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket No. 

14–174, GN Docket No. 13–5, RM– 

11358, WC Docket No. 05–25, RM– 

10593; FCC 14–185, adopted on 

November 21, 2014 and released on 

November 25, 2014. 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. 

The document may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile 

(202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is available 

on the Commission’s Web site at http:// 

www.fcc.gov/. 

Synopsis 

1. In the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek to ensure 

preservation of the fundamental values 

of competition, consumer protection, 

public safety, and national security 

during the transition of legacy networks 

and services to networks and services 

based on new technologies. We advance 

these goals by proposing and seeking 

comment on revisions to our rules and 

policies concerning continuity of power, 

copper retirement, and service 

discontinuances governed by Section 

214 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended (the Act). 

I. Introduction 

2. The Commission has recognized 

that our communications infrastructure 

is undergoing key technology 

transitions, for example: (1) The 

transition of switched voiced services 

from legacy TDM and Signaling System 

No. 7 (SS7) networks to Session 

Initiation Protocol (SIP)/IP networks; (2) 

the transition of TDM-based switched 

voice services to interconnected VoIP 

services that rely on SIP/IP networks, 

and relatedly the advent of Voice over 

LTE (VoLTE) services that will soon be 

widely available on LTE wireless 

networks, and (3) the change in the 

physical layer of last-mile technology, 

in particular from twisted pairs of 

copper wire to fiber optics cable, coaxial cable, and wireless technologies. 

The network investment that is leading 

to these technology transitions has 

many benefits. Modernizing 

communications networks can 

dramatically reduce network costs and 

lead to the development of new and 

innovative services, devices, and 

applications, and can also result in 

improvements to existing product 

offerings and lower prices. To date, 

these new technologies generally have 

enabled the creation of additional 

choices for customers of voice, video, 

and broadband services. In many cases, 

retail customers may return to a legacy, 

copper-based service if the new services 

fail to meet their needs or expectations. 

However, as the Commission 

unanimously recognized in the January 

Technology Transitions Order: 

[I]n the natural course of progress, we 

expect there will come a tipping point, a 

point where the adoption of new 

communications technologies reaches a 

critical mass and most providers wish to 

cease offering legacy services. This is a 

reflection of technological innovation and in 

that respect is a good thing. But it also 

removes a choice from the marketplace: The 

choice that has been the source of the 

enduring values for generations and the 

service that Congress beyond question 

marked as essential to all Americans. From 

this perspective, we stand today at the 

precipice of a very different technology 

transition—the turning off of the legacy suite 

of services that has served our nation well. 

The Commission in January went on to 

affirm that our ‘‘mission and statutory 

responsibility are to ensure that the core 

statutory values endure as we embrace 

modernized communications 

networks.’’ 

3. Many consumers have embraced 

new technologies. However, we 

recognize that many consumers 

continue to rely on the features and 

functionalities of the legacy wireline 

networks, and the Commission must 

ensure that it can carry out its statutory 

mission as networks reach the ‘‘tipping 

point’’ in the transition away from 

legacy facilities and services. Currently, 

consumers may expect certain familiar 

data-based services, such as credit card 

readers, home alarms, and medical alert 

monitors to function in a particular way. 

Consumers of wireline telephony may 

also expect their plug-in phones to work 

during a power outage without any 

action on their part. However, networks 

other than copper and services not 

based on TDM may not support these 

functionalities, or not in the ways that 

consumers have come to expect. 

Moreover, competitive LECs have come 

to rely on the incumbent LEC legacy 

facilities to provide broadband services 

to small- and medium-sized businesses 

and other enterprise customers. And 

some parties argue that certain copper 

retirements and transitions from TDM 

preclude their access to affordable lastmile facilities and ability to serve these 

retail customers. As new facilities and 

services are introduced and adopted, the 

tipping point draws closer. The time to 

act is now to prevent harm to 

consumers, competition, public safety, 

and national security that cannot be 

undone. 

II. Background 

A. CPE Backup Power 

4. Consumers receiving voice 

telephone service over legacy copper 

networks have traditionally relied on 

power provided from the central office 

to sustain service during power outages. 

(Loops provided over Digital Loop 

Carrier (DLC) are an exception. For DLC 

loops, backup power (if provided) is 

provided by the DLC remote terminal. 

Remote terminals, however, are less 

likely to provide backup power than 

central offices.) Moreover, even in a 

prolonged outage lasting days or weeks, 

central offices typically have backup 

power capabilities that can ensure 

continuous voice service over copper to 

residences for the duration of the 

outage. Hence, consumers have been 

able to count on the continued 

availability of telephone service in 

harsh weather conditions and other 

emergencies when they are most 

vulnerable. 

5. The availability of CPE backup 

power at the residence is therefore an 

important issue for consumers that may 

be faced with retirement of the copper 

networks in their communities. Carriers 

planning to retire their copper networks 

can potentially use a variety of physical 

media on which to transmit their 

services, including fiber, coaxial cable, 

or wireless. None of these network 

alternatives, however, will typically 

function in a power outage without a 

backup power source for customer CPE. 

As consumers transition from legacy 

copper loops to new technologies, it is 

important they continue to have 

reasonable CPE backup power 

alternatives to support minimally 

essential residential communications, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
452 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

particularly access to emergency 

communications, during power outages. 

6. CPE backup power is not solely a 

copper retirement issue, however. 

Millions of consumers in communities 

where legacy copper networks continue 

to operate already rely on other 

networks that do not provision line 

power to the customer premises. For 

these consumers as well, CPE backup 

power is a significant issue that must be 

addressed to ensure continuity of 

communications. We therefore examine 

ways to promote access to CPE backup 

power for residential voice services 

across different technologies by 

proposing a framework that would 

establish reasonable expectations for 

when providers should bear 

responsibility for the provision of CPE 

backup power during a power outage. 

B. Copper Retirement 

7. Considering the technology 

transitions currently underway, we find 

that the time is right to review our 

current regulations governing copper 

retirement. We do not believe that our 

copper retirement process sufficiently 

protects our core values given the 

increase in frequency and volume of 

copper retirements and the concurrently 

growing impact on consumers and 

competition. This document thus 

proposes revising our copper retirement 

process to better protect consumers and 

ensure that transitions to fiber do not 

undermine competition while at the 

same time maintaining the incentives 

for incumbent LECs to deploy fiber. 

8. We recognize the many benefits of 

fiber-based service and the desirability 

for incumbent LECs of not having to 

operate both copper and fiber networks 

indefinitely, including the potential for 

more bandwidth and increased 

reliability in difficult weather 

conditions. We emphasize that we 

support and encourage fiber 

deployments, and are committed to 

maintaining the incentives for providers 

to deploy fiber. The National Broadband 

Plan recognized that requiring 

incumbent LECs to maintain two 

networks—one copper and one fiber— 

‘‘would be costly, possibly inefficient 

and reduce the incentive for incumbents 

to deploy fiber facilities.’’ The 

Commission’s task is to protect 

consumers and promote competition 

while taking account of the need of 

incumbent LECs to manage their 

networks effectively and efficiently. 

9. Current Regulations. Our current 

regulations governing copper retirement 

by incumbent LECs were issued a 

decade ago, when fiber loop deployment 

was still in its infancy and large-scale 

retirement of copper networks was far in 

the future. Currently, incumbent LECs 

that intend to retire loops or subloops 

that are being replaced with FTTH or 

Fiber-to-the-Curb (FTTC) loops must 

provide notice via our network change 

disclosure process. Interconnecting 

carriers can seek to delay but cannot 

prevent retirement, nor do our rules 

contemplate that we approve or deny 

planned copper retirements for which 

incumbent LECs provide notice under 

part 51. (In the Triennial Review Order, 

the Commission declined to impose any 

‘‘affirmative regulatory approval’’ prior 

to the retirement of copper loop 

facilities.) This reflects the 

Commission’s decision a decade ago to 

decline to require affirmative regulatory 

approval before an incumbent LEC can 

retire any copper loop facilities and its 

finding that ‘‘such a requirement is not 

necessary at this time because our 

existing rules, with minor 

modifications, serve as adequate 

safeguards.’’ Our existing rules do not 

impose specific consumer notice or 

consumer education requirements on 

carriers retiring copper facilities. 

10. Increasing Scope and Frequency 

of Retirements. Incumbent LECs are 

steadily transitioning wire centers from 

copper facilities to fiber and all-IP 

networks. Indeed, the Commission has 

posted over 20 Public Notices for 

incumbent LEC proposed copper 

retirements since January 2014, and we 

expect the notice of copper retirements 

to increase in volume and geographic 

scope. 

11. Consumer Protection Concerns. 

Our record reflects concern that 

incumbent LEC decisions related to 

copper retirement can have a significant 

impact on consumers, yet our Part 51 

rules are silent on this important issue. 

For instance, Public Knowledge and 

other consumer advocacy groups 

summarized and submitted multiple 

filings asking state public service 

commissions to pause copper 

retirements and to investigate servicerelated issues with existing copper 

networks. These consumer advocates 

allege that ‘‘customers are being 

involuntarily moved to fiber or IP-based 

service (or some combination thereof), 

even if those new technologies fail to 

serve all of the user’s needs or will be 

more expensive.’’ These groups also 

allege that in some cases incumbent 

LECs are failing to maintain their copper 

networks in an effort to push consumers 

off of copper and onto fiber or other 

technologies. Further, they claim that 

some incumbent LECs are misleading 

subscribers into believing that they may 

no longer continue to receive legacy 

service (e.g., legacy voice-only service, 

known as POTS) or, at a minimum, that 

those carriers are failing to advise 

subscribers that their legacy service 

remains available over new network 

facilities. Incumbent LECs dispute these 

allegations. For example, with respect to 

the claim consumers are forced off of 

legacy services during copper 

retirements, Verizon asserts that where 

it retires copper facilities, customers 

migrated to fiber ‘‘receive the same 

POTS service at the same price, unless 

they choose to upgrade.’’ Consumer 

advocates also assert that an important 

step in protecting consumers is to 

ensure that they have a voice in the 

retirement process. 

12. Competitive Concerns. We are 

committed to preserving the core 

statutory value of competition during 

the technology transitions that are 

underway. Competitive LECs have 

expressed concern over copper 

retirements, alleging, among other 

things, that incumbent LECs are retiring 

copper—and thereby wasting a valuable 

resource—merely to preclude potential 

broadband competitors from providing 

service. Competitive carriers use copper 

facilities to provide alternative 

broadband services to small- and 

medium-sized businesses. As reflected 

in the various filings with the 

Commission, competitive LECs claim 

that the increased pace of copper 

retirement will lead to reduced 

availability of Ethernet-over-Copper 

services to small and medium 

businesses. Because of their concerns, 

certain competitive LECs have requested 

that the Commission permit incumbent 

LECs to retire or otherwise remove 

copper only in a narrow range of 

circumstances. Competitive LECs also 

recommended revisions to our copper 

retirement process. Specifically, in 

2007, BridgeCom et al. and XO et al. 

filed petitions for rulemaking to modify 

the Commission’s copper retirement 

regulations. In its petition, BridgeCom 

recommends applying copper 

retirement rules to the feeder portion of 

the copper loop and subloops. XO 

recommends stronger notice 

requirements, such as requiring 

incumbent LECs to publish notice of a 

proposed copper retirement at least 12 

months before implementation. These 

competitive LECs also request that the 

Commission allow states to adopt 

copper loop requirements stronger than 

the Commission’s rules. 

13. In response, incumbent LECs 

argue there is no evidence that copper 

retirement has hurt competition for 

broadband. They also state that forcing 

incumbent LECs to maintain redundant 

copper facilities prevents them from 

efficiently upgrading their networks, 

and discourages incumbent LEC and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 453 

competitive LEC network investments 

in fiber. They claim consumers will 

ultimately be harmed by diminished 

investment in broadband technologies if 

incumbent LECs are forced to retain 

copper facilities. 

14. Benefits of Copper. Construction 

of fiber and transitions to nextgeneration networks carry clear benefits, 

but this does not mean that copper 

networks are without value. In 

particular, the Commission recognizes 

the importance of copper facilities as a 

means for competitors to provide 

advanced telecommunications 

capability to businesses, schools, 

libraries, hospitals, other enterprise 

customers, and consumers with 

disabilities. Competitive LECs provide 

voice and broadband service to 

enterprise customers by leasing copper 

loops and connecting those loops to 

their own Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) 

or EoC equipment that is generally 

collocated in the incumbent LEC’s 

central office. Competitive LECs can 

provide broadband with EoC at speeds 

from 3 to 30 Mbps, and in some areas 

can reach 200 Mbps. Companies are 

testing technologies over copper that 

will provide speeds of 10 Gbps. Further, 

the use of competitive carriers’ own 

equipment over leased copper enables 

these carriers to design their own set of 

integrated broadband, voice, and even 

video services. Another important 

feature of copper is that it carries an 

independent source of power that 

preserves service during emergencies 

when the electric power grid fails. 

Finally, copper is already deployed and 

financed by ratepayers and subsidies. 

C. Section 214 Discontinuance 

15. Pursuant to our Section 214(a) 

discontinuance process, 

telecommunications carriers—other 

than CMRS providers—and 

interconnected Voice over Internet 

Protocol (VoIP) providers must obtain 

Commission authority to discontinue 

interstate or foreign service to a 

community or part of a community. (For 

convenience, in certain circumstances, 

this document uses ‘‘discontinue’’ (or 

‘‘discontinued,’’ etc.) as a shorthand that 

encompasses the statutory terms 

‘‘discontinue, reduce, or impair’’ unless 

the context indicates otherwise.) The 

discontinuance rules are designed to 

ensure that customers are fully informed 

of any proposed change that will reduce 

or end service, to ensure appropriate 

oversight by the Commission of such 

changes, and to provide an orderly 

transition of service, as appropriate. 

This process allows the Commission to 

minimize harm to customers and to 

satisfy its obligation under the Act to 

protect the public interest. (The 

Commission normally will authorize 

proposed discontinuances of service 

unless it is shown that customers or 

other end users would be unable to 

receive service or a reasonable 

substitute from another carrier, or that 

the public convenience and necessity 

would be otherwise adversely affected. 

Where there is question as to whether a 

service has reasonable substitutes or 

whether the present or future public 

convenience and necessity will be 

adversely affected, the Commission will 

scrutinize the discontinuance 

application, consistent with its statutory 

obligations.) The Commission has 

discretion in determining whether to 

grant a provider authority to 

discontinue, reduce, or impair service 

pursuant to Section 214. To be clear, the 

fact that a carrier is statutorily obligated 

to seek discontinuance approval does 

not mean the carrier will be prevented 

from discontinuing the service. Rather, 

it means that the request must go 

through a public review process to 

ensure that the public interest— 

encompassing consumer protection, 

competition, public safety, and other 

statutory responsibilities—is protected. 

16. In this document, we focus on 

three key issues in the context of service 

discontinuances: (1) Ensuring that 

consumers receive adequate substitutes 

for discontinued services; (2) further 

defining the scope of our Section 214(a) 

authority, focusing in particular on the 

context of wholesale services; and (3) 

ensuring competitive availability of 

wholesale inputs following 

discontinuance of incumbent LECs’ 

TDM services on which competitive 

LECs currently rely. 

17. Adequacy of Substitutes for Retail 

Services. In evaluating a Section 214 

discontinuance application, the 

Commission generally considers a 

number of factors, including the 

existence, availability, and adequacy of 

alternatives. Through these factors, the 

Commission ensures that the removal of 

a choice from the marketplace occurs in 

a manner that respects consumer 

expectations and needs. In an era of 

ubiquitous legacy services, identifying 

an adequate like-for-like substitute was 

comparatively easy. Today, that is not 

the case. Building on this theme, Public 

Knowledge states that ‘‘[b]efore 

policymakers can state with confidence 

that any new technology is comparable 

to or better than existing network 

technology, [they] must know the 

metrics by which to compare the two. 

The Commission should therefore 

establish the metrics by which it will 

evaluate new technologies, when, for 

example, a carrier files an application to 

change or retire its network under 

§ 214(a).’’ 

18. Network Security and Reliability. 

Improved network security reduces risk 

to all interconnected service providers, 

their customers, and the nation as a 

whole. Careful attention to network 

security becomes particularly important 

when networks are in transition, and it 

is relevant to whether proposed or 

available alternative services provide 

the same reliability and resiliency that 

consumers have come to expect from 

their home voice service. 

19. Wholesale Access to Last-Mile 

Services. In the Technology Transitions 

Order, the Commission noted the 

importance of maintaining wholesale 

access to protect the enduring value of 

competition embodied in our 

communications laws during and after 

the technology transitions. One of the 

primary goals of this document is to 

begin the process of ensuring that there 

is competition in serving every level of 

the enterprise market, from very small 

businesses to large enterprises. As 

explained in the National Broadband 

Plan, ‘‘[b]ecause of the economies of 

scale, scope, and density that 

characterize telecommunications 

networks . . . it is not economically or 

practically feasible for competitors to 

build facilities in all geographic areas.’’ 

This is especially true in those cases 

where the potential return on 

investment from serving the needs of 

lower demand users, such as residences 

and small businesses, does not justify 

the cost of overbuilding an incumbent. 

Faced with these economic realities, 

competitive LECs continue to rely 

significantly on wholesale access to the 

last-mile facilities of incumbent LECs, 

and have expressed concern about the 

future of wholesale access to last-mile 

facilities and services as we undergo the 

technology transitions. (Some 

competitive LECs point out that the 

Commission based its decisions to grant 

forbearance from dominant carrier 

regulation on the availability of 

regulated ‘‘TDM-based, DS1 and DS3 

special access services . . . in addition 

to section 251 UNEs.’’) Even incumbent 

LECs wanting to serve customers with 

operations outside of their service 

territory—as would happen with a retail 

business with multiple locations— 

depend on wholesale inputs and for that 

purpose have their own competitive 

LEC subsidiaries. 

20. COMPTEL has proposed a 

framework to guide the IP transition 

because ‘‘failure to adopt and enforce 

technology-neutral wholesale policies 

threatens the ability of competitive 

carriers to obtain last-mile access . . . 

and thus jeopardizes competition in the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
454 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

business broadband market.’’ As 

Chairman Wheeler noted recently, 

competitive providers ‘‘deliver 

important competitive alternatives to 

business and enterprise customers. This 

in turn helps those enterprises provide 

better, more affordable goods and 

services to members of the general 

public.’’ For example, competitive LECs 

can provide broadband with EoC to 

small- and medium-sized businesses at 

speeds that reach 200 Mbps. Moreover, 

in its 2009 petition, Cbeyond sought 

expedited rulemaking concerning access 

by competitive providers to incumbent 

LEC fiber loops. Cbeyond claimed that 

with access to high capacity fiber and 

hybrid loops, competitors can 

‘‘aggressively market the nextgeneration applications that are the key 

to small businesses.’’ Competitive LECs 

continue to serve an important part of 

the Nation’s enterprise market, and ‘‘as 

competitive LECs offer competitive 

service, it creates an incentive for 

incumbents to invest more in their 

networks and offer better services to win 

their share of business customers.’’ 

21. In the Triennial Review Order, the 

Commission emphasized the 

importance of incentivizing investment 

for the deployment of new technologies. 

In doing so, the Commission limited 

unbundling requirements imposed on 

incumbent LECs’ mass-market fiber loop 

deployments to remove disincentives to 

the deployment of advanced 

telecommunications. This decision did 

not, however, eliminate the requirement 

to provide special access services that 

serve as critical inputs to competition— 

nor did it eliminate the requirement to 

unbundle DS1 and DS3 capacity loops. 

Today, with significant fiber 

deployment and the current 

technological transition already 

underway, we must ensure the 

customers of both incumbent and 

competitive LECs who currently depend 

on legacy services continue to have 

appropriate access to either adequate 

legacy or IP-based service alternatives. 

The Commission’s discretion to grant a 

provider authority under Section 214 to 

discontinue special access service 

provides a mechanism to address these 

concerns. In applying Section 214, the 

Commission must fully understand the 

impact on competition and innovation 

of either granting or denying the 

application. 

III. Discussion 

A. Continuity of Power for CPE 

22. Retirement of copper networks 

highlights a broader challenge facing 

consumers of any service that depends 

upon access to a residential power 

supply. The ability to communicate 

during power outages remains critical, 

particularly during prolonged outages 

caused by catastrophic storms or other 

major disasters. In such situations, 

consumers have a heightened need to be 

able to communicate with public safety 

officers, first responders and other 

response workers in order to convey or 

receive lifesaving information. This 

need is felt not only by consumers being 

migrated from copper to fiber and other 

networks, but also those who have 

already made that transition by 

subscribing to facilities-based VoIP 

services or other IP-based solutions. 

Moreover, not only is backup power for 

services delivered over fiber or other 

non-copper media typically limited, but 

individual communications providers 

use different technologies and apply 

different policies to the powering of end 

user devices, resulting in the potential 

for consumer confusion. 

23. As technology transitions, it is 

important that lines of responsibility for 

provisioning CPE backup power are 

clearly delineated and understood by 

providers and consumers alike, so that 

performance can meet expectations and 

continuity of communications can be 

ensured. Establishing clear expectations 

for both providers and customers as to 

their responsibilities throughout the 

course of an outage should minimize the 

potential for lapses in service to occur 

due to consumer confusion or undue 

reliance on the provider. Accordingly, 

as part of our efforts to promote smooth 

technology transitions, we consider the 

adoption of baseline requirements for 

ensuring continuity of power for CPE 

during commercial power outages. In 

the discussion below, we seek comment 

on a framework for establishing 

reasonable expectations regarding 

provisioning CPE backup power in the 

event of an outage. 

24. As a threshold matter, we seek 

comment on the communications 

services we should include within the 

scope of any CPE backup power 

requirements we may adopt. We observe 

that CPE backup power is not an issue 

that needed to be addressed with 

respect to legacy networks that provided 

line power to consumers, because 

consumers could rely on the availability 

of continuous power sufficient to 

operate basic telephone CPE 

indefinitely. However, it is an issue that 

must be addressed in the context of 

providing CPE backup power for VoIP 

and potentially other residential IPbased services (as well as legacy 

services delivered over fiber), because 

CPE for these services typically will 

require a backup power source. We 

therefore propose that any potential 

requirements would apply to facilitiesbased fixed voice services, such as 

interconnected VoIP, that are not linepowered by the provider. For this 

purpose, how should the Commission 

define a ‘‘fixed’’ wireless service? Does 

it depend upon whether the service is 

primarily used from a fixed location 

and/or marketed for that purpose? Is 

taking a functional approach to defining 

‘‘fixed’’ wireless service appropriate, 

and if so how would that apply to 

services on the market today? How do 

we account for power outages affecting 

other CPE, such as cordless phones, or 

the network itself? 

25. While consumers generally may 

use residential communications services 

for a wide range of communications 

needs, power during an outage is a 

valuable and limited resource. We 

therefore intend that any backup power 

requirements we propose today afford 

sufficient power for minimally essential 

communications, including 911 calls 

and the receipt of emergency alerts and 

warnings. We seek comment on what 

services should be considered 

‘‘minimally essential’’ for purposes of 

continuity of power. While voice 

services historically have been the 

primary means of contacting 911, there 

are circumstances where other modes of 

communication, such as texting, may be 

more effective or energy-efficient; 

additionally, Next Generation 911 will 

begin to introduce images, video and 

other new data streams into Public 

Safety Answering Points (PSAPs). In 

addition, we seek comment on the 

extent to which backup power can be 

prioritized or otherwise conserved for 

such minimally essential 

communications needs. For example, 

can service providers offer mechanisms 

for lowering power usage and 

conserving battery power, such as a 

default turnoff of all communication 

services when the device is operating on 

battery, so that the device does not drain 

backup power while a consumer is away 

from home or otherwise not using the 

device? Can CPE be configured to only 

power on to receive emergency alerts? If 

it is technically difficult to distinguish 

incoming emergency alert calls from 

other incoming calls, should only 911 

calls be supported? What measures can 

providers take to rapidly load shed nonessential communications functions to 

extend the duration of available backup 

power to support minimally essential 

functions? In this regard, we seek 

comment on the extent to which it is 

reasonable to place an obligation on the 

provider (versus place an expectation on 

the consumer) to take measures to 

conserve backup power for minimally 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 455 

essential communications. How should 

consumer preferences and community 

public safety interests inform our 

policymaking? 

26. In the discussion that follows, we 

seek comment on a framework to 

establish expectations for when 

providers must take steps to maintain 

continuity of power for CPE. (In the 

event we were to adopt a requirement 

that providers must provision CPE 

backup power, we expect that providers 

would be entitled to commercially 

reasonable compensation in exchange 

for providing this service.) In the past, 

consumers have relied upon service 

providers for backup power for their 

residential landline phones. Is it 

reasonable for providers to continue to 

bear primary responsibility for CPE 

backup power, and if so, to what extent? 

We propose that providers should 

assume responsibility for provisioning 

backup power that is capable of 

powering their customers’ CPE during 

the first eight hours of an outage. (In this 

context, unless otherwise stated, we use 

the term ‘‘backup power’’ to refer to the 

availability of standby backup power, 

not actual talk time.) Eight hours 

appears to be consistent with certain 

VoIP deployment models already in 

practice, though some providers have 

deployed backup power devices that are 

capable of providing power for up to 

twenty-four hours. (We note that 

CSRIC’s report indicates that while 

backup time across different use cases 

may vary, several current deployments 

support up to eight hours of standby 

battery backup. Providing consumers 

with eight hours of backup power 

would accommodate circumstances 

where the power goes out in the middle 

of the work day or in the middle of the 

night, when consumers may be away 

from home or asleep and therefore 

would not reasonably be able to take 

measures on their own to ensure 

continuity of communications. On the 

other hand, a longer time period—such 

as the twenty-four hours afforded by 

Verizon’s devices—could provide 

consumers with sufficient time to attend 

to other time-sensitive matters that may 

arise during the course of a natural 

disaster or other emergency. We seek 

comment on these options. 

27. To the extent we place the 

responsibility on providers to provide 

CPE backup power, we seek comment 

regarding solutions that are currently 

available to providers to meet this 

responsibility. To the extent such 

solutions are available, could they be 

widely deployed at a reasonable cost? If 

not, what technical hurdles or other 

issues must be addressed? The 

Communications Security, Reliability 

and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) 

recently issued recommendations for 

advancing the state of the art in CPE 

powering. Could power-over-Ethernet 

(PoE) be used to power devices that lack 

a backup power supply but are 

connected to devices that are running 

on battery power? CSRIC notes that PoE 

‘‘is an established standard commonly 

used in hotels and other commercial 

applications,’’ and ‘‘could provide an 

easy to implement approach’’ in certain 

circumstances. Could solar power, fuel 

cells, or other alternative energy sources 

be used to maintain a continuous CPE 

power supply that operates 

independently of the commercial power 

grid? 

28. We also seek comment on how the 

provider would meet its responsibility 

to provide backup power for a specific 

duration of time. Would it be sufficient 

for the provider to initially install 

backup power technology at the 

customer’s residence, while leaving the 

consumer responsible for any associated 

maintenance of the power supply? How 

are providers currently supporting CPE 

backup power today across different 

services and technology platforms? How 

long does the backup power currently 

offered by providers last, and for what 

services? In what form is the backup 

power provided? Should the provider 

have any responsibility to monitor 

battery status and determine whether 

the battery has degraded and if so, how 

could this responsibility be carried out? 

Should that responsibility change if the 

consumer self-installs the CPE, versus 

having the provider professionally 

install the CPE? Should consumers be 

able to opt out of backup power? Could 

providers install CPE backup power 

sources that are located external to the 

customer’s residence and thus able to be 

monitored and maintained remotely? 

Are there other methods that could be 

used to ensure the availability of CPE 

backup power immediately after a 

power outage? Our proposals are stated 

in terms of standby time, but is talk time 

the appropriate metric? 

29. We next seek comment on the 

extent to which consumers could selfprovision CPE backup power. Under our 

proposal, after the first eight hours of an 

outage, the burden to maintain 

continuity of power for CPE no longer 

would be on the provider under our 

rules, but would be allowed to would 

fall on the consumer. (Where we refer to 

the ‘‘burden’’ or the like falling or 

shifting to the consumer, we mean the 

practical need to provide for backup 

power and do not propose imposing any 

legal duty or obligation on consumers.) 

We seek comment on whether this is a 

reasonable expectation. Also, to the 

extent consumers self-provision CPE 

backup power, we seek comment on 

how best to ensure they equipped to do 

so. We believe that expecting consumers 

to self-provision CPE backup power 

after certain amount of time may be 

reasonable to the extent that consumers 

would have ready access, through 

standard commercial outlets, to 

replacement batteries or other backup 

power technology. We seek comment on 

the commercial availability of such 

technologies. We note that CSRIC has 

recommended that providers make 

affordable options for battery backup of 

CPE available to consumers. For 

customers who choose battery backup, 

should service providers be required to 

offer spare batteries, at reasonable cost, 

to replace batteries when battery life 

falls below the eight-hour threshold or 

otherwise during times of extended 

power outages? Should providers be 

expected to standardize CPE power 

supplies and connector interfaces across 

network devices and CPE, so that a 

common battery backup unit can be 

used in the home with multiple 

devices? (For example, service providers 

may require their equipment developers 

to provision CPE that uses a power 

source of a type that consumers can 

easily replace, e.g., D-cell batteries. 

CSRIC states that ‘‘[i]mprovements in 

battery technology are . . . allowing [Dcell batteries] to approach the backup 

times of lead acid batteries on single 

charge discharges.’’) Are such efforts 

already under way? We seek comment 

on the use of D-cell batteries and on the 

costs and benefits of requiring 

consumers to purchase a sufficient 

number of D-cell batteries to provide 

continuing backup power. Another 

option may be Lithium-Ion external 

battery packs, which are widely used to 

provide reserve power to mobile phones 

and tablets, using a standardized socalled USB micro-B connector on the 

mobile device. We seek comment on the 

variety of options available, today and 

in the foreseeable future, as well as the 

technical trade-offs inherent in the 

different options. 

30. We believe that a comprehensive 

consumer education plan would be 

critical to consumers’ ability to 

successfully self-provision CPE backup 

power. Are service providers already 

offering consumers necessary 

information regarding backup power 

options and on how to install and 

maintain backup power technologies? 

Are providers offering consumers a 

sufficient explanation of a device’s 

emergency use capabilities, battery 

backup units, and how to access 

detailed information about battery 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
456 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

backup? We seek comment on whether 

we should require providers to develop 

and implement consumer education 

plans regarding the availability of CPE 

backup power. We also seek comment 

on when providers should make such 

information available. For example, 

when would it be sufficient for service 

providers to make this information 

available—at the point-of-sale, at the 

initial set up of CPE, or at some other 

point in the process? Should providers 

also provide detailed CPE backup power 

information immediately prior to a 

predicted extreme weather event or 

other anticipated emergency? We seek 

comment generally on additional ways 

in which providers may facilitate 

consumers’ ability to self-provision CPE 

backup power. 

31. Finally, we seek comment on 

strategies for maintaining continuity of 

power for CPE during extended periods 

of commercial power failure. Power 

outages of such extended duration are 

comparatively rare, but they are likely to 

present additional challenges. During 

prolonged outages, standard commercial 

supply chains that consumers would 

typically rely on for replacement 

batteries and other backup power 

technologies may be disrupted. We seek 

comment on how service providers can 

best assist consumers to obtain access to 

backup power resources during longterm power outages. What experiences 

have service providers had in these 

situations? We note the increasing 

popularity and proliferation of mobile 

cell phone charging stations among 

retail businesses. Such charging stations 

have repeatedly proven their usefulness 

in emergencies where carriers have 

provided disaster relief vehicles for 

customers of any wireless carrier to 

place calls, charge a variety of phones, 

and connect to the Internet via Wi-Fi. 

(We are also aware of efforts to provide 

fixed solar powered charging stations 

for people to charge their cell phones 

and laptop computers in several cities. 

We note that some of the charging 

stations used outside of the United 

States work very much like vending 

machines.) Would such solutions be 

feasible in more rural areas, or in areas 

with terrain that might be less accessible 

in the event of severe weather? Is it 

feasible to establish similar charging 

stations for CPE or their battery 

components that support other IP-based 

services? 

32. We also seek detailed information 

regarding the costs and benefits of the 

CPE backup power requirements 

proposed in this document. What would 

be the costs and benefits of industry 

compliance with mandates such as 

these? (We observe that the proposed 

rules would permit providers to charge 

commercially reasonable fees for any 

provision of backup power required 

under the rules.) What are the costs of 

developing affordable backup power 

solutions for any CPE that currently lack 

them? With respect to backup power 

provided by batteries, we seek cost 

information for the entire battery 

lifecycle, including the costs of 

procuring, maintaining, and disposing 

of the batteries. We also seek comment 

on whether requiring providers to 

supply customers (or groups of 

customers) with initial backup power 

capability would introduce economies 

of scale. In addition, we seek comment 

on the costs to the consumer of selfprovisioning CPE power during outages 

that exceed the initial window during 

which the backup power obligation is 

on the provider, and whether these costs 

are more or less than they otherwise 

would be in the absence of any backup 

power requirements. In assessing the 

costs and benefits, how should we 

account for consumer usage patterns? 

Many consumers have already 

transitioned to fiber; what has been their 

experience, particularly with long 

duration or frequent power outages, and 

how should that inform our 

policymaking? Likewise, many 

consumers have mobile devices and 

many of those consumers have only 

wireless phones. How should that factor 

into our analysis? 

33. In the same vein, how can we 

minimize the costs of compliance while 

maximizing the benefits? Would it be 

sufficient if every provider of facilitiesbased non-line-powered fixed voice 

services were to make available at least 

one piece of CPE that can be powered 

for at least 8 hours using commercially 

available batteries (such as D-cells)? (We 

note that some providers have deployed 

devices that are capable of providing 

back-up power for twenty-four hours.) 

34. We next seek comment on the 

Commission’s legal authority to adopt 

any of the proposals described above. 

Congress created the Commission, in 

part, ‘‘for the purpose of promoting 

safety of life and property through the 

use of wire and radio communications.’’ 

As communications technologies 

increasingly operate on commercial 

power at the customer’s premises rather 

than power from a central office 

delivered over copper lines, the 

Commission must ensure that 

technology transitions do not diminish 

access to critical communications 

services, especially 911. Congress has 

directed the Commission to ‘‘designate 

911 as the universal emergency 

telephone number within the United 

States for reporting an emergency to 

appropriate authorities and requesting 

assistance,’’ and to ‘‘promote and 

enhance public safety by facilitating the 

rapid deployment of IP-enabled 911 and 

E–911 services.’’ The Commission is 

also charged with promulgating 

‘‘regulations, technical standards, 

protocols, and procedures as are 

necessary to achieve reliable, 

interoperable communication that 

ensures access by individuals with 

disabilities to an Internet protocolenabled emergency network, where 

achievable and technically feasible.’’ We 

seek comment on whether requiring 

sufficient backup power to maintain 911 

connectivity during power outages 

would be well within ‘‘[t]he broad 

public safety and 911 authority 

Congress has granted the FCC.’’ 

35. Moreover, section 201(b) the 

Communications Act requires the 

practices of common carriers to be ‘‘just 

and reasonable,’’ and authorizes the 

Commission to ‘‘prescribe rules and 

regulations as may be necessary in the 

public interest to carry out the 

provisions’’ of the Act. Section 214(d) of 

the Act authorizes the Commission to 

require a common carrier ‘‘to provide 

itself with adequate facilities for the 

expeditious and efficient performance of 

its service as a common carrier.’’ And 

Section 214(a) empowers the 

Commission to attach conditions to the 

discontinuance of common carrier 

services to part or all of a community. 

The Commission also has general 

licensing authority under section 301 of 

the Act, as well as authority under 

Section 303(b) to ‘‘[p]rescribe the nature 

of the service to be rendered by each 

class of licensed stations and each 

station within any class’’ would provide 

an additional basis for Commission 

action. To the extent that our proposals 

apply to telecommunications carriers or 

fixed wireless service providers, we 

tentatively conclude that these 

provisions provide additional sources of 

authority for the proposals contained 

herein. We seek comment on this 

tentative conclusion. 

36. Finally, in light of these statutory 

mandates, we seek comment on whether 

minimum backup power requirements 

to promote continuity of 911 and other 

communications services would be 

within Commission’s general 

jurisdictional grant under Title I of the 

Act and ‘‘reasonably ancillary to the 

Commission’s effective performance of 

its statutorily mandated 

responsibilities.’’ We also seek comment 

on any other sources of legal authority 

for the proposals set forth above. 

37. Alternatively, should the 

Commission take steps, short of 

adopting rules, to promote the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 457 

development and implementation of 

consumer CPE backup power solutions? 

The CSRIC report observes that, due to 

the wide variety of backup power 

options and interfaces offered by 

individual service providers and CPE 

vendors, ‘‘some level of standardization 

is needed of . . . power systems and 

interfaces, if VoIP services are to meet 

the reliability that consumers expect in 

the United States.’’ Should the 

Commission take steps to promote the 

standardization of systems and 

interfaces that CSRIC recommends, e.g., 

in cooperation with industry standards 

bodies such as CableLabs or the 

Broadband Forum? Should the 

Commission charge CSRIC or another of 

its advisory bodies with addressing this 

issue? Do the best practices that CSRIC 

recommends in its recent report provide 

an adequate framework for ensuring that 

VoIP CPE maintain continuity of power 

in the event of commercial power 

failure? Should the Commission 

monitor whether the CSRIC best 

practices or any additional measures are 

being followed, and if so, how should it 

measure the effectiveness of these 

practices? While CSRIC’s 

recommendations specifically pertained 

to VoIP CPE, to what extent can CSRIC’s 

best practices be adapted to apply more 

broadly? What additional measures, 

beyond CSRIC’s recommendations, 

should providers undertake to ensure 

continuity of service during extended 

power outages? 

38. We also seek comment on whether 

market-based incentives alone could 

deliver backup power solutions that 

meet consumer needs and expectations. 

To what extent do providers compete on 

the basis of their ability to provide 

reliable and continuous service during 

commercial power outages? Do 

providers have incentives to educate 

their customers on the potential loss of 

service that occurs during power 

outages, and to help them make 

informed decisions about the backup 

power options available to them? Is 

there evidence that backup capabilities 

for CPE have improved and will 

continue to improve? 

39. Finally, we seek comment on any 

alternative approaches to providing 

continuity of communications for 

consumers, in the event of a power 

outage. In particular, we invite 

proposals that would address our 

concerns without the need to adopt 

regulatory requirements. 

B. Copper Retirement 

40. We believe that the increasing 

frequency and scope of copper 

retirements call into question key 

assumptions that underpinned our 

existing copper retirement rules, and 

therefore changes are necessary to 

ensure that our copper retirement 

process protects retail customers and 

facilitates competition. In this 

document, we propose steps to maintain 

the vitality of our core values of 

consumer protection, competition, 

public safety, and national security 

through the forthcoming technology 

transitions. In particular, we propose 

revisions to our copper retirement rules 

that we believe will align the goals of 

consumer protection and competition 

with ongoing incentives to deploy 

advanced facilities and services. First, 

we propose defining ‘‘retirement’’ of 

copper—a term not currently defined in 

our rules—to include removing and 

disabling of copper loops, subloops, and 

the feeder portion of loops. Next, we 

seek comment on how to address 

allegations that in some cases 

incumbent LECs are not adequately 

maintaining their copper facilities that 

are not yet retired. We then explain why 

we do not intend to establish an 

approval requirement for copper 

retirement. We also propose and seek 

comment on improvements to our 

copper retirement process to better 

promote competition and protect 

consumers. This document then seeks 

comment on whether and how we 

should take action to promote the sale 

or auction of copper prior to retirement. 

Finally, it seeks comment on the 

adoption of best practices that can help 

address the need for reliable backup 

power. 

1. Definition of ‘‘Copper Retirement’’ 

41. Although the Commission’s rules 

provide that incumbent LECs must 

comply with network change 

requirements before they retire any 

copper loops or subloops, the rules do 

not define ‘‘copper retirement,’’ either 

with regard to the facilities or the 

actions involved. We believe that it is 

necessary to propose a definition of 

copper retirement to provide parties 

with guidance on when a network 

change notification must be filed. 

42. Copper Facilities to Be Included. 

We propose that copper facilities 

included within the concept of 

‘‘retirement’’ should include copper 

loops, subloops, and the feeder portion 

of the loop. Including copper loops and 

subloops is consistent with our existing 

rules. However, our current rules do not 

encompass the feeder portion of loops. 

In its 2007 Petition for Rulemaking, 

BridgeCom requested that the 

Commission initiate a rulemaking 

proceeding to extend the copper 

retirement network change disclosure 

rules to the feeder portion of loops, 

noting that ‘‘if the feeder portion of the 

loop is unavailable for unbundled 

access, the practical difficulty of 

obtaining access to the remaining 

portion of the loop forecloses 

competitive access to the customer.’’ We 

tentatively agree, and we propose 

including the feeder portion of the loop 

within our definition of copper 

retirement. We seek comment on this 

proposal. Are there any reasons that we 

should not include copper feeder along 

with copper loops and subloops? Are 

there any other copper facilities that 

should be included? 

43. Actions That Constitute 

Retirement. We seek comment on 

defining ‘‘copper retirement’’ as the 

‘‘removing or disabling of’’ copper 

loops, subloops, and the feeder portion 

of loops. Should ‘‘removing’’ constitute 

the physical removal of copper? Should 

‘‘disabling’’ mean rendering the copper 

inoperable? Should ‘‘disabling’’ 

constitute retirement only if it is 

intended to be long-term or permanent? 

Should ‘‘removing’’ or ‘‘disabling’’ be 

defined in different ways? Should we 

add additional forms of retirement to 

this definition, and if so what should 

they be? Should we employ different 

terminology than that proposed here? 

44. ‘‘De Facto’’ Retirement and 

Adequate Maintenance of Facilities. As 

stated above, there are numerous 

allegations that in some cases 

incumbent LECs are failing to maintain 

their copper networks that have not 

undergone the Commission’s existing 

copper retirement procedures. Public 

Knowledge et al. express concern that 

consumers are losing access to basic 

phone service, and that ‘‘[d]enying basic 

phone service to people who have relied 

on the network for decades violates the 

network compact that has successfully 

guided our communications policy for 

one hundred years.’’ First, to establish 

whether there is a factual basis for new 

rules in this area, are incumbent LECs 

in some circumstances neglecting 

copper to the point where it is no longer 

reliably usable? We seek specific 

examples and facts concerning the 

consequences to consumers, 

competition, and public safety. Next, we 

seek comment on whether and how we 

should revise our rules to address 

inadequate maintenance. If we find that 

new rules are necessary, one option 

would be to define retirement to include 

de facto retirement, i.e., failure to 

maintain copper that is the functional 

equivalent of removal or disabling. We 

seek comment on this approach. In 

particular, how would the Commission 

determine if an incumbent LEC’s 

treatment of its copper facilities fits the 

definition? For example, should the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
458 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Commission consider service 

complaints? What would be the 

advantages and disadvantages of this 

approach to both consumers and 

competition? We seek comment on 

potential consequences or enforcement 

if copper facilities are allowed to 

degrade in quality to the point of de 

facto retirement without notice to 

customers? Is there an objective 

standard, such as industry standards, by 

which we can determine if copper is de 

facto retired? Are there any other legal 

or regulatory considerations with 

creating a de facto retirement standard? 

45. Historically, the States, localities, 

and Tribal Nations have played a vital 

role in overseeing carriers’ service 

quality and network maintenance. 

Public Knowledge et al., however, 

suggest that some non-federal 

governmental entities may be less able 

to provide such oversight because some 

state legislatures ‘‘have removed statelevel authorities’ ability to ensure 

customers continue to have meaningful 

access to the basic communications 

service they have always relied on at 

affordable prices.’’ We seek comment on 

the extent to which the States, localities, 

and Tribal Nations are able to address 

the consumer protection concerns raised 

by some incumbent LECs’ alleged 

failure to maintain copper facilities, and 

how that ability has changed over time. 

How should the trends in the regulatory 

capabilities of States, localities, and 

Tribal Nations inform our actions in this 

proceeding? We emphasize that in this 

document, we do not seek to revisit or 

alter the Commission’s determination in 

the Triennial Review Order to preserve 

state authority with respect to 

requirements for copper retirement. 

2. Revision of Copper Retirement 

Processes To Promote Competition and 

Protect Consumers 

46. We tentatively conclude that the 

foreseeable and increasing impact that 

copper retirement is having on 

competition and consumers warrants 

revisions to our network change 

disclosure rules to allow for greater 

transparency, opportunities for 

participation, and consumer protection. 

We discuss specific proposals and 

questions in this regard below. In 

connection with our proposed revisions 

to the copper retirement process, we 

propose streamlining our rules by 

creating a new § 51.332 in which we 

will consolidate network change 

notification requirements specific to 

copper retirement. We seek comment on 

this proposal. 

47. Because we expect that an 

approval requirement would 

undesirably harm incentives for fiber 

deployment and because we do not 

wish to impose a technological 

mandate, we decline requests to revise 

our network change notification rules to 

require incumbent LECs to obtain our 

approval for copper retirement, as some 

have suggested. In other words, we 

believe that copper retirement should 

remain a notice-based process. We note 

in this regard that we anticipate that our 

separate proposal to ensure continued 

access to wholesale services following 

TDM discontinuances would address 

many of the concerns that have led 

certain competitive LECs to advocate an 

approval requirement. 

a. Competition: Expansion of Notice 

Requirements 

48. As incumbent LECs continue with 

their technology transitions, competitive 

providers have become concerned that 

the incumbent LECs are retiring copper 

networks in a manner that will harm 

their ability to compete. To ensure that 

competitive LECs are fully informed 

about the impact that copper 

retirements will have on their 

businesses, we propose revising our 

rules to require incumbent LECs to 

provide interconnecting competitors 

with additional information about the 

potential impacts of proposed copper 

retirements. Specifically, we propose 

requiring that incumbent LECs provide 

a description of the expected impact of 

the planned changes, including but not 

limited to any changes in prices, terms, 

or conditions that will accompany the 

planned changes. (We emphasize that 

we do not seek through this proposal to 

provide an exemption from the statutory 

requirement pursuant to Section 214(a) 

to obtain authorization to discontinue, 

reduce, or impair service to a 

community or part of a community.) We 

further propose clarifying that 

incumbent LECs must provide direct 

notification of planned copper 

retirements to each telephone exchange 

service provider that interconnects with 

the incumbent LEC’s network and must 

file a certificate of service to the 

Commission confirming the provision of 

such notice regardless of the timing of 

the retirement. (The short term notice 

provisions of our network change 

notification rules, which apply ‘‘[i]f an 

incumbent LEC wishes to provide less 

than six months notice of planned 

network changes,’’ require the 

incumbent LEC to file a certification 

with the Commission stating that ‘‘at 

least five business days in advance of its 

filing with the Commission, the 

incumbent LEC served a copy of its 

public notice upon each telephone 

exchange service provider that directly 

interconnects with the incumbent LEC’s 

network.’’ Our network change 

notification rules state that 

‘‘[i]ncumbent LEC notice of intent to 

[retire copper] shall be subject to the 

short term notice provisions of this 

section . . . .’’ we have not addressed 

the question of whether under our 

current rules an incumbent LEC must 

comply with the short term notice 

provisions for a copper retirement if it 

wishes to provide six months or more of 

advanced notice.) We seek comment on 

these proposals. Commenters may wish 

to address questions such as: 

• Will the additional information be 

useful to competitive providers? 

• Is there any reason why incumbent 

LECs should not be required to provide 

this additional information? 

• Would providing this additional 

information impose an unreasonable 

burden on incumbent LECs? 

• Is there any additional information 

that interconnecting telephone exchange 

service providers might need in order to 

make an informed decision? 

• Would a narrower scope of 

information achieve the same goals as 

our proposal? 

• How should the notification 

requirement apply in the event of a 

natural or manmade disaster? 

• Should we require provision of this 

notification to information service 

providers that directly interconnect 

with the incumbent LEC’s network and/ 

or to any other entities? 

• Should we take action to encourage 

incumbent LECs to meet with or more 

collaboratively communicate with 

entities to which they provide notice, 

and if so how? 

• Would it be helpful for incumbent 

LECs to provide annual forecasts of 

expected copper retirements or other 

network changes; if so, to whom should 

they provide such forecasts? 

• Should we act to ensure that the 

direct notifications proposed above— 

and/or network change notifications 

generally—are provided in a uniform 

format, and if so how can we best 

achieve that goal? 

49. Competitive providers require 

adequate notice in order to plan for the 

elimination of copper-based facilities. 

Section 251(c)(5) requires ‘‘reasonable 

public notice of changes in the 

information necessary for the 

transmission and routing of services 

using that local exchange carrier’s 

facilities or networks, as well as of any 

other changes that would affect the 

interoperability of those facilities and 

networks.’’ To what extent does our 

section 251(c)(5) authority support our 

proposals? Are the proposals above 

reasonable? To find that we have the 

necessary legal authority under section 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 459 

251(c)(5), is it necessary to conclude 

that the information that is subject to 

our proposal is either ‘‘necessary for the 

transmission and routing of services 

using that local exchange carrier’s 

facilities or networks’’ or that it would 

‘‘affect the interoperability of those 

facilities and networks’’ and, if so, is 

one of those standards met? Are there 

other sources of legal authority that 

would support the proposals described 

above? 

50. Under our current rules, 

incumbent LECs must give at least 

ninety days’ advance notice of planned 

copper retirements. We seek comment 

on whether this amount of time is 

sufficient or whether it should be 

extended. If we do extend the time 

period, what is appropriate? Is 180 days 

appropriate? We note that the time 

period should provide sufficient notice 

for competitive LECs and for retail 

customers. We seek comment on 

whether a lengthier notice period would 

place too high a burden on incumbent 

LECs and/or whether the time period 

should be shortened. 

b. Consumer Protection 

51. Consumers and other retail 

customers need to understand what is 

and is not happening during a copper 

retirement, and they need to understand 

their choices about service. Since our 

current Part 51 rules make no provision 

at all for retail customers, we fear that 

this is not currently the case. As stated 

above, complaints have surfaced from 

multiple sources that in some cases 

incumbent LECs are moving customers 

of legacy services onto IP-based and 

triple play services during copper 

retirements, with no procedures in place 

for customer notice or choice. (Verizon 

has denied these allegations.) These 

allegations strengthen our belief that 

notice obligations should be extended to 

retail customers. Because copper 

retirement has the potential to reduce a 

retail customer’s choice, we believe that 

it is appropriate to extend the notice 

obligations of our network change 

disclosure rules to retail customers. We 

also believe that it is important to give 

retail customers a voice in the copper 

retirement process. The Bureau already 

has created an email address for public 

comment on copper retirement, and this 

document seeks to expand retail 

customers’ opportunities to participate 

in this important process. We also 

anticipate that notice to retail customers 

must differ from notice to providers. We 

therefore propose revising our network 

change disclosure rules to address the 

form, timing, and content of notice to 

retail customers, as well as to educate 

subscribers regarding copper 

retirements by which they may be 

affected, as detailed below. We seek 

comment on our legal authority to 

impose the requirements contemplated 

below. 

(i) Notice to Retail Customers 

52. Recipients. Retail customers who 

are directly impacted by copper 

retirement need to know about it, and it 

simply is not realistic to expect 

consumers and other retail customers to 

monitor individual pages on the Web 

sites of carriers or the Commission. (We 

do not limit this proposal to residential 

consumers. Rather, references to ‘‘retail 

customers’’ and ‘‘subscribers’’ include 

non-residential users such as business 

and anchor institutions.) We therefore 

propose requiring incumbent LECs to 

provide notice of copper retirements to 

their retail customers who will be 

affected by the copper retirement. Under 

the proposed rule, an incumbent LEC 

would be required to directly notify all 

retail customers affected by the planned 

network change through electronic or 

postal mail unless the Commission 

authorizes in advance, for good cause 

shown, another form of notice. We seek 

comment on this proposal. Does it strike 

the correct balance between the benefits 

to retail customers of notification and 

the costs of providing the notification? 

We also seek comment on the ways in 

which a retail customer might be 

‘‘affected’’ by a planned copper 

retirement. We propose that affected 

customers who must receive notice are 

anyone who will need new or modified 

CPE or who will be negatively impacted 

by the planned network change. We 

seek comment on this proposal. Does 

this proposal capture the correct 

population? In what circumstances 

other than needing new or modified 

CPE is a customer negatively impacted 

by a planned copper retirement? How 

significant of a negative impact is 

necessary to trigger a notice 

requirement, and from whose 

perspective should the impact be 

evaluated? Should we adopt different or 

more limited criteria? Should our 

proposed notice requirement apply only 

to instances in which a technician 

would need to obtain access to the 

customer’s premises? Should we deem 

any customer that will see a change in 

the electrical power arrangements for 

his or her service to be ‘‘affected’’? Are 

there other circumstances or situations 

in which a retail customer could be 

affected by a planned copper retirement 

in a way that would warrant requiring 

direct notification of the planned 

changes? Are there any reasons why 

retail customers should not be entitled 

to notice of copper retirements by which 

they are affected? 

53. We note that in some cases, it is 

possible that copper retirements might 

have little or no practical impact on 

retail customers. For example, a copper 

retirement may not result in the need to 

replace or install CPE on a retail 

customer’s premises, eliminate line 

power, or affect the functionality of or 

access to third-party devices or services. 

In such circumstances, retail subscribers 

may find notice to be unnecessary or 

confusing. However, retail customers 

are affected by certain planned network 

changes involving copper retirement, 

particularly those that require a 

technician to seek entry to a retail 

customer’s premises home. In those 

circumstances, we believe that an 

incumbent LEC’s retail customers 

should be part of the network change 

disclosure process, and in particular we 

propose that incumbent LECs should be 

required to provide such customers 

notice of an impending copper 

retirement. We seek comment on these 

issues. 

54. Form. The form of notice should 

be both efficient for incumbent LECs to 

undertake and effective in educating 

retail customers about retirements. We 

propose allowing incumbent LECs to 

use written or electronic notice such as 

postal mail or email to provide notice to 

retail customers of a planned copper 

retirement. We seek comment on 

whether such types of notice adequately 

protect the interests of retail customers. 

For instance, in a 2002 order addressing 

notice procedures for solicitation of optin or opt-out approval regarding use of 

customer proprietary network 

information (CPNI), the Commission 

stated: 

[W]e recognize that consumers are deluged 

with unrequested or unwanted commercial 

email (‘‘spam’’) and could easily overlook a 

notice provided via email. Accordingly, we 

require carriers to follow certain precautions 

to ensure that such notices will not be 

mistaken as spam. 

We seek comment on whether the 

notice procedures used in the CPNI 

context are appropriate for adaptation to 

the copper retirement context. What 

types of precautions should we require 

to ensure that retail customers have the 

information necessary to make informed 

decisions regarding their choices for 

telephone service? How can we ensure 

that notice to customers with 

disabilities is provided in accessible 

formats? With respect to notification via 

email, we seek comment on requiring 

that carriers establish a method by 

which retail customers may choose the 

option to receive communications via 

email and provide the email address to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
460 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

which the incumbent LEC should send 

such communications. Would the fact 

that a customer has already agreed to 

receive monthly bills or other 

communications by email demonstrate 

that the customer can be expected to 

receive adequate notice of network 

changes by email? Should we require 

carriers to obtain express, verifiable, 

prior approval from retail customers 

before sending notices by email? We 

also propose requiring that carriers send 

direct written notification in instances 

when an email notice of a planned 

copper retirement is returned to the 

carrier as undeliverable. Would such 

procedures be adequate to ensure that 

subscribers receive notifications of 

planned copper retirements from 

incumbent LECs in a timely manner? 

Should we also permit oral notice or 

electronic notice other than by email, 

such as by telephone call or publication 

on an incumbent LEC’s Web site? 

Would oral notification present 

opportunity for abuse or confusion? 

Should notice requirements differ 

depending upon the size of the carrier 

or other factors? 

55. To ensure that sufficient 

information remains available to enable 

us to enforce our proposed rules, we 

propose requiring that incumbent LECs 

maintain records of customer 

notifications, in whatever form 

provided, for a minimum period of time. 

We seek comment on this proposal. If 

we impose such a requirement, what 

minimum retention period should we 

prescribe? In what circumstances, if 

any, would the burden imposed on 

incumbent LECs outweigh the 

Commission’s need to have available to 

it records to evaluate a provider’s 

compliance with our rules? What 

specific records should we require 

incumbent LECs to maintain, and in 

what format? 

56. Content. We believe that retail 

customers are entitled to clarity 

regarding the services available to them. 

We therefore propose creating a 

requirement that the notices to 

subscribers affected by copper 

retirements state clearly and 

prominently that a retail customer ‘‘will 

still be able to purchase the existing 

service(s) to which he or she subscribes 

with the same functionalities and 

features as the service he or she 

currently purchases’’ if that statement is 

accurate; if this statement would be 

inaccurate, then we propose requiring 

the incumbent LEC to include a 

statement identifying any changes to the 

service(s) and the functionality and 

features thereof. We seek comment on 

this proposal. If the incumbent LEC 

cannot state accurately that the 

service(s) available to consumers will be 

unchanged, we would expect it to 

consider carefully whether it is required 

to file a discontinuance application 

pursuant to Section 63.71 of our rules. 

In that regard, we also seek comment on 

the allegations that in some cases, 

incumbent LECs are misleading retail 

customers into believing that they may 

no longer continue to receive legacy 

services (e.g., POTS) or, at a minimum, 

that incumbent LECs are failing to 

advise retail customers that their legacy 

service remains available over fiber. 

57. Further, to be effective, the notice 

must provide retail customers with the 

information that they need to 

understand the practical consequences 

of copper retirement. To ensure that the 

notice is sufficient to serve its intended 

purpose, we propose minimum 

requirements for the content of notices 

to subscribers. (As we noted in the 1998 

CPNI Order, ‘‘[p]rescribing minimum 

content requirements will reduce the 

potential for customer confusion and 

misunderstanding as well as the 

potential for carrier abuses.’’) 

Specifically, we propose certain 

requirements similar to those required 

by § 64.2008 of our rules for use of CPNI 

and by § 63.71 of our rules for notice to 

affected customers of planned service 

discontinuances. Further, we propose 

requiring that the notice provide 

sufficient information and that it 

contain a clear statement of the 

customer’s rights and the process by 

which the customer may comment on 

the planned copper retirement. We seek 

comment on these proposals. 

58. We further seek comment on 

whether these proposed minimum 

customer notice requirements are 

adequate to protect consumer interests. 

Should there be additional 

requirements? Are any different or 

additional notice requirements 

necessary for certain populations, such 

as those who are not proficient in 

English or consumers with disabilities? 

Do these requirements place too onerous 

a burden on incumbent LECs? We also 

seek comment on whether the 

incumbent LEC should be required to 

make additional efforts to contact retail 

customers who do not contact the 

incumbent LEC to schedule a service 

call in instances when an incumbent 

LEC technician must visit the 

customers’ premises to complete work 

to effectuate the copper retirement. 

59. Timing. Retail customers will 

need an opportunity to educate 

themselves regarding the implications of 

the planned copper retirement. We 

propose requiring that incumbent LECs 

give subscribers the same amount of 

notice that they give to interconnected 

providers, which we believe provides 

sufficient time for subscribers to become 

educated about the proposal. We seek 

comment on this proposal and, in the 

alternative, on what the appropriate 

notice period should be. We also 

propose allowing retail customers 30 

days in which to comment on a 

proposed copper retirement from the 

date the Bureau releases its Public 

Notice. This matches the amount of time 

that interconnecting carriers have to 

comment, and we believe it strikes the 

correct balance between providing retail 

customers with sufficient time to 

comment and ensuring certainty in our 

retirement process. We seek comment 

on this proposal. 

60. Statutory Authority. To what 

extent does our section 251(c)(5) 

authority support our proposals? Is 

there any reason that retail customers 

should not be understood as persons 

entitled to receipt of ‘‘public notice’’? 

Are the proposals above ‘‘reasonable’’? 

To find that we have the necessary legal 

authority under section 251(c)(5), is it 

necessary to conclude that the 

information that is subject to our 

proposal is either ‘‘necessary for the 

transmission and routing of services 

using that local exchange carrier’s 

facilities or networks’’ or that it would 

‘‘affect the interoperability of those 

facilities and networks,’’ and if so is one 

of those standards met? Are there other 

sources of legal authority that would 

support the proposals above? In 

addition, we seek comment on whether 

our proposals advance important 

government interests and on whether 

any other less restrictive approaches 

would accomplish our consumer 

protection goals. 

61. Section 68.110(b). Section 

68.110(b) of our rules provides that: 

A provider of wireline telecommunications 

may make changes in its communications 

facilities, equipment, operations or 

procedures, where such action is reasonably 

required in the operation of its business and 

is not inconsistent with the rules and 

regulations in this part. If such changes can 

be reasonably expected to render any 

customer’s terminal equipment incompatible 

with the communications facilities of the 

provider of wireline telecommunications, or 

require modification or alteration of such 

terminal equipment, or otherwise materially 

affect its use or performance, the customer 

shall be given adequate notice in writing, to 

allow the customer an opportunity to 

maintain uninterrupted service. 

What can we learn from § 68.110(b) in 

the context of our present customer 

notice proposal? Has this provision 

benefitted customers? To what extent 

does this provision authorize or 

otherwise relate to or overlap with our 

proposed customer notice? Is the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 461 

overlap, if any, beneficial in ensuring 

customer understanding of the impact of 

various technology transitions, or does 

it render any portion of our proposal 

superfluous? Should § 68.110(b) serve as 

a model for customer notice 

requirements in the copper retirement 

context, and if so how? 

(ii) Upselling and Consumer Education 

62. As noted above, Public Knowledge 

and NASUCA have expressed concerns 

that incumbent LECs may take 

advantage of copper retirements to 

‘‘upsell’’ subscribers—i.e., try to 

convince customers to purchase more 

profitable bundles of services in 

interactions that ostensibly are intended 

to prepare the customer for a change in 

facilities only (e.g., copper to fiber). We 

seek comment on whether this practice 

occurs or is reasonably foreseeable, the 

circumstances in which it occurs or 

would be reasonably foreseeable, and 

whether and how it harms or would 

harm consumers. Does upselling in such 

circumstances increase the likelihood of 

customer confusion? We are concerned 

by a number of consumer allegations 

that copper retirements have resulted in 

changes to their service may stem from 

aggressive or confusing upselling. 

63. We therefore propose requiring 

incumbent LECs to supply a neutral 

statement of the various choices that the 

LEC makes available to retail customers 

affected by the planned network change. 

We seek comment on this proposal. We 

anticipate that it would enable 

consumers to make informed choices 

and to have the tools to determine for 

themselves what services to purchase. 

Should we require that this information 

be provided as a part of the consumer 

notice discussed above or separately 

from that notice? Should we require that 

this information be communicated in 

writing, or should oral communication 

be permissible? How can we ensure that 

such information is accessible to people 

with disabilities? 

64. What kinds of services should we 

require the incumbent LEC to identify? 

Should it be required to identify 

services reasonably comparable to those 

to which the retail customer presently 

subscribes, or should a different 

standard apply? For voice services, 

should it be required to identify both 

facilities-based interconnected VoIP and 

TDM-based services? Should it ever be 

required to identify non-facilities-based 

services? Should it specifically be 

required to identify services designed 

for people with disabilities? We seek 

comment on whether the proposal 

would serve this purpose, whether it 

would address concerns about 

upselling, and whether it has any other 

benefits. We also seek comment on its 

drawbacks. In addition, we seek 

comment on whether this proposal 

advances important government 

interests and on whether any other less 

restrictive approaches would 

accomplish our consumer protection 

goals. 

65. We further seek comment on 

whether we should require incumbent 

LECs to undertake additional measures 

beyond the notice described above to 

educate their retail customers regarding 

planned copper retirements by which 

they may be affected, and, if so, what 

measures should be required. The 

Commission required broadcasters to 

undertake consumer education 

initiatives in connection with the DTV 

transition in order ‘‘to ensure that 

consumers will receive the information 

they need to make proper preparations 

for the digital transition of the stations 

on which they rely for television 

service.’’ Is a similar education initiative 

necessary in the context of transitioning 

consumers away from legacy copperbased services? If so, what information 

should we require that consumers 

receive, how should it be conveyed, and 

to which consumers must this 

information be provided? We seek 

comment on the following possibilities: 

• Direct mailing from the incumbent 

LEC to affected consumers containing 

clear explanations of any installation or 

modification of CPE; 

• Minimum advance notice 

requirements for the scheduling of any 

service appointments and/or 

punctuality requirements for service 

appointments; and 

We also seek comment on other possible 

consumer education requirements. 

Would the benefits of such requirements 

outweigh the burdens that they would 

impose on incumbent LECs? We seek 

comment on whether and how each 

consumer education requirement under 

consideration and any others suggested 

by commenters advance important 

government interests and whether other, 

less restrictive measures would 

accomplish the same goals. We also seek 

comment on our legal authority to 

impose any consumer education 

requirements. 

66. In addition, we seek comment on 

appropriate enforcement remedies in 

the event of failure to comply with any 

new copper retirement customer notice, 

education, or upselling requirements. 

Would forfeiture be an appropriate 

remedy? Should we consider requiring 

refunds to customers? 

c. Expansion of Right To Comment 

67. Under our current network change 

disclosure rules, only information 

service providers and 

telecommunications service providers 

that directly interconnect with the 

incumbent LEC’s network have the right 

to object to planned copper retirements, 

and they can only delay implementation 

for up to six months and seek technical 

assistance from the incumbent LEC. 

Since copper retirements may have 

significant impact on the public, 

members of the public should have the 

opportunity to comment publicly on 

such retirements. And industry 

participants should not be restricted 

unduly in the issues that they may draw 

to our attention. While the Bureau has 

provided the public at large with the 

opportunity to comment on network 

change disclosures via a special email 

address, we can do more to facilitate 

participation in this important process. 

68. We anticipate that these 

comments will assist us in many 

circumstances. For instance, we expect 

that it would help call to our attention 

circumstances in which incumbent 

LECs are not complying with their 

obligations. (Consumers who have 

concerns about any particular situation 

also can contact our Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau to file 

complaints.’’) Moreover, we will find 

value in hearing from the public about 

the potential benefits and/or harms that 

could come from the retirement of these 

copper facilities in our policymaking 

decisions going forward. Finally, we 

anticipate that we will be able to use the 

comments we receive to monitor for 

circumstances in which an incumbent 

LEC’s proposed copper retirement is 

accompanied by or is the cause of a 

discontinuance, reduction, or 

impairment of service provided over 

that copper—but the incumbent LEC has 

failed to seek the necessary authority, 

contrary to the requirements of Section 

214(a) and our rules thereunder. We 

therefore propose revising our rules to 

provide the public, including retail 

customers and industry participants, 

with the opportunity to comment 

publicly on planned network changes. 

We seek comment on this proposal. 

d. Notice to States and the Department 

of Defense 

69. We recognize that we are not the 

only governmental authority with 

important responsibilities with respect 

to technology transitions. In particular, 

States serve a vital function in 

safeguarding the values of the Network 

Compact. As we have recognized on 

multiple occasions, both ‘‘State and 

federal enforcement tools are needed to 

protect consumers from fraudulent, 

deceptive, abusive, and unfair 

practices.’’ Further, the Department of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
462 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Defense plays a key role in ensuring that 

telecommunications infrastructure 

remains secure and promotes public 

safety. We are cognizant that these 

authorities need information about 

transitions to fulfill their duties. Our 

rules implementing Section 214 already 

require applicants seeking 

discontinuance authority to provide 

copies of their applications to these 

entities, so our rules facilitate their 

ability to monitor some technology 

transitions. We believe that these 

authorities also need to remain 

informed about copper retirements so 

that they can fulfill their respective 

missions with respect to the ongoing 

technology transitions. We propose 

requiring that incumbent LECs provide 

notice of planned copper retirements to 

the public utility commission and to the 

Governor of the State(s) in which the 

network change is proposed, and also to 

the Secretary of Defense. We expect that 

ensuring that State authorities receive 

notice of copper retirements will assist 

them in fulfilling their vital consumer 

protection role. Similarly, we expect 

that federal defense authorities will find 

this information useful in fulfilling their 

mission of ensuring the security of the 

Nation’s communications networks. We 

seek comment on this proposal, 

including its benefits and drawbacks. 

Further, we seek comment on whether 

the same requirements should apply to 

other forms of network change 

notifications. Is there any reason why 

State authorities or the Department of 

Defense might need to receive notice of 

network changes that do not involve 

copper retirement? Are there other 

governmental entities that should also 

receive this direct notice, such as the 

Federal Aviation Administration, Tribal 

entities or municipalities, or should we 

rely on the expectation that any such 

other entity relying on the network will 

receive notice in the same manner as 

other customers? We also seek comment 

on our authority under section 251(c)(5) 

and/or other statutory provisions to 

impose this requirement. 

e. Certification 

70. To enable effective enforcement of 

any new rules adopted pursuant to this 

document, we propose requiring 

incumbent LECs to certify their 

compliance. Certification requirements 

also serve to remind parties of their 

obligations. Our existing network 

change rules require incumbent LECs to 

file in certain circumstances a certificate 

of service and/or a certification, each 

confirming fulfillment of certain 

obligations under our rules. (That 

certification must include: (1) A 

statement identifying the proposed 

changes; (2) a statement that public 

notice has been given in compliance 

with applicable rules; and (3) a 

statement identifying the location of the 

change information and how it can be 

obtained.) Because we propose creating 

one comprehensive rule containing all 

requirements applicable to copper 

retirements, it will be most efficient for 

an incumbent LEC to provide us with a 

single certification confirming that it is 

has fulfilled its various responsibilities. 

We seek comment on this proposal. 

71. Under our existing rules, 

certifications, which must be filed when 

the incumbent LEC provides public 

notice other than by filing with the 

Commission, must include a statement 

identifying: (1) The proposed changes; 

(2) that public notice has been given in 

compliance with applicable rules; and 

(3) the location of the change 

information and how it can be obtained. 

Furthermore, certificates of service 

under our existing rules must include: 

(1) A statement that, at least five 

business days in advance of its filing 

with the Commission, the incumbent 

LEC served a copy of its public notice 

upon each telephone exchange service 

provider that directly interconnects 

with the incumbent LEC’s network; and 

(2) the name and address of each such 

telephone exchange service provider 

upon which the notice was served. We 

believe that this information will 

provide important insights into copper 

retirements, so we propose requiring 

incumbent LECs engaged in a copper 

retirement to file a unified certification 

containing all of the above information. 

72. If we adopt our proposals to 

require incumbent LECs engaged in 

copper retirement to provide notice to 

customers as well as State and 

Department of Defense officials, we 

believe that it would be necessary for 

incumbent LECs to also certify their 

compliance with these proposed 

requirements to enable us to confirm 

their compliance. We therefore propose 

requiring incumbent LECs’ certifications 

to include, in addition to the 

information required above: 

• A statement that, at least five 

business days in advance of its filing 

with the Commission, the incumbent 

LEC served the required direct notice 

upon all affected retail customers; 

• A copy of the written notice 

provided to affected retail customers; 

and 

• A statement that the incumbent LEC 

notified and submitted a copy of its 

public notice to the public utility 

commission and to the Governor of the 

State in which the network change is 

proposed, and also to the Secretary of 

Defense. 

73. We seek comment on these 

certification proposals, including on 

their benefits and drawbacks. Should 

we require incumbent LECs to include 

any additional information in the 

certifications that they file? Could we 

achieve our goals while requiring 

incumbent LECs to include less 

information in their certifications? What 

should be the deadline for filing a 

certification? Should we require either 

an officer of the incumbent LEC or an 

individual authorized by the incumbent 

LEC to sign the certification and attest 

to the truth and accuracy of the 

representations therein under penalty of 

perjury? We also seek comment on our 

authority under section 251(c)(5) and/or 

other statutory provisions to impose 

these certification requirements. 

3. Sale of Copper Facilities That Would 

Otherwise Be Retired 

74. One potential way to maintain 

valued parts of the copper network 

while allowing incumbent LECs to 

continue their technology transition 

plans would be for incumbent LECs to 

sell or auction copper facilities that they 

intend to retire, on reasonable terms and 

conditions. Incumbent LECs could 

offload unwanted copper while 

competitors or other entities could 

continue to use the facilities to provide 

copper-based services. Consumers 

would continue to reap the benefits of 

their collective investment in our 

Nation’s copper networks by retaining 

more competitive alternatives than 

would otherwise be available. 

75. Competitive LECs have 

demonstrated at least some interest in 

purchasing retired copper facilities. For 

example, in their petition for a copper 

retirement rulemaking, BridgeCom et al. 

request that the Commission consider 

requiring or authorizing incumbent 

LECs to sell or auction copper 

‘‘pursuant to some public and fair 

process.’’ These competitive LECs claim 

a sale or auction would allow 

incumbent LECs to ‘‘terminate 

ownership and most responsibility for 

unwanted loops while also preserving 

the potential benefits of use of spare 

copper loops for provision of 

competitive services.’’ WorldNet, a 

competitive LEC serving small- and 

medium-sized business in Puerto Rico, 

also recommends requiring incumbent 

LECs to offer copper facilities for sale as 

a condition to retirement. 

76. AT&T has stated as part of its 

technology transition proposal that it 

would consider selling retired copper 

facilities to competitive carriers that 

wish to use those facilities to provide 

service to their customers. In May, 

AT&T submitted a general proposal to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 463 

offer copper loops that are retired under 

the network change disclosure rules for 

sale on commercial terms to competitive 

carriers. Under AT&T’s proposal, the 

parties would establish two agreements. 

The first agreement would be the 

general terms and conditions of the 

copper sale, including obligations of the 

purchaser. The terms state that the 

purchaser is responsible for any costs 

associated with re-terminating the cable 

at the frame and service area interface. 

In addition, the copper will be provided 

in ‘‘as-is’’ condition, and the purchaser 

is responsible for all maintenance and 

liabilities. This agreement also provides 

for a 90-day transition period and 

establishes the responsibilities of both 

parties during the transition. The 

second agreement provides for access to 

poles and/or conduit either by sale or 

lease. With respect to timing of the sale, 

AT&T’s proposal provides for a 150-day 

process: 30-day notice period, 30-day 

proposal or bid review period, and 90- 

day negotiation period to complete the 

sale. (If the parties do not sign the 

agreement at the end of the 90 days, the 

offer is rescinded.) 

77. We believe that sale of copper 

facilities could be a win-win 

proposition that permits incumbent 

LECs to manage their networks as they 

see fit while ensuring that copper 

remains available as a vehicle for 

competition. We therefore seek 

comment on whether and how we 

should take action to promote the sale 

or auction of copper prior to retirement. 

We intend to develop a record to gauge 

the level of interest by competitive 

providers or others to purchase retired 

copper facilities and address some of 

the issues involved in a sale or auction. 

We further intend to determine what 

role, if any, the Commission should play 

in any sale or auction of copper, 

including whether the Commission 

should establish rules requiring 

incumbent LECs to make a good faith 

effort to sell their copper networks 

before retiring the facilities. 

78. Interest in Purchase. First, we seek 

to gauge the level of interest by 

competitive providers and others in 

purchasing copper facilities that 

incumbents intend to retire. Under what 

terms and in what circumstances would 

competitive providers or others be 

interested in purchasing copper 

facilities? Although we have noted 

above the importance of copper and 

expressions of interest in the purchase 

of such facilities, do stakeholders feel 

purchasing retired copper is a valid or 

plausible method to address the 

competitive concerns raised by 

incumbent LEC copper retirement? 

What are the benefits and drawbacks to 

continued use of copper where fiber has 

been built-out? 

79. Means of Facilitating Sale or 

Action. We seek comment on how the 

Commission can most effectively 

facilitate sale or auction of copper 

facilities than an incumbent LEC 

intends to retire. We tentatively 

conclude that the Commission should 

pursue a voluntary approach, rather 

than impose a requirement for sale or 

auction of copper facilities, as proposed 

by parties such as WorldNet. To that 

end, we seek comment on whether and 

how the Commission could facilitate the 

voluntary sale or auction of copper. 

What would be the role of the 

Commission, if any? Are there any 

existing rules or procedures the 

Commission may use to encourage the 

sale or auction of copper? Are there any 

regulatory barriers to the sale or auction 

of copper the Commission should 

remove? Is there a role for state public 

service commissions in encouraging sale 

or auction of copper that an incumbent 

LEC intends to retire? 

80. Structure of Sale or Auction. We 

seek comment on the ideal structure of 

any sale or auction, regardless of 

whether the sale or auction occurs 

voluntarily, as we propose, or pursuant 

to a regulatory requirement. We seek 

comment on AT&T’s proposed 

structure, as well as on alternative sale 

and auction structures. If an auction 

mechanism were used, what form of 

auction would be most effective? How 

would a sale or auction work? For 

example, should a third-party be 

established to process the sale or act as 

clearinghouse for an auction? What are 

the advantages and disadvantages of 

each structure? Does one structure better 

promote the technology transition and 

our core values? To be effective, what is 

the minimum amount of time during 

which an incumbent LEC would need to 

offer the copper for sale or auction prior 

to retiring the network? 

81. Price and Terms of Sale or 

Auction. We assume that price and 

terms of sale for copper facilities will be 

a driving factor in any transaction. We 

further assume that in any regulatory 

mechanism, incumbent LECs would be 

able to reject offers or bids that do not 

meet minimum thresholds on price and 

other terms. What would parties expect 

such minimum standards to be? 

C. Section 214 Discontinuances 

82. Our fundamental values and the 

Commission’s statutory obligations are 

not lost or mooted merely because 

legacy services are discontinued. 

Therefore, it is critical for us to define 

carriers’ responsibilities when 

discontinuing legacy services to ensure 

that we carry our values forward 

without regard to the particular 

technology used. In this document, we 

advance this goal in three ways. First, to 

ensure that we protect consumers, 

competition, and public safety, we seek 

comment on what constitutes an 

adequate substitute for a retail service 

being discontinued, reduced, or 

impaired. Second, we seek comment on 

better defining the scope of our Section 

214(a) authority, focusing in particular 

on the context of wholesale services. 

Third, we recognize the critical 

importance of ensuring that technology 

transitions do no harm to the benefits of 

competitive access, particularly in the 

period prior to ultimate action in our 

special access proceeding. Accordingly, 

we tentatively conclude that we should 

require incumbent LECs that seek 

Section 214 authority to discontinue, 

reduce, or impair a legacy service used 

as a wholesale input by competitive 

providers to commit to providing 

equivalent wholesale access on 

equivalent rates, terms, and conditions. 

We also seek comment on the 

relationship between the duration of 

this requirement, which would take the 

form of a condition imposed on a grant 

of discontinuance authority for TDM 

services on which competitive carriers 

depend, and the ultimate outcome of 

our special access proceeding. 

1. What Constitutes an Adequate 

Substitute for a Retail Service a Carrier 

Seeks To Discontinue, Reduce, or 

Impair? 

83. We agree with Public Knowledge 

that the public and industry alike would 

benefit from establishment of criteria to 

evaluate replacement technologies when 

a carrier files an application to 

discontinue a retail service pursuant to 

Section 214(a). We focus this inquiry, in 

particular, on consumer products. 

Industry and the public will benefit 

from articulation of clear, 

technologically neutral principles that 

define what constitutes an adequate 

substitute for consumers for a 

discontinued retail service. We therefore 

seek comment on whether the 

Commission should update its rules to 

define what would constitute an 

adequate substitute for retail services 

that a carrier seeks to discontinue, 

reduce, or impair in connection with a 

technology transition (e.g., TDM to IP, 

wireline to wireless). We will also look 

to any service-based experiments and 

other data collection activities that 

occur pursuant to the January 

Technology Transitions Order to inform 

these questions. We undertake this 

inquiry, in part, to ensure that the 

transition to IP-supported technologies 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
464 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

does not impair the security, integrity 

and reliability of our nation’s 

communications infrastructure. 

84. What factors should we consider 

in evaluating Section 214 filings 

concerning discontinuance of retail 

services? Should certain factors be given 

greater weight than others? In particular, 

how much weight should we give to the 

adequacy of available substitutes? In the 

context of AT&T’s proposed servicebased experiments, Public Knowledge 

identified ten attributes it believes 

require particular evaluation: ‘‘(1) 

Network capacity, (2) Call quality, (3) 

Device interoperability, (4) Service for 

the deaf and disabled, (5) System 

availability, (6) PSAP and 9–1–1 service, 

(7) Cybersecurity, (8) Call persistence, 

(9) Call functionality, and (10) Wireline 

coverage.’’ We seek comment on 

whether and how the Commission 

should consider these and/or other 

attributes and on the costs and benefits 

of articulating specific attributes. And 

we seek comment on what law 

enforcement capabilities the 

Commission should seek to preserve as 

the underlying communications 

technology changes. (We are committed 

to ensuring that law enforcement 

capabilities are maintained throughout 

the technology transitions.) We also 

seek comment on whether it should be 

necessary to meet all of the criteria to 

obtain streamlined treatment and/or 

approval or whether some criteria 

should be considered more important 

than others. And what should the 

Commission look for in evaluating each 

of the factors commenters may suggest? 

What enforcement remedies are 

appropriate for a carrier that obtains 

discontinuance authority predicated on 

meeting certain adequacy standards but 

fails to abide by those commitments? 

Should an applicant that seeks to 

discontinue a retail service be entitled 

to streamlined treatment and/or 

approval if a competitor offers a service 

that meets the criteria that we identify 

for an adequate substitute? What are the 

costs and benefits of this and other 

approaches to implementing criteria for 

adequacy of substitutes? We emphasize 

that we seek to develop technologyneutral criteria and do not wish to issue 

any technology mandates. We also seek 

comment on whether consumers expect, 

or should be entitled to expect, the same 

or equivalent functionalities from new 

services, or whether there are benefits 

from new services (e.g., more choice, 

lower cost, better features) that would 

compensate for any differences. 

85. Below we discuss several of the 

attributes identified above, but we 

emphasize that we are interested 

broadly in identification and discussion 

(including weighing of costs and 

benefits) of possible attributes that the 

Commission should consider in 

evaluating Section 214 filings 

concerning discontinuance of retail 

services. 

86. With respect to services for 

consumers with disabilities, we seek 

comment on the extent to which an 

applicant that seeks to discontinue 

support for analog services must ensure 

that its services are compatible with 

assistive devices used by people with 

disabilities, and provide notice to 

people with disabilities regarding the 

potential for disruption in service. 

(Consumers with disabilities ask the 

Commission to make sure that 

accessible features are built into the 

design of new networks and services 

from the outset, and that various 

currently accessible technologies are 

made widely available and affordable 

during and after the retirement process.) 

For example, to what extent will the 

applicant be required to identify the 

services that might be disrupted—e.g., 

home health monitoring, TTY-based 

communications—and the extent to 

which loss of support for each such 

service might have an adverse impact on 

people with disabilities, as well as its 

plans for acceptable replacements? How 

should we account for consumer trends 

in determining adequate substitutes? 

What factors affecting access by people 

with disabilities should we consider in 

defining what would constitute an 

adequate substitute for retail services 

that a carrier seeks to discontinue, 

reduce, or impair in connection with a 

technology transition? 

87. With respect to call functionality, 

what functionality is relevant? Should 

we consider only functionality related 

to voice calls (e.g., ability to use caller 

ID), or should we consider non-call 

functions as well? With regard to noncall functionality, should we consider, 

for instance, the functionality of thirdparty CPE and/or services such as home 

alarms, fax machines and medical alert 

monitors? Should we apply general 

principles or more specific technical 

standards, and in each case what 

principles or standards should we 

apply? How can we ensure that our 

evaluation of functionality is technology 

neutral? 

88. With regard to call persistence, 

what factors should we consider? 

Should we consider only voice calls or 

other forms of communication as well? 

Should we evaluate the likelihood of 

improperly dropping calls or other 

forms of communication? Should we 

consider whether there is risk of 

blocking, choking, reducing, or 

restricting traffic? (We note that the 

Bureau has issued two Declaratory 

Rulings clarifying that carriers are 

prohibited from blocking, choking, 

reducing, or restricting traffic in any 

way, including to avoid termination 

charges; and clarifying the scope of the 

Commission’s prohibition on blocking, 

choking, reducing, or restricting 

telephone traffic which may violate 

section 201 or 202 of the Act.) Are other 

criteria relevant? What metrics should 

we apply? Should we apply a minimum 

performance threshold? How can we 

ensure that call persistence will be 

sustained after a Section 214 application 

is approved? 

89. With respect to communications 

security, while IP technologies can 

produce cost efficiencies, they also can 

create the potential for network security 

risks through the exposure of network 

monitoring and control systems to end 

users. Communications network owners 

and operators have expressed a broad 

consensus that risk management 

measures are necessary to address these 

risks. Providers should implement 

security plans that can be 

communicated internally and externally 

with providers for which security 

interdependencies exist. We seek 

comment on the extent to which 

providers have implemented such 

measures; whether such implementation 

has been effective; and whether various 

providers possess understanding of 

other providers’ risk management 

measures sufficient to address collective 

risks in an interconnected IP-network 

environment. We also seek comment on 

whether the Commission should require 

demonstration, as part of the Section 

214 discontinuance process, that any IPsupported networks or network 

components offer comparable 

communications security, integrity, and 

reliability. If so, we seek comment on 

what factors would be relevant to 

making such a determination. 

90. With respect to PSAP and 911 

service, is it sufficient that a provider 

demonstrate that a substitute retail 

service available to its customers will 

offer 911 capabilities that comport with 

Commission rules? Should providers 

further affirm that the transition to such 

substitute retail service will not result in 

any reduction in 911 capability relative 

to that offered by the discontinued 

service? For example, if a provider 

supplies latitude and longitude (‘‘x,y’’) 

coordinates for fixed and portable 

wireless home phones and femtocells 

that may replace in-home wire-based 

solutions, is that equivalent to the 

provision of a validated civic address 

Automatic Location Identification 

(ALI)? What is the impact on PSAPs if 

providers take different approaches in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 465 

providing civic address ALI or just x,y 

whereas previously PSAPs have been 

expecting specific information from 

such providers? Do the issues raised in 

the 911 Policy Statement and NPRM, 

also adopted today, have any bearing on 

these questions? Although our primary 

focus is on consumer products, we also 

seek comment on what criteria we 

should apply for carriers that seek under 

Section 214 to discontinue 911 service 

to PSAPs. We also seek comment on the 

relationship between consideration of 

PSAP and 911 service pursuant to 

Section 214(a) and the 911 Policy 

Statement and Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking also adopted today. 

91. In addition to developing factors 

to guide evaluation of Section 214 

discontinuance filings, we are interested 

in learning about means by which 

carriers and other industry segments can 

work collaboratively to ensure that new 

services meet the expectations and 

needs of consumers before any 

discontinuance occurs. For example, 

ADT Security Services reports that ‘‘the 

alarm industry is working with IP 

communications service providers to 

develop technical agreements that base 

their communications on Managed 

Facilities-Based Voice Network (MFVN) 

standards’’ to ensure that alarm 

monitoring systems already in 

consumers’ homes can transmit alarm 

signals properly during emergency 

situations. We seek comment on 

progress in developing and 

implementing the MFVN standards and 

other standards or initiatives that may 

ease consumers’ transition to new 

services. Also, is there anything the 

Commission can or should do to 

facilitate the development and 

implementation of such solutions? 

2. Scope of Section 214(a) 

Discontinuance Authority and 

Wholesale Services 

92. Rebuttable Presumption. Under 

our precedent, a carrier need not seek 

Commission approval when 

discontinuing service to carrier 

customers if there is no discontinuance, 

reduction, or impairment of service to 

retail end-users. We do not propose to 

change course from this precedent. 

However, Section 214 and our 

implementing rules were designed to 

protect retail customers from adverse 

impacts associated with 

discontinuances, reductions, or 

impairments of service. As described 

above, competitive LECs play a vital 

role in serving the enterprise market. 

Where an incumbent LEC discontinues, 

reduces, or impairs a service offering 

used by competitive LECs to provide 

end users with service, this can also be 

expected to affect the competitive LECs’ 

retail customers. We seek comment on 

whether this is the case. We are 

concerned that in the absence of further 

guidance, some carriers will mistakenly 

assume that their wholesale services are 

not relied upon by competitive LECs in 

serving retail customers, and thus will 

discontinue, reduce, or impair those 

services without following the process 

mandated by the Act. We seek comment 

on whether this concern is justified. 

93. To address this potential issue, we 

seek comment on adopting a rebuttable 

presumption that where a carrier seeks 

to discontinue, reduce, or impair a 

wholesale service, that action will 

discontinue, reduce, or impair service to 

a community or part of a community 

such that approval is necessary 

pursuant to Section 214(a). This 

presumption would be rebutted where it 

could be shown that either: (i) 

Discontinuance, reduction, or 

impairment of the wholesale service 

would not discontinue, reduce, or 

impair service to a community or part 

of a community; or (ii) discontinuance, 

reduction, or impairment of the 

wholesale service would not impair the 

adequacy or quality of service provided 

to end users by either the incumbent 

LEC or competitive LECs in the market. 

We seek comment on this proposal, 

including on its costs and benefits. Is 

there any reason why we should not 

adopt this proposal? Should we modify 

it in any way? Should we evaluate the 

quality of service provided to end users 

with reference to service by competitive 

LECs in the market that use the 

wholesale service in question, or should 

we consider a different denominator of 

service providers? Is such a 

presumption consistent with Section 

214(a)? How should we confirm that an 

incumbent LEC that discontinues a 

wholesale service and declines to file an 

application has properly rebutted the 

presumption? Should we require the 

incumbent LEC to file a certification 

with the Commission identifying and 

providing the basis for its conclusion? 

Should the incumbent LEC be required 

to send a copy of this certification to its 

competitive LEC wholesale customers 

and/or make the certification public? 

What should be the format and timing 

of this certification? In the alternative, 

should the incumbent LEC be required 

to maintain a record of the facts and 

analysis it relied on to determine the 

presumption was rebutted for a set 

period of time, and if so what period of 

time? Should we instead allow the 

incumbent LEC to determine for itself 

what records to retain? 

94. Term Discount Plans. A discrete 

but related issue concerns whether a 

Section 214(a) discontinuance 

application is required when certain 

term discount plans are discontinued. 

For example, many TDM-based services 

are provided pursuant to various term 

plans for specific periods of time, such 

as one-year, three-year, five-year and 

seven-year commitment periods. In 

transitioning from TDM-based services 

to IP-based services, questions arise as 

to whether a Section 214 application is 

required with individual incremental 

changes, such as the elimination of a 

subset of the available service plans that 

reduce options for customers by 

eliminating longer term plans with 

associated higher discounts (lower 

prices) prior to elimination of shorter 

term plans. In such situations, the 

carrier may claim at each incremental 

change that, because there are other 

term plans available, the service is still 

available and thus no Section 214 

application to discontinue, reduce, or 

impair service is required. Accordingly, 

we seek comment on this situation. 

When a carrier is transitioning from 

TDM-based services to IP-based 

services, at what point in the process is 

the carrier required to file a Section 214 

application? Although the Commission 

previously has held that a change in 

rates does not constitute a 

discontinuance of a service under 

Section 214, are there any rate changes 

that might fall outside the logic of those 

decisions, and should the Commission 

change course in this situation and 

conclude that an elimination of certain 

rate options can constitute an 

impairment of service if it is part of a 

longer term transition? For instance, in 

many of the sets of term plans 

applicable to an individual service, the 

largest discounts are provided to 

customers that purchase term plans 

longer than five years. If a carrier 

pursues elimination of the term plans 

individually, eliminating the longer 

term plans first, customers’ only 

purchase options would be shorter 

length term plans at much higher rates, 

an effective rate increase. Does such a 

rate increase constitute a reduction or 

impairment of service under Section 

214, and what criteria may be helpful in 

this analysis? If not, at what point, if 

any, in the course of eliminating 

individual rate options for the same 

service is the service reduced or 

impaired, such that the carrier is 

required to seek authority pursuant to 

Section 214? We seek comment on this 

question and on the point in the 

transition at which incumbent LECs 

should be required to obtain Section 214 

authority. What are the costs and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
466 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

benefits of various approaches to these 

questions? 

95. Tariffed and Non-Tariffed 

Services. We note that there may be a 

question regarding whether a carrier is 

required to file a Section 214 

application if a non-tariffed service still 

being offered is functionally very 

similar to a tariffed service being 

discontinued. Indeed, in the past 

carriers have argued that no Section 214 

application is required when 

discontinuing a tariffed service if they 

currently offer a non-tariffed service that 

is similar to the tariffed service being 

discontinued. We seek comment on 

whether in such situations, a Section 

214 application should be required, 

because there is a service being removed 

from the tariff and whether that 

constitutes a discontinuance, 

impairment or reduction of service, and 

on the costs and benefits of possible 

approaches. 

3. Maintaining Wholesale Access to 

Last-Mile Services 

96. Competitive LECs are concerned 

that, if incumbent LECs discontinue 

TDM-based services in the transition 

from TDM to IP-based services, 

competitive LECs will lose the ability to 

access last-mile facilities necessary to 

serve their customers, such as DS1 and 

DS3 special access lines. (No 

discontinuance would affect an 

incumbent LEC’s obligations to provide 

unbundled access to loops under 

§ 51.319(a)(4) of our rules.) As noted 

above, competitive LECs use these 

facilities to serve retail customers, 

including providing packet-based 

broadband services to hundreds of 

thousands of American businesses at 

competitive prices. COMPTEL asserts 

that ‘‘the overwhelming majority of 

competition in the business broadband 

market comes from competitive carriers 

that rely substantially on last-mile 

inputs from the incumbent LEC.’’ 

Competitive LECs, like the incumbents, 

want to transition customers to next 

generation services and desire a 

transition without disruptions in service 

and on comparable terms and 

conditions. 

97. According to the competitive 

LECs, the uncertainty associated with 

the possible discontinuance of 

incumbent LECs’ legacy services and 

replacement with packet-based services 

creates competitive disadvantages and 

major concerns about the ability to serve 

present and new customers. 

Windstream, for example, argues 

competitive LECs ‘‘face the prospect of 

entering into long-term contracts on the 

assumption that they will continue to be 

able to purchase equivalent services at 

equivalent rates, terms, and conditions 

after the transition, or attempting to 

price those future unknown input 

services, rates, terms and conditions 

into their contracts.’’ While competitive 

LECs request that the Commission 

protect their access rights to these lastmile services amidst technology 

transitions, incumbent LECs are 

concerned that being required to offer 

long-term TDM arrangements may 

impede their plans to move to IP-based 

services. 

98. In this rulemaking proceeding, we 

examine the role of Section 214 of the 

Act as incumbent LECs seek to 

discontinue TDM-based service used as 

wholesale inputs. As guidance, the 

National Broadband Plan recommends 

that the Commission adopt wholesale 

access frameworks to ‘‘ensure 

widespread availability of inputs for 

broadband services.’’ 

99. The Section 214 discontinuance 

process provides for Commission 

oversight to ensure that consumers are 

fully informed of any proposed change 

to reduce or end service, and that 

adequate alternative services are 

available to them. Related to that, 

§ 63.71 of the Commission’s rules 

establishes the procedures that carriers 

must follow to obtain such Commission 

approval, including notification of 

affected customers and the filing of an 

application for approval of the proposed 

discontinuance. As incumbent LECs 

announce plans and deadlines to 

transition away from TDM-based 

services to IP-based services, the 

Commission will be called upon to 

strike the appropriate balance between 

facilitating a viable migration path to IPbased services for incumbent and 

competitive LECs, and promoting 

competition and the public interest 

within the meaning of Section 214. We 

also take this opportunity to point out 

that since Section 214(a) and the 

Commission’s discontinuance rules 

apply to common carrier and 

interconnected VoIP services, the mere 

fact that a carrier obtains 

discontinuance authorization under 

Section 214(a) for such services has no 

legal bearing on its obligation to provide 

UNEs under § 51.319 of our rules. The 

Commission has held that ‘‘the 

provision of an unbundled network 

element is not the provision of a 

telecommunications service.’’ 

100. Technology transitions must not 

harm or undermine competition. Our 

present goal is to maintain established 

rules and decisions that provide for 

wholesale access to critical inputs as we 

continue our special access rulemaking 

proceeding, along with other initiatives 

such as technology trials, to determine 

how customers are affected and whether 

rules and policies need to be modified 

in the future. Given the vital role that 

wholesale access to critical inputs plays 

in promoting competition, we seek to 

ensure on an interim basis the 

availability of last-mile services to 

competitive LECs as incumbent LECs 

begin to discontinue their legacy 

networks in the transition to IP 

technology. As a result, we tentatively 

conclude that we should require 

incumbent LECs that seek Section 214 

authority to discontinue, reduce, or 

impair a legacy service that is used as 

a wholesale input by competitive 

carriers to commit to providing 

competitive carriers equivalent 

wholesale access on equivalent rates, 

terms, and conditions. We seek 

comment on this tentative conclusion 

and how or whether it will promote the 

benefits of competition—innovation, 

investment, economic growth for the 

nation, and competitive prices and 

services for consumers. To what 

services should this apply? We also seek 

comment on the costs and benefits of 

such a conclusion—for example, how 

would it affect the incentives for 

incumbent LECs to upgrade their 

facilities? Should we require incumbent 

LECs to commit to a different standard, 

such as a ‘‘reasonably comparable’’ 

standard? We also seek comment on 

whether we should apply any standard 

that we establish as a condition on the 

grant of Section 214 discontinuance 

authority to preserve competition as we 

transition to an all-IP world or as a 

guide when considering applications. If 

applied as a condition on the grant, then 

we seek comment on the appropriate 

term. For example, should its duration 

be indefinite, or should it be dependent 

upon the outcome of our special access 

proceeding? And we seek comment on 

appropriate enforcement remedies for 

failure to comply with this proposed 

obligation. 

101. Furthermore, through seeking 

comment in this rulemaking, we seek to 

establish important ground rules that 

would facilitate the IP transition by 

establishing objective standards and 

clear criteria for applying the standard 

set forth above in advance of Section 

214 applications and narrowing the 

range of time-consuming individual 

disputes. For example, Windstream has 

suggested that when an incumbent LEC 

is discontinuing legacy services offered 

at speeds of 50 Mbps or less that the 

Commission apply six principles to 

evaluate replacement offerings as 

follows: 

(1) Price per Mbps Shall Not Increase. 

The price per Mbps of the IP 

replacement product shall not exceed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 467 

the price per Mbps of the TDM product 

that otherwise would have been used to 

provide comparable special access 

service at 50 Mbps or below. 

(2) A Provider’s Wholesale Rates Shall 

Not Exceed Its Retail Rates. An 

incumbent’s wholesale charges for the 

IP replacement product shall not exceed 

its retail rates for the equivalent 

offering. 

(3) Basic Service Pricing Shall Not 

Increase. The wholesale price of the 

lowest capacity level of special access 

service at or above the DS1 level shall 

not increase (e.g., 2 Mbps Ethernet price 

shall not exceed the DS1 price when 2 

Mbps is the lowest Ethernet option 

available). 

(4) Bandwidth Options Shall Not Be 

Reduced: Wholesale bandwidth options 

must, at a minimum, include the 

options that the incumbent offers to its 

retail business service customers. 

(5) No Backdoor Price Increases: Price 

hikes shall not be effectuated via 

significant changes to charges for NNI or 

any other rate elements, lock-up 

provisions, ETFs, special construction 

charges, or any other measure. 

(6) No Impairment of Service Delivery 

or Quality: Service functionality and 

quality, OSS efficiency, and other 

elements affecting service quality shall 

be equivalent to, if not better than, what 

is provided for TDM inputs today. 

Installation intervals and other elements 

affecting service delivery shall be 

equivalent to, if not better than, what 

the incumbent delivers for its own or its 

affiliates’ operations. 

We seek comment on each of 

Windstream’s proposed principles and 

other principles the Commission could 

use to guide its determinations of a 

functionally equivalent service with 

equivalent rates, terms, and conditions. 

Are some of Windstream’s proposed 

principles more appropriate for 

adoption in this proceeding than others? 

For each principle, should its duration 

be indefinite, or should it be dependent 

upon the outcome of our special access 

proceeding? 

102. We note that the Commission, in 

evaluating Section 214 applications, is 

called upon to examine a number of 

factors. (Those factors include: (1) The 

financial impact on the provider of 

continuing to provide the service; (2) 

the need for the service in general; (3) 

the need for the particular facilities in 

question; (40 the existence, availability, 

and adequacy of alternatives; and (5) 

increased charges for alternative 

services, although this factor may be 

outweighed by other considerations.) To 

accomplish the underlying goal of 

ensuring that competition is not 

adversely affected as incumbent LECs 

discontinue their TDM services in the IP 

transition, which the tentative 

conclusion is intended to address, we 

seek comment on whether the 

Commission should evaluate any other 

factors in the reasonable interpretation 

of Section 214. Should we consider 

revising our rules in the way we apply 

this provision? We note that many of the 

services that the incumbent LECs are 

claiming would replace TDM offerings 

currently are not offered pursuant to 

tariffs and therefore, lack the 

transparency and section 203 

protections that purchasing a tariffed 

service provides. How should the 

Commission take these differences into 

account in considering whether these 

services are adequate substitutes? 

103. In addition, we seek comment on 

whether we should consider revising 

§ 63.71 of the Commission’s rules that 

establish the procedures that carriers 

should follow to obtain Section 214 

approval, including notification of 

affected customers. We recognize that 

incumbent LECs and wholesale 

customers may be at different stages of 

moving to IP-based services. Incumbent 

LECs argue that without the ability to 

discontinue long-term TDM-based 

offerings, their transition plans to IP 

services may be impeded. Meanwhile, 

competitive LECs express concerns that 

‘‘wholesale customers need significant 

lead time so that they can both plan for 

the necessary changes to their products 

as well as prepare their customers for 

changes to offerings dependent upon 

ILEC last-mile facilities.’’ Therefore, we 

seek comment on what is sufficient 

notice for competitive LECs when there 

is a discontinuance, reduction, or 

impairment of service in a transitioning 

market. In particular, how much lead 

time is needed for a competitive LEC to 

move its customers to alternative service 

arrangements absent disruptions in 

service while not unduly impeding the 

incumbent LEC’s ability to transition? 

Additionally, many competitive LECs 

currently purchase wholesale inputs 

pursuant to long-term tariffs and other 

agreements that contain early 

termination penalties. How should such 

terms be treated when the provisioning 

carrier is seeking to end provisioning a 

service and the purchasing carrier needs 

to move to alternative services and/or 

providers in order to continue providing 

its retail offering? We seek comment on 

both the timing and form of notice. Does 

the sufficiency of the notice depend on 

how many of the competitive LEC(s) 

customers will have to be moved as a 

result of the discontinued, reduced, or 

impaired service? 

IV. Procedural Matters 

A. Ex Parte Presentations 

104. The proceeding this document 

initiates shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance 

with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making ex parte presentations 

must file a copy of any written 

presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

B. Filing Instructions 

105. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of 

the Commission’s rules, interested 

parties may file comments and reply 

comments on or before the dates 

indicated on the first page of this 

document. Comments may be filed by 

paper or by using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
468 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

accessing the ECFS: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. Because more 

than one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

106. This document contains 

proposed new and modified information 

collection requirements. The 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 

invites the general public and the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) to 

comment on the information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on 

how we might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

107. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the 

Commission has prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities of the policies 

and rules proposed in the NPRM. The 

analysis is found below. We request 

written public comment on the analysis. 

Comments must be filed in accordance 

with the same deadlines as comments 

filed in response to the NPRM and must 

have a separate and distinct heading 

designating them as responses to the 

IRFA. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, will send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

E. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

1. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission 

has prepared this present Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities by the policies 

and rules proposed in this Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making (Notice). Written 

public comments are requested on this 

IRFA. Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines for comments provided 

in paragraph [insert] of this Notice. The 

Commission will send a copy of this 

Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the Notice and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

F. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

2. The Notice proposes new steps to 

address competition and consumer 

protection issues in connection with 

copper retirement, service transitions, 

and related issues. The Commission has 

recognized that the Nation’s 

communications networks are in the 

midst of a technological revolution 

involving the transition from a network 

based on time-division multiplexed 

(TDM) circuit-switched voice services 

running on copper loops to an allInternet Protocol (IP) multi-media 

network using copper, co-axial cable, 

wireless, and fiber as physical 

infrastructure. The Commission has also 

recognized the need to ensure our core 

values as we move further toward the 

tipping point of the technology 

transition. Thus, the Commission seeks 

comment on a variety of issues in the 

following areas. 

3. First, the Notice proposes and seeks 

comment on steps the Commission 

could take to safeguard continuity of 

communications throughout a power 

outage, including the possible adoption 

of new rules in this area. 

4. Second, the Notice seeks comment 

on a proposed definition of copper 

retirement that includes within its 

purview copper loops, subloops, and 

the feeder portion of the loop, and the 

removing and disabling of those loops, 

subloops and feeder portion of the 

loops. 

5. Third, the Notice seeks comment 

on whether and how the Commission’s 

rules should ensure that incumbent 

LECs maintain copper facilities for 

which they have not undergone the 

retirement process. The Notice also 

seeks comment on whether and how the 

Commission should revise its rules to 

address inadequate maintenance, 

including whether to define retirement 

to include de facto retirement, i.e., 

failure to maintain copper that is the 

functional equivalent of removal or 

disabling. 

6. Fourth, the Notice seeks comment 

on modifications to the Commission’s 

existing network change disclosure 

rules. These rule revisions would 

expand notice, comment, and objection 

requirements for notices of network 

change. Specifically, the Notice seeks 

comment on whether to: (1) Encompass 

the feeder portion of copper loops and 

subloops in the rules; (2) require direct 

notification to all interconnecting 

carriers plus a public notice filed with 

the Commission; (3) extend the 

minimum time for providing notice of 

copper retirements; (4) expand the 

notice requirement to retail customers; 

(5) allow incumbent LECs to use written 

or electronic notice such as email to 

provide notice to retail customers of a 

planned copper retirement; (6) impose 

minimum requirements for the content 

of notices to retail customers; (7) require 

incumbent LEC to maintain records of 

customer notifications for some period 

of time; (8) prohibit incumbent LECs 

from including in notice to retail 

customers any statement attempting to 

encourage the purchase of a service 

other than the service to which the 

customer currently subscribes; (8) 

require that retail customers be given 

the same amount of notice as we 

propose to provide to interconnected 

providers in connection with copper 

retirement notices; (9) require that the 

incumbent LEC file a certificate of 

service with the Commission that 

includes all of the following: (i) A 

statement that identifies the proposed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 469 

changes; (ii) a statement that public 

notice has been given in compliance 

with the rule; (iii) if an incumbent LEC 

provides public notice other than by 

filing with the Commission, a statement 

identifying the location of the change 

information and describing how this 

information can be obtained; (iv) a 

statement that, at least five business 

days in advance of its filing with the 

Commission, the incumbent LEC served 

a copy of its public notice upon each 

interconnecting telephone exchange 

service provider; (v) the name and 

address of each interconnecting 

provider upon which written 

notification was served; (vi) a statement 

that, at least five business days in 

advance of its filing with the 

Commission, the incumbent LEC served 

the required direct notice upon all 

affected retail customers; (vii) a copy of 

the written notice provided to affected 

retail customers; and (viii) a statement 

that the incumbent LEC notified and 

submitted a copy of its public notice to 

the public utility commission and to the 

Governor of the State in which the 

network change is proposed, and also to 

the Secretary of Defense; and (10) allow 

retail customers the opportunity to 

publicly comment on copper retirement 

notices. 

7. Fifth, the Notice seeks comment on 

whether and how the Commission 

should take action to promote the sale 

or auction of copper prior to retirement. 

The Notice seeks to gauge the level of 

interest by competitive providers and 

others in purchasing copper facilities 

that incumbents intend to retire, 

including under what terms and in what 

circumstances would they be interested 

in purchasing copper facilities. The 

Notice also seeks comment on whether 

and how the Commission should 

encourage the voluntary sale or auction 

of copper. 

8. Sixth, seeks comment on whether 

the Commission should update its rules 

to define what would constitute an 

adequate substitute for a retail service 

that a carrier seeks to discontinue, 

reduce, or impair. 

9. Seventh, the Notice seeks comment 

on establishing a rebuttable 

presumption that where a carrier seeks 

to discontinue, reduce, or impair a 

wholesale service, that action will 

discontinue, reduce, or impair service to 

a community or part of a community 

such that approval is necessary 

pursuant to Section 214(a). The Notice 

also seeks comment on whether a 

Section 214(a) discontinuance 

application is required when certain 

term discount plans are discontinued. 

And the Notice seeks comment on 

whether a carrier is required to file a 

Section 214 application if a non-tariffed 

service still being offered is functionally 

very similar to a tariffed service being 

discontinued. 

10. Finally, with respect to 

competitive access to wholesale lastmile services, this Notice tentatively 

concludes that we should require 

incumbent LECs that seek Section 214 

authority to discontinue, reduce, or 

impair a legacy service that is used as 

a wholesale input by competitive 

providers to commit to providing 

competitive carriers equivalent 

wholesale access on equivalent rates, 

terms, and conditions. 

G. Legal Basis 

11. The proposed action is authorized 

under sections 1, 2, 4(i), 214, and 251 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

214, and 251. 

H. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

12. 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 proposed rules, if adopted. 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. 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. 

13. The majority of our proposals in 

the Notice will affect obligations on 

incumbent LECs. Other entities, 

however, that choose to object to 

network change notification for copper 

retirement under our new proposed 

rules may be economically impacted by 

the proposals in this Notice. 

14. Small Businesses. Nationwide, 

there are a total of approximately 28.2 

million small businesses, according to 

the SBA. 

15. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. 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 2007 shows that there were 31,996 

establishments that operated that year. 

Of those 31,996, 1,818 operated with 

more than 100 employees, and 30,178 

operated with fewer than 100 

employees. Thus, under this size 

standard, the majority of firms can be 

considered small. 

16. 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 size standard under SBA 

rules is for Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. According to 

Commission data, Census data for 2007 

shows that there were 31,996 

establishments that operated that year. 

Of those 31,996, 1,818 operated with 

more than 100 employees, and 30,178 

operated with fewer than 100 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of local exchange service are 

small entities that may be affected by 

the rules and policies proposed in the 

Notice. 

17. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers (incumbent LECs). Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a size standard for small businesses 

specifically applicable to incumbent 

local exchange services. The closest 

applicable size standard under SBA 

rules is for Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. According to 

Commission data, 1,307 carriers 

reported that they were incumbent local 

exchange service providers. Of these 

1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 

1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have 

more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that most providers of 

incumbent local exchange service are 

small businesses that may be affected by 

rules adopted pursuant to the Notice. 

18. We have included small 

incumbent LECs in this present RFA 

analysis. As noted above, a ‘‘small 

business’’ under the RFA is one that, 

inter alia, meets the pertinent small 

business size standard (e.g., a telephone 

communications business having 1,500 

or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not 

dominant in its field of operation.’’ The 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that, 

for RFA purposes, small incumbent 

LECs are not dominant in their field of 

operation because any such dominance 

is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. We have 

therefore included small incumbent 

LECs in this RFA analysis, although we 

emphasize that this RFA action has no 

effect on Commission analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. 

19. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (competitive LECs), Competitive 

Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
470 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Service Providers, and Other Local 

Service Providers. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for these service providers. 

The appropriate size standard under 

SBA rules is for the category Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. Under 

that size standard, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

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 and 186 have more 

than 1,500 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 the 

72, seventy have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and two have more than 

1,500 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 rules 

adopted pursuant to the Notice. 

20. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a size standard for small 

businesses specifically applicable to 

interexchange services. The closest 

applicable size standard under SBA 

rules is for Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. Under that size standard, 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 these 359 companies, 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 pursuant to the Notice. 

21. 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 size standard under SBA 

rules is for Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Census data for 2007 

shows that there were 31,996 

establishments that operated that year. 

Of those 31,996, 1,818 operated with 

more than 100 employees, and 30,178 

operated with fewer than 100 

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 and five have more 

than 1,500 employees. Consequently, 

the Commission estimates that most 

Other Toll Carriers are small entities 

that may be affected by the rules and 

policies adopted pursuant to the Notice. 

22. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, 

the SBA has recognized wireless firms 

within this new, broad, economic 

census category. Prior to that time, such 

firms were within the now-superseded 

categories of Paging and Cellular and 

Other Wireless Telecommunications. 

Under the present and prior categories, 

the SBA has deemed a wireless business 

to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. For this category, census 

data for 2007 show that there were 

11,163 establishments that operated for 

the entire year. Of this total, 10,791 

establishments had employment of 999 

or fewer employees and 372 had 

employment of 1000 employees or 

more. Thus, under this category and the 

associated small business size standard, 

the Commission estimates that the 

majority of wireless telecommunications 

carriers (except satellite) are small 

entities that may be affected by our 

proposed action. 

23. Similarly, according to 

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) Telephony services. Of 

these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or 

fewer employees and 152 have more 

than 1,500 employees. Consequently, 

the Commission estimates that 

approximately half or more of these 

firms can be considered small. Thus, 

using available data, we estimate that 

the majority of wireless firms can be 

considered small. 

24. Cable and Other Program 

Distribution. Since 2007, these services 

have been defined within the broad 

economic census category of Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers; that 

category is defined as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises 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 telecommunications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies.’’ The SBA has developed 

a small business size standard for this 

category, which is: all such firms having 

1,500 or fewer employees. Census data 

for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 

establishments that operated that year. 

Of those 31,996, 1,818 operated with 

more than 100 employees, and 30,178 

operated with fewer than 100 

employees. Thus, under this size 

standard, the majority of firms offering 

cable and other program distribution 

services can be considered small and 

may be affected by rules adopted 

pursuant to the Notice. 

25. Cable Companies and Systems. 

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, of 1,076 cable 

operators nationwide, all but eleven are 

small under this size standard. In 

addition, under the Commission’s rules, 

a ‘‘small system’’ is a cable system 

serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 

Industry data indicate that, of 6,635 

systems nationwide, 5,802 systems have 

under 10,000 subscribers, and an 

additional 302 systems have 10,000– 

19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this 

second size standard, most cable 

systems are small and may be affected 

by rules adopted pursuant to the Notice. 

26. All Other Telecommunications. 

The Census Bureau defines this industry 

as including ‘‘establishments 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 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 this 

category; that size standard is $30.0 

million or less in average annual 

receipts. According to Census Bureau 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 471 

data for 2007, there were 2,623 firms in 

this category that operated for the entire 

year. Of these, 2478 establishments had 

annual receipts of under $10 million 

and 145 establishments had annual 

receipts of $10 million or more. 

Consequently, we estimate that the 

majority of these firms are small entities 

that may be affected by our action. 

I. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

27. The Notice proposes a number of 

rule changes that will affect reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements. Each of these changes is 

described below. 

28. The Notice proposes to require 

incumbent LECs to provide direct 

notification to all interconnecting 

carriers and affected retail customers of 

a network change involving copper 

retirement plus a public notice filed 

with the Commission. The Notice also 

proposes to require incumbent LECs to 

provide additional information about 

the potential impacts of proposed 

copper retirements in their notices. In 

addition, the Notice proposes to require 

incumbent LECs to file a certification 

with the Commission that includes the 

proposed network change, the 

notification to interconnecting carriers, 

and a copy of the written notice 

provided to affected retail customers. 

For other entities that wish to object to 

a proposed network change involving 

copper retirement, they may file 

objections to and comments on copper 

retirement notices. 

J. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

29. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

30. The proposals require 

notifications and information regarding 

copper retirements as well as 

certifications. Paragraph 46 in the 

primary item discusses the need to 

revise the requirements of our network 

change disclosure rules to promote 

competition and safeguard against 

copper retirements for discriminatory 

and anticompetitive purposes. The 

Notice seeks comment on the proposed 

notification requirements and 

alternative methods of communication 

such as email and company Web sites. 

31. The proposal also seeks to require 

incumbent LECs to maintain records of 

customer notifications, in whatever 

form provided, for a fixed period of 

time. The Notice seeks comment on the 

proposal. It also seeks comment on the 

appropriate retention period and on 

whether the benefits of such a record 

retention requirement outweigh any 

associated burden on incumbent LECs. 

The Commission seeks the same cost/ 

benefit analysis of its proposed 

certification requirement. 

K. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

32. None. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

33. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1–4, 201, 214, and 251 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended; 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 201, 214, 

251, and 157(a), and § 1.1 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1, that the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

adopted. 

34. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this NPRM, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 51 

Communications, Communications 

common carriers, Defense 

communications, Telecommunications, 

Telephone. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 51 as follows: 

PART 51—INTERCONNECTION 

■ 1. The authority for part 51 continues 

to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 1–5, 7, 201–05, 207– 

09, 218, 220, 225–27, 251–54, 256, 271, 

303(r), 332, 706 of the Telecommunication 

Act of 1996, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 

47 U.S.C. 151–55, 157, 201–05, 207–09, 218, 

220, 225–27, 251–54, 256, 271, 303(r), 332, 

1302, 47 U.S.C. 157 note, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Section 51.325 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(4), redesignating 

paragraphs (c) and (d) as (d) and (e), and 

adding new paragraphs (c) and (f), to 

read as follows: 

§ 51.325 Notice of network changes: 

Public notice requirement. 

(a) * * * 

(4) Will result in the retirement of 

copper, as defined in § 51.332. 

* * * * * 

(c) In addition to providing the public 

notice required by paragraph (a) of this 

section, the incumbent LEC shall notify 

and submit a copy of its public notice 

to the public utility commission and to 

the Governor of the State in which the 

network change is proposed, and also to 

the Secretary of Defense, Attn. Special 

Assistant for Telecommunications, 

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301. 

* * * * * 

(f) Notices of network changes 

involving the retirement of copper, as 

defined in § 51.332, are subject only to 

the requirements set forth in this section 

and §§ 51.329(c) and (d), 51.332 and 

51.335. 

■ 3. Section 51.329 is amended by 

redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph 

(d) and adding new paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 51.329 Notice of network changes: 

Methods for providing notice; public 

comment. 

* * * * * 

(c) The public may file comments on 

an incumbent LEC’s notice of planned 

network change. In the context of 

copper retirement, such comments must 

be filed with the Commission no later 

than the twenty-ninth day following the 

release of the Commission’s public 

notice. In all other instances, such 

comments may be filed with the 

Commission until the effective date of 

the planned network changes. 

* * * * * 

§ 51.331 [Amended]. 

■ 4. Section 51.331 is amended by 

deleting paragraph (c). 

■ 5. Add § 51.332 to read as follows: 

§ 51.332 Notice of network changes: 

Copper retirement. 

(a) Definition. For purposes of this 

section, copper retirement is defined as 

removal or disabling of copper loops, 

subloops, or the feeder portion of such 

loops or subloops, or the replacement of 

such loops with fiber-to-the-home loops 

or fiber-to-the-curb loops, as those terms 

are defined in § 51.319(a)(3). 

(b) Methods for Providing Notice. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
472 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(1) In providing the required notice to 

the public of network changes, an 

incumbent LEC must use one of the 

following methods: 

(i) Filing a public notice with the 

Commission; or 

(ii) Providing written public notice 

through industry fora, industry 

publications, or the carrier’s publicly 

accessible Internet site. 

(2) An incumbent LEC must provide 

each information service provider and 

telephone exchange service provider 

that directly interconnects with the 

incumbent LEC’s network with a copy 

of the public notice. 

(3) An incumbent LEC also must 

directly provide notice through 

electronic mail or postal mail to all 

retail customers affected by the planned 

copper retirement. 

(i) For purpose of this section, an 

affected retail customer is anyone who 

will need new or modified customer 

premise equipment or who will be 

negatively impacted by the planned 

network change. The contents of any 

such notification must comply with the 

requirements of paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(ii) Notice to each affected retail 

customer shall be in writing unless the 

Commission authorizes in advance, for 

good cause shown, another form of 

notice. If an incumbent LEC uses email 

to provide notice to retail customers, it 

must comply with the following 

requirements in addition to the 

requirements generally applicable to 

notification: 

(A) an incumbent LEC must obtain 

express, verifiable, prior approval from 

retail customers to send notices via 

email regarding their service in general, 

or planned network changes in 

particular; 

(B) An incumbent LEC must allow 

customers to reply directly to the email 

notice; 

(C) Email notices that are returned to 

the carrier as undeliverable must be sent 

to the retail customer in another form 

before carriers may consider the retail 

customer to have received notice; and 

(D) an incumbent LEC must ensure 

that the subject line of the message 

clearly and accurately identifies the 

subject matter of the email. 

(c) Content of Notice. 

(1) Public Notice. Public notice must 

set forth the information required by 

§ 51.327. In addition, the public notice 

must include a description of any 

changes in prices, terms, or conditions 

that will accompany the planned 

changes. 

(2) Retail Customers. Notification to 

retail customers must provide sufficient 

information to enable the retail 

customer to make an informed decision 

as to whether to continue subscribing to 

the service to be affected by the planned 

network changes, including but not 

limited to the following: 

(i) The information required by 

§ 51.327; 

(ii) A statement that the retail 

customer will still be able to purchase 

the existing service(s) to which he or 

she subscribes with the same 

functionalities and features as the 

service he or she currently purchases 

from the incumbent LEC, except that if 

this statement would be inaccurate, the 

incumbent LEC must include a 

statement identifying any changes to the 

service(s) and the functionality and 

features thereof; 

(iii) A statement that the retail 

customer has the right to comment on 

the planned network changes; and 

(iv) The following statement: ‘‘This 

notice of planned network change will 

become effective ninety days after the 

Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) releases a public notice of the 

planned change on its Web site. If you 

wish to comment on the planned 

network change, you should file your 

comments as soon as possible, but no 

later than thirty calendar days after the 

FCC releases public notice of the 

planned network change. You may file 

your comments electronically on the 

Commission’s Web site at [insert URL 

for ECFS], or you may file them by mail. 

If you wish to file by mail, address your 

comments to the Federal 

Communications Commission, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, Competition 

Policy Division, Washington, DC 20554, 

and include in your comments the 

statement ‘Network Change’ and a 

reference to [insert name of ILEC and 

affected geographic region]. Comments 

should include specific information 

about the impact of this planned 

network change upon you, including 

any potential loss of functionalities or 

interference with third-party devices or 

services.’’ 

(3) If any portion of a notification is 

translated into another language, then 

all portions of the notification must be 

translated into that language. 

(4) An incumbent LEC may not 

include in the notification or any other 

communication to a customer related to 

copper retirement any statement 

attempting to encourage a customer to 

purchase a service other than the service 

to which the customer currently 

subscribes. 

(d) Certification. An incumbent LEC 

must file a certification with the 

Commission that shall include: 

(1) A statement that identifies the 

proposed changes; 

(2) A statement that public notice has 

been given in compliance with 

paragraph (b)(1); 

(3) If an incumbent LEC provides 

public notice by any of the methods 

specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 

section, a statement identifying the 

location of the change information and 

describing how this information can be 

obtained. 

(4) A statement that, at least five 

business days in advance of its filing 

with the Commission, the incumbent 

LEC served a copy of its public notice 

upon each information service provider 

and telecommunications service 

provider that directly interconnects 

with the incumbent LEC’s network; 

(5) The name and address of each 

such information service provider and 

telecommunications service provider 

upon which written notification was 

served; 

(6) A statement that, at least five 

business days in advance of its filing 

with the Commission, the incumbent 

LEC served the direct notice required by 

paragraph (c)(3) of this section upon all 

affected retail customers; 

(7) A copy of the written notice 

provided to affected retail customers; 

and 

(8) A statement that the incumbent 

LEC notified and submitted a copy of its 

public notice to the public utility 

commission and to the Governor of the 

State in which the network change is 

proposed, and also to the Secretary of 

Defense in compliance with § 51.325(c). 

(e) Timing of Notice. An incumbent 

LEC must provide public notice of 

copper retirement at least ninety days 

before implementation pursuant to the 

procedures provided in paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

(f) Implementation Date. The 

Commission will release a public notice 

of filings of such notices of copper 

retirement. The public notice will set 

forth the docket number and NCD 

number assigned by the Commission to 

the incumbent LEC’s notice. Notices of 

copper retirement shall be deemed 

approved on the 90th day after the 

release of the Commission’s public 

notice of the filing, unless an objection 

is filed pursuant to paragraph (h) of this 

section or the Commission takes action 

pursuant to paragraph (l) of this section. 

(g) Interconnecting LEC Objection 

Procedures. An objection to an 

incumbent LEC’s notice that it intends 

to retire copper may be filed by an 

information service provider or 

telecommunications service provider 

that directly interconnects with the 

incumbent LEC’s network. Such 

objections must be filed with the 

Commission, and served on the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 473 

incumbent LEC, no later than the 

twenty-ninth day following the release 

of the Commission’s public notice. All 

objections filed under this section must: 

(1) State specific reasons why the 

objector cannot accommodate the 

incumbent LEC’s changes by the date 

stated in the incumbent LEC’s public 

notice and must indicate any specific 

technical information or other 

assistance required that would enable 

the objector to accommodate those 

changes; 

(2) List steps the objector is taking to 

accommodate the incumbent LEC’s 

changes on an expedited basis; 

(3) State the earliest possible date (not 

to exceed six months from the date the 

incumbent LEC gave its original public 

notice under this section) by which the 

objector anticipates that it can 

accommodate the incumbent LEC’s 

changes, assuming it receives the 

technical information or other 

assistance requested under paragraph 

(h) of this section; 

(4) Provide any other information 

relevant to the objection; and 

(5) Provide the following affidavit, 

executed by the objector’s president, 

chief executive officer, or other 

corporate officer or official, who has 

appropriate authority to bind the 

corporation, and knowledge of the 

details of the objector’s inability to 

adjust its network on a timely basis: 

‘‘I, (name and title), under oath and 

subject to penalty for perjury, certify 

that I have read this objection, that the 

statements contained in it are true, that 

there is good ground to support the 

objection, and that it is not interposed 

for purposes of delay. I have appropriate 

authority to make this certification on 

behalf of (objector) and I agree to 

provide any information the 

Commission may request to allow the 

Commission to evaluate the truthfulness 

and validity of the statements contained 

in this objection.’’ 

(h) Responses to Objections. If an 

objection is filed, an incumbent LEC 

shall have until no later than the 

sixtieth business day following the 

release of the Commission’s public 

notice to file with the Commission a 

response to the objection and to serve 

the response on all parties that filed 

objections. An incumbent LEC’s 

response must: 

(1) Provide information responsive to 

the allegations and concerns identified 

by the objectors; 

(2) State whether any implementation 

date(s) proposed by the objector(s) are 

acceptable; 

(3) Indicate any specific technical 

assistance that the incumbent LEC is 

willing to give to the objectors; and 

(4) Provide any other relevant 

information. 

(i) Resolution of Objections to Timing. 

If an objection based on timing is filed 

pursuant to paragraph (h) of this 

section, then the Chief, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, will issue an order 

determining a reasonable public notice 

period, provided however, that if an 

incumbent LEC does not file a response 

within the time period allotted, or if the 

incumbent LEC’s response accepts the 

latest implementation date stated by an 

objector, then the incumbent LEC’s 

public notice shall be deemed amended 

to specify the implementation date 

requested by the objector, without 

further Commission action. An 

incumbent LEC must amend its public 

notice to reflect any change in the 

applicable implementation date 

pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. 

■ 6. Section 51.333 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows 

and removing paragraph (f). 

§ 51.333 Notice of network changes: Short 

term notice, objections thereto. 

* * * * * 

(b) Implementation date. The 

Commission will release a public notice 

of filings of such short term notices. The 

public notice will set forth the docket 

number assigned by the Commission to 

the incumbent LEC’s notice. The 

effective date of the network changes 

referenced in those filings shall be 

deemed final on the tenth business day 

after the release of the Commission’s 

public notice, unless an objection is 

filed pursuant to paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(c) Objection procedures for short 

term notice. An objection to an 

incumbent LEC’s short term notice may 

be filed by an information service 

provider or telecommunications service 

provider that directly interconnects 

with the incumbent LEC’s network. 

Such objections must be filed with the 

Commission, and served on the 

incumbent LEC, no later than the ninth 

business day following the release of the 

Commission’s public notice. All 

objections filed under this section must: 

(1) State specific reasons why the 

objector cannot accommodate the 

incumbent LEC’s changes by the date 

stated in the incumbent LEC’s public 

notice and must indicate any specific 

technical information or other 

assistance required that would enable 

the objector to accommodate those 

changes; 

(2) List steps the objector is taking to 

accommodate the incumbent LEC’s 

changes on an expedited basis; 

(3) State the earliest possible date (not 

to exceed six months from the date the 

incumbent LEC gave its original public 

notice under this section) by which the 

objector anticipates that it can 

accommodate the incumbent LEC’s 

changes, assuming it receives the 

technical information or other 

assistance requested under paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section; 

(4) Provide any other information 

relevant to the objection; and 

(5) Provide the following affidavit, 

executed by the objector’s president, 

chief executive officer, or other 

corporate officer or official, who has 

appropriate authority to bind the 

corporation, and knowledge of the 

details of the objector’s inability to 

adjust its network on a timely basis: 

‘‘I, (name and title), under oath and 

subject to penalty for perjury, certify 

that I have read this objection, that the 

statements contained in it are true, that 

there is good ground to support the 

objection, and that it is not interposed 

for purposes of delay. I have appropriate 

authority to make this certification on 

behalf of (objector) and I agree to 

provide any information the 

Commission may request to allow the 

Commission to evaluate the truthfulness 

and validity of the statements contained 

in this objection.’’ 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–30776 Filed 1–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

49 CFR Part 1250 

[Docket No. EP 724 (Sub-No. 4)] 

United States Rail Service Issues— 

Performance Data Reporting 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board 

(the Board or STB), Department of 

Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Through this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, the Board is 

proposing to establish new regulations 

requiring all Class I railroads and the 

Chicago Transportation Coordination 

Office (CTCO), through its Class I 

members, to report certain service 

performance metrics on a weekly basis. 

DATES: Comments are due by March 2, 

2015. Reply comments are due by April 

29, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and replies may 

be submitted either via the Board’s efiling format or in the traditional paper 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS