Reducing Barriers to Network Improvements and Service Changes

ions 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.

Synopsis

I. Discussion

A. Copper Retirement (and Other Network Change Disclosures)

1. Section 251(c)(5) of the Act, which establishes incumbent local exchange carriers' (LECs) obligations when making changes that could affect the interoperability of their facilities or networks, is a notice-only provision. An incumbent LEC may thus make changes to its network, including switching from copper facilities to fiber or other next-generation facilities, without the need to receive prior Commission authorization so long as it provides “reasonable public notice”—a requirement the Commission historically has reflected in its implementing rules. Consistent with section 251(c)(5), the Commission's implementing rules require that an incumbent LEC provide public notice regarding any network change that (1) will affect a competing service provider's performance or ability to provide service; (2) will affect the incumbent LEC's interoperability with

other service providers; or (3) will result in a copper retirement

nnected service providers. Pursuant to the waiver, incumbent LECs are only required to post public notice of planned network changes through industry fora, industry publications, or on the carrier's publicly accessible internet site. Incumbent LECs are still required to provide direct notice of copper retirements and short-term network changes to interconnected telephone exchange service providers. Additionally, incumbent LECs must continue to provide public notice and communicate directly with interconnected telephone exchange service providers about network changes resulting from force majeure events and other events outside of the carrier's control.

3. The Bureau found that this waiver would result in “more effective implementation of overall policy” of the transition from legacy networks to next-generation networks. It also concluded that by reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, as contemplated by the First Wireline Infrastructure Order (82 FR 61520 (11/28/2017)), the waiver would serve the public interest by freeing up incumbent LEC resources to devote to the development and deployment of networks capable of supporting more advanced communications services. The Bureau noted that over the past two years, the Commission has processed more than 400 network change disclosure filings and did not receive a single comment in opposition despite the public notices released by the Bureau. The Bureau thus concluded that the requirement of filing with the Commission “serve[s] no purpose but to unnecessarily duplicate the information that incumbent LECs are already required to publicly post on their websites or in other public places.”

1. Codify Waiver of Network Change Disclosure Filing Requirements

4. We propose to eliminate all filing requirements with the Commission currently set forth in our network change disclosure rules. We seek comment on this proposal.

5

no purpose but to unnecessarily duplicate the information that incumbent LECs are already required to publicly post on their websites or in other public places.”

1. Codify Waiver of Network Change Disclosure Filing Requirements

4. We propose to eliminate all filing requirements with the Commission currently set forth in our network change disclosure rules. We seek comment on this proposal.

5. What benefit, if any, does the public gain from requiring incumbent LECs to file their network change disclosures with the Commission? What benefit, if any, does the public gain from public notices released by the Commission notifying the public of incumbent LEC network change disclosures? Conversely, what costs do incumbent LECs incur in connection with these requirements? What would be the likely cost savings to carriers from eliminating all of these filing requirements? Does eliminating all filing requirements, while maintaining public notice requirements consistent with section 251(c)(5), meaningfully reduce the regulatory burdens on carriers? Does publishing public network change disclosures through carriers' own channels, and not with the Commission, provide reasonable public notice, as required by section 251(c)(5) of the Act?

2. Forbearance From All Section 251(c)(5) Requirements

6. As an alternative to our proposal to eliminate all network change disclosure filing and associated requirements, we seek comment on whether we should instead forbear from all public notice requirements imposed by section 251(c)(5) and our implementing rules.

7. Section 251(c)(5)'s “reasonable public notice” requirement ensures that all providers are aware of changes that may affect a carrier's ability to provide service. Congress enacted section 251(c)(5) as one of a number of market-opening provisions at a time when incumbent LECs held a virtual monopoly in the communications marketplace

s well as of any other changes that would affect the interoperability of those facilities and networks” still necessary to ensure that incumbent LECs' practices are just and reasonable and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory? If the requirement continues to be necessary, why and to what extent? Do incumbent LECs still exert sufficient control over the marketplace such that an incumbent LEC providing no notice of changes to its network would unreasonably inhibit competing service providers? Would interconnected telephone exchange service providers be adversely affected by receiving no notice of short-term network changes or copper retirements? Do interconnection agreements between incumbent LECs and competitive providers contain notice requirements that make section 251(c)(5)'s requirements redundant?

10. Ensuring protection of consumers (section 10(a)(2)). We seek comment on whether enforcement of the public notice requirements in section 251(c)(5) and our implementing rules is necessary to protect consumers, understanding that the notice is directed to interconnecting carriers that are in a business relationship with the incumbent LEC. Would consumers be harmed were we to forbear from section 251(c)(5)'s public notice requirement and the Commission's rules implementing that requirement? Have incumbent LEC network changes affected other carriers' ability to provide services to their customers and, if so, how often and in what ways? In instances where carriers' ability to provide services has been affected, how long have such disruptions lasted? Were consumers harmed as a result of such disruptions and, if so, what was the extent of those harms? Do interconnection agreements between incumbent LECs and competitive LECs provide sufficient protection for consumers?

11. Consistent with the public interest (section 10(a)(3)). We seek comment on whether forbearance from section 251(c)(5)'s requirements would be consistent with the public interest

requirements. Such applications are automatically granted on a specified date unless the Bureau has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective. Under such streamlined processing, a discontinuance application is automatically granted on the 31st day (for non-dominant carriers) or the 60th day (for dominant carriers) after the Bureau accepts the application for filing. The Bureau has the discretion to remove an application from streamlined processing “when the public interest demands a more searching review.” The Bureau will generally authorize the discontinuance “unless it is shown that customers would be unable to receive service or a reasonable substitute from another carrier or that the public convenience is otherwise adversely affected.” In evaluating whether “the public convenience and necessity is otherwise adversely affected” by the discontinuance, the Commission has long applied a five-factor balancing test. This test analyzes: (1) the financial impact on the common carrier of continuing to provide the service; (2) the need for the service in general; (3) the need for the particular facilities in question; (4) increased charges for alternative services; and (5) the existence, availability, and adequacy of alternatives.

15. Technology Transitions Discontinuances. The Commission defines a “technology transition” as “any change in service that would result in the replacement of a wireline TDM-based voice service with a service using a different technology or medium for transmission to the end user, whether internet Protocol (IP), wireless, or another type.” In the 2016 Technology Transitions Order (81 FR 62632 (09/12/2016)), the Commission adopted an updated approach for section 214 applications involving technology transitions, having determined that the adequacy of the replacement service has “heightened importance” in the context of technology transitions

for transmission to the end user, whether internet Protocol (IP), wireless, or another type.” In the 2016 Technology Transitions Order (81 FR 62632 (09/12/2016)), the Commission adopted an updated approach for section 214 applications involving technology transitions, having determined that the adequacy of the replacement service has “heightened importance” in the context of technology transitions. It thus established the three-prong Adequate Replacement Test, which a carrier must meet to be eligible for streamlined treatment and automatic grant for their own replacement service. Under the Adequate Replacement Test, technology transitions discontinuance applications must: (1) demonstrate that an adequate replacement for their voice service exists “by either certifying or showing, based on the totality of the circumstances, that one or more replacement service(s) . . . offers substantially similar levels of network infrastructure and service quality”; (2) “show the replacement service complies with regulations regarding the availability and functionality of 911 service for consumers and public safety answering points”; and (3) show that the replacement service “offers interoperability with key applications and functionalities.” Applicants relying on a third-party replacement service rather than their own replacement service are allowed to make a prima facie showing based on publicly available information that the third-party service is an adequate replacement. With this test, the Commission sought “to minimize uncertainty or confusion that could slow or even discourage technology transitions.”

16. In the June 2018 Second Wireline Infrastructure Order (83 FR 31659 (07/09/2018)), in furtherance of its commitment to accelerate the transition to next-generation networks and advanced communications services, the Commission amended its technology transitions discontinuance rules to provide an additional, more streamlined option, the Alternative Options Test, for carriers seeking to discontinue legacy voice services

e wireless service; (3) a voice service offered pursuant to an obligation from one of the Commission's modernized high-cost support programs; (4) a voice service that has been available from the applicant throughout the affected service area for the previous six months and for which the carrier has at least a certain number of existing subscribers; or (5) a widely adopted alternative voice service. We seek comment on this proposal, and on whether we should consider streamlined processing in any other instances, including those listed in the forbearance section below.

19. Proposal generally. We first seek comment on our proposal generally. Do commenters agree that we should replace both the Adequate Replacement Test and the Alternative Options Test with a single, consolidated rule applicable to all technology transition discontinuance applications? Should we retain the definition of “technology transition” in § 63.60(i) of our rules, or should we adopt a different definition? If commenters believe we should adopt a different definition, what should that definition be? Do commenters believe either the Adequate Replacement Test or the Alternative Options Test—whether with possible targeted revisions as contemplated below, or as they stand today—provides any benefit to carriers seeking to discontinue legacy voice services as part of a technology transition, or to consumers? We note that in spite of the Commission's goal that consumers receive the benefits of technology transitions with “all reasonable efficiency,” the first discontinuance application seeking streamlined processing under the Adequate Replacement Test without relying on the existence of a third-party cable VoIP service was filed in July 2024, almost eight years after the Commission adopted the test, and six years after its effective date

ion's goal that consumers receive the benefits of technology transitions with “all reasonable efficiency,” the first discontinuance application seeking streamlined processing under the Adequate Replacement Test without relying on the existence of a third-party cable VoIP service was filed in July 2024, almost eight years after the Commission adopted the test, and six years after its effective date. Is this evidence that the Adequate Replacement Test, rather than supporting the Commission's goal of accelerating the transition to IP-based voice services, actually “impede[s] the industry from a prompt transition to newer technologies”?

20. We seek comment on whether the Alternative Options Test has had the intended effect of “[r]emoving regulatory barriers causing unnecessary costs or delay when carriers seek to transition from legacy networks and services to broadband networks and services,” or whether, as USTelecom argues, it has “fallen short of the Commission's intent”? As discussed further below, the Bureau concurred with USTelecom's assertion that “in the nearly seven years since the Alternative Options Test . . . was adopted, the Wireline Competition Bureau . . . has found that presumptive streamlined treatment under the . . . test was available only eight times” and thus adopted a limited waiver of the word “stand-alone” in the Alternative Options Test. Do commenters think this waiver is sufficient to enable the test, as USTelecom states, “to align . .

seven years since the Alternative Options Test . . . was adopted, the Wireline Competition Bureau . . . has found that presumptive streamlined treatment under the . . . test was available only eight times” and thus adopted a limited waiver of the word “stand-alone” in the Alternative Options Test. Do commenters think this waiver is sufficient to enable the test, as USTelecom states, “to align . . . with the Commission's aims”? Or, would the replacement of both this test and the Adequate Replacement Test with a single, consolidated rule more effectively accelerate and streamline the technology transitions discontinuance process while providing adequate protection to consumers? Are there any other considerations that we should take into account regarding the adoption of a single, consolidated rule, particularly regarding the potential impact on consumers? We also seek comment on the extent to which our proposal ensures that subscribers maintain ready access to emergency services via 911.

21. Specified replacement services. We seek comment on our proposal to adopt five specific options for services that would each satisfy the applicant's requirement to certify that a replacement service exists throughout the affected service area. As is already the case under our rules, customers would have the opportunity to comment on or object to the discontinuance application, 47 CFR 63.71(a)(5), and Commission staff would have the discretion to remove an application from streamlined processing if they determine the application requires a more thorough review

ertify that a replacement service exists throughout the affected service area. As is already the case under our rules, customers would have the opportunity to comment on or object to the discontinuance application, 47 CFR 63.71(a)(5), and Commission staff would have the discretion to remove an application from streamlined processing if they determine the application requires a more thorough review. Would adopting any of the options enumerated above adversely impact the current or future public convenience and necessity? In 2016, the Commission declined to adopt presumptions or exclusions regarding specific types of replacement services “because our public interest analysis demands that applicants provide objective evidence showing a replacement service will provide quality service and access to needed applications and functionalities.” The Commission noted that 911 service is a critical application that must remain available and fully functional as part of any technology transition. The Commission also noted that “it is critical that we retain the ability to examine each discontinuance application given the potential for variability in different implementations of the same technology,” adding that “[t]he same technology could nonetheless utilize different features, be produced by different vendors with different methodologies, and use different quality measurement techniques, any of which could result in varied service quality and thus lead to potential interoperability issues.” Do commenters agree that, over the course of nearly a decade, these concerns have become less relevant or irrelevant? In 2018, the Commission considered whether to replace the Adequate Replacement Test with a simple requirement that a discontinuing carrier show that any fixed or mobile voice service, including interconnected VoIP, is available to qualify for streamlined treatment

rability issues.” Do commenters agree that, over the course of nearly a decade, these concerns have become less relevant or irrelevant? In 2018, the Commission considered whether to replace the Adequate Replacement Test with a simple requirement that a discontinuing carrier show that any fixed or mobile voice service, including interconnected VoIP, is available to qualify for streamlined treatment. The Commission declined to do so, stating that such a rule would “fail[] to ensure the availability of a voice replacement service in the community as a condition to obtaining streamlined treatment that sufficiently addresses commenters' concerns . . . about the characteristics of the replacement voice service, and [would] not carry the added benefit of ensuring the availability of multiple alternatives to affected customers, whether present or future.” Given the state of the voice service marketplace today, are such concerns still relevant? If so, do commenters think that our proposed rule, including any or all of the proposed options, addresses these concerns? Are the answers to these questions the same when the customers include critical infrastructure industries and government agencies that provide or support critical operations or services? Are the answers to these questions the same for any other types of customers or communities? How do prices for these various types of services compare to prices for legacy wireline services?

22. Adequacy of facilities-based interconnected VoIP service. We seek comment on adopting a rule establishing that facilities-based interconnected VoIP service is an adequate replacement for purposes of eligibility for streamlined processing. In adopting the Alternative Options Test, the Commission noted that “the stand-alone interconnected VoIP service option required to meet the . . . test

embodies managed service quality and underlying network infrastructure, and disabilities access and 911 access requirements . .

ased interconnected VoIP service is an adequate replacement for purposes of eligibility for streamlined processing. In adopting the Alternative Options Test, the Commission noted that “the stand-alone interconnected VoIP service option required to meet the . . . test

embodies managed service quality and underlying network infrastructure, and disabilities access and 911 access requirements . . . .” In the Stand-Alone and Single Service Waiver Order, however, the Bureau pointed to the improvements in technology and the “new and innovative communications technologies and bundled service offerings that benefit consumers” that have come about since that time in waiving the Alternative Options Test's stand-alone requirement. Do subscribers to facilities-based interconnected VoIP service have comparable access to services used by individuals with disabilities and to 911? For example, how accurate is the caller location information that these interconnected VoIP services transmit to PSAPs in comparison with legacy wired voice services? And do commenters agree that the availability of “apps running solely on data networks” “obviat[e] the need or desire for stand-alone voice service”? The Bureau also pointed to evidence in the record that facilities-based interconnected VoIP service compares favorably in price on average to legacy voice services. Do commenters agree, including when facilities-based interconnected VoIP service is offered on a stand-alone basis? Is there other evidence the Commission should consider regarding the relative prices of facilities-based interconnected VoIP service and legacy voice service? Do commenters agree that facilities-based interconnected VoIP service is an adequate replacement service for legacy voice service? Do commenters believe that facilities-based interconnected VoIP service has inherent benefits or drawbacks compared to legacy voice service? If so, please state with specificity the characteristics leading to this conclusion

ected VoIP service and legacy voice service? Do commenters agree that facilities-based interconnected VoIP service is an adequate replacement service for legacy voice service? Do commenters believe that facilities-based interconnected VoIP service has inherent benefits or drawbacks compared to legacy voice service? If so, please state with specificity the characteristics leading to this conclusion. Do commenters consider the state of competition for facilities-based interconnected VoIP service to be strong in most localities? Are there any drawbacks to adopting this rule?

23. Adequacy of facilities-based mobile wireless service. We seek comment on our proposed rule establishing that a facilities-based mobile wireless service is an adequate replacement for purposes of eligibility for streamlined processing. The Wireline Competition Bureau recently granted a technology transitions discontinuance application filed by a subsidiary of Lumen Technologies, Inc. seeking streamlined treatment under the Adequate Replacement Test in which Lumen provided a showing of a 4G LTE and 5G NR mobile broadband and voice wireless service as the adequate replacement service. By proposing and seeking comment on a broader rule that a mobile wireless service is an adequate replacement to a legacy voice service, we consider whether and under what circumstances to more broadly enable discontinuing carriers to conduct a technology transition discontinuance with a type of mobile wireless service as the replacement service. Mobile telephony (mobile voice) service is a real-time, two-way switched voice service that is interconnected with the public switched network using an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless handoff of subscriber calls. As of December 2023, there were approximately 386.1 million mobile voice subscriptions in the United States

t service. Mobile telephony (mobile voice) service is a real-time, two-way switched voice service that is interconnected with the public switched network using an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless handoff of subscriber calls. As of December 2023, there were approximately 386.1 million mobile voice subscriptions in the United States. According to preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of December 2023, more people continue to live in wireless-only homes across all age groups. The Commission thus noted recently that “consumers continue to rely more heavily on mobile wireless services” and that, “thus, they have become an essential part of everyday life.” The Commission found that the three largest nationwide service providers in the marketplace have networks that they report “cover a substantial majority of the country—each reports covering at least 95% of the U.S. population and at least 68% of U.S. road miles with their 4G LTE networks, and at least 75% of the U.S. population and at least 35% of road miles with their 5G-NR networks at speeds of at least 7/1 Mbps.” Do commenters agree that we should consider mobile wireless service as an adequate replacement for legacy voice service for purposes of the section 214 discontinuance streamlined process? What are the drawbacks, if any, of adopting this rule? Is mobile wireless service network performance and pricing comparable to that of legacy voice services? If we adopt this rule, what showing should we require carriers to make to satisfy this prong of the test? The National Broadband Map reflects the coverage mobile service providers report to the FCC as part of the Broadband Data Collection

hanisms is an adequate replacement for the purposes of eligibility of streamlined processing. The federal universal service high-cost program is designed to ensure that consumers in rural, insular, and high-cost areas have access to modern communications networks capable of providing voice and broadband service, both fixed and mobile, at rates that are reasonably comparable to those in urban areas. The program fulfills this universal service goal by allowing eligible carriers that serve these areas to recover some of their costs from the federal Universal Service Fund. The Commission began modernizing its universal service high-cost support mechanisms in 2011 with the USF/ICC Transformation Order (76 FR 76623 (12/08/2011)), which established the Connect America Fund. In that Order (76 FR 76623 (12/08/2011)), the Commission required support recipients to offer broadband service in addition to the supported “voice telephony” service. The Commission requires recipients of CAF Phase II support “to offer broadband service with latency suitable for real-time applications, including Voice over internet Protocol [VoIP], and usage capacity that is reasonably comparable to comparable offerings in urban areas, at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates for comparable offerings in urban areas. In the intervening years, the Commission established additional mechanisms to support voice- and broadband-capable networks, including, among others, the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) and the 5G Fund. Support recipients of these mechanisms must offer voice telephony at rates that are reasonably comparable to urban rates and must report compliance with their deployment

obligations showing where they have built out the required facilities and offer voice and broadband service

e- and broadband-capable networks, including, among others, the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) and the 5G Fund. Support recipients of these mechanisms must offer voice telephony at rates that are reasonably comparable to urban rates and must report compliance with their deployment

obligations showing where they have built out the required facilities and offer voice and broadband service. Do commenters agree that we should adopt this rule? Should we limit the rule to voice service provided through specific funding mechanisms? If so, which ones and why? Is pricing for newly deployed services similar to what consumers were paying for similar legacy services? We do not propose to extend this option to include legacy high-cost support mechanisms that do not contain the same deployment reporting obligations as the modernized mechanisms. Do commenters agree with this limitation? Should we exclude from consideration voice service provided pursuant to any other high-cost support mechanisms, and if so, why? If we adopt this rule, what data source(s) should the Commission and applicants use to determine whether a particular area has voice service provided via funding from one of the modernized high-cost support mechanisms?

25. Adequacy of a carrier's already available alternative voice service. As noted above, our proposed rule states that where a carrier has already made available its own alternative voice service throughout the affected service area for a specific period of time, and for which the carrier has at least a certain number of existing subscribers, the service is an adequate replacement for the service being discontinued in that area

approach affect smaller and larger carriers, and would it affect more densely populated service areas differently than service areas with lower population density? We propose, should we adopt such a rule, to require carriers to describe the replacement service and certify that it meets the time period and subscriber count or penetration requirements.

26. Widely adopted alternative voice service. We seek comment on our proposed rule stating that a widely adopted alternative voice service that exists through an affected service area is an adequate replacement for the purposes of eligibility of streamlined processing. How should we define “widely adopted” for purposes of this rule? Should “widely adopted” relate to the number of subscribers of a given service, or a certain proportion of the service area's total number of subscribers to voice services? Given that this test would only apply in the case of a technology transition, should we make clear that the relevant subscriber population in a given service area is the population that subscribes to non-legacy voice services as measured by living units, assuming such information can be easily extrapolated from the Commission's collected data? What data sources would a provider use to demonstrate that the alternative voice service is widely adopted? Do commenters believe a different definition or measurement would be more appropriate or less burdensome, such as whether a service is widely available? If so, please provide as detailed an explanation as possible of such alternative definition or measurement. In the case of a service area that has a plurality of alternative voice services, what showing should we require discontinuing carriers to make to meet the “widely adopted” threshold? Should we instead require discontinuing carriers to provide a showing that the proportion of total subscribers of voice service in a given service area that subscribe to the discontinuing service is a minority? What, if any, other limitations should we place on such a rule?

27

ion services? We note that some next-generation services, such as interconnected VoIP, enable advanced functionalities such as next-generation 911 (NG911). The Commission has found that NG911 will help save lives by ensuring faster call delivery to 911 call centers, improved service reliability, and more accurate caller location as well as support the transmission of text, photos, videos, and data. Do commenters have any concerns about the quality, reliability, or 911 capabilities of interconnected VoIP, mobile wireless, or satellite services specifically, as compared with fixed wireline services? Should we adopt requirements regarding the provision of access to emergency services? Given that providers of interconnected VoIP and CMRS are already subject to our part 9 rules, would adopting a requirement for end-user access to emergency services capabilities for interconnected VoIP and CMRS be unnecessary? Why or why not?

b. Eliminating the Technology Transitions Discontinuance Distinction Entirely and Applying Streamlined Processing to All Discontinuance Applications

28. As an alternative to our proposal to replace the Adequate Replacement Test and Alternative Options Test with a single, consolidated rule for technology transitions discontinuances, we seek comment on whether we should instead eliminate the technology transitions distinction entirely and make all technology transitions discontinuance applications eligible for streamlined processing, pursuant to § 63.71(f)(1) of our rules. Streamlined treatment of a discontinuance application entails the automatic grant of a discontinuance application on a specific date unless the Bureau has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective. Under such streamlined processing, a discontinuance application is

automatically granted on the 31st day (for non-dominant carriers) or the 60th day (for dominant carriers) after the Bureau accepts the application for filing

ently evolved such that the distinction between legacy voice services and more advanced communications services has largely been rendered unnecessary for purposes of evaluating the impact of a discontinuance on the public convenience and necessity, such that all discontinuance applications should be eligible for streamlined processing under current § 63.71(f)(1) of our rules?

c. Forbearance

29. As an alternative to revising our rules, we seek comment on whether we should forbear, on our own motion, from applying section 214 discontinuance requirements with respect to the discontinuance of legacy voice service in some or all of the following specific instances: (1) where the discontinuing carrier has deployed a replacement network, such as fiber or fixed wireless, in the affected area over which it offers interconnected VoIP service; (2) where interconnected VoIP service is available from either the discontinuing carrier or a third-party provider throughout the affected area; (3) where voice service is available from at least one facilities-based mobile wireless service provider throughout the affected area; (4) where the discontinuing carrier has deployed a replacement voice service throughout the affected area for a specified period of time and for which the carrier has a certain number of existing subscribers; (5) where there is fixed terrestrial broadband with speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps and latency of no more than 100 milliseconds (ms) throughout the affected area; and (6) where there is low earth orbit satellite broadband service with speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps and latency of no more than 100 ms throughout the affected area. The Commission has previously found 25/3 Mbps and latency of no more than 100 ms sufficient to support over-the-top VoIP. Over-the-top VoIP is a type of VoIP traffic routed to or from an end user “over the top” of a broadband connection provided by a third party

arth orbit satellite broadband service with speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps and latency of no more than 100 ms throughout the affected area. The Commission has previously found 25/3 Mbps and latency of no more than 100 ms sufficient to support over-the-top VoIP. Over-the-top VoIP is a type of VoIP traffic routed to or from an end user “over the top” of a broadband connection provided by a third party. We also seek comment on whether we should forbear from our section 214(a) discontinuance requirements for resold services that are the subject of a technology transitions discontinuance application from the originating provider. Alternatively, should we forbear from applying the discontinuance requirements in section 214 and our rules with respect to all applications to discontinue any type of service, without qualification?

30. The Act requires us to forbear from applying any requirement of the Act or of our regulations to a telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service if we determine that: (1) enforcement of the requirement is not necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2) enforcement of that requirement is not necessary for the protection of consumers; and (3) forbearance from applying that requirement is consistent with the public interest. In making the public interest determination, we must also consider, pursuant to section 10(b) of the Act, “whether forbearance from enforcing the provision or regulation will promote competitive market conditions.” We seek comment on whether forbearing from all discontinuance requirements under section 214(a) and the Commission's implementing rules in any or all of the situations described above would satisfy each of these statutory criteria.

31. Ensuring practices are just and reasonable (section 10(a)(1))

ition to next-generation IP-based services and networks? Would forbearance from applying these requirements reduce unnecessary costs and burdens associated with discontinuing legacy voice networks and/or deploying next-generation IP-based services? Why or why not? We also seek comment on whether forbearance from applying section 214 requirements would affect consumers' access to emergency services. For example, what, if any, impact could it have on the delivery of 911 service to the extent that carriers and 911 authorities are still relying on TDM-based circuits and switches to route 911 calls during the transition to NG911? What impact, if any, would forbearance have on the transition to NG911 itself, and why? Would the forbearance impact critical infrastructure industries and government agencies responsible for providing or supporting critical operations or services?

35. Resold services. Would forbearance from our discontinuance requirements for resold services that are the subject of a technology transitions discontinuance by the wholesale provider be appropriate? INCOMPAS asserts that “a facilities-based carrier that seeks to cease offering a service pursuant to a technology transition discontinuance application is almost always the only entity capable of offering that service in the geographic areas subject to the application” and that its “members fear that if the Commission approves a facilities-based carrier's technology transition discontinuance application, resellers of the services subject to that application have no choice but to discontinue the service to their customers.” Are the facilities-based carriers conducting technology transitions discontinuances usually or always the only entity offering that service in the area? If so, how frequently is this occurring? In those situations, are our discontinuance requirements necessary for the protection of resellers' customers? Should any customer notice requirements be uniform as between facilities-based and resold services, or are there reasons that su

uing carrier has deployed a replacement network, such as fiber or fixed wireless, throughout the affected area over which it offers interconnected VoIP service, should we require that services provisioned over such replacement network be of comparable or superior quality to the service being discontinued? How would we define what constitutes “comparable or superior quality” in such instances?

38. In instances where fixed terrestrial broadband service with speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps and latency of no more than 100 ms is available throughout the affected area, are there further requirements we should consider, such as the length of time the fixed terrestrial broadband service has been in place or the number of subscribers it has?

39. In addition, or in the alternative, in any or all of the scenarios we have described above, should carriers be required to send notice to their customers informing them that their legacy voice service is being discontinued and what sort of replacement services, if any, are available throughout the affected area? Would any consumer protection concerns be obviated were we to condition forbearance relief on the requirement that resellers in such circumstances provide notice to their customers? If so, should that notice be consistent with the customer notice requirements set forth in § 63.71(a), or should they differ in some way? Should customer notices be transmitted via traditional mail, email, or some alternative means? Should the form of transmittal align with any communication preferences the consumer has indicated to their current service provider, such as mode of communication ( e.g., via email), preferred language, or accessibility needs? What information would be included in any such notice? How far in advance of a planned discontinuance should the notice be sent to consumers? Should carriers be required to furnish the Commission or other governing bodies with some similar type of notice? What form should that notice take? Should it be formal or informal?

2

nication ( e.g., via email), preferred language, or accessibility needs? What information would be included in any such notice? How far in advance of a planned discontinuance should the notice be sent to consumers? Should carriers be required to furnish the Commission or other governing bodies with some similar type of notice? What form should that notice take? Should it be formal or informal?

2. Targeted Revisions to Existing Technology Transitions Discontinuance Application Rules

40. In the event that we conclude that our proposal to replace both the Adequate Replacement Test and Alternative Options Test with a single, consolidated test for all technology transitions discontinuance applications is not appropriate, we seek comment on whether we should instead make more targeted revisions to either the Adequate Replacement Test or Alternative Options Test, or both.

a. Adequate Replacement Test

41. We seek comment on whether, if we retain the Adequate Replacement Test for streamlined processing of technology transitions discontinuance applications, we should adopt certain revisions to that test. As noted above, the Commission adopted this test because it found that “clear, streamlined criteria will eliminate uncertainty that could potentially impede the industry from a prompt transition to newer technologies.” Do commenters agree that the test has had these effects? If not, how has the test prevented the industry from undertaking such a prompt transition? Do certain prongs of the test pose barriers to rapidly seeking discontinuance authorizations for legacy services? If so, which ones, and how? Are certain prongs of the test unnecessary or redundant? If so, which ones, and how so?

42. Network Performance. We seek comment on whether we should codify the Bureau's waiver in the May 2025 Grandfathering and Technical Appendix Order and the Bureau's clarification in the Testing Clarification Order for all applications relying on the Adequate Replacement Test

M service,” and that the “customer experience with the replacement service that is substantially similar to the customer experience with the service being discontinued.” In doing so, the Commission acknowledged that “a comparison between a legacy voice service and its potential replacement is not an apples-to-apples comparison,” and that it would therefore evaluate “actual performance numbers . . . in a holistic manner to determine the overall network performance.” In light of the developments in the voice services marketplace since the adoption of the Adequate Replacement Test in 2016, is compliance with the specific testing methodology and parameters in the Technical Appendix necessary for carriers to ensure that the replacement service offers “substantially similar levels of network infrastructure and service quality as the service being discontinued?” If so, why?

44. We alternatively seek comment on whether we should eliminate the network performance prong of the Adequate Replacement Test altogether. As noted above, the Commission adopted the first prong of the Adequate Replacement Test to ensure that “the replacement service will perform as effectively as the legacy voice service.” While the Commission acknowledged that, “[f]or most data communications, a packet-switched network ( i.e., an IP network) is more efficient than a circuit-switched network ( i.e., a TDM network) because a packet-switched network does not dedicate capacity for the duration of a particular call or session,” it also cited a 2013 source that suggested that “ `real-time applications proceed far more smoothly in a circuit-switched environment, where bandwidth is guaranteed, than in a . . . packet-switched environment,' where there is extensive and constant competition for bandwidth.” We seek comment on whether these concerns about the transmission of voice calls over IP-based networks still apply today

ure such users can continue to access telecommunications relay services (TRS) in areas where legacy TDM services have been discontinued? How should the Commission ensure that users of other analog forms of TRS ( e.g., Speech-to-Speech Relay and Captioned Telephone Service) are not disconnected from services during a network transition? We note that, in December 2024, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued a public notice seeking comment on a White Paper submitted by State TRS programs, Accessibility Organizations, and academics, which argued that there is a “current compelling need for Federal and state policymakers to proactively adapt TRS obligations and programs to reflect the evolution of the country's analog telecommunications networks to IP-based networks.” Comments to the public notice were mixed, with some arguing that the use of legacy analog services is declining and the transition poses minimal problems, while others argued that transitioning to IP-based networks risks leaving some users behind. Does the Adequate Replacement Test still hold relevance specifically for users of analog TRS services? Are there other ways the Commission can protect TTY users during the transition to IP-based networks?

49. Single-Service Requirement. We next seek comment on whether we should remove the requirement that a single replacement service satisfy all three prongs of the Adequate Replacement Test. Section 63.602(b) of the Commission's rules requires applicants to show that a single replacement service (whether offered by the carrier or a third party) satisfies all three prongs of the test in order for the application to be eligible for streamlined treatment.

50. On March 20, 2025, the Bureau adopted an order waiving this requirement for a period of two years. The Bureau found that developments in the voice service marketplace and the large-scale adoption of broadband among consumers supported waiver of the single-service requirement

d party) satisfies all three prongs of the test in order for the application to be eligible for streamlined treatment.

50. On March 20, 2025, the Bureau adopted an order waiving this requirement for a period of two years. The Bureau found that developments in the voice service marketplace and the large-scale adoption of broadband among consumers supported waiver of the single-service requirement. Specifically, the Bureau noted that the “shift among consumers away from managed, stand-alone voice service to bundled voice and broadband service, which supports a near-infinite variety of over-the-top services, applications, and functionalities obviates the need for a single voice service that satisfies all three prongs.” The Bureau also found that waiver of the single-service requirement serves the public interest because it will help “free up carrier resources to devote to the development and deployment of next-generation networks.” The Bureau also noted that the fact that some “technologically advanced VoIP services may only be available in bundles with broadband, text messaging, or some other service” should not preclude an adequate replacement finding if, as is often the case, consumers would pay either the same price or less for the bundle than they did for the legacy voice service.

51. Do commenters agree with the Bureau's assessment? Have consumers experienced cost savings when transitioning from a single legacy voice service to a service bundle? How has the waiver of the single-service requirement affected carriers' plans to discontinue legacy voice services and transition customers to next-generation replacement services? Given the ever-increasing availability of over-the-top services, is it still reasonable for consumers “ `to expect a single service to provide adequate network infrastructure and service quality, performance from critical applications, and access to other key applications and functionalities,' such as fax machines, home security alarms, and analog-only caption telephone sets[?]” We seek

any difficulties or increased costs? For consumers that are transitioning, do carriers offer any introductory promotions that help offset the cost of bundled voice service? We note that consumers remain able to file comments or oppositions to discontinuance applications. Does the comment procedure provide adequate protection for consumers?

57. Expand availability of the Alternative Options Test. We seek comment on whether we should expand the Alternative Options Test to allow the existence of third-party, facilities-based interconnected VoIP service to satisfy the first part of the test rather than requiring the existence of facilities-based interconnected VoIP service offered by the discontinuing carrier itself.

58. Under § 63.71(f)(2)(ii)(A) of the Commission's rules, an applicant seeking to discontinue a legacy voice service under the Alternative Options Test must show that it offers a stand-alone interconnected VoIP service throughout the affected service area. The Commission required a showing that the discontinuing carrier itself provides interconnected VoIP service in addition to the availability of a voice service from an unaffiliated third party because it “expect[ed] customers will benefit from competition between facilities-based providers.” This competition would effectively replace the need for a discontinuing carrier to comply with the specific testing methodology and parameters required under the Adequate Replacement Test to ensure the adequacy of the replacement service.

59

lity of a voice service from an unaffiliated third party because it “expect[ed] customers will benefit from competition between facilities-based providers.” This competition would effectively replace the need for a discontinuing carrier to comply with the specific testing methodology and parameters required under the Adequate Replacement Test to ensure the adequacy of the replacement service.

59. How has this requirement inhibited the ability for carriers to rapidly discontinue legacy voice services and transition subscribers to next-generation IP-based voice services? How would revising the first part of the test to include third-party facilities-based interconnected VoIP services affect carriers and consumers? Assuming that competition has indeed worked to ensure that available voice options are adequate for consumers under the current test, and given that a carrier would still need to show that at least one other alternative facilities-based wireline or wireless voice service is available from another unaffiliated provider throughout the affected service area under the second part of the test, what effect, if any, would this change have on the quality of replacement service options? In instances where interconnected VoIP service is available from either the discontinuing carrier or a third-party provider throughout the affected area, does it matter whether the interconnected VoIP service is provided by the discontinuing carrier or a third-party provider? Why or why not?

3. Additional Revisions to § 63.71

60

ations. In doing so, the Commission concluded that “longer processing timelines for grandfathering applications are unnecessary to protect consumers from potential harm stemming from discontinuances, and that our current discontinuance rules may unnecessarily impede the deployment of advanced broadband networks by imposing costs on service providers who seek to upgrade legacy infrastructure.”

65. The Commission took additional steps to expedite the discontinuance process for legacy services the following year in the Second Wireline Infrastructure Order (83 FR 31659 (07/09/2018)), where it extended the same streamlined treatment to “applications seeking to grandfather data services with speeds below 25/3 Mbps, so long as the applying carrier provides fixed replacement data services at speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps throughout the affected service area.” The Commission concluded that by requiring carriers using this streamlined process to provide replacement data services at speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps, customers were ensured to have access to adequate alternatives. In that same Order (83 FR 31659 (07/09/2018)), the Commission extended this streamlined processing to all applications seeking to grandfather any legacy voice service, including legacy enterprise voice services. In doing so, the Commission determined that existing customers would not be harmed because they would be entitled to maintain their legacy voice services until such time as the carrier seeks to fully discontinue the grandfathered service.

66. In the March 2025 Grandfathering Order, the Bureau (1) granted blanket section 214(a) authority for carriers to grandfather any legacy voice or data service currently covered by § 63.71(k) and (l) of the rules, and (2) waived the requirement in the Commission's rules that carriers file a section 214(a) discontinuance application seeking Commission authorization in that scenario

sources for the development and deployment of those next-generation networks and services, to the benefit of consumers.' ”

68. We seek comment on whether the waiver relief granted in the March 2025 Grandfathering Order and the May 2025 Grandfathering and Technical Appendix Order should be made permanent in our rules by exempting grandfathering applications from any Commission filing requirements. How, if at all, does the waiver relief granted in the Orders reduce carriers' burdens? Given that consumers have an opportunity to comment or object when the carrier later applies to fully discontinue the grandfathered legacy service, are there any benefits to retaining the grandfathering filing requirements? If not, should we also eliminate the requirement in § 63.71(a) to notify customers when a carrier grandfathers a service? What are the benefits and drawbacks of this approach? We also seek comment on whether we should extend the blanket 214 authority granted in the March 2025 Grandfathering Order and the May 2025 Grandfathering and Technical Appendix Order to the grandfathering of all services rather than limit it solely to certain legacy services and interconnected VoIP service provisioned over copper as the Bureau did in those Orders. Do the bases on which the Bureau granted the relief in those Orders apply more broadly to all services? Are there concerns that counsel against granting blanket section 214(a) authority for carriers to grandfather any service?

69

ill be necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with the discontinuing carrier or discontinued service are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory? As noted, the Commission previously took action to expedite the streamlined processing of applications to grandfather services with speeds below 25/3 Mbps. Given the rapid decline in customer demand for such lower-speed services, are section 214(a) discontinuance requirements necessary to ensure just and reasonable charges and practices given that consumer demand for such lower-speed services is too small to exert a meaningful influence on carrier charges and practices with regards to such services? If not, please provide specific reasons. Does this analysis change when considering a higher speed threshold for lower-speed data telecommunications service, such as 45 Mbps symmetrical, or some other threshold?

72. Ensuring protection of consumers (section 10(a)(2)). In light of plummeting customer demand for lower-speed data telecommunications services, such as those with speeds lower than 25/3 Mbps, we seek comment on whether to conclude that section 214(a) discontinuance requirements are not necessary to protect consumers. Do commenters agree? Why or why not? Please provide specificity in responding to this request for comment. Does this analysis differ for speeds higher than 25/3 Mbps, whether the upper limit is 45 Mbps symmetrical or some other speed?

73. Consistent with the public interest (section 10(a)(3))

, that rely on low-speed data telecommunications services more than others, and if so, how many? Do public safety entities or their service providers have contractual notice rights that allow sufficient time to arrange substitute data transmission services without a gap in the provision of 911 service? Do the answers to any of these questions differ depending on how we ultimately define lower-speed data telecommunications services?

74. Will such forbearance foster advanced communications by providing carriers with incentives to develop and deploy higher-speed data telecommunications services? Will forbearance help promote competition in the market for higher-speed replacement services? Will granting such forbearance relief reduce unnecessary costs and burdens associated with compliance with the Commission's discontinuance rules, and free up capital needed for the deployment of next-generation networks? Is this analysis dependent on how we ultimately define lower-speed data telecommunications services and, if so, how?

75. Conditions. Are there further conditions for forbearance from applying section 214(a)'s discontinuance requirements, as well as the requirements of the Commission's implementing rules, that we should implement in instances where carriers seek to discontinue lower-speed data telecommunications services? For example, should we require that the discontinuing carrier provide fixed replacement data telecommunications service at a certain speed threshold? If so, what should that threshold be? Would it be sufficient for a replacement service to be mobile or provided via low earth orbit satellite so long as it offers a specific minimum speed and latency of no more than 100 ms? Are there compelling reasons to require that such replacement service be offered by the discontinuing carrier? Should we require that any such replacement data telecommunications service be of “equivalent quality” to the service being discontinued? How would we define what constitutes “equivalent quality” in such instances? Sho

grant period to any domestic carrier who submits a request to discontinue any service.

79. We propose to conclude that there is no material reason to limit application of the 31-day automatic grant period to non-dominant carriers given the Commission's available discretion to remove an application from streamlined processing at any time during those 31 days should it deem it appropriate to do so. We propose to conclude that 31 days is sufficient time for the Commission to consider and come to a determination as to whether a grant should be allowed to auto-grant or, instead, whether the discontinuance raises sufficient questions or concerns that it should be removed from streamlined processing prior to the expiration of the automatic grant period. In light of the backstop provided by the Commission, we propose to conclude that expanding the applicability of the 31-day automatic grant period to include all discontinuance applications is a prudent way of reducing regulatory red tape and speeding the grant of discontinuance requests while still complying with section 214(a)'s mandate to protect the public interest. We seek comment on this proposal.

80. What are the benefits and costs of applying the 31-day automatic grant period to all domestic carriers who submit a request to discontinue service? What costs, whether in terms of money or time, does the existing requirement impose on domestic carriers who are not eligible for the 31-day automatic grant period? Is there any reason not to extend the applicability of the 31-day automatic grant period to all discontinuance applications? Does the 31-day automatic grant period allow adequate time for the Commission to review discontinuance applications? We take note of the Commission's 2016 Declaratory Ruling in which it noted that “regulatory changes have restructured the marketplace in which incumbent LECs provide interstate switched access services so as to deny them market power,” leading it to “declare incumbent LECs non-dominant in their provision of interstate sw

allow adequate time for the Commission to review discontinuance applications? We take note of the Commission's 2016 Declaratory Ruling in which it noted that “regulatory changes have restructured the marketplace in which incumbent LECs provide interstate switched access services so as to deny them market power,” leading it to “declare incumbent LECs non-dominant in their provision of interstate switched access services.” Are there particular services for which certain carriers remain dominant that might warrant a longer Commission review period for determining whether the application should be removed from streamlined processing?

81. We also seek comment on the length of the existing automatic grant period for non-dominant providers. Should the 31-day automatic grant period be abbreviated to a shorter time frame? As we propose to conclude that dominant and non-dominant providers be treated equally, would commenters feel the same if we were to apply a shortened automatic grant period to dominant and non-dominant providers alike? If so, what should the automatic grant period be and why? Beyond expanding the 31-day automatic grant period to apply to all discontinuance applications, we seek comment on any additional steps we might take to further streamline the automatic grant process for applications to discontinue service.

d. Forbear From Requirement To Notify State Governor and Department of Defense

82. We seek comment on whether we should forbear from section 214(b)'s requirement that domestic discontinuance applications be filed with (1) the Governor of the state in which the discontinuance is proposed, and (2) the Secretary of Defense, and that we eliminate this same requirement from our implementing rules. We seek comment on this proposal.

83

use such notice to be given, that notice requirement concerns applications to discontinue telecommunications services. In that sense, our proposed forbearance, if adopted, would be forbearance from applying section 214(b) to a telecommunications service within the meaning of section 10. We seek comment on this proposed conclusion.

84. Ensuring practices are just and reasonable (section 10(a)(1)). Is maintaining the requirement to file domestic discontinuance applications with the Governor of the state in which the discontinuance is proposed and the Secretary of Defense necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with that carrier or service are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory? Is maintaining these requirements necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, and regulations by, for, or in connection with a carrier or service are just and reasonable and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory? If so, why?

85. Protection of consumers (section 10(a)(2)). Is enforcement of section 214(b)'s requirement to file domestic

discontinuance applications with the Governor of the state in which the discontinuance is proposed and the Secretary of Defense necessary to protect consumers? When seeking to discontinue a service, carriers must notify state public utility commissions, the specific state entities charged with their regulation. Would requiring carriers to file discontinuance applications with other state or local authorities better ensure consumers are protected during a transition? What additional protection does notice to a Governor's office confer on consumers? In this era of multitudinous communications options, what protection does notice to the Secretary of Defense provide to consumers?

86. Consistent with the public interest (section 10(a)(3))

ergency discontinuance. Providers must submit an application for authority for an emergency discontinuance of service as soon as practicable but not later than 65 days following the occurrence of the conditions which occasion the discontinuance. In the case of public coast stations, notice must be given not later than 15 days following the occurrence of the conditions leading to the discontinuance. Authority is deemed granted as of the date the request is filed unless the Commission notifies the carrier otherwise on or before the 15th day after the date of filing, and our rules provide for renewal of such authority unless “the same or comparable service is reestablished before the termination of the emergency authorization” or the carrier submits an informal request for authorization to discontinue the service “for an indefinite period or permanently.”

89. Emergency discontinuances leading to no customers. We propose to revise § 63.63(b) to provide that a carrier may permanently discontinue a service upon filing a certification that (1) it has previously obtained emergency discontinuance authority, (2) the service in question is one for which the requesting carrier has had no customers or reasonable requests for service during the 60-day period immediately preceding the planned permanent discontinuance, and (3) a comparable service is available in the affected service area. In instances where a carrier has previously filed for emergency discontinuance authority, has had no customers nor reasonable requests for service for a minimum of 60 days, and a comparable service is available, we propose to conclude that there is little risk that an emergency discontinuance of service is likely to affect any existing or potential customers. We seek comment on this proposed conclusion.

90. We seek comment on the extent to which this would affect consumers, if at all

ensure that most customers are likely to have obtained substitute service, thereby obviating any resulting harm? Should the 60-day period be extended? If so, why and by how much? We note that the qualifying period for the exemption in § 63.71(g)—which governs non-emergency-related discontinuances by domestic carriers of services with no customers or reasonable requests for service—is only 30 days. In light of this, should the proposed 60-day qualifying period for § 63.63 be reduced? If so, why and by how much? We encourage commenters to be specific in their suggestions and to support their claims with as much evidence as is available.

92. Requests to permanently discontinue. We also seek comment on the processing of requests to permanently discontinue a service under § 63.63. An emergency discontinuance application is deemed granted upon filing unless the Commission notifies the carrier to the contrary on or before the 15th day after filing. Grants of emergency discontinuance authority are valid for 60 days, although a carrier may seek renewal of that authority by informal request no later than 10 days prior to the expiration of the 60-day period. Both an original emergency discontinuance application and a request for renewal are required to contain demonstration that efforts are being made or have been made “to restore the original service or

establish comparable service.” In either the initial emergency discontinuance application or the renewal request, the carrier may request authority to indefinitely or permanently discontinue the service at issue.

93. We seek comment on how the Commission should process requests to permanently discontinue service, either in an initial emergency discontinuance application or in a later informal request

lish comparable service.” In either the initial emergency discontinuance application or the renewal request, the carrier may request authority to indefinitely or permanently discontinue the service at issue.

93. We seek comment on how the Commission should process requests to permanently discontinue service, either in an initial emergency discontinuance application or in a later informal request. If a carrier submits an emergency discontinuance application that also contains a request to permanently discontinue the service at issue, should we process such a request on a streamlined basis? What benefits or cost savings would there be for carriers from this combined streamlined application? If so, what should the length of that auto-grant period be, and when should it commence? Should the auto-grant period be separate from and subsequent to the 15-day auto-grant period for the emergency discontinuance request, or should it run concurrently? What types of information should such a permanent discontinuance request contain? Should the carrier be required to indicate how the request satisfies the traditional five factors the Commission considers when evaluating a non-streamlined discontinuance application?

5. Reviewing Outdated Discontinuance Rules

94. We propose to eliminate a number of rules applicable to section 214(a) discontinuances that appear to be remnants of a bygone era. As discussed above, the communications marketplace has evolved significantly over the almost two decades since Congress last undertook significant revisions to the Act, and a thorough review of all of the Commission's rules pertaining to discontinuances is long overdue. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on any other revisions to our discontinuance rules warranted at this time.

95. Public toll stations

munications marketplace has evolved significantly over the almost two decades since Congress last undertook significant revisions to the Act, and a thorough review of all of the Commission's rules pertaining to discontinuances is long overdue. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on any other revisions to our discontinuance rules warranted at this time.

95. Public toll stations. We propose to eliminate §§ 63.60(f) and 63.504 of the Commission's rules, which pertain to the closure of public toll stations and which we propose to conclude are no longer relevant or necessary in today's communications marketplace. We seek comment on this proposal.

96. Section 63.60(f) of the Commission's rules defines the meaning of the term “public toll station” for purposes of part 63 of the Commission's rules as a public telephone station, located in a community, through which a carrier provides service to the public, and which is connected directly to a toll line operated by such carrier. Section 63.504 details the contents of an application to close a public toll station where no other such toll station of the applicant will continue service in the community and where telephone toll service is not otherwise available to the public through a telephone exchange connected with the toll lines of a carrier.

97. These rules were created more than six decades ago, at a time when public toll stations were far more prevalent, personal landlines far less prevalent, and mobile phones nonexistent. Now, with only 100,000 pay phones still remaining in America (a mere 5% of their peak of 2 million in 1999), it no longer makes sense to treat applications to discontinue this service distinctly from other types of service. We thus propose that discontinuances of public toll stations should be subject to the general provisions of § 63.71 of the Commission's rules and that we eliminate §§ 63.60(f) and 63.504 as obsolete and redundant. We seek comment on this proposal.

98. Telephone exchanges at military establishments

kes sense to treat applications to discontinue this service distinctly from other types of service. We thus propose that discontinuances of public toll stations should be subject to the general provisions of § 63.71 of the Commission's rules and that we eliminate §§ 63.60(f) and 63.504 as obsolete and redundant. We seek comment on this proposal.

98. Telephone exchanges at military establishments. We propose to eliminate the requirement that carriers file an informal request with the Commission before altering service hours at telephone exchanges at deactivated military establishments. We seek comment on our proposal.

99. Section 63.66 of the Commission's rules requires carriers to “file in quintuplicate an informal request” before closing or reducing the “hours of service at a telephone exchange at a military establishment because of deactivation of the establishment.” Authority for the closure or reduction is deemed granted on the 15th day following the filing of the request unless the Commission notifies the carrier otherwise on or before the 15th day.

100. This rule was a reflection of Congress's concern when enacting section 214 of the Act regarding “loss or impairment of service during” wartime. “Dominant carrier regulations include, among other things, requirements arising under section 214 related to transfer of control and discontinuance, cost-supported tariffing requirements, and price regulation for services falling under the Commission's jurisdiction.” Given today's modern communications marketplace and the plethora of communications services available to civilian and military establishments alike, is there any need to maintain § 63.66's requirements? When is the last time a carrier filed an informal request under § 63.66? Should we retain § 63.66, we seek comment on requiring electronic filing of the request in the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System in lieu of filing “in quintuplicate.” Is there any reason why electronic filing of such requests would be impracticable?

101

like, is there any need to maintain § 63.66's requirements? When is the last time a carrier filed an informal request under § 63.66? Should we retain § 63.66, we seek comment on requiring electronic filing of the request in the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System in lieu of filing “in quintuplicate.” Is there any reason why electronic filing of such requests would be impracticable?

101. Publication and posting of notices. We propose to eliminate § 63.90 of the Commission's rules. We seek comment on our proposal.

102. Section 63.90 requires providers filing an application or information request to discontinue or reduce hours of service at a telephone exchange to “post a public notice at least 51 cm by 61 cm (20 inches by 24 inches), with letter of commensurate size, in a conspicuous place in the exchange affected, and also in the window of any such exchange having window space fronting on a public street at street level.” Providers then must post a notice in a newspaper for two weeks in the community where the telephone exchange is located. If the provider seeks to close a public toll station, it must post a public notice in a newspaper as well. Additionally, § 63.90 requires providers to file a notice and copy of its request with the State Commission of any state where discontinuance or reduction is sought. Once a carrier has completed the requisite posting, publication, and notification, § 63.90 requires the carrier report this fact to the Commission, with specific information regarding the posting, publication, and notification.

103. Section 63.90 was enacted in 1980 as a part of the Commission's effort to update domestic public message service rules

n the window of a telephone exchange? And when was the last time a carrier posted these notices in newspapers? Is there any continuing need to require providers to post notices in accordance with § 63.90? If we eliminate this rule, would a request to discontinue or reduce hours of service at a telephone exchange be covered by § 63.71 and its notice provisions?

105. Notification of service outage. We propose to eliminate § 63.100 from the Commission's rules, which directs providers to part 4 of the Commission's rules for the requirements concerning notifications of service outages. We seek comment on our proposal.

106. The Commission's rules did not set forth any specific requirements for reporting outages or service disruptions until the Commission enacted § 63.100 in 1992. The Commission enacted § 63.100 in response to widespread telephone outages, highlighting the need to monitor outages in real time. However, the requirements originally listed in § 63.100 are now found in part 4 of the Commission's rules, and § 63.100 does not contain any substantive regulations.

107. Given that § 63.100 merely directs providers to look at part 4 of the Commission's rules for the requirements pertaining to notifications of service outages, is § 63.100 still necessary? Would eliminating § 63.100 cause confusion among providers about their service outage notification obligations?

108. Trunk lines and interchange of traffic with another carrier. We seek comment on eliminating §§ 63.500 and 63.501 of the Commission's rules.

109. Section 63.500 sets forth the required contents of applications to dismantle or remove a trunk line. Section 63.501 does the same for applications to sever physical connection or to terminate or suspend interchange of traffic with another carrier. These rules were adopted at a time when copper was the dominant transmission medium. That is no longer the case. Indeed, no domestic applications relying on either of these provisions have been filed for at least two decades

bject to section 214, as non-dominant carriers, for the provision of new service or discontinuance of existing service.

112. In keeping with that forbearance, the Commission modified part 63 of its rules to eliminate provisions addressing impairment or discontinuance of public coast stations. While many references to public coast stations were removed, the instant rule provisions remained.

113. We tentatively conclude that these remaining provisions are no longer necessary because the only public coast stations that remain subject to section 214 and regulation under part 63 are those that provide international service. Discontinuances of international services are governed by § 63.19, which specifically provides that CMRS providers are not subject to the provisions of that section.

114. We also propose to delete the reference to “public coast stations” in § 63.63(a), applicable to emergency discontinuances. CMRS service is no longer subject to international discontinuance obligations under § 63.19, and the Commission previously forbore from discontinuance requirements for domestic CMRS service, making that reference in § 63.63(a) unnecessary and irrelevant. For the same reasons, and because it relies upon a previously eliminated rule, we also propose to delete § 63.601.

115. We also propose to eliminate references to public coast stations in the definitions in §§ 63.60(b)(1) and (2) and 63.60(c). The references in § 63.60(b)(1) and (2) appear to be unnecessary to operation of the rules now applicable to public coast stations providing international service. Moreover, the existing references can be misleading. Section 63.60(b)(1) cross-references the definition of public coast stations in § 80.5 that is simply a general description applicable to all public coast stations, without any indication of the limitation for the purposes of part 63 to only such stations providing international service

e to public coast stations providing international service. Moreover, the existing references can be misleading. Section 63.60(b)(1) cross-references the definition of public coast stations in § 80.5 that is simply a general description applicable to all public coast stations, without any indication of the limitation for the purposes of part 63 to only such stations providing international service. Section 63.60(c) includes public coast stations in defining “[e]mergency discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service” and specifies a “reasonable time” for outage of public coast stations, at the same time pertinent rule provisions applicable to international service are in § 63.25 (Special provisions relating to temporary or emergency service by international carriers). We specifically seek comment on whether the public coast stations provision of § 63.60(c) conflicts with § 63.25 and should be deleted or modified, or whether it should be retained. Also, is there any need to retain or value in retaining the provision in § 63.60(c), given the operations-specific regulations governing public coast stations in part 80? These regulations include § 80.471 (discontinuance or impairment or service of public coast stations), § 80.47 (operation during emergency), § 80.90 (suspension of transmission), §§ 80.105 and 80.106 (communication obligations of public coast stations), § 80.121(b)(1) (watch requirement for public coast

stations when using telegraphy) and subpart G of part 80 (safety watch requirements and procedures for public coast stations).

116. We seek comment on these proposed modifications, as well as any specific suggestions of other modifications or alternatives that would enhance the clarity of the rules on impairment or discontinuance of service of public coast stations.

6. Other Issues

117

t

stations when using telegraphy) and subpart G of part 80 (safety watch requirements and procedures for public coast stations).

116. We seek comment on these proposed modifications, as well as any specific suggestions of other modifications or alternatives that would enhance the clarity of the rules on impairment or discontinuance of service of public coast stations.

6. Other Issues

117. We seek general comment on any other potential revisions to our section 214 discontinuance regulations that might help facilitate the transition to next-generation networks and advanced communications services. We also seek comment on any other Federal, state, or local requirements that inhibit or impede the transition to next-generation networks and services. For example, are there any state or local requirements that would conflict with the Commission's goals of accelerating this transition by, for example, compelling carriers to continue providing legacy voice service or preventing carriers from discontinuing such service? If so, how can the Commission address such obstacles?

II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

118. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA) the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and rules proposed in this document assessing the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the document. The Commission will send a copy of the document, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the document and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

119

nd must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the document. The Commission will send a copy of the document, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the document and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

119. The document seeks to eliminate regulatory burdens in an effort to encourage providers to build, maintain, and upgrade their networks to ensure that all consumers can benefit from today's advanced communication services. Over the course of time, changes in the communications marketplace have altered how providers deliver services to consumers. To reduce regulatory burdens that hinder providers from investing in and deploying next-generation networks, we propose to eliminate all filing requirements in the Commission's network change disclosure rules by codifying the Wireline Competition Bureau's (the Bureau) NCD Waiver Order. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether the communications marketplace is sufficiently competitive such that incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) no longer exert monopoly control over the Nation's communications networks, and forbearing from the Commission's network change disclosure rules altogether. The document next proposes to simplify the discontinuance process for technology transitions discontinuance applications by consolidating rules governing discontinuance applications into one rule. We seek comment on alternative actions, such as granting forbearance from discontinuance obligations or through a targeted revision of our rules, including codifying relief granted by the Bureau.

120. We next provide options for further revision of the Commission's rules implementing the discontinuance requirements imposed by section 214(a) of the Act

30, 2024, nationwide there were approximately 2,204 providers of connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction using various wireline technologies. The Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for providers of these services, therefore, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of providers that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. However, in light of the general data on fixed technology service providers in the Commission's 2024 Communications Marketplace Report, we believe that the majority of wireline internet access service providers can be considered small entities.

126. Internet Service Providers (Non-Broadband). Internet access service providers using client-supplied telecommunications connections ( e.g., dial-up ISPs) as well as VoIP service providers using client-supplied telecommunications connections fall in the industry classification of All Other Telecommunications. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $40 million or less as small. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Consequently, under the SBA size standard a majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

2. Wireline Service Providers

127. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies

yees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

129. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

130. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees

mmission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 90 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 87 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

3. Wireless Providers—Fixed and Mobile

135. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

136. Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications Services (WCS) can be used for a variety of fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite services. Wireless spectrum is made available and licensed for the provision of wireless communications services in several frequency bands subject to Part 27 of the Commission's rules

fied in the designated entities section in Part 27 of the Commission's rules for the specific WCS frequency bands.

138. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

139. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of 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. Providers of internet services ( e.g. dial-up ISPs) or Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this

industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $40 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be considered small.

D

t further revise our discontinuance requirements, all of which would reduce reporting and compliance requirements for small entities. This would include eliminating the requirement that a discontinuation application show that a replacement service offers interoperability and compatibility with an enumerated list of applications and functionalities determined to be key for consumers and competitors. We also seek comment on whether to codify the waiver of rules requiring carriers to provide a “stand-alone” voice service to customers which would not require them to purchase a separate broadband service to access the voice service. We further propose to eliminate the requirement that a carrier seeking to grandfather a legacy service file a 214(a) discontinuance application and seek comment on extending this relief to all situations in which a carrier seeks to grandfather any service. We next seek comment on whether to grant forbearance from the requirement that carriers seeking to discontinue service notify the Secretary of Defense and relevant state Governor. The document also proposes to eliminate the distinction between dominant and non-dominant carriers related to discontinuance applications, expanding the 31-day automatic grant period to include any domestic carrier who submits a request to discontinue any service. Lastly, concerning reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements, we seek comment on granting forbearance to carriers the previously filed for emergency discontinuance authority under § 63.63 of the Commission's rules, where the carrier has had no customers for the service during the preceding 60 days.

143. We expect that the proposals in the document will decrease regulatory burdens on small and other carriers by eliminating many of the reporting and recordkeeping obligations mentioned above

arance to carriers the previously filed for emergency discontinuance authority under § 63.63 of the Commission's rules, where the carrier has had no customers for the service during the preceding 60 days.

143. We expect that the proposals in the document will decrease regulatory burdens on small and other carriers by eliminating many of the reporting and recordkeeping obligations mentioned above. While we do not anticipate that these carriers will need to hire professionals to comply with the proposals herein, we request comments specific to any potential burdens or costs small entities may incur in connection with these requirements.

E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

144. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is required to include alternatives such as: “(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 and reporting requirements under the rule for such 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 such small entities.”

145. The document seeks comment on proposals and alternatives that we expect will positively impact small entities. We seek comment on several alternatives to remove regulatory barriers and simplify requirements so that carriers can develop and deploy next-generation networks capable of supporting the advanced communication services available today, such as forbearing from the Commission's network change disclosure rules altogether

in which a carrier intends to grandfather any service, instead of the current process which requires

Commission authorization. We also consider whether we should forbear from all section 214(a) discontinuance requirements for all lower-speed data telecommunications services, including whether notice should be required to consumers or the Commission and if so, what form that notice should take. The document also considers whether to eliminate the distinction between dominant and non-dominant carriers for purposes of discontinuance applications, and requests comment on the alternative of expanding the current 31-day automatic grant period for non-dominant carriers to include any domestic carrier who submits a request to discontinue any service. We also request comment on whether to grant forbearance from the requirement that carriers seeking to discontinue a service provide notice to both the Governor of the affected state and to the Secretary of Defense. In addition, we seek comment on alternatives to revising the emergency discontinuance requirements under § 63.63 and requests made under that rule for permanent discontinuance. Lastly, we propose a number of alternatives to eliminate various discontinuance rules that are outdated or redundant given the current communications marketplace. We seek comment on whether any of the burdens associated with alternatives that alter current filing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements described in the document can be further minimized to lessen economic impact on small entities.

147. The Commission will fully consider the economic impact on small entities as it evaluates the comments filed in response to the document, including comments related to costs and benefits. Alternative proposals and approaches from commenters will further develop the record and could help the Commission further minimize the economic impact on small entities

n economic impact on small entities.

147. The Commission will fully consider the economic impact on small entities as it evaluates the comments filed in response to the document, including comments related to costs and benefits. Alternative proposals and approaches from commenters will further develop the record and could help the Commission further minimize the economic impact on small entities. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in this proceeding will shape the final conclusions it reaches, the final alternatives it considers, and the actions it ultimately takes to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities from the final rules.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

148. None.

III. Ordering Clauses

149. Accordingly, It Is Ordered that pursuant to sections 1-4, 214(a), 251(c)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-54, 214(a), 251(c)(5), this document hereby is adopted .

150. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary, shall send a copy of this document, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 51 Communications, Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.

47 CFR Part 63 Authority delegations (government agencies), Cable television, Communications, Communications common carriers, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telegraph, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rules

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 51 and 63 as follows:

PART 51—INTERCONNECTION

1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

47 U.S.C

s outside an incumbent LEC's control.

(i) Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, if in response to circumstances outside of its control other than a force majeure event addressed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, an incumbent LEC cannot comply with the timing requirement set forth in paragraph (a)(1), the incumbent LEC must give notice of the network change as soon as practicable.

(ii) A short-term network change or copper retirement notice subject to paragraph (b)(2) of this section must include a brief explanation of the circumstances necessitating the reduced waiting period and how the incumbent LEC intends to minimize the impact of the reduced waiting period on directly interconnected telephone exchange service providers.

PART 63—EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES, AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS

4. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 10, 11, 201-205, 214, 218, 403 and 651 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201-205, 214, 218, 403, and 571, unless otherwise noted.

5. Amend § 63.19 by revising the introductory text of paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) to read as follows:

(a) With the exception of those international carriers described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, any international carrier that seeks to discontinue, reduce, or impair service, including the retiring of international facilities, dismantling or removing of international trunk lines, shall be subject to the following procedures in lieu of those specified in §§ 63.61 through 63.505:

ws:

(a) With the exception of those international carriers described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, any international carrier that seeks to discontinue, reduce, or impair service, including the retiring of international facilities, dismantling or removing of international trunk lines, shall be subject to the following procedures in lieu of those specified in §§ 63.61 through 63.505:

(b) The following procedures shall apply to any international carrier that the Commission has classified as dominant in the provision of a particular international service because the carrier possesses market power in the provision of that service on the U.S. end of the route. Any such carrier that seeks to retire international facilities, dismantle or remove international trunk lines, but does not discontinue, reduce or impair the dominant services being provided through these facilities, shall only be subject to the notification requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. If such carrier discontinues, reduces or impairs the dominant service, or retires facilities that impair or reduce the service, the carrier shall file an application pursuant to §§ 63.62 and 63.505.

6. Amend § 63.60 by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1) and (2), (c), and (f) to read as follows:

§ 63.60 Definitions. (a) For the purposes of §§ 63.60 through 63.71, the term “carrier,” when used to refer either to all telecommunications carriers or more specifically to non-dominant telecommunications carriers, shall include interconnected VoIP providers.

(b) * * *

(1) The closure by a carrier of a telephone exchange rendering interstate or foreign telephone toll service;

(2) The reduction in hours of service by a carrier at a telephone exchange rendering interstate or foreign telephone toll service; the term reduction in hours of service does not include a shift in hours which does not result in any reduction in the number of hours of service;

application containing the information required by the Commission in the appropriate sections to this part, including § 63.505, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, or in emergency cases (as defined in § 63.60(b)) as provided in § 63.63:

(a) The dismantling or removal of a trunk line for all domestic carriers and for dominant international carriers except as modified in § 63.19;

(b) The severance of physical connection or the termination or suspension of the interchange of traffic with another carrier;

(d) The closure of a public toll station where no other such toll station of the applicant in the community will continue service: Provided, however, That no application shall be required under this part with respect to the closure of a toll station located in a community where telephone toll service is otherwise available to the public through a telephone exchange connected with the toll lines of a carrier;

(e) Any other type of discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of telephone service not specifically provided set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section;

8. Amend § 63.63 by revising the introductory text of paragraph (a) and adding a sentence to paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 63.63 Emergency discontinuance, reduction or impairment of service. (a) Application for authority for emergency discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service shall be made by electronically filing an informal request through the “Submit a Non-Docketed Filing” module of the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System. Such requests shall be made as soon as practicable but not later than 65 days after the occurrence of the conditions which have occasioned the discontinuance, reduction, or impairment. The request shall make reference to this section and show the following:

ons Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, Washington, DC 20554, and include in your comments a reference to the § 63.71 Application of (carrier's name). Comments should include specific information about the impact of this proposed discontinuance (or reduction or impairment) upon you or your company, including any inability to acquire reasonable substitute service.

(f)

(1) The application to discontinue, reduce, or impair service that does not constitute a technology transition or, if constituting a technology transition, meets the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this section, shall be automatically granted on the 31st day after its filing with the Commission without any Commission notification to the applicant unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective. For purposes of this section, an application will be deemed filed on the date the Commission releases public notice of the filing.

(2) An application to discontinue, reduce, or impair an existing retail service as part of a technology transition, as defined in § 63.60(f), may be automatically granted only if the applicant certifies that at least one of the following types of services, exists throughout the affected service area:

(i) a facilities-based interconnected VoIP service, as defined in § 9.3 of this chapter;

(ii) a facilities-based mobile voice wireless service;

(iii) a voice service offered pursuant to an obligation from one of the Commission's modernized high-cost support programs;

(iv) a voice service that has been available from the applicant in the affected service area for a period of at least six months, and to which at least 50 percent of the carrier's total voice service customer base in the affected area are subscribed; or

(v) a widely adopted alternative service.

fered pursuant to an obligation from one of the Commission's modernized high-cost support programs;

(iv) a voice service that has been available from the applicant in the affected service area for a period of at least six months, and to which at least 50 percent of the carrier's total voice service customer base in the affected area are subscribed; or

(v) a widely adopted alternative service.

(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a carrier is not required to file an application to grandfather a legacy voice or lower-speed data telecommunications service, or an interconnected VoIP service provisioned over copper wire. For purposes of this section, a lower-speed data telecommunications service is a data telecommunications service operating at speeds below 25/3 Mbps.

§ 63.90 [Removed]

11. Remove § 63.90.

§ 63.100 [Removed]

12. Remove § 63.100.

§ 63.504 [Removed]

13. Remove § 63.504.

§ § 63.601 and 63.602 [Removed]

14. Remove §§ 63.601 and 63.602.

[FR Doc. 2025-16540 Filed 8-27-25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P