Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 61520-61530 [2017-27199]
Download as PDF
61520
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules
significantly reduce the amount’’ and
ends with the phrase ‘‘in order to
resolve potential compliance issues.’’ is
corrected to read as follows:
‘‘Our proposal to significantly reduce
the amount of MLR data submitted to
CMS would eliminate the need for CMS
to continue to pay a contractor
approximately $390,000 a year to
perform initial analyses or desk reviews
of the detailed MLR reports submitted
by MA organizations and Part D
sponsors. These initial analyses or desk
reviews are done by our contractors in
order to identify omissions and
suspected inaccuracies and to
communicate their findings to MA
organizations and Part D sponsors in
order to resolve potential compliance
issues.’’
B. Correction of Errors in the
Regulations Text
§ 422.164
1. On page 56498, third column, in
§ 422.164(f)(4)(vi), lines 4 through 6, the
reference ‘‘§§ 422.166(a)(2)(ii) through
(iv) and 423.186(a)(2)(ii) through (iv)’’ is
corrected to read, ‘‘§§ 422.166(a)(2)(iii)
and 423.186(a)(2)(iii)’’.
[Corrected]
2. On page 56509, first column—
■ a. Sixth paragraph, amendatory
instruction 62e is corrected to read ‘‘e.
In paragraph (b)(5)(i)(A), by removing
the phrase ‘‘60 days’’ and adding in its
place the phrase ‘‘30 days’’;’’.
■ b. Eighth paragraph, amendatory
instruction 62f is corrected to read ‘‘f. In
paragraph (b)(5)(i)(B), by removing the
phrase ‘‘60 day supply’’ and adding in
its place the phrase ‘‘month’s supply’’;’’.
■
§ 423.128
[Corrected]
3. On page 56510, second column—
a. Third full paragraph, amendatory
instruction 63 is corrected to read ‘‘63.
Section 423.128 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a)(3) and (d)(2)(iii) to reads
as follows:’’.
■ b. Following the third full paragraph,
§ 423.128, the text is corrected by
adding the following text after the
section heading and before line 1 (5
stars) to read as follows:
’’ (a) * * *
(3) At the time of enrollment and at
least annually thereafter, by the first day
of the annual coordinated election
period.’’
■
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
■
§ 423.184
[Corrected]
4. On page 56516, third column, in
§ 423.184(f)(4)(vi), line 4, the reference
‘‘§ 423.186(a)(2)(ii)’’ is corrected to read
‘‘§ 423.186(a)(2)(iii)’’.
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Dec 27, 2017
[FR Doc. 2017–27943 Filed 12–27–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 63
[WC Docket No. 17–84; FCC 17–154]
Accelerating Wireline Broadband
Deployment by Removing Barriers to
Infrastructure Investment
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, a Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FNPRM) seeks comment on a number
of actions aimed at removing
unnecessary regulatory barriers to the
deployment of high-speed broadband
networks. The FNPRM seeks comment
on pole attachment reforms, changes to
the copper retirement and other network
change notification processes, and
changes to the section 214(a)
discontinuance application process. The
Commission adopted the FNPRM in
conjunction with a Report and Order
and Declaratory Ruling in WC Docket
No. 17–84.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
January 17, 2018, and reply comments
are due on or before February 16, 2018.
Written comments on the Paperwork
Reduction Act proposed information
collection requirements must be
submitted by the public, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and
other interested parties on or before
February 26, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by WC Docket No. 17–84, by
any of the following methods:
D Federal Communications
Commission’s website: https://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
D Mail: Parties who choose to file by
paper must file an original and one copy
of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the
caption of this proceeding, filers must
submit two additional copies for each
additional docket or rulemaking
number. Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
SUMMARY:
[Corrected]
■
§ 423.120
Dated: December 19, 2017.
Ann C. Agnew,
Executive Secretary to the Department,
Department of Health and Human Services.
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission. All hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW, Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than
U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and
Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554.
D People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document. In addition to
filing comments with the Secretary, a
copy of any comments on the
Paperwork Reduction Act information
collection requirements contained
herein should be submitted to the
Federal Communications Commission
via email to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicole
Ongele, Federal Communications
Commission, via email to
Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wireline Competition Bureau,
Competition Policy Division, Michele
Berlove, at (202) 418–1477,
michele.berlove@fcc.gov, or Michael
Ray, at (202) 418–0357, michael.ray@
fcc.gov. For additional information
concerning the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements
contained in this document, send an
email to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Nicole
Ongele at (202) 418–2991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FNPRM) in WC Docket No. 17–84,
adopted November 16, 2017 and
released November 29, 2017. The full
text of this document is available for
public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th
Street SW, Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. It is available on
the Commission’s website at https://
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules
apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/Query.do
?numberFld=17-154&numberFld2=&
docket=&dateFld=&docTitleDesc=.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998), https://www.fcc.gov/
Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/
fcc98056.pdf.
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number. Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission. All hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW, Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber or fasteners. Any envelopes and
boxes must be disposed of before
entering the building. Commercial
overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal
Service Express Mail and Priority Mail)
must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S.
Postal Service first-class, Express, and
Priority mail must be addressed to 445
12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
• People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. Access to high-speed broadband is
an essential component of modern life,
providing unfettered access to
information and entertainment, an open
channel of communication to far-away
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Dec 27, 2017
Jkt 244001
friends and relatives, and
unprecedented economic opportunity.
Technological innovation and private
investment have revolutionized
American communications networks in
recent years, making possible new and
better service offerings, and bringing the
promise of the digital revolution to more
Americans than ever before. As part of
this transformation, consumers are
increasingly moving away from
traditional telephone services provided
over copper wires and towards nextgeneration technologies using a variety
of transmission means, including
copper, fiber, and wireless spectrumbased services.
2. Despite this progress, too many
communities remain on the wrong side
of the digital divide, unable to take full
part in the benefits of the modern
information economy. To close that
digital divide, we seek to use every tool
available to us to accelerate the
deployment of advanced
communications networks. Accordingly,
today we embrace the transition to nextgeneration networks and the innovative
services they enable, and adopt a
number of important reforms aimed at
removing unnecessary regulatory
barriers to the deployment of high-speed
broadband networks.
3. By removing unnecessary
impediments to broadband deployment,
the regulatory reforms we adopt today
will enable carriers to more rapidly shift
resources away from maintaining
outdated legacy infrastructure and
services and towards the construction of
next-generation broadband networks
bringing innovative new broadband
services. And by reducing the costs to
deploy high-speed broadband networks,
we make it more economically feasible
for carriers to extend the reach of their
networks, increasing competition among
broadband providers to communities
across the country. We expect
competition will include such benefits
as lower prices to consumers. We
anticipate taking additional action in
the future in this proceeding to further
facilitate broadband deployment.
A. Expediting Applications That
Grandfather Additional Data Services
for Existing Customers
4. We propose to streamline the
approval process for applications
seeking to grandfather data services
with download/upload speeds of less
than 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, so long as the
applying carrier provides data services
of equivalent quality at speeds of at least
25 Mbps/3 Mbps or higher throughout
the affected service area. We
acknowledge that data services subject
to section 214 discontinuance authority
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61521
typically have symmetrical upload and
download speeds. Proposing nonsymmetrical speed thresholds for
streamlining purposes, however,
provides maximum flexibility for
carriers to the extent legacy data
services having non-symmetrical
download and upload speeds are subject
to our discontinuance rules. We
currently use 25 Mbps/3 Mbps as the
speed benchmark for evaluating
deployment of fixed advanced
telecommunications capability, meaning
a service that ‘‘enables users to originate
and receive high quality voice, data,
graphics, and video
telecommunications’’ under section 706
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
As such, we think that comparatively
lower speed services are ripe for
streamlined treatment when higher
speed services are available. In the
Wireline Infrastructure notice of
proposed rulemaking, the Commission
proposed to apply any streamlined
discontinuance process to grandfathered
low-speed legacy services below 1.544
Mbps, but sought comment on whether
we should make streamlined processing
available for applications to grandfather
services at higher speeds, such as TDM
services below 10Mbps or 25 Mbps. We
seek comment on this proposal.
5. We propose a uniform reduced
public comment period of 10 days and
an auto-grant period of 25 days for all
carriers submitting such applications.
Under this proposal, such services must
be grandfathered for a period of no less
than 180 days before a carrier may
submit an application to the
Commission seeking authorization to
discontinue such services. Through
these proposed reforms, we seek to
provide carriers with incentives to
develop and deploy higher quality
services operating at higher speeds. We
seek comment on this proposal. We also
seek comment on possible alternatives,
including different speed thresholds
and different time intervals.
6. Will streamlining the approval
process for this class of applications
promote competition in the market for
higher-speed data services? Will it help
speed the ongoing technology transition
to next-generation IP-based services and
networks, and encourage the
deployment of better quality, higherspeed services? What are this proposal’s
benefits and costs?
7. Additionally, we seek comment on
whether applications to discontinue
these higher-speed data services after
they have been grandfathered for a
period of at least 180 days should be
granted the same streamlined comment
and auto-grant periods that we have
adopted for previously grandfathered
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
61522
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
legacy data services in the above Order.
Should applications to discontinue
higher-speed already-grandfathered
services be subject to a 10-day comment
period and a 31-day auto-grant period
upon inclusion of a certification that the
carrier has received Commission
authority to grandfather the services at
issue at least 180 days prior to the filing
of the discontinuance application?
B. Utility Treatment of Overlashing
8. For decades, the Commission has
maintained a policy of encouraging the
use of overlashing to maximize the
useable space on utility poles. In 1995,
the Commission ‘‘noted the serious anticompetitive effects of preventing cable
operators from adding fiber to their
systems by overlashing’’ and ‘‘affirmed
its commitment to ensure that the
growth and development of cable
system facilities are not hindered by an
unreasonable denial of overlashing by a
utility pole owner.’’ In 1998, the
Commission reaffirmed that overlashing
‘‘facilitates and expedites installing
infrastructure,’’ ‘‘promotes
competition,’’ and ‘‘is an important
element in promoting . . . diversity of
services over existing facilities, fostering
the availability of telecommunications
services to communities, and increasing
opportunities for competition in the
marketplace.’’ It further noted that ‘‘any
concerns [with overlashing] should be
satisfied by compliance with generally
accepted engineering practices.’’ In
2001, the Commission again reaffirmed
that overlashing ‘‘reduces construction
disruption and associated expenses
which would otherwise be incurred by
third parties installing new poles and
separate attachments’’ and reaffirmed its
holding that ‘‘neither the host attaching
entity nor the third party overlasher
must obtain additional approval from or
consent of the utility for overlashing
other than the approval obtained for the
host attachment.’’ The Commission’s
holdings on overlashing were upheld by
the D.C. Circuit and remain in effect
today.
9. Nonetheless, some parties have
claimed that not all utilities are
complying with these holdings. ACA
states that ‘‘some utilities require, or
seek to require, additional prior
approvals for overlashing projects.’’
Others have asked for the agency to
make clear that ‘‘an attacher shall not be
required to obtain approval from or
provide advance notice to a pole owner
before overlashing additional wires,
cables, or equipment to its own
facilities. The attacher shall inform the
pole owner of the location and type of
any facilities that have been
overlashed.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Dec 27, 2017
Jkt 244001
10. We seek comment on codifying
our longstanding precedent regarding
overlashing. Specifically, we seek
comment on codifying a rule that
overlashing is subject to a notice-andattach process and that any concerns
with overlashing should be satisfied by
compliance with generally accepted
engineering practices. Although one
commenter asserts that ‘‘overlashing
must be subject to utility review through
the applications process’’ because of
potential safety concerns and another
asserts that ‘‘Each Utility Needs to
Retain the Right to Determine What
Level of Review is Required,’’ neither
offers a reason for us to disturb our longheld precedent and we see no reason to
reopen that precedent here. Would
codifying such a rule make clear the
rights of overlashers? Would doing so
reduce any confusion that may delay
attachers from deploying nextgeneration services to unserved
communities? Would codifying such a
rule be consistent with our long-held
view that overlashing has substantial
competitive effects, ultimately leading
to greater deployment and lower prices
for consumers?
C. Calculation of Waiting Period Under
Section 51.333(B)
11. AT&T proposes that we revise the
rule governing short-term network
change notices to calculate the effective
date of such notices from the date the
incumbent LEC files its notice or
certification of the change rather than
from the date the Commission releases
its public notice. We seek comment on
this proposal. Section 51.333(b) of the
Commission’s rules provides that the
network change referenced in a shortterm notice ‘‘shall be deemed final on
the tenth business day after the release
of the Commission’s public notice.’’
According to AT&T, tying the effective
date to release of the Commission’s
public notice is unnecessary because
incumbent LECs are required to provide
direct notice to interconnecting carriers.
Is AT&T correct? We seek comment on
the benefits and burdens of revising the
rule as AT&T suggests.
12. In connection with copper
retirement notices, we found in the
Order above that ‘‘having the waiting
period run from the date we release a
public notice of the filing, as has been
the case for more than two decades,
affords Commission staff the necessary
opportunity to review filings for
mistakes and/or non-compliance with
the rules.’’ Are circumstances different
for short-term network change notices
than for copper retirement notices? Is
there any reason Commission staff
might not need the opportunity to
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
review short-term network change
notices for accuracy or completeness
before the waiting period under the rule
should begin to run? Are there other
benefits associated with having the
waiting period run from the time the
Commission releases its public notice
rather than from the date the incumbent
LEC files its notice or certification with
the Commission? Will altering the
calculation of the waiting period in such
a way help speed the ongoing
technology transition to next-generation
IP-based services and networks? Are
there other advantages or disadvantages
to calculating the waiting period in this
manner? How would calculating the
waiting period in this manner affect the
deadline for objecting to a network
change disclosure? Are there other
issues we should consider in
conjunction with considering this
proposal?
D. Public Notice of Network Changes
Affecting Interoperability of Customer
Premises Equipment
13. AT&T also proposes that we
eliminate the requirement that
incumbent LECs provide public notice
of network changes affecting the
interoperability of customer premises
equipment. We seek comment on this
proposal. Section 51.325(a)(3) requires
that incumbent LECs provide notice
pursuant to the Commission’s network
change disclosure rules of any changes
to their networks that ‘‘will affect the
manner in which customer premises
equipment is attached to the interstate
network.’’ AT&T asserts that this rule is
no longer necessary because incumbent
LECs ‘‘do not have a significant
presence in the market for
manufacturing CPE . . . CPE
manufacturers move at lightning speed
to adapt to new technologies,’’ and
‘‘incumbent LECs no longer ‘‘possess
the market power that would enable
them to adversely affect the CPE
marketplace.’’ We seek comment on the
benefits and costs of the current rule
and whether the benefits outweigh the
costs. Does section 51.325(a)(3) continue
to afford relevant protections in the
current marketplace? How frequently do
incumbent LECs provide public notice
of such network changes? Do
interconnecting carriers rely on public
notice of such network changes? Will
eliminating the requirement that
incumbent LECs provide public notice
of network changes affecting the
interoperability of customer premises
equipment help speed the ongoing
technology transition to next-generation
IP-based services and networks?
14. We seek comment on the
intersection of section 51.325(a)(3) with
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
other rules and how that intersection
should influence our approach here. In
the Notice, the Commission sought
comment on eliminating section
68.110(b), which requires that ‘‘[i]f . . .
changes [to a wireline
telecommunications provider’s
communications facilities, equipment,
operations or procedures] can be
reasonably expected to render any
customer’s terminal equipment
incompatible with the communications
facilities of the provider of wireline
telecommunications, or require
modification or alteration of such
terminal equipment, or otherwise
materially affect its use or performance,
the customer shall be given adequate
notice in writing, to allow the customer
an opportunity to maintain
uninterrupted service.’’ AT&T makes
similar assertions in support of its
arguments in favor of eliminating both
sections 51.325(a)(3) and 68.110(b).
Unlike section 51.325(a)(3), which
applies only to incumbent LECs, section
68.110(b) applies to all carriers. Do
sections 51.325(a)(3) and 68.110(b)
impose similar burdens on carriers or
afford similar benefits to customers? Is
there any reason to treat the two rules
differently? Should we modify rather
than eliminate or retain either section
51.325(a)(3) or 68.110(b)?
E. Applying Streamlined Notice
Procedures for Force Majeure Events to
All Network Changes
15. We seek comment on extending
the streamlined notice procedures
applicable to force majeure and other
unforeseen events adopted in today’s
Order for copper retirements to all types
of network changes. The notice of
proposed rulemaking sought comment
on removing the copper retirement
notice requirements in emergency
situations. It did not, however, ask
about removing the notice requirements
applicable to network changes other
than copper retirements. We seek
comment on whether the same benefits
to be gained from the streamlined
procedures adopted in the copper
retirement context similarly apply to
other types of network changes. The
waiver orders discussed above are
general in nature. We seek comment on
whether all incumbent LECs should
have the same access to the relief
afforded by these waiver orders in all
situations, not just when copper
retirements are implicated.
F. Forbearance From Section 214(a)
Discontinuance Requirements for
Services With No Existing Customers
16. CenturyLink and AT&T propose
that we forbear from applying the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Dec 27, 2017
Jkt 244001
section 214(a) discontinuance
requirements when carriers seek to
discontinue, reduce, or impair services
with no existing customers. We seek
comment on this proposal and whether
we should, on our own motion, grant
this forbearance. We specifically seek
comment on forbearing from section
214(a) and our part 63 implementing
rules when carriers seek to discontinue,
reduce, or impair services with no
existing customers. We seek comment
on whether such action would satisfy
the criteria for granting forbearance. Is
maintaining the requirement to obtain
discontinuance authorization in such
cases necessary to protect consumers or
other stakeholders? Can enforcement of
section 214(a)’s requirements be
necessary for the protection of
consumers when there are no affected
customers? Is enforcement of these
requirements where there are no
affected customers necessary to ensure
that the charges and practices of carriers
are not unjustly or unreasonably
discriminatory? Is forbearance from
section 214(a)’s requirements in this
context otherwise consistent with the
public interest? We anticipate that
because the services in question lack
customers, applying the section 214(a)
discontinuance requirement here is not
necessary to ensure just charges or
protect consumers, and we seek
comment on this view. Is forbearance in
this context consistent with the public
interest? In this regard, will forbearing
from applying section 214(a)’s
discontinuance requirements in the
context of services without existing
customers help speed the ongoing
technology transition to next-generation
IP-based services and networks?
17. Alternatively, should we further
streamline the discontinuance process
for ‘‘no customer’’ applications,
generally? In the Order, we substantially
streamline the discontinuance process
for ‘‘no customer’’ applications for
legacy voice and data services below
1.544 Mbps. Specifically, we reduce the
auto-grant period from 31 days to 15
days and reduce the timeframe within
which a carrier must not have had any
customers or request for service from
180 days to 30 days. Should we adopt
these same streamlined rules for all ‘‘no
customer’’ discontinuance applications
or some larger subset than just the
legacy services below 1.544 Mbps that
the record currently supports?
18. We note that under our current
rules, there is no deadline for filing
comments in response to an application
to discontinue, reduce, or impair
services with no existing customers. We
seek comment on whether we should
establish a set comment period for such
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61523
applications in the unlikely event that
any party may wish to comment on
requests to discontinue, reduce, or
impair services with no existing
customers. How long should any such
comment period be? Should we apply a
uniform period of public comment to
applications from both dominant and
non-dominant carriers, or should each
type of provider be subject to a different
comment period?
G. Further Streamlining of the Section
214(a) Discontinuance Process for
Legacy Voice Services
19. Several commenters propose that
we further streamline the section 214(a)
discontinuance process for legacy voice
services. We seek comment on what
further steps we can take to streamline
the section 214(a) discontinuance
process for legacy voice services. In
particular, we seek comment on
Verizon’s proposal that the Commission
streamline processing of section 214(a)
discontinuance applications for legacy
voice services where a carrier certifies:
(1) That it provides interconnected VoIP
service throughout the affected service
area; and (2) that at least one other
alternative voice service is available in
the affected service area. As Verizon
notes, this approach provides an
alternative to forbearance from section
214(a) discontinuance requirements for
legacy voice services. Verizon asserts
that adoption of this streamlined test
‘‘would compel carriers to maintain
legacy services only in those rare
instances . . . where their absence
would cut consumers off from the
nation’s telephone network’’ and would
‘‘free[] carriers to focus on rolling out
and improving the next-generation
technologies their customers demand.’’
20. We seek comment on the benefits
and burdens of streamlining section
214(a) discontinuances for legacy voice
services and on the benefits and
burdens of Verizon’s specific
recommendation. Would such rule
changes reduce unnecessary costs and
burdens associated with the deployment
of next-generation services and thereby
spur broadband such deployment?
Would such changes help speed the
ongoing technology transition to nextgeneration IP-based services and
networks?
21. As to Verizon’s proposal, would
the information sought under this kind
of two-part test be sufficient to allow the
Commission to certify that the ‘‘public
convenience and necessity’’ would not
be adversely affected by the proposed
discontinuance, as section 214(a)
requires? If not, what information
should be required? If we were to adopt
this approach, what would be the best
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
61524
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules
means to implement this type of test?
What type of showing would a carrier be
required to make under each prong?
Would a simple certification be
sufficient, or should some other
evidence of available alternatives be
required? What types of voice services
should be considered as sufficient
alternatives to legacy TDM-based voice
service that would satisfy the second
prong? Are there specific characteristics
that a voice service should be required
to have in order to satisfy the second
prong? Finally, we seek comment on
any alternative approaches to
streamlining the section 214(a)
discontinuance process for legacy voice
services.
22. Alternatively, Verizon requests
that we forbear from applying section
214(a)’s discontinuance requirements to
carriers seeking to transition from legacy
voice services to next-generation
replacement services. CenturyLink and
WTA similarly request that we
eliminate the requirement to file a
section 214(a) application altogether for
any discontinuance that is part of a
network upgrade. We seek comment on
these proposals and whether we should,
on our own motion, grant forbearance
when carriers upgrade their networks
and simultaneously transition the
services provided over those networks
to next-generation technology, e.g., TDM
to IP. We specifically seek comment on
forbearing from both section 214(a)’s
discontinuance requirements and our
part 63 implementing rules. We seek
comment on whether such action would
satisfy the criteria for granting
forbearance. Is enforcement of our
discontinuance requirements under
section 214(a) and part 63 of our
implementing rules in cases where
carriers seek to transition from legacy
services to next-generation services not
necessary to ensure that the charges and
practices of carriers are not unjustly or
unreasonably discriminatory? Is
enforcement of these discontinuance
requirements necessary to ensure
consumer protection during the ongoing
technology transition to next-generation
networks and services? Will forbearing
from applying our discontinuance
requirements under section 214(a) and
part 63 of our implementing rules in
this context be consistent with the
public interest? Will forbearance in this
context help speed the ongoing
technology transition to next-generation
IP-based services and networks? Is
forbearance even necessary in light of
the actions we take today in the Order
to revise our section 214(a)
discontinuance rules?
23. Verizon asserts that current
market dynamics demonstrate that next-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Dec 27, 2017
Jkt 244001
generation voice services are readily
available, as evidenced by a decisive
shift by consumers away from legacy
voice services, and towards competing
fiber, IP-based and wireless alternatives.
In such a competitive environment,
Verizon asserts that ‘‘freeing providers
from Section 214(a) in this market will
promote competition among those
providers on the merits of their nextgeneration services’’ and that therefore
‘‘forbearance [from the section 214(a)
discontinuance process] is in the public
interest’’ where providers seek to
replace legacy services with nextgeneration alternatives. We seek
comment on these assertions and on the
benefits and burdens associated with
forbearing from section 214(a)’s
discontinuance requirements when
carriers seek to replace legacy voice
services with next-generation services.
How would forbearance from these rules
affect competitive market conditions for
telecommunications services? Would
forbearance from our section 214(a)
discontinuance requirements in
circumstances where carriers seek to
replace legacy voice services with nextgeneration alternatives better
incentivize the deployment of highspeed broadband than the streamlining
proposals discussed above? Why or why
not?
H. Eliminating Outreach Requirements
Adopted in the 2016 Technology
Transitions Order
24. ITTA proposes that we eliminate
the outreach requirements adopted in
the 2016 Technology Transitions Order.
We seek comment on this proposal.
These requirements mandate that
carriers offer an adequate outreach plan
when discontinuing legacy retail
services. These requirements apply to
transitioning wireline TDM-based voice
service to a voice service using a
different technology such as internet
Protocol (IP) or wireless. The
requirements further specify that an
adequate outreach plan must, at a
minimum, involve: ‘‘(i) The
development and dissemination of
educational materials provided to all
customers affected containing specific
information pertinent to the transition,
as specified in detail below; (ii) the
creation of a telephone hotline and the
option to create an additional
interactive and accessible service to
answer questions regarding the
transition; and (iii) appropriate training
of staff to field and answer consumer
questions about the transition.’’ We seek
comment on the benefits and burdens of
these requirements.
25. ITTA asserts that these
requirements are ‘‘unduly burdensome
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and prescriptive,’’ in addition to being
unnecessary, because our preexisting
discontinuance notice process already
provides ‘‘affected customers and other
stakeholders with adequate information
of what is to occur and what steps they
may need to take.’’ ITTA further asserts
that regardless of any notice
requirements maintained by the
Commission, carriers ‘‘would continue
to have incentives due to marketplace
forces to communicate with customers
in connection with technology
transitions when customers are
impacted by such changes.’’ We seek
comment on ITTA’s assertions. Are the
burdens imposed by these outreach
requirements adopted in the 2016
Technology Transitions Order unduly
burdensome such that they should be
eliminated or revised? Or do those
requirements afford necessary
protections to affected consumers of
legacy services? Should we modify
those requirements rather than retain or
eliminate them, and if so how? Will
eliminating or modifying these
requirements help speed the ongoing
technology transition to next-generation
IP-based services and networks?
I. Rebuilding and Repairing Broadband
Infrastructure After Natural Disasters
26. We are committed to helping
communities rebuild damaged or
destroyed communications
infrastructure after a natural disaster as
quickly as possible. We recognize the
important and complementary roles that
local, state, and federal authorities play
in facilitating swift recovery from
disasters such as Hurricanes Harvey,
Irma, and Maria. We are concerned that
unnecessarily burdensome government
regulation may hinder rather than help
recovery efforts, and laws that are suited
for the ordinary course may not be
appropriate for disaster recovery
situations. We seek comment on
whether there are targeted
circumstances in which we can and
should use our authority to preempt
state or local laws that inhibit
restoration of communications
infrastructure.
27. We emphasize that we appreciate
the importance of working cooperatively
with state and local authorities. How
can we ensure that any preemptive
action we take helps rather than inhibits
state and local efforts? More generally,
how can we best work with state and
local regulators to get broadband
infrastructure operational after a natural
disaster? We seek comment on our legal
authority to preempt state and local
laws in this context, including our
authority under sections 253 and
332(c)(7) of the Act and section 6409 of
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules
the Spectrum Act. If we should preempt
certain state or local laws, should we do
so by rule or by adjudication? Should
we limit the scope of any preemption in
this context only to periods in which a
community is recovering from a natural
disaster, and if so how should we
delimit that timeframe?
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
28. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission
has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
of the possible significant economic
impact on small entities by the policies
on which the Commission seeks
comment in this FNPRM of Proposed
Rule Making (FNPRM). Written public
comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments provided
in paragraph 133 of this Notice. The
Commission will send a copy of this
FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In
addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
29. The FNPRM proposes to adopt
streamlined treatment for all carriers
seeking to grandfather data services
with download/upload speeds of less
than 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, so long as the
applying carrier provides data services
of equivalent quality at speeds of at least
25 Mbps/3 Mbps or higher throughout
the affected service area. It proposes to
adopt a uniform reduced public
comment period of 10 days and an autogrant period of 25 days, and require that
such services be grandfathered for a
period of no less than 180 days before
a carrier may submit an application to
the Commission seeking authorization
to discontinue such services. The
FNPRM also seeks comment on whether
applications to discontinue higherspeed grandfathered data services
should be subject to a streamlined 10day comment period and a 31-day autogrant period upon inclusion of a
certification that the carrier has received
Commission authorization to
grandfather the services at issue at least
180 days prior to the filing of the
discontinuance application. The
FNPRM also seeks comment on the
appropriate utility treatment of requests
by attachers to: (1) Overlash new wires
and cables onto existing wires and
cables already on a utility pole; or (2)
connect service from an attacher’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Dec 27, 2017
Jkt 244001
facilities on an existing utility pole
directly to a customer location (also
known as a drop). The FNPRM asks
whether the Commission should codify
or better explain its policies with regard
to this type of pole work in order to spur
broadband deployment. The FNPRM
also seeks comment on a variety of
recommendations for additional reforms
to the Commission’s network change
disclosure rules and the section 214(a)
discontinuance authorization process.
First, the FNPRM seeks comment on a
proposal to revise the rule governing
short-term network change notices to
calculate the effective date of such
notices from the date the incumbent
LEC files its notice or certification of the
change rather than from the date the
Commission releases its public notice.
Second, the FNPRM seeks comment on
a proposal to eliminate the requirement
that incumbent LECs provide public
notice of network changes affecting the
interoperability of customer premises
equipment. Third, the FNPRM seeks
comment on extending the streamlined
notice procedures applicable to force
majeure and other unforeseen events
adopted in today’s Order for copper
retirements to all types of network
changes. Fourth, the FNPRM seeks
comment on whether we should forbear
from requiring compliance with the
discontinuance requirements of section
214(a) in all instances where a carrier
seeks to discontinue, reduce, or impair
services with no existing customers.
Alternatively, the FNPRM seeks
comment on whether we should further
streamline the discontinuance process
for all ‘‘no customer’’ applications,
regardless of the speed of the services
being discontinued. Fifth, the FNPRM
seeks comment on ways to further
streamline the section 214(a)
discontinuance process for legacy voice
services. In particular, we seek comment
on Verizon’s proposal that the
Commission streamline processing of
section 214(a) discontinuance
applications for legacy voice services
where a carrier certifies: (1) That it
provides interconnected VoIP service
throughout the affected service area; and
(2) that at least one other alternative
voice service is available in the affected
service area. We also seek comment on
Verizon’s request that we forbear from
applying section 214(a)’s
discontinuance requirements to carriers
seeking to transition from legacy voice
services to next-generation replacement
services. Sixth, the FNPRM seeks
comment on whether we should
eliminate the outreach requirements
adopted by the Commission in the 2016
Technology Transitions Order. Lastly, in
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61525
light of the important and
complementary roles that local, state,
and federal authorities play in
facilitating swift recovery from disasters
such as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and
Maria, we seek comment on whether
there are targeted circumstances in
which we can and should use our
authority to preempt state or local laws
that inhibit restoration of
communications infrastructure.
B. Legal Basis
30. The proposed action is authorized
under sections 1–4, 201, 202, 214, 224,
251, and 303(r) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–
54, 201, 202, 214, 224, 251, and 303(r).
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities To Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
31. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposals on which the FNPRM
seeks comment, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small-business concern’’
under the Small Business Act. A ‘‘smallbusiness concern’’ is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.
32. The majority of the proposals on
which we seek comment in the FNPRM
will affect obligations on incumbent
LECs and, in some cases, competitive
LECs, and telecommunications carriers.
Our actions, over time, may affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at
present. Other entities, however, that
choose to object to network change
notifications for copper retirement
under the proposals on which we seek
comment and section 214
discontinuance applications may be
economically impacted by the proposals
in this FNPRM.
33. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time,
may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We
therefore describe here, at the outset,
three comprehensive small entity size
standards that could be directly affected
herein. First, while there are industry
specific size standards for small
businesses that are used in the
regulatory flexibility analysis, according
to data from the SBA’s Office of
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
61526
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Advocacy, in general a small business is
an independent business having fewer
than 500 employees. These types of
small businesses represent 99.9% of all
businesses in the United States which
translates to 28.8 million businesses.
34. Next, the type of small entity
described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is
generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its
field.’’ Nationwide, as of Aug 2016,
there were approximately 356,494 small
organizations based on registration and
tax data filed by nonprofits with the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
35. Finally, the small entity described
as a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’
is defined generally as ‘‘governments of
cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than
fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census Bureau
data from the 2012 Census of
Governments indicates that there were
90,056 local governmental jurisdictions
consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose
governments in the United States. Of
this number there were 37,132 General
purpose governments (county,
municipal and town or township) with
populations of less than 50,000 and
12,184 Special purpose governments
(independent school districts and
special districts) with populations of
less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census
Bureau data for most types of
governments in the local government
category shows that the majority of
these governments have populations of
less than 50,000. Based on this data we
estimate that at least 49,316 local
government jurisdictions fall in the
category of ‘‘small governmental
jurisdictions.’’
36. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ‘‘establishments
primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission
facilities and infrastructure that they
own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using
wired communications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband
internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Dec 27, 2017
Jkt 244001
operate are included in this industry.’’
The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which
consists of all such companies having
1,500 or fewer employees. Census data
for 2012 shows that there were 3,117
firms that operated that year. Of this
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms in this
industry can be considered small.
37. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to
local exchange services. The closest
applicable NAICS Code category is for
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as
defined in paragraph 36 of this IRFA.
Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2012 show
that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. The
Commission therefore estimates that
most providers of local exchange carrier
service are small entities that may be
affected by the rules adopted.
38. Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers (incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local
exchange services. The closest
applicable NAICS Code category is
Wired Telecommunications Carriers as
defined in paragraph 36 of this IRFA.
Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to Commission
data, 3,117 firms operated in that year.
Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most
providers of incumbent local exchange
service are small businesses that may be
affected by the rules and policies
adopted. One thousand three hundred
and seven (1,307) Incumbent Local
Exchange Carriers reported that they
were incumbent local exchange service
providers. Of this total, an estimated
1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees.
39. Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers (competitive LECs), Competitive
Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant
Service Providers, and Other Local
Service Providers. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small business size standard
specifically for these service providers.
The appropriate NAICS Code category is
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as
defined in paragraph 36 of this IRFA.
Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. U.S. Census data for 2012
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
indicate that 3,117 firms operated
during that year. Of that number, 3,083
operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Based on this data, the
Commission concludes that the majority
of Competitive LECs, CAPs, SharedTenant Service Providers, and Other
Local Service Providers are small
entities. According to Commission data,
1,442 carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of either
competitive local exchange services or
competitive access provider services. Of
these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256
have 1,500 or fewer employees. In
addition, 17 carriers have reported that
they are Shared-Tenant Service
Providers, and all 17 are estimated to
have 1,500 or fewer employees. In
addition, 72 carriers have reported that
they are Other Local Service Providers.
Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most
providers of competitive local exchange
service, competitive access providers,
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
Other Local Service Providers are small
entities that may be affected by the
adopted rules.
40. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a definition for
Interexchange Carriers. The closest
NAICS Code category is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers as defined
in paragraph 36 of this IRFA. The
applicable size standard under SBA
rules is that such a business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 359
companies reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was
the provision of interexchange services.
Of this total, an estimated 317 have
1,500 or fewer employees and 42 have
more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of
interexchange service providers are
small entities that may be affected by
rules adopted.
41. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a size standard for small businesses
specifically applicable to Other Toll
Carriers. This category includes toll
carriers that do not fall within the
categories of interexchange carriers,
operator service providers, prepaid
calling card providers, satellite service
carriers, or toll resellers. The closest
applicable NAICS Code category is for
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as
defined in paragraph 36 of this IRFA.
Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2012 shows
that there were 3,117 firms that operated
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus,
under this category and the associated
small business size standard, the
majority of Other Toll Carriers can be
considered small. According to
Commission data, 284 companies
reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was
the provision of other toll carriage. Of
these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or
fewer employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most Other
Toll Carriers that may be affected by our
rules are small.
42. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite). This industry
comprises establishments engaged in
operating and maintaining switching
and transmission facilities to provide
communications via the airwaves, such
as cellular services, paging services,
wireless internet access, and wireless
video services. The appropriate size
standard under SBA rules is that such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. For this industry,
Census data for 2012 show that there
were 967 firms that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had
fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus
under this category and the associated
size standard, the Commission estimates
that the majority of wireless
telecommunications carriers (except
satellite) are small entities. Similarly,
according to internally developed
Commission data, 413 carriers reported
that they were engaged in the provision
of wireless telephony, including cellular
service, Personal Communications
Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile
Radio (SMR) services. Of this total, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that
approximately half of these firms can be
considered small. Thus, using available
data, we estimate that the majority of
wireless firms can be considered small.
43. Cable Companies and Systems
(Rate Regulation). The Commission has
developed its own small business size
standards for the purpose of cable rate
regulation. Under the Commission’s
rules, a ‘‘small cable company’’ is one
serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers
nationwide. Industry data indicate that
there are currently 4,600 active cable
systems in the United States. Of this
total, all but nine cable operators
nationwide are small under the 400,000subscriber size standard. In addition,
under the Commission’s rate regulation
rules, a ‘‘small system’’ is a cable system
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.
Current Commission records show 4,600
cable systems nationwide. Of this total,
3,900 cable systems have fewer than
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Dec 27, 2017
Jkt 244001
15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems
have 15,000 or more subscribers, based
on the same records. Thus, under this
standard as well, we estimate that most
cable systems are small entities.
44. Cable System Operators (Telecom
Act Standard). The Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, also contains
a size standard for small cable system
operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator
that, directly or through an affiliate,
serves in the aggregate fewer than one
percent of all subscribers in the United
States and is not affiliated with any
entity or entities whose gross annual
revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000 are approximately
52,403,705 cable video subscribers in
the United States today. Accordingly, an
operator serving fewer than 524,037
subscribers shall be deemed a small
operator if its annual revenues, when
combined with the total annual
revenues of all its affiliates, do not
exceed $250 million in the aggregate.
Based on available data, we find that all
but nine incumbent cable operators are
small entities under this size standard.
We note that the Commission neither
requests nor collects information on
whether cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million.
Although it seems certain that some of
these cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250,000,000,
we are unable at this time to estimate
with greater precision the number of
cable system operators that would
qualify as small cable operators under
the definition in the Communications
Act.
45. All Other Telecommunications.
‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ is
defined as follows: ‘‘This U.S. industry
is comprised of establishments that are
primarily engaged in providing
specialized telecommunications
services, such as satellite tracking,
communications telemetry, and radar
station operation. This industry also
includes establishments primarily
engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities
connected with one or more terrestrial
systems and capable of transmitting
telecommunications to, and receiving
telecommunications from, satellite
systems. Establishments providing
internet services or voice over internet
protocol (VoIP) services via client
supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this
industry.’’ The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for ‘‘All
Other Telecommunications,’’ which
consists of all such firms with gross
annual receipts of $32.5 million or less.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61527
For this category, Census Bureau data
for 2012 show that there were 1,442
firms that operated for the entire year.
Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had
annual receipts less than $25 million.
Consequently, we conclude that the
majority of All Other
Telecommunications firms can be
considered small.
46. Electric Power Generation,
Transmission and Distribution. The
Census Bureau defines this category as
follows: ‘‘This industry group comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
generating, transmitting, and/or
distributing electric power.
Establishments in this industry group
may perform one or more of the
following activities: (1) Operate
generation facilities that produce
electric energy; (2) operate transmission
systems that convey the electricity from
the generation facility to the distribution
system; and (3) operate distribution
systems that convey electric power
received from the generation facility or
the transmission system to the final
consumer.’’ This category includes
electric power distribution,
hydroelectric power generation, fossil
fuel power generation, nuclear electric
power generation, solar power
generation, and wind power generation.
The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for firms in this
category based on the number of
employees working in a given business.
According to Census Bureau data for
2012, there were 1,742 firms in this
category that operated for the entire
year.
47. Natural Gas Distribution. This
economic census category comprises:
‘‘(1) Establishments primarily engaged
in operating gas distribution systems
(e.g., mains, meters); (2) establishments
known as gas marketers that buy gas
from the well and sell it to a distribution
system; (3) establishments known as gas
brokers or agents that arrange the sale of
gas over gas distribution systems
operated by others; and (4)
establishments primarily engaged in
transmitting and distributing gas to final
consumers.’’ The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for this
industry, which is all such firms having
1,000 or fewer employees. According to
Census Bureau data for 2012, there were
422 firms in this category that operated
for the entire year. Of this total, 399
firms had employment of fewer than
1,000 employees, 23 firms had
employment of 1,000 employees or
more, and 37 firms were not
operational. Thus, the majority of firms
in this category can be considered small.
48. Water Supply and Irrigation
Systems. This economic census category
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
61528
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
‘‘comprises establishments primarily
engaged in operating water treatment
plants and/or operating water supply
systems. The water supply system may
include pumping stations, aqueducts,
and/or distribution mains. The water
may be used for drinking, irrigation, or
other uses.’’ The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for this
industry, which is all such firms having
$27.5 million or less in annual receipts.
According to Census Bureau data for
2012, there were 3,261 firms in this
category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 3,035 firms had
annual sales of less than $25 million.
Thus, the majority of firms in this
category can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
49. The FNPRM seeks comment on a
number of proposals that would affect
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements. We would
expect the proposals on which the
FNPRM seeks comment to reduce
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements. The
proposals taken as a whole would have
a beneficial reporting, recordkeeping, or
compliance impact on small entities
because all carriers would be subject to
fewer such burdens. Each of these
changes is described below.
50. The FNPRM proposes to adopt a
uniform reduced public comment
period of 10 days and an auto-grant
period of 25 days for all carriers seeking
to grandfather data services with
download/upload speeds of less than 25
Mbps/3 Mbps, so long as the applying
carrier provides data services of
equivalent quality at speeds of at least
25 Mbps/3 Mbps or higher throughout
the affected service area. Under this
proposal, such services must be
grandfathered for a period of no less
than 180 days before a carrier may
submit an application to the
Commission seeking authorization to
discontinue such services. We seek
comment on these proposals, and on
whether applications to discontinue
these higher-speed data services after
they have been grandfathered for a
period of at least 180 days should be
subject to a streamlined 10-day
comment period and a 31-day auto-grant
period upon inclusion of a certification
that the carrier has received
Commission authorization to
grandfather the services at issue at least
180 days prior to the filing of the
discontinuance application. The
FNPRM seeks comment on the
appropriate regulatory treatment (if any)
for pole work that is not subject to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Dec 27, 2017
Jkt 244001
standard Commission pole attachment
timeline (e.g., overlashing, drops),
including whether to require prior
written notice to utilities when attachers
attempt such work.
51. The FNPRM also seeks comment
on a variety of recommendations for
additional reforms to the Commission’s
network change disclosure rules and the
section 214(a) discontinuance
authorization process. First, the FNPRM
seeks comment on a proposal to revise
the rule governing short-term network
change notices to calculate the effective
date of such notices from the date the
incumbent LEC files its notice or
certification of the change rather than
from the date the Commission releases
its public notice. Second, the FNPRM
seeks comment on a proposal to
eliminate the requirement that
incumbent LECs provide public notice
of network changes affecting the
interoperability of customer premises
equipment. Third, the FNPRM seeks
comment on extending the streamlined
notice procedures applicable to force
majeure and other unforeseen events
adopted in today’s Order for copper
retirements to all types of network
changes. Fourth, the FNPRM seeks
comment on whether we should forbear
from requiring compliance with the
discontinuance requirements of section
214(a) in all instances where a carrier
seeks to discontinue, reduce, or impair
services with no existing customers.
Alternatively, the FNPRM seeks
comment on whether we should further
streamline the discontinuance process
for all ‘‘no customer’’ applications,
regardless of the speed of the services
being discontinued. Fifth, the FNPRM
seeks comment on ways to further
streamline the section 214(a)
discontinuance process for legacy voice
services. In particular, we seek comment
on Verizon’s proposal that the
Commission streamline processing of
section 214(a) discontinuance
applications for legacy voice services
where a carrier certifies: (1) That it
provides interconnected VoIP service
throughout the affected service area; and
(2) that at least one other alternative
voice service is available in the affected
service area. We also seek comment on
Verizon’s request that we forbear from
applying section 214(a)’s
discontinuance requirements to carriers
seeking to transition from legacy voice
services to next-generation replacement
services. Sixth, the FNPRM seeks
comment on whether we should
eliminate the outreach requirements
adopted by the Commission in the 2016
Technology Transitions Order. Lastly, in
light of the important and
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
complementary roles that local, state,
and federal authorities play in
facilitating swift recovery from disasters
such as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and
Maria, we seek comment on whether
there are targeted circumstances in
which we can and should use our
authority to preempt state or local laws
that inhibit restoration of
communications infrastructure.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
52. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
53. In the FNPRM, we propose to
adopt a uniform reduced public
comment period of 10 days and an autogrant period of 25 days for all carriers
seeking to grandfather data services
with download/upload speeds of less
than 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, so long as the
applying carrier provides data services
of equivalent quality at speeds of at least
25 Mbps/3 Mbps or higher throughout
the affected service area. Under this
proposal, such services must be
grandfathered for a period of no less
than 180 days before a carrier may
submit an application to the
Commission seeking authorization to
discontinue such services. We seek
comment on these proposals, and on
whether applications to discontinue
these higher-speed data services after
they have been grandfathered for a
period of at least 180 days should be
subject to a streamlined 10-day
comment period and a 31-day auto-grant
period upon inclusion of a certification
that the carrier has received
Commission authorization to
grandfather the services at issue at least
180 days prior to the filing of the
discontinuance application.
54. In the FNPRM, we further seek
comment on how best to treat pole work
that is not subject to our standard
required pole attachment timeline.
While one of the proposals on which we
seek comment would impose a notice
burden on attachers before attempting
such work, such a burden potentially
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules
could be offset by not requiring such
work to be pre-approved by the utility
pole owner or regulated pursuant to the
Commission’s standard pole attachment
timeline.
55. In the FNPRM, we also seek
comment on several proposals to reform
the Commission’s network change
disclosure rules and the section 214(a)
discontinuance authorization process. If
adopted, many of these proposals would
reduce the economic impact on small
entities by significantly reducing the
reporting, recordkeeping, and additional
compliance burdens on such entities. To
that end, the Commission seeks
comment on proposals to (1) revise the
rule governing short-term network
change notices to calculate the effective
date of such notices from the date the
incumbent LEC files its notice or
certification of the change rather than
from the date the Commission releases
its public notice, and (2) eliminate the
requirement that incumbent LECs
provide public notice of network
changes affecting the interoperability of
customer premises equipment. The
FNPRM also seeks comment extending
the streamlined notice procedures
applicable to force majeure and other
unforeseen events adopted in today’s
Order for copper retirements to all types
of network changes. In addition, the
FNPRM seeks comment on whether we
should forbear from requiring
compliance with the discontinuance
requirements of section 214(a) in all
instances where a carrier seeks to
discontinue, reduce, or impair services
with no existing customers.
Alternatively, the FNPRM seeks
comment on whether we should further
streamline the discontinuance process
for all ‘‘no customer’’ applications,
regardless of the speed of the services
being discontinued. The FNPRM also
seeks comment on ways to further
streamline the section 214(a)
discontinuance process for legacy voice
services. In particular, we seek comment
on Verizon’s proposal that the
Commission streamline processing of
section 214(a) discontinuance
applications for legacy voice services
where a carrier certifies: (1) That it
provides interconnected VoIP service
throughout the affected service area; and
(2) that at least one other alternative
voice service is available in the affected
service area. Alternatively, we seek
comment on Verizon’s request that we
forbear from applying section 214(a)’s
discontinuance requirements to carriers
seeking to transition from legacy voice
services to next-generation replacement
services. The FNPRM also seeks
comment on whether the Commission
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Dec 27, 2017
Jkt 244001
should eliminate the outreach
requirements adopted by the
Commission in the 2016 Technology
Transitions Order. Lastly, in light of the
important and complementary roles that
local, state, and federal authorities play
in facilitating swift recovery from
disasters such as Hurricanes Harvey,
Irma, and Maria, the FNPRM seeks
comment on whether there are targeted
circumstances in which we can and
should use our authority to preempt
state or local laws that inhibit
restoration of communications
infrastructure.
56. The Commission believes that the
proposals upon which the FNPRM seeks
comment will benefit all carriers,
regardless of size. The proposals would
further the goal of reducing regulatory
burdens, thus facilitating investment in
next-generation networks and
promoting broadband deployment. We
anticipate that a more modernized
regulatory scheme will encourage
carriers to invest in and deploy even
more advanced technologies as they
evolve. We also believe that preempting
state or local laws that inhibit the
restoration of communications
infrastructure will help to facilitate
swifter and more effective recoveries
from natural disasters such as
hurricanes.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rule
57. None.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Analysis
58. This document contains proposed
modified information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, invites the general
public and the Office of Management
and Budget to comment on the
information collection requirements
contained in this document, as required
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4),
we seek specific comment on how we
might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
59. An initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) is contained in
Appendix D of the Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. Comments to the
IRFA must be identified as responses to
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61529
the IRFA and filed by the deadlines for
comments on the Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission
will send a copy of the Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration.
C. Filing Instructions
60. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number.
Æ Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
Æ All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW, Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
Æ Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701.
Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554.
61. People with Disabilities: To
request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (braille,
large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov
or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice),
202–418–0432 (TTY).
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
61530
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 248 / Thursday, December 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules
D. Ex Parte Information
62. This proceeding shall be treated as
a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and summarize
all data presented and arguments made
during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in
part of the presentation of data or
arguments already reflected in the
presenter’s written comments,
memoranda, or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in
his or her prior comments, memoranda,
or other filings (specifying the relevant
page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in
lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or
given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written
ex parte presentations and must be filed
consistent with section 1.1206(b) of the
Commission’s rules. In proceedings
governed by section 1.49(f) of the
Commission’s rules 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.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Contact Person
63. For further information about this
proceeding, please contact Michele Levy
Berlove, FCC Wireline Competition
Bureau, Competition Policy Division,
Room 5–C313, 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554, at (202) 418–
1477, Michele.Berlove@fcc.gov, or
Michael Ray, FCC Wireline Competition
Bureau, Competition Policy Division,
Room 5–C235, 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418–0357,
Michael.Ray@fcc.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Dec 27, 2017
Jkt 244001
IV. Ordering Clauses
64. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to sections 1–4, 201, 202, 214,
224, 251, and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 201, 202,
214, 224, 251, and 303(r), the Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
adopted.
65. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR 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.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary. Office of the Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 63 as follows:
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
1. The authority 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.
2. Section 63.71 is amended by adding
paragraph (l) to read as follows:
■
§ 63.71 Procedures for discontinuance,
reduction or impairment of service by
domestic carriers.
*
*
*
*
*
(l) The following requirements are
applicable to data service operating at
download/upload speeds of less than 25
Mbps/3 Mbps in a service area in which
the carrier provides alternative data
services of equivalent quality at
download/upload speeds of 25 Mbps/3
Mbps or higher:
(1) Notwithstanding paragraphs
(a)(5)(i)–(ii) and (k)(1) of this section, if
any carrier, dominant or non-dominant,
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
seeks to grandfather data service
operating at download/upload speeds of
less than 25 Mbps/3 Mbps in a service
area in which the carrier provides data
services of equivalent quality at speeds
of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps or higher, the notice
shall state: The FCC will normally
authorize this proposed discontinuance
of service (or reduction or impairment)
unless it is shown that customers would
be unable to receive service or a
reasonable substitute from another
carrier or that the public convenience
and necessity is otherwise adversely
affected. If you wish to object, you
should file your comments as soon as
possible, but no later than 10 days after
the Commission releases public notice
of the proposed discontinuance. You
may file your comments electronically
through the FCC’s Electronic Comment
Filing System using the docket number
established in the Commission’s public
notice for this proceeding, or you may
address them to the Federal
Communications Commission, Wireline
Competition Bureau, Competition
Policy Division, Washington, DC 20554,
and include in your comments a
reference to the § 63.71 Application of
(carrier’s name). Comments should
include specific information about the
impact of this proposed discontinuance
(or reduction or impairment) upon you
or your company, including any
inability to acquire reasonable substitute
service.
(2) An application filed by any carrier
seeking to grandfather data service
operating at download/upload speeds of
less than 25 Mbps/3 Mbps for existing
customers in a service area in which the
carrier provides data services of
equivalent quality at speeds of 25 Mbps/
3 Mbps or higher shall be automatically
granted on the 25th day after its filing
with the Commission without any
Commission notification to the
applicant unless the Commission has
notified the applicant that the grant will
not be automatically effective. Such
service must be grandfathered for a
minimum of 180 days before a carrier
can file an application with the
Commission to discontinue, reduce, or
impair the previously grandfathered
service.
[FR Doc. 2017–27199 Filed 12–27–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 248 (Thursday, December 28, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61520-61530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27199]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 63
[WC Docket No. 17-84; FCC 17-154]
Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers
to Infrastructure Investment
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FNPRM) seeks comment on a number of actions aimed at removing
unnecessary regulatory barriers to the deployment of high-speed
broadband networks. The FNPRM seeks comment on pole attachment reforms,
changes to the copper retirement and other network change notification
processes, and changes to the section 214(a) discontinuance application
process. The Commission adopted the FNPRM in conjunction with a Report
and Order and Declaratory Ruling in WC Docket No. 17-84.
DATES: Comments are due on or before January 17, 2018, and reply
comments are due on or before February 16, 2018. Written comments on
the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection
requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before February 26,
2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 17-84,
by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[ssquf] Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than
U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to
9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service
first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th
Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
[ssquf] People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. In addition to filing comments
with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements contained herein should be
submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to
[email protected] and to Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission,
via email to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wireline Competition Bureau,
Competition Policy Division, Michele Berlove, at (202) 418-1477,
[email protected], or Michael Ray, at (202) 418-0357,
[email protected]. For additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained
in this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Nicole Ongele
at (202) 418-2991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in WC Docket No. 17-84,
adopted November 16, 2017 and released November 29, 2017. The full text
of this document is available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445
12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It is available on
the Commission's website at https://
[[Page 61521]]
apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/Query.do?numberFld=17-
154&numberFld2=&docket=&dateFld=&docTitleDesc=. Pursuant to sections
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419,
interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before
the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR
24121 (1998), https://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/fcc98056.pdf.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before
entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S.
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service
first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th
Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. Access to high-speed broadband is an essential component of
modern life, providing unfettered access to information and
entertainment, an open channel of communication to far-away friends and
relatives, and unprecedented economic opportunity. Technological
innovation and private investment have revolutionized American
communications networks in recent years, making possible new and better
service offerings, and bringing the promise of the digital revolution
to more Americans than ever before. As part of this transformation,
consumers are increasingly moving away from traditional telephone
services provided over copper wires and towards next-generation
technologies using a variety of transmission means, including copper,
fiber, and wireless spectrum-based services.
2. Despite this progress, too many communities remain on the wrong
side of the digital divide, unable to take full part in the benefits of
the modern information economy. To close that digital divide, we seek
to use every tool available to us to accelerate the deployment of
advanced communications networks. Accordingly, today we embrace the
transition to next-generation networks and the innovative services they
enable, and adopt a number of important reforms aimed at removing
unnecessary regulatory barriers to the deployment of high-speed
broadband networks.
3. By removing unnecessary impediments to broadband deployment, the
regulatory reforms we adopt today will enable carriers to more rapidly
shift resources away from maintaining outdated legacy infrastructure
and services and towards the construction of next-generation broadband
networks bringing innovative new broadband services. And by reducing
the costs to deploy high-speed broadband networks, we make it more
economically feasible for carriers to extend the reach of their
networks, increasing competition among broadband providers to
communities across the country. We expect competition will include such
benefits as lower prices to consumers. We anticipate taking additional
action in the future in this proceeding to further facilitate broadband
deployment.
A. Expediting Applications That Grandfather Additional Data Services
for Existing Customers
4. We propose to streamline the approval process for applications
seeking to grandfather data services with download/upload speeds of
less than 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, so long as the applying carrier provides data
services of equivalent quality at speeds of at least 25 Mbps/3 Mbps or
higher throughout the affected service area. We acknowledge that data
services subject to section 214 discontinuance authority typically have
symmetrical upload and download speeds. Proposing non-symmetrical speed
thresholds for streamlining purposes, however, provides maximum
flexibility for carriers to the extent legacy data services having non-
symmetrical download and upload speeds are subject to our
discontinuance rules. We currently use 25 Mbps/3 Mbps as the speed
benchmark for evaluating deployment of fixed advanced
telecommunications capability, meaning a service that ``enables users
to originate and receive high quality voice, data, graphics, and video
telecommunications'' under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996. As such, we think that comparatively lower speed services are
ripe for streamlined treatment when higher speed services are
available. In the Wireline Infrastructure notice of proposed
rulemaking, the Commission proposed to apply any streamlined
discontinuance process to grandfathered low-speed legacy services below
1.544 Mbps, but sought comment on whether we should make streamlined
processing available for applications to grandfather services at higher
speeds, such as TDM services below 10Mbps or 25 Mbps. We seek comment
on this proposal.
5. We propose a uniform reduced public comment period of 10 days
and an auto-grant period of 25 days for all carriers submitting such
applications. Under this proposal, such services must be grandfathered
for a period of no less than 180 days before a carrier may submit an
application to the Commission seeking authorization to discontinue such
services. Through these proposed reforms, we seek to provide carriers
with incentives to develop and deploy higher quality services operating
at higher speeds. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek
comment on possible alternatives, including different speed thresholds
and different time intervals.
6. Will streamlining the approval process for this class of
applications promote competition in the market for higher-speed data
services? Will it help speed the ongoing technology transition to next-
generation IP-based services and networks, and encourage the deployment
of better quality, higher-speed services? What are this proposal's
benefits and costs?
7. Additionally, we seek comment on whether applications to
discontinue these higher-speed data services after they have been
grandfathered for a period of at least 180 days should be granted the
same streamlined comment and auto-grant periods that we have adopted
for previously grandfathered
[[Page 61522]]
legacy data services in the above Order. Should applications to
discontinue higher-speed already-grandfathered services be subject to a
10-day comment period and a 31-day auto-grant period upon inclusion of
a certification that the carrier has received Commission authority to
grandfather the services at issue at least 180 days prior to the filing
of the discontinuance application?
B. Utility Treatment of Overlashing
8. For decades, the Commission has maintained a policy of
encouraging the use of overlashing to maximize the useable space on
utility poles. In 1995, the Commission ``noted the serious anti-
competitive effects of preventing cable operators from adding fiber to
their systems by overlashing'' and ``affirmed its commitment to ensure
that the growth and development of cable system facilities are not
hindered by an unreasonable denial of overlashing by a utility pole
owner.'' In 1998, the Commission reaffirmed that overlashing
``facilitates and expedites installing infrastructure,'' ``promotes
competition,'' and ``is an important element in promoting . . .
diversity of services over existing facilities, fostering the
availability of telecommunications services to communities, and
increasing opportunities for competition in the marketplace.'' It
further noted that ``any concerns [with overlashing] should be
satisfied by compliance with generally accepted engineering
practices.'' In 2001, the Commission again reaffirmed that overlashing
``reduces construction disruption and associated expenses which would
otherwise be incurred by third parties installing new poles and
separate attachments'' and reaffirmed its holding that ``neither the
host attaching entity nor the third party overlasher must obtain
additional approval from or consent of the utility for overlashing
other than the approval obtained for the host attachment.'' The
Commission's holdings on overlashing were upheld by the D.C. Circuit
and remain in effect today.
9. Nonetheless, some parties have claimed that not all utilities
are complying with these holdings. ACA states that ``some utilities
require, or seek to require, additional prior approvals for overlashing
projects.'' Others have asked for the agency to make clear that ``an
attacher shall not be required to obtain approval from or provide
advance notice to a pole owner before overlashing additional wires,
cables, or equipment to its own facilities. The attacher shall inform
the pole owner of the location and type of any facilities that have
been overlashed.''
10. We seek comment on codifying our longstanding precedent
regarding overlashing. Specifically, we seek comment on codifying a
rule that overlashing is subject to a notice-and-attach process and
that any concerns with overlashing should be satisfied by compliance
with generally accepted engineering practices. Although one commenter
asserts that ``overlashing must be subject to utility review through
the applications process'' because of potential safety concerns and
another asserts that ``Each Utility Needs to Retain the Right to
Determine What Level of Review is Required,'' neither offers a reason
for us to disturb our long-held precedent and we see no reason to
reopen that precedent here. Would codifying such a rule make clear the
rights of overlashers? Would doing so reduce any confusion that may
delay attachers from deploying next-generation services to unserved
communities? Would codifying such a rule be consistent with our long-
held view that overlashing has substantial competitive effects,
ultimately leading to greater deployment and lower prices for
consumers?
C. Calculation of Waiting Period Under Section 51.333(B)
11. AT&T proposes that we revise the rule governing short-term
network change notices to calculate the effective date of such notices
from the date the incumbent LEC files its notice or certification of
the change rather than from the date the Commission releases its public
notice. We seek comment on this proposal. Section 51.333(b) of the
Commission's rules provides that the network change referenced in a
short-term notice ``shall be deemed final on the tenth business day
after the release of the Commission's public notice.'' According to
AT&T, tying the effective date to release of the Commission's public
notice is unnecessary because incumbent LECs are required to provide
direct notice to interconnecting carriers. Is AT&T correct? We seek
comment on the benefits and burdens of revising the rule as AT&T
suggests.
12. In connection with copper retirement notices, we found in the
Order above that ``having the waiting period run from the date we
release a public notice of the filing, as has been the case for more
than two decades, affords Commission staff the necessary opportunity to
review filings for mistakes and/or non-compliance with the rules.'' Are
circumstances different for short-term network change notices than for
copper retirement notices? Is there any reason Commission staff might
not need the opportunity to review short-term network change notices
for accuracy or completeness before the waiting period under the rule
should begin to run? Are there other benefits associated with having
the waiting period run from the time the Commission releases its public
notice rather than from the date the incumbent LEC files its notice or
certification with the Commission? Will altering the calculation of the
waiting period in such a way help speed the ongoing technology
transition to next-generation IP-based services and networks? Are there
other advantages or disadvantages to calculating the waiting period in
this manner? How would calculating the waiting period in this manner
affect the deadline for objecting to a network change disclosure? Are
there other issues we should consider in conjunction with considering
this proposal?
D. Public Notice of Network Changes Affecting Interoperability of
Customer Premises Equipment
13. AT&T also proposes that we eliminate the requirement that
incumbent LECs provide public notice of network changes affecting the
interoperability of customer premises equipment. We seek comment on
this proposal. Section 51.325(a)(3) requires that incumbent LECs
provide notice pursuant to the Commission's network change disclosure
rules of any changes to their networks that ``will affect the manner in
which customer premises equipment is attached to the interstate
network.'' AT&T asserts that this rule is no longer necessary because
incumbent LECs ``do not have a significant presence in the market for
manufacturing CPE . . . CPE manufacturers move at lightning speed to
adapt to new technologies,'' and ``incumbent LECs no longer ``possess
the market power that would enable them to adversely affect the CPE
marketplace.'' We seek comment on the benefits and costs of the current
rule and whether the benefits outweigh the costs. Does section
51.325(a)(3) continue to afford relevant protections in the current
marketplace? How frequently do incumbent LECs provide public notice of
such network changes? Do interconnecting carriers rely on public notice
of such network changes? Will eliminating the requirement that
incumbent LECs provide public notice of network changes affecting the
interoperability of customer premises equipment help speed the ongoing
technology transition to next-generation IP-based services and
networks?
14. We seek comment on the intersection of section 51.325(a)(3)
with
[[Page 61523]]
other rules and how that intersection should influence our approach
here. In the Notice, the Commission sought comment on eliminating
section 68.110(b), which requires that ``[i]f . . . changes [to a
wireline telecommunications provider's communications facilities,
equipment, operations or procedures] can be reasonably expected to
render any customer's terminal equipment incompatible with the
communications facilities of the provider of wireline
telecommunications, or require modification or alteration of such
terminal equipment, or otherwise materially affect its use or
performance, the customer shall be given adequate notice in writing, to
allow the customer an opportunity to maintain uninterrupted service.''
AT&T makes similar assertions in support of its arguments in favor of
eliminating both sections 51.325(a)(3) and 68.110(b). Unlike section
51.325(a)(3), which applies only to incumbent LECs, section 68.110(b)
applies to all carriers. Do sections 51.325(a)(3) and 68.110(b) impose
similar burdens on carriers or afford similar benefits to customers? Is
there any reason to treat the two rules differently? Should we modify
rather than eliminate or retain either section 51.325(a)(3) or
68.110(b)?
E. Applying Streamlined Notice Procedures for Force Majeure Events to
All Network Changes
15. We seek comment on extending the streamlined notice procedures
applicable to force majeure and other unforeseen events adopted in
today's Order for copper retirements to all types of network changes.
The notice of proposed rulemaking sought comment on removing the copper
retirement notice requirements in emergency situations. It did not,
however, ask about removing the notice requirements applicable to
network changes other than copper retirements. We seek comment on
whether the same benefits to be gained from the streamlined procedures
adopted in the copper retirement context similarly apply to other types
of network changes. The waiver orders discussed above are general in
nature. We seek comment on whether all incumbent LECs should have the
same access to the relief afforded by these waiver orders in all
situations, not just when copper retirements are implicated.
F. Forbearance From Section 214(a) Discontinuance Requirements for
Services With No Existing Customers
16. CenturyLink and AT&T propose that we forbear from applying the
section 214(a) discontinuance requirements when carriers seek to
discontinue, reduce, or impair services with no existing customers. We
seek comment on this proposal and whether we should, on our own motion,
grant this forbearance. We specifically seek comment on forbearing from
section 214(a) and our part 63 implementing rules when carriers seek to
discontinue, reduce, or impair services with no existing customers. We
seek comment on whether such action would satisfy the criteria for
granting forbearance. Is maintaining the requirement to obtain
discontinuance authorization in such cases necessary to protect
consumers or other stakeholders? Can enforcement of section 214(a)'s
requirements be necessary for the protection of consumers when there
are no affected customers? Is enforcement of these requirements where
there are no affected customers necessary to ensure that the charges
and practices of carriers are not unjustly or unreasonably
discriminatory? Is forbearance from section 214(a)'s requirements in
this context otherwise consistent with the public interest? We
anticipate that because the services in question lack customers,
applying the section 214(a) discontinuance requirement here is not
necessary to ensure just charges or protect consumers, and we seek
comment on this view. Is forbearance in this context consistent with
the public interest? In this regard, will forbearing from applying
section 214(a)'s discontinuance requirements in the context of services
without existing customers help speed the ongoing technology transition
to next-generation IP-based services and networks?
17. Alternatively, should we further streamline the discontinuance
process for ``no customer'' applications, generally? In the Order, we
substantially streamline the discontinuance process for ``no customer''
applications for legacy voice and data services below 1.544 Mbps.
Specifically, we reduce the auto-grant period from 31 days to 15 days
and reduce the timeframe within which a carrier must not have had any
customers or request for service from 180 days to 30 days. Should we
adopt these same streamlined rules for all ``no customer''
discontinuance applications or some larger subset than just the legacy
services below 1.544 Mbps that the record currently supports?
18. We note that under our current rules, there is no deadline for
filing comments in response to an application to discontinue, reduce,
or impair services with no existing customers. We seek comment on
whether we should establish a set comment period for such applications
in the unlikely event that any party may wish to comment on requests to
discontinue, reduce, or impair services with no existing customers. How
long should any such comment period be? Should we apply a uniform
period of public comment to applications from both dominant and non-
dominant carriers, or should each type of provider be subject to a
different comment period?
G. Further Streamlining of the Section 214(a) Discontinuance Process
for Legacy Voice Services
19. Several commenters propose that we further streamline the
section 214(a) discontinuance process for legacy voice services. We
seek comment on what further steps we can take to streamline the
section 214(a) discontinuance process for legacy voice services. In
particular, we seek comment on Verizon's proposal that the Commission
streamline processing of section 214(a) discontinuance applications for
legacy voice services where a carrier certifies: (1) That it provides
interconnected VoIP service throughout the affected service area; and
(2) that at least one other alternative voice service is available in
the affected service area. As Verizon notes, this approach provides an
alternative to forbearance from section 214(a) discontinuance
requirements for legacy voice services. Verizon asserts that adoption
of this streamlined test ``would compel carriers to maintain legacy
services only in those rare instances . . . where their absence would
cut consumers off from the nation's telephone network'' and would
``free[] carriers to focus on rolling out and improving the next-
generation technologies their customers demand.''
20. We seek comment on the benefits and burdens of streamlining
section 214(a) discontinuances for legacy voice services and on the
benefits and burdens of Verizon's specific recommendation. Would such
rule changes reduce unnecessary costs and burdens associated with the
deployment of next-generation services and thereby spur broadband such
deployment? Would such changes help speed the ongoing technology
transition to next-generation IP-based services and networks?
21. As to Verizon's proposal, would the information sought under
this kind of two-part test be sufficient to allow the Commission to
certify that the ``public convenience and necessity'' would not be
adversely affected by the proposed discontinuance, as section 214(a)
requires? If not, what information should be required? If we were to
adopt this approach, what would be the best
[[Page 61524]]
means to implement this type of test? What type of showing would a
carrier be required to make under each prong? Would a simple
certification be sufficient, or should some other evidence of available
alternatives be required? What types of voice services should be
considered as sufficient alternatives to legacy TDM-based voice service
that would satisfy the second prong? Are there specific characteristics
that a voice service should be required to have in order to satisfy the
second prong? Finally, we seek comment on any alternative approaches to
streamlining the section 214(a) discontinuance process for legacy voice
services.
22. Alternatively, Verizon requests that we forbear from applying
section 214(a)'s discontinuance requirements to carriers seeking to
transition from legacy voice services to next-generation replacement
services. CenturyLink and WTA similarly request that we eliminate the
requirement to file a section 214(a) application altogether for any
discontinuance that is part of a network upgrade. We seek comment on
these proposals and whether we should, on our own motion, grant
forbearance when carriers upgrade their networks and simultaneously
transition the services provided over those networks to next-generation
technology, e.g., TDM to IP. We specifically seek comment on forbearing
from both section 214(a)'s discontinuance requirements and our part 63
implementing rules. We seek comment on whether such action would
satisfy the criteria for granting forbearance. Is enforcement of our
discontinuance requirements under section 214(a) and part 63 of our
implementing rules in cases where carriers seek to transition from
legacy services to next-generation services not necessary to ensure
that the charges and practices of carriers are not unjustly or
unreasonably discriminatory? Is enforcement of these discontinuance
requirements necessary to ensure consumer protection during the ongoing
technology transition to next-generation networks and services? Will
forbearing from applying our discontinuance requirements under section
214(a) and part 63 of our implementing rules in this context be
consistent with the public interest? Will forbearance in this context
help speed the ongoing technology transition to next-generation IP-
based services and networks? Is forbearance even necessary in light of
the actions we take today in the Order to revise our section 214(a)
discontinuance rules?
23. Verizon asserts that current market dynamics demonstrate that
next-generation voice services are readily available, as evidenced by a
decisive shift by consumers away from legacy voice services, and
towards competing fiber, IP-based and wireless alternatives. In such a
competitive environment, Verizon asserts that ``freeing providers from
Section 214(a) in this market will promote competition among those
providers on the merits of their next-generation services'' and that
therefore ``forbearance [from the section 214(a) discontinuance
process] is in the public interest'' where providers seek to replace
legacy services with next-generation alternatives. We seek comment on
these assertions and on the benefits and burdens associated with
forbearing from section 214(a)'s discontinuance requirements when
carriers seek to replace legacy voice services with next-generation
services. How would forbearance from these rules affect competitive
market conditions for telecommunications services? Would forbearance
from our section 214(a) discontinuance requirements in circumstances
where carriers seek to replace legacy voice services with next-
generation alternatives better incentivize the deployment of high-speed
broadband than the streamlining proposals discussed above? Why or why
not?
H. Eliminating Outreach Requirements Adopted in the 2016 Technology
Transitions Order
24. ITTA proposes that we eliminate the outreach requirements
adopted in the 2016 Technology Transitions Order. We seek comment on
this proposal. These requirements mandate that carriers offer an
adequate outreach plan when discontinuing legacy retail services. These
requirements apply to transitioning wireline TDM-based voice service to
a voice service using a different technology such as internet Protocol
(IP) or wireless. The requirements further specify that an adequate
outreach plan must, at a minimum, involve: ``(i) The development and
dissemination of educational materials provided to all customers
affected containing specific information pertinent to the transition,
as specified in detail below; (ii) the creation of a telephone hotline
and the option to create an additional interactive and accessible
service to answer questions regarding the transition; and (iii)
appropriate training of staff to field and answer consumer questions
about the transition.'' We seek comment on the benefits and burdens of
these requirements.
25. ITTA asserts that these requirements are ``unduly burdensome
and prescriptive,'' in addition to being unnecessary, because our
preexisting discontinuance notice process already provides ``affected
customers and other stakeholders with adequate information of what is
to occur and what steps they may need to take.'' ITTA further asserts
that regardless of any notice requirements maintained by the
Commission, carriers ``would continue to have incentives due to
marketplace forces to communicate with customers in connection with
technology transitions when customers are impacted by such changes.''
We seek comment on ITTA's assertions. Are the burdens imposed by these
outreach requirements adopted in the 2016 Technology Transitions Order
unduly burdensome such that they should be eliminated or revised? Or do
those requirements afford necessary protections to affected consumers
of legacy services? Should we modify those requirements rather than
retain or eliminate them, and if so how? Will eliminating or modifying
these requirements help speed the ongoing technology transition to
next-generation IP-based services and networks?
I. Rebuilding and Repairing Broadband Infrastructure After Natural
Disasters
26. We are committed to helping communities rebuild damaged or
destroyed communications infrastructure after a natural disaster as
quickly as possible. We recognize the important and complementary roles
that local, state, and federal authorities play in facilitating swift
recovery from disasters such as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. We
are concerned that unnecessarily burdensome government regulation may
hinder rather than help recovery efforts, and laws that are suited for
the ordinary course may not be appropriate for disaster recovery
situations. We seek comment on whether there are targeted circumstances
in which we can and should use our authority to preempt state or local
laws that inhibit restoration of communications infrastructure.
27. We emphasize that we appreciate the importance of working
cooperatively with state and local authorities. How can we ensure that
any preemptive action we take helps rather than inhibits state and
local efforts? More generally, how can we best work with state and
local regulators to get broadband infrastructure operational after a
natural disaster? We seek comment on our legal authority to preempt
state and local laws in this context, including our authority under
sections 253 and 332(c)(7) of the Act and section 6409 of
[[Page 61525]]
the Spectrum Act. If we should preempt certain state or local laws,
should we do so by rule or by adjudication? Should we limit the scope
of any preemption in this context only to periods in which a community
is recovering from a natural disaster, and if so how should we delimit
that timeframe?
II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
28. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
entities by the policies on which the Commission seeks comment in this
FNPRM of Proposed Rule Making (FNPRM). Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided in
paragraph 133 of this Notice. The Commission will send a copy of this
FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
29. The FNPRM proposes to adopt streamlined treatment for all
carriers seeking to grandfather data services with download/upload
speeds of less than 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, so long as the applying carrier
provides data services of equivalent quality at speeds of at least 25
Mbps/3 Mbps or higher throughout the affected service area. It proposes
to adopt a uniform reduced public comment period of 10 days and an
auto-grant period of 25 days, and require that such services be
grandfathered for a period of no less than 180 days before a carrier
may submit an application to the Commission seeking authorization to
discontinue such services. The FNPRM also seeks comment on whether
applications to discontinue higher-speed grandfathered data services
should be subject to a streamlined 10-day comment period and a 31-day
auto-grant period upon inclusion of a certification that the carrier
has received Commission authorization to grandfather the services at
issue at least 180 days prior to the filing of the discontinuance
application. The FNPRM also seeks comment on the appropriate utility
treatment of requests by attachers to: (1) Overlash new wires and
cables onto existing wires and cables already on a utility pole; or (2)
connect service from an attacher's facilities on an existing utility
pole directly to a customer location (also known as a drop). The FNPRM
asks whether the Commission should codify or better explain its
policies with regard to this type of pole work in order to spur
broadband deployment. The FNPRM also seeks comment on a variety of
recommendations for additional reforms to the Commission's network
change disclosure rules and the section 214(a) discontinuance
authorization process. First, the FNPRM seeks comment on a proposal to
revise the rule governing short-term network change notices to
calculate the effective date of such notices from the date the
incumbent LEC files its notice or certification of the change rather
than from the date the Commission releases its public notice. Second,
the FNPRM seeks comment on a proposal to eliminate the requirement that
incumbent LECs provide public notice of network changes affecting the
interoperability of customer premises equipment. Third, the FNPRM seeks
comment on extending the streamlined notice procedures applicable to
force majeure and other unforeseen events adopted in today's Order for
copper retirements to all types of network changes. Fourth, the FNPRM
seeks comment on whether we should forbear from requiring compliance
with the discontinuance requirements of section 214(a) in all instances
where a carrier seeks to discontinue, reduce, or impair services with
no existing customers. Alternatively, the FNPRM seeks comment on
whether we should further streamline the discontinuance process for all
``no customer'' applications, regardless of the speed of the services
being discontinued. Fifth, the FNPRM seeks comment on ways to further
streamline the section 214(a) discontinuance process for legacy voice
services. In particular, we seek comment on Verizon's proposal that the
Commission streamline processing of section 214(a) discontinuance
applications for legacy voice services where a carrier certifies: (1)
That it provides interconnected VoIP service throughout the affected
service area; and (2) that at least one other alternative voice service
is available in the affected service area. We also seek comment on
Verizon's request that we forbear from applying section 214(a)'s
discontinuance requirements to carriers seeking to transition from
legacy voice services to next-generation replacement services. Sixth,
the FNPRM seeks comment on whether we should eliminate the outreach
requirements adopted by the Commission in the 2016 Technology
Transitions Order. Lastly, in light of the important and complementary
roles that local, state, and federal authorities play in facilitating
swift recovery from disasters such as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and
Maria, we seek comment on whether there are targeted circumstances in
which we can and should use our authority to preempt state or local
laws that inhibit restoration of communications infrastructure.
B. Legal Basis
30. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1-4, 201, 202,
214, 224, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-54, 201, 202, 214, 224, 251, and 303(r).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
31. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposals on which the FNPRM seeks comment, if adopted.
The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and
``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small-business concern''
under the Small Business Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one
which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.
32. The majority of the proposals on which we seek comment in the
FNPRM will affect obligations on incumbent LECs and, in some cases,
competitive LECs, and telecommunications carriers. Our actions, over
time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at
present. Other entities, however, that choose to object to network
change notifications for copper retirement under the proposals on which
we seek comment and section 214 discontinuance applications may be
economically impacted by the proposals in this FNPRM.
33. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three comprehensive small entity size standards that could
be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific
size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of
[[Page 61526]]
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent
99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8
million businesses.
34. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
Nationwide, as of Aug 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
35. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicates that there
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
States. Of this number there were 37,132 General purpose governments
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than
50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school
districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000.
The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the
local government category shows that the majority of these governments
have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data we estimate
that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the
category of ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
36. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 shows
that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small.
37. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS
Code category is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as defined in
paragraph 36 of this IRFA. Under that size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show
that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. The Commission
therefore estimates that most providers of local exchange carrier
service are small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted.
38. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest
applicable NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as
defined in paragraph 36 of this IRFA. Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to
Commission data, 3,117 firms operated in that year. Of this total,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange
service are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and
policies adopted. One thousand three hundred and seven (1,307)
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers reported that they were incumbent
local exchange service providers. Of this total, an estimated 1,006
have 1,500 or fewer employees.
39. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these
service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, as defined in paragraph 36 of this IRFA.
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms
operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that
the majority of Competitive LECs, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.
According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services
or competitive access provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an
estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers
have reported that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17
are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 72
carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers. Of
this total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange
service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers are small entities that may be
affected by the adopted rules.
40. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a definition for Interexchange Carriers. The closest
NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined in
paragraph 36 of this IRFA. The applicable size standard under SBA rules
is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 359 companies reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange
services. Of this total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees
and 42 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of interexchange service providers are
small entities that may be affected by rules adopted.
41. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable
to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do
not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator
service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service
carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable NAICS Code category
is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as defined in paragraph 36 of
this IRFA. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 shows that there were
3,117 firms that operated
[[Page 61527]]
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business
size standard, the majority of Other Toll Carriers can be considered
small. According to Commission data, 284 companies reported that their
primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of other
toll carriage. Of these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most Other Toll
Carriers that may be affected by our rules are small.
42. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet
access, and wireless video services. The appropriate size standard
under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. For this industry, Census data for 2012 show that
there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus under this category and
the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the
majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are
small entities. Similarly, according to internally developed Commission
data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of
wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications
Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) services. Of this
total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that approximately half of these firms can be
considered small. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the
majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
43. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission
has developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of
cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable
company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide.
Industry data indicate that there are currently 4,600 active cable
systems in the United States. Of this total, all but nine cable
operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size
standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a
``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.
Current Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide. Of this
total, 3,900 cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700
systems have 15,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records.
Thus, under this standard as well, we estimate that most cable systems
are small entities.
44. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that,
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than
one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in
the aggregate exceed $250,000,000 are approximately 52,403,705 cable
video subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator
serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator
if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of
all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based
on available data, we find that all but nine incumbent cable operators
are small entities under this size standard. We note that the
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual
revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of
these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at this time to
estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the
Communications Act.
45. All Other Telecommunications. ``All Other Telecommunications''
is defined as follows: ``This U.S. industry is comprised of
establishments that are primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.
Establishments providing internet services or voice over internet
protocol (VoIP) services via client supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this industry.'' The SBA has developed
a small business size standard for ``All Other Telecommunications,''
which consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5
million or less. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 show
that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of those
firms, a total of 1,400 had annual receipts less than $25 million.
Consequently, we conclude that the majority of All Other
Telecommunications firms can be considered small.
46. Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution. The
Census Bureau defines this category as follows: ``This industry group
comprises establishments primarily engaged in generating, transmitting,
and/or distributing electric power. Establishments in this industry
group may perform one or more of the following activities: (1) Operate
generation facilities that produce electric energy; (2) operate
transmission systems that convey the electricity from the generation
facility to the distribution system; and (3) operate distribution
systems that convey electric power received from the generation
facility or the transmission system to the final consumer.'' This
category includes electric power distribution, hydroelectric power
generation, fossil fuel power generation, nuclear electric power
generation, solar power generation, and wind power generation. The SBA
has developed a small business size standard for firms in this category
based on the number of employees working in a given business. According
to Census Bureau data for 2012, there were 1,742 firms in this category
that operated for the entire year.
47. Natural Gas Distribution. This economic census category
comprises: ``(1) Establishments primarily engaged in operating gas
distribution systems (e.g., mains, meters); (2) establishments known as
gas marketers that buy gas from the well and sell it to a distribution
system; (3) establishments known as gas brokers or agents that arrange
the sale of gas over gas distribution systems operated by others; and
(4) establishments primarily engaged in transmitting and distributing
gas to final consumers.'' The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for this industry, which is all such firms having 1,000 or
fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2012, there were
422 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 399 firms had employment of fewer than 1,000 employees, 23 firms
had employment of 1,000 employees or more, and 37 firms were not
operational. Thus, the majority of firms in this category can be
considered small.
48. Water Supply and Irrigation Systems. This economic census
category
[[Page 61528]]
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating water
treatment plants and/or operating water supply systems. The water
supply system may include pumping stations, aqueducts, and/or
distribution mains. The water may be used for drinking, irrigation, or
other uses.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard for
this industry, which is all such firms having $27.5 million or less in
annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2012, there were
3,261 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 3,035 firms had annual sales of less than $25 million. Thus, the
majority of firms in this category can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
49. The FNPRM seeks comment on a number of proposals that would
affect reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. We
would expect the proposals on which the FNPRM seeks comment to reduce
reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. The
proposals taken as a whole would have a beneficial reporting,
recordkeeping, or compliance impact on small entities because all
carriers would be subject to fewer such burdens. Each of these changes
is described below.
50. The FNPRM proposes to adopt a uniform reduced public comment
period of 10 days and an auto-grant period of 25 days for all carriers
seeking to grandfather data services with download/upload speeds of
less than 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, so long as the applying carrier provides data
services of equivalent quality at speeds of at least 25 Mbps/3 Mbps or
higher throughout the affected service area. Under this proposal, such
services must be grandfathered for a period of no less than 180 days
before a carrier may submit an application to the Commission seeking
authorization to discontinue such services. We seek comment on these
proposals, and on whether applications to discontinue these higher-
speed data services after they have been grandfathered for a period of
at least 180 days should be subject to a streamlined 10-day comment
period and a 31-day auto-grant period upon inclusion of a certification
that the carrier has received Commission authorization to grandfather
the services at issue at least 180 days prior to the filing of the
discontinuance application. The FNPRM seeks comment on the appropriate
regulatory treatment (if any) for pole work that is not subject to the
standard Commission pole attachment timeline (e.g., overlashing,
drops), including whether to require prior written notice to utilities
when attachers attempt such work.
51. The FNPRM also seeks comment on a variety of recommendations
for additional reforms to the Commission's network change disclosure
rules and the section 214(a) discontinuance authorization process.
First, the FNPRM seeks comment on a proposal to revise the rule
governing short-term network change notices to calculate the effective
date of such notices from the date the incumbent LEC files its notice
or certification of the change rather than from the date the Commission
releases its public notice. Second, the FNPRM seeks comment on a
proposal to eliminate the requirement that incumbent LECs provide
public notice of network changes affecting the interoperability of
customer premises equipment. Third, the FNPRM seeks comment on
extending the streamlined notice procedures applicable to force majeure
and other unforeseen events adopted in today's Order for copper
retirements to all types of network changes. Fourth, the FNPRM seeks
comment on whether we should forbear from requiring compliance with the
discontinuance requirements of section 214(a) in all instances where a
carrier seeks to discontinue, reduce, or impair services with no
existing customers. Alternatively, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether
we should further streamline the discontinuance process for all ``no
customer'' applications, regardless of the speed of the services being
discontinued. Fifth, the FNPRM seeks comment on ways to further
streamline the section 214(a) discontinuance process for legacy voice
services. In particular, we seek comment on Verizon's proposal that the
Commission streamline processing of section 214(a) discontinuance
applications for legacy voice services where a carrier certifies: (1)
That it provides interconnected VoIP service throughout the affected
service area; and (2) that at least one other alternative voice service
is available in the affected service area. We also seek comment on
Verizon's request that we forbear from applying section 214(a)'s
discontinuance requirements to carriers seeking to transition from
legacy voice services to next-generation replacement services. Sixth,
the FNPRM seeks comment on whether we should eliminate the outreach
requirements adopted by the Commission in the 2016 Technology
Transitions Order. Lastly, in light of the important and complementary
roles that local, state, and federal authorities play in facilitating
swift recovery from disasters such as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and
Maria, we seek comment on whether there are targeted circumstances in
which we can and should use our authority to preempt state or local
laws that inhibit restoration of communications infrastructure.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
52. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
53. In the FNPRM, we propose to adopt a uniform reduced public
comment period of 10 days and an auto-grant period of 25 days for all
carriers seeking to grandfather data services with download/upload
speeds of less than 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, so long as the applying carrier
provides data services of equivalent quality at speeds of at least 25
Mbps/3 Mbps or higher throughout the affected service area. Under this
proposal, such services must be grandfathered for a period of no less
than 180 days before a carrier may submit an application to the
Commission seeking authorization to discontinue such services. We seek
comment on these proposals, and on whether applications to discontinue
these higher-speed data services after they have been grandfathered for
a period of at least 180 days should be subject to a streamlined 10-day
comment period and a 31-day auto-grant period upon inclusion of a
certification that the carrier has received Commission authorization to
grandfather the services at issue at least 180 days prior to the filing
of the discontinuance application.
54. In the FNPRM, we further seek comment on how best to treat pole
work that is not subject to our standard required pole attachment
timeline. While one of the proposals on which we seek comment would
impose a notice burden on attachers before attempting such work, such a
burden potentially
[[Page 61529]]
could be offset by not requiring such work to be pre-approved by the
utility pole owner or regulated pursuant to the Commission's standard
pole attachment timeline.
55. In the FNPRM, we also seek comment on several proposals to
reform the Commission's network change disclosure rules and the section
214(a) discontinuance authorization process. If adopted, many of these
proposals would reduce the economic impact on small entities by
significantly reducing the reporting, recordkeeping, and additional
compliance burdens on such entities. To that end, the Commission seeks
comment on proposals to (1) revise the rule governing short-term
network change notices to calculate the effective date of such notices
from the date the incumbent LEC files its notice or certification of
the change rather than from the date the Commission releases its public
notice, and (2) eliminate the requirement that incumbent LECs provide
public notice of network changes affecting the interoperability of
customer premises equipment. The FNPRM also seeks comment extending the
streamlined notice procedures applicable to force majeure and other
unforeseen events adopted in today's Order for copper retirements to
all types of network changes. In addition, the FNPRM seeks comment on
whether we should forbear from requiring compliance with the
discontinuance requirements of section 214(a) in all instances where a
carrier seeks to discontinue, reduce, or impair services with no
existing customers. Alternatively, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether
we should further streamline the discontinuance process for all ``no
customer'' applications, regardless of the speed of the services being
discontinued. The FNPRM also seeks comment on ways to further
streamline the section 214(a) discontinuance process for legacy voice
services. In particular, we seek comment on Verizon's proposal that the
Commission streamline processing of section 214(a) discontinuance
applications for legacy voice services where a carrier certifies: (1)
That it provides interconnected VoIP service throughout the affected
service area; and (2) that at least one other alternative voice service
is available in the affected service area. Alternatively, we seek
comment on Verizon's request that we forbear from applying section
214(a)'s discontinuance requirements to carriers seeking to transition
from legacy voice services to next-generation replacement services. The
FNPRM also seeks comment on whether the Commission should eliminate the
outreach requirements adopted by the Commission in the 2016 Technology
Transitions Order. Lastly, in light of the important and complementary
roles that local, state, and federal authorities play in facilitating
swift recovery from disasters such as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and
Maria, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether there are targeted
circumstances in which we can and should use our authority to preempt
state or local laws that inhibit restoration of communications
infrastructure.
56. The Commission believes that the proposals upon which the FNPRM
seeks comment will benefit all carriers, regardless of size. The
proposals would further the goal of reducing regulatory burdens, thus
facilitating investment in next-generation networks and promoting
broadband deployment. We anticipate that a more modernized regulatory
scheme will encourage carriers to invest in and deploy even more
advanced technologies as they evolve. We also believe that preempting
state or local laws that inhibit the restoration of communications
infrastructure will help to facilitate swifter and more effective
recoveries from natural disasters such as hurricanes.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
57. None.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
58. This document contains proposed modified information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees.
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
59. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) is contained
in Appendix D of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Comments to
the IRFA must be identified as responses to the IRFA and filed by the
deadlines for comments on the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
C. Filing Instructions
60. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
[cir] Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[cir] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[cir] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
[cir] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
61. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
[[Page 61530]]
D. Ex Parte Information
62. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must list all persons attending or otherwise participating
in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and
summarize all data presented and arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's
written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the
presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her
prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant
page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be
found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown
or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be
written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with
section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by
section 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules 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.
E. Contact Person
63. For further information about this proceeding, please contact
Michele Levy Berlove, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition
Policy Division, Room 5-C313, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554,
at (202) 418-1477, [email protected], or Michael Ray, FCC
Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, Room 5-C235,
445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0357,
[email protected]
IV. Ordering Clauses
64. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1-4, 201,
202, 214, 224, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201, 202, 214, 224, 251, and 303(r), the
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
65. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR 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.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary. Office of the Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 63 as follows:
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
0
1. The authority 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.
0
2. Section 63.71 is amended by adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.71 Procedures for discontinuance, reduction or impairment of
service by domestic carriers.
* * * * *
(l) The following requirements are applicable to data service
operating at download/upload speeds of less than 25 Mbps/3 Mbps in a
service area in which the carrier provides alternative data services of
equivalent quality at download/upload speeds of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps or
higher:
(1) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(5)(i)-(ii) and (k)(1) of this
section, if any carrier, dominant or non-dominant, seeks to grandfather
data service operating at download/upload speeds of less than 25 Mbps/3
Mbps in a service area in which the carrier provides data services of
equivalent quality at speeds of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps or higher, the notice
shall state: The FCC will normally authorize this proposed
discontinuance of service (or reduction or impairment) unless it is
shown that customers would be unable to receive service or a reasonable
substitute from another carrier or that the public convenience and
necessity is otherwise adversely affected. If you wish to object, you
should file your comments as soon as possible, but no later than 10
days after the Commission releases public notice of the proposed
discontinuance. You may file your comments electronically through the
FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System using the docket number
established in the Commission's public notice for this proceeding, or
you may address them to the Federal Communications Commission, Wireline
Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, Washington, DC 20554,
and include in your comments a reference to the Sec. 63.71 Application
of (carrier's name). Comments should include specific information about
the impact of this proposed discontinuance (or reduction or impairment)
upon you or your company, including any inability to acquire reasonable
substitute service.
(2) An application filed by any carrier seeking to grandfather data
service operating at download/upload speeds of less than 25 Mbps/3 Mbps
for existing customers in a service area in which the carrier provides
data services of equivalent quality at speeds of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps or
higher shall be automatically granted on the 25th day after its filing
with the Commission without any Commission notification to the
applicant unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the
grant will not be automatically effective. Such service must be
grandfathered for a minimum of 180 days before a carrier can file an
application with the Commission to discontinue, reduce, or impair the
previously grandfathered service.
[FR Doc. 2017-27199 Filed 12-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P