Rule2026-07622
Reducing Barriers to Network Improvements and Service Changes
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 20, 2026
Effective
May 20, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopted a Report and Order that reduces regulatory barriers and costs that hinder the transition from outdated legacy networks and services to next-generation, Internet Protocol (IP)-based infrastructure. The actions taken in the Report and Order combine common sense reforms with core consumer protections that bring the regulatory environment in line with today's communications marketplace while retaining and adopting safeguards to protect public safety and ensure 911 continuity. The Report and Order also concludes that if state or local requirements conflict with the service discontinuance framework adopted in the Report and Order, such requirements negate valid federal regulatory objectives and are subject to preemption.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 75 (Monday, April 20, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 75 (Monday, April 20, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20913-20939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-07622]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 51 and 63
[WC Docket Nos. 25-208, 25-209; FCC 26-19; FR ID 340903]
Reducing Barriers to Network Improvements and Service Changes
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) adopted a Report and Order that reduces regulatory
barriers and costs that hinder the transition from outdated legacy
networks and services to next-generation, Internet Protocol (IP)-based
infrastructure. The actions taken in the Report and Order combine
common sense reforms with core consumer protections that bring the
regulatory environment in line with today's communications marketplace
while retaining and adopting safeguards to protect public safety and
ensure 911 continuity. The Report and Order also concludes that if
state or local requirements conflict with the service discontinuance
framework adopted in the Report and Order, such requirements negate
valid federal regulatory objectives and are subject to preemption.
DATES: This rule is effective May 20, 2026, except for instructions 2
(Sec. 51.329), 3 (Sec. 51.333), 6 (Sec. 63.60), 7
[[Page 20914]]
(Sec. 63.62), 8 (Sec. 63.63), 10 (Sec. 63.71), and 12 (Sec.
63.602), which are delayed indefinitely. The Federal Communications
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing
the effective date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
proceeding, please contact Michele Berlove, Competition Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1477, or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#472a2e242f222b22692522352b2831220721242469202831"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eb868288838e878ec5898e9987849d8eab8d8888c58c849d">[email protected]</span></a>. For additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements
contained in this document, send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e2b2b0a3a2848181cc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="075755464761646429606871">[email protected]</span></a> or contact
Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order in WC Docket Nos. 25-208, 25-209; FCC 26-19, adopted on March
26, 2026, and released on March 27, 2026. The full text of this
document is available for public inspection at the following internet
address: <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-19A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-19A1.pdf</a>.
Synopsis
I. Discussion
A. Eliminate Network Change Disclosure Filing Requirements
1. We adopt our proposal in the Network and Services Modernization
Notice (90 FR 41490 (8/28/2025)) to encourage rapid deployment of high-
speed, more resilient infrastructure by eliminating all filing
requirements in the Commission's network change disclosure rules and
the Commission's process of issuing public notices for short-term
network changes and copper retirements and the associated objection
process for interconnected service providers. (We note that, while not
required by the existing rules, the Bureau typically released Public
Notices of long-term network changes as well. However, the objection
process set forth in Sec. 51.333 did not apply to such network change
notices.) These actions effectively codify the relief granted by the
Bureau in the Network Change Disclosure Waiver Order (NCD Waiver
Order). Incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) will continue to be
required to post public notice of planned network changes through
industry fora, industry publications, or on the carrier's publicly
accessible internet site without the obligation to file duplicative
information with the Commission. To ensure clear notice specifically to
interconnecting carriers, incumbent LECs must continue to (1) provide
direct notice of copper retirements and short-term network changes to
directly interconnected telephone exchange service providers, 911
service providers (defined as an entity that provides 911, E911, or
NG911 capabilities such as call routing, automatic location information
(ALI), automatic number identification (ANI), or the functional
equivalent of those capabilities, directly to a public safety answering
point (PSAP), statewide default answering point, or appropriate local
emergency authority as defined in Sec. 9.3; and/or operates one or
more central offices that directly serve a PSAP), and directly
interconnecting local exchange service providers that support essential
functions within 911 networks, including delivering 911 traffic to
selective routers for transmission to public safety answering points
(PSAPs), and (2) provide public notice and communicate directly with
interconnected telephone exchange service providers about network
changes resulting from force majeure events and other events outside of
the incumbent LEC's control. (As previously noted by the Commission,
our network change disclosure rules do not negate any specific notice
obligations contained in privately negotiated contracts.) We note that
the action we take today does not absolve incumbent LECs of their
obligation under Section 214(a) to obtain Commission authorization for
a copper retirement or other network change as defined in Sec.
51.325(a) of our rules that also results in a service discontinuance
and, indeed, works hand-in-hand with our actions taken below to ensure
continued 911 connectivity when a carrier seeks to discontinue a
service supporting interconnection trunks or the exchange of traffic,
including but not limited to 911 trunks and 911 traffic. (We note that
INCOMPAS has asked that ``copper retirement must not be permitted in
areas where competitive providers rely on legacy loops to reach end-
user customers and where no viable wholesale replacement exists.'' And
CWA has asserted that the actions we take today ``fail[ ] to account
for the significant workforce implications associated with accelerated
copper retirement.'' However, as the Commission has previously noted,
section 251(c)(5) established a notice-based network change disclosure
process, and the Commission thus has no authority to prohibit copper
retirements. And impacts of our actions on the workforce are similarly
outside the scope of the purpose of Section 251(c)(5)'s public notice
requirement, which pertains to impacts on interoperability of the
communications networks.)
2. Excessive regulatory burdens prevent carriers from investing in
and deploying next-generation networks that are needed to support
modern communication services. Various commenters have noted that
eliminating all filing requirements while maintaining the public notice
requirements will streamline the transition from legacy networks while
still ensuring interconnecting entities receive adequate notice. We
agree with NTCA that this approach ``strike[s] the appropriate balance
between reducing regulatory burden and ensuring stakeholders remain
informed of network changes.''
3. We find that adopting the change in filing and notice
requirements proposed in the Network and Services Modernization Notice
will not have any impact on the notices end users receive of planned
network changes. Neither Section 251(c)(5) nor our implementing rules
impose end-user notice obligations. Rather, carriers provide such
notices to end users as a matter of practice. In the NCD Waiver Order,
the Bureau noted that it received no comments in opposition to the more
than 400 network change disclosure filings it processed and for which
it released public notices over the preceding two years. And since
issuing that Order, the Bureau has received no request or objection
indicating that the lack of a filing or agency-issued Public Notice has
resulted in disruption to the transmission or routing of services over
an incumbent LEC's facilities. In response to our requests for comment
in the Network and Services Modernization Notice on whether any public
benefit exists from requiring incumbent LECs to file network change
disclosures with the Commission and whether publishing notices of
network changes on carriers' websites provides reasonable public notice
of network changes, commenters suggest the lack of objections submitted
in response to Commission network change Public Notices indicates that
filing network change disclosures has become a purely administrative
task that does not provide any value. Interconnected telephone exchange
service providers may still raise concerns regarding short-term network
changes and copper retirements through less formal Commission
processes.
4. We conclude that eliminating all filing requirements and
publication of Commission-issued public notices will reduce delays and
encourage development and deployment of modernized networks. Reducing
[[Page 20915]]
regulatory costs and obligations encourages investment in modern
networks and advanced communications services in all areas, especially
those that are expensive to serve due to low population density or
challenging topography. Carriers will not need to divert funds and
resources to complying with burdensome regulations, allowing them to
devote these resources elsewhere. (While the Commission cannot direct
how incumbent LECs spend money gained from the reduction in regulatory
costs and obligations, reducing costs associated with deployment of
networks generally makes all service areas attractive for investment.)
5. We are not persuaded by the Alarm Industry Communications
Committee's assertion that having network change notices only posted on
incumbent LECs' publicly accessible websites ``significantly reduces
public visibility of critical infrastructure changes.'' The purpose of
Section 251(c)(5)'s public notice requirement was to promote
competition. When the Commission adopted its regulations implementing
Section 251(c)(5), it noted the limited resources available to smaller
carriers that might not participate in industry fora and publications.
It thus included the filing requirement to ensure that ``all carriers,
competing service providers, and potential competitors . . . have equal
opportunities to provide and to receive change information on a
national scale.'' And when the Commission expressly added copper
retirements to its network change disclosure scheme, it required that
incumbent LECs provide direct notice of such network changes to
interconnecting telephone exchange service providers, ensured that
those interconnecting carriers received at least 90-days advance notice
of the planned copper retirement, afforded those providers the
opportunity to object, and noted that objections would be deemed denied
``[u]nless the copper retirement scenario suggests that competitors
will be denied access to the loop facilities required under our rules''
absent Commission action on the objection within the 90-day advance
notice period. Thus, the purpose of the filing requirement was never
about ``public visibility of critical infrastructure changes.''
However, we require that the method of notice the incumbent LEC uses be
publicly accessible--i.e., not behind a paywall.
6. We do not take the alternative approach of forbearing from all
public notice requirements imposed by Section 251(c)(5) and our
implementing rules because we find that forbearance is not justified at
this time. Section 10 of the Act requires the Commission to forbear
from applying any requirement of the Act or of its regulations to a
telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service if the
Commission determines that (1) enforcement of the requirement ``is not
necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or
regulations by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications
carrier or telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are
not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory,'' (2) enforcement of that
requirement ``is not necessary for the protection of consumers,'' and
(3) ``forbearance from applying such provision or regulation is
consistent with the public interest.'' All three conditions must be met
to support forbearance relief. (We disagree with Wired Broadband et
al.'s assertion that Section 251(c)(5)'s public notice requirement ``is
part of Americans' procedural due process rights'' under the Fifth
Amendment. This requirement is not subject to the Fifth Amendment's due
process clause as the public notice required under that statutory
provision is issued by a private company, not a government entity.)
Thus, while we decline to forbear from these public notice requirements
at this time, we note that future forbearance from these requirements
would not violate the Constitution as the public notice is issued by a
private company not a government entity.
7. Based on the record in this proceeding, we conclude that the
conditions for granting forbearance relief from all network change
disclosure requirements do not exist at this time and that any
framework or guidance regarding interconnection with incumbent LEC
networks during and after the transition to internet protocol (IP) is
more appropriately addressed in the context of the proposed forbearance
from the incumbent LEC-specific interconnection and related obligations
in the October 2025 IP Interconnection Notice (90 FR 54266 (11/26/
2025)). The rule we adopt today eliminating network change disclosure
filing requirements achieves the appropriate balance between providing
reasonable public notice of planned network changes and relieving
incumbent LECs of unnecessary regulatory burdens.
8. Ensuring practices are just and reasonable (Section 10(a)(1)).
We conclude that enforcement of the public notice requirements imposed
by Section 251(c)(5) and our implementing rules is necessary to ensure
incumbent LECs' practices are just and reasonable. Forbearance from all
requirements in Section 251(c)(5) and our implementing rules would
allow incumbent LECs to make network changes or copper retirements
without public notice, which might affect interoperability with
interconnecting providers and may result in unintended service
disruptions. Public notice of network changes generally and copper
retirement notices specifically ensures that incumbent LECs' practices
are ``just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably
discriminatory'' by requiring that interconnecting carriers receive
timely notice regarding changes that may inhibit their ability to
provide services to their end-user customers.
9. Ensuring protection of consumers (Section 10(a)(2)). We find
that enforcement of the public notice requirements imposed by Section
251(c)(5) and our implementing rules is necessary for the protection of
consumers. The requirement that incumbent LECs provide reasonable
public notice of network changes is meant to alert interconnecting
carriers to changes that might affect their interoperability with the
incumbent LEC's network. Lack of such notice and the opportunity to
ensure interoperability might cause unintentional disruption of
services, ultimately harming consumers.
10. Consistent with the public interest (Section 10(a)(3)). We
conclude that forbearance from the public notice requirements imposed
by Section 251(c)(5) and our implementing rules would not be consistent
with the public interest. As shown overwhelmingly in the record, lack
of notice at this time could significantly impact the provision of 911
services. While the transition to Next-Generation 911 (NG911) is
progressing alongside broader IP modernization, the NG911 transition
faces unique challenges and may not be complete for some time. As we
noted in the Network and Services Modernization Notice, ``network
transitions subject to Section 251(c)(5) may occur in areas where 911
authorities and originating service providers (OSPs) have not yet
transitioned to . . . [NG911] and will therefore continue for some time
to rely on legacy selective routers and other TDM (time-division
multiplexing)-based infrastructure for delivery of 911 calls to public
safety answering points (PSAPs)'' during this period of overlap. Until
the NG911 transition is complete, it is imperative that carriers
coordinate with state and local 911. Authorities and 911 service
providers, as defined above, and directly interconnecting local
exchange service providers that support essential
[[Page 20916]]
functions within 911 networks so that they are aware of network changes
that could impact their ability to provide these critical services.
B. Section 214 Discontinuance
11. We next revise our rules implementing Section 214(a) of the Act
to bring them in line with the realities of today's communications
marketplace. First, we adopt our proposal to simplify our rules
applicable to technology transitions discontinuances by establishing
one consolidated rule applicable to all technology transitions
discontinuance applications. (Our technology transitions discontinuance
rules apply only to discontinuance of a retail wireline voice service--
i.e., loop-side services. It does not apply to trunk-side services
provided to another carrier, such as interconnection trunks.) Second,
we adopt our proposal to grant blanket authorization for carriers to
grandfather any legacy voice service, data telecommunications services
operating at speeds below 25/3 Mbps, and interconnected VoIP service
provisioned over copper facilities. Third, we establish requirements
for applications to discontinue a service supporting interconnection
trunks or the exchange of traffic, to ensure continued support for 911
service and also to ensure access for interconnecting providers on non-
TDM services. Fourth, we forbear from Section 214(a) requirements in
certain circumstances for resold service. Fifth, we adopt our proposal
to apply a 31-day automatic grant period to all discontinuance
applications regardless of the applicant's status as dominant or non-
dominant. Sixth, we clarify the required contents of discontinuance
applications. Seventh, we adopt our proposal to revise our rules
applicable to emergency discontinuances to address specific situations
where a carrier may wish to permanently discontinue a service after the
Commission has granted emergency discontinuance authority. Finally, we
clear from the books outdated and irrelevant discontinuance rules. We
do not act at this time on our proposal to forbear from the requirement
that carriers provide notice of planned discontinuances to State
Governors and the Secretary of Defense, as required by Section 214(b).
1. Creating One Consolidated Technology Transitions Discontinuance Rule
12. As part of the Commission's ongoing efforts to reduce
regulatory burdens and thus allow providers to invest more resources
toward modernizing their networks and developing and deploying newer,
more advanced services, we adopt our proposal in the Network and
Services Modernization Notice to revise the rules applicable to
technology transitions discontinuances by replacing the Adequate
Replacement Test and the Alternative Options Test with a single
consolidated technology transitions discontinuance rule. (The
provisions of Section 63.71(f)(2) pertain to last-mile, end-user legacy
voice service.) In conjunction with this revision, we also eliminate
Sec. 63.602 and amend Sec. 63.71 of our rules to set forth content
requirements applicable to all discontinuance applications, including
certain information set forth in Sec. 63.505. With respect to
technology transitions discontinuance applications, we continue to
require that applications contain a statement identifying the
application as involving a technology transition. This consolidated
rule stipulates that an application to discontinue a currently offered
retail voice service as part of a technology transition is eligible for
streamlined processing if the applicant certifies that one or more of
the following replacement services is available in every location
throughout the affected service area: (1) a facilities-based
interconnected VoIP service; (2) a facilities-based mobile wireless
service; (3) a voice service offered pursuant to an obligation from one
of the Commission's modernized high-cost support programs; (4) a voice
service that has been available from the applicant throughout the
affected service area for the previous six months and for which the
carrier has at least a certain number of existing subscribers and which
supports access to 911; or (5) a widely available alternative voice
service that supports access to 911. (In adopting the Adequate
Replacement Test, the Commission stated that ``in order to meet [the
network coverage] prong and thus be eligible for streamlined
processing, a replacement service must be available to all affected
customers covering the entire geographic scope of the service area
subject to the application and actually function as intended for
affected customers, or else it cannot be certified as a replacement
service for those customers,'' thus ``promot[ing] the core value
established by the Act, including that of ensuring universal access.''
Commenter concerns regarding ``reliance on facilities not yet built and
technologies not yet deployed,'' are obviated by the requirement that
the replacement service must be available in all locations throughout
the affected service area in order to be eligible for streamlined
processing. A facilities-based service is any service that is offered
using (1) physical facilities that the provider owns and that terminate
at the end-user premises; (2) facilities that the provider has obtained
the right to use from other entities, such as dark fiber or satellite
transponder capacity as part of its own network, or has obtained; (3)
unbundled network element (UNE) loops, special access lines, or other
leased facilities that the entity uses to complete terminations to the
end-user premises; (4) wireless spectrum for which the provider holds a
license or that the provider manages or has obtained the right to use
via a spectrum leasing arrangement or comparable arrangement pursuant
to 47 CFR 1.9001-1.9080; or (5) unlicensed spectrum.) Upon due
consideration of the record in this proceeding and the ample support
for this approach reflected therein, we find that this rule will
accelerate the application process while simultaneously protecting
legacy service customers by ensuring that they have replacement service
options available to them when their legacy service is discontinued.
This in turn will ensure that consumers receive the benefits of
technology transitions with ``all reasonable efficiency.''
14. We find that replacing both the Adequate Replacement Test and
the Alternative Options Test with the single consolidated rule we adopt
today, along with the application content requirements discussed below,
will more effectively accelerate and streamline the technology
transitions discontinuance process while still providing adequate
protection to consumers. We find that, rather than minimizing
uncertainty and confusion, the Adequate Replacement Test actually
caused widespread confusion that may have prevented carriers from
pursuing technology transition discontinuances under the test, as
evidenced by the fact that the Commission did not receive its first
technology transitions discontinuance application pursuant to the
Adequate Replacement Test until nearly eight years after the rule was
adopted and six years after its effective date. (The filing of that
application was itself delayed by several months while AT&T conducted
the performance testing delineated in the Technical Appendix to the
2016 Technology Transitions Order (81 FR 62632 (09/12/2016)). This
extended timeline is contrary to a streamlined process.) We further
find that the Alternative Options Test has failed to align with
competitive marketplace options and has hampered investment and
innovation in modern
[[Page 20917]]
services by effectively discouraging applicants from filing to
discontinue legacy voice services under that test. Indeed, in the
nearly seven years since the Alternative Options Test was adopted, the
Bureau has found that presumptive streamlined treatment under the test
was utilized only eight times. We agree with the International Center
for Law & Economics that making it costly and time-consuming for
carriers to exit obsolete and inefficient copper-based services slows
the flow of capital toward the deployment of next-generation networks,
where it is needed. Creating one straightforward, consolidated rule
that applies to all technology transitions discontinuance applications
will more effectively accelerate and streamline the technology
transitions discontinuance process while still providing adequate
protection to consumers than revising the Adequate Replacement Test and
the Alternative Options Test.
15. A discontinuance application can rely on the availability of
multiple replacement services, particularly when the application
encompasses multiple wire centers covering large geographic areas. We
decline to adopt Public Knowledge's proposal to require applicants to
identify the replacement service they are relying on for each
subscriber address. Requiring such a level of granularity would impose
an unreasonable burden on carriers and is not always necessary to
confirm the availability of the replacement service(s) across the
geographic area subject to discontinuance. However, we do find merit in
requiring applicants to provide a greater level of detail than simply
providing a high-level aggregate list of which replacement services it
relies on for any given large geographic area covered by the
application. In order to minimize the burden on carriers while still
providing Bureau staff with sufficient information to evaluate the
availability of the replacement services and thus the impact on the
public convenience and necessity, we afford carriers flexibility in how
they break down the available replacement services in the various
affected service areas. We thus require carriers to identify the
available replacement services using the smallest practicable
geographic unit depending on the geographic areas implicated by the
specific application at issue, which could consist of, among other
things, census blocks, census block groups, or ZIP codes. If the
information regarding the geographic availability of the replacement
service(s) is insufficient or incomplete, the Bureau may require
additional information as necessary for its review.
a. Specific Categories of Adequate Replacement Services
16. As delineated above, the consolidated rule we adopt today sets
forth five categories of replacement services that an application to
discontinue a currently offered retail voice service as part of a
technology transition can rely on to be eligible for streamlined
processing. We now address each of these categories in turn.
17. The Commission has previously declined to adopt presumptions or
exclusions regarding specific types of replacement services, stating
that the ``public interest analysis demands that applicants provide
objective evidence showing a replacement service will provide quality
service and access to needed applications and functionalities.'' Given
the rapid developments in the communications marketplace since the
Commission adopted the Adequate Replacement and Alternative Options
Tests, we find the Commission's concerns in 2016 and 2018 have been
obviated. While some commenters contend that replacing the Adequate
Replacement Test and the Alternative Options Test with the consolidated
rule we adopt today will harm consumers and leave them with substandard
alternative connections, we find that these concerns, too, are
unfounded.
18. Since 2018, communications technology has improved, and the
marketplace for voice services, including interconnected VoIP and
mobile voice, has vastly expanded and spurred the creation of new and
innovative communications technologies that benefit consumers and whose
usage has far surpassed that of legacy voice service. Indeed,
interconnected VoIP lines have jumped from 58% of all retail fixed
voice service connections in 2018 to over 79% by December of 2024. The
number of legacy switched access connections has dropped precipitously
since 2018 while the number of fixed broadband connections that support
over-the-top interconnected VoIP service rose to 91 residential fixed
broadband connections per 100 households with speeds of at least 25
Mbps/3 Mbps by the end of 2024. These rapid changes in the marketplace
demonstrate that consumers now have access to a wide array of voice
services provisioned over a variety of technologies. And this disparity
between legacy voice service and interconnected VoIP connections will
only increase as fiber deployments around the country continue. (The
latest report issued by the Fiber Broadband Association indicates that
the number of homes with access to fiber increased by 11% in 2025,
despite rising costs associated with rising labor costs, tariffs on
imported materials, and inflation. According to this report, more than
60% of American homes are now passed by fiber. And the majority of
eligible locations in 2025 in the BEAD program will use fiber.)
19. We conclude that, rather than allowing legacy voice services to
be discontinued and replaced with inferior options, specifying explicit
categories of adequate replacement services will implement a baseline
of quality and availability for replacement services in the event of a
discontinuance, thus ensuring that no consumer receives replacement
services that fall beneath a certain level of service. (As the
Commission noted in the 2016 Technology Transitions Order, ``[t]he
Bureau will normally authorize the discontinuance `unless it is shown
that customers would be unable to receive service or a reasonable
substitute from another carrier or that the public convenience or
necessity is otherwise adversely affected.' '') Moreover, we find that
specifying categories of adequate replacement services will provide
greater certainty for carriers regarding the kinds of replacement
services that could result in the Commission removing a technology
transitions discontinuance application from streamlined processing. We
also find that the federal government's interest in having a coherent
national policy on these matters outweighs state governments' interests
in the types of service that may qualify as adequate replacements for
purposes of streamlined discontinuance applications. As observed by the
Telecommunications Industry Association, clear guidance on what
qualifies as a replacement service will allow providers to know what
attributes a potential successor service must possess as they work to
improve their community's services. The categories of adequate
replacement services we adopt today will furnish providers with
sufficient criteria to provide certainty in planning transitions, and
ensure that consumers in geographically rural, insular communities,
including Tribal communities, the disability community, and other
vulnerable communities have access to advanced service options.
20. We conclude that the approach we adopt today will not impede
access to critical applications such as home security alarms and
medical monitoring devices given the wide array of IP-based devices and
over-the-top services that
[[Page 20918]]
perform similar functions available on the market today. Our
streamlined processing rules still require carriers to notify customers
of their applications to discontinue service, which must be done no
later than the date they file their applications, and provide
information regarding replacement service options. Thus, even in
instances where a carrier may seek to avail itself of streamlined
processing of its discontinuance application, any customers or other
interested stakeholders with concerns--including about the technical
and interoperability information for a specific replacement service--
have the opportunity to file comments or objections to that application
with the Commission. Should the Bureau have any concerns about whether
a particular request to discontinue service could adversely affect the
public interest, it will remove the application from streamlined
processing for closer review, thus mitigating the risk that a
replacement service of inferior quality or availability will be imposed
upon consumers in the event of a discontinuance. (In light of the
opportunities to identify instances where a proposed discontinuance may
result in a loss of service to a customer without an adequate
replacement, we decline to adopt additional remediation requirements
after the approval of the discontinuance.) Meanwhile, the streamlined
process will more efficiently deliver access to modernized services
that better support functions like home security and telehealth, as
compared to the legacy networks in place today. And the providers of
these devices and services have been on notice for almost a decade that
the list of ``key applications'' contained in the 2016 Technology
Transitions Order as part of the Adequate Replacement Test was
temporary. Indeed, under the rules adopted in 2016, the requirement
that ``replacement services [ ] be compatible with these devices''
sunset in 2025.
21. We decline to impose on technology transitions discontinuance
authorizations a condition that ``the replacement service support G.711
codec handshake with RFC 2833 disabled on calls to telephone numbers
serving life safety alarm monitoring receivers, end-to-end through all
carrier handoffs,'' as recommend by AICC. Introducing a new
compatibility requirement for legacy devices, ten years after the 2016
Technology Transitions Order established a sunset date for
compatibility for alarms using low-speed modem devices, would introduce
unnecessary delay from the transition to modern, reliable services.
Such a requirement is also impracticable if the discontinuing carrier
relies on the availability of one or more replacement services offered
by third parties. In such instances, the discontinuing carrier has no
control over the configuration of the network over which the
replacement service is provisioned. However, we encourage carriers to
ensure their IP networks are appropriately configured so as to prevent
alarm signaling failures.
22. Facilities-based interconnected VoIP service. We find that
facilities-based interconnected VoIP service is an adequate replacement
for purposes of determining eligibility for streamlined processing.
(There is also evidence that facilities-based interconnected VoIP
service compares favorably in price on average to legacy voice
services. Interconnected VoIP providers must meet applicable E911
service requirements as a condition of providing service to consumers
and must support NG911 service upon the request of a 911 Authority.) As
the Commission recently found, interconnected VoIP service benefits
consumers by providing access to networks that can support advanced
protocols and technologies, such as STIR/SHAKEN, which helps protect
consumers from illegally spoofed robocalls, and NG911, which will help
save lives by ensuring faster call delivery to 911 call centers through
improved reliability and resiliency, enhanced information about the
caller's location and the nature of the emergency, and the ability to
receive additional multimedia, including video.
23. The only specific opposition in the record does not dispute the
quality of facilities-based interconnected VoIP service but instead
raises competition concerns. NASUCA et al. broadly oppose all of the
specific categories of replacement services proposed in the Network and
Services Modernization Notice but do not raise arguments specific to
facilities-based interconnected VoIP services. Other commenters object
to our finding that VoIP need not be offered on a stand-alone basis to
be considered an adequate replacement. We address those arguments
below. We find AARP's claim that there is not sufficient competition in
the interconnected VoIP market to be overstated in light of the current
state of competition and our continuing ability to remove applications
from streamlined processing should the need arise. We agree that in the
context of wireline voice services, the availability of service from
another provider may provide competitive benefits for consumers. As of
December 2023, at least 95% of the U.S. population had 4G LTE coverage
from at least three service providers. And to the extent that the
affected customers will have access to a facilities-based
interconnected VoIP service, they will have the option to purchase
broadband access, giving them access to a multitude of communications
applications, including over-the-top VoIP service. Moreover, the
Commission's standards for streamlined and non-streamlined processing
of discontinuance applications continue to apply. If the Bureau has
concerns regarding whether it is in the public interest to grant a
particular request to discontinue service--including relevant
considerations of competition in a given service area--it can remove
that application from streamlined processing and engage in a further
review. Other than AARP, no commenters weighed in specifically on the
appropriateness of facilities-based interconnected VoIP service as an
adequate replacement for purposes of eligibility for streamlined
processing.
24. Facilities-based mobile wireless service. We find facilities-
based mobile wireless service operating at speeds of at least 5/1 Mbps,
as reflected on the National Broadband Map, to be an adequate
replacement for purposes of eligibility for streamlined processing.
(The 5/1 Mbps broadband speed is a proxy for services with sufficient
quality to be adequate replacement services.) Mobile telephony (mobile
voice) service is a real-time, two-way voice service that is
interconnected with the public switched network using an in-network
switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and
accomplish seamless handoff of subscriber calls. As of December 2024,
there were approximately 390.9 million mobile voice subscriptions in
the United States; and according to preliminary data from the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, as of December 2023, approximately
76% of adults were living in and relying on a wireless-only household,
with adults in lower age-groups more likely to live in wireless-only
households. As the market has thus spoken on the adequacy of mobile
wireless service, we disagree with Public Knowledge's argument that a
facilities-based mobile wireless service is not a suitable replacement
for a wireline voice service in the context of a Section 214(a)
discontinuance review. (In addition to these objections, multiple
parties filed comments asserting concerns about the potential negative
health impact of increased electromagnetic radiation as a result of
[[Page 20919]]
the retirement of legacy copper networks and the increased use of
wireless alternatives. Commission-regulated equipment is subject to our
rules limiting human exposure to radio frequency (RF) emissions from
such equipment, as applicable. The Commission's rules limiting human
exposure to RF emissions are outside the scope of this proceeding. As
of December 31, 2024, we note that 4G LTE is available at 99% of
locations and 5G-NR at speeds of at least 7/1 Mbps is available at 96%
of locations nationwide.) As the Commission recently noted, ``consumers
continue to rely more heavily on mobile wireless services,'' and that
these services have thus ``become an essential part of everyday life.''
(As of December 31, 2024, we note that 4G LTE is available at 99% of
locations and 5G-NR at speeds of at least 7/1 Mbps is available at 96%
of locations nationwide. Multiple parties filed comments asserting
concerns about the potential negative health impact of increased
electromagnetic radiation as a result of the retirement of legacy
copper networks and the increased use of wireless alternatives.
Commission-regulated equipment is subject to our rules limiting human
exposure to radio frequency (RF) emissions from such equipment, as
applicable. The Commission's rules limiting human exposure to RF
emissions are outside the scope of this proceeding.)
25. We decline to adopt additional verification requirements for
the availability of mobile wireless service beyond the data reflected
in the National Broadband Map, as suggested by some commenters. While
NTCA contends that despite broadband mapping improvement over time, it
``remains unreliable on a granular level in many rural areas'' and thus
that the Commission should proceed with caution, we find that there are
already sufficient safeguards in place to account for discrepancies,
including in rural areas, without the need to adopt more stringent,
mobile-specific verification requirements at this time. As compared to
the initial months following the launch of the National Broadband Map,
the data reflected in the map has become much less susceptible to
correction through the challenge process, resulting in a more stable
dataset to inform the agency's work. Based on internal staff analysis,
the total number of challenges to the National Broadband Map in 2025 as
of June 30 equaled one-half of one percent of the total number of
challenges filed in the same period in 2022. And approximately nine
percent of the challenges filed in that period in 2025 were conceded or
upheld, whereas almost 81 percent of the challenges filed during the
equivalent time period in 2022 were conceded or upheld. Nevertheless,
if consumers or stakeholders have concerns regarding a provider's
reported mobile coverage data as reflected on the National Broadband
Map, they may file a mapping challenge and initiate a review of the
reported coverage data in the specified location. To file a challenge
to the availability data in the National Broadband Map, go to <a href="https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/home">https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/home</a>, type the relevant location into the search
bar, select the `Mobile Broadband' tab, and click on the `Mobile
Challenge' link.) Indeed, affected customers faced with a planned
technology transitions discontinuance relying on the availability of a
facilities-based mobile wireless service, as well as other interested
stakeholders such as public interest groups and state public utility
commissions, may also file objections and seek to have the Bureau
remove the application from streamlined processing for further review
of the availability of mobile wireless service in the affected service
area. Given the existence of these guardrails, we find it unnecessary
and redundant to implement additional mobile-specific verification
requirements as part of this current rulemaking. Such a requirement
would negate the primary purpose of this rulemaking--to make technology
transitions more efficient and encourage the deployment of advanced,
next-generation networks--while providing no material benefit that is
not already available to consumers via the two review mechanisms
enumerated above.
26. Voice service funded by Commission modernized high-cost
mechanisms. We find facilities-based voice services provided via
funding from one of the Commission's modernized high-cost support
mechanisms to be an adequate replacement for the purposes of
eligibility for streamlined processing. We exclude from the purview of
this rule any legacy high-cost support mechanisms that do not contain
the same deployment reporting obligations as the modernized mechanisms.
The Commission began modernizing its universal service high-cost
support mechanisms in 2011 with the USF/ICC Transformation Order (76 FR
76623 (12/08/2011)), which established the Connect America Fund (CAF).
In that Order, the Commission required support recipients to offer
broadband service in addition to the supported ``voice telephony''
service. (The Commission requires recipients of CAF Phase II support
``to offer broadband service with latency suitable for real-time
applications, including Voice over internet Protocol [VoIP], and usage
capacity that is reasonably comparable to comparable offerings in urban
areas, at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates for comparable
offerings in urban areas.'') In the years since, the Commission has
established additional mechanisms to support voice- and broadband-
capable networks. Recipients of these mechanisms must offer voice
telephony at rates that are reasonably comparable to urban rates and
must report compliance with their deployment obligations showing where
they have built out the required facilities and offer voice and
broadband service. They also must provide access to emergency services
via 911 and provide E911 capabilities wherever local governments have
implemented those systems. No commenters disputed the appropriateness
of voice service provided via funding from one of the Commission's
modernized high-cost support mechanisms as an adequate replacement for
purposes of eligibility for streamlined processing, and we find it
reasonable to accept such service as an adequate replacement.
27. Carrier's already available alternative voice service. We find
that, where a carrier has already made available its own alternative
voice service throughout the affected service area, the service is an
adequate replacement for the service being discontinued in that area
for purposes of eligibility for streamlined processing if that service
has been available for at least the immediately preceding 60 days and
the carrier certifies that based on the results of its own internal
network testing routinely undertaken to measure performance in rolling
out a new product or service, the service offers substantially similar
levels of network performance and availability--for example, that it is
provisioned over a network with speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps and that
it offers mouth-to-ear latency of no more than 200 ms--and permits
users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched
telephone network and to terminate calls to the public switched
telephone network or any successor network that utilizes numbers issued
pursuant to the North American Numbering Plan. We find that these
standards better accomplish our goal of encouraging the development of
modern communications service offerings than
[[Page 20920]]
the proposed standards on which we sought comment--i.e., that the
replacement service in question must have been available for a minimum
time period of the immediately preceding six months throughout the
affected service area, and that at least 50 percent of the carrier's
total voice service customer base in the affected service area must be
subscribed to the alternative voice service (this analysis is not
limited to residential subscribers alone, and should include enterprise
subscribers.)--without undue delay while still ensuring that consumers
have available to them an adequate replacement service. Finally, the
service must provide access to 911 and comply fully with our 911
requirements applicable to that service. We require carriers to
describe any such replacement service and to certify that it meets
these temporal, subscriber percentage, and public safety requirements.
As a whole, we find that these requirements adequately balance the need
to ensure a service is stable and satisfies the Commission's goal of
ensuring that carriers can rapidly transition their resources and
investments toward next-generation services. No commenters disputed the
appropriateness of such service as an adequate replacement for purposes
of eligibility for streamlined processing, and we find it reasonable to
accept such service as an adequate replacement.
28. Widely available alternative voice service. We find a widely
available alternative voice service offered by a third party that is
available in all locations throughout an affected service area and
provides access to 911 and complies fully with applicable 911
requirements, to be an adequate replacement for purposes of being
eligible for streamlined processing if the carrier certifies that based
on publicly available information, the service offers substantially
similar levels of network performance and availability and permits
users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched
telephone network and to terminate calls to the public switched
telephone network or any successor network that utilizes numbers issued
pursuant to the North American Numbering Plan. Permitting a
discontinuing carrier to rely on the availability of an adequate
replacement service offered by a third party to support a technology
transitions discontinuance application and to rely on publicly
available information to make the requisite showing is consistent with
previous Commission action. We find that this flexible approach will
minimize burdens on carriers while safeguarding consumers' need for an
adequate replacement service.
29. Permitting third-party alternative voice service with access to
911 and substantially similar levels of network performance and
availability as the service being discontinued to serve as a
replacement service will enable innovative new service offerings, such
as low-earth orbit satellite-based services, to qualify as replacement
services without requiring the Commission to engage in additional time-
consuming rulemaking proceedings and is consistent with both our
standards applicable to voice services funded by our modernized high-
cost universal service support mechanisms discussed earlier in this
section and the standards the Commission previously adopted in
connection with the Adequate Replacement Test.
30. We find that the standards we adopt for eligibility of a widely
available alternative voice service for streamlined processing obviate
NTCA's concerns regarding that the proposed widely adopted alternative
voice service category as set forth in the Network and Services
Modernization Notice is a ``highly detailed and fact-specific view of a
particular market/geographic area,'' and that such a ``fact-specific
inquiry is more suited to a waiver proceeding under which the
Commission can analyze data brought forth by a petitioning provider as
opposed to utilizing a certification that fails to analyze such data
across the market in question.'' We further find that these standards
address the concerns raised by Public Knowledge after release of the
public draft of this Order that this replacement service category would
not afford sufficient safeguards for consumers and thus might
incentivize discontinuing carriers to rely on third-party services for
which they do not need to make the showings required when relying on
the carrier's own already-available alternative voice service. The
standards we adopt today for this alternative service option provide
sufficient backstops to provide predictability and protect consumers.
Moreover, as we have noted above, our streamlined processing rules
still require carriers to notify customers of their applications to
discontinue service and provide information regarding replacement
service options. Customers with concerns about the adequacy of the
purportedly ``widely available'' alternative service, as well as other
interested parties, can file comments or objections to an application
for streamlined processing with the Commission, and the Bureau has the
discretion to remove the application from streamlined processing for
further review, including the ability to request supplemental
information from the applicant. We further expressly delegate to the
Bureau the authority to remove from streamlined processing an
application relying on this category of replacement service if the
service has little to no customers. Bureau staff may consider the
extent to which the widely available service has been adopted outside
the affected service area. We find that these safeguards address
commenter concerns raised in the record and obviate the need for staff
to conduct such time-consuming reviews of every application filed
relying on this category of replacement service.
b. Voice Service Need Not Be Offered on a Stand-Alone Basis To Be
Considered an Adequate Replacement
31. We affirm the Bureau's finding in the Stand-Alone and Single-
Service Waiver Order that VoIP need not be offered on a stand-alone
basis to be considered an adequate replacement and thus decline to
impose such a requirement in the consolidated technology transitions
rule we adopt today. (We note that while bundled services that include
VoIP may still be considered an adequate replacement, broadband-only
service would not qualify under this rule as an acceptable replacement
service. Broadband provides fundamentally different functionality from
traditional voice telephony, and while it does enable users to engage
in activities such as email and messaging, it is not an adequate
replacement for voice telephony service for the purposes of our
discontinuance rules. With that said, broadband facilities may be used
to provision a qualifying voice replacement service.) In doing so, we
conclude that the record in this proceeding supports both the Bureau's
finding in that Order that the elimination of the stand-alone
requirement is warranted due to rapid developments in the
communications marketplace since the adoption of the Alternative
Options Test and extending that finding to apply to each of the
categories of replacement service delineated in the consolidated
technology transitions discontinuance rule we adopt today.
32. Since the Commission adopted its Alternative Options Test with
its stand-alone requirement, the technologies associated with voice
services have improved and the marketplace for voice services, such as
interconnected VoIP and mobile voice, has vastly expanded and spurred
the creation of new and
[[Page 20921]]
innovative communications technologies and bundled service offerings
that benefit consumers. While interconnected VoIP lines accounted for
just 60% of all wireline retail voice service connections in December
2018, that number had already risen to almost 80% by the end of 2024.
The number of legacy switched access connections has also dropped
precipitously since the adoption of the Alternative Options Test, and
the number of fixed broadband connections that support over-the-top
interconnected VoIP service has risen from 61 residential fixed
broadband connections per 100 households with speeds of at least 25
Mbps/3 Mbps in 2018 to 91 by December 2024.
33. The proliferation of interconnected VoIP providers has
``brought advanced communications services to the marketplace to the
benefit of consumers,'' and ensures that strong competition for IP-
based voice service exists in every locality with broadband access. As
of December 2023, more than three-quarters of adults in this country
had gone fully wireless for their voice service. As the Commission
recently noted, ``there are many other types of telecommunications
offerings, including apps running solely on data networks that are
nearly indistinguishable to the consumer from the core communications
functionality of the public switched telephone network . . . [that]
combine the benefits of voice, video, and text communications into one
data-based service,'' obviating the need or desire for stand-alone
voice service. These rapid changes in the marketplace have granted
consumers access to a wide array of voice services with many
capabilities, and in response few providers now offer stand-alone
interconnected VoIP service. Indeed, as the Commission recently noted,
``there are many other types of telecommunications offerings, including
apps running solely on data networks that are nearly indistinguishable
to the consumer from the core communications functionality of the
public switched telephone network . . . [that] combine the benefits of
voice, video, and text communications into one data-based service.''
34. We disagree with commenters who contend that consumers must
retain access to stand-alone voice service separate from a bundled
broadband service simply to obtain and maintain access to voice
communications. The fact that technologically advanced VoIP services
may only be available in certain areas and from certain providers
bundled with broadband, text messaging, or some other service should
not preclude it being considered an adequate replacement if the price
the consumer would pay for the bundle is comparable to the price the
consumer pays for the legacy voice service or is otherwise affordable.
35. We agree with the Bureau that the Commission's findings in the
2024 Communications Marketplace Report about the variety of services
now available to consumers obviates the need for stand-alone voice
service. We require applicants to provide pricing information so that
the Bureau can compare the price of the legacy voice service to post-
promotional and non-sale pricing of any bundled options carriers might
rely on as a replacement service in order to consider the likelihood of
any unreasonable price increases for consumers. When it adopted the
Adequate Replacement Test, the Commission required that a technology
transitions discontinuance application include, among other things, the
information set forth in Sec. 63.505. Among other things, Sec. 63.505
requires that a discontinuance application include the ``difference, if
any, between present charges to the public and charges for the service
to be substituted.'' We conclude that maintaining the requirement to
provide this information will ensure that Bureau staff have this
important information when evaluating such applications.
36. Carriers are still required under our streamlined processing
rules to notify their customers of their applications to discontinue
service and provide information regarding replacement service options
and the customers' ability to object to the proposed discontinuance,
and we note that this broad requirement encompasses particular
demographics raised in the record, such as customers in rural areas or
older customers. While an application may be eligible for streamlined
treatment under the rule we adopt today by the applicant demonstrating
the availability of its own or another voice service throughout the
affected area that may only be available on a bundled basis, customers
with concerns about the adequacy or affordability of a replacement
service, as well as other interested parties, may file comments or
objections to that carrier's discontinuance application with the
Commission. (More generally, when evaluating discontinuance
applications, the Bureau will continue to evaluate the cost of
alternative services in a manner appropriate to the circumstances, and
we therefore need not go further in adopting specific requirements
governing pricing or pricing information as some have proposed.)
37. The Commission's standards for processing streamlined and non-
streamlined applications for discontinuance continue to apply
regardless of whether the replacement service is available on a stand-
alone or bundled basis. If the Bureau has concerns regarding whether it
is in the public interest to grant a particular request to discontinue
service, it can remove that application from streamlined processing and
engage in a further review, which may include looking at whether
bundled services that include interconnected VoIP could result in
raised consumer prices or reduced voice service quality. With the added
safeguard of the requirement that an application disclose pricing
differential information, we thus reject AARP's request and affirm the
finding in the Stand-Alone and Single-Service Waiver Order that
interconnected VoIP need not be offered on a stand-alone basis to be
considered an adequate replacement.
c. Access to Emergency Services
38. We find that the rules we adopt today are sufficient to
safeguard access to emergency services. In the record, several
commenters urged the Commission to take steps to ensure that any
revisions to our discontinuance rules not reduce or otherwise impair
access to 911 service to any part of the affected community. We agree
with these commenters that modernizing our discontinuance rules cannot
come at the expense of legitimate safety concerns and that consumers
must be able to rely on swift and accurate access to emergency
services. We add certain safeguards for discontinuances related to
trunk lines, 911 TDM circuits, TDM private line circuits, and transport
services that provide 911 connectivity as one way to address this
concern, as explained below. Providers of voice service remain subject
to our 911 and outage reporting requirements, and it is our expectation
that the speedy implementation of NG911 will greatly improve the
success, reliability, and accessibility of 911. At the same time, we
must facilitate the transition away from deteriorating, outdated
networks that could ultimately jeopardize access to emergency services.
39. While some commenters are concerned that replacing plain old
telephone service (POTS) provided over copper lines with IP-based
service over fiber, wireless, or satellite networks could jeopardize
communications during emergencies, the experiences of rural commenters
demonstrate that such
[[Page 20922]]
concerns, while certainly well intentioned, may be misplaced.
Deteriorating copper is more susceptible to adverse weather events than
fiber and requires more time to restore than alternative services like
mobile wireless. And alternative voice services can still work during
outages or emergencies. For example, mobile wireless services are
designed to work during cellular network outages through built-in
redundancies such as cellular failover and satellite connectivity.
Additionally, interconnected VoIP service will continue to work during
a power outage if internet service is operational and the end user
maintains a backup power supply. And despite commenter arguments that
phone service provisioned over copper lines always works during a power
outage, this is not true. Utility poles that carry copper can and do go
down during severe weather events and natural disasters, cutting off
both service and power to residents and businesses, while not all
alternative services are vulnerable to the same type of disruption.
d. Accessibility
40. As we clear the way for providers to replace legacy networks
and services with modern technologies, we expect that the technology
transitions expedited by today's Order will speed the availability of
advanced internet-based accessibility solutions. With regard to
telecommunications relay services (TRS) specifically, the Commission
has recently initiated proceedings to modernize TRS to ensure that
those services remain effective, accessible, and sustainable for the
individuals who use them. We believe that the Commission's
comprehensive review in that proceeding is the appropriate avenue to
address the needs of relay users in the transition to internet-based
alternatives from analog relay services. Significantly, carriers remain
obligated to comply with all accessibility requirements applicable to
the services they offer and provide, and Bureau staff may remove
applications from streamlined processing, if necessary, to review any
concerns regarding the accessibility of the proffered replacement
service. We thus decline to adopt an accessibility-specific requirement
as part of the service discontinuance review under Section 214 in this
Order.
41. In their comments, the Accessibility Organizations argue that
``any replacement test the FCC adopts should require carriers to
explain, with specific examples, how at least one replacement service
offered permits [individuals who are deaf, deafblind, hard-of-hearing,
or who have speech disabilities] to access TRS and effectively engage
in other telephone communications.''
42. In the TRS Modernization Notice (91 FR 104 (01/02/2026) adopted
in November 2025, the Commission, in light of technological advances
and declining use of analog relay services, sought to ensure that
``relay services remain effective, accessible, and sustainable for
individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, or have speech
disabilities, by proposing a series of reforms to transition users to
internet-based alternatives.'' We agree with Hamilton Relay that the
TRS Modernization proceeding--which focuses on reforms designed to
ensure that relay services remain effective, accessible, and
sustainable as technology advances and networks transition--is the best
venue in which to address any TRS issues related to technology
transitions. However, we find that expanding IP-based services through
streamlined technology transitions will work hand-in-hand with the TRS
Modernization proceeding to ensure that no individuals who are deaf,
deafblind, deafdisabled, hard of hearing, or who have speech
disabilities are left without access to services that are functionally
equivalent to those provided to voice telephony users. (As Chairman
Carr noted when the Commission adopted the IP TRS Modernization Notice,
``this action supports our broader effort to encourage the IP
transition. As we make the transition, we are mindful of consumer
protection provisions and necessary updates to them like those we
propose today.'') Concerns regarding the accessibility features of the
five categories of replacement services contained in the consolidated
technology transitions discontinuance rule we adopt today should be
addressed in that proceeding.
e. Other Issues
43. Technology transition definition. In the Network and Services
Modernization Notice, we sought comment on whether we should retain the
definition of ``technology transition'' in Sec. 64.60(i) of our rules
or whether we should adopt a different definition. Section 64.60(i)
currently defines a ``technology transition'' as ``any change in
service that would result in the replacement of a wireline TDM-based
voice service with a service using a different technology or medium for
transmission to the end user, whether internet Protocol (IP), wireless,
or another type . . . .'' We received no comments on this proposal.
Because we still consider the existing language to be an accurate and
comprehensive definition of the term ``technology transition'' for
purposes of our discontinuance rules, we retain it at this time.
44. Edge cases requiring additional time. We recognize that there
are some instances--as in the case of isolated rural facilities,
critical access hospitals, or customers with unique accessibility
issues--in which discontinuances may require more time than is provided
for by our streamlined processing to avoid stranding consumers without
access to voice services. Carriers seeking to avail themselves of our
streamlined processing rules for a technology transitions
discontinuance are required to notify customers of their plan to
discontinue a service and must show the availability of at least one of
the replacement services enumerated above. Any customers with concerns,
as well as other interested parties, can file comments or objections to
specific applications with the Commission. Should the Bureau have any
concerns about whether it is in the public interest to grant a
particular request to discontinue service, it will remove the
application from streamlined processing for further review, thus
mitigating the risk that customers will be left without voice services
in the wake of a discontinuance. In cases where a party submits
plausible objections to a specific discontinuance application based on
critical access needs, the Bureau may determine that it is appropriate
to remove the application from streamlined processing so that it may
work with the discontinuing carrier to ensure that no at-risk customers
are left stranded.
45. To ensure that this process operates as intended, we direct the
Wireline Competition Bureau to (1) create a master docket number for
consumer Section 214 discontinuance objections or comments, (2) work
with the Office of the Managing Director to make any necessary changes
to the Electronic Comment Filing System to accommodate such consumer
objections, and (3) release a Public Notice announcing the opening of
the master docket and providing instructions for discontinuing
carriers. Additionally, we require carriers seeking Commission
authorization for a technology transitions discontinuance application
to include in their notice to customers of such planned discontinuances
specific information as to how a customer who wants to object to a
specific proposed discontinuance of service will be able to do so,
including but not limited to providing the master
[[Page 20923]]
docket number for such objections and the web page(s) identified by the
Bureau for further guidance and resources to file an objection or
comment.
46. Consumer outreach and education. We decline to adopt any
specific consumer outreach and education requirements in connection
with the discontinuance rules we adopt today. While some commenters
assert that comprehensive consumer outreach and education are essential
to minimizing the potential for consumer harm during any technology
transition, we find, consistent with prior Commission action in this
regard, that any such requirements would be unduly burdensome in light
of current marketplace incentives for carriers to provide customers
with timely and necessary information regarding replacement voice
services when those carriers seek to cease offering legacy TDM voice
service. As noted previously, the Commission also puts discontinuance
applications on public notice, which triggers the discontinuance review
process and gives affected customers and other interested parties an
opportunity to comment on or object to an application. If customers
facing a discontinuance of their legacy voice service do not believe
they have sufficient data regarding a replacement service from a
carrier seeking Commission approval to discontinue a legacy voice
service, they can raise these objections with the Commission and ask
the Commission to remove the application from streamlined processing
for further review.
47. There are strong marketplace incentives for providers to
communicate with and educate customers regarding replacement services
related to their technology transitions. As the Commission has
previously found, competition among carriers and differing technologies
encourages carriers to communicate with customers to retain them and
remain competitive. Carriers' ongoing customer relationship experience
best positions them to understand and implement effective customer
education and communication strategies. Our existing rules ensure that
carriers make available necessary information to consumers regarding
replacement voice services when those carriers seek to discontinue
legacy voice services. We thus decline to adopt specific consumer
outreach and education requirements in connection with the
discontinuance rules we adopt today, requirements that would be
redundant in light of our existing regulatory framework and notice
requirements.
48. Additional commenter proposals. We decline to adopt USTelecom's
proposal that we begin the 31-day period before streamlined
applications are automatically granted when the provider submits its
application to the Bureau, instead of the date the Bureau issues a
Public Notice of the proposed discontinuance. While existing customers
who would potentially be affected by a discontinuance will have
received notice no later than when the carrier files its application,
other interested parties in an affected area are only made aware of the
discontinuance application and given time to comment after the Bureau
releases a Public Notice of the discontinuance application. The process
also enables the Bureau to confirm that an application is complete
before letting the ``clock'' begin for a streamlined approval,
consistent with Section 214(a)'s mandate that the Commission consider
whether a discontinuance will adversely affect the future public
convenience and necessity. This benefit outweighs any short potential
delays experienced by providers as a result of this requirement. We
note Bureau staff's diligence in releasing Public Notices once
applications are posted to the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS) and their speed in processing applications once they are
complete. However, to ensure that application processing is not
unreasonably delayed, we direct the Bureau to release a Public Notice
of a complete discontinuance application filing as soon as practicable
but not later than ten business days of when the application is posted
to the Commission's ECFS or, if the application is not complete, to
communicate deficiencies in the application to the applicant within
that timeframe.
49. We also decline to adopt USTelecom's proposal that we establish
specific restrictions governing when the Commission can remove
discontinuance applications from streamlined processing, and a timeline
for the Bureau to act on an application after removing it from
streamlined processing. In light of the above-discussed changes
consolidating the applicable tests for technology transitions
discontinuances and expanding the range of applications eligible for a
31-day streamlined review, it is not necessary to adopt additional
rules restricting the Bureau's application review or creating
additional time periods for objections and responses. USTelecom does
not point to specific applications that have previously been subject to
unnecessary discretionary delay under the current rules. Indeed, over
the last five years, Bureau staff have removed only 11 discontinuance
applications from streamlined processing, nine of which were in 2025
and were the result of a shutdown of certain agency operations due to a
lapse in federal appropriations. In all 11 instances, staff released
Public Notices granting all of those applications 51 days after such
removal. And we believe that the rule changes we adopt today will make
delay even less likely, because this Order broadens and clarifies the
circumstances in which an alternative service is to be considered an
adequate replacement for the service being discontinued. The Commission
therefore maintains the necessary flexibility to address proposed
discontinuances that would otherwise result in the loss of service
altogether, while the treatment of discontinuances that include an
adequate replacement for customers is clarified and expedited.
2. Eliminating Grandfathering Filing Requirements for Certain Services
50. We revise our rules to grant blanket Section 214(a) authority
for carriers to grandfather the following services to the extent they
come within the purview of Section 214(a): (1) any legacy voice
service; (2) any lower-speed data telecommunications service; and (3)
any interconnected VoIP service provisioned over copper wire. We define
low-speed data telecommunications services as those operating at speeds
below 25/3 Mbps while we consider forbearance from the incumbent LEC-
specific interconnection and related obligations as proposed in the IP
Interconnection Notice, after which we will revisit this definition.
(This definition is consistent with Sec. 63.71(k) and l) of our
current rules.) This blanket grant of authority eliminates the need for
carriers to file a Section 214(a) application when grandfathering these
services, allowing carriers to focus their resources on the development
and deployment of next-generation networks while still providing
service to current customers.
51. In the Network and Services Modernization Notice, we proposed
to codify the relief granted in the Bureau's March 2025 Grandfathering
Order and May 2025 Grandfathering and Technical Appendix Order. In the
March 2025 Grandfathering Order, the Bureau granted Section 214(a)
authority for carriers to grandfather any legacy voice or
telecommunications data service covered by Sec. 63.71(k) and (1) of
the Commission's rules and waived the requirement that carriers file a
Section
[[Page 20924]]
214(a) application seeking Commission authorization in that instance.
The May 2025 Grandfathering and Technical Appendix Order extended the
relief granted in the March 2025 Grandfathering Order to interconnected
VoIP service provisioned over copper lines. The Bureau determined in
both Orders that granting blanket Section 214(a) authority was
warranted due to developments in communications technologies that allow
consumers to be less dependent on these legacy services.
52. We agree with commenters that eliminating unnecessary
grandfathering requirements reduces carriers' burdens while not
affecting existing subscribers, as current customers are entitled to
keep the grandfathered service. A carrier still must file a
discontinuance application seeking authority to permanently discontinue
one of these services, and affected customers will be notified of the
planned discontinuance and have the opportunity to comment. In the
March 2025 Grandfathering Order, the Bureau noted that ``carriers
grandfathering these services will necessarily need to communicate to
customers the grandfathering status of their service beforehand.''
(Indeed, to the extent that an incumbent LEC has already retired its
copper facilities before grandfathering or seeking to permanently
discontinue any of the services covered by our actions today, it will
have already engaged with its customers.) We take the next step and
require that carriers continue to notify current customers before
grandfathering a service, including TDM-based transport services and
services reliant on TDM-based trunk lines, 911 TDM circuits, and TDM
private line circuits, which shall include (1) a ``no earlier than''
date, by which it intends to seek to permanently discontinue the
service, and (2) a statement regarding alternative services available
in the affected service area.
53. We retain a notification requirement because this relatively
low burden on carriers will help ensure that customers learn as soon as
possible that their service is likely to be discontinued at some point
in the future, so they can make informed decisions about what services
to purchase even before a discontinuance is imminent. And any customers
that still subscribe to the grandfathered service when the carrier
later seeks permanent discontinuance authority will have the ability to
object and ask to have the application removed from streamlined
processing. These requirements alleviate concerns raised in the record
that eliminating the need to file grandfathering applications in the
above scenarios will allow carriers to eliminate services without any
notice.
54. We define ``lower-speed'' data telecommunications service for
purposes of this blanket grant of authority consistent with our
existing grandfathering rules--i.e., encompassing the data
telecommunications services currently subject to Sec. 63.71(k) and (l)
of our rules. We proposed in the Network and Services Modernization
Notice to define lower-speed data telecommunications service as a data
telecommunications service operating at speeds below 25/3 Mbps. When
the Commission adopted Sec. 63.71(k), which allows streamlined
treatment of applications to grandfather low-speed services, it defined
that term as those operating at speeds below 1.544 Mbps. The Commission
accounted for rising network speeds in the Second Wireline
Infrastructure Order (83 FR 31659 (07/09/2018)) by extending the
streamlined treatment of grandfathering applications to services
operating at speeds below 25/3 Mbps if replaced with services operating
at 25/3 Mbps or higher.
55. In connection with our proposed definition, we sought comment
on whether we should define lower-speed service as services operating
below 45 Mbps symmetrical ``given the rapidly increasing bandwidths of
networks today.'' As discussed below, we agree with commenters'
concerns regarding potential unintended impacts, particularly for
emergency services, if we raise the speed threshold for blanket
grandfathering authority too soon. We thus find it appropriate to defer
consideration of such action until after the Commission acts on the
proposed forbearance from the incumbent LEC-specific interconnection
and related obligations. Defining lower-speed data telecommunications
service as those services operating under 25/3 Mbps strikes the
appropriate balance between acknowledging the increased bandwidth
capabilities of modern networks and minimizing any unintended impacts
on emergency services.
56. Finally, we decline to extend the scope of the blanket
grandfathering authority we grant today to all interconnected VoIP
services, regardless of transmission medium. While we agree with
USTelecom that many consumers use interconnected VoIP lines provisioned
over a variety of transmission mediums, we limit the blanket Section
214(a) authority we grant today to interconnected VoIP services
provisioned over copper lines to promote the ongoing transition from
legacy and copper-based networks to IP networks. Many consumers use
interconnected VoIP service as a replacement service and have
expectations about its availability, and we continue to find that the
Section 214(a) discontinuance requirements applicable to grandfathering
for the majority of interconnected VoIP services is an important
safeguard. (Interconnected VoIP lines accounted for 79% of all retail
voice service connections by June of 2024, the last time the Commission
reported such data.)
3. Additional Requirements for Applications To Discontinue a Service
Supporting Interconnection Trunks or the Exchange of Traffic
57. As part of the rules we adopt today, we require carriers
seeking authority to discontinue a service supporting interconnection
trunks or the exchange of traffic, including but not limited to 911
trunks and 911 traffic--e.g., a discontinuance resulting from the
decommissioning of one or more trunk lines, TDM lines directly
connected to 911 selective routers, dedicated 911 TDM circuits, or TDM
private line circuits, or the discontinuance of a TDM-based transport
service--to specifically identify the service to be discontinued, not
just the branded name of the service being discontinued. Carriers must
also include in such discontinuance applications, in addition to the
information required by Sec. Sec. 63.500 and 63.501, (1) a statement
that at least 90 days prior to the planned discontinuance filing, the
carrier provided a designated point of contact with authority to
facilitate the orderly transition from legacy facilities that support
911 to the 911 Authorities, 911 service providers as defined above, and
directly interconnecting local exchange service providers that support
essential functions within 911 networks, including delivering 911
traffic to selective routers for transmission to public safety
answering points (PSAPs) in the affected service area for coordination
of the transition to ensure continued 911 connectivity, and (2) a list
of providers that received notice as described above in the affected
service area with which the carrier has coordinated and the date(s) of
that coordination. (We note that because our rules require carriers to
send copies of their discontinuance applications to state public
utility commissions, we do not need to amend our rules to include such
notice, as proposed by certain commenters.)
58. We expect the carrier's designated point of contact for
facilitating the orderly transition to know whether to
[[Page 20925]]
file either an application to dismantle or remove trunk lines, or an
application to sever physical connections or to terminate or suspend
interchange of traffic with another carrier. We find that a pre-filing
notice and coordination period of at least 90 days is sufficient and
decline to adopt either a shorter or longer period. We similarly
decline to adopt Intrado's request that we do not streamline
discontinuance authorization requests ``to dismantle circuits that
carry 9-1-1 traffic'' or to adopt a presumption that initial extension
requests of up to 90 days should be presumed reasonable ``if the
circuit customer certifies to the circuit provider that the circuit in
question is carrying live 9-1-1 traffic and there is no alternative
available within the time frame of the notice.'' Rather, we expect the
parties to work cooperatively during this pre-filing coordination
period, including the granting of good faith requests from 911 service
providers for reasonable extensions upon a showing of both continued
live 911 traffic over the affected facilities and the lack of an
alternative available within the timeframe of the planned
discontinuance, to ensure that 911 continuity is not disrupted.
59. To comply with this certification requirement, we expect that
carriers and service providers will engage in a planned and managed
process for the orderly shutdown or reduction of services to customers,
including 911 Authorities handling live traffic, while ensuring
compliance with regulatory requirements and a smooth transition to
alternative providers. (The discontinuing carrier is responsible in the
first instance to ensure it is complying with the proper discontinuance
application requirements and that it is taking the steps necessary to
fulfil its role in a managed and orderly shutdown of service. Where a
carrier falls short in any of those respects, the Bureau is empowered
to more closely scrutinize, remove from streamlining, or condition
future discontinuance requests by that carrier. Given this, we are not
persuaded of the need to go further to ensure that discontinuing
carriers, like 911 authorities and other service providers, do their
part to ensure a smooth and orderly transition process, as some
suggest.) While we agree with USTelecom that ``an email account for a
centralized team (e.g., ``<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3b4b4e59575258485a5d5e4f427b4b49544d525f5e4915585456"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ff8f8a9d93969c8c9e999a8b86bf8f8d9089969b9a8dd19c9092">[email protected]</span></a>'') that is
available to address any customer concerns if a vendor learns from a
PSAP that a circuit is being disconnected is sufficient for purposes of
this requirement,'' we expect that inquiries sent to that account would
be timely addressed by a person with decision-making authority to
ensure a timely, good faith response to such communications. We believe
this modification, in conjunction with the existing requirement that an
application to sever a physical connection or terminate or suspend the
interchange of traffic with another carrier include a ``statement as to
whether severance of physical connection or termination or suspension
of interchange of traffic is being made with consent of other
carrier,'' strikes the correct balance to promote the Commission's
goals of encouraging the development and deployment of advanced, next-
generation networks and services and supporting the parallel adoption
of NG911 emergency services networks, while ensuring seamless 911
connectivity.
60. We decline Bandwidth's proposals to include an explicit
requirement that carriers ``perform pre-filing diligence to determine
whether an application under rule 63.500 or 63.501 is required'' and to
require a discontinuing carrier to include in all other discontinuance
applications that the discontinuance will not impact 911. We find that
the coordination requirement we adopt today, together with our short-
term network change and copper retirement disclosure requirements and
the certification requirement for all discontinuance applications, is
transparent and sufficient to ensure that carriers seeking to
discontinue a service supporting interconnection trunks or the exchange
of traffic, including but not limited to 911 trunks and 911 traffic,
will engage in the requisite coordination and comply with all
applicable discontinuance application content requirements. We also
find that the guardrails we adopt today obviate the concerns raised by
Allerium regarding the service quality of available replacement
services.
61. While we find that forbearance relief is not appropriate for
lower-speed data telecommunications services as defined in this Order,
we decline to adopt NTCA's proposal to specifically disallow the
discontinuance of DS1 and DS3 circuits ``absent a showing by the
provider . . . that the carrier has an alternative IP offering
available for the same route pathway as the discontinued service on
reasonable rates, terms, and conditions.'' NTCA contends that many of
its members rely in part on DS1 and DS3 connections provided by larger
providers for the exchange of voice traffic through subtended tandems,
and that price cap carriers have been increasing pricing on these
transmission circuits. It further asserts that in some instances, price
cap carriers suggested discontinuance altogether despite the purported
lack of meaningful alternative facilities or services, whether in IP or
TDM.
62. We agree with NTCA that these circuits are critical
infrastructure for many rural providers and that price cap carriers'
ability to discontinue DS1s and DS3s without adequate replacement
services could harm rural communities. However, our rules already
require that carriers obtain Commission authorization before
dismantling or removing a trunk line or severing a physical connection
or terminating or suspending the interchange of traffic with another
carrier, and the availability of an adequate replacement service is
already factored into Bureau staff's consideration of whether to grant
discontinuance authorization. (In evaluating whether ``the public
convenience and necessity is otherwise adversely affected'' by the
discontinuance, the Commission has long considered: (1) the financial
impact on the common carrier of continuing to provide the service; (2)
the need for the service in general; (3) the need for the particular
facilities in question; (4) increased charges for alternative services;
and (5) the existence, availability, and adequacy of alternatives.) We
find that any further requirements relating to such situations are more
appropriately addressed in our IP Interconnection proceeding in which
we will examine the regulatory framework for TDM and IP interconnection
for voice services. In the interim, incumbent LECs remain obligated to
provide direct notice to interconnected telephone exchange service
providers, 911 service providers, and directly interconnecting local
exchange service providers that support essential functions within 911
networks, of planned network changes and copper retirements, and to
obtain Commission authorization should any planned network change or
copper retirement result in a discontinuance of service, including
complying with the pre-application filing coordination requirement we
adopt today. The additional requirements we adopt here for
discontinuances involving dismantling or removing a trunk line or
severing a physical connection or terminating or suspending the
interchange of traffic with another carrier ensure collaboration
between the respective parties and provide safeguards to avoid
unintended disruptions of 911 connectivity. And wholesale customers
that use circuits
[[Page 20926]]
for 911 purposes may request priority designation from their wholesale
provider so that the circuits are identified as 911 circuits.
63. Finally, as discussed further below, we retain at this time our
rules setting forth the content requirements for applications seeking
to dismantle or remove a trunk line, to sever physical connections, or
to terminate or suspend interchange of traffic with another carrier. We
find that these backstops should be sufficient to address 911 service
provider concerns. Regardless, the Commission can deny individual
applications to discontinue TDM services if the backstops prove
insufficient and discontinuance would adversely affect the public
convenience or necessity.
4. Limited Section 214(a) Forbearance
64. We grant forbearance relief to resellers ``for resold services
that are the subject of a technology transition discontinuance by the
reseller's wholesale provider,'' conditioned on appropriate notice to
customers. However, we do not grant broader forbearance relief from any
Section 214(a) discontinuance requirements or associated regulations at
this time. Based on the record in this proceeding, we conclude that the
conditions for granting forbearance relief from discontinuance
requirements beyond that described above do not exist at this time.
Rather, the subject of broader forbearance relief is more appropriately
addressed after any forbearance from the incumbent LEC-specific
interconnection and related obligations as proposed in the October 2025
IP Interconnection Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
a. Conditional Forbearance for Resold Services
65. In this Order, we determine that it is appropriate to forbear
from all Section 214(a) discontinuance requirements for resellers
discontinuing resold services where the reseller's wholesale provider
is engaging in a technology transitions discontinuance, with the
condition that the discontinuing resellers provide reasonable notice to
their customers. We sought comment on such forbearance relief in the
Network and Services Modernization Notice, and no commenters objected
to this relief.
66. Ensuring practices are just and reasonable (Section 10(a)(1)).
We find that enforcement of Section 214(a)'s discontinuance
requirements, as well as the requirements of the Commission's
implementing rules, where a resold service is being discontinued as a
result of the wholesale provider's technology transitions
discontinuance is not necessary to ensure that the charges, practices,
classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with that
carrier or service are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or
unreasonably discriminatory. We agree with INCOMPAS that ``[a] review
of the consequences of the reseller's `charges, practices,
classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with' those
services is an empty formalism.'' In these situations, the
discontinuance is due to circumstances beyond the reseller's control.
Moreover, the discontinuance of the resold service at issue will be
subject to Commission consideration in the context of the wholesale
provider's technology transitions discontinuance application, including
consideration of any objections filed in response to such application.
Thus, there is no need to engage in a redundant review when the
reseller then seeks to discontinue the resold service.
67. Protection of consumers (Section 10(a)(2)). We also find that
enforcement of Section 214(a)'s requirements, as well as the
requirements of the Commission's implementing rules, is not necessary
in this context to protect consumers. When a wholesale provider
discontinues a legacy voice service, the reseller in nearly all cases
has no available alternative sources from which to obtain replacement
TDM-based services to resell to its end-user customers. The only
requirement needed to ensure that consumers are protected in such
situations is notice from the reseller to its customers. We thus impose
on any reseller availing itself of this forbearance relief the
condition that it provide such notice to its affected customers as soon
as practicable after the reseller receives notice from its wholesale
provider of the planned technology transitions discontinuance that it
will no longer be able to provide the relevant legacy voice service.
Such notice is to be provided to customers as soon as practicable via
any method for which the customer has previously provided express,
verifiable approval, and it must set forth the following: (1) the name
and address of the carrier; (2) the date of the planned service
discontinuance; (3) the points of geographic areas of service affected;
(4) a brief description of type of service affected; and (5) a
statement regarding the availability of alternative services in the
affected service area. We find that this condition will sufficiently
protect consumers when a reseller discontinues a resold service because
it will no longer be available from the wholesale provider.
68. Consistent with the public interest (Section 10(a)(3)).
Finally, we hold that forbearance from applying the discontinuance
requirements in the circumstances described above is consistent with
the public interest. The discontinuance of the resold service at issue
will be subject to Commission consideration in the context of the
wholesale provider's technology transitions discontinuance application,
and the Commission will not grant that underlying discontinuance
application if the discontinuance would adversely impact the public
interest, including with respect to the provision of 911 service.
Moreover, forbearance in this limited situation is consistent with the
public interest because it will conserve carrier resources that might
otherwise be spent on regulatory compliance, and we expect carriers to
make those resources available for better bundling of services, better
tailoring of packages to businesses and consumers, and by providing
support to customers. This could include managing first-level technical
support, billing, and customer service, and acting as the primary
contact for customers, and offering value-added services, including
specialized expertise, customized solutions, and bundled IT services.
b. No Broad Section 214(a) Forbearance
69. We find that broader forbearance from discontinuance
requirements, whether limited to legacy voice service in specific
instances or with respect to all applications to discontinue any type
of service, without qualification, is not warranted at this time. The
streamlined approach we adopt above speeds transitions where acceptable
marketplace alternatives exist. Broader forbearance risks unintended
disruptions to public safety and the proper operation of, among other
things, security and medical monitoring services, and thus is not
consistent with the public interest.
70. Ensuring practices are just and reasonable (Section 10(a)(1)).
We conclude that the requirements of Sections 214(a) of the Act and
63.71 of our rules are still necessary at this time to ensure that
charges, practices, classifications, or regulations are just and
reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. Areas
still exist in this country where, despite the broad scope of wireless
and satellite service offerings, no alternative services exist. The
record reflects concerns regarding price increases, whether real or
potential, that could negatively impact customers. The filing of
discontinuance applications allows the Commission and all stakeholders
to
[[Page 20927]]
receive notice and review in real time service transitions as carriers
plan them.
71. Ensuring protection of consumers (Section 10(a)(2)). We find
that enforcement of the requirements at issue are necessary for the
protection of consumers. As illustrated in the record, locations exist
where fiber has not yet been deployed and where wireless service may
not reach or be sufficiently robust to support reliable voice service.
By retaining the requirement that a carrier must seek Commission
authorization to discontinue the service at issue, we ensure that
customers and other interested parties, including state regulators,
will have the opportunity to raise such concerns in objections to the
discontinuance application, thereby allowing the Commission to more
fully examine the merits of such claims and work with carriers to
ensure that no consumers lose access to vital communications
capabilities. This concern applies with equal force to the type of
conditional forbearance proposed by USTelecom and supported by the Ohio
Telecom Association and the Texas Association of Business.
72. Consistent with the public interest (Section 10(a)(3)). In the
Network and Services Modernization Notice, we proposed that forbearance
in certain circumstances would ``promote competitive market conditions
by eliminating superfluous regulations that slow the transition to
next-generation IP-based services and by enabling carriers to redirect
resources away from legacy voice services--which are no longer
competitive and are not in high demand--and toward maintaining and
building out the next-generation IP-based services that consumers not
only desire but have come to expect.''
73. Based on the record, we do not adopt this proposal and
determine that forbearance from Section 214(a) discontinuance
requirements as a general matter is not consistent with the public
interest at this time. Without the backstop of customer objections and
Commission review of an application and those objections, the
Commission would not be able to confirm the availability of an adequate
replacement service for the affected customers, including in instances
where a provider may be relying on ``not-yet-deployed technologies,''
particularly in less economically attractive locations. Moreover, we
find that forbearance from Section 214(a) discontinuance requirements
would remove the safeguard of the objection process that might reveal
the potential for unintended impacts on, among other things, continued
911 connectivity. Our streamlined application of Section 214(a)'s
requirements with less burdensome non-dominant procedures in place is
predictable and functions as a backstop that allows the Commission to
promote competitive market conditions.
74. We also specifically find that granting forbearance relief from
the Section 214 requirements for discontinuance of lower-speed data
telecommunications services is not in the public interest because of
potential impacts on, among other things, the provision of 911 service.
5. The 31-Day Automatic Grant Period Applies to All Discontinuance
Applications
75. We adopt our proposal to revise Sec. 63.71 of our rules to
extend the 31-day automatic grant period applicable to applications to
discontinue a service for which a carrier is non-dominant to all
instances in which a domestic carrier submits a request to discontinue
a service, along with the corresponding 15-day objection period.
Section 63.71(f)(1) of the Commission's rules allows a discontinuance
application filed by a domestic, non-dominant carrier to be
automatically granted on the 31st day after it is filed with the
Commission, unless the Commission notifies the applicant otherwise. (An
application is deemed filed on the date the Commission releases a
Public Notice of the filing. The 31-day period thus only begins to run
once the Commission releases the Public Notice of the filing of the
discontinuance application.) If a carrier is dominant, however, the
current automatic grant period is 60 days after filing. (The Commission
first established the dominant/non-dominant distinction in 1980 to
``reduce barriers to entry'' caused by dominant carriers' ``substantial
opportunity and incentive to subsidize the rates for [their] more
competitive services with revenues obtained from [their] monopoly or
near-monopoly services.'') Expanding the applicability of the 31-day
automatic grant period to include dominant carrier discontinuance
applications will speed up the processing of those applications and
further the critical goal of transitioning to modern networks for all
consumers. And because the Commission retains the authority to remove
applications from streamlined processing, the public interest will
still be protected as required by Section 214(a).
76. We conclude that 31 days is sufficient time for the Commission
to determine whether to remove a dominant carrier's discontinuance
application from streamlined processing or to allow automatic grant of
the discontinuance. Some commenters suggest that the 31-day auto-grant
period, which provides a 15-day window for customers and other
interested parties to file objections, is not enough time for consumers
to learn about adequate replacements and ensure there are no unintended
consequences of the discontinuance, such as loss of 911 services.
However, 31 days has proven to be sufficient for the public to review
recent non-dominant carrier applications, including technology
transitions discontinuance applications, and assess any changes or
disruptions that may occur due to the discontinuance. (AICC asks the
Commission to ``ensure that any streamlining measures preserve adequate
time for public safety evaluation and stakeholder response.'') And
since 2013, the Commission has received, on average, only 12 dominant
carrier discontinuance applications each year, with objections filed
with respect to only approximately 10 percent of those applications and
only three being removed from streamlined processing and subsequently
granted.
77. We thus determine that 31 days will be sufficient time to
review dominant carriers' applications as well. Additionally, the
Commission retains discretion to remove an application from streamlined
processing at any point during the 31-day period should the
discontinuance raise concerns. This notice requirement and the backstop
retained by the Commission ensure adequate review of applications by
dominant carriers as the public and carriers are notified of the
discontinuance application and have the ability to raise concerns about
applications with the Commission before the automatic grant.
78. We decline to adopt USTelecom's request to amend Sec.
63.71(f)(1) to allow the automatic grant period to begin to run upon
the carrier's filing of an application rather than after the Commission
releases the Public Notice. Without the Public Notice, affected
customers and other interested parties, such as state regulators,
public safety organizations, and public interest groups, would not be
able to submit objections in the docket ultimately assigned to the
relevant application, thus delaying staff's receipt of those
objections. This would have the effect of reducing the amount of time
available to Bureau staff to review an application for completeness or
to determine, as required by statute, whether the application raises
concerns regarding the potential impact of the requested discontinuance
authorization on the public interest, regardless of whether it
[[Page 20928]]
receives objections. We find such a potential effect to be
unacceptable. However, as discussed above, we direct the Bureau, within
ten business days of posting of an application in ECFS, to either
contact the applicant to identify deficiencies and request any
additional information necessary to make the application complete or to
issue a Public Notice of filing of the complete application to ensure
timely processing that will support our modernization efforts.
79. We disagree with Bandwidth's assertion that Sec. 63.71 and its
automatic grant provisions apply only to retail, loop-side services and
not to trunk-side services. In support of its assertion, Bandwidth
points to Sec. Sec. 63.500 and 63.501 as the purportedly governing
provisions for such services. However, those provisions simply set
forth the content requirements for the formal applications required for
the specified types of discontinuances. The discontinuance application
procedures, on the other hand, are set forth in Sec. 63.71, and those
procedures apply to all formal discontinuance applications other than
emergency discontinuance applications, which are specifically covered
by Sec. 63.63.
6. Contents of Discontinuance Applications
80. We revise Sec. 63.71(c) of our rules to consolidate the
following content requirements applicable to all discontinuance
applications, unless otherwise provided for or otherwise stated herein
(for example, the contents of emergency discontinuance applications are
set forth in Sec. 63.63, and applications to dismantle or remove a
trunk line or to sever physical connection or to terminate or suspend
interchange of traffic with another carrier must comply with Sec. Sec.
63.500 and 63.501, respectively, of our rules), to ensure that Bureau
staff have sufficient information before them when evaluating
discontinuance applications: (1) for technology transitions
discontinuance applications only, the difference in price, if any,
between the service being discontinued and replacement services
available in the affected service area; (2) for technology transitions
discontinuance applications only, description of the affected community
or part of a community, including the population size and demographics
and general characteristics of customers affected; (3) description of
replacement services, whether available from the applicant or third
parties, that would remain in the affected community or part of the
community in the event the application is granted, including the name
of any other carrier(s) providing replacement services to the affected
community; and (4) statement of the factors otherwise showing that
neither the present nor future public convenience and necessity would
be adversely affected by the granting of the applications. (These
content requirements are in addition to those we adopt elsewhere in
this Order.) And carriers will be required to include in their
discontinuance applications a certification, executed by an officer or
other authorized representative of the applicant, that the information
required by our rules is true and accurate. Our current rules already
explicitly require this information for technology transitions
discontinuance applications. We conclude that this information is
necessary for evaluating all discontinuance applications, particularly
in this rapidly changing technological environment.
81. As discussed above, pricing differentials between services
being discontinued and available replacement services is important for
evaluating the affordability of the replacement service. And
information regarding the affected community, a description of the
replacement services that would remain available, and other information
relevant to the determination of whether the discontinuance would not
adversely affect the public convenience and necessity, the statutory
standard, are also important to staff evaluation of discontinuance
applications. Our rules already require that specific types of
discontinuance applications, including technology transitions
discontinuance applications, include this information. In conjunction
with our elimination of Sec. 63.602, which currently sets forth the
content requirements for technology transitions discontinuance
applications, including the elements of the Adequate Replacement Test,
we incorporate these existing requirements for technology transitions
discontinuance applications in Sec. 63.71. (Because we are eliminating
this provision, we are revising the cross-references to it in Sec.
63.19(a) and (b).) And the content requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.500,
63.501, and 63.505 remain unchanged. For other types of discontinuances
that do not fall within any of these categories, we do not expressly
require pricing differential and affected community information. (We
note that applications to discontinue a business data service that
supports interconnection trunks or the exchange of traffic remain
subject to the content requirements set forth in Sec. Sec. 63.500 and
63.501.) However, in this rapidly changing communications environment,
we do extend the requirement that applications to discontinue such
services--i.e., not involving ``technology transitions'' and not
covered by Sec. Sec. 63.500, 63.501, and 63.505--include a description
of the replacement services that would remain available, other
information relevant to the determination of whether the discontinuance
would not adversely affect the public convenience and necessity, the
statutory standard, and the certification described in the preceding
paragraph. (For example, a competitive LEC application to discontinue a
legacy voice service in a service area where that legacy voice service
is still available from the incumbent LEC does not qualify as a
technology transitions discontinuance and thus need not comply with the
requirements specific to that category of discontinuances. However,
competitive LEC applications seeking discontinuance authorization for a
legacy voice service still must demonstrate the existence of an
adequate replacement service, which in this case would include the
legacy voice service available from the incumbent LEC.) As the
Commission has repeatedly noted, the adequacy and availability of
replacement services is one of the traditional five factors the
Commission considers when determining whether discontinuance of a
service to a community or part of a community would adversely affect
the current or future public convenience and necessity. Expressly
requiring this information will minimize the need for Bureau staff to
request from the applicant additional information necessary for their
evaluation of applications to discontinue those services, thus making
the process more efficient and predictable and, combined with the
overall regulatory relief we grant today, should not result in
burdensome filing requirements that delay service transitions for
consumers. (Sec. 63.71 requires applicants to provide ``[a]ny other
information the Commission may require.'' Many carriers already provide
the types of information required by our revised requirements in their
discontinuance applications in order to paint a fuller picture for
Bureau staff and avoid further questions from staff about the proposed
discontinuance(s).)
7. Emergency Discontinuances
82. We adopt our proposal to revise our emergency discontinuance
rules to explicitly provide that a carrier may permanently discontinue
a service a showing that: (1) the carrier has previously obtained
emergency
[[Page 20929]]
discontinuance authority for the service in question, (2) the service
is one for which the requesting carrier has had no customers or
reasonable requests for service during the 60-day period immediately
preceding the permanent discontinuance, and (3) an adequate replacement
service is available throughout the affected service area. We decline
at this time to allow for streamlined processing of requests to
permanently discontinue a service that is contained in an initial
emergency discontinuance application.
a. Emergency Discontinuances Leading to No Customers
83. Section 63.63 of our rules sets forth procedures carriers must
follow when seeking authority for an emergency discontinuance. (Our
rules define an emergency discontinuance as ``any discontinuance,
reduction, or impairment of the service of a carrier occasioned by
conditions beyond the control of such carrier where the original
service is not restored or comparable service is not established within
a reasonable time.'' Providers must submit an application for authority
for an emergency discontinuance of service as soon as practicable but
not later than 65 days following the occurrence of the conditions which
occasion the discontinuance. Authority is deemed granted as of the date
the request is filed unless the Commission notifies the carrier
otherwise on or before the 15th day after the date of filing, and a
carrier may request to have the authorization renewed if the conditions
leading to the emergency discontinuance ``may reasonably be expected to
continue for a further period and what efforts the applicant has made
to restore the original or establish comparable service of such
authority.'' The carrier must notify the Commission if ``the same or
comparable service is reestablished before the termination of the
emergency authorization.'') We now revise that rule to allow carriers
to permanently discontinue a service for which the carrier has
previously obtained emergency discontinuance authority upon a showing
that (1) the service is one for which the requesting carrier has had no
customers or reasonable requests for service during the 60 days
immediately preceding the permanent discontinuance, and (2) an adequate
replacement service is available throughout the affected service area.
While our proposal in the Network and Services Modernization Notice
referred to ``comparable service,'' we find it more appropriate to use
the phrase ``adequate replacement service'' in this instance to confirm
that the standards for replacement services are the same for all
permanent discontinuances, whether the provider proceeds under Sec.
63.63(b) or Sec. 63.71(g) of our rules.
84. Under our existing rules, carriers may submit an informal
request to permanently discontinue a service for which the carrier has
already received emergency discontinuance authority, which the
Commission may authorize ``upon a proper showing.'' Our rules do not
define what constitutes a ``proper showing.'' We conclude that the
amendment we adopt today, which addresses a narrow set of
circumstances, strikes the appropriate balance between safeguarding
consumers and enabling carriers to be more deft and responsive in
reacting to natural disasters and other emergencies. The amendment also
allows carriers to focus their rebuilding efforts on modernized, more
resilient networks rather than restoring deteriorating, obsolete legacy
networks and services. We find that there is little risk that a
permanent discontinuance of the affected service will adversely affect
any existing or potential customers in instances where a carrier has
previously filed for emergency discontinuance authority, has had no
customers nor reasonable requests for service for a minimum of 60 days,
and an adequate replacement service is available. (Contrary to
USTelecom's assertion, when the Commission forbore in the Second
Wireline Infrastructure Order from applying the discontinuance approval
obligations set forth in Section 214(a) of the Act and our implementing
rules to carriers choosing to discontinue services for which the
carrier has had no customers and no reasonable requests for service for
at least the immediately preceding 30 days it excluded from this
forbearance the requirements associated with emergency discontinuances
where a carrier's existing customers are without service for a period
of time exceeding 30 days. By extending the period in which the carrier
has had no customers or reasonable requests for the affected service to
60 days and limiting the application of the rule we adopt today to only
those areas where an adequate replacement service is available in the
affected service area, we believe we have adequately addressed the
concerns that prompted this carve-out in the Second Wireline
Infrastructure Order.)
85. When legacy voice service facilities are damaged or destroyed
during a natural disaster or other event outside the carrier's control,
it may be costly as well as inefficient to require the carriers to
restore these legacy facilities, especially in areas where the
requesting carrier has had no customers or reasonable requests for
service for 60 days prior to the request for permanent discontinuance
and where an adequate replacement service is already available. Such an
approach also mitigates the risk that consumers in an affected area
will be stranded without service. Indeed, the increasing incidences of
copper thefts have resulted in emergency discontinuances that leave
affected customers without service, sometimes repeatedly. (Incumbent
LECs filed 11 emergency discontinuance applications in 2024 caused by
copper thefts, and another 19 in 2025. And the repair processes during
the pendency of certain of these emergency discontinuance applications
have been impeded by continued copper thefts.) Consumers will also
benefit in the long term as this amendment to our rules will allow
carriers to begin building out more reliable and more robust next-
generation networks sooner by redirecting money and time that would
otherwise be spent making lengthy and costly repairs to vulnerable
legacy facilities serving fewer and fewer customers.
86. We decline to adopt a commenter's proposal to extend the
relevant time period for an emergency discontinuance from 60 days to
six months and to require carriers to affirmatively contact each
customer during that time to obtain explicit consent prior to any
permanent discontinuance. Such requirements would impose burdensome
requirements where a comparable service is already available across the
affected service area. Additionally, this proposal would require
carriers to make repeated attempts to contact consumers who may choose
not to respond or who may have permanently relocated during the
emergency discontinuance period, and would completely negate any added
efficiencies and benefits of this amendment to our rules. The rule we
adopt today strikes an appropriate balance between increasing market
efficiency and allowing carriers to refocus their efforts away from
maintaining vulnerable and unreliable legacy networks. It would also
encourage carriers to deploy higher-quality and more resilient next-
generation networks and safeguard consumers by ensuring that they are
not left stranded without voice service.
b. Processing of Requests to Permanently Discontinue
87. To ensure the efficacy of the consumer safeguards we adopt in
this Order, we decline to allow the streamlined processing of requests
in an
[[Page 20930]]
initial emergency discontinuance application to permanently discontinue
the affected service. While we are constantly seeking ways to increase
efficiency and speed the transition to next-generation networks and
services, we find that streamlined processing of a discontinuance
request as the result of a natural disaster or other emergency would
not allow sufficient time for the Commission to conduct its review, nor
for affected consumers and other stakeholders to lodge comments or
objections. Instead, we find that the existing procedures for
processing requests to permanently discontinue services, as well as the
requirements we adopt today where the emergency discontinuance leads to
the carrier no longer having customers for the affected service, strike
the correct balance between allowing providers to phase out damaged
legacy networks and affording customers and other stakeholders
sufficient time to be made aware of such discontinuances and to raise
objections with the Commission. We reserve the right to revisit this
conclusion at a later date, if future circumstances warrant a
reconsideration of this finding.
8. Eliminating Outdated Discontinuance Rules
88. We next adopt our proposal in the Network and Services
Modernization Notice to eliminate a number of outdated discontinuance
rules that have outlived their usefulness. As proposed in the Network
and Services Modernization Notice, we conclude that these
discontinuance rules are outdated, obsolete, or redundant and are no
longer relevant or necessary in today's communications marketplace,
with certain exceptions. Commenters support these streamlining efforts.
Specifically, we eliminate all of the outdated discontinuance rules
discussed in the Network and Services Modernization Notice, except for
Sec. Sec. 63.60(f), 63.500, and 63.501.
a. Eliminated Rules
89. Public toll stations. We eliminate Sec. 63.504 of the
Commission's rules, which details the contents of an application to
close a public toll station where no other such toll station of the
applicant will continue service in the community and where telephone
toll service is not otherwise available to the public through a
telephone exchange connected with the toll lines of a carrier. (Sec.
63.60(f) of the Commission's rules defines ``public toll station'' as
``a public telephone station, located in a community, through which a
carrier provides service to the public, and which is connected directly
to a toll line operated by such carrier.'') Commenters support this
deletion. (One commenter, however, appears to have misunderstood our
proposal to eliminate Sec. 63.504. Discontinuances of public toll
stations remain subject to our general discontinuance rules.) As we
stated in the Network and Services Modernization Notice, ``[t]hese
rules were created more than six decades ago, at a time when public
toll stations were far more prevalent . . . [and] it no longer makes
sense to treat applications to discontinue this service distinctly from
other types of service.'' In order to ensure that a carrier seeks
Commission authorization to close a public toll station in a location
where telephone toll service is not otherwise available, as
contemplated by Sec. 63.62(b) of our rules, we now make applications
for the closures of such public toll stations subject to the general
application content requirements set forth in Sec. 63.505. We thus
decline at this time to eliminate Sec. 63.60(f), defining public toll
stations for purposes of discontinuance applications. For these same
reasons, we retain the references to public toll stations in Sec.
63.60(b), addressing the types of actions encompassed within the term
``discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service.''
90. Telephone exchanges at military establishments. We eliminate
Sec. 63.66 of the Commission's rules, which requires that carriers
file an informal request, in quintuplicate, with the Commission before
altering service hours at telephone exchanges at deactivated military
establishments. When Congress amended Section 214 of the Act, it was
concerned about ``loss or impairment of service during'' wartime,
particularly with respect to military establishments and industries.
That was a very real concern at that time, when POTS was the only voice
service widely available. However, this is no longer the case. The
nation at large and the military specifically have at their disposal
voice, email, text, and video communications services provisioned over
a variety of mediums, including fiber, wireless, and satellite.
Commenters support these streamlining efforts. We thus conclude that
Sec. 63.66 no longer serves any purpose and should be eliminated.
91. Publication and posting of notices. We eliminate Sec. 63.90 of
the Commission's rules, imposing extensive requirements regarding the
publication and physical posting of notices of discontinuances or
reduced hours. While the specific requirements of this rule have
changed over the years since this rule was adopted to accommodate the
evolution of the communications marketplace and consumers' access to a
variety of modes of communication, we agree with commenters that the
physical posting of notices of discontinuances or reduced hours is no
longer necessary and that posting the information on a carrier's
website is now sufficient notice for network changes.
92. Notification of service outage. We eliminate Sec. 63.100 of
our rules, which directs providers to part 4 of the Commission's rules
for the requirements concerning notifications of service outages. The
outage notification requirements originally listed in Sec. 63.100 are
now found in part 4 of the Commission's rules. Commenters support these
streamlining efforts. As Sec. 63.100 itself no longer contains any
substantive regulations, we conclude that it is no longer relevant or
necessary.
93. Public coast stations. We eliminate Sec. 63.601, pertaining to
public coast stations, and remove the references to public coast
stations in Sec. 63.60(b), 63.60(c), and 63.63(a) of our rules.
(Public coast stations are ``land station[s] in the maritime mobile
service'' that ``offer[ ]radio communication common carrier services to
ship radio stations.'') As we noted in the Network and Services
Modernization Notice, the Commission classified public coast stations
as part of commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) in 1994, rendering it
subject to the forbearance simultaneously granted from Section 214
discontinuance requirements for CMRS stations. Commenters support these
streamlining efforts. Any remaining discontinuance obligations
pertaining to public coast stations are addressed exclusively elsewhere
in our rules. We thus find that these rules no longer serve any useful
purpose.
b. Retaining Sections 63.500 and 63.501
94. We decline to eliminate Sec. Sec. 63.500 and 63.501 of the
Commission's rules at this time. (We thus also retain the references to
these rules in Sec. Sec. 63.19 and 63.62(a) and (b).) Section 63.500
sets forth the required contents of applications to dismantle or remove
a trunk line. Section 63.501 does the same for applications to sever
physical connection or to terminate or suspend interchange of traffic
with another carrier. Given the ongoing network evolution and the ever-
decreasing reliance on copper lines, we sought comment in the Network
and Services Modernization Notice on whether eliminating these rules
would better serve the public interest.
95. Based on the record in this proceeding, we determine that
eliminating Sec. Sec. 63.500 and 63.501 of the Commission's rules is
not consistent
[[Page 20931]]
with the public interest at this time. More specifically, we conclude
that eliminating these rules at this time may cause unintended public
safety consequences on the provision of 911 service. While copper is no
longer the dominant transmission medium, it remains necessary for local
exchange service provider interconnection with incumbent LECs for the
provision of 911 service where IP interconnection is unavailable
between the incumbent LEC and the local exchange service provider. We
thus defer any potential elimination of these provisions until after we
act on the proposed forbearance from the incumbent LEC-specific
interconnection and related obligations.
C. State Mandates Conflicting With the FCC's Section 214 Discontinuance
Authorizations and Authority Are Subject to Preemption
96. We determine below that existing legacy voice services can be
jurisdictionally mixed. We then discuss the scope of the Commission's
and the states' respective authority with respect to regulating the
discontinuance of jurisdictionally mixed services. Finally, we
determine that, where the Commission has authorized discontinuance of
interstate or jurisdictionally mixed legacy voice services, state
requirements that make it impossible or impracticable for carriers to
discontinue those services--and so in effect require carriers to
continue providing interstate or jurisdictionally mixed
telecommunications services--conflict with federal law, and the
important federal policy represented by our modernized regulatory
framework established in this Order for network changes and service
discontinuances and are subject to preemption.
97. Jurisdictional nature of legacy voice service. Legacy voice
service is the transmission of voice communications, usually over
copper wires, using circuit-switched technology known as ``time-
division multiplexing'' (TDM). Legacy voice service generally includes
what is sometimes colloquially described as ``local telephone
service,'' although that term does not accurately reflect the
jurisdictional nature of the service as a practical matter in today's
networks. Few, if any, networks today operate on a purely local or even
intrastate level. Local exchange service and local toll service, while
typically occurring within a single state, do in certain instances
cross state lines. And the vast majority of consumers use the same
provider for both their local and long distance service, with some
customers purchasing bundled access that includes local exchange
service, local toll calling, and interstate long distance toll service.
(In the past, local exchange carriers were required to provide ``equal
access'' service to long-distance carriers. ``Equal access'' refers to
a class of service whereby all long-distance service providers receive
equivalent connections to the local exchange carrier's network.
Recognizing transformations in the market for voice telephone services,
the Commission in 2019 forbore from ``the requirement that independent
rate-of-return carriers offer long-distance telephone service through a
separate affiliate.'') However, these services are provisioned over the
same network using the same technology. (To the extent that USTelecom
argues that all POTS offerings are jurisdictionally mixed services, we
reject that conclusion. The Commission will consider on a case-by-case
basis whether certain legacy voice services are interstate or
jurisdictionally mixed.) We acknowledge that, in the 2016 Technology
Transitions Order, the Commission stated that ``wholly intrastate
services such as local telephone service are excluded from [the]
reach'' of the Commission's Section 214 discontinuance authority.
Insofar as that statement might be understood to suggest that legacy
voice service is a purely intrastate service, we find that the
Commission in 2016 did not consider how state requirements might, on a
practical level, prevent or conflict with the discontinuance of
interstate or jurisdictionally mixed services.
98. Federal discontinuance authority under Section 214. Section 214
authorizes the Commission to determine when interstate or
jurisdictionally mixed telecommunications services may be discontinued.
The Commission has recognized that Congress enacted Section 214 to
``protect Americans' continued access to the nation's communications
networks while also preserving carriers' ability to upgrade their
services without the interruption of federal micromanaging.'' Section
214 thus does not guarantee that a particular service, such as legacy
voice service, remains available to consumers or that consumers can
purchase a particular service from a particular carrier. Rather,
Section 214 seeks to ensure that consumers retain access to vital
communications services, regardless of the identity of the service
provider. Under Section 214(a), except on a temporary or emergency
basis, ``[n]o carrier shall discontinue, reduce, or impair service to a
community, or part of a community,'' without first ``obtain[ing] from
the Commission a certificate that neither the present nor future public
convenience and necessity will be adversely affected thereby,'' and
Section 214(c) allows the Commission to tailor the scope of the
discontinuance it authorizes ``as in its judgment the public
convenience and necessity may require.'' Once the Commission authorizes
discontinuance, a carrier may discontinue the covered service ``without
securing [other] approval.'' Section 214 thus creates an exclusively
federal discontinuance regime for interstate or jurisdictionally mixed
telecommunications services.
99. The federal discontinuance regime established in Section 214(a)
through (c) is consistent with the framework for the designation and
relinquishment of eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) status set
out in Section 214(e), including Section 214(e)(4)'s mandate that a
state commission permit an ETC to relinquish its designation if the
area is served by at least one other ETC. Section 214(e) governs the
approval and relinquishment of designations for common carriers that
are eligible for universal service support pursuant to Section 254(e).
There is nothing in the language of Section 214(e) that supersedes or
limits the federal processes established pursuant to Section 214(a)
through (c) with regard to service discontinuance. Thus, while a
carrier's ETC status determines whether that carrier may receive
universal service support for the provisioning, maintenance, and
upgrading of particular facilities or services under Section 254(e),
the question of whether a carrier may discontinue a specific interstate
service is wholly governed by Section 214(a) through (c) and the
carrier need only show in its advance notice to the relevant state
commission that the affected service area is ``served by more than one
eligible telecommunications carrier.''
100. State authority. Section 214 provides states with a limited
role in the federal discontinuance regime, but that role does not
provide states with additional authority over services for which a
provider has obtained Commission approval for discontinuance. Section
214(b) requires a carrier to notify each state in which the carrier
proposes to construct, acquire, or operate a line or proposes to
discontinue, reduce, or impair a service, and grants those states ``the
right . . . to be heard.'' This provision allows states to object to
any federal discontinuance application prior to any Commission
authorization. (Such a grant of an ``explicit consultative role . . .
works against, rather than for, [any] claim of other powers'' by states
in the context
[[Page 20932]]
of service discontinuance.) But it is the Commission that has sole
jurisdiction to decide whether a carrier's proposed discontinuance
adversely affects the public convenience and necessity and whether it
should be approved or rejected. In Section 214(c), Congress gave both
states and state public utility commissions (PUCs) the right to bring a
federal court action to enjoin any discontinuance of service that
occurs ``contrary to the provisions of'' Section 214. This provision
allows states to bring suit in federal court to enjoin discontinuance
if discontinuing a service would be in violation of, or without, a
Commission authorization. (Even if a state has obtained an injunction
in federal court to prevent a carrier from discontinuing service, the
basis for that injunction is ``evaporated'' once the carrier obtains
Commission authorization for the discontinuance.) But Section 214(c)
does not grant states the right to obtain federal court injunctions
against discontinuances that are lawfully granted by the Commission.
Accordingly, neither Section 214(b) nor Section 214(c) provides states
with the power to decide whether a carrier may discontinue interstate
or jurisdictionally mixed service, or empowers states to impose
requirements that frustrate or add extra conditions to Commission
decisions allowing discontinuance. Instead, Congress provided that,
after obtaining the Commission's approval, carriers could ``without
securing approval other than such certificate . . . proceed with the
discontinuance . . . of service.''
101. We find that Section 253(b) of the Act similarly does not
provide states with additional authority over services for which a
provider has obtained discontinuance approval at the federal level.
Section 253(b) provides a safe harbor from preemption under Section
253(a) when states ``impose, on a competitively neutral basis . . . ,
requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service,
protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of
telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers.''
Two commenters argue that Section 253(b) thus preserves several COLR
obligations. To the extent these commenters suggest that Section 253(b)
gives states discontinuance authority over interstate services or
jurisdictionally mixed services, we disagree. While Section 253(b) does
offer states a safe harbor from the reach of the Commission's Section
253 preemption authority, the safe harbor is limited on its face to the
provisions of Section 253 itself. As stated in Section 253(b),
``[n]othing in this section''--i.e., in Section 253--``shall affect the
ability of states'' to exercise the rights enumerated therein. We find
the safe harbor for the states in Section 253 does not confer authority
over services that have received federal approval for discontinuance
under Section 214.
102. State requirements subject to preemption. As explained below,
once the Commission has authorized a carrier to discontinue an
interstate or jurisdictionally mixed telecommunications service, states
may not enforce any law, regulation, or other requirement that on its
face or in practical terms requires the carrier to continue providing
the interstate or jurisdictionally mixed service the Commission has
authorized the carrier to discontinue. States may not, consistent with
federal law, impose any additional conditions on the Commission's
authorization of discontinuance, including conditions that purport to
be technology neutral, but that have the practical effect of requiring
the carrier to continue providing an interstate or jurisdictionally
mixed telecommunications service. (Since we do not have the record
before us to, in this Order, opine on the application of this
preemption to any specific state law, we decline to do so--including to
exempt any specific state law or category of state law from the reach
of this Order.)
103. It is well established that, under the ``impossibility
exception'' to state jurisdiction, the Commission may preempt state law
when (1) it is impossible or impracticable to regulate the intrastate
aspects of a service without affecting interstate communications and
(2) the Commission determines that such regulation would interfere with
federal regulatory objectives. More generally, under the U.S.
Constitution, federal law is the ``supreme Law of the Land.'' As
relevant here, state law is subject to conflict preemption if it
``prevent[s] or frustrate[s] the accomplishment of a federal
objective,'' and Commission actions taken under statutory authority
will preempt state law. (We disagree with the California Public
Utilities Commission's (California PUC) assertion that only an
``unmistakably clear'' statement in the Act could allow the Commission
to preempt state statutes, regulations, and other legal requirements
that require a carrier to continue providing a service for which the
Commission has already granted discontinuance authorization. As stated
above, we find that the clear language of Section 214 creates a federal
regime for determining when a carrier may discontinue an interstate or
jurisdictionally mixed telecommunications service.) The doctrine of
``conflict preemption--true to its name--[applies] when the operation
of federal and state law clash in a way that makes `compliance with
both state and federal law . . . impossible,' or when `state law stands
as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes
and objectives of Congress.' ''
104. We determine that certain state and local statutes,
regulations, and requirements are subject to federal preemption. We
sought comment in the Network and Services Modernization Notice on
state or local requirements that would inhibit or impede the transition
to next-generation networks and services, and asked whether such
requirements would conflict with this critical goal by, for example,
compelling carriers to continue providing legacy voice service or
preventing carriers from discontinuing service. The record indicates
that some states have adopted requirements that carriers assert operate
to prevent them from discontinuing legacy voice service--whether as a
matter of law or in practical effect. The record also includes
assertions that certain state or local statutes, regulations, or
requirements have the effect of preventing carriers from seeking to
retire deteriorating legacy networks and discontinuing outdated TDM-
based services taken by ever-fewer customers for undetermined periods
of time, leaving these providers unable to redirect time and resources
away from the development and deployment of next-generation networks
and technologies. We agree with USTelecom that, where the Commission
has exercised its Section 214 discontinuance authority over interstate
and/or jurisdictionally mixed services to allow a carrier to
discontinue legacy voice service, state requirements that operate to
require the carrier to continue providing those services conflict with
federal law. Such state or local statutes, regulations, or legal
requirements effectively ``negate the Commission's exercise of its
lawful authority because regulation of the interstate aspects of the
matter cannot be severed from regulation of the intrastate aspects.''
We conclude that if state and local requirements prevent a provider
from discontinuing the interstate portion of a legacy voice service for
which the Commission has already granted discontinuance authorization
pursuant to Section 214, then the requirements
[[Page 20933]]
negate a valid federal regulatory objective because the interstate
impacts of the state or local requirements cannot be unbundled from the
intrastate aspects of those requirements. We stress that states lack
authority to regulate interstate services. And, moreover, where the
Commission has lawfully exercised its Section 214 authority to allow
discontinuance of a service within its regulatory sphere, Section
214(c) expressly provides that carriers do not require any other
``approval'' to discontinue the covered service, including any state
commission or Commission approval that might otherwise be required
under Section 214(e)(4) for relinquishment of the carrier's ETC status,
if there is another ETC throughout the relevant service area. (As
discussed elsewhere in this Order, the Commission will deny a
discontinuance application if it finds that the discontinuance will
adversely affect the present or future public convenience and
necessity, as required by Section 214(a) of the Act. If a state
commission believes that a carrier's discontinuance of a service for
which it has requested Commission authorization would have such an
adverse effect, the state may file an objection with the Commission.
Moreover, after a carrier receives a discontinuance grant from the
Commission and makes a showing to the relevant state commission that
another ETC serves the affected service area, Section 214(e)(4)
requires the state to allow the carrier to relinquish its ETC
designation without erecting additional hurdles.) We determine here
that any such state requirements, to the degree they regulate services
shown to be jurisdictionally mixed, are subject to preemption pursuant
to both the impossibility exception and general principles of conflict
preemption. (Similarly, where the Commission has exercised its Section
214(a) authority over interstate and/or jurisdictionally mixed service
to allow a carrier to grandfather legacy voice service, see supra
Section III.B.2, federal law preempts state requirements that operate
to require the carrier to continue offering that interstate or
jurisdictionally mixed grandfathered service to new customers.)
105. It is beyond the scope of this proceeding to evaluate
individual state requirements in their particulars, or to determine
whether they conflict with federal law. We accordingly do not, in this
Order, make any preemption determination as to any specific state or
local law or requirement. If, however, the Commission has authorized a
carrier to discontinue legacy voice service and any state requirement
conflicts with that authorization, or if a carrier wants to seek
Commission discontinuance authorization for a legacy voice service but
that carrier believes that a state requirement prevents it from doing
so, the carrier may opt to seek a determination from the Commission
that the state requirement is preempted.
II. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
106. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA) the Federal Communications Commission (Commission)
incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the
Network and Services Modernization Notice (Notice) released in 2025.
The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the
Notice, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed
addressing the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
conforms to the RFA and it (or summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules
107. In the Report and Order (Order), the Commission takes
important steps aimed at bringing the existing regulatory environment
in line with today's communications marketplace by overhauling the
Commission's rules applicable to technology transitions discontinuance
applications under Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (the Act), and reforming and updating the filing requirements
associated with its rules implementing Section 251(c)(5)'s network
change disclosure mandate. Specifically, within the Order, the
Commission: (1) eliminates the filing requirements associated with our
rules implementing Section 251(c)(5)'s network change disclosure
mandate; (2) adopts one consolidated rule applicable to all technology
transitions discontinuance applications and eliminates rule provisions
thereby rendered irrelevant; (3) grants blanket Section 214(a)
authority for carriers to grandfather legacy voice services, lower-
speed data telecommunications services, and interconnected VoIP service
provisioned over copper wire; (4) grants forbearance relief to
resellers when the wholesale provider of their resold service engages
in a technology transitions discontinuance; (5) revises Sec. 63.71 of
its rules to apply the 31-day automatic grant period to all
discontinuance applications regardless of the applicants' status as
dominant or non-dominant; (5) adopts discontinuance application content
requirements; (6) revises its rules applicable to emergency
discontinuances to permit permanent discontinuance of a service under
specific circumstances; (7) eliminates a number of outdated
discontinuance rules rendered irrelevant or redundant by today's
communications marketplace; and (8) finds any state or local statute,
regulation, or other legal requirement that--either by law or in
practice--has the effect of continuing to require carriers to provide
POTS or other legacy services in an area where carriers have obtained
Commission authorization under Section 214(a) of the Act to discontinue
the legacy service in question or where carriers havebeen discouraged
from seeking such Commission authorization are subject to preemption.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
108. There were no comments raised that specifically addressed the
proposed rules and policies presented in the Notice. However, the
Commission considered the potential impact of the rules proposed in the
IRFA on small entities and took steps where appropriate and feasible to
reduce the compliance burden for small entities in order to reduce the
economic impact of the rules enacted herein on such entities.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for the Small Business
Administration Office of Advocacy
109. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by
the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of
Advocacy, and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the
proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not
file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rules Will Apply
110. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the adopted rules. 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
[[Page 20934]]
Small Business Act (SBA). (Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory
definition of a small business applies ``unless an agency, after
consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes
one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the
activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the
Federal Register.'') 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. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies
are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small
businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use
in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before
doing so.
111. These actions, over time, may affect small entities that are
not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad
groups of small entities that could be directly affected by these
actions. 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 34.75
million businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their field.
112. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits
that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than
500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental jurisdictions'' are
defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty
thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we
estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
113. The rule reforms and modifications adopted in the Order will
apply to small entities in the industries identified in the chart below
by their six-digit North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) codes and corresponding SBA size standard. (The North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used by Federal
statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the
purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data
related to the U.S. business economy. The size standards in this chart
are set forth in 13 CFR 121.201, by six digit NAICS code.) Based on
currently available U.S. Census data regarding the estimated number of
small firms in each identified industry, we conclude that the adopted
rules will impact a substantial number of small entities. Where
available, we also provide additional information regarding the number
of potentially affected entities in the identified industries below.
Table 1--2022 U.S. Census Bureau Data by NAICS Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated industry (footnotes
specify potentially affected NAICS Total Total small % Small
entities within a regulated industry code SBA size standard firms firms firms
where applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wired Telecommunications Carriers 517111 1,500 employees.............. 3,403 3,027 88.95
(Affected Entities in this industry
include Cable System Operators
(Telecom Act Standard), Competitive
Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs),
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers
(Incumbent LECs), Interexchange
Carriers (IXCs), Local Exchange
Carriers (LECs), and Other Toll
Carriers.).
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 517112 1,500 employees.............. 1,184 1,081 91.30
(except Satellite).
Telecommunications Resellers 517121 1,500 employees.............. 955 847 88.69
(Affected Entities in this industry
include Local Resellers, Prepaid
Calling Card Providers, and Toll
Resellers.).
Satellite Telecommunications........ 517410 $44 million.................. 332 195 58.73
All Other Telecommunications........ 517810 $40 million.................. 1,673 1,007 60.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Telecommunications Service Provider Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 Universal service monitoring SBA size standard (1,500 employees)
report telecommunications service -------------------------------------
provider data (data as of December
2023) Total number FCC Small % Small
----------------------------------- Form 499A filers firms entities
Affected entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cable/Coax CLEC................... 67 62 92.54
Competitive Local Exchange 3,729 3,576 95.90
Carriers (CLECs) (Affected
Entities in this industry include
all reporting local competitive
service providers.)..............
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers 1,175 917 78.04
(Incumbent LECs).................
Interexchange Carriers (IXCs)..... 113 95 84.07
Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) 4,904 4,493 91.62
(Affected Entities in this
industry include all reporting
fixed local service providers
(CLECs & ILECs).)................
Local Resellers................... 222 217 97.75
Other Toll Carriers............... 74 71 95.95
Prepaid Card Providers............ 47 47 100.00
Toll Resellers.................... 411 398 96.84
Wired Telecommunications Carriers 4,682 4,276 91.33
(Local Resellers fall into
another U.S. Census Bureau
industry (Telecommunications
Resellers) and therefore data for
these providers is not included
in this industry.)...............
Wireless Telecommunications 585 498 85.13
Carriers (except Satellite)
(Affected Entities in this
industry include all reporting
wireless carriers and service
providers.)......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20935]]
E. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
114. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of
adopted rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
115. In the Order, the Commission reforms and modifies its existing
rules applicable to discontinuance applications under Section 214 of
the Act generally and as to technology transitions discontinuance
applications specifically, as well as the filing requirements
associated with its rules implementing Section 251(c)(5)'s network
change disclosure mandate. The Commission minimized the burdens
associated with any new reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance
requirements adopted in the Order, which are aimed at ensuring 911
continuity and that consumers are sufficiently protected. The
Commission anticipates the approaches taken in these rule modernization
efforts will have minimal cost implications because the reporting,
recordkeeping and compliance requirements that remain after these
reforms and updates already exist. We do not expect any additional
burdens for small businesses entities.
116. In determining the economic impact and projected compliance
requirements for small and other entities, the Commission sought
comment on the costs and benefits associated with the proposals made in
the in the Order. As discussed above, several comments were filed
related to small entities. The Commission finds that the reforms
adopted in the Order will expedite the Commission's existing
discontinuance process without imposing any additional burdens.
117. We estimate that the rule changes discussed in the Order will
result in a reduction in the time and expense associated with filing
petitions and will not result in significant, material changes to
reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance obligations for small and other
Commission licensees. Additional resources or personnel should not be
required to fulfill these requirements because all affected providers
should already be familiar with these procedures, as they are required
to comply with existing Commission regulations.
118. After reviewing the record, we received no concerns about
unique burdens from small businesses that would be impacted by the
modifications adopted in the Order and proposed in the Further Notice.
The Commission believes these revisions will make its rules more
transparent and accessible to small entities and reduce the time and
cost associated with its discontinuance requirements. As a result, we
cannot estimate the cost of complying with the rules, or compare such
costs for small and other entities.
119. In addition, we received no concerns about unique burdens from
small businesses that would be impacted by the new certifications
adopted in the Order. As such, we do not have sufficient information on
the record to determine whether small entities will be required to hire
professionals to comply with its decisions or to quantify the cost of
compliance for small entities.
F. Discussion of Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic
Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
120. The RFA requires an agency to provide ``a description of the
steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact
on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy,
and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final
rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule
considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was
rejected.''
121. The Commission sought comment on whether any of the burdens
associated with the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements
described in the Order could be minimized for small entities. As
discussed above, the Commission minimized the burdens associated with
any new reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements adopted,
which are aimed at ensuring 911 continuity and that consumers are
sufficiently protected. As such, the Commission finds that the costs
associated with the adopted rules and clarifications are likely minimal
as a result of the anticipated decrease in filing burdens as well as
through the elimination of outdated discontinuance rules. Thus, the
Commission anticipates that the approaches it has taken to implement
these reforms and updates will have minimal reporting, recordkeeping,
or other compliance requirements or costs. We do not expect any
additional burdens for small businesses entities.
G. Report to Congress
122. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, in a report to Congress pursuant
to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send
a copy of the Order, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA and will publish
a copy of the will publish a copy of the Order, and this Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (or summaries thereof) in the Federal
Register.
III. Procedural Matters
123. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document may contain new or
modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. Specifically, the rules
adopted in 47 CFR 51.329, 51.333, 63.60, 63.62(a) and (b), (d), 63.63,
63.66, 63.71, 63.90, 63.100, 63.504, 63.601, and 63.602 may require new
or modified information collections. All such new or modified
information collection requirements will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the
PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be
invited to comment on the new or modified information collection
requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific
comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees. In this document, we describe several steps we have taken to
minimize the information collection burdens on small entities.
124. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for notice-and comment rulemakings, unless the
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule
changes contained in this Fourth Report and Order on small entities.
The FRFA is set forth in Appendix B.
125. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and
the Administrator of the Office of
[[Page 20936]]
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
concurs, that this rule is ``non-major'' under the Congressional Review
Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this Report
and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
IV. Ordering Clauses
126. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to Sections 1-4, 10,
201(b), 214(a)-(c), 251(c)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-54, 160, 201(b), 214(a)-(c), 251(c)(5), the
Report and Order hereby is adopted. (Pursuant to Executive Order 14215,
90 FR 10447 (Feb. 20, 2025), this regulatory action has been determined
to be not significant under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 68708 (Dec.
28, 1993).)
127. It is further ordered that the Commission's rules are hereby
amended as set forth in Appendix A and such amendments shall become
effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, except
that the amendments to Sec. Sec. 51.329, 51.333, 63.60, 63.62(a)-(b),
(d) and (e), 63.63, 63.71, and 63.602, which may contain new or
modified information collection requirements, will not become effective
until the Office of Management and Budget completes review of any
information collection requirements that the Wireline Competition
Bureau determines is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The
Commission directs the Wireline Competition Bureau to announce the
effective date for Sec. Sec. 51.329, 51.333, 63.60, 63.62(a)-(b), (d)
and (e), 63.63, 63.71, and 63.602 by subsequent Public Notice.
128. It is further ordered that, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), the
period for filing petitions for reconsideration or petitions for
judicial review of this Report and Order will commence on the date that
a summary of this Report and Order is published in the Federal
Register.
129. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
130. It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing
Director, Performance Evaluation and Records Management, shall send a
copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 51
Communications, Communications common carriers, Telecommunications,
Telephone.
47 CFR Part 63
Authority delegations (government agencies), Cable television,
Communications, Communications common carriers, Organization and
functions (Government agencies), Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telegraph, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons set forth above, parts 51 and 63 of title 47 of the
Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 51--INTERCONNECTION
0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-55, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-
52, 271, 332 unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec. 51.329 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a); and
0
b. Removing paragraph (c).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 51.329 Notice of network changes: Methods for providing notice.
(a) An incumbent LEC may provide the required notice to the public
of network changes through publicly accessible industry fora, industry
publications, or the incumbent LEC's website.
* * * * *
0
3. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec. 51.333 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading and paragraph (a);
0
b. Removing paragraphs (b) through (f);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (b);
0
d. Removing newly redesignated paragraph (b)(1)(iii);
0
e. Further redesignating newly redesignated paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and
(v) as paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (iv); and
0
f. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (b)(2)(i) and (ii).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 51.333 Notice of network changes: Short-term network changes and
copper retirement.
(a) Direct notice. If an incumbent LEC wishes to provide less than
six months' notice of planned network changes, or provide notice of a
planned copper retirement, the incumbent LEC must serve a copy of its
public notice upon each telephone exchange service provider that
directly interconnects with the incumbent LEC's network, 911 service
providers, and directly interconnecting local exchange service
providers that support essential functions within 911 networks in the
affected service areas, provided that, with respect to copper
retirement notices, such service may be made by postings on the
incumbent LEC's website if the directly interconnecting telephone
exchange service provider has agreed to receive notice by website
postings. For purposes of this section, ``911 service provider'' is
defined as an entity that provides 911, E911, or NG911 capabilities
such as call routing, automatic location information, automatic number
identification, or the functional equivalent of those capabilities,
directly to a public safety answering point (PSAP), statewide default
answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority as defined in
Sec. 9.3 of this chapter; and/or operates one or more central offices
that directly serve a PSAP.
(1) An incumbent LEC must provide the required direct notice of a
short-term network change at least 10 days prior to implementation.
(2) An incumbent LEC must provide direct notice of a planned copper
retirement at least 90 days prior to implementation, except that it
must provide direct notice of a planned copper retirement involving
copper facilities not being used to provision services to any customers
at least 15 days prior to implementation.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, if in
response to circumstances outside of its control other than a force
majeure event addressed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, an
incumbent LEC cannot comply with the timing requirement set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section, hereinafter referred to as the waiting
period, the incumbent LEC must give notice of the network change as
soon as practicable.
(ii) A short-term network change or copper retirement notice
subject to paragraph (b)(2) of this section must include a brief
explanation of the circumstances necessitating the reduced
[[Page 20937]]
waiting period and how the incumbent LEC intends to minimize the impact
of the reduced waiting period on directly interconnected telephone
exchange service providers.
* * * * *
PART 63--EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES, AND DISCONTINUANCE,
REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND
GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS
0
4. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201-205, 214,
218, 403, 571, unless otherwise noted.
0
5. Amend Sec. 63.19 by revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)
and paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.19 Special procedures for discontinuances of international
services.
(a) With the exception of those international carriers described in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, any international carrier that
seeks to discontinue, reduce, or impair service, including the retiring
of international facilities, dismantling or removing of international
trunk lines, shall be subject to the following procedures in lieu of
those specified in Sec. Sec. 63.61 through 63.505:
* * * * *
(b) The following procedures shall apply to any international
carrier that the Commission has classified as dominant in the provision
of a particular international service because the carrier possesses
market power in the provision of that service on the U.S. end of the
route. Any such carrier that seeks to retire international facilities,
dismantle or remove international trunk lines, but does not
discontinue, reduce or impair the dominant services being provided
through these facilities, shall only be subject to the notification
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. If such carrier
discontinues, reduces or impairs the dominant service, or retires
facilities that impair or reduce the service, the carrier shall file an
application pursuant to Sec. Sec. 63.62 and 63.505.
* * * * *
0
6. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec. 63.60 by revising paragraphs (a),
(b)(1) and (2), (c), and (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.60 Definitions.
* * * * *
(a) For the purposes of Sec. Sec. 63.60 through 63.71, the term
``carrier,'' when used to refer either to all telecommunications
carriers or more specifically to non-dominant telecommunications
carriers, shall include interconnected VoIP providers.
(b) * * *
(1) The closure by a carrier of a telephone exchange rendering
interstate or foreign telephone toll service, or a public toll station
serving a community or part of a community.
(2) The reduction in hours of service by a carrier at a telephone
exchange rendering interstate or foreign telephone toll service or at
any public toll station (except at a toll station at which the
availability of service to the public during any specific hours is
subject to the control of the agent or other persons controlling the
premises on which such office or toll station is located and is not
subject to the control of such carrier); the term reduction in hours of
service does not include a shift in hours which does not result in any
reduction in the number of hours of service.
* * * * *
(c) Emergency discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service
means any discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of the service of a
carrier occasioned by conditions beyond the control of such carrier
where the original service is not restored or comparable service is not
established within a reasonable time. For the purpose of this part, a
reasonable time shall be deemed to be a period not in excess of 60
days.
* * * * *
(g) For the purposes of Sec. Sec. 63.60 through 63.71, the term
``service,'' when used to refer to a real-time, two-way voice
communications service, shall include interconnected VoIP service as
that term is defined in Sec. 9.3 of this chapter but shall not include
any interconnected VoIP service that is a ``mobile service'' as defined
in Sec. 20.3 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
7. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec. 63.62 by revising the introductory
text and paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.62 Type of discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of
telephone service requiring formal application.
Authority for the following types of discontinuance, reduction, or
impairment of service shall be requested by formal application
containing the information required by the Commission in the
appropriate sections to this part, including Sec. 63.505, or in
emergency cases (as defined in Sec. 63.60(b)) as provided in Sec.
63.63:
(a) The dismantling or removal of a trunk line (for contents of
application see Sec. Sec. 63.71 and 63.500) for all domestic carriers
and for dominant international carriers except as modified in Sec.
63.19;
(b) The severance of physical connection or the termination or
suspension of the interchange of traffic with another carrier (for
contents of application see Sec. Sec. 63.71 and 63.501);
* * * * *
(d) The closure of a public toll station where no other such toll
station of the applicant in the community will continue service (for
contents of application, see Sec. 63.505): Provided, however, That no
application shall be required under this part with respect to the
closure of a toll station located in a community where telephone toll
service is otherwise available to the public through a telephone
exchange connected with the toll lines of a carrier;
* * * * *
0
8. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec. 63.63 by revising the introductory
text of paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.63 Emergency discontinuance, reduction or impairment of
service.
(a) Application for authority for emergency discontinuance,
reduction, or impairment of service shall be made by electronically
filing an informal request through the ``Submit a Non-Docketed Filing''
module of the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System. Such
requests shall be made as soon as practicable but not later than 65
days after the occurrence of the conditions which have occasioned the
discontinuance, reduction, or impairment. The request shall make
reference to this section and show the following:
* * * * *
(b) Authority for the emergency discontinuance, reduction, or
impairment of service for a period of 60 days shall be deemed to have
been granted by the Commission effective as of the date of the filing
of the request unless, on or before the 15th day after the date of
filing, the Commission shall notify the carrier to the contrary.
Renewal of such authority may be requested by letter, filed with the
Commission not later than 10 days prior to the expiration of such 60-
day period, making reference to this section and showing that such
conditions may reasonably be expected to continue for a further period
and what efforts the applicant has made to restore the original or
establish comparable service. If the same or comparable service is
reestablished before the termination of
[[Page 20938]]
the emergency authorization, the carrier shall notify the Commission
promptly. However, the Commission may, upon specific request of the
carrier and upon a proper showing, contained in such informal request
or in the initial application, authorize such discontinuance,
reduction, or impairment of service for an indefinite period or
permanently. In addition, the carrier may permanently discontinue,
reduce, or impair a service for which it has received authority for
emergency discontinuance, reduction, or impairment upon a showing that:
(1) It has had no customers or reasonable requests for service
during the 60-day period immediately preceding the discontinuance; and
(2) An adequate replacement service is available throughout the
affected service area.
Sec. 63.66 [Removed and Reserved]
0
9. Remove and reserve Sec. 63.66.
0
10. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec. 63.71 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
0
b. Removing paragraphs (a)(6) and (c)(4);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and (5) as paragraphs (c)(3),
(4), and (9);
0
d. Adding new paragraphs (c)(2) and (5) and paragraphs (c)(6) through
(8);
0
e. Revising paragraph (f);
0
f. Removing paragraphs (h) and (l);
0
g. Redesignating paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) as paragraphs (h), (i),
and (j), respectively;
0
h. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (h) and (j); and
0
i. Adding new paragraph (k).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.71 Procedures for discontinuance, reduction or impairment of
service by domestic carriers.
(a) * * *
(5) One of the following statements:
(i) The following statement: 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 15 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.
(ii) For discontinuances involving technology transitions, as
defined in Sec. 63.60(i), in addition to the statement required by
paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section, specific information as to how a
customer who wants to object to or comment on the proposed
discontinuance of service will be able to do so, including but not
limited to providing the master docket number established by the
Wireline Competition Bureau for such objections and comments and the
web page(s) identified by the Wireline Competition Bureau for further
guidance and resources to file an objection or comment.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) For technology transitions discontinuance applications, as
defined in Sec. 63.60(i):
(i) Statement identifying the application as involving a technology
transition;
(ii) Statement of the difference in price, if any, between the
service being discontinued and replacement services available in the
affected service area; and
(iii) Brief description of the affected community or part of a
community, including the population size and any relevant
characteristics of the customer population affected;
* * * * *
(5) Brief description of replacement services, whether available
from the applicant or third parties, that would remain in the affected
community or part of the affected community in the event the
application is granted, including the name of any other carrier(s)
providing replacement services to the affected community, and where in
the affected community those services are available;
(6) Statement of the factors otherwise showing that neither the
present nor future public convenience and necessity would be adversely
affected by the granting of the application;
(7) For applications to discontinue a service supporting
interconnection trunks or the exchange of traffic, in addition to the
requirements set forth in Sec. Sec. 63.500 and 63.501:
(i) Specific identity of the type of service to be discontinued in
addition to any branded name of the service being discontinued;
(ii) Statement that at least 90 days prior to the planned
discontinuance, the carrier provided a designated point of contact with
authority to facilitate the orderly transition from legacy facilities
that support 911 to the 911 Authorities, as defined in Sec. 9.28 of
this chapter, 911 service providers, and local exchange service
providers that support essential functions within 911 networks in the
affected service area. For purposes of this section, ``911 service
provider'' is defined as an entity that provides 911, E911, or NG911
capabilities such as call routing, automatic location information,
automatic number identification, or the functional equivalent of those
capabilities, directly to a public safety answering point (PSAP),
statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency
authority as defined in Sec. 9.3 of this chapter; and/or operates one
or more central offices that directly serve a PSAP; and
(iii) List of the 911 Authorities, 911 service provider, and local
exchange service providers that support essential functions within 911
networks in the affected service areas with which the carrier has
coordinated and the date(s) of that coordination;
(8) A certification, executed by an officer or other authorized
representative of the applicant and meeting the requirements of Sec.
1.16 of this chapter, that the information required by this section is
true and accurate; and
* * * * *
(f)(1) The application to discontinue, reduce, or impair service
that does not constitute a technology transition or, if constituting a
technology transition, meets the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of
this section, shall be automatically granted on the 31st day after its
filing with the Commission without any Commission notification to the
applicant unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the
grant will not be automatically effective. For purposes of this
section, an application will be deemed filed on the date the Commission
releases public notice of the filing.
(2) An application to discontinue, reduce, or impair an existing
retail service as part of a technology transition, as defined in Sec.
63.60(i), may be automatically granted only if the applicant certifies
that in every location throughout the affected service area, at least
one of the following types of services is available:
[[Page 20939]]
(i) A facilities-based interconnected VoIP service, as defined in
Sec. 9.3 of this chapter;
(ii) A facilities-based mobile wireless service operating at speeds
of at least 5 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload, consistent with the
coverage parameters set forth in Sec. 1.7004(c)(3) of this chapter;
(iii) A voice service offered pursuant to an obligation from one of
the Commission's modernized high-cost support programs;
(iv) A voice service already available from the applicant in the
affected service area that that the applicant certifies offers
substantially similar levels of network performance and availability as
the legacy voice service being discontinued based on the applicant's
own internal network testing in connection with rolling out a new
product or service, provides access to 911 and complies with applicable
911 requirements in part 9 of this title, and permits users generally
to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone
network and to terminate calls to the public switched telephone network
or any successor network that utilizes numbers issued pursuant to the
North American Numbering Plan and supports access to 911 and complies
with applicable 911 requirements in part 9 of this title; or
(v) A widely available alternative service offered by a third party
that the applicant certifies offers substantially similar levels of
network performance and availability as the legacy voice service being
discontinued, and permits users generally to receive calls that
originate on the public switched telephone network and to terminate
calls to the public switched telephone network or any successor network
that utilizes numbers issued pursuant to the North American Numbering
Plan and supports access to 911 and complies with applicable 911
requirements in part 9 of this title.
* * * * *
(h) An application to discontinue, reduce, or impair a service
filed by a competitive local exchange carrier in response to a copper
retirement notice provided pursuant to Sec. 51.333 of this chapter
shall be automatically granted on the effective date of the copper
retirement; provided that:
(1) The competitive local exchange carrier submits the application
to the Commission for filing at least 40 days prior to the copper
retirement effective date; and
(2) The application includes a certification, executed by an
officer or other authorized representative of the applicant and meeting
the requirements of Sec. 1.16 of this chapter, that the copper
retirement is the basis for the application and that the applicant has
notified and coordinated with all 911 Authorities as defined in Sec.
9.28 of this chapter with jurisdiction within the affected service
area.
* * * * *
(j)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a
carrier is not required to file an application to grandfather a legacy
voice service, lower-speed data service, or interconnected VoIP service
provisioned over copper wire; however, it must provide notice to
existing customers that it is grandfathering a service they current
receive from that carrier. Such notice shall include:
(i) An approximate date by which it intends to seek to permanently
discontinue the service; and
(ii) A statement regarding alternative services available in the
affected service area.
(2) For purposes of this paragraph (j), ``lower-speed data
service'' is defined as a data service operating at speeds below 25
Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload.
(k) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, where a
wholesale provider is engaging in a technology transitions
discontinuance of a legacy voice service resold by another provider,
the reseller is not required to file an application to discontinue the
resold service, except that the reseller must provide notice to its
customers, as soon as practicable, that it will no longer be able to
provide the relevant legacy voice service. Such notice shall be via any
means to which the customer has previously provided express, verifiable
approval. Notice shall include the following:
(1) Name and address of carrier;
(2) Date of planned service discontinuance, reduction or
impairment;
(3) Points of geographic areas of service affected;
(4) Brief description of type of service affected; and
(5) Statement regarding the availability of alternative services in
the affected service area.
Sec. Sec. 63.90, 63.100, 63.504, and 63.601 [Removed and Reserved]
0
11. Remove and reserve Sec. Sec. 63.90, 63.100, 63.504, and 63.601.
Sec. 63.602 [Removed and Reserved]
0
12. Delayed indefinitely, remove and reserve Sec. 63.602.
[FR Doc. 2026-07622 Filed 4-17-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 20, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.