[Federal Register: July 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 126)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31630-31638]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02jy09-8]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 52
[WC Docket No. 07-244; FCC 09-41]
Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation
Requirements; Telephone Number Portability
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission adopted rules requiring all entities subject to
its local number portability (LNP) rules to complete simple wireline-
to-wireline and simple intermodal port requests within one business
day.
DATES: Effective August 3, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Sclater, Wireline Competition
Bureau, (202) 418-0388.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this Order, the Commission reduces the
porting interval for simple wireline and simple intermodal port
requests to one business day to help ensure that consumers are able to
port their telephone numbers efficiently and to enhance competition for
all communications services.
Synopsis of Report and Order
1. Section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(the Act), requires local exchange carriers (LECs) to ``provide, to the
extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with
requirements prescribed by the Commission.'' The Act and the
Commission's rules define number portability as ``the ability of users
of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location,
existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality,
reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications
carrier to another.'' In addition, section 251(e) of the Act gives the
Commission plenary jurisdiction over the North American Numbering Plan
(NANP) and related telephone numbering issues in the United States. To
implement these congressional mandates, the Commission required all
carriers, including wireline carriers and covered commercial mobile
radio service (CMRS) providers, to provide LNP according to a phased
deployment schedule. The Commission found that LNP provided end users
options when choosing among telecommunications service providers
without having to change their telephone numbers, and established
obligations for porting between wireline providers, porting between
wireless providers, and intermodal porting (i.e., the porting of
numbers from wireline providers to wireless providers, and vice versa).
The Commission also directed the North American Numbering Council
(NANC), its advisory committee on numbering issues, to make
recommendations regarding various LNP implementation issues.
2. Twelve years ago, in 1997, the Commission adopted the NANC's
recommendation for a four-business day porting interval for wireline
ports. This four-business day interval also applies to simple
intermodal ports. In its 2007 LNP NPRM, the Commission tentatively
concluded that it should adopt a rule reducing the porting interval for
simple port requests and allow the industry to work through the actual
implications of such a timeline. In particular, the Commission
tentatively concluded that it should adopt a rule reducing the porting
interval for simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal port
requests to 48 hours. The Commission sought comment on its tentative
conclusions, and whether there were any technical impediments or
advances that affect the overall length of the porting interval such
that it should adopt different porting intervals for particular types
of ports.
3. In this Report and Order (Order), the Commission reduces the
porting interval for simple wireline and simple intermodal port
requests to ensure that consumers are able to port their telephone
numbers efficiently and to enhance competition for all communications
services. Specifically, the Commission requires all entities subject to
its LNP rules to complete simple wireline-to-wireline and simple
intermodal port requests within one business day.
4. As the Commission has found previously, it is critical that
customers be able to port their telephone numbers in an efficient
manner in order for LNP to fulfill its promise of giving ``customers
flexibility in the quality, price, and variety of telecommunications
services.'' Through the LNP process, consumers have the ability to
retain their phone number when switching telecommunications service
providers, enabling them to choose a provider that best suits their
needs and enhancing competition. Although customers have had the option
to port numbers between their telephone service providers for a number
of years, the current four-business day porting interval may hinder the
effectiveness of such options. Delays in porting cost consumers time
and money and limit consumer choice and competition because when
consumers get frustrated with slow porting, they often abandon efforts
to switch providers. The Commission finds this to be a significant
concern due to its efforts generally to ensure ``the ability of users
of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location,
existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality,
reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications
carrier to another,'' as well as due to the important role intermodal
providers play in telecommunications competition. As the Commission has
stated previously, LNP ``eliminates one major disincentive to switch
carriers'' and thus facilitates ``the successful entrance of new
service providers,'' which in turn ``stimulate[s] the development of
new services and technologies, and create[s] incentives for carriers to
lower prices and costs.'' Thus, to promote competition and the
deregulation that can result from it, the Commission must ensure the
efficiency and effectiveness of LNP.
5. The four-business day porting interval for simple wireline port
requests was adopted over 10 years ago as an interim measure. Since
that time, the telecommunications landscape has changed dramatically,
and technological advances have enabled number porting to be
accomplished in a much shorter time period, as evidenced by the
voluntary two and one-half hour wireless interval standard. The
Commission finds that there are no significant technological
impediments to reducing the porting interval for simple wireline-to-
wireline and simple intermodal ports to one business day, as a general
matter. The record reflects that for many providers, particularly those
employing an electronic interface, number porting can be accomplished
in significantly less time than the current four-business day porting
interval allows. As such, the Commission finds that the record supports
this action to reduce the current porting interval for simple wireline-
to-wireline and simple intermodal port requests to one business day.
The Commission believes that a
[[Page 31631]]
porting interval of one business day strikes the appropriate balance,
based on the current record, between enabling consumers to realize the
benefits of LNP and the current technological and business capabilities
of service providers.
6. In this Order, the Commission concludes that reducing the
porting interval for simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal
ports to one business day is necessary to enable customers to port
their numbers in a timely fashion and to enhance competition. The
Commission believes that, in conjunction with its clarification in 2007
that providers may require no more than four information fields to
validate simple port requests, the steps taken today will significantly
streamline the simple porting process for service providers and
consumers and will enhance competition. The Commission adopts a porting
interval in terms of a business day, as opposed to adopting the
tentative conclusion that was in terms of hours, to accommodate
providers that may not have adequate staffing to handle port requests
outside of regular business hours. Thus, the Commission requires all
entities subject to its LNP rules, including interconnected VoIP
providers and their numbering partners, to complete port requests for
simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal ports within one
business day, unless a longer period is requested by the new provider
or the customer elects otherwise. By ``intermodal ports,'' the
Commission refers to: (1) Wireline-to-wireless ports; (2) wireless-to-
wireline ports; and (3) ports involving interconnected Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) service. Because interconnected VoIP service
can be provided over various types of facilities, the Commission refers
to all interconnected VoIP ports as ``intermodal'' irrespective of the
facilities at issue. The Commission also noted that not all wireline
and wireless providers are required to port telephone numbers in all
circumstances.
7. In this Order, the Commission also reiterated its 2007 finding
that interconnected VoIP providers are obligated to take all steps
necessary to initiate or allow a port-in or port-out itself or through
its numbering partner on behalf of the interconnected VoIP customer. In
its 2007 VOIP LNP Order, the Commission made clear that when an
interconnected VoIP provider obtains its NANP telephone numbers through
commercial arrangements with one or more traditional telecommunications
carriers, the intervals that would be applicable to ports between the
numbering partner and the other provider, if the port were not related
to an interconnected VoIP service, will apply to the port of the NANP
telephone number between the numbering partner and the other provider
when the end user with porting rights is a customer of the
interconnected VoIP provider. The Commission also found that
interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering partners may not
enter into agreements that would prohibit or unreasonably delay an
interconnected VoIP service end user from porting between
interconnected VoIP providers, or to or from a wireline carrier or
covered CMRS provider.
8. In this Order, the Commission leaves it to the industry to work
through the mechanics of this new interval. In particular, the
Commission directs the NANC to develop new LNP provisioning process
flows that take into account this shortened porting interval. In
developing these flows, the NANC must address how a ``business day''
should be construed for purposes of the porting interval, and generally
how the porting time should be measured. The NANC must submit these
flows to the Commission no later than 90 days after the effective date
of this Order.
9. The Commission concludes that nine months is sufficient time for
affected entities to implement and comply with the one-business day
porting interval, and therefore requires all providers subject to its
LNP rules to comply with the one-business day porting interval within
nine months from the date that the NANC submits its revised
provisioning flows to the Commission, except as described below with
regard to small providers. The Commission found that nine months
provides adequate time for providers to make the necessary software
changes and upgrades and to accommodate changes to internal processes
and policies.
10. In the 2007 LNP NPRM, the Commission specifically sought
comment on the benefits and burdens, including the burdens on small
entities, of adopting porting interval rules for all types of simple
port requests. In this Order, the Commission finds that the benefits to
consumers and competition discussed above outweigh the costs associated
with implementing a shorter porting interval for simple wireline and
simple intermodal ports. However, the Commission recognizes that some
providers that do not employ automated systems for handling port
requests and have limited resources to upgrade their systems may have
to make more significant changes or upgrades than other providers that
already employ automated porting interfaces. To address this disparity,
the Commission allows small providers, as defined below for purposes of
this Order, a longer period of time for implementing the porting
interval of one business day. Thus, small providers are required to
implement the reduced porting interval of one business day for simple
wireline and simple intermodal ports no later than 15 months from the
date that the NANC submits its revised provisioning flows to the
Commission. For purposes of this Order, the Commission considers
providers with fewer than 2 percent of the nation's subscriber lines
installed in the aggregate nationwide and Tier III wireless carriers,
as defined in the E911 Stay Order, to be small providers. For purposes
of this Order, what constitutes a 2 percent provider will be calculated
based on an aggregate of incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) and
competitive LEC lines, based on the Commission's most recent industry
statistics available as of the effective date of this Order. The
Commission found that these categories encompass the providers whose
systems will most likely require significant upgrades, and who also may
have limited resources to make those upgrades. Thus, these providers
may require the extended 15-month implementation period.
11. In this Order, the Commission declines to implement a specific
cost recovery mechanism for carrier-specific costs associated with
implementing the reduced porting interval. As an initial matter, the
Commission notes that there are several options for carriers to recover
their costs of implementing the reduced porting interval. For one, the
Commission notes that many small carriers have not yet filed for
recovery of costs for implementing long-term number portability under
the Commission's LNP cost recovery mechanism. To the extent that such
carriers incur costs to implement the one-business day porting interval
that meet the standard for the LNP cost recovery mechanism, the
Commission's rules give carriers five years to recover those costs
through end-user charges. Once incumbent LECs have recovered their
initial LNP implementation costs through the LNP cost recovery
mechanism, the Commission intended carriers to recover ongoing costs
incurred to provide number portability as a normal network feature
through existing mechanisms available for the recovery of general costs
of providing service. Under rate-of-return regulation, carriers are
allowed to recover their costs plus a prescribed rate of return on
investment. Under price cap regulation, rather than earning a specific
rate of
[[Page 31632]]
return on their costs, carriers are permitted to earn returns
significantly higher if they can operate efficiently, but are not
guaranteed recovery of all costs. Price cap regulation includes an
exogenous cost adjustment mechanism. Under the Commission's rules,
price cap carriers may file proposed tariff rates that would exceed
applicable price cap indices, if necessary to recover costs, with the
requisite LNP-specific cost showing.
12. Further, small carriers have options for seeking modification
of the new LNP interval requirements. For example, under section
251(f)(2) of the Act, a LEC ``with fewer than 2 percent of the Nation's
subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide may petition a
State commission for suspension or modification of the application of
the requirements'' of section 251(b), which includes the ``duty to
provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in
accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Commission.'' The
Commission finds that these safeguards further address commenters'
concerns regarding the costs that small entities may incur to implement
the one-business day porting interval.
13. Further, because the Commission recognizes that some providers
may find it unduly burdensome to implement a one-business day porting
interval even with an extended implementation period, providers may
also apply for a waiver of the one-business day porting interval under
the Commission's rules. To demonstrate the good cause required by the
Commission's waiver rule, a provider must show with particularity that
it would be unduly economically burdensome for the provider to
implement the reduced porting interval. In making this showing, a
provider should address the number of port requests it typically
receives on a monthly basis as well as the specific costs that
complying with the reduced porting interval would impose. Waiver
requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In making a
determination on waiver requests, the Commission may, in its judgment,
set the porting interval length between one business day and four
business days, or longer, as individually warranted. Further, the
Commission will determine the length of the waiver period based on the
particular facts presented. The Commission is concerned by evidence in
the record that some providers may not be complying with the
Commission's current rules regarding porting intervals, however. So
there is no possible confusion regarding this requirement, the
Commission clarifies that providers that obtain a waiver of the
Commission's one-business day porting interval must comply with the
current rules regarding a four-business day porting interval at a
minimum, unless told otherwise. The Commission delegates authority to
the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau to review and decide these
waiver requests.
14. The Commission also finds that the statutory requirement of
competitive neutrality would not be violated if small and mid-size
carriers are not allowed additional LNP recovery. Section 251(e)(2)
mandates that the costs of establishing LNP be ``borne by all
telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as
determined by the Commission.'' The Commission, accordingly,
established principles of competitive neutrality for cost distribution
and recovery mechanisms related to number portability. Competitive
neutrality requires that ``the cost of number portability borne by each
carrier does not affect significantly any carrier's ability to compete
with other carriers for customers in the marketplace,'' and the
Commission adopted a two-part test for making this determination. Under
this test, number portability cost distribution and recovery
mechanisms: (1) Must not give one service provider an appreciable,
incremental cost advantage over another service provider when competing
for a specific subscriber; and (2) must not disparately affect the
ability of competing service providers to earn a normal return.
15. In this Order, the Commission finds that neither prong of the
competitive neutrality test is violated. Indeed, in the Cost Recovery
Order, the Commission explicitly rejected arguments that competitive
neutrality requires it ``to ensure that carriers recover all their
number portability costs,'' emphasizing that ```[n]othing in section
251(e)(2) states that the Commission must guarantee recovery of such
costs.'' Instead, this section requires the Commission to ensure that
the manner in which all carriers bear the costs of providing number
portability is competitively neutral. Thus, the Commission explained
that ``[e]ven if a carrier does not recover all its costs, the
Commission's rules will satisfy section 251(e)(2) so long as that
carrier's ability to compete for subscribers is not significantly
affected.''
Congressional Review Act
The Commission will 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).
Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This document does not contain new or modified information
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new
or modified ``information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the 2007 LNP NPRM in WC Docket 07-244. The Commission
sought written public comment on the proposals in the Notice, including
comment on the IRFA. The Commission received comments on the Notice and
also received comments specifically directed toward the IRFA from two
commenters in WC Docket No. 07-244. These comments are discussed below.
This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules
2. This Report and Order (Order) reduces the porting interval for
simple wireline and simple intermodal port requests. Specifically, this
Order requires all entities subject to the Commission's LNP rules to
complete simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal port
requests within one business day, unless a longer period is requested
by the new provider or the customer elects otherwise. The Order directs
the NANC to develop new LNP provisioning process flows that take into
account this shortened porting interval. In developing these flows, the
NANC must address how a ``business day'' should be construed for
purposes of the porting interval, and generally how the porting time
should be measured. The NANC must submit these flows to the Commission
no later than 90 days after the effective date of the Report and Order.
The Order requires all providers subject to the Commission's LNP rules
to comply with the new porting interval within nine months of the date
that the NANC submits the revised provisioning flows to the Commission,
except with regard to small providers. Small providers are required to
implement the reduced porting interval of one business day for simple
wireline and simple intermodal ports no later than 15
[[Page 31633]]
months from the date that the NANC submits the revised provisioning
flows to the Commission. For purposes of this Order, the Commission
considers small providers to be providers with fewer than 2 percent of
the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide and
Tier III wireless carriers, as defined in the E911 Stay Order.
3. Providers may also apply for a waiver of the one-business day
porting interval under the Commission's rules. To demonstrate the good
cause required by the Commission's waiver rule, a provider must show
with particularity that it would be unduly economically burdensome for
the provider to implement the reduced porting interval. In making this
showing, a provider should address the number of port requests it
typically receives on a monthly basis as well as the specific costs
that complying with the reduced porting interval would impose. The
Order clarifies that providers that obtain a waiver of the Commission's
one-business day porting interval must comply with the current rules
regarding a four-business day porting interval for simple ports, at a
minimum, unless told otherwise. Waiver requests will be considered on a
case-by-case basis, and the Commission will determine the length of the
waiver period based on the particular facts presented.
4. Although customers have had the option to port numbers between
their telephone service providers for a number of years, the current
four-business day porting interval may hinder the effectiveness of such
options. Delays in porting cost consumers time and money and limit
consumer choice and competition because when consumers get frustrated
with slow porting, they often abandon efforts to switch providers. The
Commission finds this to be a significant concern both due to the
Commission's efforts generally to ensure ``the ability of users of
telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing
telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability,
or convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to
another,'' as well as due to the important role intermodal providers
play in telecommunications competition. This Order concludes that
reducing the porting interval for simple wireline-to-wireline and
simple intermodal ports to one business day is necessary to enable
customers to port their numbers in a timely fashion and to enhance
competition.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
5. In this section, the Commission responds to comments filed in
response to the IRFA. To the extent the Commission received comments
raising general small business concerns during this proceeding, those
comments are discussed throughout the Report and Order.
6. OPASTCO and WTA comment that the IRFA is deficient, arguing that
it contains no description of project compliance requirements, contains
no alternatives considered, and impermissibly shifts the burden of
providing required estimated compliance descriptions and compliance
cost projections to commenting parties. Windstream, USTelecom, and NTCA
agree with OPASTCO's and WTA's comments regarding the deficiency of the
IRFA.
7. The Commission disagrees with these assertions as it finds that
small entities have received sufficient notice of the issues addressed
in the Order. Further, the Commission has considered the economic
impact on small entities and what ways are feasible to minimize the
burdens imposed on those entities. To the extent feasible, the
Commission has implemented those less burdensome alternatives, and the
Commission discusses these alternatives in section E, infra.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
Rules Will Apply
8. 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 rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
9. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately
22.4 million small businesses according to SBA data.
10. Small Organizations. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6
million small organizations.
1. Telecommunications Service Entities
a. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers
11. The Commission has included small incumbent local exchange
carriers (LECs) in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small
business'' under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent
small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business
having 1,500 or fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of
operation.'' The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA
purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of
operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. The
Commission has therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA
analysis, although the Commission emphasizes that this RFA action has
no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA
contexts.
12. Incumbent LECs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent
local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules
is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 1,303 carriers have reported that they
are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of
these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees
and 283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are
small businesses that may be affected by its action.
13. Competitive LECs, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs),
``Shared-Tenant Service Providers,'' and ``Other Local Service
Providers.'' Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small
business size standard specifically for these service providers. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission
data, 859 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision
of either competitive access provider services or competitive LEC
services. Of these 859 carriers, an estimated 741 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 118 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 16
carriers have reported that they are ``Shared-Tenant Service
Providers,'' and all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or
[[Page 31634]]
fewer employees. In addition, 44 carriers have reported that they are
``Other Local Service Providers.'' Of the 44, an estimated 43 have
1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of
competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers,
``Shared-Tenant Service Providers,'' and ``Other Local Service
Providers'' are small entities.
14. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to Commission data, 184 carriers have reported
that they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of
these, an estimated 181 have 1,500 or fewer employees and three have
more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that
the majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected
by its action.
15. Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported
that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of
these, an estimated 853 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 28 have more
than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the
majority of toll resellers are small entities that may be affected by
its action.
16. Payphone Service Providers (PSPs). Neither the Commission nor
the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
payphone services providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to Commission data, 657 carriers have reported
that they are engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these,
an estimated 653 have 1,500 or fewer employees and four have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the
majority of payphone service providers are small entities that may be
affected by its action.
17. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard
under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to Commission data, 330 carriers have
reported that they are engaged in the provision of interexchange
service. Of these, an estimated 309 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
21 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of IXCs are small entities that may be
affected by its action.
18. Operator Service Providers (OSPs). Neither the Commission nor
the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to Commission data, 23 carriers have reported that
they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an
estimated 22 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
OSPs are small entities that may be affected by its action.
19. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 104 carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these, 102 are
estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that all or the
majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may
be affected by its action.
20. 800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers. These toll-free services
fall within the broad economic census category of Telecommunications
Resellers. This category ``comprises establishments engaged in
purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications;
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure.'' The
SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category,
which is: All such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau
data for 2002 show that there were 1,646 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,642 firms had employment
of 999 or fewer employees, and four firms had employment of 1,000
employees or more. Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered
small. Additionally, it may be helpful to know the total numbers of
telephone numbers assigned in these services. Commission data show
that, as of June 2006, the total number of 800 numbers assigned was
7,647,941, the total number of 888 numbers assigned was 5,318,667, the
total number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,431,162, and the total
number of 866 numbers assigned was 6,008,976.
b. International Service Providers
21. The first category, Satellite Telecommunications, ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point
telecommunications services to other establishments in the
telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and
receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or
reselling satellite telecommunications.'' The size standard for this
industry is $15.0 million; the NACIS code is 517410. For this category,
Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 307 firms had annual
receipts of under $10 million, and 26 firms had receipts of $10 million
to $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the
majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that
might be affected by its action.
22. The second category of Other Telecommunications ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in: (1) Providing specialized
telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking,
communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or (2)
providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications
systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving
telecommunications from satellite systems.'' The size standard for this
category is $25.0 million and the NAICS code is 517919. For this
category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of
332 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 274 firms
had annual receipts of under $24,999,999. Consequently, the
[[Page 31635]]
Commission estimates that the majority of Other Telecommunications
firms are small entities that might be affected by its action.
c. Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers
23. Below, for those services subject to auctions, the Commission
notes that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that
qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not
necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in
service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated.
24. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic
census categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications.'' Under both SBA categories, a wireless business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of
Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in
this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804
firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had
employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and
associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small. For the census category of Cellular and Other
Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that
there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.
Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of
firms can, again, be considered small. The Commission notes that that
the categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications'' are now obsolete, and have been replaced with a
new category, ``Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite).'' Under this new category, a wireless business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
25. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular,
personal communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio
(SMR) telephony carriers. As noted above, the SBA has developed a small
business size standard for ``Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite).'' Under that SBA small business size standard, a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to
Commission data, 432 carriers reported that they were engaged in the
provision of wireless telephony. The Commission has estimated that 221
of these are small under the SBA small business size standard.
26. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband
Personal Communications Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held
auctions for each block. The Commission defined ``small entity'' for
Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40
million or less in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an
additional classification for ``very small business'' was added and is
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average
gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three
calendar years.'' These standards defining ``small entity'' in the
context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No
small businesses, within the SBA-approved small business size standards
bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning
bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A
total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40
percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23,
1999, the Commission re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses.
There were 48 small business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the
Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses
in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29
qualified as ``small'' or ``very small'' businesses. Subsequent events,
concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations,
resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for
grant.
2. Cable and OVS Operators
27. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these
services have been defined within the broad economic census category of
Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows:
``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text,
sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for this category, which is: All such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable services
the Commission must, however, use current census data that are based on
the previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its
associated size standard; that size standard was: all such firms having
$13.5 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau
data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this previous
category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 firms
had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of
$10 million or more but less than $25 million. Thus, the majority of
these firms can be considered small.
28. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed
its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate
regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is
one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry data
indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are
small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's
rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer
subscribers. Industry data indicate that, of 7,208 systems nationwide,
6,139 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 379
systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this second size
standard, most cable systems are small
29. Cable System Operators. The Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system
operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that an operator serving
fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its
annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all
its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Industry
data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten
are small under this size standard. The Commission notes that it
neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system
operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues
exceed $250 million, and therefore the Commission is unable to estimate
more accurately the number of cable system operators that would
[[Page 31636]]
qualify as small under this size standard.
30. Open Video Systems (OVS). In 1996, Congress established the
open video system (OVS) framework, one of four statutorily recognized
options for the provision of video programming services by local
exchange carriers (LECs). The OVS framework provides opportunities for
the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems.
Because OVS operators provide subscription services, OVS previously
fell within the now obsolete SBA small business size standard of Cable
and Other Program Distribution Services, which consists of such
entities having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. The
Commission has certified 25 OVS operators, with some now providing
service. Broadband service providers (BSPs) are currently the only
significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises. As
of June, 2005, BSPs served approximately 1.4 million subscribers,
representing 1.5 percent of all MVPD households. Affiliates of
Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN), which serves about
371,000 subscribers as of June, 2005, is currently the largest BSP and
14th largest MVPD. RCN received approval to operate OVS systems in New
York City, Boston, Washington, D.C. and other areas. The Commission
does not have financial information regarding the entities authorized
to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. The
Commission thus believes that at least some of the OVS operators may
qualify as small entities.
3. Internet Service Providers
31. Internet Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs
``provide clients access to the Internet and generally provide related
services such as web hosting, web page designing, and hardware or
software consulting related to Internet connectivity.'' The new size
standard is 500 employees. However, data is not yet available under
this new standard. Under the previous SBA size standard, such a
business is small if it has average annual receipts of $23 million or
less. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 firms
in this category that operated for the entire year.\\ Of these, 2,437
firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 47
firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms
are small entities that may be affected by its action.
32. All Other Information Services. ``This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in providing other information
services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives).'' The SBA
has developed a small business size standard for this category; that
size standard is $7.0 million or less in average annual receipts.
However, data has not yet been collected under the new size standard,
and so the Commission refers to data collected under the previous size
standard, $6.5 million or less in average annual receipts. According to
Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 155 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of these, 138 had annual receipts of
under $5 million, and an additional four firms had receipts of between
$5 million and $9,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that
the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by
its action.
4. Equipment Manufacturers
33. SBA small business size standards are given in terms of
``firms.'' Census Bureau data concerning computer manufacturers, on the
other hand, are given in terms of ``establishments.'' The Commission
notes that the number of ``establishments'' is a less helpful indicator
of small business prevalence in this context than would be the number
of ``firms'' or ``companies,'' because the latter take into account the
concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical location
for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be
owned by a different establishment. Thus, the census numbers provided
below may reflect inflated numbers of businesses in the given category,
including the numbers of small businesses.
34. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as
follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having
750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there
were a total of 1,041 establishments in this category that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and
an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
35. Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines
this category as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing wire telephone and data
communications equipment. These products may be standalone or board-
level components of a larger system. Examples of products made by these
establishments are central office switching equipment, cordless
telephones (except cellular), PBX equipment, telephones, telephone
answering machines, LAN modems, multi-user modems, and other data
communications equipment, such as bridges, routers, and gateways.'' The
SBA has developed a small business size standard for Telephone
Apparatus Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having 1,000 or fewer
employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total
of 518 establishments in this category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 511 had employment of under 1,000, and an
additional 7 had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
36. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. Examples of
manufactured devices in this category include ``integrated circuits,
memory chips, microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and
other optoelectronic devices.'' The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were
1,032 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during
2002. Of these, 950 had employment of under 500, and 42 establishments
had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, the Commission estimates
that the majority of these establishments are small entities.
37. Computer Storage Device Manufacturing. These establishments
manufacture ``computer storage devices that allow the storage and
retrieval of data from a phase change, magnetic, optical, or magnetic/
optical media.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
[[Page 31637]]
1,000 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were
170 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during
2002. Of these, 164 had employment of under 500, and five
establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority of these establishments are
small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements
38. This Order does not impose any new or modified reporting,
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
39. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
40. In the 2007 LNP NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that
it should adopt a rule reducing the porting interval for simple port
requests and allow the industry to work through the actual implications
of such a timeline. In particular, the Commission tentatively concluded
that it should adopt a rule reducing the porting interval for simple
wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal port requests to 48 hours.
The Commission sought comment on its tentative conclusions, and whether
there were any technical impediments or advances that affect the
overall length of the porting interval such that it should adopt
different porting intervals for particular types of ports. The
Commission also sought comment on the benefits and burdens, including
the burdens on small entities, of adopting rules regarding porting
intervals for all types of simple port requests.
41. The Commission must assess the interests of small businesses in
light of the overriding public interest in ensuring that all consumers
benefit from local number portability. In the Order, the Commission
found that it is critical that customers be able to port their
telephone numbers in an efficient manner in order for LNP to fulfill
its promise of giving ``customers flexibility in the quality, price,
and variety of telecommunications services'' and that the current four-
business day porting interval may hinder the effectiveness of LNP. The
Commission also found that delays in porting cost consumers time and
money and limit consumer choice and competition because when consumers
get frustrated with slow porting, they often abandon efforts to switch
carriers. The Commission thus concluded that reducing the porting
interval for simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal ports to
one business day was necessary to enable customers to port their
numbers in a timely fashion and to enhance competition, and found that
the benefits to consumers and competition outweigh the costs associated
with implementing a shorter porting interval for simple wireline and
simple intermodal ports.
42. In order to reduce the burden on smaller entities, the
Commission considered several alternatives, some of which were
presented by commenters and some of which the Commission developed
based on its own analysis. For example, the Commission recognized that
some providers who do not employ automated systems for handling port
requests and have limited resources to upgrade their systems may have
to make more significant changes or upgrades than other carriers that
already employ automated porting interfaces. To address this disparity,
the Commission allowed small providers a longer period of time for
implementing the one-business day porting interval. Specifically, small
providers are required to implement the reduced one-business day
porting interval for simple wireline and simple intermodal ports no
later than 15 months after the NANC submits the revised provisioning
flows to the Commission. For purposes of the longer implementation
period, the Commission considers providers with fewer than 2 percent of
the Nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide and
Tier III wireless carriers, as defined in the E911 Stay Order, to be
small providers.
43. The Commission declined to provide for special recovery of
costs for implementing the reduced porting interval, noting that there
are several options for carriers to recover their costs of implementing
the reduced porting interval. The Commission noted that many small
carriers have not yet filed for recovery of costs for implementation of
long-term number portability under its LNP cost recovery mechanism. To
the extent that such carriers incur costs to implement the one-business
day porting interval that meet the standard for the LNP cost recovery
mechanism, the Commission's rules give carriers five years to recover
those costs through end-user charges. Once incumbent LECs have
recovered their initial LNP implementation costs through the LNP cost
recovery mechanism, the Commission intended carriers to recover ongoing
costs incurred to provide number portability as a normal network
feature through existing mechanisms available for the recovery of
general costs of providing service. Under rate-of-return regulation,
carriers are allowed to recover their costs plus a prescribed rate of
return on investment. Under price cap regulation, rather than earning a
specific rate of return on their costs, carriers are permitted to earn
returns significantly higher if they can operate efficiently but are
not guaranteed recovery of all costs. Price cap regulation includes an
exogenous cost adjustment mechanism.
44. Further, small providers have options for seeking modification
of the new LNP interval requirements. For example, under section
251(f)(2) of the Act, a LEC ``with fewer than 2 percent of the Nation's
subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide may petition a
State commission for suspension or modification of the application of
the requirements'' of section 251(b), which includes the ``duty to
provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in
accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Commission.'' The
Order also notes that providers may apply for a waiver of the one-
business day porting interval under the Commission's rules. To
demonstrate the good cause required by the Commission's waiver rule, a
provider must show with particularity that it would be unduly
economically burdensome for the provider to implement the reduced
porting interval. In making this showing, a provider should address the
number of port requests it receives as well as the specific costs that
complying with the reduced porting interval would impose. The
Commission found that these safeguards address commenters' concerns
regarding the costs that small entities may incur to implement the one-
business day wireline and intermodal porting interval.
45. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the
Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review
[[Page 31638]]
Act. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be
published in the Federal Register.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i),
4(j), 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), 251, 303(r), this Report and Order in WC Docket
No. 07-244 and CC Docket No. 95-116 is adopted, and that Part 52 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 CFR part 52, Is amended as set forth in Appendix
B. The Report and Order shall become effective August 3, 2009. It is
further ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 251, and
303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154(i)-(j), 251, 303(r), and sections 52.11(b) and 52.25(d) of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 52.11(b), 52.25(d), the North American
Numbering Council shall submit its recommendations to the Commission
within 90 days of the effective date of the Report and Order as
discussed in paragraph 10 of this Report and Order.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 52
Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends part 52 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 52--NUMBERING
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47
U.S.C. 151, 152, 154 and 155 unless otherwise noted. Interpret or
apply secs. 3, 4, 201-205, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-52, 271 and 332,
48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 153, 154, 201-05, 207-09,
218, 225-27, 251-52, 271 and 332 unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 52.21 is amended by adding paragraph (w) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.21 Definitions.
* * * * *
(w) The term 2009 LNP Porting Intervals Order refers to In the
Matters of Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation
Requirements; Telephone Number Portability, WC Docket No. 07-244, CC
Docket No. 95-116, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, FCC 09-41 (2009).
0
3. Section 52.26 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.26 NANC Recommendations on Local Number Portability
Administration.
(a) Local number portability administration must comply with the
recommendations of the North American Numbering Council (NANC) as set
forth in the report to the Commission prepared by the NANC's Local
Number Portability Administration Selection Working Group, dated April
25, 1997 (Working Group Report) and its appendices, which are
incorporated by reference pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Except that: Section 7.10 of Appendix D is not incorporated herein
and all references to the porting intervals for simple wireline and
simple intermodal port requests in the Working Group Report are not
incorporated herein after Sec. 52.35 becomes effective as described in
Sec. 52.35(a).
* * * * *
(c) The Director of the Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies of the Working Group Report and its appendices can be
obtained from the Commission's contract copier, Best Copy and Printing,
Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington,
DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, or via e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com, and can be
inspected during normal business hours at the following locations:
Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY--A257,
Washington, DC 20554 or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. The Working
Group Report and its appendices are also available on the Internet at
http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/cpd/Nanc/lnpastuf.html.
0
4. Section 52.35 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.35 Porting Intervals.
(a) Nine months after the NANC submits its port provisioning
process flows to the Commission as provided in the 2009 LNP Porting
Interval Order, all telecommunications carriers required by the
Commission to port telephone numbers must complete a simple wireline-
to-wireline or simple intermodal port request within one business day
unless a longer period is requested by the new provider or by the
customer. Small providers, as described in the 2009 LNP Porting
Interval Order, must comply with this section 15 months after the NANC
submits its port provisioning process flows to the Commission as
provided in the 2009 LNP Porting Interval Order. For purposes of this
section, simple intermodal ports include wireline-to-wireless ports,
wireless-to-wireline ports, and ports involving interconnected Voice
over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service.
(b) Unless directed otherwise by the Commission, any
telecommunications carrier granted a waiver by the Commission of the
one-business day porting interval described in paragraph (a) of this
section must complete a simple wireline-to-wireline or simple
intermodal port request within four business days unless a longer
period is requested by the new provider or by the customer.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term ``telecommunications
carrier'' includes an interconnected VoIP provider as that term is
defined in Sec. 52.21(h).
(d) Once effective as described in paragraph (a) of this section
supersedes any porting interval requirements for simple wireline or
simple intermodal port requests incorporated by reference in Sec.
52.26.
[FR Doc. E9-15132 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P