61334 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

§ 259.6 Compliance with statutory dates. 

(a) Claims filed with the Copyright 

Office shall be considered timely filed 

only if: 

(1) They are filed on-line through the 

Copyright Office Web site at http://

www.copyright.gov/carp/DART/

index.html during the month of January 

or February. On-line claims must be 

received in the Office’s server no later 

than 5 p.m. E.S.T. on the last day of 

February. 

(2) They are hand delivered by a 

private party and addressed as follows: 

Copyright Office General Counsel/

CARP, U.S. Copyright Office, James 

Madison Memorial Building, Room LM–

401, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20559–6000. These 

claims must be delivered to the Public 

Information Office, located at the U.S. 

Copyright Office, James Madison 

Memorial Building, Room LM–401, 101 

Independence Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20559–6000, Monday 

through Friday, between 8:30 a.m. and 

5 p.m. during the month of January or 

February. 

(3) They are hand delivered by a 

commercial courier (excluding 

overnight delivery services such as 

Federal Express, United Parcel Service 

and similar overnight delivery services) 

and addressed as follows: Copyright 

Office General Counsel/CARP, Room 

LM–403, James Madison Memorial 

Building, 101 Independence Avenue, 

SE., Washington, DC. These claims must 

be delivered to the Congressional 

Courier Acceptance Site (CCAS) located 

at Second and D Street, NE., 

Washington, DC, during the month of 

January or February. The CCAS will 

accept items from couriers with proper 

identification, e.g., a valid driver’s 

license, Monday through Friday, 

between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

(4) They are sent through the U.S. 

Postal Service and addressed as follows: 

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, 

P.O. Box 70977, Southwest Station, 

Washington, DC 20024–0977. Claims 

sent through the U.S. Postal Service 

must have sufficient postage and bear a 

January or February U.S. postmark. 

(5) Federal Express, United Parcel 

Service and similar overnight delivery 

services may not be used for the filing 

of claims. A claim sent by means of 

overnight delivery shall be done via 

U.S. Postal Service Express Mail, and 

the claim shall be addressed in 

accordance with paragraph (a)(4) of this 

section. 

(b) Claims dated only with a business 

meter that are received after the last day 

in February will not be accepted as 

having been timely filed. 

(c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section, in any year in 

which the last day of February falls on 

a Saturday, Sunday, a holiday, or other 

nonbusiness day within the District of 

Columbia or the Federal Government, 

claims received by the Copyright Office 

by the first business day in March, or 

properly addressed and deposited with 

sufficient postage with the United States 

Postal Service and postmarked by the 

first business day in March, shall be 

considered timely filed. 

(d) No claim may be filed by facsimile 

transmission. 

(e) In the event that a properly 

addressed and mailed claim is not 

timely received by the Copyright Office, 

a claimant may nonetheless prove that 

the claim was properly filed if it was 

sent by certified mail return receipt 

requested, and the claimant can provide 

a receipt bearing a January or February 

date stamp of the U.S. Postal Service, 

except where paragraph (c) of this 

section applies. No affidavits will be 

accepted in lieu of the receipt. 

(f) A claimant may prove that a claim 

submitted on-line through the Copyright 

Office Web site was received timely in 

the Office’s server by providing either 

the confirmation page generated upon 

submission of the claim or the 

electronic mail message from the 

Copyright Office confirming receipt of 

the claim. No affidavits will be accepted 

in lieu thereof.

§ 259.7 [Amended] 

17. Amend newly redesignated 

§ 259.7 by adding ‘‘by hand delivery or 

by mail,’’ after ‘‘Copyright Office’.

Dated: October 13, 2004. 

Marybeth Peters, 

Register of Copyrights.

[FR Doc. 04–23298 Filed 10–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–33–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[CC Docket No. 95–116, FCC 04–217] 

Telephone Number Portability

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

recommendation of the North American 

Numbering Council (NANC), its 

advisory committee on numbering 

issues, for reducing the time interval for 

intermodal porting (porting between 

wireline and wireless carriers). The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

implementation issues in the event that 

a reduced intermodal porting interval is 

adopted.

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

November 17, 2004. Reply comments 

are due on or before December 17, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. See Comment 

Filing Procedures for further filing 

instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam 

Slipakoff, Attorney Advisor, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, (202) 418–7705, TTY (202) 

418–0484 or Jennifer Salhus, Attorney 

Advisor, Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–

1310, TTY (202) 418–1169.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

CC Docket No. 95–116, released 

September 16, 2004. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 

Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Second Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, we seek 

comment on the NANC’s 

recommendation for reducing the time 

interval for intermodal porting. We also 

seek comment on implementation issues 

in the event that a reduced intermodal 

porting interval is adopted. 

II. Discussion 

2. Porting Intervals. In implementing 

the requirements of section 251 of the 

Communications Act of 1934 

(Communications Act), as amended, the 

Commission has sought input from the 

NANC on various issues. In 1997, the 

Commission adopted the NANC’s 

recommendation of a four business day 

porting interval for wireline ports. At 

that time, the NANC did not specify a 

porting interval for intermodal porting. 

Meanwhile, the wireless industry has 

established a voluntary standard of two 

and one half hours for wireless-towireless ports. 

3. On November 10, 2003, the 

Commission released a Memorandum 

Opinion and Order and Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, 68 FR 68831 

(December 10, 2003) (Intermodal Porting 

Order and FNPRM) clarifying certain 

aspects of intermodal porting and 

seeking further comment on issues 

relating to intermodal local number 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2004 / Proposed Rules 61335

portability. Specifically, we sought 

comment on whether carriers should be 

required to reduce the current four 

business day porting interval for ports 

between wireless and wireline carriers. 

We also sought comment on what the 

reduced porting interval should be. We 

sought input from the NANC on this 

issue. 

4. NANC Report. In response to the 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

the NANC submitted a report that 

provides several options for reducing 

the intermodal porting interval. The 

report explains the differences between 

the wireline porting process and the 

wireless porting process and how these 

differences impact the intermodal 

porting interval. Generally, there is a 

two stage porting process—the 

Confirmation Interval (which currently 

takes up to 24 hours for ports involving 

wireline carriers) and the Activation 

Interval (which currently takes up to 

three business days for ports involving 

wireline carriers). The Confirmation 

Interval involves inter-carrier 

communications for the exchange of the 

Local Service Request (LSR or Port 

Response) and the Firm Order 

Confirmation (FOC) between the old 

service provider and the new service 

provider. During the Confirmation 

Interval, the new service provider 

collects information from the customer 

to prepare a LSR that is sent to the old 

service provider. During this process, 

the new service provider and old service 

provider exchange information and 

agree on a due date to port the 

telephone number. 

5. To reduce the overall four-day 

porting interval, the NANC considered 

reductions to the Confirmation Interval 

and the Activation Interval. Specifically, 

it developed two Confirmation Interval 

proposals (Proposals C1 and C2) and 

three Activation Interval proposals 

(Proposals A1, A2, and A3). Each of the 

two Confirmation Interval proposals 

were considered with each of the three 

Activation Interval proposals, for a total 

of six proposals for reducing the 

intermodal porting interval. 

6. After reviewing the proposals, the 

NANC found that the costs of Proposal 

C1 outweighed the potential benefits. 

With respect to the Activation Interval, 

the NANC determined that Proposal A3 

provides a substantial reduction in the 

intermodal porting interval at a much 

lower cost to the industry and 

consumers than the other Activation 

Interval proposals. Likewise, the NANC 

notes that Proposal A2 would likely 

result in greater costs to the industry in 

comparison to the costs to implement 

Proposal A3. 

7. The NANC concluded that the C2/

A3 combination provides a shorter 

porting interval and the most 

economical approach to a reduced 

intermodal porting interval. If this 

approach is adopted, orders received in 

a mechanized manner should be 

responded to in five hours or less 

(Proposal C2) and the ten-digit triggers 

should be set 24 hours before 12:01 a.m. 

of the confirmed due date (Proposal A3). 

According to the NANC, this 

combination provided the shortest 

‘‘maximum porting interval’’ (53 hours) 

and the greatest total time saved (43 

hours) compared to the four business 

day (96 hours) interval in our rules. For 

example, if a request to port was placed 

at 9:00 a.m. on a Monday, the 

Confirmation Interval would be 

completed by 2:00 p.m. that afternoon. 

The Activation Interval could then 

begin. The ten-digit trigger could then 

be set for 11:59 p.m on Wednesday. The 

port could be completed as early as 

12:01 a.m. on Thursday.

8. Porting Interval Reduction. The 

NANC proposes a method that would 

reduce the intermodal porting interval 

by almost 45 percent, from 96 hours to 

53 hours, by requiring a response to 

orders received in a mechanized manner 

in five hours or less and using a process 

called ‘‘Early Morning Activation.’’ We 

seek comment on the NANC’s 

recommendation for shortening the 

intermodal porting interval to 53 hours. 

We also seek comment on alternative 

mechanisms for reducing the intermodal 

porting interval. 

9. According to the NANC’s report, a 

uniform format for the exchange of 

information and a single mechanized 

interface could reduce the Confirmation 

Interval from 24 hours to five hours. 

Currently, each LEC may choose a 

different Local Service Ordering 

Guideline (LSOG) version based on its 

business needs. The NANC recommends 

that the industry establish one common 

LSOG version for porting to facilitate a 

reduction in the Confirmation Interval. 

We seek comment on the NANC’s 

recommendation. We also seek 

comment on whether or not the costs of 

a standardized LSOG and mechanized 

interface would outweigh the benefits, 

including for small entities. 

Commenters advocating a uniform 

LSOG should specify the items that 

should be included in a standardized 

LSOG. 

10. In its report, the NANC also notes 

that reducing the intermodal porting 

interval could increase the number of 

inadvertent ports. We seek comment on 

the impact of a reduced intermodal 

porting interval on inadvertent ports. 

We also seek comment on the 

procedures that should be established to 

minimize and restore inadvertent ports. 

We further seek comment on the costs 

for correcting inadvertent ports that 

result from a reduced intermodal 

porting interval. 

11. The NANC did not consider the 

extent to which reducing the intermodal 

porting interval will benefit consumers. 

Thus, we seek comment on whether the 

costs of a reduced intermodal porting 

interval outweigh the benefits of making 

it quicker for consumers to port their 

numbers. 

12. Recently, many small carriers 

providing service in areas outside of the 

top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

(MSAs) implemented number 

portability. We recognize that reducing 

the intermodal porting interval now for 

these carriers may produce unique 

challenges. The NANC notes that the 

economic impacts of shortening the 

intermodal porting interval may not be 

justified for rural telephone companies. 

We seek comment on whether certain 

classes of carriers (e.g., SBA Tier III 

wireless carriers, rural telephone 

companies and/or rural carriers) should 

be exempt from a reduced intermodal 

porting interval, if one is adopted. 

Similarly, we seek comment on whether 

an exemption is necessary for certain 

classes of small telephone companies as 

defined generically by the SBA. We seek 

comment on what costs these classes of 

carriers face to reduce the intermodal 

porting interval pursuant to the NANC 

proposal. Specifically, we seek 

comment on the costs SBA Tier III 

wireless carriers, rural telephone 

companies and/or rural carriers would 

face to establish a mechanized interface 

pursuant to Proposal C2. In addition, we 

seek comment on the costs these carriers 

would face to establish an early morning 

activation method as outlined in 

Proposal A3. Finally, we seek comment 

on the appropriate length of any 

potential exemption and any other 

alternative approaches to minimizing 

the economic impact for SBA Tier III 

wireless carriers, rural telephone 

companies and/or rural carriers. 

13. Implementation. The NANC 

Report states that the industry could 

require up to 24 months to reduce the 

intermodal porting interval as 

recommended in Proposal C2/A3. We 

seek comment on this proposed 

implementation timeframe. We also 

seek comment on whether we should 

establish implementation milestones. 

Commenters advocating implementation 

milestones should specify what 

milestones should be established. 

Finally, we seek comment on whether 

an alternative timeframe should be 

established for certain classes of carriers 

61336 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

(e.g., SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural 

telephone companies and/or rural 

carriers) or carriers operating in 

different geographic areas (i.e., the top 

100 MSAs versus areas outside of the 

top 100 MSAs). 

14. The NANC also noted several 

issues that it believes require further 

exploration prior to implementing its 

recommendation. Specifically, the 

NANC recommends further exploration 

of the following issues which are 

currently being addressed by the 

NANC’s Local Number Portability 

Administration Working Group: (1) 

Ports attempted while port conflict still 

unresolved; (2) intermodal ‘‘port 

confirmation’’ date not recognized; (3) 

inconsistent intermodal porting process 

causes service disruption on due date; 

(4) intermodal port date change (post 

confirmation) not recognized; (5) 

Customer Service Request (CSR) not 

executable for intermodal porting from 

a Type 1 reseller; and (6) various service 

provider operational systems issues. We 

seek comment on the impact of these, 

and any other outstanding issues, on 

implementing a shorter intermodal 

porting interval. Specifically, we seek 

comment on whether the resolution of 

these, and any other outstanding issues, 

will help or hinder the implementation 

of a reduced intermodal porting 

interval. Similarly, we seek comment on 

whether a reduced intermodal porting 

interval will help or hinder industry 

efforts to resolve these outstanding 

issues. 

15. Cost Recovery. In our recent order 

addressing BellSouth’s petition for a 

waiver of our cost recovery rules, we 

rejected the request of Sprint and 

CenturyTel that we declare that costs 

associated with future changes to 

intermodal LNP requirements, including 

porting intervals, are recoverable by 

incumbent LECs through a new or 

modified LNP charge without seeking a 

special waiver. In that order, we 

determined that the issue of cost 

recovery for any proposed regulatory 

mandate should be considered in 

conjunction with the proposed mandate. 

Accordingly, we seek comment in this 

proceeding on the magnitude of costs 

that incumbent LECs would incur to 

reduce the intermodal porting interval 

pursuant to either the NANC proposal 

or alternative proposals under 

consideration in this proceeding. We 

also seek comment on whether the 

implementation of a special cost 

recovery mechanism for such costs is 

appropriate. The NANC estimates that 

the proposal to respond to mechanized 

orders within five hours or less would 

cost less than $50 million to implement 

industrywide. We seek comment on this 

estimate as well as estimates for 

alternative proposals that are submitted. 

16. We note that section 251(e)(2) 

provides that ‘‘[t]he cost of establishing 

telecommunications numbering 

administration arrangements and 

number portability shall be borne by all 

telecommunications carriers on a 

competitively neutral basis as 

determined by the Commission.’’ In the 

Cost Recovery Order, 63 FR 35150, June, 

29, 1998, the Commission determined 

that ‘‘‘the costs of establishing number 

portability’ include not just the costs 

associated with the creation of the 

regional databases and the initial 

physical upgrading of the public 

switched telephone network, but also 

the ongoing costs, such as the costs 

involved in transferring a telephone 

number to another carrier and routing 

calls under the N–1 protocol.’’ The 

Commission also determined, however, 

that ‘‘once incumbent LECs have 

recovered their initial implementation 

costs, number portability will be a 

normal network feature, and a special 

end-user charge will no longer be 

necessary to ensure that incumbent 

LECs recover their number portability 

costs on a competitively neutral basis.’’

Accordingly, we seek comment on 

whether the costs of implementing a 

reduced porting interval, if any, are 

‘‘initial implementation costs’’ or costs 

associated with ‘‘normal network 

features’’ that are not entitled to a 

special cost recovery mechanism. 

III. Procedural Issues 

A. Ex Parte Presentations 

17. This is a permit-but-disclose 

notice and comment rulemaking 

proceeding. Members of the public are 

advised that ex parte presentations are 

permitted, provided they are disclosed 

under the Commission’s Rules. 

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

18. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

significant number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in this 

Second Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. Written public comments 

are requested on this IRFA. Comments 

must be identified as responses to the 

IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines 

for comments on the Second Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

provided below. The Commission will 

send a copy of the Second Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the Second Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

1. Need for, and Objective of, the 

Proposed Rules 

19. This Second Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment 

on the recommendation of the North 

American Numbering Council (NANC), 

our advisory committee on numbering 

issues, for reducing the interval for 

intermodal porting (wireline to wireless 

and wireless to wireline porting) from 

96 to 53 hours. The Commission also 

seeks comment on alternative 

mechanisms for reducing the intermodal 

porting interval. In addition, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the costs of a reduced intermodal 

porting interval outweigh the benefits of 

making it quicker for consumers to port 

their numbers. The Commission also 

seeks comment on whether certain 

classes of carriers (e.g., SBA Tier III 

wireless carriers, rural telephone 

companies and/or rural carriers) should 

be exempt from a shorter intermodal 

porting interval, if adopted. In addition, 

the Commission also seeks comment on 

whether an exemption is necessary for 

certain classes of small telephone 

companies as defined generically by the 

SBA. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on the costs these 

classes of carriers face to reduce the 

intermodal porting interval pursuant to 

the NANC proposal. The Commission 

also seeks comment on the appropriate 

length of any potential exemption and 

any other alternative approaches to 

minimizing the economic impact on 

SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural 

telephone companies and/or rural 

carriers.

20. In this Second Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission 

seeks comment on implementation 

issues in the event that a reduced 

intermodal porting interval is adopted. 

Specifically, the Commission seeks 

comment on the implementation 

timeframe and whether or not it should 

establish implementation milestones. In 

addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on the magnitude of costs that 

incumbent LECs would incur to reduce 

the intermodal porting interval pursuant 

to either the NANC proposal or 

alternative proposals under 

consideration in this proceeding, and 

whether a special recovery mechanism 

for such costs is appropriate. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2004 / Proposed Rules 61337

2. Legal Basis 

21. The proposed action is authorized 

under sections 1, 3, 4(i), 201, 202, 251 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154(i), 

201–202, and 251. 

3. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

22. 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, unless 

the Commission has developed one or 

more definitions that are appropriate to 

its activities. Under the Small Business 

Act, a ‘‘small business concern’’ is one 

that: (1) Is independently owned and 

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field 

of operation; and (3) meets any 

additional criteria established by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

23. We have included small 

incumbent local exchange carriers 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 local 

exchange carriers are not dominant in 

their field of operation because any such 

dominance is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. 

We have therefore included small 

incumbent local exchange carriers in 

this IRFA analysis, although we 

emphasize that this RFA action has no 

effect on Commission analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. 

24. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers. Neither the Commission nor 

the SBA has developed a specific small 

business size standard for incumbent 

local exchange service providers. The 

closest applicable size standard under 

the SBA rules is for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. Under 

that standard, such a business is small 

if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to the FCC’s Telephone 

Trends Report data, 1,310 incumbent 

local exchange carriers reported that 

they were engaged in the provision of 

local exchange services. Of these 1,310 

carriers, an estimated 1,025 have 1,500 

or fewer employees and 285 have more 

than 1,500 employees. 

25. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers. Neither the Commission nor 

the SBA has developed a specific small 

business size standard for competitive 

local exchange service providers. The 

closest applicable size standard under 

the SBA rules is for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. Under 

that standard, such a business is small 

if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to the FCC’s Telephone 

Trends Report data, 563 companies 

reported that they were engaged in the 

provision of either competitive access 

provider services or competitive local 

exchange carrier services. Of these 563 

companies, an estimated 472 have 1,500 

or fewer employees and 91 have more 

than 1,500 employees. 

26. 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 1997 

show that there were 1,320 firms in this 

category that operated for the entire 

year. Of this total, 1,303 firms had 

employment of 999 or fewer employees, 

and an additional 17 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 Cellular 

and Other Wireless 

Telecommunications, Census Bureau 

data for 1997 show that there were 977 

firms in this category that operated for 

the entire year. Of this total, 965 firms 

had employment of 999 or fewer 

employees, and an additional 12 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. 

27. Cellular Licensees/Wireless 

Telephony. Wireless telephony includes 

cellular, personal communications 

services, and specialized mobile radio 

telephony carriers. As noted above, the 

SBA has developed a small business 

size standard for wireless firms within 

the broad economic census category 

‘‘Cellular and Other Wireless 

Telecommunications.’’ Under this SBA 

category, a wireless business is small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the 

census category Cellular and Other 

Wireless Telecommunications firms, 

Census Bureau data for 1997 show that 

there were 977 firms in this category 

that operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 965 firms had employment of 999 

or fewer employees, and an additional 

12 firms had employment of 1,000 

employees or more. Thus, under this 

category and size standard, the great 

majority of firms can be considered 

small. Also, according to Telephone 

Trends Report data, 447 carriers report 

that they are engaged in the provision of 

cellular service, personal 

communications service, or specialized 

mobile radio telephony services, which 

are placed together in the data. We have 

estimated that 245 of these are small 

under the SBA small business size 

standard and 202 have more than 1,500 

employees.

28. Broadband Personal 

Communications Service. The 

broadband personal communications 

services (PCS) spectrum is divided into 

six frequency blocks designated A 

through F, and the Commission has held 

auctions for each block. The 

Commission has created a small 

business size standard for Blocks C and 

F as an entity that has average gross 

revenues of less than $40 million in the 

three previous calendar years. For Block 

F, an additional small business size 

standard 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 small business size 

standards, 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 

reauctioned 155 C, D, E, and F Block 

licenses; there were 113 small business 

winning bidders. 

29. 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. 

61338 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

4. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

30. After reviewing several 

alternatives, the NANC found that the 

C2/A3 Proposal provides a shorter 

porting interval and the most 

economical approach to an intermodal 

porting interval based on the proposals 

considered. Pursuant to this plan, orders 

received in a mechanized manner 

should be responded to in five hours or 

less (Proposal C2) and the ten-digit 

trigger should be set a full day before 

12:01 a.m. of the confirmed due date 

(Proposal A3). According to the NANC, 

this combination provides the shortest 

‘‘maximum porting interval’’ (53 hours) 

and the greatest reduction in total time 

saved (43 hours). The NANC, however, 

estimates that the industry would need 

approximately 24 months to implement 

Proposal C2 after a Commission 

mandate is issued. Should the 

Commission decide to adopt the 

NANC’s recommendation, or any other 

change, all carriers, including small 

entity carriers, may require upgrades to 

their porting systems. These potential 

changes may impose new obligations 

and costs on carriers. We seek comment 

on the types of burdens carriers could 

face if the proposed recommendations, 

or any other suggested 

recommendations are adopted. Entities, 

especially small businesses, are 

encouraged to quantify, if possible, the 

costs and benefits of potential reporting, 

recordkeeping and other compliance 

requirements. We note that the NANC 

estimates that the C2/A3 Proposal 

would cost less than $50 million to 

implement industry wide. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

estimate. Commenters should address 

the specific costs of the NANC’s 

recommendations for the C2/A3 

Proposal, including the costs associated 

with establishing a mechanized 

interface pursuant to Proposal C2 and 

an early morning activation approach as 

described in Proposal A3. The 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

impacts of such changes on small and 

rural telephone companies. The 

Commission also considers an 

exemption for certain classes of carriers. 

We also note that the Commission may 

choose to keep the intermodal porting 

interval at four days. Thus, there would 

be no new requirements on any group 

of carriers, including small entity 

carriers. 

5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

31. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities.

32. This IRFA seeks comment on how 

the NANC’s recommendation, and any 

other potential changes to the 

intermodal porting interval, could be 

implemented in a manner that reduces 

the potential burden of cost compliance 

for small entities. Specifically, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

whether, and for what period of time, 

certain classes of carriers, (e.g., SBA 

Tier III wireless carriers, rural telephone 

companies and/or rural carriers) should 

be exempt from a shorter intermodal 

porting interval, if adopted. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether an exemption is necessary for 

certain classes of small telephone 

companies as defined by the SBA. Such 

an exemption may benefit small entities 

by obviating the need, or deferring the 

timeframe, for small and rural telephone 

companies to establish a mechanized 

interface for intermodal porting and an 

early morning activation process. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

alternative approaches that would 

minimize the economic impact on SBA 

Tier III wireless carriers, rural telephone 

companies and/or rural carriers. Thus, 

we seek comment on the NANC 

recommendation, and any other 

possible changes to the intermodal 

porting interval, and whether any or all 

of them would minimize the economic 

impact on small entities, which may 

include providers of wireless as well as 

wireline communications services. We 

note that the NANC considered and did 

not recommend higher cost alternatives. 

The NANC Report states that the 

industry could require up to 24 months 

to reduce the intermodal porting 

interval as recommended in Proposal 

C2/A3. The Commission seeks comment 

on this proposed implementation 

timeframe and whether implementation 

milestones should be established. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether a different timeframe should be 

established for certain classes of carriers 

(e.g., SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural 

telephone companies and/or rural 

carriers) or carriers operating in 

different geographic areas (i.e., the top 

100 MSAs versus areas outside of the 

top 100 MSAs). 

6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

33. None. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

34. This document contains proposed 

modified information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. Public and 

agency comments are due December 17, 

2004. Comments should address: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; and (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

we seek specific comment on how we 

might ‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’

D. Comment Filing Procedures 

35. We invite comment on the issues 

and questions set forth in the Further 

Notice or Proposed Rulemaking and 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

contained herein. Pursuant to applicable 

procedures set forth in sections 1.415 

and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 

interested parties may file comments as 

follows: Comments are due on or before 

November 17, 2004, and reply 

comments are due on or before 

December 17, 2004. All filings should 

refer to CC Docket No. 95–116. 

Comments may be filed using the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2004 / Proposed Rules 61339

copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,

63 FR 24121, (May 1, 1998). 

36. Comments filed through the ECFS 

can be sent as an electronic file via the 

Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/

ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of 

an electronic submission must be filed. 

If multiple docket or rulemaking 

numbers appear in the caption of this 

proceeding, however, commenters must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments to each docket or rulemaking 

number referenced in the caption. In 

completing the transmittal screen, 

commenters should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions 

for e-mail comments, commenters 

should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov,

and should include the following words 

in the body of the message, ‘‘get form 

<your e-mail address>.’’ A sample form 

and directions will be sent in reply. 

37. Parties who choose to file by 

paper must file an original and four 

copies of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, 

commenters must submit two additional 

copies for each additional docket or 

rulemaking number. Filings can be sent 

by hand or messenger delivery, by 

commercial overnight courier, or by 

first-class or overnight U.S. Postal 

Service mail (although we continue to 

experience delays in receiving U.S. 

Postal Service mail). The Commission’s 

contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive 

hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 

paper filings for the Commission’s 

Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, 

NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. 

The filing hours at this location are 8 

a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must 

be held together with rubber bands or 

fasteners. Any envelopes must be 

disposed of before entering the building. 

Commercial overnight mail (other than 

U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and 

Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East 

Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 

20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class 

mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail 

should be addressed to 445 12th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings 

must be addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of 

the Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

38. Parties also must send three paper 

copies of their filing to Sheryl Todd, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Federal Communications Commission, 

445 12th Street SW., Room 5–B540, 

Washington, DC 20554. In addition, 

commenters must send diskette copies 

to the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20054. 

39. Accessible formats (computer 

diskettes, large print, audio recording 

and Braille) are available to persons 

with disabilities by contacting Brian 

Millin, of the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 

418–7426, TTY (202) 418–7365, or at 

bmillin@fcc.gov. This Second Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking can be 

downloaded in ASCII Text format at: 

http://www.fcc.gov/wtb.

IV. Ordering Clauses 

40. Pursuant to the authority 

contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201–

205, 218, 251, and 332 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

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

201–205, 218, 251, and 332, this Second 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

is adopted. 

41. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Second Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–23292 Filed 10–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P