48774 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Register issue of July 11, 1997

(62 FR 37408).

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry D. Johnson, 202–418–0445; email: Tjohnson@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document corrects footnote 23 of the

Report and Order in the abovecaptioned proceeding, which appeared

on page 37416 in the Federal Register

issue of July 11, 1997 (62 FR 37416).

Footnote number 23 associated with

paragraph 50 erroneously stated that the

AM station population was determined

using the 1mV/m field strength contour,

and it further stated that the FM station

population was determined using the 60

dBuV/m contour. For all AM stations,

the 0.5 mV/m contour was used. For

Class B FM stations, the 54 dBuV/m

contour was used. For Class B1 FM

stations, the 57 dBuV/m contour was

used. For all other FM Classes, the 60

dBuV/m contour was used.

Correction

Therefore, footnote 23 should be

corrected to read as follows:

DataWorld MediaXpert Service prepared

for NAB a calculation of the signal coverage

for each station, and overlaid this data onto

1990 decennial census population data to

estimate the population contained within

each station’s signal coverage area. For each

AM station, estimated soil conductivity data

was retrieved for each of 360 radial azimuths

around the transmitter site, the standard

horizontal plane radiation pattern was

calculated and any pertinent pattern

augmentations applied, and the distance to

the 0.5 mV/m field strength contour for each

of the 360 radials was calculated using the

appropriate propagation curves and the FCC

equivalent distance method. For each FM

station, terrain averages were calculated from

the USGS/DMA 3 arc second terrain database

for each of 360 radial azimuths, the HAAT

was calculated using the height of the center

of radiation AMSL and processed with FM

contour calculation software, pertinent

directional antenna information was applied,

and the distance to the 54 dBuV/m (for Class

B stations), 57 dBuV/m (for Class B1

stations), or 60 dBuV/m (for all other classes

of station) contour was calculated using the

appropriate FCC F[50,50] curves. For both

AM and FM, the distance to contour data was

applied to population counting software

using 1990 census data to determine the total

population within each station’s coverage

area.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–24724 Filed 9–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[CC Docket No. 95–116; FCC 97–289]

Telephone Number Portability

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Second Report and Order

(Order) released August 18, 1997

adopts, with minor modifications the

recommendations of the North

American Numbering Council relating

to local number portability

administration. The requirements,

standards and procedures adopted in

this Order are needed to give the

telecommunications industry clear

guidelines as to how to implement longterm local number portability.

DATES: The final rule is effective

October 17, 1997. The incorporation by

reference of certain publications listed

in the rule is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of October 17,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Teplitz, Attorney, Common

Carrier Bureau, Policy and Program

Planning Division, (202) 418–1580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Second

Report and Order adopted August 14,

1997, and released August 18, 1997. The

full text of this Order is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, 1919 M St., N.W., Room 239,

Washington, D.C. 20554 or at the Office

of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 700,

Washington, D.C. The complete text also

may be obtained through the World

Wide Web, at http://www.fcc.gov/

Bureaus/Common Carrier/Orders/fcc97–

289.wp, or may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by the Regulatory

Flexiblity Act, the Order contains a

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

which is set forth in the Order. A brief

description of the Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis follows.

Pursuant to section 604 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the

Commission performed a

comprehensive analysis of the Second

Report and Order with regard to small

entities. This analysis includes: (1) a

succinct statement of the need for, and

objectives of, the Commission’s

decisions in the Second Report and

Order; (2) a summary of the significant

issues raised by the public comments in

response to the initial regulatory

flexibility analysis, the final regulatory

analysis of the First Report and Order

and Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 61 FR 38605 (July 25,

1996) (First Report & Order) and the

supplemental final regulatory analysis

of the First Memorandum Opinion and

Order on Reconsideration, 62 FR 18280

(April 15, 1997) (First Order on

Reconsideration), and a summary of the

Commission’s assessment of these

issues; (3) a description of and an

estimate of the number of small entities

to which the Second Report and Order

will apply; (4) a description of the

projected reporting, recordkeeping and

other compliance requirements of the

Second Report and Order, including an

estimate of the classes of small entities

which will be subject to the requirement

and the type of professional skills

necessary for compliance with the

requirement; and (5) a description of the

steps the Commission has taken to

minimize the significant economic

impact on small entities consistent with

the stated objectives of applicable

statutes. The requirements and rule

adopted in this Second Report and

Order are necessary to implement the

provisions of the Telecommunications

Act of 1996.

Synopsis of Second Report and Order

Introduction

1. On June 27, 1996, the Commission

adopted the First Report and Order and

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

61 FR 38605 (July 25, 1996) (First Report

& Order) in this docket. The First Report

& Order established rules designed to

implement section 251(b) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended (the Act), which requires all

local exchange carriers (LECs) to offer,

‘‘to the extent technically feasible,

number portability in accordance with

requirements prescribed by the

Commission.’’ 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(2).

Among other things, in the First Report

& Order, the Commission directed the

North American Numbering Council

(NANC) to make recommendations

regarding specific aspects of local

number portability implementation. The

NANC forwarded its recommendations

to the Commission on May 1, 1997, in

a report from its Local Number

Portability Administration Selection

Working Group, dated April 25, 1997

(Working Group Report).
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 48775

2. In this Second Report & Order, the

Commission adopts the

recommendations of the NANC as set

forth in the Working Group Report, with

the modifications discussed below.

Specifically, we (1) adopt the NANC’s

recommendation that seven regional

number portability databases be

established coinciding with the

boundaries of the seven original Bell

Operating Company (BOC) regions; (2)

adopt the NANC’s recommendation that

Lockheed Martin IMS (Lockheed

Martin) and Perot Systems, Inc. (Perot

Systems) serve as the administrators for

the regional number portability

databases; (3) adopt the technical and

operational standards proposed by the

NANC for the provision of number

portability by wireline carriers; (4)

require that the carrier immediately

preceding the terminating local

exchange carrier be responsible for

ensuring that number portability

databases are queried; (5) permit LECs

to block calls that have not been queried

when failure to do so is likely to impair

network reliability; (6) direct the NANC

to complete and submit to the

Commission recommendations on the

sharing of numbering information

between the regional number portability

database administrators and the North

American Numbering Plan

Administrator; (7) direct the NANC to

develop standards and procedures

regarding the provision of number

portability by CMRS providers; (8)

adopt, on an interim basis only, the

NANC’s recommendation that the

regional limited liability companies

(LLCs), already established by carriers

in each of the original BOC regions,

manage and oversee the local number

portability administrators, subject to

review by the NANC; (9) direct the

NANC to provide national-level

oversight of local number portability

administration; and (10) adopt the

NANC’s recommendation that the

Commission create a committee to

oversee number portability deployment

in the top 100 Metropolitan Statistical

Areas.

Discussion

Local Number Portability Databases

Geographic coverage of number

portability databases: 3. Databases By

BOC Region. We adopt the NANC’s

recommendation that a Number

Portability Administration Center

database be established for each of the

original BOC regions so as to cover,

collectively, the 50 states, the District of

Columbia and the U.S. territories in the

North American Numbering Plan Area.

Deploying number portability databases

by BOC region will: (1) build on the

efforts of the LLCs, which already have

chosen local number portability

database administrators in each of the

original BOC regions; (2) make use of

the technical and organizational

experience of the state-sponsored

associations and workshops; and (3)

minimize the cost and complexity of use

of the databases by the BOCs. Moreover,

we find it significant that, according to

the NANC, industry fora at all levels

have agreed to the designation of BOC

territories as the appropriate Number

Portability Administration Center

coverage areas. We conclude that

establishing a database for each of the

original BOC regions would serve the

public interest.

4. We decline, at this time, to grant

CBT’s request that it be allowed to select

one regional Number Portability

Administration Center for purposes of

fulfilling its number portability

responsibilities. We find that the current

record is insufficient to make a finding

that granting CBT’s request will not

raise technical difficulties with respect

to local number portability

implementation or have negative

financial consequences for carriers

responsible for conducting the queries

necessary to route calls to the proper

terminating carrier. Because the record

on this issue is insufficient for us to

make a determination whether the

benefits to CBT of granting its request

outweigh the potential harm to other

carriers, we decline to make such a

determination at this time. Instead, we

direct the NANC to review CBT’s

request and to make a recommendation

to the Commission, on or before

December 15, 1997. Specifically, we

direct the NANC to address the question

of whether LECs with contiguous

operating areas that overlap more than

one number portability database region

should be allowed to select a single

Number Portability Administration

Center.

5. U.S. Territories. We adopt the

NANC’s recommendation that each U.S.

territory in the North American

Numbering Plan be permitted to choose

one of the seven regional databases for

purposes of implementing number

portability. Because of their various

locations, the U.S. territories are not

included within any BOC’s territory, nor

do they collectively comprise another,

separate region. The NANC’s

recommendation that each territory

choose a particular regional database

provides a reasonable alternative to

creating additional Number Portability

Administration Center regions that are

much smaller than the Number

Portability Administration Center

regions that are based on BOC regions.

6. We further find that allowing the

U.S. territories to select the regional

database they will use to provide

number portability will not significantly

change the size or complexity of any

one database or otherwise undermine

the public interest benefits of the

regional database system. Accordingly,

we hereby direct each U.S. territory to:

(1) select a regional database that

carriers in that territory will use to

provide number portability; and (2)

notify the Commission and the NANC in

writing regarding this selection within

45 days of the release of this order. Each

territory’s selection of a particular

database is final.

Selection of database administrators:

7. We adopt the NANC’s

recommendation that Lockheed Martin

serve as local number portability

database administrator for the

Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest and

Southwest regions, and that Perot

Systems serve as the local number

portability database administrator for

the Southeast, Western and West Coast

regions. As noted above, the First Report

& Order directed the NANC to select

one or more local number portability

database administrators that are

independent, non-governmental entities

that are not aligned with any particular

telecommunications industry segment.

We find that the criteria utilized by the

NANC in reviewing and evaluating the

selection process employed by the

various service providers at the regional

level were sufficient to ensure that the

local number portability database

administrators ultimately recommended

meet the Commission’s requirements.

We further note that no party to the

proceeding objects to the selections. We,

however, may review and, if necessary,

modify our approval of the

recommended local number portability

administrators in the event that

negotiations between Lockheed Martin

or Perot Systems and the LLCs do not

result in completed master contracts for

each region.

8. We also adopt the NANC’s

recommendations that (1) LLCs be

allowed to elect to have the local

number portability database

administrator for separate regions serve

those regions using the same platform;

and (2) database administrators be

allowed to create ‘‘virtual Number

Portability Administration Centers.’’ We

reiterate our conclusion that, absent

technical advances or other changed

circumstances, it would not be in the

public interest for number portability to

be provided in this manner. We clarify,

however, that our prohibition on the
48776 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

establishment of one national database

does not preclude local number

portability database administrators from

using the same computer hardware or

software to store, utilize or provide

access to multiple databases by, for

example, separating regional databases

stored on the same computer or system

of computers by means of database

partitions. We underscore, however,

that the Chief of the Common Carrier

Bureau retains delegated authority to

take appropriate action regarding any

existing or potential problems

associated with serving one or more

regions using the same database

platform.

Number of database administrators: 9.

By the time the NANC submitted its

recommendations to the Commission,

the seven regional LLCs had

independently selected two separate

database administrators: Lockheed

Martin and Perot Systems. For that

reason, the NANC concluded it was

unnecessary to address whether more

than one administrator should be

required. We find that the NANC acted

reasonably in assessing whether having

two administrators would be

appropriate, and thus we decline to

disturb this result. Further, we agree, for

the reasons given by the NANC, that

there are clear advantages to having at

least two experienced number

portability database administrators that

can compete with and substitute for

each other, thereby promoting costeffectiveness and reliability in the

provision of Number Portability

Administration Center services. While

we recognize the likely benefits of

having at least two administrators, we

do not, at this time, adopt a requirement

that two or any other number of entities

serve as local number portability

database administrators.

General duties of database

administrators: 10. We adopt the

NANC’s recommendations regarding the

general duties of the local number

portability database administrators. The

NANC defined these duties based on

input from the industry at the national,

regional and state levels, and none of

the commenting parties objects to them.

These duties also appear to be

consistent with the types of activities

the Commission tentatively concluded

would be necessary to deploy long-term

number portability. For example, the

Commission tentatively concluded that

costs for long-term portability would be

attributable to the ‘‘development and

implementation of the hardware and

software for the database,’’ to the

‘‘maintenance, operation, security,

administration, and physical property

associated with the database,’’ and to

the ‘‘uploading, downloading, and

querying’’ associated with the database.

Moreover, the duties appear to be

reasonably comprehensive, so as to

enable the number portability

administrators to implement the

architecture and technical specifications

developed by the NANC, and neither

the Commission nor the parties has

identified any record evidence that

indicates a need to adopt general duties

in addition to those recommended by

the NANC. We also note that the NANC

based these general duties on the more

specific duties described in the

Functional Requirements Specification

(Functional Requirements Specification

or FRS) and Interoperable Interface

Specification (Interoperable Interface

Specification or IIS) and that the

NANC’s description of the underlying

specific duties in the FRS and IIS as

‘‘standard functions’’ suggests that both

the specific and general duties the

NANC recommends are

noncontroversial.

Technical and Operational Standards

Uniform national standards: 11. We

agree with the NANC that the adoption

of uniform Functional Requirements

Specification, Interoperable Interface

Specification, Provisioning Process

Flows, policy for the porting of reserved

and unassigned numbers, and

compliance and change management

processes would provide significant

advantages for the implementation of

local number portability. We conclude

that uniform national standards in this

area will promote efficient and

consistent use of number portability

methods and numbering resources on a

nationwide basis, ensure the

interoperability of networks, and

facilitate the ability of carriers to meet

number portability implementation

deadlines. We further conclude that

uniform national standards should

minimize expenditure of time and

resources, maximize use of local

number portability resources for all

companies, produce timely and cost

effective offers of local number

portability related products, enable

switch vendors to spread their costs

over a larger base of customers,

eliminate the need to develop several

different versions of number portability

software, and improve service quality

for carriers providing service in

multiple regions. Furthermore, uniform

national standards will allow vendors to

develop standard products rather than

multiple versions of hardware and

software necessary to implement local

number portability based on regional

differences, resulting in more timely

and cost effective product offerings for

local service providers.

Specific technical standards: 12. We

conclude that the NANC’s

recommended technical and operational

standards are consistent with the

Commission’s performance criteria for

implementing local number portability.

In adopting the standards as currently

set forth in the Working Group Report

and its appendices as a framework for

implementation of local number

portability, we recognize that ongoing

changes to these specifications and

processes likely will be needed as the

industry gains operational experience in

implementing long-term number

portability. We urge the industry,

working under the auspices of the

NANC, to maintain, update and modify

the technical and operational standards

as necessary, and to establish a longterm compliance process for service

providers and local number portability

administrators.

13. Number Portability

Administration Center Service

Management System Provisioning

Process Flows (Provisioning Process

Flows). We adopt the Provisioning

Process Flows as set forth in Appendix

E to the Working Group Report and

recommended by the NANC as industry

standards for use in each Number

Portability Administration Center

region.

14. We conclude that the uniform

standards for Provisioning Process

Flows proposed by the NANC are

essential to the efficient deployment of

local number portability across the

nation. In particular, we find that

uniform Provisioning Process Flows

will help ensure that communication

between and among service providers

(using local Service Management

Systems) and local number portability

administrators (using Number

Portability Administration Center

Service Management Systems) proceed

in a clear and orderly fashion so that

number portability requests are handled

in an efficient and timely manner. We

note that no commenter opposed

adoption of these standard Provisioning

Process Flows. We direct the NANC to

make recommendations regarding future

modifications to the Commission as

necessary.

15. Number Portability

Administration Center Service

Management System Standards—

Functional Requirements Specification.

We adopt the NANC’s recommendation

that local number portability

administrators and any entity directly

connecting to the Number Portability

Administration Center Service

Management System be required to use
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 48777

the Number Portability Administration

Center Service Management System

Functional Requirements Specification

as described in the North American

Numbering Council—Functional

Requirements Specification—Number

Portability Administration Center—

Service Management System, Version

1.1, dated May 5, 1997 (NANC FRS).

The NANC FRS will serve as an

industry standard for use in developing

and maintaining the Number Portability

Administration Center Service

Management System in each of the

seven Number Portability

Administration Center regions.

16. The NANC FRS was developed

primarily to support the provisioning of

wireline number portability. The NANC

has not fully considered or developed

distinct number portability

requirements applicable to CMRS

providers. Therefore, modifications to

the NANC FRS may be required to

support wireless number portability. We

direct the NANC to recommend

modifications to the NANC FRS as

necessary to support wireless number

portability.

17. Number Portability

Administration Center Service

Management System Standards—

Interoperable Interface Specification.

We adopt the NANC’s recommendation

that the local number portability

administrators and any entity directly

connecting to the Number Portability

Administration Center Service

Management System use the Number

Portability Administration Center

Service Management System

Interoperable Interface Specification as

described in the North American

Numbering Council—Interoperable

Interface Specification—Number

Portability Administration Center—

Service Management System, Version

1.0, dated April 7, 1997 (NANC IIS). The

NANC IIS will serve as an industry

standard for use in developing and

maintaining the Number Portability

Administration Center Service

Management System interfaces in each

of the seven Number Portability

Administration Center regions.

18. The NANC IIS was developed

primarily to support wireline number

portability. The NANC has not fully

considered or developed unique

wireless number portability

requirements. Therefore, modifications

to the NANC IIS may be required to

support wireless number portability. As

discussed more fully below, we direct

the NANC to recommend modifications

to the NANC IIS as necessary to support

wireless number portability.

19. Policy for the Porting of Reserved

and Unassigned Numbers and

Compliance Process. We adopt the

NANC’s recommendations relating to

the porting of reserved and unassigned

numbers developed and documented in

Appendix D to the Working Group

Report. Specifically, the NANC

recommends that customers should be

allowed to port telephone numbers that

they have reserved under a legally

enforceable written agreement but that

have not been activated. The NANC

further recommends that such reserved

numbers: (1) be treated as disconnected

telephone numbers when the customer

is disconnected or when the service is

moved to another service provider and

the reserved numbers are not ported to

subsequent service providers; and (2)

may not be used by another customer.

The Working Group’s Architecture Task

Force points out that implementation of

the capability to port reserved numbers

may require modifications to

operational support systems and may

not be available initially. The NANC

also recommends that service providers

not be allowed to port unassigned

numbers unless and until there is an

explicit authorization for such porting

from a regulator with appropriate

jurisdiction.

20. In adopting the NANC’s

recommendation for the porting of

reserved and unassigned numbers

policy, we direct the NANC to monitor

the implementation of this policy, and

make appropriate recommendations to

the Commission, including, if deemed

necessary by the NANC, guidelines for

administering ported unassigned

numbers that are no longer reserved by

the customer that originally ported

them.

21. We also conclude that the NANC

has recommended a reasonable process

for enforcing compliance with the

policy pertaining to the porting of

reserved and unassigned numbers. If a

service provider finds that it is

disadvantaged by instances of noncompliance with the policy for the

porting of reserved and unassigned

numbers by another service provider,

the NANC recommends several courses

of action. First, the aggrieved service

provider may contact the service

provider with which it has a dispute to

resolve the issue through informal

negotiations. Should these efforts prove

unsuccessful, the aggrieved service

provider may bring the issue to the

regional LLC for resolution via the LLC’s

dispute resolution process, to the

NANC, to the state public utilities

commission, or to other bodies as

deemed appropriate by the service

provider.

22. Change Management Process. We

adopt the NANC’s recommendations

concerning the change management

process. We agree with the NANC that

it is important that a neutral entity

oversee the change management

process, so that: (1) there is consistency

in the submission and consideration of

changes to the architectural, technical

and operational specifications and

procedures; (2) uniform processes are

implemented; and (3) no individual

carriers or industry segments are

disadvantaged. We find that the NANC’s

proposed change management process

will enable the industry to make

changes to the architectural, technical

and operational specifications and

procedures in a timely and uniform

manner. The role of the regional LLCs

in managing changes to the number

portability technical and operational

specifications, however, is subject to our

planned review of the role of the

regional LLCs in implementing longterm number portability. We direct the

NANC to continue its oversight of

architectural, technical and operational

change management processes and to

make additional recommendations to

the Commission as necessary. In the

event the NANC is dissolved at some

point in the future, we will, at that time,

either establish or select an oversight

body to perform the change

management functions now delegated to

the NANC.

23. We also adopt the NANC’s

recommendations as presented in

Appendix D to the Working Group

Report, with the exception of the

NANC’s recommendation on the

blocking of default routed calls.

24. N–1 Call Routing. The NANC

recommends that the carrier in the call

routing process immediately preceding

the terminating carrier, designated the

‘‘N–1’’ carrier, be responsible for

ensuring that database queries are

performed. We adopt the NANC’s

recommendation that the N–1 carrier be

responsible for ensuring that databases

are queried, as necessary, to effectuate

number portability. The N–1 carrier can

meet this obligation by either querying

the number portability database itself or

by arranging with another entity to

perform database queries on behalf of

the N–1 carrier.

25. The efficient provisioning of

number portability requires that all

carriers know who bears responsibility

for performing queries, so that calls are

not dropped because the carrier is

uncertain who should perform the

database query, and so that carriers can

design their networks accordingly or

arrange to have database queries

performed by another entity. Consistent

with our finding in the First

Memorandum Opinion and Order on
48778 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Reconsideration, 62 FR 18280 (April 15,

1997) (First Order on Reconsideration),

we conclude that the Location Routing

Number system functions best if the N–

1 carrier bears responsibility for

ensuring that the call routing query is

performed. Under the Location Routing

Number system, requiring callterminating carriers to perform all

queries may impose too great a burden

on terminating LECs. In addition,

obligating incumbent LECs to perform

all call routing queries could impair

network reliability.

26. We note, however, that the

requirement that the N–1 carrier be

responsible for ensuring completion of

the database query applies only in the

context of Location Routing Number as

the long-term number portability

solution. In the event that Location

Routing Number is supplanted by

another method of providing long-term

number portability, we may modify the

call routing process as necessary. We

note further that if the N–1 carrier does

not perform the query, but rather relies

on some other entity to perform the

query, that other entity may charge the

N–1 carrier, in accordance with

guidelines the Commission will

establish to govern long-term number

portability cost allocation and recovery.

27. Default Routing. The NANC

recommends that we permit carriers to

block ‘‘default routed calls’’ coming into

their networks. A ‘‘default routed call’’

situation would occur in a Location

Routing Number system as follows:

when a call is made to a telephone

number in an exchange with any ported

numbers, the N–1 carrier (or its

contracted entity) queries a local Service

Management System database to

determine if the called number has been

ported. If the N–1 carrier fails to

perform the query, the call is routed, by

default, to the LEC that originally

serviced the telephone number. The

original LEC, which may or may not still

be serving the called number, can either

query the local Service Management

System and complete the call, or

‘‘block’’ the call, sending a message back

to the caller that the call cannot be

delivered. The NANC found that

compelling LECs to query all default

routed calls could impair network

reliability, and that allowing carriers to

block default routed calls coming into

their networks is necessary to protect

against overload or congestion that

could result from an inordinate number

of calls being routed by default to the

original LEC. In light of these network

reliability concerns, we will allow LECs

to block default routed calls, but only in

specific circumstances when failure to

do so is likely to impair network

reliability.

28. In the First Report & Order, we

required CMRS providers to have the

capability of querying number

portability database systems in order to

deliver calls from their networks to

ported numbers anywhere in the

country by December 31, 1998. We

established this deadline so that CMRS

providers would have the ability to

route calls from their customers to a

wireline customer who has ported his or

her number, by the time a substantial

number of wireline customers have the

ability to port their numbers between

wireline carriers. Under this

deployment schedule, the initial

deployment of long-term local number

portability for wireline carriers will

occur prior to the date by which CMRS

providers must be able to perform

database queries. During this period,

CMRS providers are not obligated by

our rules to perform call routing queries

or to arrange for other entities to

perform queries on their behalf. Thus, if

wireline LECs are allowed to block

default routed calls, calls originating on

wireless networks (to the extent that the

CMRS provider is the N–1 carrier) could

be blocked. For this reason, we will only

allow LECs to block default routed calls

when performing database queries on

default routed calls is likely to impair

network reliability. We also require

LECs to apply this blocking standard to

calls from all carriers on a

nondiscriminatory basis. In the event

that a CMRS or other service provider

believes that a LEC is blocking calls

under circumstances unlikely to impair

network reliability, such service

provider may bring the issue before the

NANC. We direct the NANC to act

expeditiously on these issues. Although

CMRS providers are not responsible for

querying calls until December 31, 1998,

we urge them to make arrangements

with LECs as soon as possible to ensure

that their calls are not blocked. We note

that if a LEC performs database queries

on default routed calls, the LEC may

charge the N–1 carrier, pursuant to

guidelines the Commission will

establish regarding long-term number

portability cost allocation and recovery.

29. Disconnected Ported Numbers.

The NANC also recommends that when

a ported telephone number is

disconnected, that telephone number be

released or ‘‘snapped-back’’ to the

original service provider assigned the

NXX. We find this NANC

recommendation reasonable and the

result of industry-wide consensus.

Accordingly, we adopt the

recommendation. We ask the NANC to

prepare recommendations to clarify the

policy if it determines that there is

confusion among the industry regarding

its application.

30. High Volume Call-In Networks.

The Working Group’s Architecture Task

Force did not reach consensus on how

to provide local number portability to

high volume call-in networks.

Currently, a service provider may move

a customer’s telephone number(s) to a

high volume call-in network when the

service provider determines that the

customer regularly generates large

volumes of terminating traffic over a

short period of time, so that the surge in

telephone calls will not overload the

network. A high volume call-in network

allows all such customers to be assigned

numbers in an NPA–NXX (e.g., 213–

520) dedicated for high volume call-in.

Switches in the network can be

designed to segregate traffic for high

volume call-in numbers and route it via

trunk groups that are dedicated to the

network and do not overflow to other

trunk groups. The dedicated trunks are

engineered to handle a particular traffic

load and, in this way, traffic volumes

are limited, and traffic to high calling

volume numbers cannot congest the

network.

31. The Location Routing Number

method for local number portability

requires a database query to be

performed on calls to portable NPANXXs before route selection takes place.

If high volume call-in network numbers

are portable, they could generate large

volumes of queries that could congest

the Service Control Points. Also, if a

high volume call-in network number is

ported and a location routing number is

returned in the database response, the

call will not be routed via trunks

dedicated to high volume call-in

networks. This congestion can in turn

affect other services and compromise

the design of high volume call-in

network networks.

32. We find that additional study is

necessary before we allow porting of

numbers to high volume call-in

networks. We, therefore, urge the

industry, under the auspices of the

NANC, to study this matter further and

prepare recommendations on how best

to incorporate high volume call-in

networks into the local number

portability scheme. We direct the NANC

to continue to examine this matter and

make recommendations to the

Commission.

Numbering Information Sharing

33. We acknowledge and applaud the

steps already taken by the NANC to

coordinate its efforts with those of the

Industry Numbering Committee to

develop a work plan and guidelines to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 48779

implement number pooling, and we

direct the NANC to continue to work

with the Industry Numbering

Committee and any other industry

bodies it deems appropriate in

developing numbering information

sharing guidelines. We also direct the

NANC to address the needs of CMRS

providers to ensure that number

conservation efforts do not unfairly

discriminate against such carriers. We

further direct the NANC to make

recommendations to the Commission as

necessary to develop guidelines for

numbering information sharing.

Number Portability and CMRS Providers

34. We recognize the significant time

constraints imposed on the NANC for

the development of recommended

standards and procedures so that

wireline carriers can meet the

Commission’s implementation

schedule, which commences October 1,

1997. We are also aware that under our

number portability deployment

schedule, CMRS providers are not

required to have the capability of

querying number portability database

systems in order to deliver calls from

their networks to ported numbers until

December 31, 1998 and are not required

to have the ability to port numbers until

June 30, 1999. We, therefore, conclude

that it was reasonable for the NANC to

defer making recommendations at this

time with respect to the implementation

of local number portability by CMRS

providers. Our adoption of the NANC’s

recommendations set forth in its May 1,

1997 transmittal, however, should not

be viewed in any way as an indication

that we believe our plan for

implementing local number portability

is complete. The industry, under the

auspices of the NANC, will probably

need to make modifications to local

number portability standards and

processes as it gains experience in

implementing number portability and

obtains additional information about

incorporating CMRS providers into a

long-term number portability solution

and interconnecting CMRS providers

with wireline carriers already

implementing their number portability

obligations.

35. We find that adoption of the

current NANC recommendations should

not be deferred pending resolution of all

wireless concerns. While delaying

implementation of number portability

until all wireless concerns are fully

addressed might result in an easier

transition to a number portability

environment for CMRS providers, we

believe that such delay would be

contrary to the public interest because a

far greater number of wireline customers

could not, during the period of delay,

switch local providers without also

changing telephone numbers. At the

same time, we recognize that it will

probably be necessary to modify and

update the current local number

portability standards and procedures in

order to support wireless number

portability. Thus, we direct the NANC

to develop standards and procedures

necessary to provide for CMRS provider

participation in local number

portability. We further direct the NANC

to present its wireless recommendations

to the Commission as soon as possible,

but not later than nine months after the

release of this Second Report & Order.

CMRS providers will need clear

guidelines as to how to query the

Service Management System databases

to determine proper call routing, as well

as how to implement wireless number

portability. The NANC must also

consider other issues of concern to

CMRS providers, such as how to

account for differences between service

area boundaries for wireline versus

wireless services and how to implement

number portability in a roaming

environment. In revising local number

portability standards to incorporate the

concerns of the wireless industry, the

NANC should remain cognizant of the

goals of ensuring the interoperability of

networks and nondiscrimination as

applied to CMRS providers. In

particular, in making its

recommendations, the NANC is to

ensure that CMRS providers are not

unfairly disadvantaged by virtue of the

fact that wireline number portability is

being implemented before number

portability for CMRS providers.

36. CTIA reports that it and other

industry groups are currently

developing technical solutions for

implementing wireless number

portability. We direct the NANC to

monitor these industry efforts and to

make recommendations to the

Commission for modifications to the

various technical and operational

standards as necessary for CMRS

providers to efficiently implement

number portability and to allow CMRS

providers to interconnect with a

wireline number portability

environment.

Local Number Portability Oversight

Procedures

37. We adopt, with certain

modifications, the NANC’s

recommendations regarding the

oversight and management of the local

number portability administrators.

Specifically, we adopt, on an interim

basis, the NANC’s recommendation that

the LLCs provide immediate oversight

and management of the local number

portability administrators. The LLCs

should serve in this role until the

Commission concludes a rulemaking to

examine the issue of local number

portability administrator oversight and

management including, but not limited

to, the question of whether the LLCs

should continue to act in this capacity.

The Commission will initiate such a

rulemaking no later than June 30, 1998.

In addition, we adopt the NANC’s

recommendation that it provide ongoing

general oversight of number portability

administration, including oversight of

the individual LLCs, subject to

Commission review. We also adopt the

NANC’s recommendation that the

Commission create a committee, chaired

by the Chief of the Common Carrier

Bureau, to oversee number portability

deployment in the top 100 MSAs.

38. Oversight by the LLCs. We

conclude that, at least in the short term,

the LLCs should provide immediate

oversight for the regional local number

portability administrators. Specifically,

we conclude that: (1) there are

advantages to allowing LLCs to provide

immediate oversight of the local number

portability administrators; (2) we have

no basis for concluding that the LLCs

will not treat all carriers fairly; and (3)

the record regarding local number

portability administrator oversight does

not permit us to conclude that other

proposals would be preferable to LLC

oversight.

39. We agree with the NANC that

there will likely be a need to modify

some requirements to permit database

system enhancements and other

modifications as local number

portability is deployed throughout each

region. Without a single entity to

oversee such modifications in each

region, local number portability

administrators would likely be faced

with varied, if not conflicting, proposals

from the carriers utilizing the database

regarding how the modifications should

be implemented. The need for the local

number portability administrator to

reconcile such varied proposals, in turn,

could potentially delay the

administrator from making necessary

modifications.

40. We conclude that the LLCs are the

entities that are best able to provide

immediate oversight of the local number

portability administrators at this time.

Because the LLCs were responsible for

negotiating the master contracts with

their respective local number portability

administrators, each LLC is the entity

with the greatest expertise regarding the

structure and operation of the database

for its region. Therefore, with respect to

each region, using an entity other than
48780 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

the LLC to provide immediate oversight

of the local number portability

administrator would waste the LLC’s

valuable expertise and run the risk that

necessary modifications to the database

system may be delayed.

41. Bell Atlantic and other parties

object to LLC oversight and management

of the local number portability

administrators based primarily on the

fact that, because new entrants will

outnumber incumbent LECs in each

region, the new entrants that belong to

the individual LLCs will be able to

outvote the incumbent LEC members if

they so choose. They suggest that, with

respect to decisions that do not require

unanimity by the LLCs, new entrant

members of an LLC could vote in ways

that give new entrants competitive

advantages over incumbent LECs in the

provision of number portability.

42. Any decision making process that

operates on the basis of majority votes

runs the risk that the group will decide

to take action that disadvantages some

members. Requiring unanimity for all

oversight decisions, however, could

make such oversight a cumbersome,

time-consuming process. In light of the

concerns expressed by incumbent LECs,

we adopt the NANC’s recommendation

that LLCs provide immediate oversight

of the local number portability

administrators, but such oversight shall

be on an interim basis. Specifically, the

LLCs may serve in this role only until

such time as the Commission concludes

further proceedings to examine the issue

of local number portability

administrator oversight and

management in general and, in

particular, the question of whether the

LLCs should continue to act in this

capacity. The Commission will initiate

such further proceedings no later than

June 30, 1998. We note that Phase I of

the Commission’s long-term number

portability implementation schedule

will be completed March 31, 1998. We

believe, therefore, that initiating a

proceeding no later than June 30, 1998

will enable the parties and the

Commission to acquire practical

experience with number portability

implementation, and to determine

whether problems arise as a result of

oversight and management envisioned

by LLCs.

43. We will permit LLC oversight, on

an interim basis, for several reasons.

First, the current record does not

support a finding that the LLCs will act

in a fashion that is not fair to all carriers.

To the contrary, two incumbent LECs

applaud the LLCs’ efforts to date, and

BellSouth states affirmatively that the

LLCs have remained neutral during the

administrator selection and contracting

phases of number portability

deployment. We also note that the

Maryland Public Service Commission,

in an order regarding the conflict

between Bell Atlantic and the MidAtlantic LLC, required Bell Atlantic to

sign a non-disclosure form before it

could review the LLC’s standard user

agreement with Lockheed Martin. The

Maryland Commission also directed the

regulated members of the Mid-Atlantic

LLC to secure a release from Lockheed

and to furnish a copy of the proposed

standard user agreement to Bell

Atlantic. Further, the Maryland

Commission directed the Mid-Atlantic

LLC and Bell Atlantic to negotiate to

resolve any areas of disagreement

regarding the user agreement. If the

parties cannot resolve their differences

regarding the user agreement, the

Maryland Commission has said that it

will resolve these differences for them.

Because the record contains no other

specific allegations of anticompetitive

activities by the LLCs, we are not

persuaded on the basis of the current

record that partiality by LLCs is likely

to occur in the immediate future.

44. Second, we agree with WorldCom,

Sprint and AT&T that there are

significant protections to ensure fair and

impartial actions by the LLCs. As the

NANC states, membership in the LLCs

is open to any local exchange carrier

that intends to port numbers, LLC

meetings are generally open to the

public, and members of the LLCs have

agreed to require a supermajority or

unanimity with respect to voting on

certain important decisions, such as

execution of the master contract.

Further, the NANC explains that all

carriers that need to access the database

for rating, routing, or billing purposes

will have the same access to the local

number portability administrator’s

service, even if the carrier is not a

member of the LLC. We also observe

that the LLCs have agreed to follow any

and all directives from state and federal

regulators. In addition, we note that

oversight by the NANC and by state and

federal regulators provides additional

protection against the possibility of

partiality by the LLCs in their oversight

of the local number portability

administrators.

45. Third, we reject the arguments of

Bell Atlantic and NYNEX and others

that permitting the LLCs to oversee the

number portability database

administrators would be inconsistent

with the First Report & Order because

the LLCs are not, in their view, neutral.

In the First Report & Order, we specified

that the local number portability

administrators must be ‘‘independent,

non-governmental entities that are not

aligned with any particular

telecommunications industry segment.’’

Contrary to the arguments of Bell

Atlantic and NYNEX, this neutrality

requirement applies to number

portability database administrators, not

to entities that oversee the

administrators. In any event, because we

find that there is no basis in the current

record for us to conclude that the LLCs

will act in a fashion that is not fair to

all carriers, we also cannot conclude

that the LLCs’ interim oversight and

management of the number portability

administrators will prevent the

administrators from acting impartially.

46. We wish to underscore, however,

that we remain committed to ensuring

that number portability administration

is carried out in an impartial manner. In

the First Report & Order, we delegated

authority to the Chief of the Common

Carrier Bureau to monitor the progress

of number portability implementation

for wireline carriers and to take

appropriate action to ensure compliance

with the implementation schedule. We

expressly delegate authority to the Chief

of the Common Carrier Bureau to

monitor the activities of the carriers that

comprise the LLCs and to take any

action necessary to remedy possible

partiality by those carriers with respect

to the LLCs’ oversight and management

of the local number portability

administrators.

47. We also decline, at this time, to

grant Bell Atlantic and NYNEX’s request

that local number portability

administrators be required to provide

number portability services under tariff

as a means of avoiding competitive

abuses by new entrants through the

LLCs. Bell Atlantic argues that because

the Commission ordered the

administrator of the 800 number

database to provide access to its

database under tariff, the Commission

must do the same with respect to local

number portability databases. We find

that Bell Atlantic’s reliance on our

decision in the 800 number database

context is misplaced. In that decision,

we found that ‘‘[o]n balance * * * the

better course for now’’ was to require

that access to the 800 database be

tariffed because we determined that

such treatment was necessary to ensure

that 800 database access was provided

at reasonable rates and on

nondiscriminatory terms. We do not

find the same concerns applicable to

access to local number portability

databases. First, section 251 of the Act

requires that the cost of number

portability ‘‘shall be borne by all

telecommunications carriers on a

competitively neutral basis as

determined by the Commission.’’ 47
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 48781

U.S.C. 251(e)(2). Thus, the method for

calculating the amount any particular

carrier will pay for obtaining services

from a local number portability database

administrator will be determined by the

Commission, not by the LLC. Second, as

noted above, the local number

portability administrators, pursuant to

the master contracts negotiated by the

LLC, will offer access to their databases

to all carriers on the same terms and

conditions, whether or not the carrier is

a member of an LLC.

48. In addition, we cannot conclude

from the current record that, as a

practical matter, CMRS providers will

be excluded from participating in the

LLCs’ management and oversight

activities as they affect CMRS providers.

As stated above, in order to complete

the tasks associated with wireline

number portability in accordance with

the Commission’s schedule, the NANC

directed its attention to developing

recommendations primarily relating to

the wireline portion of the industry and

did not fully address wireless concerns.

Further, the NANC recognized that

certain requirements, such as the FRS

and IIS, must be revised to incorporate

the work of CTIA and others on the

technical aspects of the provision of

number portability by CMRS providers.

We share CTIA’s concern that number

portability be administered in an

impartial manner, and we strongly

encourage both the NANC and the LLCs

to review their policies to ensure that

they have not, even inadvertently,

limited the participation of CMRS

providers in the LLCs or other aspects

of number portability administration.

While there is no evidence in the record

that any CMRS provider has been

denied membership in an LLC, we

encourage the LLCs to make

membership available to all carriers that

intend to port numbers, whether those

carriers intend to do so immediately or

sometime in the future. We do not

believe, however, that CTIA’s arguments

justify rejection or modification of the

NANC’s recommendations at this time.

49. Other proposals for local number

portability administrator oversight

suggested by incumbent LECs include:

(1) adopting specific rules to govern the

operation of the local number

portability administrators; (2) delegating

oversight of the local number portability

administrators to an industry or

standards body that operates by

consensus; (3) requiring local number

portability administrators to file their

master agreements with the

Commission; (4) delegating local

number portability administrator

oversight to a national LLC. As a general

matter, the parties making these

proposals offer little more than bare

assertions that these alternatives would

be preferable to LLC oversight, without

explanation or justification for their

conclusions. We find that the current

record does not support a finding that

any of these proposals would be

preferable to LLC oversight.

Consequently, we lack sufficient

analysis regarding these proposals to

make a reasoned decision regarding

their adoption.

50. The LLCs are currently requiring

that database administrators provide

uniform terms and conditions to all

carriers. WorldCom asks that the

Commission expressly endorse the

LLCs’ requirement that number

portability administrators provide same

terms and conditions to all carriers that

must provide number portability in a

region, regardless of whether a

particular carrier belongs to the LLC. We

agree with WorldCom that no carrier

should be able to use the terms and

conditions of obtaining number

portability database services to gain a

competitive advantage over other

carriers. In the First Report & Order, we

determined that it is in the public

interest for the number portability

databases to be administered by one or

more neutral third parties because

neutral third party administration

‘‘ensures the equal treatment of all

carriers and avoids any appearance of

impropriety or anti-competitive

conduct.’’ Thus, our order expressed an

expectation that a neutral administrator

would ensure equal treatment of all

carriers; we did not affirmatively require

uniform treatment. Based on the

information presently available, the LLC

requirement for uniform terms and

conditions appears to be reasonable.

Nevertheless, given the limited record,

we do not preclude further

consideration of this issue if any party

can demonstrate that the LLCs’

requirement that database

administrators provide uniform terms

and conditions to all carriers is unfair to

them.

51. Oversight by the NANC Generally.

We adopt the NANC’s recommendation

that it provide general oversight of

number portability administration on an

ongoing basis. Specifically, we establish

a procedure whereby parties may bring

matters regarding number portability

administration to the NANC so that it

may recommend a resolution of those

matters to the Commission.

52. The NANC represents a broad

cross section of carriers with interests in

numbering and number portability

issues and has developed substantial

expertise while formulating its

recommendations regarding number

portability implementation. Application

of this expertise will be critical in

addressing future issues regarding

number portability deployment,

including implementation of number

portability by CMRS providers and

coordination of number portability

administration with numbering

administration. Further, we find that the

NANC provides a valuable forum in

which carriers are able to consider, at

the national level, possible ways to

resolve issues that arise as number

portability is deployed within each

number portability region. Such issues

include, but are not limited to, ensuring

that the local number portability

administrators operate impartially, and

achieving national uniformity and

interoperability in number portability

administration. In our view, such

ongoing work of the NANC, especially

during the early phases of deployment,

will provide invaluable assistance to the

Commission in ensuring timely

implementation of number portability.

Although the Commission retains

ultimate authority over number

portability matters, carriers that are not

satisfied with a decision of an LLC or

local number portability administrator

regarding the administration of number

portability, and cannot obtain relief

from either of those entities, may bring

their concerns before the NANC.

53. The Commission strongly

encourages all parties to attempt to

resolve issues regarding number

portability deployment among

themselves and, if necessary, under the

auspices of the NANC. If any party

objects to the NANC’s proposed

resolution, the NANC shall submit its

proposed resolution of the disputed

issue to the Commission as a

recommendation for Commission

review. In light of the parties’ record of

successful cooperation to implement

number portability, we believe that this

approach will enable the parties to

resolve such issues most efficiently and

effectively. Such issues may include,

but are not limited to, amendments to or

interpretations of the NANC’s

recommendations approved in this

order, disputes regarding the LLCs’

oversight and management of the

number portability database

administrators, or any other matter

involving the administration of local

number portability. In the interest of

expediting this process, the Commission

hereby establishes the following

procedures to govern NANC

recommendations submitted for

Commission review:

(1) Following the adoption of a

recommendation regarding the

administration of number portability,
48782 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

the NANC shall issue a written report

summarizing the positions of the parties

and the basis for the recommendation

adopted by the NANC. The NANC Chair

will transmit the written report of such

recommendation to the Chief of the

Common Carrier Bureau (Chief). The

Chief will issue a public notice

describing the report and provide a

reasonable opportunity for interested

parties to comment on the NANC’s

recommendation. Recommendations

adopted by the NANC and forwarded to

the Commission may be implemented

by the parties pending Commission

review.

(2) Within 90 days of the conclusion

of the comment cycle established by the

Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau for

review of a NANC recommendation, the

Chief, after consultation with the Chief

of the Wireless Telecommunications

Bureau, may issue an order adopting,

modifying or rejecting the

recommendation. If the Chief does not

act within 90 days of the conclusion of

the comment cycle, the

recommendation will be deemed to

have been adopted by the Bureau.

54. We reject USTA’s request that we

establish direct appeal provisions for

carriers that wish to contest the

decisions of the LLCs or the local

number portability administrators

regarding the administration of number

portability. As stated above, most of the

commenting parties agree that the LLCs

and local number portability

administrators have worked efficiently

and fairly to implement local number

portability, and none of the commenting

parties identifies with precision any

future circumstances in which the LLCs

and local number portability

administrators would fail to work

efficiently and fairly. Moreover, by this

order, the Commission establishes a

procedure through which aggrieved

parties may have their concerns

addressed in the LLCs’ own dispute

resolution process, by the NANC, and

ultimately by the Commission. Given

the success of carriers and the local

number portability administrators in

resolving difficult implementation

issues, as well as the availability of the

NANC to recommend resolutions of

matters brought before it to the

Commission, we decline to establish

special provisions for bringing such

matters before state or federal regulators.

55. Implementation Oversight

Committee. We also adopt the NANC’s

recommendation that the Commission

create a committee to monitor number

portability deployment in the top 100

MSAs. We agree with the NANC that

such monitoring will be especially

important during the initial phase of

number portability deployment, as this

initial phase will involve more

extensive testing and will lay the

groundwork for successful deployment

in later phases. Consequently, we are

creating a committee, comprised of

members of the NANC’s Local Number

Portability Working Group, representing

a broad cross-section of the

telecommunications industry, and

chaired by the Chief of the Common

Carrier Bureau, to monitor compliance

with the Commission’s orders during

deployment of number portability in the

top 100 MSAs. This committee will not

provide advice or recommendations to

the Commission, but will gather

information to monitor number

portability deployment in the top 100

MSAs.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

56. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, an

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA) was incorporated into the Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking in this docket

(NPRM). The Commission sought

written public comment on the

proposals in the NPRM, including

comment on the IRFA. The comments

received on the IRFA were discussed in

the First Report & Order’s Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFAFirst Report & Order), which was

incorporated as Appendix C to the First

Report & Order in this docket. The

FRFA-First Report & Order conforms to

the RFA. 5 U.S.C. 604. On

reconsideration of the First Report &

Order, parties commented on the FRFAFirst Report & Order. The comments

received on the FRFA-First Report &

Order were discussed in the

Supplemental Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental

FRFA) incorporated into the First Order

on Reconsideration in this docket. The

Supplemental FRFA conforms to the

RFA. 5 U.S.C. 604. The Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA-Second

Report & Order) is incorporated as an

appendix to the Second Report & Order

in this docket, in which the Commission

adopts, to the extent described therein,

the recommendations of the North

American Numbering Council (NANC)

regarding the implementation of local

number portability. The First Report &

Order directed the NANC to make these

recommendations and forward them to

the Commission, which then requested

public comment on the

recommendations. The FRFA-Second

Report & Order also conforms to the

RFA. 5 U.S.C. 604.

A. Need for and Objectives of Second

Report and Order

57. The need for and objectives of the

requirements adopted in the Second

Report and Order are the same as those

discussed in the Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis in the First Report

& Order. The Commission, in

compliance with sections 251(b)(2) and

251(d)(1) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended by the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996

Act), adopts requirements and

procedures intended to ensure the

prompt implementation of telephone

number portability with the minimum

regulatory and administrative burden on

telecommunications carriers. These

requirements are necessary to

implement the provision in the 1996

Act requiring local exchange carriers

(LECs) to offer number portability, if

technically feasible. In implementing

the statute, the Commission has the

responsibility to adopt requirements

that will implement most quickly and

effectively the national

telecommunications policy embodied in

the 1996 Act and to promote the procompetitive, deregulatory markets

envisioned by Congress. Congress has

recognized that number portability will

lower barriers to entry and promote

competition in the local exchange

marketplace. Specifically, we adopt the

recommendations of the NANC

regarding the selection of local number

portability administrators, the location

of regional databases, the overall

national architecture and technical

specifications for the regional databases,

and the duties of local number

portability administrators in

administering the number portability

regional databases.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised

By Public Comments in Response to the

IRFA, FRFA-First Report & Order and

Supplemental FRFA

58. The comments received on the

IRFA were discussed in the FRFA-First

Report & Order incorporated into the

First Report & Order. The comments

received on the FRFA-First Report &

Order were discussed in the

Supplemental FRFA incorporated into

the First Order on Reconsideration. No

additional comments were sought or

received for purposes of the FRFASecond Report & Order.

C. Summary of the FRFA-First Report &

Order

59. In the FRFA-First Report & Order,

we concluded that incumbent LECs do

not qualify as small businesses because

they are dominant in their field of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 48783

operation, and, accordingly, we did not

address the impact of our requirements

on incumbent LECs. We noted that the

RFA generally defines the term ‘‘small

business’’ as having the same meaning

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’

under the Small Business Act. 15 U.S.C.

632. A small business concern is one

that (1) is independently owned and

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field

of operation; and (3) satisfies any

additional criteria established by the

Small Business Administration (SBA).

According to the SBA’s regulations,

entities engaged in the provision of

telephone service may have a maximum

of 1,500 employees in order to qualify

as a small business concern. 13 CFR

121.201. This standard also applies in

determining whether an entity is a small

business for purposes of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

60. We did recognize that our

requirements may have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small businesses insofar as

they apply to telecommunications

carriers other than incumbent LECs,

including competitive LECs, as well as

cellular, broadband personal

communications services (PCS), and

covered specialized mobile radio (SMR)

providers. Based upon data contained in

the most recent census and a report by

the Commission’s Common Carrier

Bureau, we estimated that 2,100 carriers

could be affected. We also discussed the

reporting requirements imposed by the

First Report & Order.

61. Finally, we discussed the steps we

had taken to minimize the impact on

small entities, consistent with our stated

objectives. We concluded that our

actions in the First Report & Order

would benefit small entities by

facilitating their entry into the local

exchange market. We found that the

record in this proceeding indicated that

the lack of number portability would

deter entry by competitive providers of

local service because of the value

customers place on retaining their

telephone numbers. These competitive

providers, many of which may be small

entities, may find it easier to enter the

market as a result of number portability,

which will eliminate this barrier to

entry. We noted that, in general, we

attempted to keep burdens on local

exchange carriers to a minimum. For

example, we adopted a phased

deployment schedule for

implementation in the 100 largest

MSAs, and then elsewhere upon a

carrier’s request; we conditioned the

provision of currently available

measures upon request only; we did not

require cellular, broadband PCS, and

covered SMR providers, which may be

small businesses, to offer currently

available number portability measures;

and we did not require paging and

messaging service providers, which may

be small entities, to provide any number

portability.

D. Summary of the Supplemental FRFA

62. Implementation Schedule. In the

First Report & Order, we required local

exchange carriers operating in the 100

largest MSAs to offer long-term service

provider portability, according to a

phased deployment schedule

commencing on October 1, 1997, and

concluding by December 31, 1998, set

forth in Appendix F of the First Report

& Order. In the First Order on

Reconsideration, we extended the end

dates for Phase I of our deployment

schedule by three months, and for Phase

II by 45 days. Thus, deployment will

now take place in Phase I from October

1, 1997, through March 31, 1998, and in

Phase II from January 1, 1998, through

May 15, 1998. We also clarified that

LECs need only provide number

portability within the 100 largest MSAs

in switches for which another carrier

has made a specific request for the

provision of portability. LECs must

make available lists of their switches for

which deployment has and has not been

requested. The parties involved in such

requests identifying preferred switches

may need to use legal, accounting,

economic and/or engineering services.

63. In the First Order on

Reconsideration, we reduced the

burdens on rural and smaller LECs by

establishing a procedure whereby,

within as well as outside the 100 largest

MSAs, portability need only be

implemented in the switches for which

another carrier has made a specific

request for the provision of portability.

If competition is not imminent in the

areas covered by rural/small LEC

switches, then the rural or smaller LEC

should not receive requests from

competing carriers to implement

portability, and thus need not expend

its resources until competition does

develop. By that time, extensive noncarrier-specific testing will likely have

been done, and rural and small LECs

need not expend their resources on such

testing. We noted that the majority of

parties representing small or rural LECs

specified as the relief sought that we

only impose implementation

requirements where competing carriers

have shown interest in portability.

Moreover, our extension of Phases I and

II of our deployment schedule may

permit smaller LECs to reduce their

testing costs by allowing time for larger

LECs to test and resolve the problems of

this new technology.

64. In the First Order on

Reconsideration, we rejected several

alternatives put forth by parties that

might impose greater burdens on small

entities and small incumbent LECs. We

rejected requests to accelerate the

deployment schedule for areas both

within and outside the 100 largest

MSAs. We also rejected the procedures

proposed by some parties that would

require LECs to file waiver requests for

their specific switches if they believe

there is no competitive interest in those

switches, instead of requiring LECs to

identify in which switches of other

LECs they wish portability capabilities.

The suggested waiver procedures would

burden the LEC from whom portability

is requested with preparing and filing

the petition for waiver. In addition, a

competing carrier that opposes the

waiver petition would be burdened with

challenging the waiver. In contrast,

under the procedure we establish, the

only reporting burden on requesting

carriers is to identify and request their

preferred switches. Carriers from which

portability is being requested, which

may be small incumbent LECs, only

incur a reporting burden if they wish to

lessen their burdens further by

requesting more time in which to

deploy portability. Finally, we clarified

that CMRS providers, like wireline

providers, need only provide portability

in requested switches, both within and

outside the 100 largest MSAs.

E. Description and Estimates of the

Number of Small Entities Affected by

the Second Report and Order

65. For the purposes of the Second

Report and Order, the RFA defines a

‘‘small business’’ to be the same as a

‘‘small business concern’’ under the

Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632,

unless the Commission has developed

one or more definitions that are

appropriate to its activities. 5 U.S.C.

601(3). 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 SBA. 15

U.S.C. 632. SBA has defined a small

business for Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) categories 4812

(Radiotelephone Communications) and

4813 (Telephone Communications,

Except Radiotelephone) to be small

entities with fewer than 1,500

employees. 13 CFR 121.201.

66. The requirements adopted in the

Second Report and Order governing

regional databases to be utilized for

long-term number portability apply to

all LECs, including incumbent LECs as

well as new LEC entrants, and also
48784 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

apply to interexchange carriers, cellular,

broadband PCS, and covered SMR

providers. According to the SBA

definition, incumbent LECs do not

qualify as small businesses because they

are dominant in their field of operation.

Accordingly, we will not address the

impact of these requirements on

incumbent LECs.

67. Our actions in the Second Report

& Order will generally benefit small

entities by facilitating their entry into

the local exchange market. The record

in this proceeding indicates that the

lack of number portability would deter

entry by competitive providers of local

service because of the value customers

place on retaining their telephone

numbers. The Second Report and Order

adopts the technical and operational

standards and procedures needed to

implement local number portability.

Competitive providers, many of which

may be small entities, may find it easier

to enter the market as a result of number

portability, which will eliminate this

barrier to entry. We note that, in general,

we attempted to keep burdens on local

exchange carriers to a minimum.

68. Our requirements, however, may

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small

businesses insofar as they apply to

telecommunications carriers other than

incumbent LECs. In particular, the

requirements may have such an impact

upon new entrant LECs, as well as

cellular, broadband PCS, and covered

SMR providers. These impacts are

discussed further below.

69. Total Number of Telephone

Companies Affected. The United States

Bureau of the Census (‘‘the Census

Bureau’’) reports that, at the end of

1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in

providing telephone services, as defined

therein, for at least one year. This

number contains a variety of different

categories of carriers, including local

exchange carriers, interexchange

carriers, cellular carriers, mobile service

carriers, broadband PCS providers, and

covered SMR providers. It seems certain

that some of those 3,497 telephone

service firms may not qualify as small

entities or small incumbent LECs

because they are not ‘‘independently

owned and operated.’’ 15 U.S.C.

632(a)(1). For example, a PCS provider

that is affiliated with an interexchange

carrier having more than 1,500

employees would not meet the

definition of a small business. It seems

reasonable to tentatively conclude that

fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms

are small entity telephone service firms

or small incumbent local exchange

carriers.

i. Common Carrier Services and Related

Entities

70. According to the

Telecommunications Industry Revenue:

Telecommunications Relay Service

Fund Worksheet Data (TRS Worksheet),

there are 2,847 interstate carriers. These

carriers include, inter alia, local

exchange carriers, wireline carriers and

service providers, interexchange

carriers, competitive access providers,

operator service providers, pay

telephone operators, providers of

telephone toll service, providers of

telephone exchange service, and

resellers.

71. Wireline Carriers and Service

Providers. The SBA has developed a

definition of small entities for telephone

communications companies except

radiotelephone (wireless) companies.

The Census Bureau reports that, there

were 2,321 such telephone companies

in operation for at least one year at the

end of 1992. According to the SBA’s

definition, a small business telephone

company other than a radiotelephone

company is one employing fewer than

1,500 persons. 13 CFR 121.201; SIC

Code 4812. All but 26 of the 2,321 nonradiotelephone companies listed by the

Census Bureau were reported to have

fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even

if all 26 of those companies had more

than 1,500 employees, there would still

be 2,295 non-radiotelephone companies

that might qualify as small entities or

small incumbent LECs. We do not have

information on the number of carriers

that are not independently owned and

operated, and thus are unable at this

time to estimate with greater precision

the number of wireline carriers and

service providers that would qualify as

small business concerns under the

SBA’s definition. Consequently, we

estimate that there are fewer than 2,295

small telephone communications

companies other than radiotelephone

companies.

72. Local Exchange Carriers. Neither

the Commission nor the SBA has

developed a definition for small

providers of local exchange services

(LECs). The closest applicable definition

under the SBA rules is for telephone

communications companies other than

radiotelephone (wireless) companies. 13

CFR 121.201; SIC Code 4813. The most

reliable source of information regarding

the number of LECs nationwide is the

data that we collect annually in

connection with the TRS Worksheet.

According to our most recent data, 1,347

companies reported that they were

engaged in the provision of local

exchange services. We do not have

information on the number of carriers

that are not independently owned and

operated, nor what carriers have more

than 1,500 employees, and thus are

unable at this time to estimate with

greater precision the number of LECs

that would qualify as small business

concerns under SBA’s definition.

Consequently, we estimate that there are

fewer than 1,347 small incumbent LECs.

73. Interexchange Carriers. Neither

the Commission nor the SBA has

developed a definition of small entities

specifically applicable to providers of

interexchange services (IXCs). The

closest applicable definition under the

SBA rules is for telephone

communications companies except

radiotelephone (wireless) companies. 13

CFR 121.201; SIC 4813. The most

reliable source of information regarding

the number of IXCs nationwide is the

data that we collect annually in

connection with the TRS Worksheet.

According to our most recent data, 130

companies reported that they were

engaged in the provision of

interexchange services. We do not have

information on the number of carriers

that are not independently owned and

operated, nor have more than 1,500

employees, and thus we are unable at

this time to estimate with greater

precision the number of IXCs that

would qualify as small business

concerns under the SBA’s definition.

Consequently, we estimate that there are

fewer than 130 small entity IXCs.

ii. Wireless and Commercial Mobile

Services

74. Wireless (Radiotelephone)

Carriers. SBA has developed a

definition of small entities for

radiotelephone (wireless) companies.

The Census Bureau reports that there

were 1,176 such companies in operation

for at least one year at the end of 1992.

According to SBA’s definition, a small

business radiotelephone company is one

employing fewer than 1,500 persons. 13

CFR 121.201; SIC Code 4812. The

Census Bureau also reported that 1,164

of those radiotelephone companies had

fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even

if all of the remaining 12 companies had

more than 1,500 employees, there

would still be 1,164 radiotelephone

companies that might qualify as small

entities if they are independently owned

are operated. Although it seems certain

that some of these carriers are not

independently owned and operated, we

are unable at this time to estimate with

greater precision the number of

radiotelephone carriers and service

providers that would qualify as small

business concerns under SBA’s

definition. Consequently, we estimate

that there are fewer than 1,164 small
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 48785

entity radiotelephone companies that

may be affected by the decisions and

requirements adopted in the Second

Report and Order.

75. Cellular Licensees. Neither the

Commission nor the SBA has developed

a definition of small entities applicable

to cellular licensees. The closest

applicable definition of small entity is

the definition under the SBA rules

applicable to radiotelephone (wireless)

companies (SIC 4812). The most reliable

source of information regarding the

number of cellular services carriers

nationwide of which we are aware

appears to be the data that the

Commission collects annually in

connection with the TRS Worksheet.

According to the most recent data, 792

companies reported that they were

engaged in the provision of cellular

services. Although it seems certain that

some of these carriers are not

independently owned and operated, or

have more than 1,500 employees, we are

unable at this time to estimate with

greater precision the number of cellular

services carriers that would qualify as

small business concerns under the

SBA’s definition. Consequently, we

estimate that there are fewer than 792

small cellular service carriers.

76. Broadband PCS Licensees. The

broadband 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 less than $40

million 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 their affiliates, has

average gross revenues of not more than

$15 million for the preceding three

calendar years. These regulations

defining ‘‘small entity’’ in the context of

broadband PCS auctions have been

approved by the SBA. No small

businesses within the SBA-approved

definition 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. However, licenses for blocks C

through F have not been awarded fully;

therefore, there are few, if any, small

businesses currently providing PCS

services. Based on this information, we

conclude that the number of small

broadband PCS licensees will include

the 90 winning C Block bidders and the

93 qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F

blocks, for a total of 183 small PCS

providers as defined by the SBA and the

Commission’s auction rules.

77. SMR Licensees. Pursuant to 47

CFR 90.814(b)(1), the Commission has

defined ‘‘small entity’’ in auctions for

geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz

SMR licenses as a firm that had average

annual gross revenues of less than $15

million in the three previous calendar

years. This definition of a ‘‘small entity’’

in the context of 800 MHz and 900 MHz

SMR has been approved by the SBA.

The requirements adopted in the

Second Report and Order may apply to

SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900

MHz bands that either hold geographic

area licenses or have obtained extended

implementation authorizations. We do

not know how many firms provide 800

MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR

service pursuant to extended

implementation authorizations, nor how

many of these providers have annual

revenues of less than $15 million. We

assume, for purposes of the FRFASecond Report & Order, that all of the

extended implementation

authorizations may be held by small

entities, which may be affected by the

decisions and requirements adopted in

the Second Report and Order.

78. The Commission’s auctions for

geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz

SMR band concluded in April of 1996.

There were 60 winning bidders who

qualified as small entities in the 900

MHz auction. Based on this information,

we conclude that the number of

geographic area SMR licensees affected

by the requirements adopted in the

Second Report and Order includes these

60 small entities. No auctions have been

held for 800 MHz geographic area SMR

licenses. Therefore, no small entities

currently hold these licenses. A total of

525 licenses will be awarded for the

upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz

geographic area SMR auction. However,

the Commission has not yet determined

how many licenses will be awarded for

the lower 230 channels in the 800 MHz

geographic area SMR auction. There is

no basis, moreover, on which to

estimate how many small entities will

win these licenses. Given that nearly all

radiotelephone companies have fewer

than 1,000 employees and that no

reliable estimate of the number of

prospective 800 MHz licensees can be

made, we assume, for purposes of the

FRFA-Second Report & Order, that all of

the licenses may be awarded to small

entities who, thus, may be affected by

the decisions in the Second Report and

Order.

F. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance

Requirements

79. There are several reporting

requirements imposed by the Second

Report and Order that are likely to

require the services of persons with

technical expertise to prepare the

reports. Most of these reporting

requirements, however, are imposed on

the NANC, a federal advisory

committee, as opposed to a ‘‘small

entity’’ within the meaning of the RFA.

5 U.S.C. 601(3); Small Business Act, 15

U.S.C. 632; 5 U.S.C. 601(5). In

particular, the Commission directs the

NANC to present its recommendation

regarding the provision of number

portability by wireless carriers within

nine months of the release of the Second

Report and Order. Further, the NANC is

directed to review the request of

Cincinnati Bell Telephone that it be

allowed to select one of the regional

number portability databases for

purposes of fulfilling its number

portability responsibilities and to make

a recommendation to the Commission

by December 15, 1997. Moreover, as part

of its general oversight of the local

number portability administrators, the

NANC is directed to submit

recommendations concerning local

number portability to the Commission

from time to time. Following the

adoption of a recommendation

regarding the administration of number

portability, the NANC is directed to

issue a written report to the Commission

summarizing the positions of the parties

and the basis for the recommendation

adopted by the NANC. In addition,

pursuant to the Second Report & Order,

each U.S. territory (i.e., Puerto Rico,

U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands) is directed to: (1) select a

regional database that carriers in that

territory will use to provide number

portability; and (2) notify the

Commission and the NANC in writing

regarding this selection within 45 days

of the release of the Second Report and

Order. There are no significant

reporting, recordkeeping or other

compliance requirements imposed by

the Second Report and Order on other

entities.

G. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities and

Significant Alternatives Considered

80. The Commission’s actions in the

Second Report and Order will benefit

small entities by facilitating their entry

into the local exchange market. The

record in this proceeding indicates that

the lack of number portability would
48786 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

deter entry by competitive providers of

local service because of the value

customers place on retaining their

telephone numbers. These competitive

providers, many of which may be small

entities, may find it easier to enter the

market as a result of number portability

which will eliminate this barrier to

entry.

81. In general in this docket, we have

attempted to keep burdens on local

exchange carriers to a minimum. The

regulatory burdens we have imposed are

necessary to ensure that the public

receives the benefit of the expeditious

provision of service provider number

portability in accordance with the

statutory requirements. We believe that

the Second Report & Order furthers our

commitment to minimizing regulatory

burdens on small entities. For example,

the NANC had recommended that we

allow LECs to block calls whenever a

carrier transmitting a call to a

terminating LEC fails to query the

number portability database to

determine if a number has been ported.

This recommendation would have

required carriers transmitting calls to

terminating LECs to reconfigure their

networks to perform database queries or

to pay another entity to perform a

database query on their behalf.

Permitting LECs to block unqueried

calls could have negatively affected

CMRS providers, who are not required

to query calls or make arrangements to

do so until December 31, 1998. We,

therefore, only allow terminating LECs

to block calls, when failure to do so is

likely to impair network reliability. The

volume of calls transferred to

terminating LECs by small entities is

unlikely to reach a level that could

impair network reliability. As a result,

terminating LECs are unlikely to block

calls handled by small entities.

Furthermore, carriers can make

arrangements with other entities to

perform database queries on their

behalf. Based on the record before us,

we do not find that any of the

recommendations we adopt in the

Second Report & Order will have a

disproportionate impact on small

entities.

82. Report to Congress: The

Commission will send a copy of the

Second Report & Order, including the

FRFA-Second Report & Order, in a

report to be sent to Congress pursuant

to the Small Business Regulatory

Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C.

801(a)(1)(A). A copy of the Second

Report & Order and the FRFA-Second

Report & Order (or summary thereof)

will also be published in the Federal

Register and will be sent to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

Ordering Clauses

83. Accordingly, it is ordered that,

pursuant to the authority contained in

sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201–205, 218, 251,

and 332 of the Communications Act as

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

201–205, 218, 251 and 332, part 52 of

the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR part 52,

is amended as set forth below.

84. It is further ordered that the

policies, rules and requirements set

forth in the Second Report and Order

are adopted, effective October 17, 1997.

85. It is further ordered that the

Secretary shall send a copy of the

Second Report and Order, including the

final regulatory flexibility certification

set forth in Appendix C, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration, in accordance

with paragraph 605(b) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 52

Communications common carriers,

Incorporation by reference,

Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Rule Changes

Part 52 of title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—NUMBERING

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 48 Stat. 1066,

as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 155

unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply

secs. 3, 4, 201–05, 207–09, 218, 225–7, 251–

2, 271 and 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended,

1077; 47 U.S.C. 153, 154, 201–05, 207–09,

218, 225–7, 271 and 332 unless otherwise

noted.

2. A new Section 52.26 is added to

read as follows:

§ 52.26 NANC Recommendations on Local

Number Portability Administration.

(a) Local number portability

administration shall 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 of the Working Group

Report is not incorporated herein.

(b) In addition to the requirements set

forth in the Working Group Report, the

following requirements are established:

(1) If a telecommunications carrier

transmits a telephone call to a local

exchange carrier’s switch that contains

any ported numbers, and the

telecommunications carrier has failed to

perform a database query to determine

if the telephone number has been ported

to another local exchange carrier, the

local exchange carrier may block the

unqueried call only if performing the

database query is likely to impair

network reliability;

(2) The regional limited liability

companies (LLCs), already established

by telecommunications carriers in each

of the original Bell Operating Company

regions, shall manage and oversee the

local number portability administrators,

subject to review by the NANC, but only

on an interim basis, until the conclusion

of a rulemaking to examine the issue of

local number portability administrator

oversight and management and the

question of whether the LLCs should

continue to act in this capacity; and

(3) The NANC shall provide ongoing

oversight of number portability

administration, including oversight of

the regional LLCs, subject to

Commission review. Parties shall

attempt to resolve issues regarding

number portability deployment among

themselves and, if necessary, under the

auspices of the NANC. If any party

objects to the NANC’s proposed

resolution, the NANC shall issue a

written report summarizing the

positions of the parties and the basis for

the recommendation adopted by the

NANC. The NANC Chair shall submit

its proposed resolution of the disputed

issue to the Chief of the Common

Carrier Bureau as a recommendation for

Commission review. The Chief of the

Common Carrier Bureau will place the

NANC’s proposed resolution on public

notice. Recommendations adopted by

the NANC and forwarded to the Bureau

may be implemented by the parties

pending review of the recommendation.

Within 90 days of the conclusion of the

comment cycle, the Chief of the

Common Carrier Bureau may issue an

order adopting, modifying or rejecting

the recommendation. If the Chief does

not act within 90 days of the conclusion

of the comment cycle, the

recommendation will be deemed to

have been adopted by the Bureau.

(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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 48787

appendices can be obtained from the

Commission’s contract copier,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th St., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20036, and can be inspected during

normal business hours at the following

locations: 1919 M Street, N.W., Room

239 (FCC Reference Center),

Washington, D.C. 20554 or at the Office

of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 700,

Washington, D.C. The Working Group

Report and its appendices are also

available on the Internet at http://

www.fcc.gov/ccb/Nanc/.

[FR Doc. 97–24426 Filed 9–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket 94–129; FCC 97–248]

Unauthorized Changes of Consumer’s

Long Distance Carriers; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communication

Commission published in the Federal

Register of August 14, 1997, a document

which amends the Commission’s rules

and policies governing the unauthorized

switching of subscribers’ primary

interexchange carriers (PICs), an activity

more commonly known as ‘‘slamming.’’

In the Order on Reconsideration, the

Commission disposes of six petitions for

reconsideration of its 1995 Report and

Order, and amends its rules regarding

changes in subscribers’ long distance

carriers in three respects. The

Commission’s decision is intended to

deter and ultimately eliminate

unauthorized changes in subscribers’

long distance carriers. Inadvertently

§ 64.1100(a) had the word ‘‘or’’ omitted.

This document adds the word ‘‘or’’.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cathy Seidel, Enforcement Division,

Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418–

0960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FCC

published a document in the Federal

Register of August 14, 1997, FCC 97–

248 (62 FR 43477) FR Doc. No. 97–

21527. The amended § 64.1100(a)

inadvertently had the word ‘‘or’’

omitted. This correction adds the word

‘‘or’’ to the amended § 64.1100(a).

§ 64.1100 [Corrected]

On page 43481, in the second column,

in § 64.1100(a), last line, add the word

‘‘or’’ after the semicolon.

Dated: September 11, 1997.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–24646 Filed 9–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 101

[CC Docket No. 92–297; FCC 97–323]

The Local Multipoint Distribution

Service (‘‘LMDS’’)

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; order on

reconsideration

SUMMARY: On September 9, 1997, the

Federal Communications Commission

adopted a Second Order on

Reconsideration amending certain rules

pertaining to Local Multipoint

Distribution Service (‘‘LMDS’’)

operations in the 27.5–28.35 GHz, 29.1–

29.25 GHz, and 31.0–31.3 GHz bands.

These amendments are being made in

response to certain petitions for

reconsideration of the Second Report

and Order in this proceeding which

established rules and policies for LMDS.

The effect of this action is to make

amendments to the rules regarding

favorable small business provisions

available to qualifying applicants for

LMDS licenses.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew Moses, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418–

0660.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Second

Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket

No. 92–297, FCC 97–323. The complete

Second Order on Reconsideration is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919

M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and

also may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. The

complete Second Order on

Reconsideration is also available on the

Commission’s Internet home page

(http://www.fcc.gov).

SUMMARY of THE SECOND ORDER on

RECONSIDERATION

1. The Commission has before it

several petitions for reconsideration of

the Second Report and Order, Order on

Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in this

proceeding. Rulemaking To Amend

Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the

Commission’s Rules To Redesignate the

27.5–29.5 GHz Frequency Band, To

Reallocate the 29.5–30.0 GHz Frequency

Band, To Establish Rules and Policies

for Local Multipoint Distribution Service

and for Fixed Satellite Services,

Petitions for Reconsideration of the

Denial of Applications for Waiver of the

Commission’s Common Carrier Point-toPoint Microwave Radio Service Rules,

CC Docket No. 92–297, Suite 12 Group

Petition for Pioneer Preference, PP–22,

Second Report and Order, Order on

Reconsideration, 62 FR 23148 (April 29,

1997), and Fifth Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 62 FR 16514 (April 7,

1997) (‘‘LMDS Second Report and

Order’’) (‘‘Fifth Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking’’) (‘‘Order on

Reconsideration’’), adopting subpart L

of part 101 of the Commission’s rules,

47 CFR 101.1001–1112; appeal pending

sub nom. Melcher v. FCC, Case Nos. 93–

1110, et al. (D.C. Cir., filed February 8,

1993) (eligibility restrictions); Errata

(released April 7 and May 1, 1997);

Order on Reconsideration, 62 FR 28373

(May 23, 1997). The Commission defers

the comments and all matters raised for

comment in the Fifth Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking to a separate Report and

Order to be issued in the near future.

CellularVision USA, Inc.

(‘‘CellularVision’’), WebCel

Communications, Inc. (‘‘WebCel’’), Cook

Inlet Region, Inc. (‘‘Cook Inlet’’), LBC

Communications, Inc. (‘‘LBC’’), the

Rural Telecommunications Group

(‘‘RTG’’), the Independent Alliance, and

Sierra Digital Communications, Inc.

filed petitions for reconsideration of the

LMDS Second Report and Order. LDH

International, Inc., Celltel

Communications Corporation, and CT

Communications Corporation jointly

filed a petition for reconsideration of the

Order on Reconsideration, and M3

Illinois Telecommunications

Corporation filed a petition for review of

the Order on Reconsideration. This

Second Order on Reconsideration

addresses those portions of the petitions

of CellularVision, WebCel, and Cook

Inlet that deal with the participation of

small businesses in the upcoming

auction of LMDS licenses.

2. In authorizing the Commission to

use competitive bidding, Congress

mandated that the Commission ‘‘ensure

that small businesses, rural telephone