Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42045 

6The ‘‘most recent month’’ will be defined in the 

Bureaus’ forthcoming public notice and will be a 

month following release of this Order. 

7For purposes of this information collection, 

‘‘transponder number’’ refers to a standard 36 

megahertz wide transponder and that transponder 

numbering (1–24) is based on the former centerfrequency requirement for C-band space stations. 

See 47 CFR 25.211(a) (2014). While this rule is no 

longer in effect, most satellites providing service to 

the United States in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band are 

configured in accordance with the transponder plan 

described in the rule. 

8The information collected will provide 

comparative data of transponder usage over time 

and allow the Commission and the public to 

evaluate options for the future use of the 3.7–4.2 

GHz band. 

• expected end-of-life for satellite; 

• the approximate dates that any 

additional C-band satellites with a 

currently pending application in IBFS 

are planned for launch to serve the 

United States market (note whether this 

satellite is a replacement); 

• whether any additional C-band 

satellites that do not have a currently 

pending application in IBFS are 

planned for launch to serve the United 

States market and the approximate date 

of such launch (note whether this 

satellite is a replacement); 

• for each transponder operating in 

the 3.7–4.2 GHz range that is 

operational and legally authorized to 

serve customers in the United States, for 

the most recent month,6 provide the 

following: 

• the frequency range of transponder 

and transponder number; 7

• the capacity in terms of the number 

of megahertz on each transponder that 

are currently under contract (also 

provide this data for one month in 

2016); 8

• For each day in the most recent 

month, please provide the percentage of 

each transponder’s capacity (megahertz) 

utilized and the maximum capacity 

utilized on that day. (Parties should use 

the most recent month of data and 

provide the date range at which the data 

was collected; they may also 

supplement the data with historical 

trend data over recent months up to 

three years if they feel it displays 

utilization variances); 

• the center frequency and bandwidth 

of the Telemetry Tracking and 

Command beam(s); and 

• the call sign and geographic 

location (using NAD83 coordinates) of 

each TT&C receive site. 

12. The Commission will seek 

approval from the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) before the 

information collection becomes 

effective, and following OMB approval, 

the Commission will publish notice of 

the effective date of the information 

collection and filing deadline in the 

Federal Register. The Commission also 

directs the Bureaus to consider whether 

additional information should be 

collected from either FSS earth station 

operators or satellite licensees and to 

seek notice and comment regarding the 

need to initiate a second information 

collection if such additional information 

is necessary to supplement the 

information submitted in this 

proceeding. 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

13. It is further ordered that pursuant 

to section 4(i) of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, that this Order 

is adopted effective upon publication in 

the Federal Register. This Order 

contains information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 that are not 

effective until approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

14. It is further ordered that the notice 

of inquiry, GN Docket No. 17–183, 

Expanding Flexible Use in the Mid-Band 

Spectrum Between 3.7–24 GHz, adopted 

on August 3, 2017, is terminated as to 

the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17296 Filed 8–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 51 and 52 

[WC Docket Nos. 17–244, 13–97; FCC 18– 

95] 

Nationwide Number Portability; 

Numbering Policies for Modern 

Communications 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) adopts final rules based 

on public comments to promote 

nationwide number portability. These 

rules eliminate unnecessary toll 

interexchange dialing parity 

requirements and database query 

requirements that may result in 

obstacles and inefficiencies in an 

eventual nationwide number portability 

regime. 

DATES: Effective September 19, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information about this 

proceeding, please contact Sherwin Siy, 

FCC Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Competition Policy Division, Room 5– 

C225, 445 12th St. SW, Washington, DC 

20554, (202) 418–2783, sherwin.siy@

fcc.gov. For additional information 

concerning the Paperwork Reduction 

Act information collection requirements 

contained in this document, send an 

email to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Nicole 

Ongele at (202) 418–2991. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order in WC Docket Nos. 17–244 

and 13–97; FCC 18–95, adopted July 12, 

2018 and released July 13, 2018. The 

full text of this document is available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street SW, Room CY–A257, Washington 

DC 20554. It is available on the 

Commission’s website at https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC18-95A1.pdf. 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. The systems we use to make and 

route telephone calls are changing. With 

this Report and Order (Order), we set 

the stage for more efficient use of the 

telecommunications network and pave 

the way for nationwide number 

portability (NNP). We eliminate rules 

that were intended for a market that was 

divided along more static, segmented 

categories of telecommunications 

providers. Those rules are far less 

applicable to today’s more integrated 

providers and pricing plans, and the 

North American Numbering Council has 

identified them as barriers to the 

achievement of NNP. 

2. We forbear from the interexchange 

dialing parity requirements for 

competitive local exchange carriers 

(LECs), creating a more level playing 

field with the incumbent LECs who 

received forbearance from the 

interexchange dialing parity obligations 

in 2015, and ensuring that both 

categories of LECs will be able to route 

calls more efficiently in a future NNP 

environment. We also ease the 

requirement that the second-to-last 

carrier handling a call request query the 

local number portability database, 

allowing any carriers earlier in the chain 

to make the query if they so choose. 

This greater flexibility allows carriers in 

the call path to determine who is best 

placed to bear the costs of performing 

the query, and also ensures that any 

carrier—including originating carriers— 

can perform the query, a necessary step 

in certain NNP solutions. 

3. These changes will help set the 

stage for further progress towards 

implementation of number portability 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
42046 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

on a nationwide basis. The North 

American Numbering Council (a federal 

advisory committee to the Commission 

that provides guidance and 

recommendations on numbering policy 

and operations) recently approved a 

report issued by its Nationwide Number 

Portability Issues Working Group, 

which builds upon and refines earlier 

industry and NANC work, and 

recommends further inquiry and 

analysis on several specific questions to 

further explore NNP. We anticipate that 

the NANC will continue to assist the 

Commission in investigating these 

options and considerations. 

II. Background 

4. Interexchange dialing parity 

requirements. Dialing parity provisions 

were originally intended to ensure that 

incumbent LECs provided the same 

access to stand-alone long-distance 

service providers as they did to their 

own or their affiliates’ long-distance 

offerings. These requirements grew out 

of the equal access requirements 

included in the 1982 Modification of 

Final Judgment in the federal antitrust 

case against AT&T, which imposed 

these requirements on the Bell 

Operating Companies (BOCs). The 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 

Act) incorporated the MFJ’s equal access 

requirements for these former BOCs into 

the Communications Act (the Act) via 

section 251(g). The 1996 Act also 

created more specific, affirmative equal 

access requirements in § 251(b) that 

applied to all LECs. 

5. In the 2015 USTelecom 

Forbearance Order, the Commission 

forbore from the ‘‘application to 

incumbent LECs of all remaining equal 

access and dialing parity requirements 

for interexchange services, including 

those under section 251(g) and section 

251(b)(3) of the Act.’’ As we observed in 

the NPRM, this forbearance was well 

supported by the lessening need for the 

rules, as stand-alone long-distance 

services had declined, all-distance 

calling was growing more prevalent, and 

consumers were being offered yet more 

choices in voice service, including 

increasing growth in interconnected 

Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 

services. The 2015 USTelecom 

Forbearance Order left a limited number 

of toll dialing parity requirements in 

place, however, primarily for 

competitive LECs, and for certain 

customers of incumbent LECs who were 

then already presubscribed to thirdparty long-distance services at the time 

of the Order. 

6. N–1 Requirement. The N–1 query 

requirement mandates that the carrier 

immediately preceding the terminating 

carrier (the N–1 carrier) be responsible 

for ensuring that the local number 

portability database—the Number 

Portability Administration Center/ 

Service Management System (NPAC/ 

SMS)—is queried. This requirement is 

specified in the North American 

Numbering Council’s Architecture and 

Administrative Plan for Local Number 

Portability, which is in turn 

incorporated by reference in § 52.26(a) 

of the Commission’s rules. (We note that 

§ 52.26(c) of our rules provides 

information on how to obtain a copy of 

the NANC Architecture Report and 

Working Group Report. This Order 

updates that information. This simple 

revision, reflecting the new locations of 

the reports, does not require notice and 

comment.) The rule was put in place in 

part to ensure that the costs of querying 

the database could be split between 

originating and interexchange carriers, 

while ensuring that calls would not be 

left unqueried. The rule also allowed 

local number portability to proceed 

without requiring all carriers across the 

country to implement it simultaneously. 

7. NNP Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM). In 2017, the 

Commission released the NNP NPRM 

(82 FR 55970) seeking comment on a 

proposal to forbear from the remaining 

interexchange dialing parity 

requirements of the Act, as well as a 

proposal to eliminate the rules 

implementing those requirements. We 

also sought comment on whether we 

should extend forbearance from the 

dialing parity requirements to customers 

with pre-existing stand-alone longdistance carriers, whose plans had been 

grandfathered in the 2015 USTelecom 

Forbearance Order. We also sought 

comment on a proposal to eliminate the 

N–1 requirement for call routing. The 

NNP NPRM generated significant 

interest from numbering database 

administrators, trade associations, and 

service providers, representing the 

views of incumbent and competitive 

LECs, interexchange carriers, and 

carriers who provide both services. We 

received 21 comments and 11 reply 

comments in the record in response. 

III. Discussion 

8. In this Order, we expand the scope 

of the forbearance issued in the 2015 

USTelecom Forbearance Order. While 

that earlier order forbore from applying 

the dialing parity requirements of the 

Act to incumbent LECs, the 

requirements remained in place for 

competitive LECs, and also for a limited 

number of customers who were still 

presubscribed to stand-alone longdistance plans. This Order removes that 

disparity by applying the forbearance to 

these formerly excluded categories. We 

also ease the N–1 query requirement to 

ensure that it does not prevent 

originating carriers, or other carriers 

earlier than the N–1 carrier in a call 

flow, from performing the number 

portability query if they wish. 

Originating carriers, or parties they 

contract with, should be able to perform 

these queries, but if they do not, the 

responsibility for the query continues to 

fall upon the N–1 carrier. This change 

to our rules will allow carriers to have 

the routing flexibility necessary for 

certain types of NNP. 

9. As explained in the NNP NPRM, 

our legal authority stems directly from 

section 251(e)(1) of the Communications 

Act, which gives the Commission 

‘‘exclusive jurisdiction over those 

portions of the North American 

Numbering Plan that pertain to the 

United States’’ and provides that 

numbers must be made ‘‘available on an 

equitable basis.’’ The rule changes 

addressed in this Order fall squarely 

within this jurisdiction. In addition, 

section 10 of the Act states that the 

Commission shall forbear from applying 

any regulation or provision of the Act if 

it determines that: (1) Enforcement of 

such regulation or provision is not 

necessary to ensure that the charges, 

practices, classifications, or regulations 

by, for, or in connection with that 

telecommunications carrier or 

telecommunications service are just and 

reasonable and are not unjustly or 

unreasonably discriminatory; (2) 

enforcement of such regulation or 

provision is not necessary for the 

protection of consumers; and (3) 

forbearance from applying such 

provision or regulation is consistent 

with the public interest. As discussed 

below, our forbearance from the 

remaining toll interexchange dialing 

parity requirements meets these criteria. 

A. Forbearance From Toll Interexchange 

Dialing Parity Requirement and 

Elimination of Implementing Rules 

10. Forbearance from Interexchange 

Dialing Parity Provisions for 

Competitive LECs. In the NNP NPRM, 

we noted that the same rationales of the 

2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order 

seemed to apply to the toll 

interexchange dialing parity 

requirements that remained in place for 

competitive LECS. We sought comment 

on whether these mandates, located in 

section 251(b)(3), served any purpose. 

The overwhelming consensus in the 

record is that they do not. Wireline 

customers have more choices, and 

stand-alone long-distance service is 

indeed less prevalent and significant 

than it was in decades past. Customers 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42047 

for wireline voice services have more 

choices than they did in the past, 

including interconnected VoIP from 

both facilities-based and over-the-top 

providers. For example, the most recent 

Voice Telephone Services Report shows 

that interconnected VoIP subscriptions 

increased at a compound annual growth 

rate of 10 percent, while retail switched 

access lines declined at 12 percent per 

year from 2013 to 2016. This represents 

a continuing trend, with reports 

showing interconnected VoIP 

subscriptions increasing at a compound 

annual growth rate of 15 percent and 

retail switched access declining at 10 

percent a year from December 2010 to 

December 2014. These findings, indicate 

increased options for consumers besides 

switched access, regardless of whether 

they may currently be served by a 

competitive or an incumbent LEC. The 

NNP NPRM sought comment on 

whether forbearance from these 

provisions would affect competitive 

LECs or their customers. No comments 

in the record indicate that the remaining 

dialing parity provisions for competitive 

LECs aid competition, ensure just and 

reasonable practices, or prevent unjust 

or unreasonable discrimination. No 

comments in the record indicate 

customer complaints stemming from the 

2015 forbearance from these 

requirements for incumbent LECs, and 

commenters likewise did not disagree 

with our finding that extending the 

forbearance to competitive LECs would 

produce similarly benign results. 

11. We therefore find that 

enforcement of the section 251(b)(3) 

dialing parity requirements for 

competitive LECs is not necessary to 

ensure that the charges, practices, 

classifications, or regulations by, for, or 

in connection with a 

telecommunications carrier or 

telecommunications service are just and 

reasonable and are not unjustly or 

unreasonably discriminatory. Nor is 

their enforcement necessary for the 

protection of consumers, since 

consumers can leave their competitive 

LEC for non-switched access services if 

that LEC makes choosing a separate 

long-distance provider difficult. As 

described in the 2015 USTelecom 

Forbearance Order, wireline customers 

today have more choices than they did 

in 1982 or 1996, including 

interconnected VoIP services. Similarly, 

demand for stand-alone long-distance 

has continued to decline for both massmarket and business customers. 

12. Extending to competitive LECs the 

forbearance granted in 2015 to 

incumbent LECs also promotes fairness 

in the application and enforcement of 

these requirements that would 

otherwise be lacking. Furthermore, 

forbearing from a requirement that no 

longer serves its purpose promotes the 

public interest by reducing the costs of 

regulatory compliance. We therefore 

find that forbearing from the dialing 

parity requirements of section 251(b)(3) 

serves the public interest. 

13. USTelecom notes that extending 

this forbearance to competitive LECs is 

not sufficient to achieve NNP. NNP is 

naturally a multi-stage process requiring 

a series of changes to various aspects of 

policy and possible other rules. We 

recognize this, but as many commenters 

have pointed out, the stage for NNP can 

be set incrementally, while forbearing 

from unnecessary requirements in the 

interim. As noted in the NNP NPRM, 

forbearing from these requirements 

could allow for more efficient routing 

than would otherwise be possible under 

a number of NNP models. USTelecom 

itself notes eliminating an unnecessary 

requirement may increase regulatory 

flexibility and make a wider range of 

solutions possible in the future. 

14. Grandfathered dialing parity 

requirements. The NNP NPRM also 

sought comment on eliminating the 

dialing parity requirements that had 

been ‘‘grandfathered’’ after the adoption 

of the 2015 USTelecom Forbearance 

Order. We find that the number of 

customers with grandfathered standalone long-distance plans continues to 

decline, and thus extending forbearance 

from the dialing parity requirements to 

these plans, as well will further 

encourage NNP. In the interest of 

maintaining a level playing field, 

forbearance applies to all customers. 

Thus, neither incumbent nor 

competitive LECs are required to abide 

by the toll dialing parity requirements 

for customers who have preexisting 

stand-alone long-distance plans. 

15. WTA and ITTA both note that the 

same factors that spurred forbearance 

from the dialing parity requirements in 

the 2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order 

apply even more prominently now: The 

stand-alone long-distance market 

remains small, and the number of 

preexisting plans among incumbent LEC 

customers will only have fallen since 

2015. There is no evidence in the record 

to indicate that the trends observed in 

the 2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order 

have slowed or reversed course. 

16. Although GCI and Aureon argue 

that the Commission should maintain 

the exemption from forbearance for 

preexisting plans in more rural areas, 

we find the decline in the total number 

of these plans and our need to 

modernize our systems to allow for NNP 

are compelling reasons to extend 

forbearance. We recognize that there are 

a limited number of interexchange 

carriers in parts of Alaska and Iowa and, 

in certain cases, the incumbent LEC 

remains the only option for voice 

service. We must, however, take these 

first steps to eliminate outdated and 

rarely-used regulations if we are to 

realize the consumer and competitive 

benefits of NNP. 

17. This Order also does not affect the 

applicability of section 258(a) or our 

slamming rules, as GCI argues. Section 

258(a) prohibits carriers from changing 

a subscriber’s choice of exchange 

service without going through the 

proper verification procedures, and also 

explicitly permits state regulators to 

enforce anti-slamming provisions. 

Those provisions continue to operate to 

prevent incumbent LECs from changing 

subscribers’ selections of other 

providers without following the 

necessary verification procedures. 

While the 2015 USTelecom Forbearance 

Order expressed concern that 

forbearance from equal access 

requirements might allow increased 

pressure from incumbent LECs, it did 

not presume to forbear from section 258, 

and we do not so presume now. Those 

anti-slamming provisions continue to 

operate as before, and will continue to 

be enforced. 

18. Eliminating toll dialing parity 

rules. The NNP NPRM also sought 

comment on eliminating the 

Commission’s toll dialing parity rules 

promulgated under section 251(b)(3). No 

commenters found any reason for these 

rules to stay in place while we forbear 

from the interexchange dialing parity 

requirements of section 251(b)(3). We 

agree that in light of our decision to 

forbear from section 251(b)(3), there is 

no sound justification to retain these 

rules. Therefore, to eliminate any 

possible confusion and to streamline the 

Commission’s rules, we therefore 

eliminate those provisions. 

B. Allowing Alternatives to N–1 Call 

Routing 

19. The NNP NPRM proposed 

eliminating the N–1 requirement, since 

it may lead to unnecessary and 

inefficient routing of calls in an NNP 

environment. However, as anticipated 

when it was adopted, and as noted in 

the record, standardization around 

having the N–1 carrier perform the 

number portability database query has 

allowed for more uniformity and 

prevented confusion. In the interest of 

providing flexibility for anticipated 

changes to the number porting system, 

while preserving the certainty and 

stability of existing systems, we ease, 

but do not eliminate, the rule. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
42048 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

20. We noted in the NNP NPRM that 

preventing queries by the originating 

carrier could lead to inefficiencies, and 

that some reports had indicated that 

eliminating the N–1 rule would be 

beneficial. However, we are persuaded 

by the record that carriers will benefit 

from the certainty of having a default 

rule that clearly names a responsible 

party in the absence of an agreement 

otherwise. We therefore amend our 

rules to allow upstream carriers to 

perform number portability database 

queries, but require the N–1 carriers to 

perform the queries if the upstream 

carriers have not. 

21. The NANC Architecture Report 

states that an N–1 carrier ‘‘is responsible 

for ensuring queries are performed on 

an N–1 basis.’’ However, as we have 

noted, requiring the N–1 carrier to 

perform the query can lead to 

inefficiencies in call routing in an NNP 

environment. Neustar, Incompas, the 

Voice on the Net Coalition (VON 

Coalition), and Charter all agree that the 

N–1 requirement is no longer necessary 

and urge the Commission to eliminate it 

to prevent the possible routing 

complications that could come with 

NNP. Neustar further points out that the 

N–1 requirement actually provides little 

distinction for most calls, since few 

consumers have an interexchange 

carrier that is different from their 

originating (local) provider. In those 

situations, the N–1 carrier is the 

originating carrier, meaning that the N– 

1 requirement is unnecessary. NCTA 

and Comcast suggest waiting to 

eliminate the rule until after transition 

to the new Number Portability 

Administration Center has occurred, a 

process that is now complete. 

22. Many other commenters urge 

more caution, however, noting that 

elimination of the rule without some 

specification about who must perform 

the query could lead to confusion and 

possible call completion issues. Others 

disagree. In light of the record, we 

believe it best to chart a middle course: 

We eliminate any requirement that 

would prevent an upstream carrier from 

voluntarily making queries rather than 

the N–1 carrier. In other words, we 

revise the N–1 rule as a default in the 

absence of other agreements. This 

revision accords with CenturyLink and 

iconectiv’s interpretation of the NANC 

Architecture Report that the current rule 

for N–1 queries operates as a default 

rule. Although we disagree with those 

commenters and find a change is 

necessary, the result gives carriers the 

flexibility to efficiently route calls in an 

NNP environment. 

23. Retaining the N–1 rule as a 

backstop also addresses commenters’ 

concerns that eliminating the N–1 rule 

would effectively mandate originating 

carriers to perform queries, raising their 

costs due to increased querying and 

potential upgrades necessary to handle 

this increased volume. Moreover, we 

permit, but do not require, originating 

carriers to make the database query. 

Should originating carriers decline to 

perform the number portability database 

query for interexchange calls, the rule 

will continue to require interexchange 

carriers to bear the cost of the query. 

Furthermore, the N–1 carrier will have 

fulfilled its responsibility to ensure the 

query is performed if any carrier 

preceding it in the call flow has already 

performed the query. While we 

anticipate that in NNP scenarios this 

will most likely be the originating 

carrier, the rule would not prevent other 

parties from performing the query as 

well. Therefore, we adjust the N–1 rule, 

eliminating § 52.26(a)’s incorporation by 

reference of the NANC Architecture 

Report’s version of the rule and 

amending the rule to allow queries by 

carriers other than the N–1 carrier. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

24. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis. Pursuant to the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, the 

Commission’s Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis for the Order is 

included in part V. 

25. Paperwork Reduction Act. This 

document does not contain new 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

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

26. Congressional Review Act. The 

Commission will send a copy of this 

Report and Order to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

27. Materials in Accessible Formats. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (tty). 

28. Additional Information. For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Sherwin Siy, FCC 

Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Competition Policy Division, (202) 418– 

2783, Sherwin.Siy@fcc.gov. 

V. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

29. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the 

NNP NPRM. The Commission sought 

written public comment on the 

proposals in the NPRM, including 

comments on the IFRA. This present 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Final 

Rules 

30. In this Order, we modernize our 

systems by setting the stage for more 

efficient use of the telecommunications 

network, and pave the way for 

nationwide number portability (NNP). 

We eliminate rules that were intended 

for a market that was divided along 

more static, segmented categories of 

telecommunications providers. Those 

rules are far less applicable to today’s 

more integrated providers and pricing 

plans and may lead to complications 

that stand in the way of achieving NNP. 

31. We forbear from the interexchange 

dialing parity requirements for 

competitive local exchange carriers 

(LECs), creating a more level playing 

field with the incumbent LECs who 

received forbearance from their 

interexchange dialing parity obligations 

through the 2015 USTelecom 

Forbearance Order. Specifically, we 

revise § 51.205 and remove §§ 51.209, 

51.213 and 51.215. We also amend 

§ 52.26(a) to allow originating carriers to 

perform number portability database 

queries in the Number Portability 

Administration Center/Service 

Management System (NPAC/SMS), but 

require the N–1 carriers to perform the 

queries if the originating carriers have 

not. This allows greater flexibility for 

different carriers to determine who is 

best placed to bear the cost of 

performing the query. 

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA 

32. The Commission did not receive 

comments specifically addressing the 

rules and policies proposed in the IRFA. 

C. Response to Comments by Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration 

33. The Chief Counsel did not file any 

comments in response to the proposed 

rules in this proceeding. 

D. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rules Will Apply 

34. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description and, where 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42049 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the final rules adopted pursuant to the 

NNP NPRM. The RFA generally defines 

the term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the 

same meaning as the terms ‘‘small 

business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ and 

‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ In 

addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ has 

the same meaning as the term ‘‘smallbusiness concern’’ under the Small 

Business Act. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

601(3), the statutory definition of a 

small business applies ‘‘unless an 

agency, after consultation with the 

Office of Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration and after 

opportunity for public comment, 

establishes one or more definitions of 

such term which are appropriate to the 

activities of the agency and publishes 

such definition(s) in the Federal 

Register.’’ A ‘‘small-business concern’’ 

is one which: (1) Is independently 

owned and operated; (2) is not 

dominant in its field of operation; and 

(3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

35. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, 

may affect small entities that are not 

easily categorized at present. We 

therefore describe here, at the outset, 

three comprehensive small entity size 

standards that could be directly affected 

herein. First, while there are industry 

specific size standards for small 

businesses that are used in the 

regulatory flexibility analysis, according 

to data from the SBA’s Office of 

Advocacy, in general a small business is 

an independent business having fewer 

than 500 employees. These types of 

small businesses represent 99.9% of all 

businesses in the United States which 

translates to 28.8 million businesses. 

36. Next, the type of small entity 

described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ Nationwide, as of Aug 2016, 

there were approximately 356,494 small 

organizations based on registration and 

tax data filed by nonprofits with the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 

37. Finally, the small entity described 

as a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ 

is defined generally as ‘‘governments of 

cities, counties, towns, townships, 

villages, school districts, or special 

districts, with a population of less than 

fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census Bureau 

data from the 2012 Census of 

Governments indicates that there were 

90,056 local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. Of 

this number there were 37,132 General 

purpose governments (county, 

municipal and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,184 Special purpose governments 

(independent school districts and 

special districts) with populations of 

less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census 

Bureau data for most types of 

governments in the local government 

category shows that the majority of 

these governments have populations of 

less than 50,000. Based on this data we 

estimate that at least 49,316 local 

government jurisdictions fall in the 

category of ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdictions.’’ 

38. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines this industry as ‘‘establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 

consists of all such companies having 

1,500 or fewer employees. Census data 

for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 

firms that operated that year. Of this 

total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this size 

standard, the majority of firms in this 

industry can be considered small. 

39. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a size standard for small 

businesses specifically applicable to 

local exchange services. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is for 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as 

defined in paragraph 11 of this FRFA. 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Census data for 2012 show 

that there were 3,117 firms that operated 

that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. The 

Commission therefore estimates that 

most providers of local exchange carrier 

service are small entities that may be 

affected by the rules adopted. 

40. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers (incumbent LECs). Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for incumbent local 

exchange services. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers as 

defined in paragraph 11 of this FRFA. 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. According to Commission 

data, 3,117 firms operated in that year. 

Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. Consequently, 

the Commission estimates that most 

providers of incumbent local exchange 

service are small businesses that may be 

affected by the rules and policies 

adopted. One thousand three hundred 

and seven (1,307) Incumbent Local 

Exchange Carriers reported that they 

were incumbent local exchange service 

providers. Of this total, an estimated 

1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

41. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (competitive LECs), Competitive 

Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant 

Service Providers, and Other Local 

Service Providers. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for these service providers. 

The appropriate NAICS Code category is 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as 

defined in paragraph 11 of this FRFA. 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 

indicate that 3,117 firms operated 

during that year. Of that number, 3,083 

operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Based on this data, the 

Commission concludes that the majority 

of Competitive LECs, CAPs, SharedTenant Service Providers, and Other 

Local Service Providers are small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

1,442 carriers reported that they were 

engaged in the provision of either 

competitive local exchange services or 

competitive access provider services. Of 

these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. In 

addition, 17 carriers have reported that 

they are Shared-Tenant Service 

Providers, and all 17 are estimated to 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. In 

addition, 72 carriers have reported that 

they are Other Local Service Providers. 

Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of competitive local exchange 

service, competitive access providers, 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 

Other Local Service Providers are small 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
42050 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

entities that may be affected by the 

adopted rules. 

42. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a definition for 

Interexchange Carriers. The closest 

NAICS Code category is Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers as defined 

in paragraph 11 of this FRFA. The 

applicable size standard under SBA 

rules is that such a business is small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to Commission data, 359 

companies reported that their primary 

telecommunications service activity was 

the provision of interexchange services. 

Of this total, an estimated 317 have 

1,500 or fewer employees and 42 have 

more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of 

interexchange service providers are 

small entities that may be affected by 

rules adopted. 

43. Local Resellers. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for the category of 

Telecommunications Resellers. The 

Telecommunications Resellers industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

purchasing access and network capacity 

from owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Census data for 2012 

show that 1,341 firms provided resale 

services during that year. Of that 

number, all operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

these prepaid calling card providers can 

be considered small entities. 

44. Toll Resellers. The Commission 

has not developed a definition for Toll 

Resellers. The closest NAICS Code 

Category is Telecommunications 

Resellers. The Telecommunications 

Resellers industry comprises 

establishments engaged in purchasing 

access and network capacity from 

owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for the 

category of Telecommunications 

Resellers. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Census data for 2012 

show that 1,341 firms provided resale 

services during that year. Of that 

number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

these resellers can be considered small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

881 carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of toll resale 

services. Of this total, an estimated 857 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of toll 

resellers are small entities. 

45. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a definition for small businesses 

specifically applicable to Other Toll 

Carriers. This category includes toll 

carriers that do not fall within the 

categories of interexchange carriers, 

operator service providers, prepaid 

calling card providers, satellite service 

carriers, or toll resellers. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is for 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers as 

defined above. Under the applicable 

SBA size standard, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Census data for 2012 shows that there 

were 3,117 firms that operated that year. 

Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

Other Toll Carriers can be considered 

small. According to internally 

developed Commission data, 284 

companies reported that their primary 

telecommunications service activity was 

the provision of other toll carriage. Of 

these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most Other 

Toll Carriers are small entities that may 

be affected by the rules. 

46. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. 

The SBA has developed a definition for 

small businesses within the category of 

Telecommunications Resellers. Under 

that SBA definition, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to the Commission’s Form 

499 Filer Database, 500 companies 

reported that they were engaged in the 

provision of prepaid calling cards. The 

Commission does not have data 

regarding how many of these 500 

companies have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that there are 500 

or fewer prepaid calling card providers 

that may be affected by the rules. 

47. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). This industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

operating and maintaining switching 

and transmission facilities to provide 

communications via the airwaves, such 

as cellular services, paging services, 

wireless internet access, and wireless 

video services. The appropriate size 

standard under SBA rules is that such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. For this industry, 

Census data for 2012 show that there 

were 967 firms that operated for the 

entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had 

fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus 

under this category and the associated 

size standard, the Commission estimates 

that the majority of wireless 

telecommunications carriers (except 

satellite) are small entities. Similarly, 

according to internally developed 

Commission data, 413 carriers reported 

that they were engaged in the provision 

of wireless telephony, including cellular 

service, Personal Communications 

Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile 

Radio (SMR) services. Of this total, an 

estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that 

approximately half of these firms can be 

considered small. Thus, using available 

data, we estimate that the majority of 

wireless firms can be considered small. 

48. Wireless Communications 

Services. This service can be used for 

fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital 

audio broadcasting satellite uses. The 

Commission defined ‘‘small business’’ 

for the wireless communications 

services (WCS) auction as an entity with 

average gross revenues of $40 million 

for each of the three preceding years, 

and a ‘‘very small business’’ as an entity 

with average gross revenues of $15 

million for each of the three preceding 

years. The SBA has approved these 

definitions. 

49. Wireless Telephony. Wireless 

telephony includes cellular, personal 

communications services, and 

specialized mobile radio telephony 

carriers. As noted, the SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite). Under the SBA small business 

size standard, a business is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to Commission data, 413 

carriers reported that they were engaged 

in wireless telephony. Of these, an 

estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and 152 have more than 

1,500 employees. Therefore, a little less 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42051 

than one third of these entities can be 

considered small. 

50. Cable and Other Subscription 

Programming. This industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

operating studios and facilities for the 

broadcasting of programs on a 

subscription or fee basis. The broadcast 

programming is typically narrowcast in 

nature (e.g. limited format, such as 

news, sports, education, or youthoriented). These establishments produce 

programming in their own facilities or 

acquire programming from external 

sources. The programming material is 

usually delivered to a third party, such 

as cable systems or direct-to-home 

satellite systems, for transmission to 

viewers. The SBA has established a size 

standard for this industry stating that a 

business in this industry is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees. The 2012 

Economic Census indicates that 367 

firms were operational for that entire 

year. Of this total, 357 operated with 

less than 1,000 employees. Accordingly 

we conclude that a substantial majority 

of firms in this industry are small under 

the applicable SBA size standard. 

51. Cable Companies and Systems 

(Rate Regulation). The Commission has 

developed its own small business size 

standards for the purpose of cable rate 

regulation. Under the Commission’s 

rules, a ‘‘small cable company’’ is one 

serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers 

nationwide. Industry data indicate that 

there are currently 4,600 active cable 

systems in the United States. Of this 

total, all but nine cable operators 

nationwide are small under the 400,000- 

subscriber size standard. In addition, 

under the Commission’s rate regulation 

rules, a ‘‘small system’’ is a cable system 

serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 

Current Commission records show 4,600 

cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 

3,900 cable systems have fewer than 

15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems 

have 15,000 or more subscribers, based 

on the same records. Thus, under this 

standard as well, we estimate that most 

cable systems are small entities. 

52. Cable System Operators (Telecom 

Act Standard). The Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, also contains 

a size standard for small cable system 

operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator 

that, directly or through an affiliate, 

serves in the aggregate fewer than one 

percent of all subscribers in the United 

States and is not affiliated with any 

entity or entities whose gross annual 

revenues in the aggregate exceed 

$250,000,000 are approximately 

52,403,705 cable video subscribers in 

the United States today. Accordingly, an 

operator serving fewer than 524,037 

subscribers shall be deemed a small 

operator if its annual revenues, when 

combined with the total annual 

revenues of all its affiliates, do not 

exceed $250 million in the aggregate. 

Based on available data, we find that all 

but nine incumbent cable operators are 

small entities under this size standard. 

We note that the Commission neither 

requests nor collects information on 

whether cable system operators are 

affiliated with entities whose gross 

annual revenues exceed $250 million. 

Although it seems certain that some of 

these cable system operators are 

affiliated with entities whose gross 

annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, 

we are unable at this time to estimate 

with greater precision the number of 

cable system operators that would 

qualify as small cable operators under 

the definition in the Communications 

Act. 

53. All Other Telecommunications. 

‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ is 

defined as follows: ‘‘This U.S. industry 

is comprised of establishments that are 

primarily engaged in providing 

specialized telecommunications 

services, such as satellite tracking, 

communications telemetry, and radar 

station operation. This industry also 

includes establishments primarily 

engaged in providing satellite terminal 

stations and associated facilities 

connected with one or more terrestrial 

systems and capable of transmitting 

telecommunications to, and receiving 

telecommunications from, satellite 

systems. Establishments providing 

internet services or voice over internet 

protocol (VoIP) services via client 

supplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for ‘‘All 

Other Telecommunications,’’ which 

consists of all such firms with gross 

annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. 

For this category, Census Bureau data 

for 2012 show that there were 1,442 

firms that operated for the entire year. 

Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had 

annual receipts less than $25 million. 

Consequently, we conclude that the 

majority of All Other 

Telecommunications firms can be 

considered small. 

E. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

54. In this Order, we forbear from the 

toll interexchange dialing parity 

requirements for competitive LECs 

creating a more level playing field with 

the incumbent LECs who received 

forbearance from their interexchange 

dialing parity obligations through the 

2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order. 

Specifically, we revise § 51.205 and 

remove §§ 51.209, 51.215 and 51.215. 

We also amend the § 52.26(a) 

requirement that the second-to-last 

carrier handling a call request is 

responsible for ensuring that the NPAC/ 

SMS is queried, explaining that carriers 

earlier in the chain are allowed to make 

the query if they so choose. The 

revisions and elimination of rules 

remove impediments to NNP and do not 

impose any reporting, recordkeeping, or 

other compliance requirements. 

F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

55. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business alternatives that it has 

considered in developing its approach, 

which may include the following four 

alternatives (among others): ‘‘(1) the 

establishment of differing compliance or 

reporting requirements or timetables 

that take into account the resources 

available to small entities; (2) the 

clarification, consolidation, or 

simplification of compliance or 

reporting requirements under the rule 

for small entities; (3) the use of 

performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities.’’ 

56. The rules adopted herein remove 

dialing parity requirements for 

competitive LECs and allows the 

second-to-last carrier handling a call 

request to query the NPAC/SMS in a 

manner that allows more flexibility. As 

a result, the economic impact on 

affected carriers should be minimal 

because they impose no new 

requirements. 

G. Report to Congress 

57. The Commission will send a copy 

of the Order, including this FRFA, in a 

report to be sent to Congress pursuant 

to the Congressional Review Act. In 

addition, the Commission will send a 

copy of the Order, including this FRFA, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

SBA. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will also be 

published in the Federal Register. 

VI. Ordering Clauses 

29. It is ordered, pursuant to sections 

1, 4(i), 10, 201(b), and 251(e) of the 

Communication Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 160, 

201(b), and 251(e) that this Report and 

Order is adopted. 

30. It is further ordered that parts 51 

and 52 of the Commission’s rules, 47 

CFR 51.205, 51.209, 51.213, 51.215, 

52.26 are amended as set forth in the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
42052 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘Final Rules’’ section below, and that 

this amendment shall be effective 30 

days after publication of this Report and 

Order in the Federal Register. 

31. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Report and Order to Congress and 

the Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 51 and 

52 

Communications common carriers, 

Telecommunications, Telephone. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR parts 51 

and 52 as follows: 

PART 51—INTERCONNECTION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151–55, 201–05, 207– 

09, 218, 225–27, 251–52, 271, 332 unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Revise § 51.205 to read as follows: 

§ 51.205 Dialing parity: General. 

A local exchange carrier (LEC) shall 

provide local dialing parity to 

competing providers of telephone 

exchange service, with no unreasonable 

dialing delays. Dialing parity shall be 

provided for originating 

telecommunications services that 

require dialing to route a call. 

§ 51.209 [Removed] 

■ 3. Remove § 51.209. 

§ 51.213 [Removed] 

■ 4. Remove § 51.213. 

§ 51.215 [Removed] 

■ 5. Remove § 51.215. 

PART 52—NUMBERING 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 52 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151–55, 201–05, 207– 

09, 218, 225–27, 251–54, 271, 303(r), 332, 

1302. 

■ 7. Amend § 52.26 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (3) as paragraphs (b)(2) through 

(4); 

■ c. Adding a new paragraph (b)(1); and 

■ d. Revising paragraph (c). 

The revisions and addition 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: Sections 7.8 and 

7.10 of Appendix D and the following 

portions of Appendix E: Section 7, Issue 

Statement I of Appendix A, and 

Appendix B in the Working Group 

Report are not incorporated herein. 

(b) * * * 

(1) Each designated N–1 carrier (as 

described in the Working Group Report) 

is responsible for ensuring number 

portability queries are performed on a 

N–1 basis where ‘‘N’’ is the entity 

terminating the call to the end user, or 

a network provider contracted by the 

entity to provide tandem access, unless 

another carrier has already performed 

the query; 

* * * * * 

(c) The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the 

Working Group Report and its 

appendices can be inspected during 

normal business hours at the following 

locations: FCC Reference Information 

Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554 or at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, 

or go to: https://www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

The Working Group Report and its 

appendices are also available on the 

internet at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/DOC-341177A1.pdf. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17843 Filed 8–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 10–90; DA 18–710] 

Connect America Fund 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final action. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB), 

the Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau (WTB) (jointly referred to herein 

as the Bureaus), and the Office of 

Engineering and Technology (OET) 

adopt requirements promoting greater 

accountability for certain recipients of 

Connect America Fund (CAF) high-cost 

universal service support, including 

price cap carriers, rate-of-return carriers, 

rural broadband experiment (RBE) 

support recipients, Alaska Plan carriers, 

and CAF Phase II auction winners. 

Specifically, the Bureaus and OET 

establish a uniform framework for 

measuring the speed and latency 

performance for recipients of high-cost 

universal service support to serve fixed 

locations. 

DATES: This final action is effective 

September 19, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Suzanne Yelen, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or TTY: (202) 

418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order in 

WC Docket No. 10–90; DA 18–710, 

adopted on July 6, 2018 and released on 

July 6, 2018. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 

Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20554 or at the 

following internet address: https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18- 

710A1.pdf. 

I. Introduction 

1. In the Order, the Bureaus and OET 

adopt requirements promoting greater 

accountability for certain recipients of 

CAF high-cost universal service 

support, including price cap carriers, 

rate-of-return carriers, RBE support 

recipients, Alaska Plan carriers, and 

CAF Phase II auction winners. 

Specifically, the Bureaus and OET 

establish a uniform framework for 

measuring the speed and latency 

performance for recipients of high-cost 

universal service support to serve fixed 

locations. 

2. The Bureaus and OET also require 

providers to submit testing results as 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES