[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 126 (Thursday, July 2, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31630-31638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15132]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[WC Docket No. 07-244; FCC 09-41]


Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation 
Requirements; Telephone Number Portability

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission adopted rules requiring all entities subject to 
its local number portability (LNP) rules to complete simple wireline-
to-wireline and simple intermodal port requests within one business 
day.

DATES: Effective August 3, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Sclater, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, (202) 418-0388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this Order, the Commission reduces the 
porting interval for simple wireline and simple intermodal port 
requests to one business day to help ensure that consumers are able to 
port their telephone numbers efficiently and to enhance competition for 
all communications services.

Synopsis of Report and Order

    1. Section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(the Act), requires local exchange carriers (LECs) to ``provide, to the 
extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with 
requirements prescribed by the Commission.'' The Act and the 
Commission's rules define number portability as ``the ability of users 
of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, 
existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, 
reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications 
carrier to another.'' In addition, section 251(e) of the Act gives the 
Commission plenary jurisdiction over the North American Numbering Plan 
(NANP) and related telephone numbering issues in the United States. To 
implement these congressional mandates, the Commission required all 
carriers, including wireline carriers and covered commercial mobile 
radio service (CMRS) providers, to provide LNP according to a phased 
deployment schedule. The Commission found that LNP provided end users 
options when choosing among telecommunications service providers 
without having to change their telephone numbers, and established 
obligations for porting between wireline providers, porting between 
wireless providers, and intermodal porting (i.e., the porting of 
numbers from wireline providers to wireless providers, and vice versa). 
The Commission also directed the North American Numbering Council 
(NANC), its advisory committee on numbering issues, to make 
recommendations regarding various LNP implementation issues.
    2. Twelve years ago, in 1997, the Commission adopted the NANC's 
recommendation for a four-business day porting interval for wireline 
ports. This four-business day interval also applies to simple 
intermodal ports. In its 2007 LNP NPRM, the Commission tentatively 
concluded that it should adopt a rule reducing the porting interval for 
simple port requests and allow the industry to work through the actual 
implications of such a timeline. In particular, the Commission 
tentatively concluded that it should adopt a rule reducing the porting 
interval for simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal port 
requests to 48 hours. The Commission sought comment on its tentative 
conclusions, and whether there were any technical impediments or 
advances that affect the overall length of the porting interval such 
that it should adopt different porting intervals for particular types 
of ports.
    3. In this Report and Order (Order), the Commission reduces the 
porting interval for simple wireline and simple intermodal port 
requests to ensure that consumers are able to port their telephone 
numbers efficiently and to enhance competition for all communications 
services. Specifically, the Commission requires all entities subject to 
its LNP rules to complete simple wireline-to-wireline and simple 
intermodal port requests within one business day.
    4. As the Commission has found previously, it is critical that 
customers be able to port their telephone numbers in an efficient 
manner in order for LNP to fulfill its promise of giving ``customers 
flexibility in the quality, price, and variety of telecommunications 
services.'' Through the LNP process, consumers have the ability to 
retain their phone number when switching telecommunications service 
providers, enabling them to choose a provider that best suits their 
needs and enhancing competition. Although customers have had the option 
to port numbers between their telephone service providers for a number 
of years, the current four-business day porting interval may hinder the 
effectiveness of such options. Delays in porting cost consumers time 
and money and limit consumer choice and competition because when 
consumers get frustrated with slow porting, they often abandon efforts 
to switch providers. The Commission finds this to be a significant 
concern due to its efforts generally to ensure ``the ability of users 
of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, 
existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, 
reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications 
carrier to another,'' as well as due to the important role intermodal 
providers play in telecommunications competition. As the Commission has 
stated previously, LNP ``eliminates one major disincentive to switch 
carriers'' and thus facilitates ``the successful entrance of new 
service providers,'' which in turn ``stimulate[s] the development of 
new services and technologies, and create[s] incentives for carriers to 
lower prices and costs.'' Thus, to promote competition and the 
deregulation that can result from it, the Commission must ensure the 
efficiency and effectiveness of LNP.
    5. The four-business day porting interval for simple wireline port 
requests was adopted over 10 years ago as an interim measure. Since 
that time, the telecommunications landscape has changed dramatically, 
and technological advances have enabled number porting to be 
accomplished in a much shorter time period, as evidenced by the 
voluntary two and one-half hour wireless interval standard. The 
Commission finds that there are no significant technological 
impediments to reducing the porting interval for simple wireline-to-
wireline and simple intermodal ports to one business day, as a general 
matter. The record reflects that for many providers, particularly those 
employing an electronic interface, number porting can be accomplished 
in significantly less time than the current four-business day porting 
interval allows. As such, the Commission finds that the record supports 
this action to reduce the current porting interval for simple wireline-
to-wireline and simple intermodal port requests to one business day. 
The Commission believes that a

[[Page 31631]]

porting interval of one business day strikes the appropriate balance, 
based on the current record, between enabling consumers to realize the 
benefits of LNP and the current technological and business capabilities 
of service providers.
    6. In this Order, the Commission concludes that reducing the 
porting interval for simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal 
ports to one business day is necessary to enable customers to port 
their numbers in a timely fashion and to enhance competition. The 
Commission believes that, in conjunction with its clarification in 2007 
that providers may require no more than four information fields to 
validate simple port requests, the steps taken today will significantly 
streamline the simple porting process for service providers and 
consumers and will enhance competition. The Commission adopts a porting 
interval in terms of a business day, as opposed to adopting the 
tentative conclusion that was in terms of hours, to accommodate 
providers that may not have adequate staffing to handle port requests 
outside of regular business hours. Thus, the Commission requires all 
entities subject to its LNP rules, including interconnected VoIP 
providers and their numbering partners, to complete port requests for 
simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal ports within one 
business day, unless a longer period is requested by the new provider 
or the customer elects otherwise. By ``intermodal ports,'' the 
Commission refers to: (1) Wireline-to-wireless ports; (2) wireless-to-
wireline ports; and (3) ports involving interconnected Voice over 
Internet Protocol (VoIP) service. Because interconnected VoIP service 
can be provided over various types of facilities, the Commission refers 
to all interconnected VoIP ports as ``intermodal'' irrespective of the 
facilities at issue. The Commission also noted that not all wireline 
and wireless providers are required to port telephone numbers in all 
circumstances.
    7. In this Order, the Commission also reiterated its 2007 finding 
that interconnected VoIP providers are obligated to take all steps 
necessary to initiate or allow a port-in or port-out itself or through 
its numbering partner on behalf of the interconnected VoIP customer. In 
its 2007 VOIP LNP Order, the Commission made clear that when an 
interconnected VoIP provider obtains its NANP telephone numbers through 
commercial arrangements with one or more traditional telecommunications 
carriers, the intervals that would be applicable to ports between the 
numbering partner and the other provider, if the port were not related 
to an interconnected VoIP service, will apply to the port of the NANP 
telephone number between the numbering partner and the other provider 
when the end user with porting rights is a customer of the 
interconnected VoIP provider. The Commission also found that 
interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering partners may not 
enter into agreements that would prohibit or unreasonably delay an 
interconnected VoIP service end user from porting between 
interconnected VoIP providers, or to or from a wireline carrier or 
covered CMRS provider.
    8. In this Order, the Commission leaves it to the industry to work 
through the mechanics of this new interval. In particular, the 
Commission directs the NANC to develop new LNP provisioning process 
flows that take into account this shortened porting interval. In 
developing these flows, the NANC must address how a ``business day'' 
should be construed for purposes of the porting interval, and generally 
how the porting time should be measured. The NANC must submit these 
flows to the Commission no later than 90 days after the effective date 
of this Order.
    9. The Commission concludes that nine months is sufficient time for 
affected entities to implement and comply with the one-business day 
porting interval, and therefore requires all providers subject to its 
LNP rules to comply with the one-business day porting interval within 
nine months from the date that the NANC submits its revised 
provisioning flows to the Commission, except as described below with 
regard to small providers. The Commission found that nine months 
provides adequate time for providers to make the necessary software 
changes and upgrades and to accommodate changes to internal processes 
and policies.
    10. In the 2007 LNP NPRM, the Commission specifically sought 
comment on the benefits and burdens, including the burdens on small 
entities, of adopting porting interval rules for all types of simple 
port requests. In this Order, the Commission finds that the benefits to 
consumers and competition discussed above outweigh the costs associated 
with implementing a shorter porting interval for simple wireline and 
simple intermodal ports. However, the Commission recognizes that some 
providers that do not employ automated systems for handling port 
requests and have limited resources to upgrade their systems may have 
to make more significant changes or upgrades than other providers that 
already employ automated porting interfaces. To address this disparity, 
the Commission allows small providers, as defined below for purposes of 
this Order, a longer period of time for implementing the porting 
interval of one business day. Thus, small providers are required to 
implement the reduced porting interval of one business day for simple 
wireline and simple intermodal ports no later than 15 months from the 
date that the NANC submits its revised provisioning flows to the 
Commission. For purposes of this Order, the Commission considers 
providers with fewer than 2 percent of the nation's subscriber lines 
installed in the aggregate nationwide and Tier III wireless carriers, 
as defined in the E911 Stay Order, to be small providers. For purposes 
of this Order, what constitutes a 2 percent provider will be calculated 
based on an aggregate of incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) and 
competitive LEC lines, based on the Commission's most recent industry 
statistics available as of the effective date of this Order. The 
Commission found that these categories encompass the providers whose 
systems will most likely require significant upgrades, and who also may 
have limited resources to make those upgrades. Thus, these providers 
may require the extended 15-month implementation period.
    11. In this Order, the Commission declines to implement a specific 
cost recovery mechanism for carrier-specific costs associated with 
implementing the reduced porting interval. As an initial matter, the 
Commission notes that there are several options for carriers to recover 
their costs of implementing the reduced porting interval. For one, the 
Commission notes that many small carriers have not yet filed for 
recovery of costs for implementing long-term number portability under 
the Commission's LNP cost recovery mechanism. To the extent that such 
carriers incur costs to implement the one-business day porting interval 
that meet the standard for the LNP cost recovery mechanism, the 
Commission's rules give carriers five years to recover those costs 
through end-user charges. Once incumbent LECs have recovered their 
initial LNP implementation costs through the LNP cost recovery 
mechanism, the Commission intended carriers to recover ongoing costs 
incurred to provide number portability as a normal network feature 
through existing mechanisms available for the recovery of general costs 
of providing service. Under rate-of-return regulation, carriers are 
allowed to recover their costs plus a prescribed rate of return on 
investment. Under price cap regulation, rather than earning a specific 
rate of

[[Page 31632]]

return on their costs, carriers are permitted to earn returns 
significantly higher if they can operate efficiently, but are not 
guaranteed recovery of all costs. Price cap regulation includes an 
exogenous cost adjustment mechanism. Under the Commission's rules, 
price cap carriers may file proposed tariff rates that would exceed 
applicable price cap indices, if necessary to recover costs, with the 
requisite LNP-specific cost showing.
    12. Further, small carriers have options for seeking modification 
of the new LNP interval requirements. For example, under section 
251(f)(2) of the Act, a LEC ``with fewer than 2 percent of the Nation's 
subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide may petition a 
State commission for suspension or modification of the application of 
the requirements'' of section 251(b), which includes the ``duty to 
provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in 
accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Commission.'' The 
Commission finds that these safeguards further address commenters' 
concerns regarding the costs that small entities may incur to implement 
the one-business day porting interval.
    13. Further, because the Commission recognizes that some providers 
may find it unduly burdensome to implement a one-business day porting 
interval even with an extended implementation period, providers may 
also apply for a waiver of the one-business day porting interval under 
the Commission's rules. To demonstrate the good cause required by the 
Commission's waiver rule, a provider must show with particularity that 
it would be unduly economically burdensome for the provider to 
implement the reduced porting interval. In making this showing, a 
provider should address the number of port requests it typically 
receives on a monthly basis as well as the specific costs that 
complying with the reduced porting interval would impose. Waiver 
requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In making a 
determination on waiver requests, the Commission may, in its judgment, 
set the porting interval length between one business day and four 
business days, or longer, as individually warranted. Further, the 
Commission will determine the length of the waiver period based on the 
particular facts presented. The Commission is concerned by evidence in 
the record that some providers may not be complying with the 
Commission's current rules regarding porting intervals, however. So 
there is no possible confusion regarding this requirement, the 
Commission clarifies that providers that obtain a waiver of the 
Commission's one-business day porting interval must comply with the 
current rules regarding a four-business day porting interval at a 
minimum, unless told otherwise. The Commission delegates authority to 
the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau to review and decide these 
waiver requests.
    14. The Commission also finds that the statutory requirement of 
competitive neutrality would not be violated if small and mid-size 
carriers are not allowed additional LNP recovery. Section 251(e)(2) 
mandates that the costs of establishing LNP be ``borne by all 
telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as 
determined by the Commission.'' The Commission, accordingly, 
established principles of competitive neutrality for cost distribution 
and recovery mechanisms related to number portability. Competitive 
neutrality requires that ``the cost of number portability borne by each 
carrier does not affect significantly any carrier's ability to compete 
with other carriers for customers in the marketplace,'' and the 
Commission adopted a two-part test for making this determination. Under 
this test, number portability cost distribution and recovery 
mechanisms: (1) Must not give one service provider an appreciable, 
incremental cost advantage over another service provider when competing 
for a specific subscriber; and (2) must not disparately affect the 
ability of competing service providers to earn a normal return.
    15. In this Order, the Commission finds that neither prong of the 
competitive neutrality test is violated. Indeed, in the Cost Recovery 
Order, the Commission explicitly rejected arguments that competitive 
neutrality requires it ``to ensure that carriers recover all their 
number portability costs,'' emphasizing that ```[n]othing in section 
251(e)(2) states that the Commission must guarantee recovery of such 
costs.'' Instead, this section requires the Commission to ensure that 
the manner in which all carriers bear the costs of providing number 
portability is competitively neutral. Thus, the Commission explained 
that ``[e]ven if a carrier does not recover all its costs, the 
Commission's rules will satisfy section 251(e)(2) so long as that 
carrier's ability to compete for subscribers is not significantly 
affected.''

Congressional Review Act

    The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a 
report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document does not contain new or modified information 
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new 
or modified ``information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4).

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the 2007 LNP NPRM in WC Docket 07-244. The Commission 
sought written public comment on the proposals in the Notice, including 
comment on the IRFA. The Commission received comments on the Notice and 
also received comments specifically directed toward the IRFA from two 
commenters in WC Docket No. 07-244. These comments are discussed below. 
This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules

    2. This Report and Order (Order) reduces the porting interval for 
simple wireline and simple intermodal port requests. Specifically, this 
Order requires all entities subject to the Commission's LNP rules to 
complete simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal port 
requests within one business day, unless a longer period is requested 
by the new provider or the customer elects otherwise. The Order directs 
the NANC to develop new LNP provisioning process flows that take into 
account this shortened porting interval. In developing these flows, the 
NANC must address how a ``business day'' should be construed for 
purposes of the porting interval, and generally how the porting time 
should be measured. The NANC must submit these flows to the Commission 
no later than 90 days after the effective date of the Report and Order. 
The Order requires all providers subject to the Commission's LNP rules 
to comply with the new porting interval within nine months of the date 
that the NANC submits the revised provisioning flows to the Commission, 
except with regard to small providers. Small providers are required to 
implement the reduced porting interval of one business day for simple 
wireline and simple intermodal ports no later than 15

[[Page 31633]]

months from the date that the NANC submits the revised provisioning 
flows to the Commission. For purposes of this Order, the Commission 
considers small providers to be providers with fewer than 2 percent of 
the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide and 
Tier III wireless carriers, as defined in the E911 Stay Order.
    3. Providers may also apply for a waiver of the one-business day 
porting interval under the Commission's rules. To demonstrate the good 
cause required by the Commission's waiver rule, a provider must show 
with particularity that it would be unduly economically burdensome for 
the provider to implement the reduced porting interval. In making this 
showing, a provider should address the number of port requests it 
typically receives on a monthly basis as well as the specific costs 
that complying with the reduced porting interval would impose. The 
Order clarifies that providers that obtain a waiver of the Commission's 
one-business day porting interval must comply with the current rules 
regarding a four-business day porting interval for simple ports, at a 
minimum, unless told otherwise. Waiver requests will be considered on a 
case-by-case basis, and the Commission will determine the length of the 
waiver period based on the particular facts presented.
    4. Although customers have had the option to port numbers between 
their telephone service providers for a number of years, the current 
four-business day porting interval may hinder the effectiveness of such 
options. Delays in porting cost consumers time and money and limit 
consumer choice and competition because when consumers get frustrated 
with slow porting, they often abandon efforts to switch providers. The 
Commission finds this to be a significant concern both due to the 
Commission's efforts generally to ensure ``the ability of users of 
telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing 
telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, 
or convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to 
another,'' as well as due to the important role intermodal providers 
play in telecommunications competition. This Order concludes that 
reducing the porting interval for simple wireline-to-wireline and 
simple intermodal ports to one business day is necessary to enable 
customers to port their numbers in a timely fashion and to enhance 
competition.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    5. In this section, the Commission responds to comments filed in 
response to the IRFA. To the extent the Commission received comments 
raising general small business concerns during this proceeding, those 
comments are discussed throughout the Report and Order.
    6. OPASTCO and WTA comment that the IRFA is deficient, arguing that 
it contains no description of project compliance requirements, contains 
no alternatives considered, and impermissibly shifts the burden of 
providing required estimated compliance descriptions and compliance 
cost projections to commenting parties. Windstream, USTelecom, and NTCA 
agree with OPASTCO's and WTA's comments regarding the deficiency of the 
IRFA.
    7. The Commission disagrees with these assertions as it finds that 
small entities have received sufficient notice of the issues addressed 
in the Order. Further, the Commission has considered the economic 
impact on small entities and what ways are feasible to minimize the 
burdens imposed on those entities. To the extent feasible, the 
Commission has implemented those less burdensome alternatives, and the 
Commission discusses these alternatives in section E, infra.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
Rules Will Apply

    8. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the 
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    9. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 
22.4 million small businesses according to SBA data.
    10. Small Organizations. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 
million small organizations.
1. Telecommunications Service Entities
a. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers
    11. The Commission has included small incumbent local exchange 
carriers (LECs) in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small 
business'' under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent 
small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business 
having 1,500 or fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of 
operation.'' The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA 
purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of 
operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. The 
Commission has therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA 
analysis, although the Commission emphasizes that this RFA action has 
no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA 
contexts.
    12. Incumbent LECs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent 
local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules 
is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Commission data, 1,303 carriers have reported that they 
are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of 
these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees 
and 283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are 
small businesses that may be affected by its action.
    13. Competitive LECs, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), 
``Shared-Tenant Service Providers,'' and ``Other Local Service 
Providers.'' Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small 
business size standard specifically for these service providers. The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission 
data, 859 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision 
of either competitive access provider services or competitive LEC 
services. Of these 859 carriers, an estimated 741 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and 118 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 16 
carriers have reported that they are ``Shared-Tenant Service 
Providers,'' and all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or

[[Page 31634]]

fewer employees. In addition, 44 carriers have reported that they are 
``Other Local Service Providers.'' Of the 44, an estimated 43 have 
1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of 
competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, 
``Shared-Tenant Service Providers,'' and ``Other Local Service 
Providers'' are small entities.
    14. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that 
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to Commission data, 184 carriers have reported 
that they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of 
these, an estimated 181 have 1,500 or fewer employees and three have 
more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
the majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected 
by its action.
    15. Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that 
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported 
that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of 
these, an estimated 853 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 28 have more 
than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of toll resellers are small entities that may be affected by 
its action.
    16. Payphone Service Providers (PSPs). Neither the Commission nor 
the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
payphone services providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA 
rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that 
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to Commission data, 657 carriers have reported 
that they are engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these, 
an estimated 653 have 1,500 or fewer employees and four have more than 
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of payphone service providers are small entities that may be 
affected by its action.
    17. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard 
under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. According to Commission data, 330 carriers have 
reported that they are engaged in the provision of interexchange 
service. Of these, an estimated 309 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 
21 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of IXCs are small entities that may be 
affected by its action.
    18. Operator Service Providers (OSPs). Neither the Commission nor 
the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA 
rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that 
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to Commission data, 23 carriers have reported that 
they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an 
estimated 22 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
OSPs are small entities that may be affected by its action.
    19. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA 
rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Commission data, 104 carriers have reported that they are 
engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these, 102 are 
estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that all or the 
majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may 
be affected by its action.
    20. 800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers. These toll-free services 
fall within the broad economic census category of Telecommunications 
Resellers. This category ``comprises establishments engaged in 
purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of 
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless 
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and 
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; 
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure.'' The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, 
which is: All such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau 
data for 2002 show that there were 1,646 firms in this category that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,642 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees, and four firms had employment of 1,000 
employees or more. Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered 
small. Additionally, it may be helpful to know the total numbers of 
telephone numbers assigned in these services. Commission data show 
that, as of June 2006, the total number of 800 numbers assigned was 
7,647,941, the total number of 888 numbers assigned was 5,318,667, the 
total number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,431,162, and the total 
number of 866 numbers assigned was 6,008,976.
b. International Service Providers
    21. The first category, Satellite Telecommunications, ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point 
telecommunications services to other establishments in the 
telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and 
receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.'' The size standard for this 
industry is $15.0 million; the NACIS code is 517410. For this category, 
Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371 firms 
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 307 firms had annual 
receipts of under $10 million, and 26 firms had receipts of $10 million 
to $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that 
might be affected by its action.
    22. The second category of Other Telecommunications ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in: (1) Providing specialized 
telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking, 
communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or (2) 
providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities 
operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications 
systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving 
telecommunications from satellite systems.'' The size standard for this 
category is $25.0 million and the NAICS code is 517919. For this 
category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 
332 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 274 firms 
had annual receipts of under $24,999,999. Consequently, the

[[Page 31635]]

Commission estimates that the majority of Other Telecommunications 
firms are small entities that might be affected by its action.
c. Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers
    23. Below, for those services subject to auctions, the Commission 
notes that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that 
qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not 
necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in 
service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated.
    24. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic 
census categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications.'' Under both SBA categories, a wireless business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of 
Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in 
this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 
firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had 
employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and 
associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be 
considered small. For the census category of Cellular and Other 
Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that 
there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. 
Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of 
firms can, again, be considered small. The Commission notes that that 
the categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications'' are now obsolete, and have been replaced with a 
new category, ``Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite).'' Under this new category, a wireless business is small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
    25. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, 
personal communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio 
(SMR) telephony carriers. As noted above, the SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for ``Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite).'' Under that SBA small business size standard, a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to 
Commission data, 432 carriers reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of wireless telephony. The Commission has estimated that 221 
of these are small under the SBA small business size standard.
    26. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband 
Personal Communications Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six 
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held 
auctions for each block. The Commission defined ``small entity'' for 
Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 
million or less in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an 
additional classification for ``very small business'' was added and is 
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average 
gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three 
calendar years.'' These standards defining ``small entity'' in the 
context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No 
small businesses, within the SBA-approved small business size standards 
bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning 
bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A 
total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40 
percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23, 
1999, the Commission re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses. 
There were 48 small business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the 
Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses 
in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 
qualified as ``small'' or ``very small'' businesses. Subsequent events, 
concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, 
resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for 
grant.
2. Cable and OVS Operators
    27. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these 
services have been defined within the broad economic census category of 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows: 
``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating 
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure 
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, 
sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission 
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of 
technologies.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard 
for this category, which is: All such firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable services 
the Commission must, however, use current census data that are based on 
the previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its 
associated size standard; that size standard was: all such firms having 
$13.5 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau 
data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this previous 
category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 firms 
had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of 
$10 million or more but less than $25 million. Thus, the majority of 
these firms can be considered small.
    28. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed 
its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate 
regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is 
one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry data 
indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are 
small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's 
rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer 
subscribers. Industry data indicate that, of 7,208 systems nationwide, 
6,139 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 379 
systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this second size 
standard, most cable systems are small
    29. Cable System Operators. The Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system 
operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an 
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all 
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity 
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that an operator serving 
fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its 
annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all 
its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Industry 
data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten 
are small under this size standard. The Commission notes that it 
neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system 
operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues 
exceed $250 million, and therefore the Commission is unable to estimate 
more accurately the number of cable system operators that would

[[Page 31636]]

qualify as small under this size standard.
    30. Open Video Systems (OVS). In 1996, Congress established the 
open video system (OVS) framework, one of four statutorily recognized 
options for the provision of video programming services by local 
exchange carriers (LECs). The OVS framework provides opportunities for 
the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. 
Because OVS operators provide subscription services, OVS previously 
fell within the now obsolete SBA small business size standard of Cable 
and Other Program Distribution Services, which consists of such 
entities having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. The 
Commission has certified 25 OVS operators, with some now providing 
service. Broadband service providers (BSPs) are currently the only 
significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises. As 
of June, 2005, BSPs served approximately 1.4 million subscribers, 
representing 1.5 percent of all MVPD households. Affiliates of 
Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN), which serves about 
371,000 subscribers as of June, 2005, is currently the largest BSP and 
14th largest MVPD. RCN received approval to operate OVS systems in New 
York City, Boston, Washington, D.C. and other areas. The Commission 
does not have financial information regarding the entities authorized 
to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. The 
Commission thus believes that at least some of the OVS operators may 
qualify as small entities.
3. Internet Service Providers
    31. Internet Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs 
``provide clients access to the Internet and generally provide related 
services such as web hosting, web page designing, and hardware or 
software consulting related to Internet connectivity.'' The new size 
standard is 500 employees. However, data is not yet available under 
this new standard. Under the previous SBA size standard, such a 
business is small if it has average annual receipts of $23 million or 
less. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 firms 
in this category that operated for the entire year.\\ Of these, 2,437 
firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 47 
firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms 
are small entities that may be affected by its action.
    32. All Other Information Services. ``This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in providing other information 
services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives).'' The SBA 
has developed a small business size standard for this category; that 
size standard is $7.0 million or less in average annual receipts. 
However, data has not yet been collected under the new size standard, 
and so the Commission refers to data collected under the previous size 
standard, $6.5 million or less in average annual receipts. According to 
Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 155 firms in this category that 
operated for the entire year. Of these, 138 had annual receipts of 
under $5 million, and an additional four firms had receipts of between 
$5 million and $9,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by 
its action.
4. Equipment Manufacturers
    33. SBA small business size standards are given in terms of 
``firms.'' Census Bureau data concerning computer manufacturers, on the 
other hand, are given in terms of ``establishments.'' The Commission 
notes that the number of ``establishments'' is a less helpful indicator 
of small business prevalence in this context than would be the number 
of ``firms'' or ``companies,'' because the latter take into account the 
concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical location 
for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be 
owned by a different establishment. Thus, the census numbers provided 
below may reflect inflated numbers of businesses in the given category, 
including the numbers of small businesses.
    34. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as 
follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless 
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having 
750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there 
were a total of 1,041 establishments in this category that operated for 
the entire year. Of this total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and 
an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under this size 
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
    35. Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines 
this category as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing wire telephone and data 
communications equipment. These products may be standalone or board-
level components of a larger system. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are central office switching equipment, cordless 
telephones (except cellular), PBX equipment, telephones, telephone 
answering machines, LAN modems, multi-user modems, and other data 
communications equipment, such as bridges, routers, and gateways.'' The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for Telephone 
Apparatus Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having 1,000 or fewer 
employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total 
of 518 establishments in this category that operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 511 had employment of under 1,000, and an 
additional 7 had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Thus, under this size 
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
    36. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. Examples of 
manufactured devices in this category include ``integrated circuits, 
memory chips, microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and 
other optoelectronic devices.'' The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 
500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 
1,032 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 
2002. Of these, 950 had employment of under 500, and 42 establishments 
had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, the Commission estimates 
that the majority of these establishments are small entities.
    37. Computer Storage Device Manufacturing. These establishments 
manufacture ``computer storage devices that allow the storage and 
retrieval of data from a phase change, magnetic, optical, or magnetic/
optical media.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard 
for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is

[[Page 31637]]

1,000 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 
170 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 
2002. Of these, 164 had employment of under 500, and five 
establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of these establishments are 
small entities.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    38. This Order does not impose any new or modified reporting, 
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    39. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.
    40. In the 2007 LNP NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that 
it should adopt a rule reducing the porting interval for simple port 
requests and allow the industry to work through the actual implications 
of such a timeline. In particular, the Commission tentatively concluded 
that it should adopt a rule reducing the porting interval for simple 
wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal port requests to 48 hours. 
The Commission sought comment on its tentative conclusions, and whether 
there were any technical impediments or advances that affect the 
overall length of the porting interval such that it should adopt 
different porting intervals for particular types of ports. The 
Commission also sought comment on the benefits and burdens, including 
the burdens on small entities, of adopting rules regarding porting 
intervals for all types of simple port requests.
    41. The Commission must assess the interests of small businesses in 
light of the overriding public interest in ensuring that all consumers 
benefit from local number portability. In the Order, the Commission 
found that it is critical that customers be able to port their 
telephone numbers in an efficient manner in order for LNP to fulfill 
its promise of giving ``customers flexibility in the quality, price, 
and variety of telecommunications services'' and that the current four-
business day porting interval may hinder the effectiveness of LNP. The 
Commission also found that delays in porting cost consumers time and 
money and limit consumer choice and competition because when consumers 
get frustrated with slow porting, they often abandon efforts to switch 
carriers. The Commission thus concluded that reducing the porting 
interval for simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal ports to 
one business day was necessary to enable customers to port their 
numbers in a timely fashion and to enhance competition, and found that 
the benefits to consumers and competition outweigh the costs associated 
with implementing a shorter porting interval for simple wireline and 
simple intermodal ports.
    42. In order to reduce the burden on smaller entities, the 
Commission considered several alternatives, some of which were 
presented by commenters and some of which the Commission developed 
based on its own analysis. For example, the Commission recognized that 
some providers who do not employ automated systems for handling port 
requests and have limited resources to upgrade their systems may have 
to make more significant changes or upgrades than other carriers that 
already employ automated porting interfaces. To address this disparity, 
the Commission allowed small providers a longer period of time for 
implementing the one-business day porting interval. Specifically, small 
providers are required to implement the reduced one-business day 
porting interval for simple wireline and simple intermodal ports no 
later than 15 months after the NANC submits the revised provisioning 
flows to the Commission. For purposes of the longer implementation 
period, the Commission considers providers with fewer than 2 percent of 
the Nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide and 
Tier III wireless carriers, as defined in the E911 Stay Order, to be 
small providers.
    43. The Commission declined to provide for special recovery of 
costs for implementing the reduced porting interval, noting that there 
are several options for carriers to recover their costs of implementing 
the reduced porting interval. The Commission noted that many small 
carriers have not yet filed for recovery of costs for implementation of 
long-term number portability under its LNP cost recovery mechanism. To 
the extent that such carriers incur costs to implement the one-business 
day porting interval that meet the standard for the LNP cost recovery 
mechanism, the Commission's rules give carriers five years to recover 
those costs through end-user charges. Once incumbent LECs have 
recovered their initial LNP implementation costs through the LNP cost 
recovery mechanism, the Commission intended carriers to recover ongoing 
costs incurred to provide number portability as a normal network 
feature through existing mechanisms available for the recovery of 
general costs of providing service. Under rate-of-return regulation, 
carriers are allowed to recover their costs plus a prescribed rate of 
return on investment. Under price cap regulation, rather than earning a 
specific rate of return on their costs, carriers are permitted to earn 
returns significantly higher if they can operate efficiently but are 
not guaranteed recovery of all costs. Price cap regulation includes an 
exogenous cost adjustment mechanism.
    44. Further, small providers have options for seeking modification 
of the new LNP interval requirements. For example, under section 
251(f)(2) of the Act, a LEC ``with fewer than 2 percent of the Nation's 
subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide may petition a 
State commission for suspension or modification of the application of 
the requirements'' of section 251(b), which includes the ``duty to 
provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in 
accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Commission.'' The 
Order also notes that providers may apply for a waiver of the one-
business day porting interval under the Commission's rules. To 
demonstrate the good cause required by the Commission's waiver rule, a 
provider must show with particularity that it would be unduly 
economically burdensome for the provider to implement the reduced 
porting interval. In making this showing, a provider should address the 
number of port requests it receives as well as the specific costs that 
complying with the reduced porting interval would impose. The 
Commission found that these safeguards address commenters' concerns 
regarding the costs that small entities may incur to implement the one-
business day wireline and intermodal porting interval.
    45. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the 
Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review

[[Page 31638]]

Act. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be 
published in the Federal Register.

Ordering Clauses

    Accordingly, It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 
4(j), 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), 251, 303(r), this Report and Order in WC Docket 
No. 07-244 and CC Docket No. 95-116 is adopted, and that Part 52 of the 
Commission's Rules, 47 CFR part 52, Is amended as set forth in Appendix 
B. The Report and Order shall become effective August 3, 2009. It is 
further ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 251, and 
303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 
154(i)-(j), 251, 303(r), and sections 52.11(b) and 52.25(d) of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 52.11(b), 52.25(d), the North American 
Numbering Council shall submit its recommendations to the Commission 
within 90 days of the effective date of the Report and Order as 
discussed in paragraph 10 of this Report and Order.
    It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 52

    Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission amends part 52 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 52--NUMBERING

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Secs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 
U.S.C. 151, 152, 154 and 155 unless otherwise noted. Interpret or 
apply secs. 3, 4, 201-205, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-52, 271 and 332, 
48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 153, 154, 201-05, 207-09, 
218, 225-27, 251-52, 271 and 332 unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Section 52.21 is amended by adding paragraph (w) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.21  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (w) The term 2009 LNP Porting Intervals Order refers to In the 
Matters of Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation 
Requirements; Telephone Number Portability, WC Docket No. 07-244, CC 
Docket No. 95-116, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, FCC 09-41 (2009).

0
3. Section 52.26 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  52.26  NANC Recommendations on Local Number Portability 
Administration.

    (a) Local number portability administration must comply with the 
recommendations of the North American Numbering Council (NANC) as set 
forth in the report to the Commission prepared by the NANC's Local 
Number Portability Administration Selection Working Group, dated April 
25, 1997 (Working Group Report) and its appendices, which are 
incorporated by reference pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 
51. Except that: Section 7.10 of Appendix D is not incorporated herein 
and all references to the porting intervals for simple wireline and 
simple intermodal port requests in the Working Group Report are not 
incorporated herein after Sec.  52.35 becomes effective as described in 
Sec.  52.35(a).
* * * * *
    (c) The Director of the Federal Register approves this 
incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 
part 51. Copies of the Working Group Report and its appendices can be 
obtained from the Commission's contract copier, Best Copy and Printing, 
Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, 
DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, or via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e4828787a48687948d938186ca878b89"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="89efeaeac9ebeaf9e0feeceba7eae6e4">[email protected]</span></a>, and can be 
inspected during normal business hours at the following locations: 
Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY--A257, 
Washington, DC 20554 or at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. The Working 
Group Report and its appendices are also available on the Internet at 
http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/cpd/Nanc/lnpastuf.html.

0
4. Section 52.35 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  52.35  Porting Intervals.

    (a) Nine months after the NANC submits its port provisioning 
process flows to the Commission as provided in the 2009 LNP Porting 
Interval Order, all telecommunications carriers required by the 
Commission to port telephone numbers must complete a simple wireline-
to-wireline or simple intermodal port request within one business day 
unless a longer period is requested by the new provider or by the 
customer. Small providers, as described in the 2009 LNP Porting 
Interval Order, must comply with this section 15 months after the NANC 
submits its port provisioning process flows to the Commission as 
provided in the 2009 LNP Porting Interval Order. For purposes of this 
section, simple intermodal ports include wireline-to-wireless ports, 
wireless-to-wireline ports, and ports involving interconnected Voice 
over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service.
    (b) Unless directed otherwise by the Commission, any 
telecommunications carrier granted a waiver by the Commission of the 
one-business day porting interval described in paragraph (a) of this 
section must complete a simple wireline-to-wireline or simple 
intermodal port request within four business days unless a longer 
period is requested by the new provider or by the customer.
    (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``telecommunications 
carrier'' includes an interconnected VoIP provider as that term is 
defined in Sec.  52.21(h).
    (d) Once effective as described in paragraph (a) of this section 
supersedes any porting interval requirements for simple wireline or 
simple intermodal port requests incorporated by reference in Sec.  
52.26.

[FR Doc. E9-15132 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>