31630 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: June 25, 2009. 

Lawrence Rudolph, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E9–15599 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

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-towireline 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 fourbusiness 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 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 

31632 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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 onebusiness 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 caseby-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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 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 onebusiness 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 fourbusiness 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-towireline 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), ‘‘SharedTenant 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 

31634 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 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 reauctioned 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 

31636 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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 boardlevel 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 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 onebusiness 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 rateof-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 

31638 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

■ 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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Section 52.21 is amended by adding 

paragraph (w) to read as follows: 

§ 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). 

■ 3. Section 52.26 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 52.35 becomes effective as 

described in § 52.35(a). 

* * * * * 

(c) The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

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

Working Group Report and its 

appendices can be obtained from the 

Commission’s contract copier, Best 

Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals 

II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488–5300, 

or via e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com, and 

can be inspected during normal 

business hours at the following 

locations: Reference Information Center, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY—A257, 

Washington, DC 20554 or at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

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

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

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

The Working Group Report and its 

appendices are also available on the 

Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/cpd/ 

Nanc/lnpastuf.html. 

■ 4. Section 52.35 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 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-towireless 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 

§ 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 § 52.26. 

[FR Doc. E9–15132 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

47 CFR Part 300 

[Docket Number: 090225246-9247-01] 

RIN 0660-AA20 

Revision to the Manual of Regulations 

and Procedures for Federal Radio 

Frequency Management 

AGENCY: National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce.