[Federal Register: December 10, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 237)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 68831-68833]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10de03-26]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 52
[CC Docket No. 95-116; FCC 03-284]
Telephone Number Portability
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document initiates an examination of how to facilitate
wireless-to-wireline porting in cases where the rate center associated
with the wireless number is different from the rate center in which the
wireline carrier seeks to serve the customer. In addition, this
document examines whether to reduce the duration of the porting
interval for ports between wireless and wireline carriers.
DATES: Comments are due on or before December 30, 2003, and reply
comments are due on or before January 9, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Salhus, Attorney, 202-418-
1310.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (FNPRM) released November 10, 2003 (FCC
03-284). The full text of the FNPRM is available for inspection and
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room
CY-A257, 445 12th St., SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may
also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex
International, Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY-B402, Washington,
DC, telephone (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com. Additionally, the complete item is available on the
Commission's web site at http://www.fcc.gov/wtb.
Synopsis of the FNPRM
1. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on how to facilitate
wireless-to-wireline porting in cases where the rate center associated
with the wireless number is different from the rate center in which the
wireline carrier seeks to serve the customer. Specifically, the
Commission seeks comment on technical impediments associated with
requiring wireless-to-wireline number portability when the location of
the wireline facilities serving the customer requesting the port is not
in the rate center where the wireless number is assigned. In addition
to technical factors, the Commission seeks comment on whether there are
regulatory requirements that prevent wireline carriers from porting
wireless numbers when the rate center associated with the number and
the customer's physical location do not match.
2. Next, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether to reduce the current
wireline four business-day porting interval for intermodal porting.
Particularly, the Commission seeks comment on whether there are
practical or technical impediments to requiring wireline carriers to
achieve a reduced porting interval for intermodal ports. The Commission
seeks comment on an appropriate transition period in the event a
shorter porting interval is adopted, during which time carriers can
modify and test their systems and procedures.
Administrative Matters
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
3. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended (RFA),
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the
FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments on the FNPRM. This is a summary of the full text
of the IRFA. The full text of the IRFA may be found at Appendix B of
the full text of the FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the
FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
4. The FNPRM seeks comment on how to facilitate wireless-to-
wireline porting where the rate center associated with the wireless
number and the rate center in which the wireline carrier seeks to serve
the customer do not match. The FNPRM also seeks comment on whether the
Commission should reduce the current four-business day porting interval
for intermodal porting.
B. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules
5. The proposed action is authorized under Sec. 52.23 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 52.23, and in sections 1, 3, 4(i), 201, 202,
251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153,
154(i), 201-202, and 251.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
6. 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 proposed rules, if adopted. 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 section 3 of the
Small Business Act. Under the Small business Act, a ``small business
concern'' is one that: (i) Is independently owned and operated; (ii) is
not dominant in its field of operation; and (iii) satisfies any
[[Page 68832]]
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
(SBA). A small organization is generally ``any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 1992, there were
approximately 275,801 small organizations.
7. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. We have included small
incumbent local exchange carriers LECs in the 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. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs
in the RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no
effect on the Commission's analyses and determinations in other, non-
RFA contexts. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data,
1,337 incumbent local exchange carriers reported that they were engaged
in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,337 carriers,
an estimated 1,032 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 305 have more than
1,500 employees.
8. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor
the SBA has developed a specific small business size standard for
providers of competitive local exchange services. The closest
applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's
Telephone Trends Report data, 609 companies reported that they were
engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services
or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 609 companies,
an estimated 458 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 151 have more than
1,500 employees.
9. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a size
standard for small businesses within the two separate categories of
Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications or Paging. Under that
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 719 companies
reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony.
Of these 719 companies, an estimated 294 have 1,500 or fewer employees
and 425 have more than 1,500 employees.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
10. To address concerns regarding wireline carriers' ability to
compete for wireless customers through porting, future rules may change
wireline porting guidelines. In addition, future rules may require
wireline carriers to reduce the length of the current wireline porting
interval for ports to wireless carriers. These potential changes may
impose new obligations and costs on carriers. Commenters should discuss
whether such changes would pose an unreasonable burden on any group of
carriers, including small entity carriers.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
11. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (i)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (ii) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(iii) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (iv)
an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
12. The FNPRM reflects the Commission's concern about the
implications of its regulatory requirements on small entities.
Particularly, the FNPRM seeks comment on the concern that wireline
carriers, including small wireline carriers, have expressed that
permitting wireless carriers to port numbers wherever their rate center
overlaps the rate center in which the number is assigned would give
wireless carriers an unfair competitive advantage over wireline
carriers. Wireline carriers contend that while permitting porting
outside of wireline rate center boundaries may facilitate widespread
wireline-to-wireless porting, wireless-to-wireline porting can only
occur in cases where the wireless customer is physically located in the
wireline rate center associated with the phone number. If the
customer's physical location is outside the rate center associated with
the number, porting the number to a wireline telephone at the
customer's location could result in calls to and from that number being
rated as toll calls. As a result, LECs assert, they are effectively
precluded from offering wireless-to-wireline porting to those wireless
subscribers who are not located in the wireline rate center associated
with their wireless numbers.
13. The FNPRM seeks comment on how to facilitate wireless-to-
wireline porting when the location of the wireline facilities serving
the customer requesting the port is not in the rate center where the
wireless number is assigned. The FNPRM seeks comment on whether there
are technical or regulatory obstacles that prevent wireline carriers
from porting-in wireless numbers when the rate center associated with
the number and the customer's physical location do not match. The FNPRM
asks commenters that contend that such obstacles exist and result in a
competitive disadvantage to submit proposals to mitigate these
obstacles.
14. In addition, the FNPRM seeks comment on alternative methods to
facilitate wireless-to-wireline porting. To the extent that wireless-
to-wireline porting may raise issues regarding the rating of calls to
and from the ported number when the rate center of the ported number
and the physical location of the customer do not match, the FNPRM seeks
comment on the extent to which wireline carriers should absorb the cost
of allowing the customers with a number ported from a wireless carrier
to maintain the same local calling area that the customer had with the
wireless service provider. Alternatively, the FNPRM seeks comment about
whether wireline carriers may serve customers with numbers ported from
wireless carriers on a Foreign Exchange (FX) or Virtual FX basis. The
FNPRM seeks comment on the procedural, technical, and regulatory
implications of each of these approaches. These questions provide an
excellent opportunity for small entity commenters and others concerned
with small entity issues to describe their concerns and propose
alternative approaches.
15. The FNPRM also seeks comment about whether the Commission
should require wireline carriers to reduce the length of the current
wireline porting interval for ports to wireless carriers. The FNPRM
analyzes the current wireline porting interval and seeks comment about
whether there are technical or practical impediments to requiring
wireline carriers to achieve shorter porting intervals for intermodal
porting. The FNPRM recognizes that, if a reduced porting interval was
adopted, carriers may need additional time to modify and test their
systems and
[[Page 68833]]
procedures. Accordingly, the FNPRM seeks comment on an appropriate
transition period in the event a shorter porting interval is adopted.
16. Throughout the FNPRM the Commission emphasizes in its request
for comment, the individual impacts on carriers as well as the critical
competition goals at the core of this proceeding. The Commission will
consider all of the alternatives contained not only in the FNPRM, but
also in the resultant comments, particularly those relating to
minimizing the effect on small businesses.
F. Federal Rules That Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
17. None.
Ex Parte Presentations
18. This is a ``permit but disclose'' proceeding pursuant to Sec.
1.1206 of the Commission's rules. Ex parte presentations that are made
with respect to the issues involved in the Petition will be allowed but
must be disclosed in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.
19. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic
file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html.
Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In
completing the transmittal screen, filing parties should include their
full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket
number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-
mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, parties should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words
in the body of the message, ``get form .'' A sample form and directions will be sent in
reply. Commenters also may obtain a copy of the ASCII Electronic
Transmittal Form (FORM-ET) at http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/email.html.
20. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. Each filing should include the applicable
docket number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor,
Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper
filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue,
NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S.
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service
first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed
to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
21. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to the
Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission. The Commission's contractor, Natek,
Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered diskette
filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue,
NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S.
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service
first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed
to: 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission. Such a submission should be on a
3.5-inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word for
Windows or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a
cover letter and should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The
diskette should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, the
docket number of this proceeding, type of pleading (comment or reply
comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on
the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase ``Disk
Copy--Not an Original.'' Each diskette should contain only one party's
pleading, preferably in a single electronic file. In addition,
commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy
contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554.
22. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio
recording and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by
contacting Brian Millin, of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau, at (202) 418-7426 (voice) or (202) 418-7365 (TTY), or at bmillin@fcc.gov.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-30542 Filed 12-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P