[Federal Register: October 18, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 200)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61334-61339]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18oc04-14]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[CC Docket No. 95-116, FCC 04-217]
Telephone Number Portability
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the
recommendation of the North American Numbering Council (NANC), its
advisory committee on numbering issues, for reducing the time interval
for intermodal porting (porting between wireline and wireless
carriers). The Commission also seeks comment on implementation issues
in the event that a reduced intermodal porting interval is adopted.
DATES: Comments are due on or before November 17, 2004. Reply comments
are due on or before December 17, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. See Comment Filing Procedures for further filing
instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Slipakoff, Attorney Advisor,
Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
(202) 418-7705, TTY (202) 418-0484 or Jennifer Salhus, Attorney
Advisor, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Policy Division, (202)
418-1310, TTY (202) 418-1169.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 95-116, released
September 16, 2004. The full text of this document is available for
public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
I. Introduction
1. In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek
comment on the NANC's recommendation for reducing the time interval for
intermodal porting. We also seek comment on implementation issues in
the event that a reduced intermodal porting interval is adopted.
II. Discussion
2. Porting Intervals. In implementing the requirements of section
251 of the Communications Act of 1934 (Communications Act), as amended,
the Commission has sought input from the NANC on various issues. In
1997, the Commission adopted the NANC's recommendation of a four
business day porting interval for wireline ports. At that time, the
NANC did not specify a porting interval for intermodal porting.
Meanwhile, the wireless industry has established a voluntary standard
of two and one half hours for wireless-to-wireless ports.
3. On November 10, 2003, the Commission released a Memorandum
Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 68 FR
68831 (December 10, 2003) (Intermodal Porting Order and FNPRM)
clarifying certain aspects of intermodal porting and seeking further
comment on issues relating to intermodal local number
[[Page 61335]]
portability. Specifically, we sought comment on whether carriers should
be required to reduce the current four business day porting interval
for ports between wireless and wireline carriers. We also sought
comment on what the reduced porting interval should be. We sought input
from the NANC on this issue.
4. NANC Report. In response to the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, the NANC submitted a report that provides several options
for reducing the intermodal porting interval. The report explains the
differences between the wireline porting process and the wireless
porting process and how these differences impact the intermodal porting
interval. Generally, there is a two stage porting process--the
Confirmation Interval (which currently takes up to 24 hours for ports
involving wireline carriers) and the Activation Interval (which
currently takes up to three business days for ports involving wireline
carriers). The Confirmation Interval involves inter-carrier
communications for the exchange of the Local Service Request (LSR or
Port Response) and the Firm Order Confirmation (FOC) between the old
service provider and the new service provider. During the Confirmation
Interval, the new service provider collects information from the
customer to prepare a LSR that is sent to the old service provider.
During this process, the new service provider and old service provider
exchange information and agree on a due date to port the telephone
number.
5. To reduce the overall four-day porting interval, the NANC
considered reductions to the Confirmation Interval and the Activation
Interval. Specifically, it developed two Confirmation Interval
proposals (Proposals C1 and C2) and three Activation Interval proposals
(Proposals A1, A2, and A3). Each of the two Confirmation Interval
proposals were considered with each of the three Activation Interval
proposals, for a total of six proposals for reducing the intermodal
porting interval.
6. After reviewing the proposals, the NANC found that the costs of
Proposal C1 outweighed the potential benefits. With respect to the
Activation Interval, the NANC determined that Proposal A3 provides a
substantial reduction in the intermodal porting interval at a much
lower cost to the industry and consumers than the other Activation
Interval proposals. Likewise, the NANC notes that Proposal A2 would
likely result in greater costs to the industry in comparison to the
costs to implement Proposal A3.
7. The NANC concluded that the C2/A3 combination provides a shorter
porting interval and the most economical approach to a reduced
intermodal porting interval. If this approach is adopted, orders
received in a mechanized manner should be responded to in five hours or
less (Proposal C2) and the ten-digit triggers should be set 24 hours
before 12:01 a.m. of the confirmed due date (Proposal A3). According to
the NANC, this combination provided the shortest ``maximum porting
interval'' (53 hours) and the greatest total time saved (43 hours)
compared to the four business day (96 hours) interval in our rules. For
example, if a request to port was placed at 9:00 a.m. on a Monday, the
Confirmation Interval would be completed by 2:00 p.m. that afternoon.
The Activation Interval could then begin. The ten-digit trigger could
then be set for 11:59 p.m on Wednesday. The port could be completed as
early as 12:01 a.m. on Thursday.
8. Porting Interval Reduction. The NANC proposes a method that
would reduce the intermodal porting interval by almost 45 percent, from
96 hours to 53 hours, by requiring a response to orders received in a
mechanized manner in five hours or less and using a process called
``Early Morning Activation.'' We seek comment on the NANC's
recommendation for shortening the intermodal porting interval to 53
hours. We also seek comment on alternative mechanisms for reducing the
intermodal porting interval.
9. According to the NANC's report, a uniform format for the
exchange of information and a single mechanized interface could reduce
the Confirmation Interval from 24 hours to five hours. Currently, each
LEC may choose a different Local Service Ordering Guideline (LSOG)
version based on its business needs. The NANC recommends that the
industry establish one common LSOG version for porting to facilitate a
reduction in the Confirmation Interval. We seek comment on the NANC's
recommendation. We also seek comment on whether or not the costs of a
standardized LSOG and mechanized interface would outweigh the benefits,
including for small entities. Commenters advocating a uniform LSOG
should specify the items that should be included in a standardized
LSOG.
10. In its report, the NANC also notes that reducing the intermodal
porting interval could increase the number of inadvertent ports. We
seek comment on the impact of a reduced intermodal porting interval on
inadvertent ports. We also seek comment on the procedures that should
be established to minimize and restore inadvertent ports. We further
seek comment on the costs for correcting inadvertent ports that result
from a reduced intermodal porting interval.
11. The NANC did not consider the extent to which reducing the
intermodal porting interval will benefit consumers. Thus, we seek
comment on whether the costs of a reduced intermodal porting interval
outweigh the benefits of making it quicker for consumers to port their
numbers.
12. Recently, many small carriers providing service in areas
outside of the top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)
implemented number portability. We recognize that reducing the
intermodal porting interval now for these carriers may produce unique
challenges. The NANC notes that the economic impacts of shortening the
intermodal porting interval may not be justified for rural telephone
companies. We seek comment on whether certain classes of carriers
(e.g., SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural telephone companies and/or
rural carriers) should be exempt from a reduced intermodal porting
interval, if one is adopted. Similarly, we seek comment on whether an
exemption is necessary for certain classes of small telephone companies
as defined generically by the SBA. We seek comment on what costs these
classes of carriers face to reduce the intermodal porting interval
pursuant to the NANC proposal. Specifically, we seek comment on the
costs SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural telephone companies and/or
rural carriers would face to establish a mechanized interface pursuant
to Proposal C2. In addition, we seek comment on the costs these
carriers would face to establish an early morning activation method as
outlined in Proposal A3. Finally, we seek comment on the appropriate
length of any potential exemption and any other alternative approaches
to minimizing the economic impact for SBA Tier III wireless carriers,
rural telephone companies and/or rural carriers.
13. Implementation. The NANC Report states that the industry could
require up to 24 months to reduce the intermodal porting interval as
recommended in Proposal C2/A3. We seek comment on this proposed
implementation timeframe. We also seek comment on whether we should
establish implementation milestones. Commenters advocating
implementation milestones should specify what milestones should be
established. Finally, we seek comment on whether an alternative
timeframe should be established for certain classes of carriers
[[Page 61336]]
(e.g., SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural telephone companies and/or
rural carriers) or carriers operating in different geographic areas
(i.e., the top 100 MSAs versus areas outside of the top 100 MSAs).
14. The NANC also noted several issues that it believes require
further exploration prior to implementing its recommendation.
Specifically, the NANC recommends further exploration of the following
issues which are currently being addressed by the NANC's Local Number
Portability Administration Working Group: (1) Ports attempted while
port conflict still unresolved; (2) intermodal ``port confirmation''
date not recognized; (3) inconsistent intermodal porting process causes
service disruption on due date; (4) intermodal port date change (post
confirmation) not recognized; (5) Customer Service Request (CSR) not
executable for intermodal porting from a Type 1 reseller; and (6)
various service provider operational systems issues. We seek comment on
the impact of these, and any other outstanding issues, on implementing
a shorter intermodal porting interval. Specifically, we seek comment on
whether the resolution of these, and any other outstanding issues, will
help or hinder the implementation of a reduced intermodal porting
interval. Similarly, we seek comment on whether a reduced intermodal
porting interval will help or hinder industry efforts to resolve these
outstanding issues.
15. Cost Recovery. In our recent order addressing BellSouth's
petition for a waiver of our cost recovery rules, we rejected the
request of Sprint and CenturyTel that we declare that costs associated
with future changes to intermodal LNP requirements, including porting
intervals, are recoverable by incumbent LECs through a new or modified
LNP charge without seeking a special waiver. In that order, we
determined that the issue of cost recovery for any proposed regulatory
mandate should be considered in conjunction with the proposed mandate.
Accordingly, we seek comment in this proceeding on the magnitude of
costs that incumbent LECs would incur to reduce the intermodal porting
interval pursuant to either the NANC proposal or alternative proposals
under consideration in this proceeding. We also seek comment on whether
the implementation of a special cost recovery mechanism for such costs
is appropriate. The NANC estimates that the proposal to respond to
mechanized orders within five hours or less would cost less than $50
million to implement industrywide. We seek comment on this estimate as
well as estimates for alternative proposals that are submitted.
16. We note that section 251(e)(2) provides that ``[t]he cost of
establishing telecommunications numbering administration arrangements
and number portability shall be borne by all telecommunications
carriers on a competitively neutral basis as determined by the
Commission.'' In the Cost Recovery Order, 63 FR 35150, June, 29, 1998,
the Commission determined that ```the costs of establishing number
portability' include not just the costs associated with the creation of
the regional databases and the initial physical upgrading of the public
switched telephone network, but also the ongoing costs, such as the
costs involved in transferring a telephone number to another carrier
and routing calls under the N-1 protocol.'' The Commission also
determined, however, that ``once incumbent LECs have recovered their
initial implementation costs, number portability will be a normal
network feature, and a special end-user charge will no longer be
necessary to ensure that incumbent LECs recover their number
portability costs on a competitively neutral basis.'' Accordingly, we
seek comment on whether the costs of implementing a reduced porting
interval, if any, are ``initial implementation costs'' or costs
associated with ``normal network features'' that are not entitled to a
special cost recovery mechanism.
III. Procedural Issues
A. Ex Parte Presentations
17. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking
proceeding. Members of the public are advised that ex parte
presentations are permitted, provided they are disclosed under the
Commission's Rules.
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
18. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a significant number of small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Written
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for
comments on the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking provided
below. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
1. Need for, and Objective of, the Proposed Rules
19. This Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment
on the recommendation of the North American Numbering Council (NANC),
our advisory committee on numbering issues, for reducing the interval
for intermodal porting (wireline to wireless and wireless to wireline
porting) from 96 to 53 hours. The Commission also seeks comment on
alternative mechanisms for reducing the intermodal porting interval. In
addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether the costs of a
reduced intermodal porting interval outweigh the benefits of making it
quicker for consumers to port their numbers. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether certain classes of carriers (e.g., SBA Tier III
wireless carriers, rural telephone companies and/or rural carriers)
should be exempt from a shorter intermodal porting interval, if
adopted. In addition, the Commission also seeks comment on whether an
exemption is necessary for certain classes of small telephone companies
as defined generically by the SBA. Specifically, the Commission seeks
comment on the costs these classes of carriers face to reduce the
intermodal porting interval pursuant to the NANC proposal. The
Commission also seeks comment on the appropriate length of any
potential exemption and any other alternative approaches to minimizing
the economic impact on SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural telephone
companies and/or rural carriers.
20. In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the
Commission seeks comment on implementation issues in the event that a
reduced intermodal porting interval is adopted. Specifically, the
Commission seeks comment on the implementation timeframe and whether or
not it should establish implementation milestones. In addition, the
Commission seeks comment on the magnitude of costs that incumbent LECs
would incur to reduce the intermodal porting interval pursuant to
either the NANC proposal or alternative proposals under consideration
in this proceeding, and whether a special recovery mechanism for such
costs is appropriate.
[[Page 61337]]
2. Legal Basis
21. The proposed action is authorized under 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.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
22. 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, unless the Commission has developed one or more definitions that
are appropriate to its activities. Under the Small Business Act, a
``small business concern'' is one that: (1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets
any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
23. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers 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 local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of
operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We
have therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this
IRFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect
on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
24. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor
the SBA has developed a specific small business size standard for
incumbent local exchange service providers. 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, 1,310
incumbent local exchange carriers reported that they were engaged in
the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,310 carriers, an
estimated 1,025 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 285 have more than
1,500 employees.
25. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor
the SBA has developed a specific small business size standard for
competitive local exchange service providers. 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, 563 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of
either competitive access provider services or competitive local
exchange carrier services. Of these 563 companies, an estimated 472
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 91 have more than 1,500 employees.
26. 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 1997 show that there were 1,320 firms in
this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,303
firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 17
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 Cellular and
Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 1997 show
that there were 977 firms in this category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and an additional 12 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.
27. Cellular Licensees/Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony
includes cellular, personal communications services, and specialized
mobile radio telephony carriers. As noted above, the SBA has developed
a small business size standard for wireless firms within the broad
economic census category ``Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications.'' Under this SBA category, a wireless business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category
Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications firms, Census Bureau
data for 1997 show that there were 977 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 965 firms had employment
of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of
1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and size standard,
the great majority of firms can be considered small. Also, according to
Telephone Trends Report data, 447 carriers report that they are engaged
in the provision of cellular service, personal communications service,
or specialized mobile radio telephony services, which are placed
together in the data. We have estimated that 245 of these are small
under the SBA small business size standard and 202 have more than 1,500
employees.
28. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband
personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held
auctions for each block. The Commission has created a small business
size standard for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross
revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years.
For Block F, an additional small business size standard 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 small business
size standards, 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 155
C, D, E, and F Block licenses; there were 113 small business winning
bidders.
29. 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.
[[Page 61338]]
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
30. After reviewing several alternatives, the NANC found that the
C2/A3 Proposal provides a shorter porting interval and the most
economical approach to an intermodal porting interval based on the
proposals considered. Pursuant to this plan, orders received in a
mechanized manner should be responded to in five hours or less
(Proposal C2) and the ten-digit trigger should be set a full day before
12:01 a.m. of the confirmed due date (Proposal A3). According to the
NANC, this combination provides the shortest ``maximum porting
interval'' (53 hours) and the greatest reduction in total time saved
(43 hours). The NANC, however, estimates that the industry would need
approximately 24 months to implement Proposal C2 after a Commission
mandate is issued. Should the Commission decide to adopt the NANC's
recommendation, or any other change, all carriers, including small
entity carriers, may require upgrades to their porting systems. These
potential changes may impose new obligations and costs on carriers. We
seek comment on the types of burdens carriers could face if the
proposed recommendations, or any other suggested recommendations are
adopted. Entities, especially small businesses, are encouraged to
quantify, if possible, the costs and benefits of potential reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements. We note that the NANC
estimates that the C2/A3 Proposal would cost less than $50 million to
implement industry wide. The Commission seeks comment on this estimate.
Commenters should address the specific costs of the NANC's
recommendations for the C2/A3 Proposal, including the costs associated
with establishing a mechanized interface pursuant to Proposal C2 and an
early morning activation approach as described in Proposal A3. The
Commission also seeks comment on the impacts of such changes on small
and rural telephone companies. The Commission also considers an
exemption for certain classes of carriers. We also note that the
Commission may choose to keep the intermodal porting interval at four
days. Thus, there would be no new requirements on any group of
carriers, including small entity carriers.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
31. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed 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.
32. This IRFA seeks comment on how the NANC's recommendation, and
any other potential changes to the intermodal porting interval, could
be implemented in a manner that reduces the potential burden of cost
compliance for small entities. Specifically, the Commission seeks
comment on whether, and for what period of time, certain classes of
carriers, (e.g., SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural telephone
companies and/or rural carriers) should be exempt from a shorter
intermodal porting interval, if adopted. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether an exemption is necessary for certain classes of
small telephone companies as defined by the SBA. Such an exemption may
benefit small entities by obviating the need, or deferring the
timeframe, for small and rural telephone companies to establish a
mechanized interface for intermodal porting and an early morning
activation process. The Commission also seeks comment on alternative
approaches that would minimize the economic impact on SBA Tier III
wireless carriers, rural telephone companies and/or rural carriers.
Thus, we seek comment on the NANC recommendation, and any other
possible changes to the intermodal porting interval, and whether any or
all of them would minimize the economic impact on small entities, which
may include providers of wireless as well as wireline communications
services. We note that the NANC considered and did not recommend higher
cost alternatives. The NANC Report states that the industry could
require up to 24 months to reduce the intermodal porting interval as
recommended in Proposal C2/A3. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposed implementation timeframe and whether implementation milestones
should be established. The Commission also seeks comment on whether a
different timeframe should be established for certain classes of
carriers (e.g., SBA Tier III wireless carriers, rural telephone
companies and/or rural carriers) or carriers operating in different
geographic areas (i.e., the top 100 MSAs versus areas outside of the
top 100 MSAs).
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
33. None.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
34. This document contains proposed modified information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments
are due December 17, 2004. Comments should address: (a) Whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might ``further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees.''
D. Comment Filing Procedures
35. We invite comment on the issues and questions set forth in the
Further Notice or Proposed Rulemaking and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis contained herein. Pursuant to applicable
procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, interested parties may file comments as follows: Comments are
due on or before November 17, 2004, and reply comments are due on or
before December 17, 2004. All filings should refer to CC Docket No. 95-
116. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper
[[Page 61339]]
copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121, (May 1, 1998).
36. 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. If
multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this
proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of
the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the
caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should
include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an
electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for
e-mail comments, commenters 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.
37. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking
number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must
submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking
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, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of
the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
38. Parties also must send three paper copies of their filing to
Sheryl Todd, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline
Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street
SW., Room 5-B540, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, commenters must
send diskette copies to the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-
B402, Washington, DC 20054.
39. Accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio
recording and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by
contacting Brian Millin, of the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau,
at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or at bmillin@fcc.gov. This
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking can be downloaded in ASCII
Text format at: http://www.fcc.gov/wtb.
IV. Ordering Clauses
40. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
201-205, 218, 251, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 218, 251, and 332,
this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
41. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-23292 Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P