[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 147 (Tuesday, August 1, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39136-39141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18801]



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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 61, 64, and 69

[CC Docket No. 95-116; FCC 95-284]


Telephone Number Portability

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(Notice) seeking comment on a wide variety of policy and technical 
issues concerning the portability of telephone numbers. Number 
portability is the ability of end users to retain their telephone 
number when they switch to a new service provider, a new location, or a 
new service. Number portability provides consumers with greater 
personal mobility and flexibility in the way they use 
telecommunications services, and it fosters competition among 
alternative providers of local telephone and other telecommunications 
services. Through this Notice the Commission will examine the overall 
benefits, technical feasibility, and implementation costs of number 
portability in various forms.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 12, 1995; reply 
comments must be received on or before October 12, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply comments must be filed with the Office of 
the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20554; one copy shall also be filed with the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 
Inc. (ITS, Inc.), 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037 
(202/857-3800). The complete text of this Notice is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center, 1919 M Street, NW., Room 239, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew J. Harthun, (202) 418-1590 or Carol E. Mattey, (202) 418-1580, 
Policy and Program Planning Division. Common Carrier Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Portability for Geographic Telephone Numbers

    The Commission tentatively concludes that the portability of 
geographic telephone numbers benefits consumers by providing them 
greater personal mobility and flexibility in the use of 
telecommunications services and by contributing to the development of 
competition among alternative providers of local telephone and other 
telecommunications services. The Commission seeks comment on this 
tentative conclusion and on the public interest benefits of number 
portability. Furthermore, the Commission tentatively concludes that it 
should assume a leadership role in developing a national number 
portability policy due to the impact on interstate telecommunications. 
It seeks comment on this tentative conclusion and on the specific 
nature of the Commission's role. The Commission recognizes, however, 
that it has insufficient information on the costs (monetary and 
nonmonetary) of making geographic telephone numbers portable either 
between service providers, services, or locations. Therefore, it seeks 
comment on: (1) The feasibility, limitations and costs of longer-term 
number portability solutions; (2) the feasibility, limitations, and 
costs of interim number portability measures; and (3) issues associated 
with a transition to a permanent number portability environment.
1. Importance of Number Portability
    1. Service Provider Number Portability. In light of its tentative 
conclusions that the portability of geographic numbers benefits 
consumers and would contribute to the development of competition among 
alternative providers of local telephone services, the Commission 
identifies, and seeks comment on, specific issues concerning the 
competitive impact of number portability.
    2. The competitive importance of service provider number 
portability depends primarily on the value that customers assign to 
their current telephone numbers. When end users attach a significant 
value to retaining their telephone numbers while changing service 
providers, a lack of number portability likely would deter entry by 
competitive providers of local services. Business customers, in 
particular, may be reluctant to incur the administrative, marketing, 
and goodwill costs of changing telephone numbers. These disincentives 
to changing service providers may be mitigated, however, if a 
significant number of customers change their telephone numbers for 
other reasons. Both residential and business customers change their 
numbers for a variety of reasons; for example, customers move to areas 
served by different central offices. Moreover, changes in area codes, 
such as area code splits or overlays, create a certain level of number 
churn.
    3. The Commission asks commenting parties to provide studies, data, 
and 

[[Page 39137]]
other information on the relative importance of service provider number 
portability to the decisions of end users when considering whether to 
take service from competing providers. It is particularly interested in 
assessing the importance of number portability relative to other 
potential deterrents to competitive entry into the provision of local 
services. Commenting parties also are invited to provide studies, data, 
and other information on the extent to which situations, such as number 
churn, and other factors enable competing providers of local telephone 
services to compete for customers without service provider number 
portability. Further, the Commission seeks specific information on 
whether different customer groups vary with respect to the value they 
assign to service provider number portability.
    4. To the extent that wireless service providers offer services in 
competition with local telephone companies, a lack of service provider 
portability may significantly hamper their ability to compete 
efficiently to serve existing customers of the incumbent wireline 
service providers. Parties are asked to provide comment, studies, data, 
and other information on: (1) The competitive significance of service 
provider number portability for the development of competition between 
wireline and wireless service providers; and (2) the current, and 
estimated future, demand of wireless customers for portable wireless 
telephone numbers when they change their service provider either to 
another wireless service provider or to a wireline provider. The 
Commission previously sought comment on certain ``number 
transferability'' issues in the Second CMRS Interconnection NPRM (60 FR 
20949, at para.94, n. 192). It noted there that it might address those 
issues in this or in the CMRS Interconnection proceeding.
    5. Service Portability. The need for service portability arises 
when a particular service is available only through a particular 
switch. The same factors that inhibit customers from changing number in 
order to change service providers may also deter customers from taking 
new services. The Commission seeks comment on the demand for service 
portability, and the extent to which a lack of service portability 
inhibits the growth of new services, such as integrated service digital 
network (ISDN). It seeks comment, studies, data, and other information 
on the relative importance of service portability to the decision of 
end users when considering whether to switch from one service to 
another. It also seeks comment on what federal policy objectives would 
be served by encouraging (or possibly mandating) implementation of 
service portability, and steps the Commission could take to encourage 
service portability.
    6. Location Portability. Today, telephone subscribers must change 
their telephone numbers when they move outside the area served by their 
current central office. Location portability would enable subscribers 
to keep their telephone numbers when they move to a new neighborhood, a 
nearby community, across the state, or even, potentially, across the 
country. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which there is 
demand for location portability and the geographic area in which 
portability is desired by consumers. What federal policy objectives 
would be served by encouraging (or possibly mandating) implementation 
of location portability, and how could such objectives be attained? The 
Commission seeks comment on the potential impact that implementation of 
location portability for wireline telephone number may have on the 
development of the 500 personal communications services market. 
Conversely, it seeks comment on the cross-elastic effects of the 
availability of personal mobility services offered through 500 and 
wireless services on demand for location portability of wireline 
telephone numbers. Finally, it seeks comment, studies, data, or other 
information on the extent to which end users are requesting 800 numbers 
to obtain location portability.
2. The Commission's Role
    7. Currently, it appears unlikely that market forces alone will 
drive the development and deployment of a number portability solution. 
The Commission seeks comment on whether there should be a regulatory 
mandate requiring the availability of number portability measures for 
geographic telephone numbers. Assuming market forces will push the 
development and deployment of number portability, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether market forces are sufficient to promote a 
nationwide, uniform development of number portability absent such a 
regulatory mandate.
    8. The Commission tentatively concludes that it has a significant 
interest in promoting the nationwide availability of number portability 
due to the likely impact upon interstate telecommunications. In the 
United States, the same set of telephone numbers is used to route 
intrastate, and international telephone calls to individual 
telecommunications customers. The Commission tentatively conclude that 
it is within the Commission's jurisdiction to ensure that the 
portability of telephone numbers within the numbering system is handled 
efficiently and fairly. The Commission also tentatively concludes that 
there is a federal interest in this area because deployment of 
different number portability solutions across the country would have a 
significant impact on the provision of interstate telecommunications 
services. Finally, the Commission tentatively concludes that it has a 
federal interest in fostering the development of number portability due 
to its interest in efficient use of the numbering resource.
    9. The Commission recognizes that state regulators also have 
legitimate interests in the development of number portability, and that 
they are conducting tests and deploying number portability measures. 
While the Commission encourages these tests because they will provide 
empirical evidence and other relevant information, it notes that state 
requirements governing number portability should not thwart or impede 
national policies, such as nondiscrimination and competitive 
neutrality. The Commission seeks comment on areas where state and 
federal policies on number portability are likely to diverge or become 
inconsistent, and on the additional costs associated with having 
different number portability approaches on a state-by-state basis or on 
a regional basis. Parties should address the need to develop a uniform 
solution to the provision of number portability, and whether the 
deployment of different number portability methods across the country 
is in the public interest.
    10. In the event the Commission concludes that number portability 
should be implemented on a nationwide basis, what specific actions can 
and should it take to expedite such implementation? For instance, 
should the Commission direct implementation of number portability by a 
date certain and direct an industry group to develop a detailed 
implementation plan? Alternatively, should the Commission adopt rules 
specifying how number portability shall be implemented? If it mandates 
implementation of specific number portability measures, upon whom 
should this obligation fall, and what is a realistic time frame in 
which that mandate should become effective?
    11. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on its appropriate role 
in establishing technical and performance standards for number 
portability. Should it leave the establishment of 

[[Page 39138]]
number portability standards to industry organizations and standards-
setting bodies, and simply monitor the activities of these groups? Or, 
should it direct industry bodies to resolve certain issues (technical 
or otherwise)? If so, which issues should be designated for resolution 
by these groups, and to which organizations should they be directed? Is 
it reasonable for the Commission to establish deadlines for the 
resolution by industry of issues involving number portability? If so, 
parties should provide recommended time frames. Alternatively, should 
the Commission take a more active role in the development of such 
number portability standards? For example, should it develop, and 
mandate compliance with, particular number portability standards, or 
should it establish non-binding standards or guidelines?
3. Longer-Term Number Portability Solutions
    12. The Commission seeks comment on what longer-term number 
portability solution is in the public interest. For purposes of this 
section, the Commission intends ``number portability'' to encompass 
service provider, service, and location portability because a method 
for providing location portability likely will also enable customers to 
change service providers and services without changing their telephone 
numbers. The Commission asks commenting parties to draw upon relevant 
information obtained through the various ongoing number portability 
trials.
    13. Current Proposals. In response to the New York request for 
proposals (RFP), MCI Metro (partnered with DSC Communications, Northern 
Telecom, Tandem Computers, and Siemens Stromberg-Carlson) has proposed 
a database method that would enable end users within a particular 
geographic region (most likely a state) to retain their NXX code and 
line number if they change their local service provider. AT&T has 
proposed to the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) workshop a similar 
database method for providing service provider portability on a 
regional basis. The trial in Seattle, Washington is testing a method 
developed by Stratus Computer and U.S Intelco--namely, a mapping scheme 
that uncouples the end user's telephone number from its geographic 
location. Finally, in the context of the INC number portability 
workshop, GTE has proposed to implement number portability by requiring 
customers to change, on a one-time basis, their telephone number to, 
for example, a 700 number.
    14. The Commission seeks comment on the advantages and 
disadvantages of the MCI Metro, AT&T, Seattle, and GTE proposals. It 
asks whether any of these proposals provide a workable model for 
national implementation of number portability for geographic numbers 
and whether there are other workable proposals.
    15. The Commission tentatively concludes that a number portability 
environment should support operator services and enhanced 911 services. 
It seeks comment on the extent to which the various proposals support 
these services. The Commission also tentatively concludes that any 
number portability proposal should efficiently use telephone numbers. 
It seeks comment on the impact that each of the proposals would have on 
the numbering resource.
    16. Call Processing Scenarios. The Commission seeks comment on 
which of the following three call processing scenarios, or any 
alternative, would best serve the public interest. The three scenarios 
are: (1) The terminating ``access'' provider (TAP) scenario, which 
places the burden of doing the database query on the terminating access 
provider; (2) the originating service provider (OSP) scenario, which 
requires the originating service provider to perform the database query 
and pass the information necessary to complete the routing of a call to 
subsequent carriers; and (3) the N-1 (``N minus 1'') scenario, where 
the carrier immediately prior to the terminating service provider 
performs the database query. The Commission requests that commenters 
discuss the different burdens that each scenario would place on the 
relevant carriers involved, any methods that would reduce the number of 
database queries, the burden such scenarios would place on current SS7 
networks and next-generation system signaling networks, and the network 
modifications such scenarios would require. The Commission also 
requests that commenters address the impact that any call processing 
scenario would have on transmission quality, call set-up time, and any 
other relevant service quality considerations. The Commission seeks 
comment on how various call processing scenarios would operate under 
the proposals offered by MCI Metro, AT&T, GTE, or any alternative, and 
on whether certain proposals are limited to specific call processing 
scenarios. It also seeks comment on which carrier, or carriers, perform 
the database query in the Seattle trial, and what has been learned from 
that experience.
    17. Geographic Scope. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
telephone numbers should be portable within local calling areas, 
throughout a particular area code, state-wide, regionally, nationwide, 
or on some other basis. What are the advantages and disadvantages of 
each of these alternatives, and what are the implications of each for 
carriers and their customers? For example, what changes would the 
different alternatives require for carrier billing systems? To what 
extent do varying approaches differently impact different types of 
carriers, such as local exchange carriers (LECs), new wireline 
carriers, and wireless carriers?
    18. What is the geographic scope of the number portability trial in 
Seattle, and what geographic scope is contemplated in the proposals 
offered by MCI Metro, AT&T and GTE? The Commission seeks comment on 
whether these proposals could be used to provide number portability on 
a nationwide basis without significant network modifications.
    19 Architecture. The Commission seeks comment on what database 
architecture would best serve the public interest. To what extent is 
the database used to provide 800 number portability a useful model? Is 
it technically feasible to deploy a single database to implement number 
portability on a nationwide basis, or should a database solution be 
designed to use a number of distributed (that is, regional) databases? 
If the latter, in what geographic areas should such databases operate, 
and what are the advantages, disadvantages, and relative costs of each 
approach?
    20. The Commission also seeks comment on the method for 
administering and modifying the data contained in the database(s). Is 
it better to update and modify such data from a single, central 
location, or should that process be initiated by different sources? If 
a de-centralized system for updating the data is preferred, what 
processes will be required to ensure that the data in different 
databases is updated consistently and without discrepancies? The 
Commission also seeks comment on the types of information the 
database(s) will need to contain and who should be permitted access to 
such data.
    21. Administration of the Database. The Commission seeks comment on 
who should own the database(s) used to provide a longer-term number 
portability solution. Further, it seeks comment on how such a database 
(or databases) should be maintained and 

[[Page 39139]]
funded. The Commission seeks comment on the criteria that should be 
used to evaluate potential administrators of a number portability 
database system and who should select the administrator. Finally, the 
Commission seeks comment on the scope of responsibilities that should 
be placed on the administrator or administrators of such a database or 
databases.
    22. Costs and Cost Recovery Issues. In order to weigh the public 
interest benefits of deploying a longer-term number portability 
solution against the current interim measures, the Commission must 
consider the costs associated with designing, building, and deploying 
such a longer-term solution. The Commission requests comment, data, 
studies and other information on the estimated costs to design, build, 
and deploy a longer-term database solution. The Commission also seeks 
comment on how these costs should be allocated between federal and 
state jurisdictions. Commenting parties should, to the extent possible, 
estimate both the total cost of infrastructure necessary to deploy 
number portability and the long-term incremental cost of deploying 
number portability, exclusive of other costs such as network equipment 
and hardware and software upgrades that would be incurred without 
implementation of number portability.
    23. The Commission also seeks comment on how and from whom the 
costs of designing, building, deploying, and operating a database 
system should be recovered. If the Commission mandates that LECs 
implement number portability, should they be allowed to treat these as 
exogenous costs, and thereby increase their rates? Parties should 
comment on whether the costs of a database system should be shared 
between all carriers using the system. Alternatively, should competing 
providers of local telephone services and their customers bear the 
costs of such a database system?
4. Interim Number Portability Measures
    24. To evaluate whether a transition to a longer-term number 
portability solution is in the public interest, the Commission must 
understand what measures are currently available for providing number 
portability.
    25. The Commission seeks comment on the costs, and offsetting 
benefits, of implementing the interim number portability measures, such 
as remote call forwarding (RCF), flexible direct inward dialing (DID), 
and their derivatives. The Commission recognizes that RCF and flexible 
DID have significant limitations. Parties are asked to comment and 
elaborate on the limitations and disadvantages of RCF, flexible DID, 
and their derivatives. Further, the Commission asks commenting parties 
to discuss the availability of these interim measures and their 
effectiveness as an interim substitute for a database number 
portability solution. Finally, parties should consider whether these 
interim measures can be improved so that they are workable, long-term 
solutions, and if so, at what cost.
    26. Cost Recovery for Interim Measures. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether the costs of interim number portability measures 
should be recovered from the new local service providers, or their 
customers. The Commission also seeks comment on the amounts charged for 
these interim measures, whether such rates have a significant 
competitive impact, and whether reductions in such rates would make 
these measures more workable as long-term solutions. Finally, it asks 
parties to propose alternative ways to recover the costs of interim 
measures.
5. The Transition From Interim Portability Measures
    27. It is not clear at this point whether the industry will move to 
a longer-term solution that provides only service provider number 
portability, or will evolve to a location portability environment. 
Commenting parties should identify any transitional issues that are 
unique to either environment and the particular impacts that short-term 
choices may have on longer-term possibilities.
    28. Transition to Service Provider Portability. The Commission 
seeks comment on the estimated time frame to design, build, and deploy 
a system that would provide service provider portability. Commenting 
parties should address the modifications that would be necessary to 
implement a transition to service provider portability, including, but 
not limited to, modifications to the carriers' networks, operating 
procedures (for example, billing and collection procedures), and 
dialing plans. The Commission seeks comment on whether the ability to 
transfer wireless telephone numbers between different service providers 
(wireline and wireless) places the same burden on the LECs and other 
carriers as transferring wireline telephone numbers.
    29. Transition to Location Portability. The Commission also seeks 
comment on the estimated time frame to design, build, and deploy a 
system capable of providing location portability. Commenting parties 
should address the modifications that would be necessary to implement a 
transition to location portability, including, but not limited to, 
modifications to the carriers' networks, operating procedures (for 
example, billing and collection procedures), and dialing plans.
    30. In a location portability environment, the association between 
telephone numbers and geographic locations will dissolve, and dialing 
parties may not be able to determine from the telephone number they 
dial the charge incurred by placing a telephone call. The Commission 
seeks comment on the impact that a transition to location portability 
would have on consumers, the network, service providers, and others. 
Are there ways to provide dialing parties notification of the charge 
they will incur when they dial a particular number? What effect will 
location portability have on operator services, director assistance, 
enhanced services, the way carriers determine rates for toll and 
interLATA calls, and billing systems? What impact would location 
portability have on the current administration of the numbering 
resource?
    31. Public Interest of a Transition to Longer-Term Solution. To 
determine what would best serve the public interest, the Commission 
seeks comment comparing the relative costs and benefits associated with 
the current interim solutions to the costs and benefits associated with 
alternative longer-term solutions. In answering this question, parties 
are encouraged to focus on the costs and benefits of the specific 
proposals currently being tested in Seattle and developed by MCI Metro, 
AT&T, and GTE. Is it in the public interest to require only that 
carriers make available interim measures that accommodate number 
portability and not require the implementation of a longer-term number 
portability solution? The Commission also seeks comment on the 
additional costs that would be incurred, and the benefits that would be 
attained, by evolving to location portability from an intermediate step 
of service provider portability.
B. Portability for Non-geographic Telephone Numbers

    32. The Commission tentatively concludes that service provider 
portability for 900 and 500 (PCS N00) numbers is beneficial for 
customers of those services. The Commission seeks comment on this 
tentative conclusion and on the costs (monetary and nonmonetary) of 
making such portability available. The term ``PCS'' is used here 
generically as ``a set of capabilities that allows some 

[[Page 39140]]
combination of personal mobility, terminal mobility, and service 
profile management.'' PCS N00 number portability includes 500 number 
portability. The term ``PCS'' or ``personal communications services'' 
as used here is different from the term ``personal communications 
services'' as defined in part 24 of the Commission's rules. (47 CFR 
24.5). The Commission seeks to gather more information to determine 
whether the public interest would be served by mandating portability 
for 900 and PCS N00 services, and it considers other issues related to 
the implementation of such number portability.
    33. The Commission seeks comment on whether developing and 
deploying a method for providing number portability for geographic 
telephone numbers could, or should, include service provider number 
portability for non-geographic telephone numbers, such as 500 and 900 
numbers. It is technically possible, and cost effective, to use the 
same database method, and possibly the same database, to provide 
service provider portability for geographic and service-specific (non-
geographic) telephone numbers? Similarly, is it technically possible, 
and cost effective, to use the same database to provide service 
provider portability for all types of non-geographic numbers, such as 
800, 500, and 900 numbers, or is it preferable to use separate 
databases for each type of non-geographic number?
1. 900 Service Provider Portability
    34. The Commission seeks comment on various issues relating to 
portability of 900 numbers. The Commission asks parties to address the 
extent to which 900 number portability will lower prices and thereby 
stimulate demand for 900 number services. Parties are asked to provide 
comment, studies, data, and other information on the estimated cost of 
designing, building, and deploying a 900 database, and the estimated 
costs of operating such a database. Is it technically feasible to 
upgrade the existing 800 database and associated software to 
accommodate 900 numbers, and if so, at what cost? Is advanced 
intelligent network (AIN) a less costly way to implement 900 number 
portability? The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should 
direct an industry group to develop an implementation plan for a 900 
number portability database, and if so, to which industry group should 
this task be referred. If the Commission decides to mandate 
implementation of service provider portability for 900 numbers, what is 
a realistic schedule for implementation?
2. 500 Service Provider Portability
    35. Presently, LECs provide 500 access by two methods: Switch-based 
translation or database capabilities. The Commission seeks comment on 
the extent to which LECs are using AIN capabilities or database 
technology to provide 500 access, and on the impact that PCS N00 
service provider portability would have on the LEC networks. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether it is feasible (both 
technically and economically) to provide PCS N00 service provider 
portability in a switched-based translation environment.
    36. The Commission asks parties to address the extent to which PCS 
N00 number portability will lower prices, and thereby stimulate demand 
for PCS N00 number services. Parties are asked to provide comment, 
studies, data, and other information on the estimated costs of 
designing, building, and deploying a PCS N00 database, and the 
estimated costs of operating such a database. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether it is technically feasible to upgrade the existing 
800 database and associated software to accommodate PCS N00 numbers, 
and if so, at what cost.
    37. On May 17, 1995, the INC submitted a report to the Bureau that 
sets forth alternative database architectures for such portability and 
an estimated implementation schedule. See letter from Denny Byrne and 
Robert Hirsch, Co-Chairs, INC, to Kathleen M.H. Wallman, Chief, Common 
Carrier Bureau, FCC, dated May 17, 1995, attaching INC Report on PCS 
N00 Portability, INC 95-05212-010 (PCS N00 Portability 
Report)(incorporated into the docket of this proceeding). The 
Commission seeks comment on the advantages, disadvantages, and relative 
costs of the proposed architectures and call flow scenarios set forth 
in the PCS N00 Portability Report.
    38. The Commission tentatively concludes that the owner/operator of 
the service management systems administering the PCS N00 database 
should be a neutral third party. The Commission seeks comment on the 
tentative conclusion. The Commission also seeks comment on: (1) Who 
will be the owner/operator of the service management systems 
administering the data contained in the PCS N00 database; (2) how will 
the owner/operator be selected; (3) how will the costs of providing PCS 
N00 number portability be recovered; and (4) by what date should PCS 
N00 number portability be deployed.
    39. The Commission further seeks comment on whether it should 
direct an industry group to proceed with the development of an 
implementation plan for PCS N00 service provider portability. Assuming 
such a directive is in the public interest, it seeks comment on what 
industry group (for example, Alliance for Telecommunications Industry 
Solutions or the Telecommunications Industry Association) should be 
selected to develop the detailed implementation plan for the database. 
Finally, the Commission asks parties to comment on the estimated 
implementation schedule set forth in the PCS N00 Portability Report and 
to propose an alternative schedule, if appropriate.
C. Procedural Matters

    40. Ex Parte. This is a non-restricted notice and comment 
rulemaking. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the 
Sunshine period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the 
Commission's rules. (47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a)).
    41. Regulatory Flexibility Act. As required by section 603 of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (1981), the Commission 
has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 
expected impact on small entities resulting from the policies and 
proposals set forth in the Notice. The IRFA is contained in appendix A 
to the Notice. The Secretary shall cause a copy of the Notice, 
including the IRFA, to be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration in accordance with section 603(a) of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    42. Notice and Comment. Notice is given of the proposed changes in 
the Commission's policies regarding number portability. Comment is 
invited on the proposals pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 
218, and 332 of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 
154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 218, and 332. To file formally in this 
proceeding, parties must file an original and four copies of all 
comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. Parties wanting each 
Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments must file an 
original plus nine copies. Comments and reply comments should be sent 
to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 
Washington, DC 20554. In addition, parties should file two copies of 
any such pleadings with the Policy and Program Planning Division, 
Common Carrier Bureau, Room 544, 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20554. 

[[Page 39141]]
Parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in this docket 
with the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription 
Service, Inc. (ITS, Inc.), 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, 
DC 20037 (202/857-3800). Comments and reply comments will be available 
for pubic inspection during regular business in the FCC Reference 
Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC.

D. Ordering Clauses

    43. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 218, and 332 of the 
Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 
218, and 332, a notice of proposed rulemaking is hereby adopted.
    44. It is further ordered that the Petition for Rulemaking filed by 
the Teleservices Industry Association on October 18, 1994, is granted.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 61, 64, and 69

    Communications common carriers, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commissions.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-18801 Filed 7-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M