[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 200 (Monday, October 18, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61334-61339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23292]


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

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 [email protected], 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 [email protected]. 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