[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 226 (Monday, November 27, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55970-55984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25458]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 51 and 52
[WC Docket No. 17-244, WC Docket No. 13-97; FCC 17-133]
Nationwide Number Portability; Numbering Policies for Modern
Communications
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on how best to
move toward complete nationwide number portability (NNP) to promote
competition among all service providers. The NPRM proposes to eliminate
the N-1 query requirement, and also proposes to forbear from the
dialing parity requirements for competitive LECs that remain after the
2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order as they apply to interexchange
services. The NPRM asserts these changes will remove regulatory
barriers to NNP and better reflect the competitive realities of today's
marketplace. The NOI seeks to refresh the record in the 2013 Future of
Numbering NOI. It also seeks comment on four NNP models proposed by
ATIS: Nationwide implementation of local routing numbers (LRNs); non-
Geographic LRNs (NGLRNs); commercial agreements; and iconectiv's GR-
2982-CORE. The NOI finally seeks comment on the implications of these
proposals as they relate to public safety, access by individuals with
disabilities, tariffs, and intercarrier compensation.
DATES: Comments are due on or before December 27, 2017, and reply
comments are due on or before January 26, 2018. Written comments on the
Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements
must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
and other interested parties on or before January 26, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by both WC Docket No.
17-244, and WC Docket No. 13-97 by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://
[[Page 55971]]
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
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. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes 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
9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service
first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. In addition to filing comments
with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements contained herein should be
submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to
[email protected] and to Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission,
via email to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wireline Competition Bureau,
Competition Policy Division, Sherwin Siy, at (202) 418-2783, or
[email protected]. For additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained
in this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Nicole Ongele
at (202) 418-2991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC Docket No. 17-244, and CC Docket
No. 13-97, adopted October 24, 2017, and released October 26, 2017. The
full text of this document is available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals
II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It is
available on the Commission's Web site at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-comment-moving-toward-nationwide-number-portability-0.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments
on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document.
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998), http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/fcc98056.pdf.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
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. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes 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
9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service
first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. Telephone numbers continue to serve as important identifiers for
reaching family and friends, businesses, and other key contacts.
Therefore, many individuals and businesses value their telephone
numbers and the ability to keep them--whether changing service
providers, moving from one neighborhood to another, or relocating
across the country.
2. Currently, consumers and businesses can keep their telephone
numbers when changing service providers--wireline-to-wireline,
wireless-to-wireless, and wireline-to-wireless and the reverse--when
they move locally. This local number portability (LNP) benefits
consumers and promotes competition. But consumers cannot uniformly keep
their traditional wireline numbers or their mobile numbers when they
move long distance. The ability to keep your telephone number when
switching your wireline or wireless service provider may depend on
whether the service provider to whom you want to switch is a nationwide
service provider. This limitation not only confuses and inconveniences
consumers, it harms the ability of small or regional carriers to
compete, undermining a core principle of number portability--
competition.
3. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Notice of
Inquiry (NOI), the Commission seeks comment on how best to move toward
complete nationwide number portability to promote competition between
all service providers, regardless of size or type of service (wireline
or wireless). We also explore how technical aspects of our current LNP
and dialing parity rules hinder the efficient routing of calls
throughout the network, causing inefficiencies and delays.
II. Background
A. Overview
4. The Commission has plenary authority over numbering matters.
Section 251(e) of the Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) gives the
Commission exclusive jurisdiction over the North American Numbering
Plan (NANP) and related telephone numbering issues in the United
States. Section 251(b)(2) of the Act requires local exchange carriers
(LECs) to ``provide, to the extent technically feasible, number
portability in
[[Page 55972]]
accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission.'' Together,
these portions of the Act give the Commission the authority not only to
require ``number portability,'' which allows users to retain telephone
numbers at the same location, but also to encourage ``location
portability,'' allowing consumers to retain their telephone numbers
when changing their location. Ensuring that telephone numbers do not
act as barriers to competition between carriers of various sizes and
technologies is well within our statutory authority. The Commission has
created rules for local number portability and rules requiring that
local number portability be available for wireless and interconnected
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) customers. A ``rate center'' is a
geographic area that is used to determine whether a call is local or
toll. This type of unlimited number portability--allowing consumers to
port any telephone number anywhere--has been referred to as
``nationwide number portability'' (NNP) or ``non-geographic number
portability'' (NGNP).
5. A wireless user may currently have more opportunities than a
wireline user when it comes to number porting. But even among wireless
competitors, smaller rural and regional carriers are at a disadvantage
versus their nationwide competitors. Wireless-to-wireless porting is
only possible if the ported-to wireless carrier has a facilities-based
presence in the porting customer's original geographic location,
placing smaller, non-nationwide carriers at a disadvantage. Similarly,
existing technical strictures prevent customers from porting their
numbers from wireless-to-wireline services, should a consumer want to
do so, unless the ported-to wireline service provider happens to have a
presence in the same rate center as the customer's number. This
requirement naturally limits the ability of LECs to port-in numbers
from wireless services, and will affect any toll or long-distance
charges or other distance-sensitive costs for transiting the Public
Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) portion of the call path, placing
these local wireline carriers at a disadvantage when it comes to
competing for consumers.
6. An interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) user is
likewise limited in terms of portability. While there is no
technologically-inherent restriction on location of use if connectivity
is supported via the Internet (or via a dedicated network that can
connect to it), calls to and from the PSTN are routed through the rate
center where the telephone number is assigned as a local number. This
means that the rate center ``location'' of the number determines the
location and thus the available LECs to which a customer can port the
number. This reduced flexibility and choice also disadvantages LEC over
providers of other telephony services.
7. Many consumers are thus still limited to local number
portability, and interest in NNP remains high. Government and private
stakeholders have explored possibilities for implementing NNP in
various forums. In July 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce (the Committee) requested that the
Commission expeditiously support nationwide number portability, noting
that ``[c]onsumers overwhelmingly prefer to keep their numbers when
they switch carriers.'' The Committee further indicated that the
distinction within the number portability rules places non-nationwide
providers at a competitive disadvantage and could result in consumer
confusion when attempting to switch providers.
8. The Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) subsequently asserted
that ``CCA's rural and regional members have experienced problems with
porting-in wireless numbers from disparate parts of the country.'' CCA
further asserts that, as a result, non-nationwide carriers are placed
at a competitive disadvantage compared to their nationwide counterparts
who are able to port-in numbers regardless of location. CCA expressed
that number portability ``helps to expand competition by allowing
consumers to choose carriers that offer lower prices and innovative
product and service offerings, and these public interest benefits are
diminished when non-nationwide carriers do not have the same capability
as nationwide carriers.''
9. On May 16, 2016, the North American Numbering Council (NANC),
issued a report on NNP. The NANC is the Commission's Federal Advisory
Committee on numbering administration matters. It is comprised of state
regulators, consumer groups, industry representatives, and other
stakeholders interested in number administration. The NANC Report
recommended further inquiry into several issues, including potential
impacts to the life of the NANP, necessary edits to federal rules, and
the role of LRNs in the future as carriers use both time division
multiplexing- and VoIP-based interconnection.
10. The Alliance for Technical Industry Solutions (ATIS) approved a
Technical Report on a Nationwide Number Portability Study on June 20,
2016. The Alliance for Telecommunication Industry Solutions (ATIS) is a
technical planning and standards organization that develops and
promotes technical and operations standards for communications and
related information technologies worldwide. The ATIS Report analyzes
five potential solutions for achieving NNP: (1) Nationwide
implementation of LRNs; (2) non-Geographic LRNs (NGLRNs); (3)
commercial agreements; (4) Internet interconnection; and (5)
iconectiv's GR-2982-CORE specification. ATIS reported that the
commercial agreement solution is the only one that can be supported
today that has no porting impacts.
11. On August 30, 2016, the NANC LNP Working Group issued a white
paper on NGNP (the NANC notes that NGNP and NNP ``are considered to be
two synonymous terms, but it has become the preference of the NANC
Working Groups to use the term NNP''). Among other things, the LNP
Working Group concluded that regulatory changes made as a result of
non-geographic number porting implementation should be technology and
provider agnostic. The Working Group reiterated that ``any
implementation of NGNP . . . will require collaboration and support by
all parties involved'' and that an industry move towards NGNP will
require a mandate by the Commission.
B. Background on Number Portability Mechanisms
12. In the last few years, ATIS and the NANC have worked to develop
approaches for implementing NNP and thereby, increase access to
smaller, regional carriers and increase routing efficiency in the
network. Because the changes required by some of these proposals could
be hindered by legacy aspects of our telephone regulations, we propose
to eliminate certain legacy aspects of our telephone regulations to
promote NNP, such as existing N-1 and dialing parity requirements. This
section provides a summary of existing number portability mechanisms as
background to the proposals and questions in the NPRM and the NOI
below.
13. Current LNP Process. In the current local number portability
system, consumers may keep their telephone number when changing
providers if they remain at the same location. Stated differently,
consumers may be prevented, for technical reasons, from retaining their
telephone number when switching providers if they move outside the
original geographic area of
[[Page 55973]]
their telephone number. This is true for both intramodal (e.g.,
wireline-to-wireline or wireless-to-wireless) and intermodal (e.g.,
wireline-to-wireless) ports. In either context, a customer who changes
carriers, or who moves within the same general geographic area, can
retain a telephone number through the use of a LRN: A 10-digit number-
like number that shares a switch with the customer's location. The LRN
is essentially a telephone number that designates the switch that
serves the customer's new location. When someone calls that customer's
ported number, one of the carriers routing the call will query the
Number Portability Administration Center/Service Management System
(NPAC/SMS), which provides the routing carrier the appropriate LRN. The
NPAC/SMS consists of hardware and software platforms that host a
national information database and serves as the central coordination
point of LNP activity. In this NPRM/NOI, we refer to this system simply
as the NPAC. The call is then routed to the appropriate switch, which
contains the information necessary to route the call to the correct
customer. The N-1 query requirement, described below, is built into
this process; NNP solutions that alter the process would likely require
altering or rescinding the N-1 requirement, lest it result in
persistent routing inefficiencies. Dialing parity requirements are also
implicated in the routing of calls to ported numbers, and their
amendment may similarly facilitate NNP, by allowing greater choice on
the part of local carriers to decide how calls are routed.
14. N-1 Requirement. The N-1 query requirement mandates that the
carrier immediately preceding the terminating carrier (the N-1 carrier)
be responsible for ensuring that the number portability database is
queried. Paragraph 73 of the Second Number Portability Order is
included in the NANC's recommendations for LNP architecture and
administration, and thus incorporated by reference into our Rules. For
instance, if a carrier is asked to originate a telephone call to a
number that can be ported, it first determines whether or not the
number requires routing to an interexchange carrier. If so, it routes
the call to the interexchange carrier, which then queries the NPAC,
sending it the digits of the dialed telephone number. The database
answers the query by providing an LRN. The interexchange provider then
routes the call to the terminating carrier's switch, which routes the
call to the intended recipient. In this case, the interexchange carrier
is the N-1 carrier, and thus performs the number portability database
query. If, on the other hand, the originating carrier finds that the
dialed number does not require handoff to an interexchange carrier, it
performs the query itself, receives the LRN, and then routes the call
to the appropriate terminating carrier's switch. In that case, the
originating carrier itself is the N-1 carrier, since only two carriers
are involved.
15. The N-1 requirement requires the second-to-last carrier to
perform the number portability database query; where an interexchange
carrier is involved, this prevents the originating carrier from
performing the query. The N-1 requirement was recommended by the NANC
and adopted by the Commission in the early stages of implementing LNP
because it ensured that: Carriers would know when a database had been
queried; the cost of performing queries would be distributed between
interexchange and originating providers; and, moreover, that routing
performance would not be degraded by, for instance, having a call
routed to a supposed terminating carrier, only for that carrier to
perform a query and discover that the number had been ported and
required further routing. Furthermore, industry stakeholders at the
time preferred the N-1 query requirement to having the originating
service provider perform the query, since doing so would require all
carriers across the country to implement number portability
simultaneously for it to work. However, given changing market
conditions, and even more so with NNP, this system may need to be
altered. As explained by ATIS, ``[i]n an NNP environment, a call could
look like it is interLATA but actually be intraLATA. In this case it
could be more efficient for the originating carrier to know this, but
they may not be able to do this with the N-1 requirement.'' Thus,
changes to the number portability system can affect the ability for a
given carrier to know whether or not it is in fact the N-1 carrier, and
the requirement would actively introduce inefficiencies into the
routing system, in some cases resulting in calls unnecessarily being
rerouted multiple times, potentially increasing traffic and costs for
carriers, and delays for consumers.
16. Dialing Parity. Dialing parity provisions were originally
intended to ensure that incumbent LECs provided the same access to
stand-alone long distance service providers as they did to their own or
their affiliates' long distance offerings. This nondiscriminatory
access to interexchange carriers is part of the set of equal access
requirements in the Act that have been adopted from the 1982
Modification of Final Judgment (MFJ) in the federal antitrust case
against AT&T, which imposed these requirements on the Bell Operating
Companies (BOCs). The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act)
incorporated the MFJ's equal access requirements for these former BOCs
into the Communications Act via section 251(g). The 1996 Act also
created more specific, affirmative equal access requirements in section
251(b) that applied to all local exchange carriers. The provisions in
this section substantially resemble the requirements in the MFJ, with
the key differences that the requirements in the MFJ cover information
services as well as telephone toll service, and section 251(b)(3)
covers local exchange and telephone toll service.
17. We seek, through this NPRM and NOI, to continue the
Commission's efforts to align our regulations with the trend toward
all-distance voice services. Moreover, we recognize, the decline of the
stand-alone long distance market has limited the relevance and utility
of certain equal access obligations for competitive providers and their
customers. In the 2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order, the Commission
forbore from the ``application to incumbent LECs of all remaining equal
access and dialing parity requirements for interexchange services,
including those under section 251(g) and section 251(b)(3) of the
Act.'' However, the Commission adopted a ``grandfathering'' condition
allowing incumbent LEC customers who were presubscribed to third-party
long distance services as of the date of the 2015 USTelecom Forbearance
Order to retain certain equal access and dialing parity service. Thus,
unless the grandfathering condition is applicable, toll dialing parity
requirements, preserved by section 251(g), and the long distance (toll)
dialing parity requirements of section 251(b)(3), no longer apply to
incumbent LEC provision of interexchange access services.
18. Since the 2015 US Telecom Forbearance Order, only limited toll
dialing parity requirements remain. Competitive local exchange carriers
(competitive LECs) must still abide by the long-distance dialing parity
requirements of section 251(b)(3). The ATIS Report on NNP suggests that
interLATA call processing requirements, such as the interexchange
dialing parity requirements, may hinder certain proposals for NNP.
Currently, an originating carrier determines whether or not to hand a
call to an interexchange carrier based upon the dialed number.
[[Page 55974]]
However, if numbers can be ported on a nationwide basis, the number
might actually be in the same LATA, meaning that transfer to an
interexchange carrier of the customer's choosing would result in
persistently inefficient routing, with potentially concomitant delays
and costs. Eliminating the remaining dialing parity requirements may
allow originating carriers to avoid these inefficiencies by increasing
their choices. For instance, a carrier being asked by a customer to
originate a call to a non-geographic telephone number might benefit
from being able to handle the call as it prefers, instead of abiding by
the constraints of the dialing parity requirements.
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
19. We believe that NNP will level the playing field for many rural
and regional carriers, who are disadvantaged by the difficulty or
outright inability of consumers to port in to their networks.
Accordingly, we believe it is important to begin forging the way
towards NNP. Because we understand that achieving this goal without
incurring significant practical harms or prohibitive costs will require
extensive work, collaboration, and support by all parties involved, we
propose taking an incremental approach toward achieving NNP. As a first
step to accommodate the architectures of NNP proposals and to reflect
the evolving marketplace, we propose to remove the N-1 query
requirement. Further, based on the ATIS Report and the marketplace
findings in the 2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order, we propose to
eliminate remaining interexchange dialing parity requirements. Removing
these regulations will thus help ensure an efficient network that
provides consumers maximum flexibility in their communications choices
and a competitive landscape for small and rural providers.
A. Proposed Elimination of the N-1 Query Requirement
20. We seek comment on whether the N-1 query requirement impedes
plans for NNP such as the non-geographic LNP proposal. As the ATIS
Report notes, in an NNP environment, an originating carrier could not
determine, without performing a query, whether a dialed number required
interexchange routing or not. This could lead to a number of
inefficiencies, such as a scenario in which a number is ported from a
distant location to the same LATA as an originating caller. In such a
scenario, the originating carrier, believing the call to be long-
distance, would route the call to an interexchange carrier, only for
the interexchange carrier, upon conducting the query, to have to route
the ported number back to the originating carrier's LATA.
21. Furthermore, the motivating concerns that caused the NANC to
recommend and the Commission to implement the N-1 requirement no longer
seem to apply. When it was first adopted, the N-1 requirement was
favored over requiring originating carriers to perform the database
query because this latter solution would have required every local
carrier across the country to adopt LNP simultaneously in a ``flash-
cut'' manner for LNP to work, requiring more complicated coordination
of the LNP rollout. Moreover, in an environment of many competing
interexchange carriers and restrictions on incumbent LECs from offering
interexchange services, interexchange carriers ``wanted to ensure that
they were involved in this important aspect of call processing.'' Since
LNP has by now been broadly and successfully adopted nationwide, and in
light of the changed competitive landscape, we anticipate that these
concerns are no longer relevant.
22. We therefore propose to eliminate the N-1 query requirement,
and we seek comment on this proposal. What are the benefits and
drawbacks of removing the requirement? Is eliminating the requirement
necessary to, or will it facilitate, the implementation of non-
geographic location routing numbers or other NNP proposals, as
suggested by ATIS? Would removing the requirement interfere with any
aspects of the current routing or number portability querying system,
or any other aspect of the network? For example, by proposing to allow
carriers flexibility in conducting NPAC queries, will there be
coordination issues among carriers or calls that are processed without
a query? What costs, if any, would be saved if we eliminated the N-1
query requirement? Did the N-1 requirement lead to network routing
inefficiencies and will its elimination correct those inefficiencies?
Alternatively, will rescinding the requirement add to the costs of
originating carriers, terminating carriers, or other parties, either in
terms of performing more queries, or in terms of requiring equipment
upgrades? Are there transaction or other costs or harms associated with
transitioning away from N-1 query? In the absence of the requirement,
would costs of the system be allocated appropriately? Would there be
any other benefits of eliminating the N-1 query requirement not
predicated on a move to NNP? Interested stakeholders should address
these questions.
23. The ATIS Report states that eliminating the N-1 query
requirement does not require supplanting it with a new requirement that
originating carriers query the NPAC. According to the Report, ``[a]
carrier could choose to query all calls on their originating network
and route calls to the NNP numbers accordingly, or they could choose to
handle calls as they do today, i.e., if a call looks like it is
interLATA, hand it off to the IXC and let the IXC query the call.'' As
the ATIS Report notes, it is important to ensure the call is queried
before it gets to the network that is assigned the central office (CO)
code, but not necessarily that the N-1 methodology be used. We seek
comment on this perspective. Are there any benefits to the Commission
requiring particular parties to perform the query, or are existing
technical and market mechanisms (such as agreements and signaling
between providers indicating query status) sufficient to ensure that
queries will be performed efficiently and by the parties best placed to
do so?
24. We also seek comment on whether anticipated changes in routing
and queries might have other effects upon the public. For instance, how
would these changes interact with public safety, including the
provision of emergency services, such as 911 or Next Generation 911
calls? Will eliminating the N-1 query requirement lead to any changes
in the handling of emergency calls, including their routing or the
provision of necessary caller information?
B. Proposed Elimination of Remaining Interexchange Dialing Party
Requirements
25. In the 2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order, the Commission forbore
from the dialing parity provisions of sections 251(b)(3) and 251(g)
only insofar as they applied to incumbent LECs in their provision of
interexchange access services. In this section, we (1) propose to
extend that forbearance to competitive LECs, (2) seek comment on
extending forbearance to ``grandfathered'' customers who still maintain
accounts with stand-alone long-distance providers, and (3) propose to
eliminate the Commission's rules that mandate interexchange dialing
parity and other requirements associated with it. We do not propose
here to forbear from other requirements of section 251, such as
requirements for interconnection; resale; number portability; access to
rights of way; reciprocal compensation; or nondiscriminatory access to
telephone numbers, operator services, directory assistance services,
directory listings,
[[Page 55975]]
with no unreasonable dialing delays. We anticipate that these changes
will remove barriers to NNP and better reflect the competitive
realities of today's marketplace.
1. Proposed Forbearance From Interexchange Dialing Parity Requirements
26. We propose to forbear from the dialing parity requirements of
section 251(b)(3) as they apply to interexchange services. The 2015
USTelecom Forbearance Order removed these constraints from incumbent
LECs with regard to interexchange access services, and we propose to
extend that same forbearance to competitive LECs. Section 10 of the Act
states that the Commission shall forbear from applying any regulation
or provision of the Act if it determines that: (1) Enforcement of such
regulation or provision is not necessary to ensure that the charges,
practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection
with that telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service are
just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably
discriminatory; (2) enforcement of such regulation or provision is not
necessary for the protection of consumers; and (3) forbearance from
applying such provision or regulation is consistent with the public
interest. We seek comment on whether forbearing from the dialing parity
requirements of section 251(b)(3) as they apply to interexchange
services would meet the criteria of section 10.
27. We believe that the remaining interexchange dialing parity
requirements for competitive LECs are no longer necessary in today's
all-distance market to ensure that the charges and practices of
competitive LECs are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or
unreasonably discriminatory, and are no longer necessary for the
protection of consumers. We further believe that the rationales behind
the forbearance from the interexchange dialing parity requirements in
the 2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order apply similarly to both incumbent
and competitive LECs. Do commenters agree? For instance, are commenters
aware of substantial complaints stemming from our forbearance from the
interexchange dialing parity requirements in the 2015 USTelecom
Forbearance Order? As described in the 2015 USTelecom Forbearance
Order, wireline customers today have more choices than they did in 1982
or 1996, including interconnected VoIP services. Similarly, stand-alone
long-distance has not been critical to competition for over a decade,
with declining demand for it from both mass-market and business
customers. Does the decrease in demand for stand-alone interexchange
services reduce the likelihood that LECs will have unjust or
unreasonable charges, practices, or classifications, and does it
suggest that consumers no longer require protection from such
practices? Does the increase in consumer choice obviate the need for
these protections?
28. We also seek comment on the extent to which the interexchange
dialing parity provisions affect any competitive LECs in practice. Do
these provisions have substantial effects upon the costs, practices,
and behavior of LECs currently? Are there any effects upon competitive
LECs that significantly affect the market for local service as a whole?
For example, given that competitive LECs serve a relatively small
percentage of residential wireline voice accounts, do these provisions
help a significant number of consumers or competitors?
29. Forbearance from the interexchange dialing parity requirements
would also appear to be in the public interest. ATIS notes that an NNP
regime, with all of the benefits to competition and consumers that come
with it, would be facilitated by the elimination of interLATA call
processing requirements. The ATIS Report notes that carriers' ability
to efficiently route calls to non-geographic LRNs could be hindered by
the need to refer calls that look like interexchange calls to a third-
party carrier, when the call would more efficiently have been routed to
a non-geographic transport provider or a non-geographic gateway. It is
our understanding that forbearing from interexchange dialing parity
would enable originating carriers to better choose how to route their
calls, preventing inefficient network routing that might otherwise
result from various NNP proposals. Do commenters agree? Can customers'
pre-subscribed interexchange carrier choices accommodate the proposed
changes without a loss of efficiency or undue cost? Are there other
effects upon the public interest that might result from our proposed
forbearance from the interexchange dialing parity requirements for
competitive LECs? For instance, will there be any effects upon 911,
Next Generation 911, or other aspects of emergency calling?
30. Furthermore, section 10(b) requires that the Commission account
for the effects of forbearance on ensuring a competitive marketplace in
making its public interest determination. Since the implementation of
the 2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order, incumbent LECs have not had to
comply with the interexchange dialing parity requirements of sections
251(b)(3) and 251(g). Will extending forbearance from those
requirements to competitive LECs therefore ensure a level playing field
between incumbent and competitive LECs? Will forbearance from these
requirements help ensure a level and competitive playing field for
small, rural, and regional carriers with respect to number portability?
Will granting LECs more flexibility in choosing how calls are routed
improve their competitive ability and offer consumers access to greater
number portability? How else will the competitive landscape be affected
by this proposed forbearance?
31. Given the decreased need for these mandates, combined with the
likelihood that they will impede the implementation of NNP, we propose
to use our forbearance authority to eliminate remaining interexchange
dialing parity requirements, which apply to competitive LECs. We seek
comment on this proposal. What costs, if any, do competitive LECs
currently bear due to these requirements? Are other providers of local
voice service, such as interconnected VoIP providers, affected by the
application of these provisions, either to themselves or to
competitors? Do other stakeholders benefit from relieving competitive
LECs of these requirements, or are there other costs? Are there
stakeholders whose position vis-[agrave]-vis competitive LECs today is
significantly different from their position vis-[agrave]-vis incumbent
LECs at the time of the 2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order? Are there
other aspects of section 251(b)(3), including nondiscriminatory access
to telephone numbers, operator services, directory assistance, and
directory listing, that are relevant to stakeholders today? We do not
here propose to forbear from requirements for interconnection, resale,
number portability, access to rights of way, or reciprocal
compensation. Would any of these existing requirements be affected by
our proposed forbearance? Would forbearance from any of these
provisions assist in or hinder the implementation of NNP?
32. In the 2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order, we forbore from the
all remaining equal access requirements, including dialing parity,
preserved in section 251(g), with the exception of the grandfathering
condition. We do not believe the dialing parity requirements preserved
in section 251(g) apply to competitive LECs. We seek comment on whether
there are any dialing parity
[[Page 55976]]
requirements (applied via section 251(g)) from which we must forbear.
If there are any remaining dialing parity requirements, we propose to
forbear from those requirements and seek comment on such forbearance.
2. Seeking Comment on Extending Forbearance From Interexchange Dialing
Parity Rules to Customers With Pre-Existing Stand-Alone Long-Distance
Carriers
33. We also seek comment on the continuing need to preserve the
choices of existing customers who are presubscribed to stand-alone
long-distance services, whose choices were grandfathered in the 2015
USTelecom Forbearance Order. Will LECs serving these customers be
hindered from implementing NNP if these grandfathered customers
continue to fall outside of the scope of forbearance? What costs would
LECs or other carriers face in implementing NNP with or without the
preservation of these choices? How many people still purchase long-
distance calling from stand-alone long-distance carriers? Will these
subscribers face any additional costs, burdens, or harms if we forbear
from interexchange dialing parity rules? We seek estimates that
quantify the cost of adjustment that such subscribers might face. Do
interexchange carriers place material competitive pressure on LECs, and
if so, what consumer benefit would be lost if we forbear as discussed
herein? Are there additional benefits to retaining current
grandfathered subscribers? In the 2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order, we
found that a significant number of retail customers still presubscribed
to a stand-alone long-distance carrier, and that the public interest
and protection of consumers required limiting the forbearance of equal
access and dialing parity rules for these customers. We seek comment on
whether or not extending this forbearance would meet the criteria of
section 10.
34. We seek comment on whether the rationales for the
grandfathering in the 2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order still apply.
Have conditions significantly changed since 2015? We seek comment on
the present number of retail customers in the United States who
presubscribe to stand-alone long-distance carriers. Would extending
forbearance to these customers affect the costs they bear, considering
the competition for all-distance packages? Are there any harms to
customers affected by the 2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order that suggest
that we should retain the forbearance for grandfathered customers? Are
the number of such customers, and benefit they receive from use of
stand-alone long-distance carriers, significant enough to justify
maintaining this grandfathered status when weighed against the burdens
and costs it imposes on LECs? Would eliminating the grandfathering and
extending this forbearance to them meet the criteria of section 10?
3. Proposing Elimination of Toll Dialing Parity Rules
35. Because we propose to forbear from the long-distance dialing
parity provisions of section 251(b)(3), for both incumbent and
competitive LECs, we propose to eliminate the rules implementing those
requirements. We believe that sections 51.209 (``Toll dialing
parity''), 51.213 (``Toll dialing parity implementation plans''), and
51.215 (``Dialing parity; Cost recovery'' for toll dialing parity),
serve only to implement the provisions of section 251(b)(3) relating to
toll dialing parity, and thus should be eliminated if our proposed
forbearances are to be effective in facilitating the development of
NNP. We also propose modifying section 51.205 (``Dialing parity:
General'') to omit references to toll dialing parity. We seek comment
on this proposal. Do these rule provisions serve any purpose or
implement any other portions of the Act other than section 251(b)(3)?
Are there any other rules whose only purpose is to implement toll
dialing parity requirements? Are there any interests beyond those
articulated in the Act's dialing parity provisions that require these
rules? How are these considerations affected by the retention or
elimination of grandfathered customer relationships with presubscribed
interexchange carriers? Will the elimination of these rules have any
effect upon slamming? For example, can elimination of these rules
reduce the mechanisms by which unscrupulous entities slam consumers?
Conversely, are there useful consumer protections against slamming in
these rules that are not effectively implemented elsewhere?
36. We seek comment on whether there are other rules that should be
rescinded or modified to promote NNP. Should we consider forbearing
from any other statutory provisions to allow the benefits of NNP to
competition and consumers? We also seek comment on the interplay of the
proposed forbearance and rule changes discussed in the NPRM with the
technical solutions discussed below in the NOI. Specifically, to make
NNP workable, should any forbearance and rule changes happen first, in
advance of implementing any technical solutions, or should the
Commission defer until any technical solutions are in place?
IV. Notice of Inquiry
37. While we believe it is important to move toward NNP, and invite
comment above on steps that would lay the groundwork for doing so, we
also seek input on how best to implement NNP, as well as its potential
impacts on consumers and carriers. We therefore seek comment in this
NOI on a variety of issues related to the deployment of NNP. We also
note that while the focus of this NOI is to seek perspectives on the
most feasible way to implement NNP, the goals of this proceeding could
also be facilitated by larger changes to the current system of
numbering administration. To that end, we also seek comment on how
number administration might be improved to realize more efficient
technical, operational, administrative, and legal processes.
A. Scope of Inquiry
38. The ATIS Report and the NANC Report focus on NNP across
wireline and wireless telecommunications services. Early efforts on
this issue, however, focused merely on ensuring that wireless customers
can retain their numbers when porting to other wireless carriers that
lack a nationwide service area. We believe broader, intermodal NNP
efforts will benefit consumers and competition, as well as potentially
allow for useful reforms of the numbering system, and we explore means
of achieving this goal below.
39. While our goal is to ensure broad, intermodal NNP, are there
any benefits to a gradual implementation of NNP? Is such a partial
deployment technically feasible? For instance, would it be possible for
NNP to first be implemented for a particular subset of entities using
numbering resources (such as wireless providers) before applying it to
all entities? What advantages and disadvantages are there to a partial
implementation of NNP?
B. NNP Alternatives Identified in the ATIS Report
40. We seek comment on four of the specific models of NNP outlined
by ATIS in its report: (1) Nationwide implementation of LRNs; (2) non-
Geographic LRNs (NGLRNs); (3) commercial agreements; and (4)
iconectiv's GR-2982-CORE specification. Are any of the models
preferable to others in terms of feasibility, cost, and adaptability to
changing markets and technologies? Have ATIS and the NANC adequately
considered the potential costs, benefits,
[[Page 55977]]
and barriers to implementation of each of these proposals? More
generally, we seek evidence quantifying the benefit consumers would
gain from being able to keep their number whenever they move outside a
rate center and, alternatively, whether NNP would impose costs that
outweigh those benefits as phone numbers increasingly become less
informative about the dialed party's location. We also anticipate that
NNP will have beneficial competitive effects, by allowing small, rural,
and regional carriers to compete more effectively with larger,
nationwide providers. We seek comment on this perspective. We also seek
comment on other effects that these NNP proposals might have upon small
carriers, including precisely what costs they might impose upon them,
and how. We also seek comment on the impacts these various alternatives
pose to routing calls to ported telephone numbers. To the extent that
commenters believe that other NNP proposals, in addition to those
outlined below, are promising solutions for NNP, we seek comment on
those proposals and their potential implications.
41. National LRN. One conceptually simple way of implementing NNP
would be to allow a ported number to be associated with any LRN.
Instead of limiting the geographic area within which the number can be
ported, the system could associate it with an LRN associated with any
location in the country. Although this approach allows many existing
systems and processes to be used, it also requires changes to NPAC
rules, may complicate other routing and critical processes, and may
require many carriers to upgrade or replace existing equipment. The
NGNP subcommittee found that such an approach would require the NPAC to
relax existing LRN changes to allow any LRN to be added to any NPAC
region (there are eight NPAC regions--one in Canada and seven in the
United States). In addition, it might require carriers to accept
downloads from all NPAC regions, or keep port records in the region
that is servicing the ported telephone number.
42. National LRN may require carriers' existing switches to handle
more numbering plan areas, since a given switch may have to accommodate
telephone numbers being ported in from a wider range of original areas.
National LRN likely also requires changes to number portability rules.
We have proposed eliminating the N-1 query requirement and remaining
interexchange dialing parity requirements in the NPRM above. Are
additional changes necessary? We seek comment on these issues.
43. The national LRN proposal also implicates several non-routing
issues. Industry processes, including the handling of call detail
records, subscriber billing, and caller ID, will be impacted. We also
anticipate that tariffs, toll free database processing, enhanced 911
processes, and other systems that rely upon the relationship between a
telephone number and its rate center/LATA will likely be affected. What
systems will be affected, and to what extent? We seek comment from
providers, end users, and other stakeholders on what dependencies exist
that would require changes, as well as how changes brought about by
national LRN can improve existing systems.
44. The ATIS Report anticipates that a porting-in service provider
may not have a presence in the ported-out area. While such situations
currently exist and are generally handled by agreements between
providers, many more such situations are likely to arise in a national
LRN environment. What effects will this increase in demand have?
45. Local systems, including Local Service Management Systems
(LSMS) and Service Order Administration (SOA), will also be affected by
a national LRN system. Current systems may rely in part upon an assumed
structure whereby numbers are only ported within LATAs or NPAC regions;
an LRN can only be associated with a single NPAC region; or a ported
telephone number record can only exist in one NPAC region. We seek
comment on what dependencies exist based on these assumptions, and how
they might be resolved.
46. What is necessary to ensure that a national LRN system is
compatible with the variation in dialing plans across the country?
Different customers have different requirements when dialing--some need
only dial seven digits of a local number; others must dial ten digits,
others must dial 1 and ten digits. Is nationwide consistency required
for national LRN compatibility?
47. What effects will a national LRN system have on state
regulators and systems? Porting numbers across state lines raises
questions of existing state regulatory authority, and policy, including
numbering resource management. For example, would NNP affect state
regulatory commission processes for reviewing tariffs, handling
customer complaints, and ensuring public safety? Provider
responsibilities, obligations, and liabilities may also be implicated
with interstate porting. We seek comment on what issues may arise and
how they may be resolved. Can existing systems and agreements in
bordering states serve as models for interstate cooperation?
48. How will consumer experiences be affected by a national LRN
system? Would calls to numbers ported outside of a specific rate center
have completion issues? Consumers would also need to be informed about
any effects upon rates and billing, if they subscribe to a
geographically-based rate plan keyed to their rate center or LATA. How
might this be done? Some consumers use software that blocks calls which
incur tolls, based upon the number's NPA-NXX. How will such programs be
affected, and how can they be adapted, if necessary, to accommodate a
national LRN system? What effects will there be on caller ID?
49. Certain services are set up with restrictions on toll free
calling based on the calling party's location. A customer who ports his
number to a new location might therefore have problems calling the same
toll-free number. We seek comment on the effects on toll free calling
and potential implications of national LRN.
50. Non-Geographic LRN (NGLRN). Another mechanism to allow NNP is
to designate a new area code unaffiliated with any particular location.
This non-geographic area code would be the area code for NGLRNs. Under
an NGLRN system, ported numbers are associated with an NGLRN, instead
of an LRN associated with the new location. When a service provider
queries the NPAC and receives an NGLRN, the call is then routed to a
non-geographic gateway (NGGW) that resides on an IP network and routes
the call appropriately. This system can also support the creation of
non-geographic telephone numbers. An NGLRN solution would support both
wireline and wireless NNP. It also allows many existing processes to
continue working, but as noted by ATIS and the NGNP subcommittee, it
requires the creation and setup of the non-geographic area code,
NGLRNS, NGGWs, and likely changes to certain regulations, including the
N-1 query requirement.
51. The ATIS Report anticipates that aspects of interLATA call
processing requirements, such as the dialing parity provisions, may
interfere with an NGLRN system. Likewise, the ATIS Report suggests that
the N-1 query requirement could create problems. Are these concerns
adequately dealt with by our proposed forbearance from these rules as
discussed above?
[[Page 55978]]
52. To route calls to non-geographic telephone numbers, carriers
will need to access relevant routing information and route to NGGWs.
Carriers that cannot route to NGGWs will need to route calls to a
carrier that can, possibly requiring agreements with non-geographic
transport providers. What policies are necessary to ensure continued
and reliable call routing in an NGLRN system? What criteria should be
required for NGGWs? The ATIS Report recommends that an industry-led
body create a certification process. What bodies are best placed to
conduct such certification, and what oversight should they have to
ensure effectiveness, efficiency, transparency, and competition? We
also seek comment on criteria for NGGWs, such as interconnection
requirements. The ATIS Report recommends that carriers not be required
to provide NGGW service or NNP service and that the only requirement be
that carriers have the ability to route calls to NGLRNs. Furthermore,
ATIS suggests that carriers that do choose to provide NGGW do so ``for
their own customers only.'' We seek comment on this recommendation.
Relatedly, the NGLRN system is designed such that carriers are not
required to implement NNP. What would be an appropriate timeline for
NNP adoption, if any?
53. What characteristics should any non-geographic area code have?
Should it be easily recognizable? Should various non-geographic area
codes resemble each other for ease of recognition? How should the
system address integration with other NANP countries? What impact would
assignment and use of a non-geographic area code or codes within the
NANP have on number exhaust in the United States and other NANP
countries? We also seek comment on whether a single non-geographic area
code will scale for the total set of NGLRNs. Will a single non-
geographic area code be sufficient for the future?
54. The ATIS Report also raises several specific questions with
regard to administration of non-geographic resources with an NGLRN
system. The ATIS Report notes that certain current systems can be
simplified with the adoption of non-geographic codes, such as combining
the processes of number allocation and porting, or allowing distributed
registries to handle processes currently managed by a single
authoritative registry. We seek comment on the potential for such
reforms, and their integration with existing systems and authorities.
55. With an NGLRN system, a call to 911 does not indicate its
location by virtue of the calling telephone number, but rather from
databases such as the Master Service Address Guide (MSAG) or the
emergency service number that has been assigned to the cell site. Will
systems that depend on pseudo-Automatic Number Identification (p-ANI),
in use for wireless and VoIP calls, be appropriate for other non-
geographic calls?
56. Commercial Agreements. One proposed solution for wireless
carriers uses a third party entity that would install points of
interconnection in various LATAs, using its own network as a way to
route interLATA calls to ported numbers. This proposal requires
significant evaluation of LRN assignments in addition to the nature,
categorization, and operation of the third party. The NGNP subcommittee
found that the commercial agreement solution was the only one that
could be supported without significant changes or impacts to NPAC or
service provider systems.
57. In a commercial agreement solution, what entities would act as
the third-party network, and what abilities and obligations would they
need to have for effective and competitive operation? What would such a
system require with respect to LRN assignments? Would such a proposal
provide a pathway for wireline and intermodal NNP?
58. GR-2982-CORE. iconectiv's GR-2982-CORE specification details
another NNP system called Portability Outside the Rate Center (PORC).
PORC calls for dividing the country into small, non-overlapping
geographic blocks called Geographic Unit Building Blocks (GUBBs). Each
GUBB is represented by a telephone number-like identifier, and acts as
the vehicle for the recipient switch to identify the geographic
location of the end user receiving the call. A call to a ported
telephone number will be routed using an LRN, as it is today, with the
difference that the GUBB is used for carrier selection and rating
purposes. This includes changes in how the caller is billed, and may
include the need to alter porting data and NPAC policies and
procedures. GR-2982-CORE also recognizes that participating carriers
must have compatible switches, depending upon their role in the call
flow. The NGNP subcommittee found that this proposal might require the
NPAC to relax LRN changes, and may impact porting data if systems need
to transmit additional routing data about the newly-created geographic
building blocks of the system. The NGNP subcommittee also reports that
changes to the porting records would impact all switches and number
portability databases and many service order administrations and local
service management systems across the industry.
59. Do commenters agree with the NGNP subcommittee's assessments?
Are there other issues or factors we should take into consideration in
exploring the various approaches? How should the subcommittee's
assessments affect any future action on these solutions?
60. The ATIS Report suggests that this solution may require the
NPAC to relax existing LRN changes; that porting data may need to
change to include GUBB information; and that these changes may impact
all switches and number portability databases, as well as many SOAs and
LSMS systems. What do these effects suggest for the viability of this
solution currently? What is the likely timing for this option?
C. Necessary Changes and Challenges to Achieving NNP
61. Apart from the implications raised by each specific proposal
outlined by ATIS and the NANC, most, if not all, NNP proposals will
have consequences for a variety of other aspects of the network. We
seek comment on these implications in the specific areas below.
62. Routing and Interconnection. Are there NNP solutions that can
improve the efficiency of existing routing systems? Conversely, are
there NNP proposals that burden or render inefficient particular
systems or industry databases? Can such systems and databases be
modified, improved, or obviated with NNP solutions?
63. Public Safety. We seek comment on the effects that NNP might
have upon public safety, including users' ability to use 911 in the
knowledge that their calls will be routed appropriately, and that
Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) will receive accurate callback
and location information. Can an NNP system provide this information?
To the extent that existing systems lack the ability to provide this
information in various NNP scenarios, are there modifications,
adaptations, or workarounds that can supply it?
64. For instance, how can proposed NNP solutions work with legacy
systems that rely upon ANI to report the location of users calling 911?
Are enhanced or next generation 911 services affected by the proposals?
The ATIS Report details several number portability issues affecting
emergency calls, and we seek comment on their resolution.
65. The ATIS Report similarly notes potential effects of NNP
proposals on the use of national security and emergency preparedness
systems like Emergency Telecommunications Service
[[Page 55979]]
(ETS), including the Government Emergency Telecommunication Service
(GETS) and the Priority Access Service (PAS), which provide priority
calling for emergency telecommunications. What are the effects of the
various proposals on the ability of ETS calls to be prioritized? Are
there beneficial or deleterious effects on the network capacity,
routing, or signaling of ETS?
66. Access by Individuals with Disabilities. We seek comment on how
NNP implementations might affect access to communications services by
individuals with disabilities. Can increased intermodal and geographic
porting provide increased access to communications networks by
individuals using assistive technologies? The Commission has permitted
video relay service (VRS) and IP Relay users to register and obtain 10-
digit geographic numbers, allowing users to be reached through a single
number that will automatically connect to the registered user's primary
VRS or IP Relay provider and allow the provider to determine the user's
IP address for the purpose of delivering incoming calls made to that
number. The Commission also adopted requirements allowing VRS and IP
Relay users to have both their 10-digit number and registered location
information forwarded to the appropriate PSAP. We seek comment on how
any NNP implementations might benefit these services, equivalent
services, or any other services that serve individuals with hearing and
speech disabilities. Can widespread NNP adoption promote technologies
and systems that allow for more efficient or user-friendly ways to
achieve these, or better, effects? What steps would be necessary to
ensure that access to communications services for Americans with
disabilities continues to be robust and secure in an NNP scenario, such
as if numbers are assigned without regard to geography?
67. Tariffs and Intercarrier Compensation. We also seek comment on
the various ways that NNP could affect carriers' pricing issues. How
will proposed NNP implementations affect existing carrier tariffs? What
are the ways in which various NNP proposals may alter the existing
system of intercarrier compensation? Are there systems that can support
or encourage a bill-and-keep system? What costs and benefits would such
systems generate?
D. Number Administration
68. We also seek comment on how changes to our current methods of
numbering plan, number pooling, and number portability administration
might facilitate NNP, or how NNP might affect these existing systems.
If we significantly simplify the assignment and porting of numbers,
would these changes require modifications to the current systems? Would
it be possible, and beneficial, to allow multiple entities to provide
competitive numbering administration services? Are there other systems
of addressing what can serve as models for an evolving and increasingly
IP-based network?
V. Legal Authority
69. As noted above, section 251(e)(1) of the Act gives the
Commission ``exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North
American Numbering Plan that pertain to the United States'' and
provides that numbers must be made ``available on an equitable basis.''
The Commission retains ``authority to set policy with respect to all
facets of numbering administration in the United States.'' The
Commission has promulgated local number portability rules to satisfy
these congressional mandates, and the proposed actions in this NPRM are
intended to further and better satisfy these mandates. We seek comment
on this assessment.
70. Moreover, section 10 of the Act states that the Commission
shall forbear from applying any regulation or provision of the Act if
it determines that: (1) Enforcement of such regulation or provision is
not necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications,
or regulations by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications
carrier or telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are
not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2) enforcement of such
regulation or provision is not necessary for the protection of
consumers; and (3) forbearance from applying such provision or
regulation is consistent with the public interest. We believe that our
proposals discussed here satisfy these criteria as the remaining
interexchange dialing parity requirements for competitive LECs are no
longer necessary in today's all distance market to ensure that the
charges and practices of competitive LECs are just and reasonable and
are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory, and are no longer
necessary for the protection of consumers. We seek comment on our
forbearance analysis, as well as any other issues pertinent to our
legal authority to facilitate NNP.
VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
71. 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 small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission requests written public
comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the
first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
72. In this NPRM, we propose changes to, and seek comment on, our
rules on Local Number Portability Administration, and Nationwide Number
Portability (NNP). In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to rescind the
N-1 query requirement. Further, based on the ATIS Report and the
marketplace findings in the 2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order, we
propose to eliminate remaining interexchange dialing parity
requirements. The objectives of the proposed modifications are to
remove impediments to NNP.
B. Legal Basis
73. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to
this NPRM is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 10, 201(b), and 251(e)(1)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),
160, 201(b), and 251(e)(1).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
74. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules and by the rule revisions on which the
NPRM seeks comment, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) Is
[[Page 55980]]
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.
75. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three comprehensive small entity size standards that could
be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific
size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent
99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8
million businesses. Next, the type of small entity described as a
``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.'' Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,215
small organizations. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of
cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data published in 2012 indicate that there were 89,476 local
governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of
this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as ``small
governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that most governmental
jurisdictions are small.
76. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show
that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small.
77. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS
Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined above.
Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, census data
for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of
this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. The
Commission therefore estimates that most providers of local exchange
carrier service are small entities that may be affected by the rules
adopted.
78. Incumbent LECs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent
local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is
Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined above. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 3,117 firms operated in that year. Of
this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent
local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by the
rules and policies adopted. Three hundred and seven (307) Incumbent
Local Exchange Carriers reported that they were incumbent local
exchange service providers. Of this total, an estimated 1,006 have
1,500 or fewer employees.
79. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these
service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, as defined above. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
U.S. Census data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during
that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that the
majority of Competitive LECS, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to
Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the
provision of either competitive local exchange services or competitive
access provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256
have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported
that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated
to have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 carriers have reported that
they are Other Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or
fewer employees. Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data,
the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local
exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.
80. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA
analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one
that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer
employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The
SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small
incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any
such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included
small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that
this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations
in other, non-RFA contexts.
81. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a definition for Interexchange Carriers. The closest
NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined
above. The applicable size standard under SBA rules is that such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census data
for 2012 indicates that 3,117 firms operated during that year. Of that
number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. According to
internally developed Commission data, 359 companies reported that their
primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of
interexchange services. Of this total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or
fewer employees.
[[Page 55981]]
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are
small entities that may be affected by our proposed rules.
82. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. The
Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged
in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications;
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile
virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. Under
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale
services during that year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small
business size standard, the majority of these prepaid calling card
providers can be considered small entities.
83. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition
for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS Code Category is
Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry
comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network
capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and
reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except
satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs)
are included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale
services during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated
small business size standard, the majority of these resellers can be
considered small entities. According to Commission data, 881 carriers
have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale
services. Of this total, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
toll resellers are small entities.
84. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers,
or toll resellers. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is for
Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined above. Under the
applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117
firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated
small business size standard, the majority of Other Toll Carriers can
be considered small. According to internally developed Commission data,
284 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service
activity was the provision of other toll carriage. Of these, an
estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities
that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Second Further
Notice.
85. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a
definition for small businesses within the category of
Telecommunications Resellers. Under that SBA definition, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the
Commission's Form 499 Filer Database, 500 companies reported that they
were engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. The Commission
does not have data regarding how many of these 500 companies have 1,500
or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there
are 500 or fewer prepaid calling card providers that may be affected by
the rules.
86. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or
fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus
under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission
estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers
(except satellite) are small entities.
87. The Commission's own data--available in its Universal Licensing
System--indicate that, as of October 25, 2016, there are 280 Cellular
licensees that will be affected by our actions today. The Commission
does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission
does not collect that information for these types of entities.
Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless
telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service,
and Specialized Mobile Radio Telephony services. Of this total, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the
majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
88. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite
uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the wireless
communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross
revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a
``very small business'' as an entity with average gross revenues of $15
million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved
these definitions.
89. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular,
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio
telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business
size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite). Under the SBA small business size standard, a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data,
413 carriers reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony. Of
these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more
than 1,500 employees. Therefore, a little less than one third of these
entities can be considered small.
90. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. This industry
comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and
facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a
[[Page 55982]]
subscription or fee basis. The broadcast programming is typically
narrowcast in nature (e.g., limited format, such as news, sports,
education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce programming
in their own facilities or acquire programming from external sources.
The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as
cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to
viewers. The SBA has established a size standard for this industry
stating that a business in this industry is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. The 2012 Economic Census indicates that 367 firms were
operational for that entire year. Of this total, 357 operated with less
than 1,000 employees. Accordingly we conclude that a substantial
majority of firms in this industry are small under the applicable SBA
size standard.
91. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission
has developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of
cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable
company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide.
Industry data indicate that there are currently 4,600 active cable
systems in the United States. Of this total, all but eleven cable
operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size
standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a
``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.
Current Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide. Of this
total, 3,900 cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700
systems have 15,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records.
Thus, under this standard as well, we estimate that most cable systems
are small entities.
92. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act also contains a size standard for small cable system
operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' There are approximately 52,403,705 cable video
subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator
serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator
if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of
all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based
on available data, we find that all but nine incumbent cable operators
are small entities under this size standard. The Commission neither
requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250
million. Although it seems certain that some of these cable system
operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues
exceed $250 million, we are unable at this time to estimate with
greater precision the number of cable system operators that would
qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the
Communications Act.
93. All Other Telecommunications. ``All Other Telecommunications''
is defined as follows: This U.S. industry is comprised of
establishments that are primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.
Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this industry. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for ``All Other Telecommunications,''
which consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5
million or less. For this category, census data for 2012 show that
there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these
firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25
million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of All Other
Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by
our action.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
94. This NPRM proposes changes to, and seeks comment on, Commission
rules on Local Number Portability Administration, and Nationwide Number
Portability (NNP). The NPRM seeks to amend our rules by removing the N-
1 query requirement and proposes to forbear from remaining
interexchange dialing parity requirements of section 251(b)(3). The
objectives of the proposed modifications are to remove impediments to
NNP. As the NPRM seeks comment on rule withdrawal and forbearance, we
therefore do not adopt new reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements.
95. As reported in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (1996
FRFA) of the 1996 order instituting the dialing parity rules, the
compliance requirements of the Section 251 dialing parity rules include
``dialing-parity specific software, hardware, signaling system upgrades
and necessary consumer education.'' Such compliance entailed the ``use
of engineering, technical, operational, and accounting skills.'' We
seek comment on whether withdrawing these proposed rules will enable
LECs, including small entities, to reduce or eliminate these costs via
a lesser compliance burden.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
96. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (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 and reporting requirements under the rules for such 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
such small entities.
97. The 1996 FRFA states that the dialing parity provisions allowed
``LECs and competing providers of telephone toll service'' including
small entities ``to not be subject to an array of differing state
standards and timetables requiring them to research and tailor their
operations to the unique requirements of each state.'' We seek comment
as to the extent all LECs, including small entities, will be
economically impacted by the removal of nationwide provisions.
98. The 1996 FRFA also explains that as result of the dialing
parity rules, a carrier could not automatically designate itself as a
``toll carrier without notifying the customer of the opportunity to
choose an alternative carrier, one or more of which may be a small
business.'' We seek comment as to any additional economic burden
incurred by small entities as a result of the withdrawal of the dialing
parity rule.
[[Page 55983]]
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
99. None.
VII. Procedural Matters
A. Deadlines and Filing Procedures
100. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of
this document in Dockets WC 17-244, and WC 13-97. Comments may be filed
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(1998).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
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. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
[ssquf] People With Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
101. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
Rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
102. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
the policies and actions considered in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. The text of the IRFA is set forth in Appendix B. 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 comment
on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
103. This document may contain proposed new or 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. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees.
D. Contact Persons
104. For further information about this proceeding, please contact
Sherwin Siy, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy
Division, Room 5-C225, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, (202)
418-2783, [email protected].
VIII. Ordering Clauses
105. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 10,
201(b), and 251(e) of the Communication Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 160, 201(b), and 251(e) that this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry is adopted.
106. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 51
Interconnection.
47 CFR Part 52
Numbering.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons set forth above, The Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend parts 51 and 52 of Title 47 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
[[Page 55984]]
PART 51--INTERCONNECTION
0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-55, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 220, 225-27,
251-54, 256, 271, 303(r), 332, 1302.
Subpart C--Obligations of All Local Exchange Carriers
0
2. Amend Sec. 51.205 by revising it to read as follows:
Sec. 51.205 Dialing parity: General.
A local exchange carrier (LEC) shall provide local dialing parity
to competing providers of telephone exchange service, with no
unreasonable dialing delays. Dialing parity shall be provided for
originating telecommunications services that require dialing to route a
call.
0
3. Remove Sec. 51.209.
Sec. 51.209 [Removed]
Remove Sec. 51.209.
0
4. Remove Sec. 51.213
Sec. 51.213 [Removed]
Remove Sec. 51.213.
0
5. Remove Sec. 51.215.
Sec. 51.215 [Removed]
Remove Sec. 51.215.
PART 52--NUMBERING
0
6. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47
U.S.C. 151, 152, 154 and 155 unless otherwise noted. Interpret or
apply secs. 3, 4, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-52, 271 and 332,
48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 153, 154, 201-05, 207-09,
218, 225-27, 251-52, 271 and 332 unless otherwise noted.
Subpart C--Number Portability
0
7. In Sec. 52.26 revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.26 NANC Recommendations on Local Number Portability
Administration.
(a) Local number portability administration shall comply with the
recommendations of the North American Numbering Council (NANC) as set
forth in the report to the Commission prepared by the NANC's Local
Number Portability Administration Selection Working Group, dated April
25, 1997 (Working Group Report) and its appendices, which are
incorporated by reference pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Except that: Sections 7.8 and 7.10 of Appendix D and the following
portions of Appendix E: Section 7, Issue Statement I of Appendix A, and
Appendix B in the Working Group Report are not incorporated herein.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-25458 Filed 11-24-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P