[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36725-36738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13703]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 52
[WC Docket Nos. 13-97, 04-36, 07-243, 10-90; CC Docket Nos. 95-116, 01-
92, 99-200; FCC 13-51]
Numbering Policies for Modern Communications; IP-Enabled
Services; Telephone Number Requirements for IP-Enabled Services
Providers; Telephone Number Portability et al.
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) propose to promote innovation and efficiency by allowing
interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers to obtain
telephone numbers directly from the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator (NANPA) and the Pooling Administrator (PA), subject to
certain requirements. We anticipate that allowing interconnected VoIP
providers to have direct access to numbers will help speed the delivery
of innovative services to consumers and businesses, while preserving
the integrity of the network and appropriate oversight of telephone
number assignments. The accompanying Notice of Inquiry further seeks
comment on a range of issues regarding our long-term approach to
numbering resources. The relationship between numbers and geography--
taken for granted when numbers were first assigned to fixed wireline
telephones--is evolving as consumers turn increasingly to mobile and
nomadic services. We seek comment on these trends and associated
Commission policies.
DATES: Comments are due on or before July 19, 2013. Reply comments are
due on or before August 19, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [WC Docket Nos. 13-
97, 04-36, 07-243, 10-90 and CC Docket Nos. 95-116, 01-92, 99-200], by
any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
[[Page 36726]]
[ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Jones, Wireline Competition
Bureau, Competition Policy Division, (202) 418-1580, or send an email
to [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC Docket Nos. 13-97, 04-36, 07-243,
10-90 and CC Docket Nos. 95-116, 01-92, 99-200, FCC 13-51, adopted and
released April 18, 2013. 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. The document may also be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445
12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800)
378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via the
Internet at http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is available on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.
I. Background
2. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), grants the
Commission plenary authority over the North American Numbering Plan
(NANP) within the United States. In its Numbering Resource Optimization
(NRO) proceeding, the Commission adopted several optimization measures
that allow it to monitor more closely how telephone numbers are used
within the NANP. These measures also promote more efficient allocation
and use of numbers by tying a carrier's ability to obtain them more
closely to its actual need for numbers to serve its customers. In
particular, to combat the inefficient use of numbers, Sec.
52.15(g)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules requires an applicant for
telephone numbers to provide evidence that it is authorized to provide
service in the area in which it is requesting those numbers. The
Commission interpreted this rule in its NRO First Report and Order as
requiring evidence of either state certification or a Commission
license.
3. Interconnected VoIP service enables users, over broadband
connections, to receive calls that originate from the public switched
telephone network (PSTN) or other VoIP users, and to terminate calls to
the PSTN or other VoIP users. However, the Commission has not addressed
the classification of interconnected VoIP services, and thus retail
interconnected VoIP providers in many, but not all, instances take the
position that they are not subject to regulation as telecommunications
carriers, nor can they directly avail themselves of various rights
under sections 251 and 252 of the Act.
4. In order to provide interconnected VoIP service, a provider must
offer consumers NANP telephone numbers; otherwise, a customer on the
PSTN would not have a way to dial the interconnected VoIP customer
using his PSTN service. Interconnected VoIP providers often cannot
obtain telephone numbers directly from the numbering administrators as
they cannot provide the evidence of certification required by Sec.
52.15(g)(2)(i)--they typically do not hold state certifications or
Commission licenses. Thus, these providers generally obtain NANP
telephone numbers by purchasing wholesale services from a competitive
local exchange carrier (CLEC), and then using these services to
interconnect with the PSTN in order to send and receive certain types
of traffic between the VoIP provider's network and the carrier
networks.
5. The Commission has acted to ensure consumer protection, public
safety, and other important policy goals in orders addressing
interconnected VoIP services, without classifying those services as
telecommunications services or information services under the
Communications Act.
II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Direct Access to Numbers by Interconnected VoIP Providers
6. As part of our focused ongoing effort to modernize our rules
during a period of significant technology transition, we propose to
modify our rules to allow interconnected VoIP providers to obtain
numbers directly from the number administrators, subject to a variety
of requirements to ensure continued network integrity, allow oversight
and enforcement of our numbering regulations, and protect the public
interest. We expect that granting VoIP providers direct access to
numbers--subject to the number utilization provisions we propose
below--will enhance the effectiveness of our number conservation
efforts, and will reduce costs and inefficiencies that arise today
through the mandatory use of carrier-partners. We anticipate that these
proposed rule changes will encourage providers to develop and deploy
innovative new technologies and services that benefit consumers.
7. We invite general comment on permitting interconnected VoIP
providers to obtain phone numbers directly from the number
administrators, as opposed to through carrier partners. Do commenters
agree that allowing interconnected VoIP providers direct access to
numbers will spur the introduction of innovative new technologies and
services, increase efficiency, and facilitate increased choices for
American consumers? Are there benefits to requiring carrier-partners?
Are there alternate ways to accomplish these goals? We ask commenters
who disagree with our proposal to address other ways the Commission's
numbering policies can be utilized to achieve the outlined benefits.
8. We note that in October 2010, the Twenty-First Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) became law. The CVAA
codified the Commission's definition of ``interconnected VoIP service''
contained in Sec. 9.3 of the Commission's rules, ``as such section may
be amended from time to time.'' We seek comment on whether any
amendments to the Commission's definition of interconnected VoIP
service are needed to allow direct access to numbers by interconnected
VoIP providers. If so, should the amendments apply to all of the
Commission's requirements that involve interconnected VoIP providers or
should the Commission use the amended definition of interconnected VoIP
solely for purposes of number administration?
9. In various sections of the NPRM, we seek comment on: the type of
documentation that interconnected VoIP providers should provide in
order to obtain numbers; the numbering administration requirements that
should apply to such providers; and enforcement of our numbering rules.
In other parts, we discuss and seek comment on commenters' concerns
raised in the record, such as databases, call routing and termination,
intercarrier compensation, IP interconnection, local number
portability, number cost allocation and transitioning to direct access
if interconnected VoIP providers are granted direct access to numbers,
other entities that potentially could gain access to numbers, and our
legal authority for imposing proposed numbering administration and
other
[[Page 36727]]
requirements on interconnected VoIP providers.
B. Direct Access to Numbers for Other Purposes
1. Innovative Uses of Numbers
10. We seek comment on whether the Commission should expand access
to numbers beyond the proposal regarding interconnected VoIP providers.
For example, should the Commission expand access to numbers to VoIP
providers (regardless of whether they are interconnected or one-way)?
We seek comment on the types of services and applications that use
numbers today, and that are likely to do so in the future. Is the lack
of access to numbers a barrier to deployment of innovative services?
Twilio states that making numbers more broadly available to other
communications providers will lower the cost of accessing numbers and
providing telecommunications services, and will encourage competition
and innovation. We seek comment on these assertions.
11. We seek comment on the potential benefits and risks of
expanding direct access to numbers. For example, would extending access
to numbers accelerate number exhaust and if so, what steps could we
take to control number exhaust? What safeguards or countermeasures
should the Commission utilize, and should these be specific to
innovative providers? We note above that allowing interconnected VoIP
providers direct access to numbers could enhance the ability to oversee
number use and control exhaust. Do these same benefits apply to other
types of innovative service providers that today only receive indirect
access to numbers? We also seek comment on how we can maintain the
integrity and oversight of our numbering system if we broadly extend
direct access to numbers. For example, we seek comment on the numbers
that should be provided to these other entities. Should the Commission
limit distribution in some fashion? Should the Commission permit these
other entities to obtain only non-geographic numbers? We note that the
Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions' (ATIS) Industry
Numbering Committee (INC) reported on its recent efforts, at the
September NANC meeting, to revise the guidelines for assignment of non-
geographic numbers to reflect increased demand for their use with
machine-to-machine applications. Which machine uses require a telephone
number and why? Which ones do not? As an example, could some uses
simply require an IP address or device ID to be assigned? Should
machine-to-machine uses be assigned one type of number, with common 10-
digit area code numbers reserved for voice communications or SMS? We
seek comment generally on relevant numbering limitations that should
apply to innovative providers.
12. There is a wide array of services and providers that today rely
on indirect access to numbers. We recognize that those uses are likely
to change and expand in unpredictable ways in the future. Are there
distinguishing or limiting factors that should govern whether and how
specific services or providers receive certain types of numbers? For
example, should the Commission prioritize access to numbers by certain
types of providers, or to services that are primarily (or exclusively)
voice services? We seek comment on the relevant criteria the Commission
should consider when deciding whether and on what terms to allow direct
access to numbers.
13. If we grant interconnected VoIP providers and other types of
entities direct access to numbers, should we establish the same
conditions and criteria, regardless of the service or technology? For
example, should we impose the same documentation requirements and
enforcement provisions on interconnected VoIP providers and other
entities?
14. Twilio states that the conditions Vonage identifies in its
request for waiver, including utilization and optimization
requirements, are appropriate for access by other VoIP providers. We
seek comment on whether these limitations are sufficient for innovative
providers. What protections are necessary in order to combat potential
abuses by innovative providers? What safeguards should the Commission
adopt in order to promote an orderly and efficient use of numbers by
innovative providers? Finally, we seek comment on the rule changes
necessary to effectively allow other carriers to have access to
numbers. How would the proposed rule changes in this Notice need to be
modified in order for innovative providers to have access to numbers?
2. Access to p-ANI Codes for Public Safety Purposes
15. We seek comment on whether the Commission should modify Sec.
52.15(g)(2)(i) of our rules to allow VPC providers direct access to p-
ANI codes, for the purpose of providing 911 and E911 service. VPC
providers are entities that help interconnected VoIP providers deliver
911 calls to the appropriate public safety answering point.
16. Under Sec. 52.15(g)(2)(i) of our rules, applicants for
numbers, including p-ANI codes, must provide evidence that they are
authorized to provide service in the area in which they are requesting
numbers. However, in October 2008, as part of its implementation of the
NET 911 Act, the Commission granted interconnected VoIP providers the
right to access p-ANI codes, without such authorization, for the
purpose of providing 911 and E911 service.
17. We seek comment on whether Sec. 52.15(g)(2)(i) should be
modified to allow all providers of VPC service to directly access p-ANI
codes. Would allowing VPC providers access to p-ANI codes enhance
public safety by further ensuring that emergency calls are properly
routed to trained responders of the PSAPs? Are there unique technical
characteristics of p-ANI codes that make them different from the
numbers currently included in Sec. 52.15(g)(2)(i). Are there any cost
benefits to allowing VPC providers direct access to p-ANI codes?
Furthermore, would such access help encourage the continued growth of
interconnected VoIP services?
18. In the NET 911 Order, the Commission determined that it has the
authority to regulate VPC providers so they can perform their
obligations under the NET 911 Act. We seek comment on whether there are
distinctions the Commission should consider between VPC providers and
interconnected VoIP providers with respect to the need to access p-ANI
codes. Are there any technical or policy reasons why VPC providers
should be denied direct access to p-ANI codes while interconnected VoIP
providers have access under the Commission's NET 911 Order?
19. We also seek comment on whether any evidence of authorization
should be required for VPC providers to access p-ANI codes. TCS argued,
in seeking a waiver of our rule, that if state competitive local
exchange carrier certification is required, then obtaining one state
certification should be adequate for a waiver. Should Sec.
52.15(g)(2)(i) be modified to require VPC providers to provide the RNA
with state certification from at least one state? Alternatively, should
a ``national authorization'' be provided to VPC providers from a public
safety organization? Should the Commission consider any other factors,
such as whether VPC providers are current on state and local emergency
fees and any appropriate universal service fund contributions in
granting access to p-ANI codes? Are there other obligations on which we
seek comment above for
[[Page 36728]]
VoIP provider access to numbers that should apply as well to VPC
providers?
C. Legal Authority
20. Section 251(e)(1) of the Act gives the Commission plenary
authority over that portion of the NANP that pertains to the United
States, and the Commission retains ``authority to set policy with
respect to all facets of numbering administration in the United
States.'' The Commission has concluded that the plenary numbering
authority set forth in section 251(e)(1) of the Act provides ample
authority for the Commission to extend numbering-related requirements
to interconnected VoIP providers that obtain telephone numbers directly
or indirectly, regardless of the statutory classification of
interconnected VoIP service. Thus, because the Commission has plenary
authority over the administration of NANP numbers in the United States,
any entity that participates in that administration--including VoIP
providers that obtain numbers, whether or not they are carriers--must
adhere to the Commission's numbering rules. We believe that this
rationale applies equally to the situation here. Thus, we believe that
the Commission has authority under section 251(e)(1) to extend the
numbering requirements discussed above to interconnected VoIP
providers, and seek comment on this analysis.
21. We also believe that the Commission has additional authority
under Title I of the Act to impose numbering obligations on
interconnected VoIP providers. Ancillary authority may be employed when
``(1) the Commission's general jurisdictional grant under Title 1
covers the regulated subject and (2) the regulations are reasonably
ancillary to the Commission's effective performance of its statutorily
mandated responsibilities.'' As to the first predicate, as we have
concluded in numerous orders, interconnected VoIP services fall within
the subject-matter jurisdiction granted to the Commission in the Act.
As to the second predicate, we seek comment on whether imposing
numbering obligations on interconnected VoIP providers would be
reasonably ancillary to the Commission's performance of particular
statutory duties, such as those under sections 251 and 201 of the Act.
For example, adopting numbering obligations for interconnected VoIP
providers that obtain direct access to numbers is necessary to ensure a
level playing field and foster competition by eliminating barriers to,
and incenting development of, innovative IP services. We thus seek
comment on whether, for these or other reasons, imposing numbering
obligations on interconnected VoIP providers that get direct access to
numbers are reasonably ancillary to the Commission's responsibilities
to ensure that numbers are made available on an ``equitable'' basis, to
advance the number-portability requirements of section 251, or to help
ensure just and reasonable rates and practices for voice
telecommunications services regulated under section 201 through market
discipline from interconnected VoIP services. We also seek comment on
other possible bases for the Commission to exercise ancillary authority
here.
22. We note further that our proposed rules are consistent with
other statutory provisions governing the Commission. For example,
section 706(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the
Commission to encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications
capability to all Americans by using measures that ``promote
competition in the local telecommunications market.'' Permitting
interconnected VoIP providers to obtain direct access to telephone
numbers may encourage more VoIP providers to enter the market, enabling
consumers to enjoy more competitive service offerings. This will in
turn spur consumer demand for these services, thereby increasing demand
for broadband connections and consequently encouraging more broadband
investment and deployment consistent with the goals of section 706.
III. Notice of Inquiry
23. In the above Notice, we proposed a set of rules that would
allow interconnected VoIP providers to obtain telephone numbers
directly from number administrators rather than through intermediate
carriers, subject to certain requirements. In this Notice of Inquiry
(NOI), we seek initial comment on a broader range of numbering issues
that result from ongoing transitions from fixed telephony to increased
use of mobile services, from TDM to IP technologies, and from
geography-based intercarrier compensation to bill-and-keep, focusing
particularly on whether telephone numbers should remain associated with
particular geographies.
24. With the development of mobile services and IP technology, the
way that consumers use telephone numbers has evolved. Some services
have already broken the historical tie between a number and a specific
device. For example, Skype permits users to register a telephone number
that routes to the Skype service, and Google Voice permits users to
register a telephone number that acts as an overlay on a user's
existing telephony services, allowing selective routing of calls from
certain numbers, and listening in on voicemails before picking up the
phone. Other services use a single number for multiple devices. See
Nathan Ingram, iOS 6 unifies your Apple ID and phone number for
improved iMessage and Facetime support, The Verge (June 11, 2012, 2:32
p.m.), http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/11/3078598/ios-6-unified-apple-id-phone-number (``Now, if someone calls your phone number for
Facetime, you'll be able to answer on your Mac or iPad. The same goes
for Messages--if you get an iMessage on your phone, it'll be delivered
to your Mac and other iOS devices, even if the sender sent the message
to your cell phone number and not your Apple ID email.'').
25. In light of these changes, in this Notice we seek comment on
some of the important recommendations made by the Technological
Advisory Council (TAC) regarding the future of numbering. See
Technological Advisory Council, Presentation to the Federal
Communications Commission, at 60 (2012) (recommending that the
Commission ``[i]nitiate rulemaking on the full range and scope of
issues with numbers/identifiers''), available at http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/meeting121012/TAC12-10-12FinalPresentation.pdf. In particular, the TAC recommended that the
Commission consider ``[f]ully decoupl[ing] geography from number.'' We
seek comment on the specifics of such a transition, including how it
would affect public safety communications, access to communications
networks by Americans with disabilities, and reliability in routing of
communications and interconnection.
26. Aside from the geography-related issues addressed in the
foregoing sections, the TAC and others have raised issues concerning
number administration more generally. The memorability, ubiquity,
convenience, and universality of telephone numbers as identifiers
suggest that they will remain relevant for quite a while. Other than
shifting away from geographic assignment, should the Commission be
considering long-term changes to the basic telephone numbering system?
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose
27. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance
[[Page 36729]]
with the Commission's ex parte rules. See 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 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 Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
Sec. 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. Comment Filing Procedures
28. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 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 and second
pages 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).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[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.
[ssquf] 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 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[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).
C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
29. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
the policies and rules proposed in this document. See 5 U.S.C. 603. The
analysis is found in Appendix B. We request written public comment on
the analysis. Comments must be filed by the same dates as listed in the
first page of this document, and must have a separate and distinct
heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center,
will send a copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
D. Paperwork Reduction Analysis
30. This NPRM seeks comment on a potential new or revised
information collection requirement. If the Commission adopts any new or
revised information collection requirement, the Commission will publish
a separate notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to
comment on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how
it might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
31. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written comments
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the 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
32. The NPRM proposes to remove unnecessary regulatory barriers to
innovation and efficiency by allowing interconnected VoIP providers to
obtain telephone numbers directly from the NANPA and the PA, subject to
certain requirements. Telephone numbers are a valuable and limited
resource, and access to and use of such numbers must be managed
judiciously in order to ensure that they remain available and to
protect the efficient and reliable operation of the telephone network.
At the same time, the Commission is attempting to modernize its rules
in light of significant and ongoing technology transitions in the
delivery of voice services, with the goal of promoting innovation,
investment, and competition for the ultimate benefit of consumers and
businesses. In light of these twin concerns, the proposed rules
allowing interconnected VoIP providers to have direct access to numbers
will help modernize the Commission's
[[Page 36730]]
policies of fostering innovation and competition and speeding the
delivery of innovative services to consumers and businesses, while also
preserving the integrity of the telephone network and ensuring
appropriate oversight of telephone number assignments. To ensure the
efficient and judicious management of telephone numbers and promote
further innovation and competition, the NPRM seeks comment on these
proposed rules, including the requirements that must be met in order to
obtain direct access the numbers, and potential issues involving
intercarrier compensation, VoIP interconnection, and LNP obligations
under the proposed rules.
1. Direct Access to Numbers by Interconnected VoIP Providers
33. The NPRM first proposes to modify the Commission's rules to
allow interconnected VoIP providers to obtain numbers directly from the
NANPA and the PA, subject to a variety of requirements to ensure
continued network integrity, allow oversight and enforcement of our
numbering regulations, and protect the public interest. The NPRM seeks
comment generally on permitting interconnected VoIP providers to obtain
phone numbers directly from the number administrators and on whether
allowing these parties direct access to numbers will spur the
introduction of innovative new technologies and services, increase
efficiency, and facilitate increased choices for American consumers.
The NPRM also seeks comment on whether there are alternate ways to
accomplish these goals and whether there are benefits to requiring
carrier-partners.
34. In October 2010, the CVAA codified the Commission's definition
of ``interconnected VoIP service'' in Section 9.3 of the Commission's
rules, ``as such section may be amended from time to time.'' See Pub.
L. 111-260, section 101, adding definition of ``interconnected VoIP
service'' to Section 3 of the Act, codified at 47 U.S.C. 153(25). The
Senate Report reiterates that this term ``means the same as it does in
title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as such title may be
amended from time to time.'' S. Rep. No. 111-386, at 6 (2010) (``Senate
Report''). The House Report is silent on this issue. H.R. Rep. No. 111-
563 (2010) (``House Report''). The NPRM therefore seeks comment on
whether any amendments to the Commission's definition of interconnected
VoIP service are needed to allow direct access to numbers by
interconnected VoIP providers.
2. Documentation Required to Obtain Numbers
35. The NPRM notes that under Sec. 52.15(g)(2)(i) of the rules, an
applicant for telephone numbers must provide the number administrator
with evidence of the applicant's authority to provide service, such as
a license issued by the Commission or a CPCN issued by a state
regulatory commission. Interconnected VoIP providers may be unable to
provide the evidence required by this rule because states often refuse
to certify VoIP providers. After the Commission required interconnected
VoIP providers to comply with the same E911 requirements as carriers,
the Bureau recognized that VoIP providers would not be able to provide
the same documentation as certificated carriers to obtain the non-
dialable numbers necessary to provide E911 service. In that case, the
Bureau permitted the administrator that disseminates p-ANI codes to
accept documentation different than that required by certificated
carriers. To ensure continued compliance with part 52 of the
Commission's rules and with the NET 911 Act, an interconnected VoIP
provider must demonstrate that it provides VoIP service and must
identify the jurisdiction(s) in which it provides service. See Letter
from Sharon E. Gillett, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, to Betty Ann Kane, Chair, North American
Numbering Council and Ms. Amy L. Putnam, Director, Number Pooling
Services, Neustar, Inc. (Dec. 14, 2010). The Bureau allowed this
documentation to be in the form of pages 2 and 36 of the FCC Form 477.
36. Given these issues, the NPRM seeks comment on what, if any,
documentation interconnected VoIP providers should be required to
provide to the number administrator to receive numbers. Specifically,
comment is sought on whether interconnected VoIP providers should be
required to demonstrate that they do or plan to offer service in a
particular geographic area in order to receive numbers associated with
that area. Comment is sought on whether data regarding the provision of
interconnected VoIP services from FCC Form 477 would service this role,
or whether there are alternative means for interconnected VoIP
providers to demonstrate, absent state certification, that they are
providing services in the area for which the numbers are being
requested. Comment is further sought on whether the Commission should
adopt a process whereby it will provide the certification required by
Sec. 52.15(g)(2)(i), but only to the extent a state commission lacks
authority to do so or represents that it has a policy of not doing so.
The NPRM asks whether certification requirements should be different
for providers of facilities-based interconnected VoIP, which is
typically offered in a clearly defined geographic area, and over-the-
top interconnected VoIP, which can be used anywhere that has a
broadband connection. Comment is also sought on whether certification
would permit the Commission to exercise forfeiture authority without
first issuing a citation. The NPRM further seeks comment on the costs
and burdens imposed on small entities from the rules resulting from
this requirement, and how those onuses might be ameliorated. Lastly,
the NPRM asks whether there are other issues or significant
alternatives that the Commission should consider to ease the burden of
these proposed measures on small entities.
3. Numbering Administration Requirements for Interconnected VoIP
Providers
37. Telecommunications carriers are required to comply with a
variety of Commission and state number optimization requirements and
are expected to follow industry guidelines. In the SBCIS Waiver Order,
the Commission imposed these requirements on SBCIS as a condition of
its authorization to obtain telephone numbers directly from the number
administrators. The NPRM proposes to impose these same number
utilization and optimization requirements and industry guidelines and
practices that apply to carriers, on interconnected VoIP providers that
obtain direct access to numbers. See 47 CFR part 52. These requirements
include, inter alia, adhering to the numbering authority delegated to
state commissions for access to data and reclamation activities, and
filing NRUF Reports. Requiring interconnected VoIP providers that
obtain numbers directly from the numbering administrators to comply
with the same numbering requirements and industry guidelines as
carriers will help alleviate many concerns about numbering exhaust and
will enable the Commission to more effectively monitor the VoIP
providers' number utilization. The NPRM seeks comment on these
requirements and on their efficacy in conserving numbers and protecting
consumers. One reason numbers that interconnected VoIP providers obtain
from CLECs are not reported as ``intermediate numbers'' is that some
reporting carriers classify interconnected VoIP providers as the ``end
user,'' because the interconnected
[[Page 36731]]
VoIP provider is the customer of the wholesale carrier. The NPRM
therefore seeks comment on how to revise the Commission's definition of
``intermediate numbers'' or ``assigned numbers'' to ensure consistency
among all reporting providers.
38. The NPRM proposes to allow interconnected VoIP providers to
obtain telephone numbers only from rate centers subject to pooling, in
order to reduce waste. The NPRM seeks comment on this proposal and any
concerns it may raise. Comment is also sought on whether it makes sense
to differentiate between traditional carriers and interconnected VoIP
providers in terms of the rate centers from which they can request
numbers, and whether this approach raises anti-competitive or public
policy concerns. The NPRM seeks further comment on how this approach
will affect existing VoIP customers with numbers not in these rate
centers, if at all. Comment is sought on whether this approach is
appropriately tailored to address the problems of waste and number
exhaust, and whether there are any alternative measures that would be
more effective in dealing with these issues. The NPRM also details an
alternative proposal by the California PUC in which the Commission
would grant states the right to specify which rate centers are
available for VoIP number assignment. The NPRM seeks comment, in
particular, on this alternative proposal.
39. In conjunction with these recommendations, the California PUC
proposes a system in which all calls to VoIP providers are deemed to be
local calls for numbering administration purposes. Comment is sought on
the feasibility of this plan and the method by which the Commission
might implement it. The NPRM also seeks comment on any drawbacks posed
by this system to VoIP providers and their customers.
40. Under the Commission's rules, carriers must demonstrate
``facilities readiness'' before they can obtain initial numbering
resources, which helps to ensure that carriers are not building
inventories before they are prepared to offer service. Section
52.15(g)(2)(ii) of the Commission's rules requires that an applicant
for initial numbering resources is or will be capable of providing
service within sixty (60) days of the activation date of the numbering
resources. 47 CFR 52.15(g)(2)(ii). The NPRM proposes to extend these
``facilities readiness'' requirements to interconnected VoIP providers
who obtain direct access to numbers. Comment is sought on whether
requiring interconnected VoIP providers to submit evidence that they
have ordered an interconnection service pursuant to a tariff is
appropriate evidence of ``facilities readiness'' or whether there are
better ways to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Comment is
sought further on whether the Commission should modify this requirement
to allow more flexibility, and if so, how.
41. In the SBCIS Waiver Order, the Commission required SBCIS to
file any requests for numbers with the Commission and the relevant
state commission at least 30 days prior to requesting numbers from the
number administrators. The 30-day notice period allows the Commission
and relevant state commission to monitor the VoIP providers' numbers
and to take measures to conserve resources, if necessary, such as
determining which rate centers are available for number assignments.
The NPRM seeks comment on whether to impose this requirement on all
interconnected VoIP providers that obtain direct access to numbers.
42. In addition to complying with the Commission's existing
numbering requirements and the obligations set forth in the SBCIS
Waiver Order, Vonage offered several commitments as a condition of
obtaining direct access to numbers. Specifically, Vonage offered to:
(1) Maintain at least 65 percent number utilization across its
telephone number inventory; (2) offer IP interconnection to other
carriers and providers; and (3) provide the Commission with a
transition plan for migrating customers to its own numbers within 90
days of commencing that migration and every 90 days thereafter for 18
months. Vonage indicates that these commitments will ensure efficient
number utilization and facilitate Commission oversight. The NPRM seeks
comment on whether to impose some or all of these requirements on
interconnected VoIP providers.
43. To enhance the ability of state commissions to effectively
oversee numbers, which will in turn promote better number utilization,
the Wisconsin PSC suggests that the Commission require interconnected
VoIP providers to do the following in order to obtain telephone
numbers: (1) Provide the relevant state commission with regulatory and
numbering contacts upon first requesting numbers in that state; (2)
consolidate and report all numbers under its own unique Operating
Company Number (OCN); (3) provide customers with the ability to access
all N11 numbers in use in a state; and (4) maintain the original rate
center designation of all numbers in its inventory. The NPRM seeks
comment on this proposal and whether additional oversight of the
financial and managerial aspects of interconnected VoIP providers is
needed. In particular, comment is sought on how providers of nomadic
VoIP service could comply with a requirement to provide access to the
locally-appropriate N11 numbers.
44. The NPRM further seeks comment on whether the proposal to allow
direct access to numbers for interconnected VoIP providers might affect
competition, and if so, how.
4. Enforcement of Interconnected VoIP Providers' Compliance With
Numbering Rules
45. The NPRM notes that in order for the Commission to exercise its
forfeiture authority for violations of the Act and its rules without
first issuing a warning, the wrongdoer must hold (or be an applicant
for) some form of authorization from the Commission, or be engaged in
activity for which such an authorization is required. A Commission
authorization is not currently required to provide interconnected VoIP
service. The NPRM therefore seeks comment on whether the Commission
should implement a certification or blanket authorization process
applicable to interconnected VoIP providers that elect to obtain direct
access to numbers. Comment is also sought on whether Commission
certification would be necessary and appropriate for all providers, not
just those that cannot obtain certifications from state commissions.
Alternatively, comment is sought on whether it would be less
administratively burdensome if the Commission amended its rules to
establish ``blanket'' authorization for interconnected VoIP providers
for access to numbering resources.
46. In addition, the NPRM seeks comment on whether there are ways
to ensure that VoIP providers are subject to the same penalties and
enforcement processes as traditional common carriers. More
specifically, comment is sought on whether VoIP providers must consent
to be subject to the same monetary penalties as common carriers as a
condition of obtaining direct access to numbers. Comment is also sought
on whether the Commission can and should require VoIP providers to
waive any additional process protections that traditional common
carriers would not receive. Lastly, the NPRM seeks comments on whether
VoIP providers should be prohibited from obtaining direct access to
numbers if they are ``red-lighted'' by the Commission for unpaid debts
or other reasons. The NPRM asks if there are any other reasons for
which VoIP providers
[[Page 36732]]
should be deemed ineligible to obtain numbers.
5. Databases, Call Routing and Termination
47. The NPRM also seeks comment on the routing of calls by
interconnected VoIP providers that use their own telephone numbers.
Specifically, the NPRM explains that interconnected VoIP provider
switches do not appear in the LERG, the database which enables carriers
to send traffic to, and receive traffic from, a given telephone number.
The NPRM notes that some commenters claim that, without association to
a switch, carriers will not know where to route calls, likely resulting
in end user confusion and interference with emergency services and
response. Other commenters have responded that marketplace solutions
from companies such as Level 3 or Neutral Tandem can be employed to
solve these problems by, for instance, designating the switch of a
carrier partner in the LERG and in the NPAC database as the default
routing locations for traffic bound for numbers assigned to
interconnected VoIP providers in order to route calls originated in the
PSTN. The NPRM seeks comment generally on whether providing
interconnected VoIP providers direct access to numbers will hinder or
prevent call routing or tracking, and how such complications can be
prevented or minimized. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether the
marketplace solutions described by the commenters will be adequate to
properly route calls by interconnected VoIP providers, absent a VoIP
interconnection agreement. The NPRM further asks whether the Commission
should require interconnected VoIP providers to maintain carrier
partners to ensure that calls are routed properly.
48. The NPRM seeks comment on the routing limitations that
interconnected VoIP providers currently experience as a result of
having to partner with a carrier in order to get numbers, and on the
role and scalability of various industry databases in routing VoIP
traffic directly to the VoIP provider over IP links. Specifically, the
NPRM asks what restrictions are imposed by the administrators of the
various database services on access to the databases, and on the
practices that service providers may need to alter to increase
interconnection and routing efficiency. Specifically, the NPRM asks
whether listing a non-facilities-based interconnected VoIP provider in
the Alternate Service Provider Identification (ALT SPID) field in the
NPAC database is sufficient to allow a provider to route calls directly
to a VoIP provider if the VoIP provider has a VoIP interconnection
agreement. Lastly, the NPRM seeks comment on how numbering schemes and
databases integral to the operation of PSTN call routing will need to
evolve to operate well in IP-based networks.
6. Intercarrier Compensation
49. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission adopted a
default uniform national bill-and-keep framework as the ultimate
intercarrier compensation end state for all telecommunications traffic
exchanged with a LEC, and established a measured transition that
focused initially on reducing certain terminating switched access
rates. As the NPRM notes, interconnected VoIP providers with direct
access to numbers could enter into agreements to interconnect with
other providers. The NPRM seeks comment on how to address any
ambiguities in intercarrier compensation payment obligations that may
be introduced by granting interconnected VoIP providers direct access
to numbers. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether granting
interconnected VoIP providers direct access to numbers would improve
the accuracy and utility of call signaling information for traffic
originated by customers of interconnected VoIP providers. The NPRM asks
further whether any intercarrier compensation impacts would be
temporary, given the ongoing transition toward a bill-and-keep
intercarrier compensation framework.
50. The NPRM also seeks comment on the regulatory status of
competitive tandem providers, and in particular, whether any portions
of competitive operations are regulated by the states or Commission. If
not, the NPRM asks what intercarrier compensation obligations apply,
and to what entity, for traffic that a VoIP provider originates or
terminates in partnership with a competitive tandem provider that is
not certified by the Commission or any state commission.
7. VoIP Interconnection
51. The NPRM seeks comment generally on the effect that direct
access to numbers will have on the industry's transition to direct
interconnection in IP, and on the status of IP interconnection for VoIP
providers today. The NPRM also asks how many VoIP interconnection
agreements currently exist and how parties to those agreements treat
technical issues. Comment is further sought on whether access to
numbers will increase call routing efficiency when one of the providers
is a VoIP provider, and whether such efficiency will affect the
likelihood of parties entering into agreements for VoIP
interconnection.
52. The NPRM also seeks comment on the extent to which its
proposals would promote IP interconnection. As stated in the NPRM, the
Commission expects that granting VoIP providers direct access to
numbers would facilitate several types of VoIP interconnection,
including interconnection between over-the-top VoIP providers and cable
providers, interconnection between two over-the-top providers, and
interconnection between cable providers. Comment is sought on this
analysis, and on whether granting VoIP providers direct access to
numbers will encourage IP-to-IP interconnection by eliminating
disincentives to interconnect in IP format and lowering the costs
associated with implementing IP-to-IP interconnection agreements. The
NPRM further asks whether direct access to numbers will affect the
rights and obligations of service providers with regards to VoIP
interconnection.
8. Local Number Portability Obligations
53. The NPRM proposes to modify the Commission's rules to include
language specifying that users of interconnected VoIP services should
enjoy the benefits of local number portability without regard to
whether the VoIP provider obtains numbers directly or through a carrier
partner. The NPRM seeks comment on this proposal.
54. In the VoIP LNP Order, the Commission clarified that carriers
``must port-out NANP telephone numbers upon valid requests from an
interconnected VoIP provider (or from its associated numbering
partner).'' Some CLECs have argued that a port directly to a non-
carrier interconnected VoIP provider (that has not been certificated by
a state), is not a ``valid port request,'' so there is no obligation to
port directly to a non-carrier interconnected VoIP provider. The NPRM
proposes rules that will better reflect this obligation by making clear
the requirement to port directly to a non-carrier interconnected VoIP
provider upon request. This proposed rule change should eliminate any
argument that a request to port to a VoIP provider is invalid merely
because the ported-to entity is a VoIP provider. In doing so, the
proposed rule will benefit users of interconnected VoIP services by
increasing the ease of portability.
55. The NPRM also notes that the Commission has established
geographic limits on the extent to which a provider must port numbers.
The NPRM seeks comment on the geographic limitations,
[[Page 36733]]
if any, that should apply to ports between a wireline carrier and an
interconnected VoIP provider that has obtained its numbers directly
from the number administrators, or between a wireless carrier and an
interconnected VoIP provider that has obtained its numbers directly
from the number administrators. The NPRM asks further whether
geographic limits on porting directly between an interconnected VoIP
provider and another carrier are necessary. Comment is also sought on
whether, as a practical matter, interconnected VoIP providers will need
to partner with a carrier numbering partner to port numbers in some or
all instances, even if they are granted direct access to numbers.
9. Transitioning to Direct Access
56. On a general level, the NPRM seeks comment on whether the
changes proposed herein should be adopted on a gradual or phased-in
basis. More specifically, the NPRM asks what timeframes would be
appropriate for a graduated transition, and what period of time would
permit the industry to adjust to the proposed changes. Comment is also
sought on what steps the Commission should take to ensure that any
transition to direct access to numbers by interconnected VoIP providers
occurs without unnecessary disruption to consumers or the industry.
10. Innovative Uses of Numbers
57. The NPRM notes that beyond interconnected VoIP providers, an
increasingly wide array of services and applications rely on telephone
numbers as the addressing system for communications, including home
security systems, payment authorization services, text messaging
services, and telematics. The NPRM therefore seeks comment on whether
the Commission should expand access to numbers beyond the proposal
regarding interconnected VoIP providers. Specifically, the NPRM asks
whether access to numbers should be expanded to one-way VoIP providers.
The NPRM also seeks comment on the types of services and applications
that use numbers today and that are likely to do so in the future.
Comment is further sought on the potential benefits and risks of
expanding direct access to numbers, and any safeguards or
countermeasures that could be employed to counteract any conceivable
downsides. The NPRM also asks whether there are distinguishing or
limiting factors that should govern whether and how specific services
or providers receive certain types of numbers. Comment is sought on
whether the same criteria and conditions should be implemented
regardless of the service or technology offered if interconnected VoIP
providers and other types of entities are granted direct access to
numbers.
11. Access to p-ANI Codes for Public Safety Purposes
58. The NPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should modify
Sec. 52.15(g)(2)(i) of its rules to allow VoIP Positioning Center
(VPC) providers direct access to numbers, specifically p-ANI codes, for
the purpose of providing 911 and E911 service. In the Waiver Order, the
Commission found good cause to grant the petition of TeleCommunication
Systems, Inc. (TCS), allowing it direct access to p-ANI codes from the
RNA in states where it is unable to obtain certification while the
Commission adopts final rules for direct access to numbers. The NPRM
asks whether all VPC providers should be allowed direct access to p-ANI
codes. Comment is further sought on whether there are any costs or
benefits to allowing VPC providers direct access to p-ANI codes, and
whether such access would help to encourage the continued growth of
interconnected VoIP services. The NPRM also asks whether there are any
technical or policy reasons why VPC providers should be denied direct
access to p-ANI codes. Lastly, the NPRM asks whether any evidence of
authorization should be required for VPC providers to access p-ANI
codes.
12. Legal Authority
59. The NPRM also seeks comment on the Commission's legal authority
to adopt the various requirements proposed. Comment is sought on the
Commission's plenary authority under section 251(e)(1) of the Act to
impose the various proposed requirements on interconnected VoIP
providers obtaining direct access to numbers. The NPRM also asks
whether imposing numbering obligations on interconnected VoIP providers
would be reasonably ancillary to the Commission's performance of
particular statutory duties, such as those under sections 251 and 201
of the Act, to allow the Commission to impose such obligations under
its Title I ancillary authority.
B. Legal Basis
60. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to
the NPRM is contained in sections 1, 3, 4, 201-205, 251, and 303(r) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154,
201-205, 251, and 303(r).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
61. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. See 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The
RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and
``small governmental jurisdiction.'' See 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition,
the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small-
business concern'' under the Small Business Act. See 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A
small-business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. See 15 U.S.C.
632.
62. Small Businesses. A small business is an independent business
having less than 500 employees. Nationwide, there are a total of
approximately 27.9 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
Affected small entities as defined by industry are as follows.
63. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 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.
According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 3,188 firms in
this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
3144 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 44 firms had
employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus, under this size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered small.
64. 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 size
standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported
that they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of these
1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
301 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of local exchange service are small
entities that may be affected by the rules and policies proposed in the
NPRM.
[[Page 36734]]
65. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to incumbent local exchange
services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to
Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported that they were incumbent local
exchange service providers. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent
local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by
rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
66. 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.
67. 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 size standard under SBA rules is for
the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
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 and 186 have more than
1,500 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. In addition, 72 carriers have reported that they
are Other Local Service Providers. Of the 72, seventy have 1,500 or
fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
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 that
may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
68. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to interexchange services. The closest applicable size
standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to Commission data, 359 companies reported
that their primary telecommunications service activity was the
provision of interexchange services. Of these 359 companies, an
estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 42 have more than 1,500
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
interexchange service providers are small entities that may be affected
by rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
69. Local Resellers. 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. According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported
that they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of
these, an estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more
than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the
majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected by
rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
70. Toll Resellers. 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. According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported
that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of
these, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 24 have more
than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the
majority of toll resellers are small entities that may be affected by
rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
71. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a size standard 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 size standard under
SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to 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 and
five have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities that may be
affected by the rules and policies adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
72. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since
2007, the SBA has recognized wireless firms within this new, broad,
economic census category. Prior to that time, such firms were within
the now-superseded categories of Paging and Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has
deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were
1,383 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,368
firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of
1000 employees or more. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless
telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service
(PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of these,
an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that
approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small.
Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless
firms can be considered small.
73. Paging (Private and Common Carrier). In the Paging Third Report
and Order, we developed a small business size standard for ``small
businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining
their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
installment payments. A ``small business'' is an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding
[[Page 36735]]
three years. Additionally, a ``very small business'' is an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding
three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards.
According to Commission data, 291 carriers have reported that they are
engaged in Paging or Messaging Service. Of these, an estimated 289 have
1,500 or fewer employees, and two have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of paging
providers are small entities that may be affected by our action. An
auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on February
24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned,
985 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won
440 licenses. A subsequent auction of MEA and Economic Area (``EA'')
licenses was held in the year 2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned,
5,323 were sold. One hundred thirty-two companies claiming small
business status purchased 3,724 licenses. A third auction, consisting
of 8,874 licenses in each of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in all but
three of the 51 MEAs, was held in 2003. Seventy-seven bidders claiming
small or very small business status won 2,093 licenses. The current
number of small or very small business entities that hold wireless
licenses may differ significantly from the number of such entities that
won in spectrum auctions due to assignments and transfers of licenses
in the secondary market over time. In addition, some of the same small
business entities may have won licenses in more than one auction. A
fourth auction of 9,603 lower and upper band paging licenses was held
in the year 2010. Twenty-nine bidders claiming small or very small
business status won 3,016 licenses. On February 1, 2013, the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau announced an auction of 5,905 lower and upper
band paging licenses to commence on July 16, 2013, and sought comment
for the procedures to be used for this auction.
74. Cable and Other Program Distribution. Since 2007, these
services have been defined within the broad economic census category of
Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows:
``This industry comprises 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 telecommunications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total
of 955 firms in this previous category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 939 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and 16 firms had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus,
under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small
and may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
75. Cable Companies and Systems. 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. The Commission
determined that this size standard equates approximately to a size
standard of $100 million or less in annual revenues. Industry data
indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are
small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's
rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer
subscribers. Industry data indicate that, of 7,208 systems nationwide,
6,139 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 379
systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this second size
standard, most cable systems are small and may be affected by rules
adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
76. Cable System Operators. The 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.'' The Commission has determined that an
operator serving fewer than 677,000 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. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators
nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard. We note
that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on
whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore we are unable to
estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that
would qualify as small under this size standard.
77. Internet Service Providers. Since 2007, these services have
been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows:
``This industry comprises 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 telecommunications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 3,188
firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of
this total, 3,144 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and
44 firms had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. In
addition, according to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total
of 396 firms in the category Internet Service Providers (broadband)
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 394 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees, and two firms had employment of
1000 employees or more. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of
these firms are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted
pursuant to the NPRM.
78. Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals.
Our action may pertain to interconnected VoIP services, which could be
provided by entities that provide other services such as email, online
gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other,
similar IP-enabled services. The Commission has not adopted a size
standard for entities that create or provide these types of services or
applications. However, the Census Bureau has identified firms that
``primarily engaged in (1) publishing and/or broadcasting content on
the Internet exclusively or (2) operating Web sites that use a search
engine to generate and maintain extensive databases of Internet
addresses and content in an easily searchable format (and known as Web
search portals).'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for this category, which is: all such firms having 500 or fewer
employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 2,705
firms in this category that operated for
[[Page 36736]]
the entire year. Of this total, 2,682 firms had employment of 499 or
fewer employees, and 23 firms had employment of 500 employees or more.
Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small
entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
79. All Other Information Services. The Census Bureau defines this
industry as including ``establishments primarily engaged in providing
other information services (except news syndicates, libraries,
archives, Internet publishing and broadcasting, and Web search
portals).'' Our action pertains to interconnected VoIP services, which
could be provided by entities that provide other services such as
email, online gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant
messaging, and other, similar IP-enabled services. The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for this category; that size
standard is $7.0 million or less in average annual receipts. According
to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 367 firms in this category
that operated for the entire year. Of these, 334 had annual receipts of
under $5.0 million, and an additional 11 firms had receipts of between
$5 million and $9,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority
of these firms are small entities that may be affected by our action.
80. All Other Telecommunications. The Census Bureau defines this
industry as including ``establishments 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 this category; that size standard is
$30.0 million or less in average annual receipts. According to Census
Bureau data for 2007, there were 2,383 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of these, 2,305 establishments had annual
receipts of under $10 million and 84 establishments had annual receipts
of $10 million or more. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of
these firms are small entities that may be affected by our action.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
81. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to require interconnected
VoIP providers seeking direct access to numbers to submit specific
documentation, a requirement which may necessitate filing FCC Form 477
with the Commission. The NPRM further proposes to require these
providers to comply with the same numbering obligations and industry
guidelines as traditional common carriers. Specifically, interconnected
VoIP providers will be required under Sec. 52.15(f)(6) to file usage
forecast and utilization (NRUF) reports on a semi-annual basis.
Compliance with these reporting obligations may affect small entities,
and may include new administrative processes.
82. In the NPRM, the Commission also proposes to allow
interconnected VoIP providers to obtain telephone numbers only from
rate centers subject to pooling. The NPRM further suggests imposing a
``facilities readiness'' requirement on interconnected VoIP providers
seeking direct access to numbers under Sec. 52.15(g)(2)(ii) of the
Commission's rules. Under this proposal, providers would be required to
provide evidence that they have ordered an interconnection service
pursuant to a tariff that is generally available to other providers of
IP-enabled voice services. The NPRM also proposes to require
interconnected VoIP providers to file any requests for numbers with the
Commission and relevant state commission at least 30 days prior to
requesting numbers from the number administrators.
83. In the NPRM, the Commission further proposes to require all
interconnected VoIP providers seeking direct access to numbers to: (1)
maintain at least 65 percent number utilization across its telephone
number inventory; (2) offer IP interconnection to other carriers and
providers; and (3) provide the Commission with a transition plan for
migrating customers to its own numbers within 90 days of commencing
that migration and every 90 days thereafter for 18 months. Moreover,
the NPRM proposes to require these providers to: (1) provide the
relevant state commission with regulatory and numbering contacts upon
first requesting numbers in that state; (2) consolidate and report all
numbers under its own unique Operating Company Number (OCN); (3)
provide customers with the ability to access all N11 numbers in use in
a state; and (4) maintain the original rate center designation of all
numbers in its inventory.
84. In addition, the Commission proposes to amend its rules to
establish ``blanket'' authorization for interconnected VoIP providers
for access to numbering resources, or, in the alternative, to require
interconnected VoIP providers to obtain a certification from the
Commission before gaining direct access to numbering resources. The
NPRM also proposes rules that will make clear the requirement to port
directly to a non-carrier interconnected VoIP provider upon request.
Compliance with these reporting obligations may affect small entities,
and may include new administrative processes. We note parenthetically
that in the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on the benefits and
burdens of these proposals, on the costs that these proposals are
likely to impose on small entities, and how those onuses might be
ameliorated. In some instances, the NPRM asks further whether there are
other issues or significant alternatives that the Commission should
consider to ease the burden of these proposed measures on small
entities.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
85. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance 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.'' See 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
86. The Commission is aware that some of the proposals under
consideration will impact small entities by imposing costs and
administrative burdens. For this reason, the NPRM proposes a number of
measures to minimize or eliminate the costs and burdens generated by
compliance with the proposed rules.
87. First, the NPRM proposes to require only those interconnected
VoIP providers seeking direct access to numbers to comply with the same
numbering requirements and industry guidelines as traditional common
[[Page 36737]]
carriers, including filing semi-annual NRUF reports under Sec.
52.15(f)(6) of the Commission's rules. Although the NPRM proposes to
require such providers to submit specific documentation as a condition
of obtaining numbers, the Commission has attempted to minimize this
burden by proposing that this documentation take the form of pages 2
and 36 of FCC Form 477. Since interconnected VoIP providers are already
required to file this form with the Commission, this proposal should
not have a significant economic impact on small entities. Moreover, the
NPRM further seeks comment on the costs and burdens imposed on small
entities from the rules resulting from this requirement, and on how
those onuses might be ameliorated. It also asks whether there are other
issues or significant alternatives that the Commission should consider
to ease the burden of these proposed measures on small entities
88. The NPRM also proposes to impose a ``facilities readiness''
requirement on interconnected VoIP providers seeking direct access to
numbers. Although this may obligate providers to provide evidence that
they have ordered an interconnection service pursuant to a tariff, the
NPRM seeks comment on whether there are better ways to demonstrate
compliance with this requirement, and whether the Commission should
modify this requirement to allow providers more flexibility.
89. The NPRM also proposes to require interconnected VoIP providers
seeking direct access to numbers to: (1) Maintain at least 65 percent
number utilization across its telephone number inventory; (2) offer IP
interconnection to other carriers and providers; and (3) provide the
Commission with a transition plan for migrating customers to its own
numbers within 90 days of commencing that migration and every 90 days
thereafter for 18 months. Because the Commission recognizes that some
of these requirements may place an administrative burden and exert an
economic impact on small entities, it seeks comment on whether it
should impose these requirements on interconnected VoIP providers to
begin with. Moreover, these requirements are only extended to those
interconnected VoIP providers seeking direct access to numbers.
90. The NPRM proposes to require interconnected VoIP providers
seeking direct access to numbers to: (1) provide the relevant state
commission with regulatory and numbering contacts upon first requesting
numbers in that state; (2) consolidate and report all numbers under its
own unique Operating Company Number (OCN); (3) provide customers with
the ability to access all N11 numbers in use in a state; and (4)
maintain the original rate center designation of all numbers in its
inventory. While these requirements may impose administrative burdens
on small entities, the Commission has limited them to interconnected
VoIP providers seeking direct access to numbers. Additionally, the NPRM
seeks comment on how providers of nomadic VoIP services could comply
with a requirement to provide access to the locally-appropriate N11
numbers, in order to better ease the burden on such entities.
91. Although the NPRM proposes to require interconnected VoIP
providers to obtain a certification from the Commission before gaining
direct access to numbering resources, it also proposes, in the
alternative, to amend the Commission's rules to establish ``blanket''
authorization for interconnected VoIP providers for access to numbering
resources. This proposed alternative would decrease the administrative
and cost burdens imposed on small entities.
92. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the NPRM, in
reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.
The proposed reporting requirements in the NPRM could have an economic
impact on both small and large entities. However, the Commission
believes that any impact of such requirements is outweighed by the
accompanying benefits to the public and to the operation and efficiency
of the telecommunications industry.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
93. None.
VI. Ordering Clauses
94. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to sections 1, 3, 4,
201-205, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201-205, 251, 303(r), the notice of proposed
rulemaking is hereby adopted.
95. It is further ordered that pursuant to sections 1, 3, 4, 201-
205, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201-205, 251, 303(r), the notice of inquiry is
hereby adopted.
96. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer
Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of
this notice of proposed rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 52
Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 52 as follows:
PART 52--NUMBERING
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47
U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 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 A--Scope and Authority
0
2. Amend Sec. 52.5 as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraph (i);
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (d) through (h) as paragraphs (f) through
(j);
0
c. Redesignate paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (c) and (d);
0
d. Add new paragraphs (b) and (e); and
0
e. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (i) and (j).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 52.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
(b) Interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service
provider. The term ``interconnected VoIP service provider'' is an
entity that provides interconnected VoIP service, as that term is
defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(25).
* * * * *
(e) Service provider. The term ``service provider'' refers to a
telecommunications carrier or other entity that receives numbering
resources from the NANPA, a Pooling Administrator or a
telecommunications carrier for the purpose of providing or establishing
telecommunications service. For the purposes of this part, the term
``service provider'' shall include an interconnected VoIP service
provider.
* * * * *
(i) Telecommunications carrier or carrier. A ``telecommunications
carrier'' or ``carrier'' is any provider of
[[Page 36738]]
telecommunications services, except that such term does not include
aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined in 47 U.S.C.
226(a)(2)). For the purposes of this part, the term
``telecommunications carrier'' or ``carrier'' shall include an
interconnected VoIP service provider.
(j) Telecommunications service. The term ``telecommunications
service'' refers to the offering of telecommunications for a fee
directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be
effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the
facilities used. For purposes of this part, the term
``telecommunications service'' shall include interconnected VoIP
service as that term is defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(25).3.
0
3. Amend Sec. 52.15 by revising paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (ii) to read
as follows:
Subpart B--Administration
Sec. 52.15 Central office code administration.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The applicant is authorized to provide service in the area for
which the numbering resources are being requested; and the applicant is
or will be capable of providing service within sixty (60) days of the
numbering resources activation date.
(ii) Interconnected VoIP service providers may use the appropriate
pages of their most recent FCC Form 477 submission as evidence of
authorization to provide service in the area for which resources are
being requested. Interconnected VoIP service providers must also
provide the relevant state commission with regulatory and numbering
contacts upon first requesting numbers in that state.
* * * * *
Sec. 52.16 [Amended]
0
4. Amend Sec. 52.16 by removing paragraph (g).
Sec. 52.17 [Amended]
0
5. Amend Sec. 52.17 by removing paragraph (c).
Subpart C--Number Portability
Sec. 52.21 [Amended]
0
6. Amend Sec. 52.21 by removing paragraph (h) and redesignating
paragraphs (i) through (w) as (h) through (v).
Sec. 52.32 [Amended]
0
7. Amend Sec. 52.32 by removing paragraph (e).
0
8. Amend Sec. 52.33 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.33 Recovery of carrier-specific costs directly related to
providing long-term number portability.
* * * * *
(b) All telecommunications carriers other than incumbent local
exchange carriers may recover their number portability costs in any
manner consistent with applicable state and federal laws and
regulations.
0
9. Amend Sec. 52.34 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.34 Obligations regarding local number porting to and from
interconnected VoIP or Internet-based TRS providers.
* * * * *
(c) Telecommunications carriers must facilitate an end-user
customer's valid number portability request either to or from an
interconnected VoIP or VRS or IP Relay provider. ``Facilitate'' is
defined as the telecommunication carrier's affirmative legal obligation
to take all steps necessary to initiate or allow a port-in or port-out
itself, subject to a valid port request, without unreasonable delay or
unreasonable procedures that have the effect of delaying or denying
porting of the NANP-based telephone number.
Sec. 52.35 [Amended]
0
10. Amend Sec. 52.35 by removing paragraph (e)(1) and redesignating
paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) as (e)(1) and (2).
Sec. 52.36 [Amended]
0
11. Amend Sec. 52.36 by removing paragraph (d).
[FR Doc. 2013-13703 Filed 6-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P