NANC Safety Valve IMG January 19, 2005

Safety Valve IMG2 Issue During the November 4, 2004 NANC, Qwest made a presentation on the current safety valve process and provided information indicating that a majority of seventy recent safety valve requests took more than 10 days to process as recommended by the FCC in the Third Report and Order (FCC ¶58-66). The average time was 35 days, with a minimum or 3 days and maximum of 313 days. Because numbering resource safety valve requests are usually made to either respond to a specific customers request for numbering resources or for a Location Routing Number (LRN) for additional switch capabilities in a rate center, a delay in obtaining the resources can be customer impacting.

January 19, 2005Safety Valve IMG3 Tasking The NANC created an action item for a Safety Valve Issue Management Group (IMG) to determine scale and scope of the safety valve problem and, if a change is recommended, propose modifications to the safety valve process to minimize the customer impact of delayed safety valve waivers. Report at next NANC meeting.

January 19, 2005Safety Valve IMG4 Safety Valve Meetings Conducted December 7, 2004 January 5, 2005 January 6, 2005 January 14, 2005

January 19, 2005Safety Valve IMG5 Background On December 28, 2001, the FCC issued the Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No and CC Docket No (FCC ). Paragraphs discussed safety valve requests. Paragraphs 65 and 66 outlined when a safety valve request was appropriate and established an expected time frame for action of 10 business days. (Although we do not establish a specific time limit for states to act on these requests, we believe that, in most instances, 10 business days from receipt of a request that the state determines to be sufficiently detailed and complete will be sufficient time to review and act upon safety valve requests). In the ordering clause of the Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No and CC Docket No (FCC ), 47CFR52.15 (g)(4) states... The state commission also may overturn the NANPAs decision to withhold numbering resources from the carrier based on its determination that the carrier has demonstrated a verifiable need for numbering resources and has exhausted all other available remedies.

January 19, 2005Safety Valve IMG6 Process A service provider has initially made an application for the numbering resources (specific customer request or LRN) and is denied by the NANPA/PA because they do not meet the months to exhaust (MTE) or utilization requirements established by the FCC. The service provider then makes a safety valve request to the state regulator to over ride the requirement for MTE or utilization requirements of its current inventory.

January 19, 2005Safety Valve IMG7 Variable Impacting State Response Time From the information available to the IMG, it appears that the method, and therefore time frame, of addressing safety valve issues varies on a state-by- state basis. Some of the variables that would impact the response times are: –Method of handling safety valve requests – docket vs. administrative –Staffing resources –Sensitivity to numbering issues

January 19, 2005Safety Valve IMG8 Specifics Regarding Response Times Response time from State Commissions varies and can impair the carriers ability to meet their commitment to the customer. Of the states providing information; –One carrier reports that response times for decisions range from 5 to 313 calendar days –Another carrier reports response times from 3 to 60 calendar days –All of the above cases resulted in commission approval –Some Commission staffs stated that 10-15% of the applications they received from carriers other than those identified above are rejected, denied, or the submitting carrier is encouraged or directed to withdraw the application.

January 19, 2005Safety Valve IMG9 Recommendations Recognition be given to those states that are actively engaged in numbering resource issues and responding to safety valve requests in a timely manner. Carriers should continue working with the individual states that are not responding in a timely manner to safety valve requests. Carriers should bring issues of this type to the attention of any regional operating groups for discussion. The NARUC members of NANC should bring the issue of timely responses to service providers requests back to NARUC for discussion. The safety valve process should be modified to include a period of time in which a state regulator must take some positive action (approve, deny, or take ministerial action). If such action is not taken, the service provider may reapply to NANPA/PA with appropriate documentation for the automatic assignment of the requested resources

January 19, 2005Safety Valve IMG10 Dissenting Viewpoint Some NARUC representatives on the IMG could not support this modification of the safety valve process. The concern is that such action limits the delegated authority of states and may not take into consideration the administrative process of an individual state or the competing demands for state regulators' time and attention. Additionally, they could not support the automatic assignment of requested resources in the event a timely response is not made to a carrier request. Safety valve requests are to be closely construed pursuant to direction from the FCC in its order. Lastly, in paragraph 62 of the 3rd R&O on numbering resource optimization, the FCC discussed, and discarded, self certification in regards to safety valve requests. The dissenting representatives believe that the FCC clearly set forth in its order at paragraph 66 that application by the carrier to the FCC is the appropriate action in the event a timely response is not made by a state. Any modification of the FCC order is best handled by petition to the FCC in order to afford full notice and comment to affected parties.

January 19, 2005Safety Valve IMG11 Proposal The Safety Valve IMG proposes the creation of a self-certification checklist for service providers requesting a safety valve and a two- phased implementation of an action clock for states when a safety valve is received. The checklist will only apply in the event that the NANPA/PA is allowed to automatically process requests.

January 19, 2005Safety Valve IMG12 Self Certification Checklist Many service providers already have an internal checklist that is used during the process of developing requests for numbering resources. If a safety valve application included, in addition to the current documentation package, a checklist from the service provider, the level of effort required for a state regulator to make an initial determination of the request should be reduced. If the state regulator failed to take action within the designated time frame, the checklist would be part of the documentation required for the NANPA/PA to assign the requested resources. A checklist should enable NANPA/PA to make the assignments if the guideline/procedures direct since the current CFRs (47CFRCh ) state where NANPA conducts code assignments consistent with existing CFRs, published industry guidelines, and Commission orders. An example of a possible checklist is provided as Attachment 1.

January 19, 2005Safety Valve IMG13 Phase One Action Clock If a state regulator failed to take action (approve, deny, or take other ministerial action) within 30 calendar days of receipt of a safety valve request, a service provider could reapply to the NANPA/PA and get assignment of the requested resources.

January 19, 2005Safety Valve IMG14 Phase Two Action Clock Currently NANPA and PA process applications within 10 business days and 7 calendar days respectively. Add to this the proposed 30 calendar days for a regulator to take action and a service provider could potentially have to wait 44 calendar days to be assigned resources if a state does not engage in the safety valve process. In Phase Two, states that chose not to be involved in the safety valve process could formally opt out of the action clock. In those states the NANPA/PA would not have to wait for the state regulatory clock to time out before assigning the requested resources. If a states position changes in the future, it could withdraw the opt out status. (Consensus could not be reached: Both New York and Michigan dissent.)

January 19, 2005Safety Valve IMG15 Implementation Issues Not Addressed Should the proposal be implemented, it was not identified who would track which states had opted in or out. Details regarding how state inaction will be tracked were not identified The NANPA and the PA raised several issues regarding the impact to their processes which the group recognized as being of concern, but agreed not to address at this juncture.

January 19, 2005Safety Valve IMG16 Other Issues INC proposed that carrier requests for LRNs be fast-tracked if they must be put through the safety valve process. The Safety Valve IMG does not believe this is necessary. –New switch orders usually have a longer lead-time than customer requests. –Same process as outlined above could be followed except that instead of a customer letter the carrier provides evidence of new switch (e.g., vendor switch order or new CLLI).

January 19, 2005Safety Valve IMG17 Implementation Implementation of these recommendations could be made through various methods. One path is to have the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) incorporate a standard checklist into its guidelines, and to reference the action time clock parameters with direction for NANPA/PA to proceed with assignment if clock times out.

January 19, 2005Safety Valve IMG18 Self-Certification Checklist Example [.The following items represent possible items for a self-certification checklist and is not considered to be all-inclusive.] If there are multiple switches in same rate center, consider moving resources between switches. Numbers currently in Aging status could be pulled out to meet need Test codes not fully utilized could be consolidated to make clean code available for assignments to customers If holding pristine or lightly-contaminated blocks in inventory, consider exchanging with previously donated like-for-like blocks in pool In mandatory or voluntary pooling rate centers the available blocks in the pool should be evaluated for use instead of applying for a full code.