NANC%20Safety%20Valve%20IMG

1
NANCSafety Valve IMG

• January 19, 2005

2
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-01-362 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.

3
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.

4
Safety Valve Meetings Conducted

• December 7, 2004
• January 5, 2005
• January 6, 2005
• January 14, 2005

5
Background

• On December 28, 2001, the FCC issued the Third
  Report and Order and Second Order on
  Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98 and CC
  Docket No. 99-200 (FCC-01-362). Paragraphs 58-66
  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. 96-98 and CC Docket No. 99-200
  (FCC-01-362), 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.

6
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.

7
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

8
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.

9
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

10
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 RO 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.

11
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.

12
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 (47CFRCh1 52.15) 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.

13
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.

14
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.)

15
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.

16
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).

17
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.

18
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.