Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules  
Administrative Rules Division (ARD)  
611 W. Ottawa Street  
Lansing, MI 48909  
Phone: 517-335-8658 Fax: 517-335-9512  
REQUEST FOR RULEMAKING (RFR)  
1. Department:  
Licensing and Regulatory Affairs  
2. Bureau:  
Public Service Commission  
3. Promulgation type:  
Full Process  
4. Title of proposed rule set:  
Basic Local Exchange Service Customer Migration  
5. Rule numbers or rule set range of numbers:  
R 484.81-484.90  
6. Estimated time frame:  
6 months  
Name of person filling out RFR:  
Kelly Barber-Dodge  
E-mail of person filling out RFR:  
Phone number of person filling out RFR:  
517-284-8094  
Address of person filling out RFR:  
7109 W Saginaw Hwy, Lansing, MI 48917  
7. Describe the general purpose of these rules, including any problems the changes are intended  
to address.  
These rules are designed to streamline the processes and provide guidelines for providers of basic  
local exchange service when transferring an end user (telephone landline customer) from one  
provider to another. Having reasonable standards protects both end users and providers during the  
migration process by ensuring all needed information is provided to each provider involved in the  
transfer on a timely basis. Frequency of conduct will vary from provider to provider based on its  
number of end users and the number of competitors in the exchange. These rules are necessary  
because there are natural incentives to prevent or delay such transfers on the part of the currently  
serving provider. The Telecommunications Division Staff (Staff) has had discussions with  
providers that have experienced delays during the transfer process. The Staff recommends no  
changes to the existing rules.  
8. Please cite the specific promulgation authority for the rules (i.e. department director,  
commission, board, etc.).  
MCL 24.239  
RFR-Page 2  
By authority conferred on the Commission by Sections 202 and 213 of the Michigan  
Telecommunications Act (1991 PA 179), MCL 484.2202 and MCL 484.2213. While the Michigan  
Telecommunications Act was substantially amended by Public Act 58 of 2011 and several other  
rules sets were repealed under Act 58, the Legislature chose to retain the rules created under  
484.2202(1)(c)(iii) and preserve the Commission’s authority to promulgate such rules and further  
revised MCL 484.2202(2) to ensure that the Commission would have the statutory authority to re-  
promulgate this rule set should there be a lapse or delay during the rulemaking process that could  
allow the rules to expire.  
A. Please list all applicable statutory references (MCLs, Executive Orders, etc.).  
MCL 484.2202 and MCL 484.2213  
B. Are the rules mandated by any applicable constitutional or statutory provision? If so, please  
explain.  
By authority conferred on the Commission by Sections 202 and 213 of the Michigan  
Telecommunications Act (1991 PA 179), MCL 484.2202 and MCL 484.2213. While the Michigan  
Telecommunications Act was substantially amended by Public Act 58 of 2011 and several other  
rules sets were repealed under Act 58, the Legislature chose to retain the rules created under  
484.2202(1)(c)(iii) and preserve the Commission’s authority to promulgate such rules and further  
revised MCL 484.2202(2) to ensure that the Commission would have the statutory authority to re-  
promulgate this rule set should there be a lapse or delay during the rulemaking process that could  
allow the rules to expire.  
9. Please describe the extent to which the rules conflict with or duplicate similar rules,  
compliance requirements, or other standards adopted at the state, regional, or federal level.  
There are portions of the rules that are duplicative of federal standards or reference federal  
standards. See Rules 5(2), 5(3), 5(6), 5(8), 6(1)(e), 6(1)(g), Rule 7, and Rule 8(1)(b). The Federal  
Communications Commission (FCC) has accepted comments on the North American Numbering  
Council (NANC) Best Practices 67 and 70 that address some of the same guidelines that are in  
rules 6 and 8 of the migration rules. As the FCC has not taken final action, and further revisions  
may be forthcoming on those Best Practices, the Staff did not deviate from the current rules in this  
respect. The rules also specify that federal standards should be adhered to in parallel with these  
rules.  
10. Is the subject matter of the rules currently contained in any guideline, handbook, manual,  
instructional bulletin, form with instructions, or operational memoranda?  
Some of the same subject matter is covered in Best Practices 67 and 70 of the NANC Number  
Portability Industry Forum guidelines. As discussed in question 9 though, the Staff feels that it  
may be premature to align our rules with those Best Practices as these Best Practices are still  
subject to review by the FCC.  
11. Are the rules listed on the department’s annual regulatory plan as rules to be processed  
for the current year?  
This ruleset was not listed in the 2020-2021 annual regulatory plan (ARP) but is listed in the 2021-  
2022 ARP.  
12. Will the proposed rules be promulgated under Section 44 of the Administrative Procedures  
Act, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.244, or under the full rulemaking process?  
Full Process  
13. Please describe the extent to which the rules exceed similar regulations, compliance  
requirements, or other standards adopted at the state, regional, or federal level.  
MCL 24.239  
RFR-Page 3  
The standards set forth in these rules do not exceed national compliance requirements, but do vary  
from some voluntary industry standards.  
14. Do the rules incorporate the recommendations received from the public regarding any  
complaints or comments regarding the rules? If yes, please explain.  
In anticipation of the repromulgation of these rules prior to their June 17, 2022 expiration, the  
Staff commenced an informal comment process in March 2021, with representatives of affected  
incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) and competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs),  
regarding the re-adoption of these rules. The Staff received informal comments supporting the re-  
adoption of the rules, without amendments as well as comments that had already been addressed  
in prior repromulgation of the rules. Therefore, the rule set has no changes.  
15. If amending an existing rule set, please provide the date of the last evaluation of the rules  
and the degree, if any, to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed  
the regulatory activity covered by the rules since the last evaluation.  
The Commission is not proposing to amend the existing rule set. Rather, the Commission is  
seeking repromulgation as a result of the three-year sunset provision under MCL 484.2202(2).  
The technology, economic conditions, and other factors have not significantly changed since the  
last evaluation and, therefore, the Commission proposes to re-promulgate these rules with no  
changes.  
16. Are there any changes or developments since implementation that demonstrate there is no  
continued need for the rules, or any portion of the rules?  
There have been no significant changes or developments that demonstrate there is no continued  
need for the rules, or any portion thereof, and the Commission proposes to re-promulgate these  
rules with no changes.  
17. Is there an applicable decision record (as defined in MCL 24.203(6) and required by MCL  
24.239(2))? If so, please attach the decision record.  
No  
MCL 24.239  
;