WPCfR 2MBERKZ3|a  X-#XP\  P6QynXP#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN@BDFHJLNPRTV2  KK Z? 3|a "i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\ S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&I\  P6Qu&P#"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\2vpCkka8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2v`pa2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersC @` A. ` ` (#` 2  E   Ma3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2 >a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers h` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p a1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  2 8ma5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2"F  !4"a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2$r"^#r#b$a2Agendaa1AgendaAgenda Items7D yP ) I. a3Agendaa1Order8X X-I.x2'$%% _& }'a2OrderAp X-xA.` ` a3OrderJ* X-x` ` 1. a4Order4 X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. 1.(1)(a) i) a)I.xa1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf $ 2*!.("(#I)$)a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf!/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf":` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf#E` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$P  ` ` ` hhh 2-%*&v+'5,(,a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf%[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf&f  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf'q annotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "(OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#20)'.*.+/,<0annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI ")2c(da4Neil's Levels*g X-Px` ` i.` ` `  a1Neil's Levels+La X-I.,<XX(<a2Neil's Levels,Uf X-<A.XP<P23-r1.r1/r10q2a2Neil's Level 1-a3Neil's Level 2.a4Neil's Level 2/a2Neil's Level 20L<  X-A.XxPx251rG32r33r+444a5Neil's Level 21a6Neil's Level 22a7Neil's Level 23a8Neil's Levels4> X-x` `  hh@ha)pphpp28556{67U78 8a5Neil's Levels5qb X-x` `  (1) hhhha7Neil's Levels6G X-x` `  hh@i)hh@ha3Neil's Levels7^ZG X-x` ` 1. ` `  a6Neil's Levels8z X-x` `  hh(a)@hh@2T;9l9:e{9;t9<T:footnote textf9footnote reference#: BibliogrphyBibliography;:X (# Tech InitInitialize Technical Style<. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2A=3;><?e@@"ADoc InitInitialize Document Style=z   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper>E!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:IAAK]BKDKFBullet ListIndented Bullet ListA*M0 Y XX` ` (#` "i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\2KpIKK^NdR"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\4  pG;<?xxx,<x6X@`7X@ ?xxx,DΡx6Nhez7XH7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP?'x???ϟ S- X   / S-  #&I\  P6Qu&P#Federal Communications Commission`g(#FCC 98 340 ă  yx}dddy /ՊP3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  S-" Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  S4- In the Matter of R) R) Comcast CellularR) Communications, Inc.R) Petition for ReconsiderationR)  S5-of Number Portability QueryR)hhCC Docket No. 9814(# Services Order in:R) R)  S -Ameritech Tariff F.C.C. No. 2R)hh(# Transmittal No. 1149, as AmendedR) R)  S -Bell Atlantic Tariff F.C.C. No. 1,R)hh(# Transmittal No. 1041R) R)  Sj-Pacific Bell Tariff F.C.C. No. 128,R)hh(# Transmittal Nos. 1927 and 1973R) R)  S-Southwestern Bell Tariff F.C.C. No. 73R)hh(# Transmittal Nos. 2638 and 2694R)  S- Memorandum Opinion and Order ă  S- Adopted : December 17, 1998` XhhX@Xh Released : December 17, 1998(# By the Commission:  S- 'I. Introduction ă  Sm- ` x1.` ` The Commission has before it a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition)mX yO-  ԍxPetition for Reconsideration of Comcast Cellular Communications, Inc., CC Docket No. 9814 (filed Sept. 18, 1998) (Petition). filed by Comcast  xCellular Communications, Inc. (Comcast) requesting reconsideration of our August 19, 1998 telephone  S- x[number portability Query Services Order. X {O -  ԍxIn re Number Portability Query Services Order, Order, CC Docket No. 9814, 13 FCC Rcd 16117 (1998)  {O!-(Query Services Order) . That Order concluded the Commission's investigation of the  xtariff revisions described in the above captioned transmittals, and allowed Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, Pacific  xBell, and Southwestern Bell to continue offering, on an interim basis, their longterm number portability  x[query and database services under the rates and conditions contained in those tariff revisions. Comcast's  S<- xpetition challenges the Query Services Order only with respect to Bell Atlantic's tariff revisions. For the reasons discussed below, we deny Comcast's Petition. " |, * *,,'$"  S- &II. Background ă  Sg- ` x2.` ` On April 6, 1998, Bell Atlantic filed tariff revisionsg {O-  ԍxThis Transmittal was later modified by Bell Atlantic F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 1071 (filed Aug. 13, 1998). pertaining to the provision of long S4- xjterm number portability query and database services.F4" {O-  ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP#xIn re Telephone Number Portability, Third Report and Order, CC Docket No. 95116, 13 FCC Rcd 11701  {O- x(1998) (Third Report and Order). Based on the objective of section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934,  xas amended, 47 U.S.C.  251(b)(2), of removing a barrier to competition by requiring all local exchange carriers  x(LECs) to provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed  {O - xby the Commission, in the Third Report and Order, the Commission concluded that incumbent LECs may recover  xKtheir carrierspecific costs directly related to providing longterm number portability in two federal charges: 1) a  xJmonthly numberportability charge to commence no earlier than February 1, 1999, that applies to end users; and 2) a number portability queryservice charge, which applies to carriers on whose behalf the LEC performs queries. The Common Carrier Bureau concluded that these  xtariff revisions, as well as those submitted by the other carriers, raised substantial questions of lawfulness,  S- xsuspended them for one day, and set them for investigation0  {O-  [ԍxIn re Bell Atlantic Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 1041, CCB/CPD 9825, Memorandum Opinion and  {Oh- xyOrder, DA 98686 (rel. Apr. 9, 1998); In re Bell Atlantic Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, CCB/CPD 9847,  {O2- xMemorandum Opinion and Order, DA 981646 (rel. Aug. 17, 1998) (incorporating subsequent Bell Atlantic revisions  {O- xYinto investigation); In re Number Portability Query Services, Order Designating Issues for Investigation, CC Docket  {O-No. 9814, 13 FCC Rcd 12063 (1998) (Designation Order).  pursuant to section 204 of the  S- x.Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act).gX yO%-  0ԍxUnder section 204(a) of the Act, whenever a new or revised charge is filed with the Commission, the  xCommission may suspend the operation of such charge and conduct a hearing or investigation concerning the lawfulness of the proposed new or revised charge. 47 U.S.C  204(a).g In response to the Designation Order, on July 1,  Si- x.1998, Bell Atlantic filed its Direct Case. Comcast filed an Opposition to Bell Atlantic's Direct Case on July 10, 1998.  S- ` x3.` ` On August 19, 1998, the Commission released its Query Services Order concluding the  x=investigation of these tariffs, thereby allowing Bell Atlantic, and the other carriers to offer, on an interim  Sk - xbasis, query and database services under the rates and conditions contained in their tariff revisions.ak  {O-ԍxQuery Services Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 16117.a In  xaddition, the Commission directed Bell Atlantic, and the other incumbent LECs subject to the Order, to  xfile new tariff revisions regarding the rates and conditions for their longterm number portability query  S -and database services when they file their enduser charges in early 1999.D  {O"-ԍxId. at 16126.D  Sl- ` x4.` ` On September 18, 1998, Comcast filed its Petition for Reconsideration. It requested  S9- xreconsideration of the Query Services Order on three grounds. First, Comcast argued that the Commission  x[was required by section 204(a) of the Act to determine whether the rates and conditions contained in the  S- xtariff revisions were just and reasonable before allowing them to take effect.? . yO'-ԍxPetition at 6.? Second, Comcast argued" ,l(l(,,"  xjthat the Commission should have addressed the noncost issue of whether it was lawful to assess default  S- xquery charges for calls to nonported NXXs.V Z yO5-  ԍxPetition at 4. The NXX is the threedigit code that identifies the switch that serves a particular customer.  {O- xSee AIN PROGRAM, NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, LOCAL NUMBER PORTABILITY: AIN AND NS/EP IMPLICATIONS,  2.02.5 (July 1996). V Third, Comcast argued that the Commission erred because  xNit should have imposed an accounting order to ensure that accurate accounts are maintained for all  x{amounts received under the subject tariff revisions, in the event the tariff revisions are found to be  S4-unlawful.A 4 yO-ԍxPetition at 89.A No oppositions or comments were filed in response to Comcast's Petition. 4z yON -  ?ԍxOn October 8, 1998, Comcast filed a Reply, noting that no oppositions had been filed challenging its assertions in the Petition for Reconsideration.  S- III. DISCUSSION ă  Q-  Qh-A. Burden of Proof  x  S- ` x5.` ` Section 204(a)(1) of the Act states in relevant part that [a]t any hearing involving a new  xor revised charge, or a proposed new or revised charge, the burden of proof to show that the new or  S - xrevised charge, or proposed charge, is just and reasonable shall be upon the carrier . . . .J  yO-ԍx47 U.S.C.  204(a)(1).J Comcast  xargues that under Section 204(a), the Commission must reach a determination that a carrier has met its  S6 - xLburden of proof that a tariff is "just and reasonable" before allowing it to take effect, even on an interim  S - xbasis.? b  yO-ԍxPetition at 6.? We disagree with Comcast that the Commission was bound by section 204(a) of the Act to reach  S -this determination before allowing an interim tariff to take effect.  Sj- ` 3x6.` ` The Courts have long recognized the Commission's discretion to allow a tariff revision  x!to become effective, on an interim basis, without first determining if the tariff revision is just and  S- x<reasonable. In MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, the United States Court of Appeals for the District  xof Columbia Circuit (Court) reviewed petitioner's claim that the Commission had erred in allowing  xLAT&T's WATS tariff revisions to continue in effect without any determination by the Commission that  Sl- xjthose revisions were just and reasonable.l  {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#эxSee MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 627 F. 2d 322, 338 (D.C. Cir. 1980). The Court determined that it was within the Commission's  S9-discretion to temporarily defer the determination regarding the reasonableness of the rates.J9  {O]!-ԍxId. at 337, 340. J  S- ` %x7.` ` The MCI case presented facts that are similar to those presented here. There, the  xCommission had concluded that the tariff submitted by a carrier was insufficient to allow the Commission  Sm- xto determine the reasonableness of new charges.Bm {O#&-ԍxId. at 337.B Ratemaking proceedings had been initiated which  x[would resolve relevant issues. For this reason, the Commission decided to defer ruling on the lawfulness":,l(l(,,"  S- xof the tariff.B {Oh-ԍxId. at 326.B In reviewing the Commission's action, the Court noted that, while any delay occasioned  xby the ratemaking proceedings should not be unduly long, "a filed tariff, like those here, not found to be  xeither just and reasonable or unjust and unreasonable on the basis of the carrier's supporting evidence at  Sg- xthe point of filing can avoid the stigma of unlawfulness, at least for a reasonable time."CgZ {Oa-ԍxId. at 338. C The Court  xzconcluded that "there must be enough movement in the statutory joints to allow for such an exigency,  S-given the enormous complexity of ratemaking . . . ." {O -  ԍxId. The Court reasoned that a one to two year time-frame may be reasonable, but found that a tenyear delay was unreasonable and had placed the parties in a position where existing remedies were inadequate. x  S- ` x8.` ` In the Query Services Order, we concluded that the determination as to whether Bell  Si- xAtlantic's tariff revisions for longterm number portability query and database services were reasonable  xor lawful, could not be made until we were in a position to determine whether the incumbent LECs had  S- xappropriately identified their carrierspecific costs directly relating to number portability.cF {O-ԍxQuery Services Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 16123. c We explained  x?that an essential component of this would come after the Common Carrier Bureau's review of the  xpleadings in the Bureau's pending cost classification and allocation proceeding, and after the incumbent  Sj - xLECs had filed their enduser charges.+"j  {O-  lԍxQuery Services Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 16123, 16125. See also Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at  x11740, wherein the Commission requested interested parties to file comments on its cost allocation proceeding  xhconcerning the portion of joint costs carriers shall treat as carrierspecific costs directly related to providing number portability, to facilitate evaluation of the cost support that carriers will file in their federal tariffs.+ We expect the incumbent LECs, including Bell Atlantic, to file  S7 - xtheir enduser charges in January 1999.a7  {O-ԍxQuery Services Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 16126.a Moreover, we directed the incumbent LECs to file new tariff  xrevisions regarding rates, terms, and conditions for the query and database services when they file their  x.enduser charges in January 1999. We anticipate that these filings will allow us to make a determination  xas to the reasonableness of the rates, terms, and conditions for these services by providing us with  Sk- x=sufficient information to make such a determination.kkT  {O_-ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP#xId. at 16124.k Because the reasonableness of the tariff revisions  xmust of necessity be based on all relevant data, we find our decision to have been not only proper, but also the most reasonable course available to us under the circumstances. x  Q-B. NonCost Issue  S9- ` x9.` ` Comcast further argues that the Query Services Order is deficient because it fails to  S- xaddress a noncost issue designated in the tariff investigation.? yO$-ԍxPetition at 5.? Specifically, Comcast argues that it is"v,l(l(,,b"  ximproper for the Commission to delay its determination of whether assessing default query charges for  S-calls to nonported NXXs is lawful.B {O5-ԍxId. at 4. B  Sg- ` x10.` ` #&a\  P6G;u&P#Contrary to Comcast's arguments, the treatment of charges for querying calls to non xported NXXs does involve cost issues. Bell Atlantic alleged in its Direct Case that it is most cost efficient  xto implement number portability in an organized, orderly way, to do at one time all the translations work  S- xto indicate in every switch (including tandems) that a particular NXX is portable in accordance with a  S- xschedule developed with the industry.\Z {O -ԍxSee Bell Atlantic Direct Case at 78.\ Bell Atlantic argued that because of the short, fiveday industry Sh- x=established time frameh {O -  3ԍxSee NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING COUNCIL, LOCAL NUMBER PORTABILITY  xADMINISTRATION SELECTION WORKING GROUP, LNPA TECHNICAL & OPERATIONAL  xREQUIREMENTS TASK FORCE REPORT, App. B. (InterService Provider LNP Operations Flows), fig. 9 (April  {ON- x25, 1997), adopted, In re Telephone Number Portability, Second Report and Order, CC Docket No. 95116, 12 FCC Rcd 12281, 12315 (1997). in which it must respond to service requests to port a number, it would be very  xinefficient and unnecessarily costly to delay upgrading switches and network translations until after it  xzreceives an order to port the first number in an NXX. Further, Bell Atlantic pointed out, the delay in  S- xjcompleting the translations work could lead to service reliability problems.b {O-ԍxSee Bell Atlantic Direct Case at 78.b Perhaps more importantly,  S - xBell Atlantic argued that this approach would increase the perquery charge by at least forty percent.: 2  {On-ԍxId.:  xAs we had insufficient cost information to determine if Bell Atlantic's approach was reasonable, we found  x=it prudent to wait until all of the cost information (both query services and enduser charges) was before  xjus. Indeed, the information available was insufficient to permit us to prescribe a reasonable, interim rate,  S - xjin lieu of the rate proposed by the carrier. We, therefore, directed the LECs in the Query Services Order  x=to file new rates and conditions for their provision of longterm number portability query services at the  Sk- xtime they tariff their long term number portability enduser charges in early 1999.hk  {O-ԍxQuery Services Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 16124, 16127.h At that time, we will  xMbe in a better position to make a determination as to the reasonableness of the LECs' rates, terms and  S-conditions for these services.T \V  {O-  ԍxWe note that this issue also has been raised in the petitions for reconsideration of the Third Report and  {O- xJOrder. See Petition for Clarification and/or Reconsideration of the United States Telephone Association, at 2, 45. (Jul. 29, 1998). T  S- ` x11.` ` For the reasons discussed in the Query Services Orderi!z {O#-ԍxQuery Services Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 1612316124. i and set forth above we find that  xour decision not to render a determination as to the reasonableness of the rates, terms and conditions of  xBell Atlantic tariff revisions for longterm number portability query and database services until such time as sufficient information is available upon which to base this determination, was proper and reasonable. " !,l(l(,,R"Ԍ Q-C. Imposition of Accounting Order  S- ` x#&a\  P6G;u&P#12.` ` Finally, Comcast requests that the Commission clarify that the accounting order established  xin the Query Services Order is still in effect or, in the alternative, issue a new accounting order to ensure  S4- x?that accurate amounts are refunded to carriers in the event that the tariff revisions are found to be  S- xunlawful." yOi-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Petition at 8.#x6X@`7X@#э We find unpersuasive Comcast's claim that an accounting order is necessary to ensure refunds  S- xare accurately calculated in the event that Bell Atlantic's tariff revisions are found to be unreasonable.#X {O-ԍxId.#X\  P6G;ɒP##x6X@`7X@#ш  Sh- `  x13.` ` In the Query Services Order, we indicated that the tariff revisions would be in place for  xa relatively short period of time, as we expected the incumbent LECs to file further revisions no later than  S- xjJanuary 1999.$ {O -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Query Services Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 1612616127. We reasoned that, in this interim period, if customers felt aggrieved by either the rates,  xterms, or conditions under which the incumbent LECs, including Bell Atlantic, are currently providing  S - x]services, they may file complaints pursuant to section 208 of the Act.% | yO-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#47 U.S.C.  208.#x6X@`7X@#ј When we terminated the  xinvestigation, the accounting order was also terminated. We cannot, therefore, find that the accounting order is still in effect.  S - ` ~x14.` ` The Commission has long recognized that the absence of an accounting order in no way  S - xprecludes a petitioner from relief should an investigation reveal that a tariff is in violation of the Act.&  {OJ-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See In re American Television Relay, Tariff FCC No. 8, 70 FCC 2d 1623 (1978).#x6X@`7X@#  Sk- xLOnce a proven violation of the Act has been established, liability under section 206 of the Act'k yO-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#47 U.S.C.  206.#x6X@`7X@#ђ attaches  S8- x[and recovery may be had under section 207 of the Act.(8.  O<ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#47 U.S.C.  207; #x6X@`7X@#Q#X\  P6G;ɒP#uery Services Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 16123.#x6X@`7X@# The refund remedy under section 204(a) of the  S- xAct is not the exclusive means under the Act to cure a proven violation thereof.)  {Os-ԍxId.#x6X@`7X@##X\  P6G;ɒP##x6X@`7X@#ѻ An accounting order  x[is merely a device that requires carriers to keep track of which customers experience rate changes and the  S- x0extent thereof.*`  {O -ԍxSee In re American Television Relay, #x6X@`7X@##X\  P6G;ɒP#70 FCC 2d at 1630. An accounting order simplifies the computation of refund liability, but it is not  x\indispensable to a determination of carrier liability or to the Commission's ability to order a carrier to  S9- xredress violations of the Act.+9 {O#-ԍxId.#x6X@`7X@##X\  P6G;ɒP#Ď Because we find that Comcast has remedies available to it and will not"9+,l(l(,,"  x[be harmed by the lack of an accounting order in these circumstances, we deny Comcast's request to issue  S-a new accounting order. ,  yO5-  ԍxFurthermore, because of the time lag between the date on which carriers have begun providing query  xJservices and the date on which they may tariff their end user charges, leaving the accounting order in place until the  x,lawfulness of the query tariffs could be determined would have required keeping the tariff investigations open longer than the five months allowed for such investigations under 47 U.S.C.  204(a)(1).   S4-w IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S- ` x15.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201205, and 405 of  xthe Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 201205, and 405, that Comcast Cellular Communications, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration is DENIED.   S- XxX` ` X XXhhX@XhFederal Communications Commission(#  X -#Xj\  P6G; ynXP# XxX` ` X XXhhX@XhMagalie Roman Salas(# XxX` ` X XXhhX@XhSecretary(#