[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 116 (Thursday, June 17, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32471-32475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15334]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[CC Docket No. 99-200; FCC 99-122]


Numbering Resource Optimization

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document examines a variety of measures intended to 
increase the efficiency with which telecommunications carriers use 
telephone numbering resources. The purpose of this effort is two-fold: 
to slow the rate of number exhaust in this country as evidenced by the 
ever-increasing rate at which new area codes are assigned; and to 
prolong the life of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP).

DATES: Comments are to be filed on or before July 30, 1999, and reply 
comments are due on or before August 30, 1999. Written comments must be 
submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed 
information collections on or before August 16, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Secretary, 445 12th 
Street, SW, Room TW-B204F, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing 
comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information 
collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal 
Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected], and to 
Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 72--17th Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jared Carlson, (202) 418-2320 or email 
at [email protected] or Tejal Mehta at (202) 418-2320 or [email protected]. 
For additional information concerning the information collections 
contained in this NPRM contact Judy Boley at 202-418-0214, or via the 
Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking adopted on May 27, 1999, and released on June 2, 
1999. The full text of this Notice is available for inspection and 
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 
12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will 
be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the 
FCC Reference Center. The complete text may also be obtained through 
the world wide web, at http:/www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/CommonCarrier/Orders, 
or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20036.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information 
collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce 
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections 
contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same 
time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB notification of action is due 
60 days from date of publication of this NPRM in the Federal Register. 
Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    OMB Control No.: None.
    Title: Numbering Resource Optimization, CC Docket No. 99-200.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Total
                                    Estimated      annual       Burden
  Proposed number of collections     time per     response     (Annual)
                                   respondents    (hours)      (hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verification of Need for Numbers
 Submissions:
    a. Quarterly Report..........         3000           48      144,000
    b. Initial Codes.............         3000            1         3000
    c. Growth Codes..............         3000            3         9000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Frequency of Response: Quarterly; on occasion.
    Total Annual Burden: 156,000 hours.
    Estimated Costs Per Respondent: $0.
    Needs and Uses: In CC Docket No. 99-200, the Commission examines a 
variety of measures intended to increase the efficiency with which 
telecommunications carriers use numbering resources in order to slow 
the rate of number exhaust in this country. The Notice examines 
existing mechanisms for the administration and allocation of numbering 
resources, which are governed by industry-developed Central Office Code 
Guidelines. The Notice proposes certain verification measures designed 
to prevent carriers from obtaining numbering resources that they do not 
need in the near term. The Notice tentatively concludes that a more 
extensive, detailed and uniform reporting mechanism should be developed 
that will improve numbering utilization and forecasting on a nationwide 
basis. The Notice tentatively concludes that carriers should report 
utilization and forecast data on a quarterly basis and that the 
Commission should mandate that all users of numbering resources must 
supply utilization and forecast data to the NANPA. With respect to an 
applicant's ability to obtain initial codes, the Notice seeks comment 
on what type of showing

[[Page 32472]]

would be appropriate. The Notice seeks comment on whether applicants 
should be required to make a particular showing regarding the equipment 
they intend to use to provide service, the state of readiness of their 
network or switches, or their progress with their business plans, prior 
to obtaining initial codes, or whether any other type of showing should 
be required. Applicants for NXX codes currently are required to 
complete a Months-to-Exhaust Worksheet prior to applying for growth 
codes. The Notice seeks comment on whether requiring applicants to 
submit the Months-to-Exhaust Worksheet with an application for growth 
codes would be an adequate demonstration of need in order to obtain 
additional numbering resources. Alternatively, the Notice seeks comment 
on whether carriers should be required to demonstrate that they have 
achieved a specified level of numbering utilization (or fill rate) in 
the area in question before they may receive additional numbering 
resources. All the proposed collections will be used to prevent the 
premature exhaustion of numbering resources pursuant to the Commissions 
plenary authority over numbering set forth at 47 U.S.C. Section 251(e).

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. In 1947, AT&T adopted the current nationwide numbering scheme, 
under which the ten-digit telephone number serves not only as a network 
``address,'' but also conveys information to the network as to how 
phone calls should be routed and billed. A principal benefit of this 
system was that it permitted automated routing of long-distance phone 
calls, obviating the need for operators to assist in routing. Under the 
allocation system that developed to support this system, numbering 
resources are allocated to local telephone exchange carriers on the 
basis of physical geography, rather than on the basis of end-user 
demand for those numbers. That is, typically a large block of numbers 
is allocated to a carrier for use in a geographic area, even though 
there may not be end-users assigned to each individual number available 
in the area. This system worked smoothly so long as only one entity 
(the local exchange carrier) offered only one type of service (wireline 
telephony) to customers.
    2. New services using the same numbering system, particularly 
cellular telephones, began to enter the telecommunications marketplace 
with increasing frequency beginning in the late 1980's. More recently, 
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened the market for competitive 
local wireline service, again giving rise to more players entering the 
market. In addition, many customers are obtaining additional telephone 
lines to support additional services such as Internet, data, and 
facsimile services. Because of the relatively recent explosion of 
market entry and customer demand for new services, as well as the 
assignment of telephone numbers to multiple service providers in large 
blocks on a geographic basis, we have witnessed an incredible increase 
in demand for numbering resources.
    3. Although we are only just beginning to see the benefits of 
competition in the marketplace for local wireline telephone service, 
the coincident costs in the form of the rapid exhaust of area codes are 
already all too apparent. The effect on consumers having to undergo, in 
some cases, multiple area code changes in relatively short time frames 
is an unacceptable byproduct of burgeoning competition in the 
telecommunications marketplace. To illustrate the pace of area code 
exhaust, consider California, which, at the end of 1992, had thirteen 
area codes in use. The California Public Utilities Commission projects 
that by the end of 2002, it will have 41 area codes. When the task of 
splitting the 323 area code from the 213 area code in the Los Angeles 
area was completed in April 1999, rather than lasting for ten or even 
five years, the new area code was immediately declared to be in 
jeopardy of exhausting its numbering resources.
    4. The goal of this proceeding is to address the underlying drivers 
of area code exhaust so that consumers are spared the enormous costs 
and inconveniences associated with the rapid pace of implementation of 
new area codes. In addition, clearly, implementing new area codes is 
not a solution that can continue indefinitely. As of the end of 1998, 
it was estimated that nearly one-third of the total number of 
geographic area codes assignable to the United States had been put into 
service. By some projections, the NANP could exhaust within ten years. 
Because the estimated cost of expanding the NANP is enormous, and the 
time to effect such an expansion is estimated to be on the order of ten 
years, the need to extend the life of the current NANP through 
effective conservation and efficient utilization of numbering resources 
is apparent and immediate.
    5. This Commission, with input from industry groups, advisory 
bodies, state public utility commissions and the public, has already 
begun to examine various numbering conservation and optimization 
methods. Continuing in these efforts, we issue this Notice to seek 
public comment on how best to create national standards for numbering 
resource optimization. In doing so, we seek to: (1) minimize the 
negative impact on consumers; (2) ensure sufficient access to numbering 
resources for all service providers that need them to enter into or to 
compete in telecommunications markets; (3) avoid, or at least delay, 
exhaust of the NANP and the need to expand the NANP; (4) impose the 
least societal cost possible, in a competitively neutral manner, while 
obtaining the highest benefit; (5) ensure that no class of carrier or 
consumer is unduly favored or disfavored by our optimization efforts; 
and (6) minimize the incentives for carriers to build and carry 
excessively large inventories of numbers.

Executive Summary

    6. In this Notice, we consider and seek comment on a variety of 
administrative and technical measures that would promote more efficient 
allocation and use of NANP resources. In Section III, we seek specific 
comment on the relative costs and benefits, both financial and 
societal, of implementing each measure. We also ask that commenters 
weigh the cost of extending the life of the current NANP through 
various numbering resource optimization strategies against the 
projected cost of expansion of the NANP.
    7. In Section IV, we examine the existing mechanisms for the 
administration and allocation of numbering resources, which are 
governed by industry-developed CO Code Guidelines. We find that the 
guidelines have not been effective in constraining the ability of 
carriers to obtain and carry excessively large inventories of numbering 
resources for which they have no immediate need. We seek comment on 
whether the guidelines should be modified or replaced, wholly or in 
part, by enforceable federal rules. Within the section, we outline 
proposals for a uniform set of numbering status definitions. We also 
seek comment on measures that would tie the allocation of new numbering 
resources to a showing of need by the carrier, increase carrier 
accountability for number utilization through enhanced data reporting 
and audit requirements, and speed the return of unused numbering 
resources. We specifically seek comment on the possibility of requiring 
carriers to meet number utilization thresholds before they can obtain 
additional numbering resources. These measures would not require

[[Page 32473]]

implementation of new systems or technologies, and we believe that they 
could be implemented in a relatively short time period at minimal cost.
    8. In Section V, we consider and seek comment on some specific 
numbering resource optimization solutions that could be implemented in 
addition to, or in combination with, stricter administrative standards 
for the administration and allocation of numbering resources. These 
methods include rate center consolidation, mandatory ten-digit dialing, 
and number pooling. We consider the likely costs and potential number 
optimization benefits of each of these solutions. We also seek comment 
on a host of issues related to the way in which number pooling might be 
implemented and administered, if we were to make carrier participation 
mandatory at some level.
    9. In light of the potential costs of these numbering resource 
optimization solutions, we seek comment on whether the magnitude of the 
number exhaust problem justifies requiring carriers to participate in 
one or more of these solutions on a mandatory basis, either at the 
federal level or through delegation of authority to the states. In the 
alternative, we consider whether optimal use of numbering resources 
could be accomplished without the need for such mandates, provided that 
carriers achieved sufficiently high levels of efficiency in their usage 
of numbers. Under this approach, we would require carriers to meet 
specific number utilization thresholds, but would leave to each carrier 
the choice of what numbering optimization method or methods to use to 
achieve that threshold.
    10. In Section VI, we consider whether establishing a pricing 
mechanism for numbering resources would improve the efficiency of 
number allocation and use. Although it is probably not feasible in the 
short-term to replace our existing numbering resource allocation 
mechanism with a market-based approach, we believe it is important to 
consider using market-based mechanisms to allocate numbers as a 
possible long-term alternative to regulatory mandates. We seek comment 
on whether moving to a market-based system of allocating numbering 
resources is feasible, and how the transition to such a system could be 
implemented.
    11. In Section VII, we consider area code relief methodologies, 
including splits, overlays, and boundary realignments, as numbering 
optimization strategies. We recognize that our consideration of both 
short-term and long-term numbering resource optimization measures in 
this Notice does not eliminate the need for states to continue to 
implement area code relief in those area codes that are approaching 
depletion. We seek comment on what action the Commission can take to 
assist states in implementing area code relief in a manner that is 
consistent with the objectives of this proceeding.

Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Presentations

    12. This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance 
of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects 
discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and 
arguments presented is generally required.

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    13. The following is a summary of the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) created for the Notice. Pursuant to the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), See 5 U.S.C. section 603. The RFA, 
See 5 U.S.C. section 601 et seq., was amended by the Contract With 
America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 
(1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). The Commission has prepared 
the following IRFA of the possible significant economic impact on small 
entities of the policies and rules in this Notice. Written public 
comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in 
accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of 
the Notice, and should have a separate and distinct heading designating 
them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission shall send a copy of this 
Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration.
    14. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules. The Commission 
is issuing this Notice to seek public comment on how best to create 
national standards for numbering resource optimization. In doing so, we 
seek to: (1) ensure sufficient access to numbering resources for all 
service providers that need them to enter into or to compete in 
telecommunications markets; (2) avoid, or at least delay, exhaust of 
the NANP and the need to expand the NANP; (3) minimize the negative 
impact on consumers; (4) impose the least cost possible, in a 
competitively neutral manner, while obtaining the highest benefit; (5) 
ensure that no class of carrier or consumer is unduly favored or 
disfavored by our numbering resource optimization efforts; and (6) 
minimize the incentives for building and carrying excessively large 
inventories of numbers.
    15. Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized under sections 
1, 4(i) and (j), 201, 208, and 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended. 47 U.S.C. sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, and 251(e).
    16. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities That 
May Be Affected by this Notice. The RFA requires that an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment 
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule 
will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. section 605(b). The 
RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as 
the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' Id. section 601(6). In addition, the term 
``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business 
concern'' under the Small Business Act. Id. section 601(3) 
(incorporating by reference the definition of ``small business 
concern'' in Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. section 632). 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 Small Business Administration 
(SBA). Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. section 632.
    17. In this IRFA, we consider the potential impact of this Notice 
on all users of telephone numbering resources. The small entities 
possibly affected by the proposed rules, if adopted, include wireline, 
wireless, and other entities, as described below. The SBA has defined a 
small business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 
4,812 (Radiotelephone Communications) and 4,813 (Telephone 
Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities having no 
more than 1,500 employees. 13 CFR section 121.201. In the FRFA to the 
Universal Service Order, we described and estimated in detail the 
number of small entities that would be affected by the new universal 
service rules. 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 9227-9243 (1997). Although some 
affected incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) may have 1,500 or 
fewer employees, we do not believe that such

[[Page 32474]]

entities should be considered small entities within the meaning of the 
RFA because they are either dominant in their field of operations or 
are not independently owned and operated, and therefore by definition 
not ``small entities'' or ``small business concerns'' under the RFA. 
Accordingly, our use of the terms ``small entities'' and ``small 
businesses'' does not encompass small ILECs. Out of an abundance of 
caution, however, for regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will 
separately consider small ILECs within this analysis and use the term 
``small ILECs'' to refer to any ILECs that arguably might be defined by 
the SBA as ``small business concerns.'' See 13 CFR section 121.201, SIC 
code 4813. Since the time of the Local Competition decision, 11 FCC Rcd 
15499, 16144-45 (1996), 61 FR 45476 (Aug. 29, 1996), the Commission has 
consistently addressed in its regulatory flexibility analyses the 
impact of its rules on such ILECs.
    18. The most reliable source of information regarding the total 
numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as 
well as the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data 
the Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator: Interstate 
Service Providers Report (Locator). FCC, Carrier Locator: Interstate 
Service Providers at 1-2. This report lists 3,604 companies that 
provided interstate telecommunications service as of December 31, 1997 
and was compiled using information from Telecommunications Relay 
Service (TRS) Fund Worksheets filed by carriers (Jan. 1999). These 
carriers include, inter alia, local exchange carriers, competitive 
local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, competitive access 
providers, satellite service providers, wireless telephony providers, 
operator service providers, pay telephone operators, providers of 
telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange service, and 
resellers.
    19. Local Service Providers. There are two principle providers of 
local telephone service; ILECS and competing local service providers. 
Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for small 
providers of local exchange services (LECs). The closest applicable 
definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications 
companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. According to 
data set forth in the FCC Statistics of Communications Common Carriers 
(SOCC), 34 ILECs have more than 1,500 employees. We do not have data 
specifying the number of these carriers that are either dominant in 
their field of operations or are not independently owned and operated, 
and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the 
number of ILECs that would qualify as small business concerns under the 
SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that fewer than 1,376 ILECs 
are small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if 
adopted.
    20. Competitive Local Service Providers. This category includes 
competitive access providers (CAPs), competitive local exchange 
providers (CLECs), shared tenant service providers, local resellers, 
and other local service providers. The closest applicable definition 
under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other 
than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. According to the most recent 
Locator data, 145 carriers reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of competitive local service. We estimate that there are 
fewer than 145 small entity competitive local service providers that 
may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
    21. Providers of Toll Service. The toll industry includes providers 
of interexchange services (IXCs), satellite service providers and other 
toll service providers, primarily resellers. The closest applicable 
definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications 
companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. According to 
the most recent Locator data, 164 carriers reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of toll services. We estimate that there are 
fewer than 164 small entity toll providers that may be affected by the 
proposed rules, if adopted.
    22. In addition, an alternative SBA standard may apply to satellite 
service providers. The applicable definition of small entity generally 
is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Communications 
Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC). This definition provides that 
a small entity is expressed as one with $11.0 million or less in annual 
receipts. According to the Census Bureau, there were a total of 848 
communications services providers, NEC, in operation in 1992, and a 
total of 775 had annual receipts of less than $9,999 million. The 
Census report does not provide more precise data.
    23. Resellers. This category includes toll resellers, operator 
service providers, pre-paid calling card providers, and other toll 
service providers. The closest applicable SBA definition for a reseller 
is a telephone communications company other than radiotelephone 
(wireless) companies. According to the most recent Locator data, 405 
carriers reported that they were engaged in the resale of telephone 
service. We estimate that there are fewer than 405 small entity 
resellers that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
    24. Wireless Telephony and Paging and Messaging. Wireless telephony 
includes cellular, personal communications service (PCS) or specialized 
mobile radio (SMR) service providers. The closest applicable SBA 
definition for a reseller is a telephone communications company other 
than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. According to the most recent 
Locator data, 732 carriers reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of wireless telephony and 137 companies reported that they 
were engaged in the provision of paging and messaging service. We 
estimate that fewer than 732 carriers are engaged in the provision of 
wireless telephony and fewer than 137 companies are engaged in the 
provision of paging and messaging service.
    25. The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for cable 
and other pay television services, which includes all such companies 
generating $11 million or less in revenue annually. This definition 
includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services, 
direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, 
satellite master antenna systems and subscription television services. 
According to the Census Bureau data from 1992, there were 1,788 total 
cable and other pay television services and 1,423 had less than $11 
million in revenue.
    26. The Commission has developed its own definition of a small 
cable system operator for the purposes of rate regulation. Under the 
Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is one serving fewer than 
400,000 subscribers nationwide. Based on our most recent information, 
we estimate that there were 1,439 cable operators that qualified as 
small cable system operators at the end of 1995. Paul Kagan Associates, 
Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 
1995). 47 U.S.C. section 543(m)(2). 47 CFR section 76.1403(b). Since 
then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 
subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that 
caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, we 
estimate that there are fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system 
operators.
    27. The Communications Act also contains a definition of a small 
cable system operator, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or 
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer

[[Page 32475]]

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 
there are 66,000,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, we 
found that an operator serving fewer than 660,000 subscribers shall be 
deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the 
total annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do not exceed $250 
million in the aggregate. Based on available data, we find that the 
number of cable operators serving 660,000 subscribers or less totals 
1,450. We do not request nor do we collect information concerning 
whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross 
annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, and thus are unable at this time 
to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators 
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the 
Communications Act.
    28. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements. The Notice seeks comment on whether all NXX 
codeholders should be required to report the status of all telephone 
numbers within the NXX blocks assigned to them. In the alternative, the 
Notice seeks comment on whether utilization data reporting on a more 
aggregated basis (or some more aggregated set of telephone number 
status categories) would provide sufficient data to accurately track 
number utilization. The Notice proposes that any utilization reporting 
obligation that the Commission adopts would be in addition to the 
demand forecasting requirement that the COCUS currently places on 
carriers. The Notice seeks comment on whether any modifications should 
be made to improve the quality and accuracy of carriers' demand 
forecasts. Alternatively, the Notice seeks comment on several 
alternative data collection options, including the forecast and 
utilization reporting process in the current Thousand Block Pooling 
Guidelines, and the Line Number Use Survey (LINUS) data collection 
model designed by NANPA staff as a replacement for COCUS. The Notice 
also seeks comment on other industry proposals for a number utilization 
and forecasting mechanism to replace COCUS. Finally, it seeks comment 
on whether to supplement the need verification measures and data 
collection program with a comprehensive audit program that verifies 
carrier compliance with federal rules and industry numbering 
guidelines.
    29. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered. The rules we propose 
in this Notice are designed to ensure sufficient access to numbering 
resources for all service providers that need them. The Notice seeks 
public comment on how best to create national standards for numbering 
resource optimization in order to: (1) ensure sufficient access to 
numbering resources for all service providers that need them to enter 
into or to compete in telecommunications markets; (2) avoid, or at 
least delay, exhaust of the NANP and the need to expand the NANP; (3) 
minimize the negative impact on consumers; (4) impose the least cost 
possible, in a competitively neutral manner, while obtaining the 
highest benefit; (5) ensure that no class of carrier or consumer is 
unduly favored or disfavored by our optimization efforts; and (6) 
minimize the incentives for carriers to build and carry excessively 
large inventories of numbers. We seek comment on our tentative 
conclusions and proposals, and on additional actions we might take in 
this regard to relieve burdens on users of telephone numbering 
resources.
    30. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules. None.

C. Comment Filing Procedures

    31. Interested parties may file comments on or before July 30, 1999 
and reply comments on or before August 30, 1999. Parties must file an 
original and four copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to 
the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW, 
Room TW-B204F, Washington, DC 20554. Comments may be filed using the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 
copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 
63 FR 24,121 (1998). Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an 
electronic file via the Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/
ecfs.html>. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must 
be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should 
include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket number, CC Docket 99-200 or rulemaking number, RM No. 
9258.
    32. Written comments by the public on the proposed information 
collections are due by July 30, 1999. Written comments must be 
submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed 
information collections on or before August 16, 1999. In addition to 
filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the 
information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy 
Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, 
SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected] and to 
Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].
    33. Parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in 
this docket with the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 
20036. Comments and reply comments will be available for public 
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 52

    Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-15334 Filed 6-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P