[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 117 (Friday, June 16, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37749-37752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15200]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[CC Docket No. 99-200; FCC 00-104]


Numbering Resource Optimization

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Further notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document seeks further comments on the following matters: 
Thousands-block number pooling; charging for numbering resources; 
utilization thresholds for carriers, and consideration of a transition 
period for wireless service providers implementation of thousand-block 
number pooling. The foregoing issues were addressed in a previous 
proposed rule; however, the comments and information received were 
insufficient for the agency to proceed on these matters. Therefore, the 
agency has formulated further questions and is now seeking additional 
comment.

DATES: Comments are due June 30, 2000, and reply comments are due July 
7, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Secretary, 445 12th 
Street, SW, Room TW-B204F, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Goldberger, (202) 418-2320 or e-
mail at [email protected] or Cheryl Callahan at (202) 418-2320 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted on March 17, 2000, and 
released on March 31, 2000. The full text of this Report and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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.

Synopsis of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we seek 
further comment on what specific utilization threshold carriers not 
participating in thousands-block number pooling carriers should meet in 
order to request growth numbering resources. Commenters that offered a 
specific utilization threshold suggested that utilization thresholds 
should be set as low as 60% and as high as 90%. However, very little 
information was

[[Page 37750]]

provided as to the basis for these specific threshold levels. We seek 
comment on specific utilization threshold(s). Comments should include 
rationale for the specific threshold(s) recommended, including the 
initial level, annual increases, and the maximum level. We tentatively 
conclude that a nationwide utilization threshold for growth numbering 
resources should be initially set at 50%. This threshold would increase 
by 10% annually until it reaches 80%. Additionally, we propose to 
require carriers to meet a specific rate center-based utilization 
threshold for the rate center in which it is seeking additional 
numbering resources. If parties propose a utilization threshold range, 
parties should explain in detail what criteria should be used to 
determine the specific rate-center based utilization threshold within 
that range. We seek further comment on whether state commissions should 
be allowed to set the rate-center based utilization threshold within 
this range based on criteria that we establish. We also seek further 
comment on utilization thresholds at the rate center level that should 
operate in unison with the thresholds at the NPA level.
    2. Implementation of pooling for non-LNP capable carriers. We seek 
comment on whether covered CMRS carriers should be required to 
participate in pooling immediately upon expiration of the LNP 
forbearance period on November 24, 2002. In the alternative, we seek 
comment on whether we should allow some sort of transition period 
between the time that covered CMRS carriers must implement LNP, and the 
time that they must participate in pooling, and if so, what the minimum 
reasonable allowance for such a transition period would be. We note 
that by determining in this order that covered CMRS carriers will be 
required to participate in pooling once they have acquired LNP 
capability, we are providing a fairly long lead-time--more than two 
years--in which all of the necessary preparations may be accomplished. 
We further note that after they have acquired LNP capability, covered 
CMRS providers will be subject to the same terms and conditions 
regarding participation in thousands-block number pooling as are other 
LNP-capable carriers. For example, CMRS providers within and outside 
the top 100 MSAs will not be subject to pooling unless they have 
received a request for LNP from another carrier, and pooling will be 
limited to the same service area as their LNP deployment.
    3. Pricing for Numbers. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
(64 FR 32471, June 17, 1999) we indicated that an alternative approach 
for improving the allocation and utilization of numbering resources 
would be to require carriers to pay for them. We noted that this 
approach could be in isolation or in combination with the 
administrative and numbering optimization approaches identified in the 
NPRM. One of the primary economic reasons given for opposing a market-
based allocation system was that numbering resources are allocated in 
10,000 blocks by rate center. Pricing under this paradigm, it was 
argued, would create a barrier to entry to new markets. In any case, we 
continue to believe that a market-based approach is the most pro-
competitive, least intrusive way of ensuring that numbering resources 
are efficiently allocated. We believe that thousands-block pooling will 
substantially reduce the quantity of numbering resources new entrants 
will need to accumulate to enter a market. Therefore, we seek further 
comment on how a market-based allocation system for numbering resources 
could be implemented. Specifically, we seek comment on how a market-
based allocation system would affect the efficiency of allocation of 
numbers among carriers. Given that our motivation in seeking comment on 
such an approach is to increase the efficiency with which numbering 
resources are allocated and not to raise additional funds, we also seek 
comment on whether funds collected in this way could be used to offset 
other payments carriers make such as contributions to the universal 
service and TRS programs. Commenters addressing this issue should 
specifically address how to account for the fact that some carriers, 
such as interexchange carriers, do not generally use numbering 
resources but currently contribute to these other programs. Commenters 
should also ensure that their proposals provide market-based incentives 
for carriers to economize their use of numbering resources.
    4. Recovery of Shared Industry and Direct Carrier-Specific Costs. 
Requiring incumbent LECs to bear their own costs related to thousands-
block number pooling will not disadvantage any telecommunications 
carrier. All other carriers are also required to bear their own shared 
industry and carrier-specific costs. In the NPRM, the Commission 
tentatively concluded that incumbent LECs subject to rate-of-return or 
price cap regulation may not recover their interstate carrier-specific 
costs directly related to thousands-block number pooling through a 
federal charge assessed on end-users, but may recover the costs through 
other cost recovery mechanisms. Several parties agree with the 
tentative conclusion that thousands-block number pooling costs should 
not be recovered through a federal charge assessed on end users, but 
should be recovered through access charges. Some commenters recommend 
that price cap LECs should be allowed to treat the thousands-block 
pooling number costs as exogenous cost adjustments or, alternatively, 
place the costs in a new or existing price cap basket. Other parties, 
however, urge us to abandon our tentative conclusion because recovery 
through access charges would violate the competitive neutrality 
standard of section 251(e)(2).
    5. In the Notice, we requested detailed estimates of the costs of 
thousands-block number pooling and asked that commenters separate the 
estimates by category of costs. We also sought comment on the 
appropriate methodology for developing these and other cost estimates. 
The amount and detail of the data provided in response to our request 
is insufficient for us to determine the amount and/or magnitude of the 
costs associated with thousands-block number pooling. Without 
sufficient cost data, it is difficult for us to determine the 
appropriate cost recovery mechanism for these costs. We, therefore, 
find it necessary to request additional cost information prior to 
making a final decision on the appropriate method of cost recovery. We 
seek further comment and cost studies that quantify shared industry and 
direct carrier-specific costs of thousands-block number pooling. We 
also seek comment and cost studies that take into account the cost 
savings associated with thousands-block pooling in comparison to the 
current numbering practices that result in more frequent area code 
changes.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    6. The actions contained in this FNPRM have been analyzed with 
respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found that there are 
no new reporting requirements or burden on the public.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    7. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 603 
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this FNPRM. 
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be 
identified as responses to the IRFA

[[Page 37751]]

and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM provided 
above in section VIII. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.\1\ In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules. The Commission is 
issuing this Further Notice to seek public comment on (a) What specific 
utilization threshold carriers not participating in thousands-block 
number pooling should meet in order to request growth numbering 
resources; (b) whether state commissions should be allowed to set rate-
center based utilization thresholds based on criteria that we 
establish; (c) whether covered CMRS carriers should be required to 
participate in thousands-block number pooling immediately upon 
expiration of the LNP forbearance period on November 24, 2002, or 
whether a transition period should be allowed; and (d) how a market-
based allocation system for numbering resources could be implemented. 
We also seek to obtain the following: (a) Cost studies that quantify 
the incremental costs of thousands-block number pooling; (b) cost 
studies that quantify shared industry and direct carrier-specific costs 
of thousands-block number pooling; and (c) cost studies that take into 
account the cost savings associated with thousands-block number pooling 
in comparison to the current numbering practices that result in more 
frequent area code changes.
    9. The Commission seeks to ensure that the limited numbering 
resources of the NANP are used efficiently; to protect customers from 
the expense and inconvenience that result from the implementation of 
new area codes; to forestall the enormous expense that will be incurred 
in expanding the NANP, and to ensure that all carriers have the 
numbering resources they need to compete in the rapidly growing 
telecommunications marketplace.
    10. 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.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201 and 251(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities That 
May Be Affected by this Report and Order. 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.'' \3\ The RFA generally defines 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' \4\ In addition, the term ``small business'' has the 
same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small 
Business Act.\5\ 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).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    \4\ Id. section 601(6).
    \5\ Id. section 601(3) (incorporating by reference the 
definition of ``small business concern'' in Small Business Act, 15 
U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition 
of a small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation 
with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and 
after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more 
definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of 
the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal 
Register.''
    \6\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. In this IRFA, we have considered the potential impact of this 
FNPRM on all users of telephone numbering resources. The small entities 
possibly affected by these rules include wireline, wireless, and other 
entities, as described in Appendix B. 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.\7\ Although some affected incumbent local exchange carriers 
(ILECs) may have 1,500 or fewer employees, we do not believe that such 
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 
are 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.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 13 CFR 121.201.
    \8\ See 13 CFR 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. 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).\9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Total Number of Companies Affected. The U.S. Bureau of the 
Census (Census Bureau) reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 
3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as defined 
therein, for at least one year.\10\ This number contains a variety of 
different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, 
interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular 
carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay 
telephone operators, personal communications services providers, 
covered specialized mobile radio providers, and resellers.\11\ It seems 
certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service firms may not 
qualify as small entities or small ILECs because they are not 
``independently owned and operated.'' \12\ For example, a PCS provider 
that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 
employees would not meet the definition of a small business. It is 
reasonable to conclude that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms 
are small entity telephone service firms or small ILECs that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 
Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities: 
Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1-123 (1995) (1992 
Census).
    \11\ A description of the effected entities are list in the 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, Appendix B.
    \12\ See generally 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other

[[Page 37752]]

Compliance Requirements.\13\ This FNPRM requests comment and cost 
studies (1) that quantify the incremental costs of thousands-block 
number pooling; (2) that quantify shared industry and direct carrier-
specific costs of thousands-block number pooling; and (3) that take 
into account the costs savings associated with thousands-block number 
pooling in comparison to the current number practices that result in 
more frequent area code changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NPRM, 64 FR 32471 (June 17, 1999) for an Initial 
Paperwork Reduction Act analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Recordkeeping. None.
    17. Other Compliance Requirements. None.
    18. Steps taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered. We have stated that 
section 251(e) does not exclude any class of carriers and that all 
telecommunications carriers must bear numbering administration costs on 
a competitively neutral basis.\14\ Therefore, we find that section 
251(e)(2) requires us to ensure that the costs of numbering 
administration, including thousands-block number pooling, do not affect 
the ability of carriers to compete. As such, the costs of thousands-
block number pooling should not give one provider an appreciable, 
incremental cost advantage over another when competing for a specific 
subscriber; and should not have a disparate effect on competing 
providers' abilities to earn a normal return.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Telephone Number Portability Third Report and Order, 13 FCC 
Rcd at 11731, 63 FR 35150 (June 29, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules. None.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-15200 Filed 6-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U