[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16347-16350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-8250]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[CC Docket No. 99-200; CC Docket No. 96-98; CC Docket No 96-116; FCC 
02-73]


Numbering Resource Optimization

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC 
or Commission), seeks comment on whether to extend the LNP and pooling 
requirements to all carriers within the largest 100 MSAs. Finally, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether all MSAs included in Combined 
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs) on the Census Bureau's list of 
the largest 100 MSAs should be included on the Commission's list of the 
top 100 MSAs.

DATES: Comments are due May 6, 2002. Reply Comments are due May 20, 
2002. Written comments by the public on the proposed information 
collections are due May 6, 2002. Written comments must be submitted by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed information 
collection(s) on or before June 4, 2002.

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 Judith B. Herman, 
Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected], and to 
Jeanette Thornton, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Slipakoff, (202) 418-7705 or e-
mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Third Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket 99-200, and Second Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 95-116, (FNPRM), adopted 
on March 13, 2002 and released on March 14, 2002. The full text of this 
document is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the Commission Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20554. 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, Qualex 
International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, 
or via e-mail at [email protected].
    This FNPRM contains proposed information collection(s) subject to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It has been submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB, 
the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment 
on the proposed information collections contained in this proceeding.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This FNPRM contains a proposed 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 collection(s) contained in 
this FNPRM,

[[Page 16348]]

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 FNPRM; OMB notification of action is due 60 days from the date 
of publication of this FNPRM 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 Number: None.
    Title: Numbering Resource Optimization--Clarification and Further 
Notice.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: Proposed new collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 10.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 2 hours per respondent.
    Total Annual Burden: 20 hours.
    Total Annual Costs: $0.
    Needs and Uses: Comments are being solicited on whether rural or 
small carriers should be able to opt out of participation in certain 
MSAs upon a showing of whether or not there are competing providers in 
the applicable geographic area. This information will be used to 
determine whether or not certain carriers provide LNP and participate 
in thousands-block number pooling.

Synopsis of the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC 
Docket 99-200, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 
CC Docket No. 95-116

    1. In the Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order, 
67 FR 6431 (Feb. 12, 2002) the Commission extended LNP and thousands-
block number pooling requirements to all carriers in the largest 100 
MSAs, and gave non-compliant carriers six months from the effective 
date of the order to deploy LNP. Apparently, some carriers and state 
commissions differed on the current status of the LNP requirements. 
Specifically, they were not sure whether LNP is required for all 
carriers within the 100 largest MSAs, or only for those carriers that 
receive a request from a competing carrier. Thus, the Commission sought 
to clarify the issue.
    2. In attempting to clarify the issue, however, the Commission 
reversed the decision on LNP deployment reached by the Commission in 
the Number Portability First Order on Reconsideration, 62 Fed. Reg 
18280 (April 15, 1997), without providing an adequate opportunity for 
comment on this specific issue. The Commission now reverses this 
clarification and provides interested parties an opportunity to comment 
on whether carriers should be required to deploy LNP and participate in 
thousands-block number pooling in the 100 largest MSAs, regardless of 
whether they have received a specific request to provide LNP from 
another carrier.
    3. Number Portability. Reasoning that the deployment schedule 
should be modified to allow carriers to focus their resources on areas 
where competition is the greatest, the Commission in the Number 
Portability First Order on Reconsideration determined that that 
carriers need only provide LNP in switches for which another carrier 
has made a specific request for the provision of LNP. Initial 
deployment in accordance with the schedule modified in that order has 
been completed. Thus, the Commission now reexamines whether the 
benefits of widespread LNP deployment warrant a change in policy.
    4. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on whether the 
benefits of LNP to competition and numbering resource optimization 
warrant a reinstatement of the original LNP requirement for all local 
exchange carriers and covered CMRS carriers in the largest 100 MSAs. 
The Commission also seeks comment on whether certain small carriers 
that have switches either within the largest 100 MSAs or in areas 
adjoining the largest 100 MSAs, but provide service to no or few 
customers within the MSA, should be exempt from the LNP requirement 
because they are not likely to receive a request for LNP.
    5. Thousands-Block Number Pooling. The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether all carriers within the largest 100 MSAs should be 
required to participate in thousands-block number pooling, regardless 
of whether they are capable of providing LNP or whether they have 
received a request to provide LNP in a particular switch. Initially, 
the Commission linked the pooling requirement to the LNP requirement 
because it was widely accepted that carriers without LNP capability 
could not participate in pooling. Recently, however, carriers have 
represented to the Commission that the underlying local routing number 
(LRN) architecture is necessary for pooling, but full LNP capability is 
not necessary for pooling. The Commission continues to believe that 
numbering optimization measures, such as thousands-block number 
pooling, provide the greatest benefits when participation is maximized. 
In addition, the Commission continues to believe that the industry and 
consumers are best served by national numbering resource optimization 
standards implemented consistently and in a competitively neutral 
manner across the nation. Thus, the Commission tentatively concludes 
that expanding the pooling requirement to all carriers without regard 
to whether they are required to provide number portability will promote 
further numbering resource optimization, and seeks comment on this 
tentative conclusion. The Commission also seeks comment on whether 
certain small carriers, or classes of carriers that utilize numbering 
resources, should be exempt from the pooling requirements.
    6. Largest 100 MSAs. In the Numbering Resource Optimization Third 
Report and Order, the Commission clarified that the ``largest 100 
MSAs'' include those MSAs identified in the LNP First Report and Order, 
61 FR 38605 (July 25, 1996), as well as those areas included on any 
subsequent list of the largest 100 MSAs. The most recent U.S. Census 
list for the year 2000 includes areas referred to as combined MSAs, or 
CMSAs. CMSAs include and combine the populations of several MSAs, some 
of which would not otherwise be included as one of the largest 100 
MSAs. The Commission has focused on LNP and pooling efforts in the 
largest MSAs because those are the areas most likely to have 
competitive markets that would benefit from these measures. Conversely, 
the Commission has not required carriers to provide LNP or to 
participate in pooling in less populous areas because the full benefits 
of these measures would not likely be realized in areas without 
sufficient competition. The Commission believes this policy remains 
intact, and question whether those areas on the largest 100 MSAs list 
only because they have been combined with other MSAs into CMSAs are 
sufficiently competitive to be subject to the LNP and pooling 
requirements. The Commission therefore seeks comment on whether to 
require carriers in such MSAs to provide LNP and participate in 
thousands-block number pooling. Comments should address whether 
requiring LNP and pooling in these additional MSAs will further our 
pro-competition and numbering resource optimization goals. The

[[Page 16349]]

Commission also seeks comment on whether, in the alternative, to give 
state commissions authority to require LNP and pooling in these 
additional MSAs. Commenters should address what factors states must 
consider (e.g., the number of competing service providers in the MSA), 
whether certain criteria must be met, and whether any such authority 
should be subject to Commission approval on a case-by-case basis. In 
addition, commenters should address whether small or rural carriers 
should be able to opt out of participation in such MSAs upon a showing 
that there are no competing carriers in the applicable geographic area.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    7. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended, (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared this present 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
by 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 and must be filed by the deadlines for comments 
on the FNPRM provided in paragraph 26 of the FNPRM. The Commission will 
send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In 
addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published 
in the Federal Register. Id.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    8. The Commission is issuing this FNPRM to seek further comment on 
whether the Commission should again extend the LNP requirements to all 
carriers in the largest 100 MSAs, regardless of whether they receive a 
request to provide LNP. The Commission also seeks comment on whether 
all carriers in the top 100 MSAs should be required to participate in 
thousands-block number pooling, regardless of whether they are required 
to be LNP capable. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether all 
MSAs included in CMSAs on the Census Bureau's list of the largest 100 
MSAs should be included on the Commission's list of the top 100 MSAs. 
Receiving comment on such matters will help to ensure that number 
portability and thousands-block number pooling are implemented 
effectively and efficiently.

B. Legal Basis

    9. The authority for actions proposed in this FNPRM may be found in 
Sec. 52.23 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 52.23, sections 1, 3, 4, 
201-205, and 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201-205, and 251.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    10. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the rules adopted herein. 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3). The RFA 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(6). The term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one 
or more definitions that are appropriate for its activities. 5 U.S.C. 
601(3). Under the Small Business Act, 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 SBA. 15 U.S.C. 632.
    11. The most reliable source of information regarding the total 
numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide 
appears to be data the Commission publishes annually in its 
Telecommunications Provider Locator report, derived from filings made 
in connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). 47 CFR 
64.601 et seq. According to data in the most recent report, there are 
5,679 interstate service providers. These providers include, inter 
alia, local exchange carriers, wireline carriers and service providers, 
interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, operator service 
providers, pay telephone operators, providers of telephone service, 
providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers.
    12. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers 
(LECs), 47 U.S.C 251(h), in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, 
a ``small business'' under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the 
pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone 
communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and ``is not 
dominant in its field of operation.'' 15 U.S.C. 632. The SBA's Office 
of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are 
not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is 
not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent 
LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action 
has no effect on FCC analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA 
contexts.
    13. Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The 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. This number contains a variety of different categories of 
carriers, including LECs, interexchange carriers, competitive access 
providers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, and 
resellers. It seems certain that some of these 3,497 telephone service 
firms may not qualify as small entities because they are not 
``independently owned and operated.'' 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1). It seems 
reasonable to conclude that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms 
are small entity telephone service providers that may be affected by 
these rules.
    14. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. The SBA has developed 
a definition of small entities for wireline telecommunications 
carriers. The Census Bureau reports that there were 2,321 such 
telephone companies in operation for at least one year at the end of 
1992. According to the SBA's definition, such a small business 
telephone company is one employing no more than 1,500 persons. 13 CFR 
121.201. All but 26 of the 2,321 wireline companies listed by the 
Census Bureau were reported to have fewer than 1,000 employees. Even if 
all 26 of the remaining companies had more than 1,500 employees, there 
would still be 2,295 wireline companies that might qualify as small 
entities. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not 
independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to 
estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers and 
service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under 
SBA's definition. Therefore, we estimate that fewer than 2,295 
communications wireline companies are small entities that may be 
affected by these rules.
    15. Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers, 
Interexchange Carriers, Operator Service Providers, Payphone Providers, 
and Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
specific size standard definition for small LECs, competitive access 
providers (CAPS), interexchange carriers (IXCs), operator service 
providers (OSPs), payphone

[[Page 16350]]

providers, or resellers. The closest applicable size standard for these 
carrier-types under SBA rules is for wireline telecommunications 
carriers and telecommunications resellers. 13 CFR 121.201. The most 
reliable source of information that we know regarding the number of 
these carriers nationwide appears to be the data that we collect 
annually in connection with the TRS. 47 CFR 64.601 et. seq. According 
to our most recent data, there are 1,329 LECs, 532 CAPs, 229 IXCs, 22 
OSPs, 936 payphone providers, and 710 resellers. Although it seems 
certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and 
operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time 
to estimate with greater precision the number of these carriers that 
would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. 
Therefore, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,329 small entity 
LECs or small incumbent LECs, 532 CAPs, 229 IXCs, 22 OSPs, 936 payphone 
providers, and 710 resellers that may be affected by these rules.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    16. Future rules may require carriers within the 100 largest MSAs 
to be LNP-capable, regardless of whether they have received a specific 
request from another carrier to provide LNP. In addition, we may also 
require all carriers in the top 100 MSAs to participate in thousands-
block number pooling, regardless of whether they are required to be LNP 
capable. These rules may also include carriers that were not previously 
included in the top 100 MSAs. These potential requirements and 
inclusions of new carriers may impose additional obligations on such 
carriers. Commenters should discuss whether such requirements would 
pose an unreasonable burden on any group of carriers including small 
carriers.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    17. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
    18. This FNPRM may impact small entities that were not previously 
subject to our rules because they were not previously in the top 100 
MSAs or were not otherwise required to be LNP or pooling-capable. These 
requirements, however, are not designed to impact small entities any 
differently than larger entities. Rather, these requirements are 
designed to promote nationwide, effective and efficient LNP and number 
pooling. Furthermore, in the FNPRM, we explore possible exemptions for 
small carriers. Specifically, we seek comment on whether certain small 
carriers that have switches either within the largest 100 MSAs or, in 
areas adjoining the 100 largest MSAs, but provide service to no or few 
customers within the MSA, should be exempt from the LNP requirement. 
Thus, we seek to avoid creating an overwhelming burden for those 
carriers that are not likely to receive a request for LNP. We also seek 
comment on whether certain small carriers, or classes of carriers that 
utilize numbering resources, should be exempt from the pooling 
requirements. In addition, we request that commenters address whether 
small or rural carriers should be able to opt out of participation in 
certain areas within the largest 100 combined MSAs upon a showing that 
there are no competing carriers in the applicable geographic area.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules.

    19. None.

Report to Congress

    20. The Commission will send a copy of this FNPRM including this 
IRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of this FNPRM, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A 
copy of this FNPRM, and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be 
published in the Federal Register.
    21. Pursuant to Sections 1, 3, 4, 201-205, 251 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201-
205, and 251, this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC 
Docket 99-200, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC 
Docket 95-116 is hereby adopted.
    22. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, shall send a copy of this Third Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket 99-200, and Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket 95-116, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 52

    Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-8250 Filed 4-4-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P