[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 139 (Monday, July 21, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43070-43072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-18364]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[CC Dockets 99-200, 96-98 and 95-116; FCC 03-126]


Numbering Resource Optimization; Implementation of the Local 
Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Telephone 
Number Portability

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission invites comment on whether to 
extend the thousands-block number pooling exemption established herein 
to carriers operating in rate centers with two service providers. In 
light of the Commission's prior finding that pooling provides the 
greatest benefit when participation is maximized, commenters that 
support extending the exemption should provide specific information on 
the number of carriers that would be affected by such an extension, so 
the Commission can determine how pooling deployment will be affected. 
Commenters advocating an extension of the current exemption should 
provide specific, per carrier, pooling cost information to enable the 
Commission to properly balance the benefits of pooling against the 
costs to carriers and their customers.

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 20, 2003. Reply comments 
are due on or before September 4, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original 
and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking 
number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit 
two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. 
All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. 
Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Slipakoff, Attorney, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, (202) 
418-7705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fourth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 99-200 
released on June 18, 2003. The full text of this document is available 
for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20554.

I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. In its comments, AT&T Wireless proposes that carriers, 
regardless of their size, operating in rate centers with fewer than 
three service providers, be exempt from the pooling requirement. AT&T 
also suggests that if a state commission believes that significant 
number optimization benefits could be obtained in rate centers with 
only two carriers, the state commission could petition the Commission 
to require those carriers to participate in pooling. In the 
accompanying Fourth Report and Order, the Commission exempts carriers 
from the pooling requirement if they are the only carrier in a rate 
center receiving numbering resources, but there is insufficient 
evidence in the record to determine whether rate centers with two 
competing service providers should also be exempt from pooling, as AT&T 
suggests.
    2. The Commission therefore seeks comment on whether to extend the 
exemption established in the accompanying Fourth Report and Order to 
carriers operating in rate centers with two service providers. In light 
of the Commission's prior finding that pooling provides the greatest 
benefit when participation is maximized, commenters that support 
extending the exemption should provide specific information on the 
number of carriers that would be affected by such an extension, so the 
Commission can determine how pooling deployment will be affected. 
Commenters advocating an extension of the current exemption should 
provide specific, per carrier, pooling cost information to enable the 
Commission to properly balance the benefits of pooling against the 
costs to carriers and their customers.

II. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    3. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Fourth 
Report and Order in CC Docket No. 99-200, Fourth Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 99-200, and Fourth Report 
and Order in CC Docket No. 95-116. Written public comments are 
requested on this IFRA. Comments must be identified as responses to the 
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on 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. In 
addition, this FNPRM (or a summary) will be published in the Federal 
Register.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
    4. The Commission is issuing this FNPRM to seek comment on a 
proposal to exempt carriers, regardless of size, from the Commission's 
pooling requirement if they are in rate centers with only two service 
providers. We also ask commenters that support extending the exemption 
to provide specific information on the number of carriers that would be 
affected by such an extension, so the Commission can determine how 
pooling deployment will be affected. Commenters advocating an extension 
of the current exemption should provide specific, per carrier, pooling 
cost information to enable the Commission to properly balance the 
benefits of pooling against the costs to carriers and their customers. 
Thus, we request a cost-benefit analysis showing how the benefits of 
pooling can be achieved without undue burden on carriers. In doing so, 
we seek to ensure that the limited numbering resources of the NANP are 
used efficiently.
2. Legal Basis
    5. The authority for actions proposed in this FNPRM may be found in 
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.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
    6. 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 proposed herein. The RFA defines the term ``small 
entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' 
``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.''

[[Page 43071]]

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. 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.
    7. The most reliable source of information regarding the total 
numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as 
well as the number of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data 
the Commission publishes bi-annually in its Trends in Telephone Service 
Report. According to data in the most recent report, there are 5,679 
interstate carriers. These carriers 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.
    8. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) 
in this present RFA analysis. As noted previously, 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.'' 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 Commission 
analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    9. Local Exchange Carriers and Competitive Access Providers. 
Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition 
specifically for small providers of local exchange services. The 
closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for wired 
telecommunications carriers. This provides that a wired 
telecommunications carrier is a small entity if it employs no more than 
1,500 employees. According to the most recent Commission data there are 
1,619 local services providers with 1,500 or fewer employees. Because 
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 these carriers that would qualify as small 
business concerns under SBA's definition. Of the 1,619 local service 
providers, 1,024 are incumbent local exchange carriers, 411 are 
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) and competitive LECs, 131 are 
resellers and 53 are other local exchange carriers. Consequently, we 
estimate that fewer than 1,619 providers of local exchange service are 
small entities or small incumbent local exchange carriers that may be 
affected.
    10. Cellular and Wireless Telephony. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically for 
wireless telephony. The closest definition is the SBA definition for 
cellular and other wireless telecommunications. Under this definition, 
a cellular licensee is a small entity if it employs no more than 1,500 
employees. According to the most recent Commission data, 580 providers 
classified themselves as providers of wireless telephony, including 
cellular telecommunications, Personal Communications Service, and 
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony Carriers. We do not have data 
specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently 
owned and operated, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with 
greater precision the number of cellular service carriers that would 
qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. 
Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 580 wireless 
telephony carriers that may be affected.
    11. Other Wireless Services. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to 
wireless services other than wireless telephony. The closest applicable 
definition under the SBA rules is again that of cellular and other 
wireless telecommunications, under which a service provider is a small 
entity if it employs no more than 1,500 employees. According to the 
most recent Commission data, 595 providers classified themselves as 
paging services, wireless data carriers or other mobile service 
providers. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers 
that are not independently owned and operated, and thus are unable at 
this time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireless 
service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under 
the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer 
than 595 wireless service providers that may be affected.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements
    12. No new recording, recordkeeping or other compliance 
requirements are proposed. The proposal, if adopted, would create an 
exemption from regulation for carriers operating in areas where there 
are only two competing service providers.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    13. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in developing its 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 and reporting requirements under the rule for such 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 
such small entities.''
    14. The Commission's action in this FNPRM will benefit certain 
small entities by exempting them from the pooling requirement under 
certain circumstances. Specifically, we seek comment on whether 
carriers, regardless of size, in rate centers with only two service 
providers should be exempted from thousands-block number pooling. Thus, 
we seek to further minimize the burden on small carriers.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules
    15. None.

B. Comment Filing Procedures

    16. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, interested parties may file comments on or before August 20, 
2003 and reply comments on or before September 4, 2003. 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).
    17. 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. If 
multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this 
proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of 
the

[[Page 43072]]

comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. 
In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their 
full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable 
docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic 
comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail 
comments, commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected], and should 
include the following words in the body of the message, ``get form .'' A sample form and directions 
will be sent in reply. After filing your comments electronically, 
please notify Sheryl Todd at [email protected] that comments have been 
filed.
    18. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and 
four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking 
number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must 
submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking 
number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in 
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, 
Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 
paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts 
Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this 
location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of 
before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than 
U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 
9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service 
first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed 
to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    19. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be sent to the 
Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; e-mail: 
[email protected]; facsimile: (202) 863-2898; phone: (202) 863-2893.
    20. Comments in this proceeding will be available on ECFS. They 
will also be available for public inspection and copying during regular 
business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 
12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. They may also be 
purchased from the Commission's duplicating 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 [email protected]. Documents may also be purchased from 
the Commission's duplicating contractor. Alternative formats (computer 
diskette, large print, audio recording and Braille) are available to 
persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin, of the Consumer 
and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-7426 (voice) or (202) 
418-7365 (TTY), or at [email protected]. This Public Notice can also be 
downloaded in Text and ASCII formats at: http://www.fcc.gov/cib/dro gov/cib/dro.

III. Ordering Clauses

    21. Pursuant to the authority contained in 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 Fourth Report and Order is hereby 
adopted and part 52 of the Commission's rules are amended and adopted 
as set forth in the Final rule document (Published elsewhere in this 
issue).
    22. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 
251(e), 254(e), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C 151, 152, 153, 154, 251(e), 254(e), and 405, and Sec.  1.429 
of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the petition for 
reconsideration filed by AT&T on May 6, 2002 is denied.
    23. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained 
in 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 FNPRM of 
proposed rulemaking is hereby adopted.
    24. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Fourth Report 
and Order in CC Docket No. 99-200 and CC Docket No. 95-116, and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-200, including the 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 52

    Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-18364 Filed 7-18-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P