[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 139 (Monday, July 21, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43003-43009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-18366]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission continues efforts to maximize 
the efficiency with which numbering resources in the North American 
Numbering Plan (NANP) are used. The Commission addresses issues on 
which we sought comment in Numbering Resource Optimization Third Order 
on Reconsideration. These actions will further promote our competition 
policies, promote the efficient and effective use of finite numbering 
resources and increase the

[[Page 43004]]

effectiveness of our numbering resource optimization measures.

DATES: Effective August 20, 2003.

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 
Report and Order in CC Docket No. 99-200 and CC Docket No. 95-116, 
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. Introduction

    1. In this order, the Commission continues efforts to maximize the 
efficiency with which numbering resources in the NANP are used. The 
Commission addresses the issues on which it sought comment in Numbering 
Resource Optimization Third Order on Reconsideration, 67 FR 16347 
(April 5, 2002). Specifically, the Commission reaffirms that carriers 
need only deploy LNP in switches within the 100 largest MSAs for which 
another carrier has made a specific request for the provision of LNP. 
The Commission also delegates authority to the state commissions to 
require carriers operating within the largest 100 MSAs that have not 
received a specific request for LNP from another carrier to provide 
LNP, under certain circumstances and on a case-by-case basis. The 
Commission also concludes that all carriers, except those specifically 
exempted, are required to participate in thousands-block number pooling 
in accordance with the national rollout schedule, regardless of whether 
they are required to provide LNP, including covered commercial mobile 
radio service (CMRS) providers that are not required to deploy LNP 
until November 24, 2003. The Commission specifically exempts rural 
telephone companies and Tier III CMRS providers that have not received 
a request to provide LNP from the pooling requirement. The Commission 
also exempts from the pooling requirement carriers that are the only 
service provider receiving numbering resources in a given rate center. 
Regarding MSAs, the Commission reaffirms its findings that the 100 
largest MSAs include those MSAs identified in the 1990 U.S. Census 
reports as well as those areas included on any subsequent U.S. Census 
report of the 100 largest MSAs. Although the Commission declines to 
expand the list of the 100 largest MSAs to include areas in 
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs) that would not 
otherwise be included in the 100 largest MSAs, the Commission delegates 
to state commissions the authority to determine whether to require 
carriers to participate in pooling in such areas. The Commission also 
finds AT&T's petition for reconsideration of the Commission's decision 
to permit incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) to recover the 
extraordinary costs of thousands-block number pooling through access 
charges to be untimely and without merit. These actions will further 
promote our competition policies, promote the efficient and effective 
use of finite numbering resources and increase the effectiveness of our 
numbering resource optimization measures.

II. Discussion

    2. Number Portability. The Commission reaffirms the Commission's 
decision in the Number Portability First Order on Reconsideration, 62 
FR 18280 (April 15, 1997), that all local exchange carriers and covered 
CMRS carriers in the 100 largest MSAs are required to provide LNP upon 
receipt of a specific request for the provision of LNP by another 
carrier.
    3. The Commission reemphasizes its view that LNP is still an 
important tool for enhancing competition, promoting numbering resource 
optimization, and giving consumers greater choices. The Commission 
believes, however, that the current requirements are sufficient to meet 
these important statutory goals. The Commission finds these 
requirements to be reasonable and efficient because they allow carriers 
to target their resources where the greatest need for number 
portability exists. They also limit expenditures in areas where there 
are relatively few competing service providers. The Commission finds 
that maintaining the current LNP requirement appropriately balances the 
policies and rationale supporting LNP without requiring expenditure of 
significant resources to deploy LNP in areas where competitors have not 
requested portability. Furthermore, maintaining the current requirement 
will not impose new burdens on small carriers operating in the 100 
largest MSAs.
    4. If it is true, as WorldCom's comments anticipate, that there 
will be new demand for LNP created by the implementation of LNP by 
covered CMRS providers, even where wireline competitive LECs have not 
yet entered the market, potential competitors can make the appropriate 
requests for LNP in areas they intend to serve. Carriers, including 
covered CMRS providers by November 24, 2003, are required to make 
number portability available within specified time-frames after a 
specific request by another telecommunication carriers in the areas in 
which the requesting carrier is operating or plans to operate. 
Requesting telecommunications carriers must specifically request 
portability, identify the discrete geographic area covered by the 
request, and provide a tentative date by which the carrier expects to 
utilize number portability to port prospective customers.
    5. The implementation of pooling was one of the primary 
considerations for extending LNP to all carriers operating in the 100 
largest MSAs. Initially, the Commission linked the pooling requirement 
to LNP because it was widely accepted that carriers without LNP 
capability could not participate in pooling. The Commission has since 
found, and the industry has confirmed, that full LNP capability is not 
necessary for participation in pooling. Rather, the underlying 
architecture, Location Routing Number (LRN), is necessary for such 
participation. Upon reexamination, the Commission remains convinced 
that it is reasonable to require LNP only in areas where competition 
dictates its demand, especially since the Commission now knows that 
pooling can be implemented without full LNP capability. Thus, the 
Commission finds that requiring LNP capability for all carriers in the 
100 largest MSAs only when there has been a specific request will not 
have any significant negative effects on pooling.
    6. The Commission also delegates authority to the state commissions 
to require carriers to provide LNP under certain circumstances and on a 
case-by-case basis. Thus, states may require carriers operating within 
the largest 100 MSAs to provide LNP, even if such carriers have not 
received a specific request for LNP from another carrier, if doing so 
would be in the public interest because there is evidence of meaningful 
consumer demand for LNP. Although the Commission finds that it is not 
necessary to expand the LNP requirement to all carriers in the 100 
largest MSAs regardless of whether they have received a request for 
LNP, the Commission agrees with the California Commission that state 
commissions should have the discretion, under certain circumstances, to 
extend the LNP requirements to carriers in the 100 largest MSAs that 
would not otherwise be required to implement LNP. This delegation will 
allow the state commissions the flexibility to accommodate specific 
demand for LNP

[[Page 43005]]

by consumers in a manner that promotes our numbering resource 
optimization goals, competition, and the public interest.
    7. State commissions exercising this delegated authority must find 
that LNP would serve the public interest because there is actual, 
meaningful consumer demand, as evidenced by consumer requests, for LNP 
in specified areas within the largest 100 MSAs. State commissions also 
must find that consumer demand and numbering resource optimization 
considerations justify the cost of providing LNP in the specified 
areas, including impacts on small and rural telephone companies. 
Because there is little incentive for states to require LNP in areas 
where there is little or no consumer demand, and requiring LNP in such 
cases would be costly for the carriers and, in turn, costly, for the 
consumers, the Commission is confident that the state commissions will 
carefully consider the consumer demand for LNP when utilizing this 
delegated authority.
    8. Thousands-Block Number Pooling. The Commission adopts its 
tentative conclusion that all carriers, including covered CMRS 
providers, should be required to participate in thousands-block number 
pooling, regardless of whether they are required to provide number 
portability, in accordance with the national rollout schedule. Because 
carriers can participate in pooling once they deploy the LRN 
architecture, thousands-block number pooling need not be linked to a 
carrier's ability to provide number portability. The Commission, 
therefore, required all carriers operating within the 100 largest MSAs, 
except those specifically exempted, to participate in pooling in areas 
where pooling has been or will be implemented in accordance with the 
national rollout schedule. In addition, the Commission directs the 
NANPA to cease assignment of NXX codes to carriers after they are 
required to participate in pooling. Carriers required to participate in 
pooling must request and receive numbering resources from the national 
Pooling Administrator (PA).
    9. Pooling is essential to extending the life of the NANP by making 
the assignment and use of central office codes more efficient. As 
previously found, delaying the implementation of national pooling until 
all carriers are required to be LNP capable would needlessly prolong 
the inefficiencies resulting from the NXX number allocation system. The 
Commission continues to believe that thousands-block number pooling 
will 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. Expanding pooling to all carriers in the 100 
largest MSAs furthers the Commission's numbering resource optimization 
goals by allowing telephone numbers to be assigned to carriers in 
smaller blocks in areas where the demand for numbering resources have 
proven to be the greatest.
    10. Generally, the Commission believes that the inclusion of rural 
and other small carriers operating within the largest 100 MSAs in the 
pooling requirement is very important to furthering its goals of 
slowing the pace of area code and NANP exhaust. Because most, if not 
all, of these carriers have a small customer base, thousands-block 
number pooling allows these carriers to obtain numbering resources in 
quantities that better reflect their actual needs; i.e., 1,000 blocks 
rather than 10,000 blocks. This results in fewer stranded numbers and 
thus better utilization rates. Nevertheless, the Commission recognizes 
that the costs associated with implementing thousands-block number 
pooling without having first implemented LNP can be particularly 
burdensome to rural and small carriers. Several commenters therefore 
suggest it is necessary to create an exemption from pooling for these 
carriers.
    11. Several commenters state that many rural carriers do not 
operate in competitive markets. The Commission knows that pooling is 
most effective in areas where competition exists, because it allows 
multiple service providers to more effectively share limited resources. 
Where there is less competition, and therefore fewer carriers requiring 
numbering resources, pooling has less impact on numbering resource 
exhaust. Because many rural and other small carriers operate in areas 
where they are the only or one of a few service providers, they are 
less likely to require multiple NXX codes or blocks of numbers in a 
manner that will drive premature area code exhaust. The Commission 
therefore finds that a limited exemption for these carriers is 
warranted.
    12. The Commission is also mindful of the concerns raised by some 
commenters regarding the costs to rural and small carriers associated 
with the implementation of thousands-block number pooling. Although the 
specific costs of implementing pooling for rural carriers are unknown 
at this time, the Commission knows that these costs may ultimately 
result in increased customer costs. The Commission believes, therefore, 
that the added benefits to be gained by requiring certain carriers that 
have not received a request for LNP to participate in pooling do not 
outweigh the potential burden, specifically the cost associated with 
pooling, on such carriers. The Commission therefore exempts from the 
pooling requirement rural telephone companies, as defined in the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, that have not received a 
request to provide LNP. The Commission also exempts Tier III wireless 
carriers, as defined in the E911 Stay Order, that have not received a 
request to deploy LNP. Once an exempted rural telephone company or Tier 
III wireless carrier has received a request to provide LNP, however, 
that carrier must participate in pooling. State commissions may 
petition the Commission for authority to require these exempted 
carriers to implement pooling in areas within the largest 100 MSAs if 
they can demonstrate that participation in pooling will further its 
numbering resource optimization goals.
    13. In addition, because the Commission finds that pooling has less 
impact on numbering resource exhaust where there is no competition, the 
Commission declines to impose pooling costs on carriers that are not 
required to provide LNP operating in areas where there are no competing 
service providers. The Commission therefore exempts carriers operating 
in rate centers within the largest 100 MSAs, where they are the only 
service provider receiving numbering resources, from the pooling 
requirement in those rate centers. Once such a carrier receives a 
request to provide LNP, however, the carrier must then also participate 
in pooling in areas where it is deployed.
    14. 100 Largest MSAs. The Commission reaffirms its finding that the 
100 largest MSAs include those MSAs identified in the 1990 U.S. Census 
reports and all subsequent U.S. Census updates of the 100 largest MSAs. 
The Commission declines, however, to expand the list of the 100 largest 
MSAs to include areas in CMSAs that would not otherwise be included on 
the list of the 100 largest MSAs. Nevertheless, the Commission 
delegates to the state commissions the authority to determine whether 
pooling should be extended to areas included in CMSAs that otherwise 
would not be included as one of the 100 largest MSAs. In doing so, the 
Commission aims to focus pooling efforts on the nation's most densely 
populated areas so as to slow the further proliferation of area codes.

[[Page 43006]]

    15. The Commission has focused on pooling efforts in the largest 
MSAs because those are the areas most likely to have competitive 
markets that would benefit from pooling. Conversely, the Commission has 
not required carriers to participate in pooling in less populous areas 
because the full benefits of pooling are less likely to be realized in 
areas without sufficient competition. Several commenters point out, 
however, that many nearby or adjoining areas within a CMSA have similar 
demographics to the original MSA and believe it appropriate to include 
CMSAs in the MSA list regardless of whether they would otherwise be 
included on the list of the 100 largest MSAs. The Commission finds 
insufficient evidence in the record to determine if these expanded 
areas have sufficient competition to justify extension of the MSA list, 
and therefore decline to determine which, if any, of these localities 
should be included on the MSA list. Rather, the Commission finds that 
the state commissions are better positioned to assess local conditions 
and determine whether to extend pooling to these areas. In making this 
determination, states should consider such factors as the number of 
competing service providers in the extended areas, whether the 
inclusion of such areas would further the Commission's competition and 
numbering resource optimization goals, population trends in the 
extended areas, and customer use patterns and volumes. Accordingly, the 
Commission delegates to state commissions the authority to determine 
whether to extend pooling to areas within CMSAs that otherwise would 
not be included on the list of the largest 100 MSAs. State commissions 
may not, however, require exempted carriers to participate in pooling 
in these extended areas.
    16. Untimely Petition for Reconsideration and Motions. On May 6, 
2002, AT&T filed a petition for reconsideration of the Numbering 
Resource Optimization Third Order on Reconsideration, requesting that 
the Commission reconsider its decision to permit incumbent LECs to 
recover the extraordinary costs of thousands-block number pooling 
through access charges. The Commission denies AT&T's petition as 
untimely filed. The Commissions nevertheless briefly discusses the 
merits of AT&T's petition on its own motion. Because the Commission 
finds that no new issues have been raised that were not addressed in 
the Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order, the 
Commission declines to reconsider its prior findings regarding pooling 
cost recovery.
    17. A petition for reconsideration in a rulemaking proceeding must 
be filed within 30 days after public notice of the Commission's action. 
The Commission's rules provide that public notice in a rulemaking 
proceeding occurs upon publication of the document, or a summary 
thereof, in the Federal Register. In the Numbering Resource 
Optimization Third Report and Order, the Commission established the 
appropriate cost recovery mechanism for thousands-block number pooling, 
and that issue was not reopened in the Numbering Resource Optimization 
Third Order on Reconsideration. The Numbering Resource Optimization 
Third Report and Order was published in the Federal Register on 
February 12, 2002, 67 FR 6431; and, therefore, petitions for 
reconsideration were due by March 14, 2002. As noted, AT&T did not file 
its petition until May 6, 2002. The Commission therefore finds that 
AT&T's petition for reconsideration was untimely filed, and dismisses 
it accordingly.
    18. Acknowledging that its petition may be untimely, AT&T also 
argues that the effect of the Numbering Resource Optimization Third 
Report and Order was not readily apparent at the reconsideration 
deadline for that order and asks the Commission to reconsider its 
decision on its own motion. Notwithstanding its dismissal of AT&T's 
petition as untimely, the Commission briefly addresses the merits of 
AT&T's arguments and concludes that no change in pooling cost recovery 
should be made.
    19. In the Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order, 
the Commission determined that incumbent LECs subject to rate of return 
or price cap regulation may recover their extraordinary carrier-
specific costs directly related to thousands-block number pooling 
implementation through existing cost recovery mechanisms. The 
Commission concluded that, because thousands-block number pooling had 
been mandated as a national numbering resource optimization strategy, 
permitting recovery of the extraordinary costs of number pooling in 
access charges is appropriate.
    20. AT&T argues that carriers should bear their own carrier-
specific pooling costs, and that allowing recovery of pooling costs 
through access charges inappropriately allows incumbent LECs to shift 
their costs to interexchange carriers (IXCs). In the Numbering Resource 
Optimization Third Report and Order, the Commission considered this 
argument and found that numbering administration is inherently access-
related, explaining that without numbers, the provision of which is a 
basic telephone network function, IXCs would be unable to route 
subscriber calls. Pooling is an enhancement of ordinary numbering 
administration, and access charges are the means by which access 
customers share in the costs of operating and maintaining the telephone 
network. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that it is appropriate 
for IXCs and other access customers to share in the costs of thousands-
block number pooling. AT&T also argues that permitting incumbent LECs 
to recover pooling costs in access charges is an impermissible subsidy 
in violation of section 254(e) of the Act. In the Numbering Resource 
Optimization Third Report and Order, the Commission addressed this 
claim by finding that, because access charges are intended to recover a 
portion of telephone network costs, permitting recovery of the 
extraordinary costs of number pooling in access charges is neither an 
implicit or explicit subsidy.
    21. AT&T further argues that this pooling cost recovery mechanism 
is not competitively neutral, in violation of section 251(e) of the 
Act. To the contrary, the Commission concluded in the Numbering 
Resource Optimization Third Report and Order that pooling, as a 
numbering resource optimization strategy, is a part of numbering 
administration, and that access charges are intended to recover a 
portion of telephone network costs, which include number administration 
costs. Thus, permitting recovery of the extraordinary costs of 
thousands-block number pooling through access charges is consistent 
with the statutory mandate of competitive neutrality. AT&T also 
suggests that the Commission's decision to permit thousands-block 
number pooling cost recovery through access charges is inconsistent 
with the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order and 
with the Commission's decision not to allow recovery of LNP costs 
through access charges. The Commission finds that the decision to allow 
recovery of thousands-block number pooling costs through access charges 
is fully consistent with the Commission's decisions in prior orders. In 
the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, the 
Commission adopted the same competitively neutral cost recovery 
framework for thousands-block number pooling that it adopted for LNP, 
but it also found that the determination of the appropriate cost 
recovery mechanism

[[Page 43007]]

(i.e., recovery through access or, alternatively, end-user charge) 
would be decided in a future order after further comment. In the 
Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order, the Commission 
followed the reasoning of the LNP Third Report and Order to conclude 
that unlike LNP, thousands-block number pooling is access related, and 
thus recovery of pooling costs through access charges is competitively 
neutral. AT&T otherwise raises no new evidence or arguments not already 
considered by the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission declines to 
reconsider its prior order.
    22. Finally, the Commission grants the motion of the California PUC 
to accept its late filed comments. On its own motion, the Commission 
also accepts the late filed reply comments of the Texas PUC.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    23. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the Third Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 99-
200, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-
200, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 
95-116 (Further Notice). The Commission sought written public comment 
on the proposals in the Further Notice, including comment on the IRFA. 
This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Fourth Report and Order
    24. In the Further Notice, we sought public comment on whether we 
should again extend the local number portability (LNP) requirements to 
all carriers in the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), 
regardless of whether they receive a request to provide LNP. We also 
sought comment on whether all carriers in the 100 largest MSAs should 
be required to participate in thousands-block number pooling regardless 
of whether they are required to be LNP capable. Finally, we sought 
comment on whether all MSAs included in the consolidated metropolitan 
statistical areas (CMSAs) should be included on the Commission's list 
of the 100 largest MSAs.
    25. With this Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 99-200 and 
Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 95-116, we continue efforts to 
maximize the efficiency with which numbering resources in the North 
American Numbering Plan (NANP) are used. We also attempt to continue 
the implementation of telephone number portability and thousands-block 
number pooling with the minimum regulatory and administrative burden on 
telecommunications carriers. In particular, we reaffirm that carriers 
need only deploy LNP in switches within the 100 largest MSAs for which 
another carrier has made a specific request for the provision of LNP. 
We also delegate authority to the state commissions to require carriers 
operating within the largest 100 MSAs that have not received a specific 
request for LNP from another carrier to provide LNP, under certain 
circumstances and on a case-by-case basis. We also conclude that all 
carriers, except those specifically exempted, are required to 
participate in thousands-block number pooling in accordance with the 
national rollout schedule, regardless of whether they are required to 
provide LNP including covered commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) 
providers that are not required to deploy LNP until November 24, 2003. 
We specifically exempt rural telephone companies and Tier III CMRS 
providers that have not received a request to provide LNP from the 
pooling requirement. We also exempt from the pooling requirement 
carriers that are the only service provider receiving numbering 
resources in the rate center. We also find AT&T's petition for 
reconsideration of the Commission's decision to permit incumbent local 
exchange carriers (LECs) to recover the extraordinary costs of 
thousands-block number pooling through access charges to be untimely 
and without merit.
2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IFRA
    26. No comments specifically addressed the IFRA. Commenters, 
however, responded to several issues addressed in the Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking that concern small entities. Generally, commenters 
from the state commissions support extending the LNP requirement to all 
carriers in the 100 largest MSAs, regardless of whether there has been 
a request. Most commenters agree that all carriers in the 100 largest 
MSAs should be required to participate in thousands-block number 
pooling regardless of whether they are LNP capable. Several of these 
commenters suggest that thousands-block number pooling should be as 
expansive as possible in order to promote efficient and effective 
numbering resource optimization. Other commenters suggested that an 
exemption should be established for small carriers.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
Rules Will Apply
    27. 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. The RFA defines the term ``small 
entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' 
``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' 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.
    28. The most reliable source of information regarding the total 
number of certain common carriers 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.
    29. We have included small incumbent LECs 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.'' 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.
    30. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a 
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, 
which

[[Page 43008]]

consists of all such companies having 1500 or fewer employees. 
According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 2,225 wired 
telecommunications carriers that had 1,500 or fewer employees. Of this 
total, 2,201 firms had 999 or fewer employees, and 24 firms had 
employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, we estimate that no more 
than 2,225 wired telecommunication carriers are small businesses that 
may be affected by the regulations.
    31. Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition specifically for small LECs. The closest 
applicable definition under the SBA rules is for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. According to the Trends in Telephone 
Service data, 1,329 incumbent carriers reported that they were engaged 
in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,329 companies, 
an estimated 1,024 have 1,500 or fewer employees and an estimated 305 
have more than 1,500 employees (alone or in combination with 
affiliates). Consequently, we estimate that no more than 1,024 
providers of local exchange service are small businesses that may be 
affected by the regulations.
    32. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to 
providers of interexchange services (IXCs). The closest applicable 
definition under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers. According to the Trends in Telephone Service data, 229 
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of 
interexchange services. Of these 229 companies, 181 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and 48 have more than 1,500 employees (alone or in 
combination with affiliates). Consequently, we estimate that no more 
than 181 small entity IXCs may be affected by the regulations.
    33. Competitive Access Providers (CAPs). Neither the Commission nor 
the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically 
applicable to CAPs. The closest applicable definition under the SBA 
rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carrier. According to the Trends 
in Telephone Service data, 532 CAPs and competitive LECs and 55 other 
LECs reported that they were engaged in the provision of competitive 
local exchange services. Of these 587 companies, 411 CAPs and 
competitive LECs and 53 other LECs have 1,500 or fewer employees and 
121 CAPs and competitive LECs and 2 other LECs have more than 1,500 
employees (alone or in combination with affiliates). Consequently, we 
estimate that no more than 411 small entity CAPs and 53 other LECs may 
be affected by the regulations.
    34. Resellers (including debit card providers). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities 
specifically applicable to resellers. The closest applicable SBA 
definition for a reseller is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 
According to the Trends in Telephone Service data, 576 toll resellers 
and 134 local resellers reported that they were engaged in the resale 
of telephone service. Of these 710 companies, 669 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and 41 have more than 1,500 employees (alone or in 
combination with affiliates). Consequently, we estimate that no more 
than 669 small entity resellers may be affected by the regulations.
    35. Wireless Telephony including Cellular, Personal Communications 
Service (PCS) and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony Carriers. 
Wireless telephony includes cellular, PCS or SMR service providers. The 
SBA has developed a definition of small entities applicable to cellular 
licensees that consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to the Trends in Telephone Service data, 858 
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
telephony. Of these 858 companies, 291 wireless telephony providers 
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 567 wireless telephony providers have 
more than 1,500 employees (alone or in combination with affiliates). 
Consequently, we estimate that no more than 291 small carriers 
providing wireless telephony services may be affected by the 
regulations.
    36. Paging Service. The SBA has developed a definition of small 
entities applicable to providers of paging services that consists of 
all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the 
Trends in Telephone Service data, 576 companies reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of paging service. Of these 1,434 companies, 
557 paging companies have 1,500 or fewer employees and 19 paging 
companies have more than 1,500 employees (alone or in combination with 
affiliates). Consequently, we estimate that no more than 291 small 
carriers providing paging services may be affected by the regulations.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements
    37. The requirements discussed herein should not require additional 
reporting, recordkeeping or compliance requirements for service 
providers. In this Report and Order, we are not mandating new 
recordkeeping and compliance requirements. Rather, we are affirming, 
clarifying or reducing requirements.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    38. 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.
    39. In this Fourth Report and Order, we decline to extend local 
number portability requirements to carriers operating in the 100 
largest MSAs that have not yet received a request to deploy local 
number portability from a competing carrier. By maintaining our current 
local number portability requirement, we will not impose new burdens on 
small carriers operating in the 100 largest MSAs. We believe that the 
costs associated with the alternative of requiring all carriers, 
including small entities, to deploy local number portability in the 
absence of a request would outweigh any number optimization benefit.
    40. In addition, we exempt rural telephone companies and Tier III 
CMRS carriers from the pooling requirement until they are required to 
implement LNP. We also exempt from the pooling requirement carriers 
operating in rate centers where they are the only service provider 
receiving numbering resources. Once such a carrier receives a request 
to provide LNP, the carrier must then also participate in pooling in 
areas where it is deployed. If, however, a state believes that a 
carrier that qualifies for this exemption should participate in pooling 
to further our numbering resource optimization goals, the state 
commission may petition the Commission for authority to require such 
carriers to implement pooling.
    41. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of this 
Fourth Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to 
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the 
Commission will send a copy of this Fourth Report and

[[Page 43009]]

Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
SBA. A copy of this Fourth Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    42. 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 Appendix A of the Fourth Report and Order.
    43. 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.
    44. 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 further notice of proposed 
rulemaking is hereby adopted.
    45. The amendments to Sec. Sec.  52.20 through 52.31 of the 
Commission's rules as set forth in the rule changes are adopted, 
effective August 20, 2003. The action contained herein has been 
analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found 
to impose no new or modified reporting and/or recordkeeping 
requirements or burdens on the public.
    46. 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 Fourth 
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.

Final Rules

0
For the reason discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission amends 47 CFR part 52 as follows:

PART 52--NUMBERING

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 
U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 155 unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply 
secs. 3, 4, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-7, 251-2, 271 and 332, 48 Stat. 
1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 153, 154, 201-205, 207-09, 218, 
225-7, 251-2, 271 and 332 unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Section 52.20 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.20  Thousands-block number pooling.

* * * * *
    (b) General requirements. Pursuant to the Commission's adoption of 
thousands-block number pooling as a mandatory nationwide numbering 
resource optimization strategy, all carriers, except those exempted by 
the Commission, must participate in thousands-block number pooling 
where it is implemented and in accordance with the national thousands-
block number pooling framework and implementation schedule established 
by the Commission.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.21 is amended by removing paragraph (r), redesignating 
paragraphs (a) through (q) as paragraphs (b) through (r), and by adding 
a new paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.21  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (a) The term 100 largest MSAs includes the 100 largest MSAs as 
identified in the 1990 U.S. Census reports, as set forth in the 
Appendix to this part, as well as those areas identified as one of the 
largest 100 MSAs on subsequent updates to the U.S. Census reports.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 52.23 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.23  Deployment of long-term database methods for number 
portability by LECs.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) All LECs must provide a long-term database method for number 
portability in the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), 
as defined in Sec.  52.21(k), in switches for which another carrier has 
made a specific request for the provision of number portability, 
subject to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 52.31 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory 
text, (a)(1)(ii), and (a)(1)(iv) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  52.31  Deployment of long-term database methods for number 
portability by CMRS providers.

    (a) By November 24, 2003, all covered CMRS providers must provide a 
long-term database method for number portability, including the ability 
to support roaming, in the 100 largest MSAs, as defined in Sec.  
52.21(k), in compliance with the performance criteria set forth in 
section 52.23(a) of this part, in switches for which another carrier 
has made a specific request for the provision of number portability, 
subject to paragraph (a)(1) of this section. A licensee may have more 
than one CMRS system, but only the systems that satisfy the definition 
of covered CMRS are required to provide number portability.
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Carries requesting deployment in the 100 largest MSAs by 
November 24, 2003 must submit requests by February 24, 2003.
* * * * *
    (iv) After November 24, 2003, a covered CMRS provider must deploy 
number portability in additional switches serving the 100 largest MSAs 
upon request within the following time frames:
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-18366 Filed 7-18-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P