[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13323-13328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2330]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[CC Docket No. 99-200; FCC 06-14]


Numbering Resource Optimization

AGENCY Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission seeks comment on whether 
we should extend mandatory thousands-block number pooling by, for 
example, giving the states delegated authority to implement mandatory 
thousands-block number pooling at their discretion. Alternatively, we 
could continue to review requests from the states for authority to 
extend mandatory thousands-block number pooling to new NPAs on a case-
by-case basis. Also, we could extend pooling to all rate centers, using 
a phased implementation schedule. As many state commissions can attest, 
mandatory number pooling can extend the life of numbering plan areas 
(NPAs) more effectively than

[[Page 13324]]

optional pooling requirements. In addition, the Wireline Competition 
Bureau specifically stated that the Commission would ``consider 
extending pooling to NPAs outside of the top 100 Metropolitan 
Statistical Areas (MSAs) once pooling is implemented in the top MSAs.''

DATES: Submit comments on or before May 15, 2006; submit reply comments 
on or before June 13, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [CC Docket No. 99-
200], by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 
Mail: Sheryl Todd, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecom Access Policy 
Division, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    4. People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable 
accomodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, 
CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 
202-418-0432.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Jones, Telecommunications 
Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 415-4357 
or [email protected]. The fax number is: (202) 418-2345.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fifth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-200 released 
on February 24, 2006. 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 Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek 
comment on whether we should delegate authority to all states to 
implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling.
    2. In the First Report and Order, 65 FR 37703, June 16, 2000, the 
Commission determined that implementation of thousands-block number 
pooling is essential to extending the life of the North American 
Numbering Plan (``NANP'') by making the assignment and use of NXX codes 
more efficient. Therefore, the Commission adopted national thousands-
block number pooling as a valuable mechanism to remedy the inefficient 
allocation and use of numbering resources and determined to implement 
mandatory thousands-block pooling in the largest 100 MSAs within nine 
months of selection of a pooling administrator. The Commission also 
allowed state commissions to continue to implement thousands-block 
pooling pursuant to delegated authority and agreed to continue to 
consider state petitions for delegated authority to implement pooling 
on a case-by-case basis. The Commission delegated authority to the 
Common Carrier Bureau, now the Wireline Competition Bureau 
(``Bureau''), to rule on state petitions for delegated authority to 
implement number conservation measures, including thousands-block 
number pooling, where no new issues were raised.
    3. The Commission held that such state positions for delegated 
authority must demonstrate that: (1) An NPA in its state is in 
jeopardy; (2) the NPA in question has a remaining life span of at least 
a year; and (3) the NPA is in one of the largest 100 MSAs, or 
alternatively, the majority of wireline carriers in the NPA are local 
number portability (``LNP'')-capable. The Commission recognized that 
there may be ``special circumstances'' where pooling would be of 
benefit in NPAs that do not meet all three criteria, and may be 
authorized in such an NPA upon a satisfactory showing by the state 
commission of such circumstances. These three criteria were adopted 
before implementation of nationwide thousands-block number pooling and 
before the Commission recognized that full LNP capability is not 
necessary for participation in pooling.
    4. National rollout of thousands-block number pooling commenced on 
March 15, 2002, in the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas 
(``MSAs'') and area codes previously in pooling pursuant to state 
delegation orders. All carriers operating within the 100 largest MSAs, 
except those specifically exempted by the order, were required to 
participate in thousands-block number pooling in accordance with the 
national rollout schedule. The Commission specifically exempted from 
the pooling requirement rural telephone companies and Tier III CMRS 
providers that have not received a specific request for the provision 
of LNP from another carrier, as well as carriers that are the only 
service provider receiving numbering resources in a given rate center. 
In exempting certain carriers from the pooling requirement, the 
Commission confirmed that ``it is reasonable to require LNP only in 
areas where competition dictates its demand.'' The Commission directed 
the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (``NANPA'') to cease 
assignment of NXX codes to carriers after they were required to 
participate in pooling. Instead, carriers required to participate in 
pooling received numbering resources from the national thousands-block 
number Pooling Administrator responsible for administering numbers in 
thousands-blocks.
    5. In implementing nationwide pooling, the Commission had concluded 
that mandatory pooling should initially take place in the largest 100 
MSAs. In the Pooling Rollout Order, the Bureau explained that it would 
consider extending pooling outside of the top 100 MSAs after pooling 
was implemented in the top 100 MSAs. The Bureau also encouraged 
voluntary pooling in areas adjoining qualifying MSAs.

II. Order Granting Petitions

    6. In the Order accompanying the Fifth Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, 
we grant petitions for delegated authority to implement mandatory 
thousands-block number pooling filed by the Public Service Commission 
of West Virginia, the Nebraska Public Service Commission, the Oklahoma 
Corporation Commission, the Michigan Public Service Commission, and the 
Missouri Public Service Commission. Although all three criteria are not 
consistently met in these petitions, we find that special circumstances 
justify delegation of authority to require pooling.
    7. With respect to the first criterion, the petitions before us 
present both jeopardy and non-jeopardy situations. The 304 NPA is 
currently in jeopardy, whereas the 402, 417, 573, 580, and 989 NPAs are 
not in jeopardy as defined by industry standards, but are projected to 
exhaust within three years. Given that most of the NPAs in question are 
expected to exhaust within one to three years, it is most efficient and 
in the public interest to permit the state petitioners to implement 
mandatory thousands-block number pooling at this time. Moreover, if we 
deny these petitions pursuant to a strict application of the jeopardy 
requirement, the state commissions will have to refile the petitions in 
the near future when the NPAs at issue will be in jeopardy. This would 
be an inefficient use of resources and would further delay the state 
commissions' ability to optimize

[[Page 13325]]

numbering resources. With regard to the second criterion, all petitions 
have demonstrated that the NPAs in question have a remaining life span 
of at least a year. Thus, this prong of the test is met.
    8. The third criterion, that the NPA is in one of the largest 100 
MSAs or the majority of wireline carriers in the NPA are LNP-capable, 
is not relevant here. These petitions seek authority to implement 
pooling outside of the largest 100 MSAs, and we have since determined 
that pooling can be implemented without full LNP capability. Instead, 
we are guided by the principle, expressed in our pooling precedent, 
that it is reasonable to require LNP only in areas where competition 
dictates demand. For this reason, we have exempted from pooling rural 
telephone companies and Tier III CMRS providers that have not yet 
received a specific request for the provision of LNP from another 
carrier and carriers that are the only service provider receiving 
numbering resources in a given rate center. Although this exemption 
should ensure that LNP is only required in areas where completion 
dictates demand, it is important to also note that, for carriers who 
are required to participate in number pooling, full LNP capability is 
not required. In this case, we require state commissions, in exercising 
the authority delegated herein to implement number pooling, to 
implement this delegation consistent with the exemption for the 
carriers described above. We therefore expect that rural carriers who 
are not LNP capable will not be required to implement full LNP 
capability solely as a result of the delegation of authority set forth 
herein.
    9. As several commenters observe, allowing states to mandate 
pooling outside of the top 100 MSAs will delay the need for area code 
relief by using numbering resources more efficiently. Demand for 
numbering resources in these states is increasing in rural rate 
centers, where number pooling is not mandatory, due to additional 
wireless and competitive carriers entering those areas. The petitioners 
have demonstrated that many carriers are not participating in optional 
pooling and instead continue to request full NXX codes in these NPAs. 
The petitioners observe, and we agree, that mandatory thousands-block 
number pooling would extend the life of these NPAs by using the 
resources that otherwise would be stranded. Denying the petitions would 
allow carriers to continue to request 10,000 blocks of numbers when 
fewer numbers may be needed to serve their customers, which would 
further hasten the exhaust of these NPAs. We find that this is a 
special circumstance that permits us to delegate authority to these 
states to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling.
    10. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, we determine that 
the petitioners have demonstrated the special circumstances necessary 
to justify delegation of authority to require pooling, and we grant: 
The public Service Commission of West Virginia authority to implement 
mandatory thousands-block number pooling in the 304 NPA; the Nebraska 
Public Service Commission authority to implement mandatory thousands-
block number pooling in the 402 NPA; the Oklahoma Corporation 
Commission authority to implement mandatory thousands-block number 
pooling in the 580 NPA; the Michigan Public Service Commission the 
authority to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling in the 
989 NPA; and the Missouri Public Service Commission the authority to 
implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling in the 417, 573, 
636, and 660 NPAs.
    11. The Ohio Commission and NARUC request that in addition to 
granting the Oklahoma Petition for mandatory thousands-block number 
pooling, we extend such delegated authority to all states. SBC opposes 
this request and observes that in order to adopt such a rule change, we 
must provide opportunity for notice and comment. We agree and do so in 
our Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemking.
    12. Finally, we observe that several commenters asked the 
Commission to reaffirm that it will not permit states to implement 
pooling methods that are inconsistent with the national pooling 
framework set forth in the Commission's rules and industry pooling 
guidelines. We note that the petitions specifically seek authority to 
order mandatory thousands-block number pooling in rate centers located 
outside the top 100 MSAs, but in accordance with the national pooling 
framework. Thus, these state commissions are not seeking to implement 
pooling methods that are inconsistent with the national pooling 
framework.

III. Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    13. The Order that accompanies this Fifth Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (``FNPRM'') recognizes the invaluable role of the 
state commissions in number administration and optimization. In that 
Order, we granted the requesting state commissions authority to 
implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling in the certain NPAs. 
We took this action because in each case the remaining life in the NPAs 
at issue was within three years of exhaust. In this FNPRM, we seek 
comment now on whether we should extend mandatory pooling by, for 
example, giving the states delegated authority to implement mandatory 
thousands-block number pooling at their discretion. As many state 
commissions can attest, mandatory number pooling can extend the life of 
NPAs more effectively than optional pooling requirements. In addition, 
in the Pooling Rollout Order, the Bureau specifically stated that the 
Commission would ``consider extending pooling to NPAs outside of the 
top 100 MSAs once pooling is implemented in the top MSAs.''
    14. Alternatively, we could continue to review requests from the 
states for authority to extend mandatory thousands-block number pooling 
to new NPAs on a case-by-case basis. If we were to adopt this approach, 
the Commission would continue to review state petitions on a case-by-
case basis, as we did in the Order preceding this FNPRM. Also, we could 
extend pooling to all rate centers, using a phased implementation 
schedule. For example, we could initially expand pooling to NPAs that 
are within three years of exhaust and continue to expand pooling to 
other NPAs as they reach a certain state of exhaust. We seek comment on 
the costs and benefits to each approach. Commenters advocating a case-
by-case review of state petitions should propose criteria for such a 
review. As we discussed in the preceding Order, the third prong in the 
three-prong test adopted in the First Report and Order is no longer 
relevant, and the first prong was not strictly met by all petitioners. 
Commenters should discuss whether we should use primarily the second 
prong of that test in determining whether to extend delegated authority 
to the states. In particular, we seek comment on whether we should 
grant authority for mandatory thousands-block number pooling based 
primarily on the remaining life of the NPA, as we did in the foregoing 
Order. Commenters should also address whether ``special circumstances'' 
would be a more appropriate criterion.
    15. We are limiting this FNPRM to the issue of extending mandatory 
thousands-block number pooling to NPAs outside of the top 100 MSAs. Any 
such expansion of number pooling would be subject to our current 
numbering rules and number pooling guidelines. Commenters should 
discuss any related thousands-block numbering rule changes or new rules 
that we

[[Page 13326]]

should adopt to facilitate this expansion. We recognize that many of 
the number pooling procedures are in the pooling guidelines, not in the 
Commission's rules.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    16. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended, 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') for this Fifth Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``FNPRM''), of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in this FNPRM. The IFRA is in the attached 
Appendix. 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. 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, the FNPRM and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    17. This FNPRM does not contain information collection requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA''), Public Law 
104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified 
``information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

C. Ex Parte Presentations

    18. These matters shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance 
of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects 
discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and 
arguments presented is generally required. Other requirements 
pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section 
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.

D. Comment Filing Procedures

    19. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
interested parties may file comments on this FNPRM within 60 days after 
publication in the Federal Register and may file reply comments within 
90 days after publication in the Federal Register. All filings shall 
refer to CC Docket No. 99-200. Comments may be filed using (1) the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (``ECFS''), (2) the 
Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.
    20. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic 
file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. If multiple docket or 
rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters 
must transmit one electronic copy of the 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.
    21. 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. All filings must contain the docket or rulemaking number that 
appears in the caption of this proceeding.
    22. 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).
    23. The Commission's contractor 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 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20554.
     All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    24. People with disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    25. Parties must also send a courtesy copy of their filing to 
Sheryl Todd, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Room 5-B540, Washington, DC 20554. Ms. Todd's e-mail address is 
[email protected]; her telephone number is (202) 418-7386.
    26. Filings and comments are also 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. Copies may also be purchased from the 
Commission's duplicating contractor, BCPI, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI through its 
Web site: www.bcpiweb.com by e-mail at [email protected], by telephone at 
(202) 488-5300 or (800) 378-3160, or by facsimile at (202) 488-5563.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    27. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (``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 the Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (``FNPRM''). Written public comments are requested 
on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as response to IRFA and must 
be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM. The Commission 
will send a copy of this FRPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (``SBA''). In 
addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published 
in the Federal Register.

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

    28. In the FNPRM, we seek comment on whether we should extend 
mandatory thousands-block number

[[Page 13327]]

pooling by giving states delegated authority to implement mandatory 
thousands-block number pooling at their discretion. We also see comment 
on whether we should, alternatively, continue to review requests from 
states for authority to extend mandatory thousands-block number pooling 
on a case-by-case basis. We also seek comment on what criteria we 
should use for such a review.

2. Legal Basis

    29. The legal basis for the FNPRM is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 
201 through 205, 214, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 9134, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201--205, 214, 254, and 403.

3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
Rules May Apply

    30. 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 proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 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. A small organization is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise 
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 
field.'' Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 small organizations. 
The term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is defined as 
``governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, 
or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' 
As of 1997, there were about 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the 
United States. This number includes 39,044 county governments, 
municipalities, and townships, of which 73,546 (approximately 96.2 
percent) have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of which 1,498 have 
populations of 50,000 or more. Thus we estimate the number of small 
governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 or fewer.
a. Telecommunications Service Providers
    31. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in 
this RFA analysis. A ``small business'' under the RFA is one that, 
inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a 
telephone communcations 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 local 
exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because 
any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore 
included small incumbent carriers in this RFA analysis, although we 
emphasize that this RFA action has not effect on the Commission's 
analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    32. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small 
incumbent local exchange services. The closest size standard under SBA 
rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Commission data, 1,303 incumbent carriers reported that 
they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 
1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 
283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are 
small business that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted 
herein.
    33. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access 
Providers (CAPs) and ``Other Local Exchange Carriers.'' Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small 
businesses specifically applicable to providers of competitive exchange 
services or to competitive access providers or to ``Other Local 
Exchange Carriers.'' The closest applicable size standard under SBA 
rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Commission data, 769 companies reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services 
or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 769 companies, 
an estimated 676 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 93 have more than 
1,500 employees. In addition, 39 carriers reported that they were 
``Other Local Service Providers.'' Of the 39 ``Other Local Service 
Providers,'' an estimated 36 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has 
more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive 
access providers, and ``Other Local Service Providers'' are small 
entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
    34. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to interexchange services. The closest applicable size 
standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. According to the Commission data, 316 companies 
reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the 
provision of interexchange services. Of these 316 companies, an 
estimated 292 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 24 have more than 1,500 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
IXCs are small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies 
adopted herein.
    35. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for wireless small businesses within the two 
separate categories of Paging and Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications. Under both SBA categories, a wireless business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the Commission 
data, 1,012 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision 
of wireless service. Of these 1,012 companies, an estimated 829 have 
1,500 or fewer employees and 183 have more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most wireless service 
providers are small entities that may be affected by the rules and 
policies adopted herein.
    36. Private and Common Carrier Paging. In the Paging Third Report 
and Order, we developed a small business size standard for ``small 
businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining 
their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and 
installment payments. A ``small business'' is an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, have average gross 
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. 
Additionally, a ``very small business'' is an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, have average gross 
revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three 
years. An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on 
February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 985 licenses 
auctioned, 440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies

[[Page 13328]]

claiming small business status won. At present, there are approximately 
24,000 Private-Paging site-specific licenses and 74,000 Common Carrier 
Paging licenses. Also, according to Commission data, 375 carriers 
reported that they were engaged in the provision of either paging or 
messaging services, or other mobile services. Of those, the Commission 
estimates that 370 are small, under the SBA-approved small business 
size standard.
b. Internet Service Providers
    37. Internet Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs 
``provide clients access to the Internet and generally provide related 
services such as Web hosting, Web page designing, and hardware or 
software consulting related to Internet connectivity.'' Under the SBA 
size standard, such a business is small if it has average annual 
receipts of $21 million or less. According to Census Bureau data for 
1997, there were 2,751 firms in this category that operated for the 
entire year. Of these, 2,659 firms had annual receipts of under $10 
million, and an additional 67 firms had receipts of between $10 million 
and $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these 
firms are small entities that may be affected by our action. In 
addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the 
total number of internet service providers increased approximately five 
percent from 1997 to 2002.

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

    38. In the FNPRM, we seek comment on whether we should extend 
mandatory thousands-block number pooling by giving states delegated 
authority to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling at 
their discretion. We also see comment on whether we should, 
alternatively, continue to review requests from states for authority to 
extend mandatory thousands-block number pooling on a case-by-case 
basis. We also seek comment on what criteria we should use for such a 
review. If we extend thousands-block number pooling, beyond the top 100 
MSAs, carriers required by states to implement number pooling will be 
required to comply with the existing reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements for number pooling in part 52, subpart C of the 
Commission's rules.

5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    39. 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 and 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 part thereof, for small 
entities.
    40. In the FNPRM, we seek comment on whether we should extend 
mandatory thousands-block number pooling by giving states delegated 
authority to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling at 
their discretion. We also seek comment on whether we should, 
alternatively, continue to review requests from states for authority to 
extend mandatory thousands-block number pooling on a case-by-case 
basis. We also seek comment on what criteria we should use for such a 
review. If we adopt some form of additional number pooling, beyond the 
top 100 MSAs, more carriers may be required to comply with the filing 
requirements for number pooling. Expanding number pooling will, 
however, conserve numbering resources and will prevent or delay the 
adoption of other, possibly more burdensome, measures.

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

    None.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    41. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 
4(i), 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 
154(i), 251, and pursuant to section 52.9(b) of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 52.9(b), it is ordered that the Petition of the Nebraska Public 
Service Commission for Expedited Decision for Authority to Implement 
Additional Number Conservation Measures is granted; the Petition of the 
West Virginia Public Service Commission for Expedited Decision for 
Authority to Implement Additional Number Conservation Measures is 
granted; and the Petition of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission for 
Expedited Decision for Authority to Implement Additional Number 
Conservation Measures is granted; the Petition of the Missouri Public 
Service Commission for Additional Delegated Numbering Authority to 
Implement Number Conservation Measures is granted; and the Petition of 
the Michigan Public Service Commission for Additional Delegated 
Authority over Numbering Resource Conservation Measures is granted.
    42. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained 
in sections 1, 4(i), 201-205, 214, 254, and 403 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201-205, 214, 254, and 
403, this Order and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 
adopted.
    43. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Order and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-2330 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M