**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | CC Docket No. 99-200         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Numbering Resource Optimization  | ** | CC Docket No. 96-98          |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Implementation of the Local      | *  | CC Docket No. 95-116         |
| Competition Provisions of the    | *) |                              |
| Telecommunications Act of 1996   | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Telephone Number Portability     | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**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**

**Adopted: May 28, 2003 Released: June 18, 2003**

**Comment Date: 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.**

**Reply Comment Date: 45 days after publication in the Federal
Register.**

By the Commission: Commissioner Copps issuing a separate statement.

# introdUction 

1.  In this order, we continue efforts to maximize the efficiency with
    which numbering resources in the North American Numbering Plan
    (NANP) are used.[^1] We address the issues on which we sought
    comment in the *Numbering Resource Optimization Third Order on
    Reconsideration*.[^2] Specifically, we reaffirm that carriers must
    deploy local number portability (LNP) in switches within the 100
    largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (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,[^3] 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.[^4] 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 a given rate center.
    Additionally, we seek further comment on whether these exemptions
    should be expanded to include carriers where there are only two
    service providers receiving numbering resources in the rate center.

2.  Regarding MSAs, we reaffirm our finding 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 we decline 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, we delegate to state commissions the authority
    to determine whether to require carriers to participate in pooling
    in such areas.[^5] 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.

3.  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.[^6]

# Background

4.  The Commission determined in the *Number Portability First Report
    and Order* that LECS and certain broadband CMRS providers operating
    in the 100 largest MSAs must offer LNP, according to a phased
    deployment schedule.[^7] This requirement was subsequently limited
    by the *Number Portability First Order on Reconsideration*, in which
    the Commission concluded that LECs and covered CMRS providers were
    required only to deploy LNP within switches for which another
    carrier has made a specific request for the provision of LNP.[^8] We
    extended, until November 24, 2003, the deadline by which covered
    CMRS providers must offer number portability.[^9]

5.  In the *Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order*, the
    Commission established national thousands-block number pooling as an
    LNP-based numbering resource optimization measure designed to help
    slow the pace of area code and NANP exhaust.[^10] This measure
    involves breaking up the 10,000 numbers in an NXX into ten
    sequential blocks of 1,000 numbers and allocating each
    thousands-block to a different service provider, possibly a
    different switch, within the same rate center. The Commission
    mandated participation in national pooling by all carriers that are
    required to be LNP-capable, because it believed that LNP capability
    was required before a carrier could participate in thousands-block
    number pooling.[^11] The Commission concluded, however, that
    delaying the implementation of national pooling until all carriers
    are required to be LNP-capable would needlessly prolong the
    inefficiencies resulting from the current number allocation
    system.[^12] We, therefore, established a rollout schedule for
    thousands-block number pooling within the areas where LNP is most
    widely deployed (*i.e*., the 100 largest MSAs).[^13]

6.  In the *Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order*, we
    extended LNP and thousands-block number pooling requirements to all
    carriers in the 100 largest MSAs, and gave non-compliant carriers
    six months from the effective date of that order to deploy LNP.
    [^14] We reached this decision, in part, in response to requests by
    certain state commissions that discovered that some LECs had not
    deployed LNP in some of the 100 largest MSAs, and thus could not
    participate in thousands-block number pooling trials.[^15]
    Apparently, several state commissions and carriers believed that all
    carriers in the 100 largest MSAs were required to provide LNP, not
    only those with requests. Thus, we sought to clarify the issue. In
    doing so, we reversed our earlier decision on LNP deployment in the
    *Number Portability First Order on Reconsideration* without
    providing an adequate opportunity for comment on this specific
    issue.

7.  We subsequently released the *Numbering Resource Optimization*
    *Third Order on Reconsideration,* in which we, on our own motion,
    reconsidered the findings regarding the LNP and thousands-block
    number pooling requirements for carriers in the 100 largest
    MSAs.[^16] Specifically, we reversed the clarification that these
    requirements extend to all carriers within the 100 largest MSAs,
    regardless of whether they have received a specific request from
    another carrier to provide LNP. Instead, we sought comment on this
    issue. 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
    CMSAs ranked within the largest 100 MSAs should be included on the
    Commission's list of the 100 largest MSAs.

# FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER

8.  *Number Portability*. We reaffirm the Commission's decision in the
    *Number Portability First Order on Reconsideration* 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.[^17] We disagree with
    commenters suggesting that it is necessary to expand LNP to all
    carriers in the 100 largest MSAs to reap the benefits of increased
    competition and numbering resource optimization, regardless of
    whether another carrier has made a specific request.[^18]

9.  We reemphasize our view that LNP is still an important tool for
    enhancing competition, promoting numbering resource optimization,
    and giving consumers greater choices. We believe, however, that the
    current requirements are sufficient to meet these important
    statutory goals. We find these requirements to be reasonable and
    efficient because they allow carriers to target their resources
    where the greatest need for number portability exists.[^19] They
    also limit expenditures in areas where there are relatively few
    competing service providers. For example, TDS asserts that a
    requirement to deploy LNP in the 100 largest MSAs without a specific
    request would require it to postpone planned upgrades valued at
    about \$16 million, including high priority projects.[^20]
    Similarly, Sprint indicates that in the first quarter of 2003, it
    intends to make improvements to its network to accommodate its
    Circuit to Packet conversion project that has LNP capability as a
    byproduct.[^21] Sprint explains that if it is required to deploy LNP
    without a request, it would be forced to undertake costly network
    replacements for four switches within one of the 100 largest
    MSAs.[^22] We agree, therefore, with commenters 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.[^23] Furthermore, maintaining the current
    requirement will not impose new burdens on small carriers operating
    in the 100 largest MSAs.[^24]

10. If it is true, as WorldCom anticipates, 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.[^25] 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 telecommunications carriers in the areas
    in which the requesting carrier is operating or plans to
    operate.[^26] 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.[^27]

11. 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.[^28] We have since found, and the
    industry has confirmed, that full LNP capability is not necessary
    for participation in pooling.[^29] Rather, the underlying
    architecture, Location Routing Number (LRN), is necessary for such
    participation.[^30] Upon reexamination, we remain convinced that it
    is reasonable to require LNP only in areas where competition
    dictates its demand, especially since we now know that pooling can
    be implemented without full LNP capability. Thus, we agree with AT&T
    Wireless 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.[^31]

12. We also delegate 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. As discussed above,
    although we find 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, we agree with the
    California Commission that state commissions should have the
    discretion, under the circumstances discussed in the next paragraph,
    to extend the LNP requirements to carriers in the 100 largest MSAs
    that would not otherwise be required to implement LNP.[^32] This
    delegation will allow the state commissions the flexibility to
    accommodate specific demand for LNP by consumers in a manner that
    promotes our numbering resource optimization goals, competition, and
    the public interest.

13. 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.[^33] 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, we are confident that the
    state commissions will carefully consider the consumer demand for
    LNP when utilizing this delegated authority.

14. *Thousands-Block Number Pooling*. We adopt our 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.[^34]
    Because, as we noted earlier, carriers can participate in pooling
    once they deploy the LRN architecture,[^35] thousands-block number
    pooling need not be linked to a carrier's ability to provide number
    portability. All carriers operating within the 100 largest MSAs,
    except those specifically exempted, were required to participate in
    pooling in areas where pooling has been or will be implemented[^36]
    in accordance with the national rollout schedule. In addition, we
    direct 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).

15. We agree with commenters suggesting that thousands-block number
    pooling should be as expansive as possible in order to promote
    efficient and effective numbering resource optimization.[^37]
    Pooling is essential to extending the life of the NANP by making the
    assignment and use of central office codes more efficient.[^38] 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.[^39] We continue to believe that thousands-block number
    pooling will provide the greatest benefits when participation is
    maximized.[^40] In addition, we continue 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.[^41] Expanding
    pooling to all carriers in the 100 largest MSAs furthers our
    numbering resource optimization goals by allowing telephone numbers
    to be assigned to carriers in smaller blocks in areas where the
    demand for numbering resources has proven to be the greatest.

16. Generally, we believe that the inclusion of rural and other small
    carriers operating within the largest 100 MSAs in the pooling
    requirement is very important to furthering our 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, we
    recognize that the costs associated with implementing
    thousands-block number pooling without having first implemented LNP
    can be particularly burdensome to rural and small carriers.[^42]
    Several commenters therefore suggest it is necessary to create an
    exemption from pooling for these carriers.[^43]

17. Several commenters state that many rural carriers do not operate in
    competitive markets.[^44] Iowa Telecom states, for example, that it
    has not received any requests for LNP and it is currently not
    subject to numbering resource shortages.[^45] We know 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 may have 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.

18. We are 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.[^46] Although the
    specific costs of implementing pooling for rural carriers are
    unknown at this time, we know that these costs may ultimately result
    in increased customer costs.[^47] We therefore find that a limited
    exemption for these carriers is warranted. [^48] We believe 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. We therefore exempt from the pooling
    requirement rural telephone companies, as defined in the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), that have not
    received a request to provide LNP.[^49] We also exempt Tier III
    wireless carriers, as defined in the *E911 Stay Order*, [^50] that
    have not received a request to deploy LNP.[^51] 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 our numbering resource
    optimization goals.[^52]

19. In addition, because we find that pooling has less impact on
    numbering resource exhaust where there is no competition, we decline
    to impose pooling costs on carriers that are not required to provide
    LNP operating in areas where there are no competing service
    providers.[^53] We therefore exempt 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.

20. *100 Largest MSAs.* We reaffirm our 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.[^54]
    We decline, 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.[^55] Nevertheless, we delegate 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, we aim to
    focus pooling efforts on the nation's most densely populated areas
    so as to slow the further proliferation of area codes.[^56]

21. 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.[^57] Conversely, we have 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.[^58] 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.[^59] We find 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, we find 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, we delegate 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.[^60] State commissions may not, however, require
    exempted carriers to participate in pooling in these extended areas.

22. *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.[^61] We deny AT&T's petition as untimely
    filed. We nevertheless briefly discuss the merits of AT&T's petition
    on our own motion. Because we find that no new issues have been
    raised that were not addressed in the *Numbering Resource
    Optimization Third Report and Order*, we decline to reconsider the
    Commission's prior findings regarding pooling cost recovery.

23. A petition for reconsideration in a rulemaking proceeding must be
    filed within 30 days after public notice of the Commission's
    action.[^62] 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.[^63] 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;[^64] and, therefore, petitions for reconsideration were due by
    March 14, 2002. As noted, AT&T did not file its petition until May
    6, 2002.[^65] We therefore find that AT&T's petition for
    reconsideration was untimely filed, and dismiss it accordingly.

24. 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.[^66] Notwithstanding our dismissal of AT&T's
    petition as untimely, we briefly address the merits of AT&T's
    arguments below and conclude that no change in pooling cost recovery
    should be made.

25. 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.[^67] 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.[^68]

26. 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).[^69] 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.[^70] Accordingly, the Commission
    concluded that it is appropriate for IXCs and other access customers
    to share in the costs of thousands-block number pooling.[^71] 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.[^72] 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.[^73]

27. AT&T further argues that this pooling cost recovery mechanism is not
    competitively neutral, in violation of section 251(e) of the
    Act.[^74] 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.[^75] Thus, permitting recovery of the
    extraordinary costs of thousands-block number pooling through access
    charges is consistent with the statutory mandate of competitive
    neutrality.[^76] 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.[^77] We find 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 (*i.e.*, recovery through access or,
    alternatively, end-user charge) would be decided in a future order
    after further comment.[^78] 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.[^79] AT&T otherwise raises no new evidence or arguments not
    already considered by the Commission. Accordingly, we decline to
    reconsider our prior order.

28. Finally, we grant the motion of the California Commission to accept
    its late filed comments.[^80] On our own motion, we also accept the
    late filed reply comments of the Texas Commission.

# FURTHER NOTICE of proposed rulemaking

29. 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.[^81] 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.[^82] In the
    foregoing paragraphs of this *Numbering Resource Optimization*
    *Fourth Report and Order*, we exempt 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.

30. We therefore seek comment on whether to extend the exemption
    established herein to carriers operating in rate centers with two
    service providers. In light of our 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.

# Procedural MAtters

## *Ex Parte* Presentations

31. This matter shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding
    in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte* rules. See 47 C.F.R.
    §§ 1.1200 and 1.1206. 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 generally
    is required. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to
    oral and written *ex parte* presentations in permit-but-disclose
    proceedings are set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b).

## Comment Filing Procedures

32. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and
    1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415 and 1.419,
    interested parties may file comments on or before 30 days after
    publication of a summary of this item in the Federal Register and
    may file reply comments on or before 45 days after publication of a
    summary of this item in the Federal Register. Comments may be filed
    using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by
    filing paper copies. *See Electronic Filing of Documents*, 63 Fed.
    Reg. 24121 (1998).

33. 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.
    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
    ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of
    the message, "get form \<your e-mail address\>." A sample form and
    directions will be sent in reply. After filing your comments
    electronically, please notify Sheryl Todd at <stodd@fcc.gov> that
    comments have been filed.

34. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
    copies of each filing. 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, N.E., Suite 110,
    Washington, D.C. 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8:00
    a.m. to 7:00 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 12^th^ Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554. All
    filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of
    the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

35. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be sent to the
    Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, 445
    12^th^ Street, S.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 20554; e-mail:
    <qualexint@aol.com;> facsimile: (202) 863-2898; phone: (202)
    863-2893.

36. 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 12^th^ Street, SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. They may
    also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor,
    Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12^th^ Street, SW, Room
    CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile
    202-863-2898, or via e-mail <qualexint@aol.com>. 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
    <bmillin@fcc.gov>. This Public Notice can also be downloaded in Text
    and ASCII formats at: <http://www.fcc.gov/cib/dro>.

37. For further information, please contact Pam Slipakoff, Wireline
    Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, at
    202-418-7400, or via e-mail at
    [pslipako@fcc.gov](mailto:dkrech@fc.gov). The TTY number is
    202-418-0484.

## Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

38. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (RFA),[^83] 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*).[^84] 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.[^85]

    **1. *Need for, and Objectives of, the Fourth Report and Order***

39. 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.

40. 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[^86] 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 ***

41. No comments specifically addressed the IFRA. Commenters, however,
    responded to several issues addressed in the *Further Notice* 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.[^87] 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.[^88]
    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.[^89] 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***

42. 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.[^90] The RFA defines the term
    "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
    business," "small organization," and "small governmental
    jurisdiction."[^91] 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.[^92] 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.[^93]

43. 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.[^94] According to data in the most recent report,
    there are 5,679 interstate carriers.[^95] 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.

44. 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.\"[^96]
    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.[^97] 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.

45. *Wired Telecommunications Carriers*. The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which
    consists of all such companies having 1500 or fewer employees.[^98]
    According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 2,225 wired
    telecommunications carriers that had 1,500 or fewer employees.[^99]
    Of this total, 2,201 firms had 999 or fewer employees, and 24 firms
    had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^100] Thus, we estimate
    that no more than 2,225 wired telecommunication carriers are small
    businesses that may be affected by the regulations.

46. *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.[^101] According to the Trends in
    Telephone Service data, 1,329 incumbent carriers reported that they
    were engaged in the provision of local exchange services.[^102] 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.

47. *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.[^103] According to the Trends in Telephone Service data,
    229 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of
    interexchange services.[^104] 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.

48. *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.[^105] 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.[^106] 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.

49. *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.[^107] 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.[^108] 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.

50. *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 1500 or fewer employees.[^109] According to the Trends in
    Telephone Service data, 858 carriers reported that they were engaged
    in the provision of wireless telephony.[^110] 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.

51. *Paging Service*. The SBA has developed a definition of small
    entities applicable to providers of paging services that consists of
    all such companies having 1500 or fewer employees.[^111] According
    to the Trends in Telephone Service data, 576 companies reported that
    they were engaged in the provision of paging service.[^112] Of these
    1434 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***

52. 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***

53. 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.[^113]

54. 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.

55. 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.

56. 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.[^114] In
    addition, the Commission will send a copy of this Fourth Report and
    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.[^115]

## Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

57. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (RFA),[^116] 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 in CC Docket No. 99-200, and Fourth
    Report and Order in CC Docket No. 95-116 (*Fourth Further Notice*).
    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 *Fourth Further Notice*. The
    Commission will send a copy of the *Fourth Further Notice*,
    including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.[^117] In addition, this *Fourth Further
    Notice* (or a summary) will be published in the Federal Register.

### *Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules*

58. The Commission is issuing this *Fourth Further Notice* 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.

### *Legal Basis*

59. The authority for actions proposed in this *Fourth Further Notice*
    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.

### *Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply*

60. 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.[^118] The RFA defines the
    term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
    business," "small organization," and "small governmental
    jurisdiction."[^119] 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.[^120] 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.[^121]

61. 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.[^122] According to data in the most recent report,
    there are 5,679 interstate carriers.[^123] 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.

62. 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.\"[^124]
    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.[^125] 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.

63. *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.[^126] This provides that a wired
    telecommunications carrier is a small entity if it employs no more
    than 1,500 employees.[^127] According to the most recent Commission
    data there are 1,619 local services providers with 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^128] 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 CAPs and competitive
    LECs, 131 are resellers and 53 are other local exchange
    carriers.[^129] 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.

64. *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.[^130] Under this
    definition, a cellular licensee is a small entity if it employs no
    more than 1,500 employees.[^131] According to the most recent
    Commission data, 580 providers classified themselves as providers of
    wireless telephony, including cellular telecommunications, Personal
    Communications Service, and SMR Telephony Carriers.[^132] 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.

65. *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.[^133] 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.[^134] According to the most recent Commission data, 595
    providers classified themselves as paging services, wireless data
    carriers or other mobile service providers.[^135] 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.

### Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

66. 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.

### *Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered*

67. 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."[^136]

68. The Commission's action in this *Fourth Further Notice* 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.

### *Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules*

69. None.

## Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

70. This Report and Order does not contain either a proposed or modified
    information collection, and therefore, there is no need to seek
    comments from the general public and the OMB.

# ORdering Clauses

71. Accordingly, IT IS 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
    FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER is hereby ADOPTED and Part 52 of the
    Commission's rules ARE AMENDED AND ADOPTED as set forth in the
    attached Appendix A.

72. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, 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 section 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47
    C.F.R. § 1.429, the petition for reconsideration filed by AT&T on
    May 6, 2002 IS DENIED.

73. 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 FOURTH
    FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING is hereby ADOPTED.

74. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendments to sections 52.20 through
    52.31 of the Commission's rules as set forth in Appendix A ARE
    ADOPTED, effective thirty days from the date of publication in the
    Federal Register. 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.

75. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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 this Final Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
    the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of Small Business Administration.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

#   {#section .unnumbered}

**APPENDIX A**

**Final Rules**

Part 52 **--** NUMBERING

Subpart C -- Number Portability

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.

2\. Section 52.20 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 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.
>
> \*\*\*

3\. Section 52.21 is revised to add a new subsection (a) to read as
follows and to redesignate old subsections accordingly. The old section
52.21(r) should be deleted:

**§ 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.

\*\*\*

4\. Section 52.23 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 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 Section 52.21(k) of this part, 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.
>
> \*\*\*

5\. Section 52.31 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 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 in the 100 largest
> MSAs, as defined in section 52.21(k) of this part, in compliance with
> the performance criteria set forth in section 52.23(a) of this
> part\*\*\*.

\(1\) \*\*\*

> \(i\) \*\*\*
>
> \(ii\) Carries requesting deployment in the 100 largest MSAs by
> November 24, 2003 must submit requests by February 24, 2003.
>
> \(iii\) \*\*\*
>
> \(iv\) After November 24, 2003, a covered CMRS provider must deploy
> number portability in additional switches upon request within the
> following time frames:

\*\*\*

76. **APPENDIX B**

**List of the 100 Largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)**

A.  **100 Largest MSAs and Their Populations: Year 2000 Census**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Los Angeles---Long Beach, CA 9,519,338

2.  New York, NY 9,314,235

3.  Chicago, IL PMSA 8,272,768

4.  Philadelphia, PA---NJ 5,100,931

5.  Washington, DC---MD---VA---WV 4,923,153

6.  Detroit, MI 4,441,551

7.  Houston, TX 4,177,646

8.  Atlanta, GA 4,112,198

9.  Dallas, TX 3,519,176

10. Boston, MA---NH 3,406,829

11. Riverside---San Bernardino, CA 3,254,821

12. Phoenix---Mesa, AZ 3,251,876

13. Minneapolis---St. Paul, MN---WI 2,968,806

14. Orange County, CA 2,846,289

15. San Diego, CA 2,813,833

16. Nassau---Suffolk, NY 2,753,913

17. St. Louis, MO---IL 2,603,607

18. Baltimore, MD 2,552,994

19. Seattle---Bellevue---Everett, WA 2,414,616

20. Tampa---St. Petersburg---Clearwater, FL 2,395,997

21. Oakland, CA 2,392,557

22. Pittsburgh, PA 2,358,695

23. Miami, FL 2,253,362

24. Cleveland---Lorain---Elyria, OH 2,250,871

25. Denver, CO 2,109,282

26. Newark, NJ 2,032,989

27. San Juan---Bayamon, PR 1,967,627

28. Portland---Vancouver, OR---WA 1,918,009

29. Kansas City, MO---KS 1,776,062

30. San Francisco, CA 1,731,183

31. Fort Worth---Arlington, TX 1,702,625

32. San Jose, CA 1,682,585

33. Cincinnati, OH---KY---IN 1,646,395

34. Orlando, FL 1,644,561

35. Sacramento, CA 1,628,197

36. Fort Lauderdale, FL 1,623,018

37. Indianapolis, IN 1,607,486

38. San Antonio, TX 1,592,383

39. Norfolk---Virginia Beach---Newport News, VA---NC 1,569,541

40. Las Vegas, NV---AZ 1,563,282

41. Columbus, OH 1,540,157

42. Milwaukee---Waukesha, WI 1,500,741

43. Charlotte---Gastonia---Rock Hill, NC---SC 1,499,293

44. Bergen---Passaic, NJ 1,373,167

45. New Orleans, LA 1,337,726

46. Salt Lake City---Ogden, UT 1,333,914

47. Greensboro---Winston-Salem---High Point, NC 1,251,509

48. Austin---San Marcos, TX 1,249,763

49. Nashville, TN 1,231,311

50. Providence---Fall River---Warwick, RI---MA 1,188,613

51. Raleigh---Durham---Chapel Hill, NC 1,187,941

52. Hartford, CT 1,183,110

53. Buffalo---Niagara Falls, NY 1,170,111

54. Middlesex---Somerset---Hunterdon, NJ 1,169,641

55. Memphis, TN---AR---MS 1,135,614

56. West Palm Beach---Boca Raton, FL 1,131,184

57. Monmouth---Ocean, NJ 1,126,217

58. Jacksonville, FL 1,100,491

59. Rochester, NY 1,098,201

60. Grand Rapids---Muskegon---Holland, MI 1,088,514

61. Oklahoma City, OK 1,083,346

62. Louisville, KY---IN 1,025,598

63. Richmond---Petersburg, VA 996,512

64. Greenville---Spartanburg---Anderson, SC 962,441

65. Dayton---Springfield, OH 950,558

66. Fresno, CA 922,516

67. Birmingham, AL 921,106

68. Honolulu, HI 876,156

69. Albany---Schenectady---Troy, NY 875,583

70. Tucson, AZ 843,746

71. Tulsa, OK 803,235

72. Ventura, CA 753,197

73. Syracuse, NY 732,117

74. Omaha, NE---IA 716,998

75. Albuquerque, NM 712,738

76. Tacoma, WA 700,820

77. Akron, OH 694,960

78. Knoxville, TN 687,249

79. El Paso, TX 679,622

80. Bakersfield, CA 661,645

81. Allentown---Bethlehem---Easton, PA 637,958

82. Gary, IN 631,362

83. Harrisburg---Lebanon---Carlisle, PA 629,401

84. Scranton---Wilkes-Barre---Hazleton, PA 624,776

85. Toledo, OH 618,203

86. Jersey City, NJ 608,975

87. Baton Rouge, LA 602,894

88. Youngstown---Warren, OH 594,746

89. Springfield, MA 591,932

90. Sarasota---Bradenton, FL 589,959

91. Wilmington---Newark, DE---MD 586,216

92. Little Rock---North Little Rock, AR 583,845

93. Ann Arbor, MI 578,736

94. McAllen---Edinburg---Mission, TX 569,463

95. Stockton---Lodi, CA 563,598

96. Charleston---North Charleston, SC 549,033

97. Wichita, KS 545,220

98. New Haven---Meriden, CT 542,149

99. Mobile, AL 540,258

> 100\. Columbia, SC 536,691

**B. 100 Largest MSAs and Their Populations: Year 1990 Census (Original
list from the LNP First Report and Order, FCC 96-286)**

1.  Number range level0Number range level1Number range level2Number
    range level3Number range level4Number range level5Number range
    level6Number range level7Los Angeles, CA 9,150,000

2.  New York, NY 8,584,000

3.  Chicago, IL 7,668,000

4.  Philadelphia, PA 4,949,000

5.  Washington, DC 4,474,000

6.  Detroit, MI 4,307,000

7.  Houston, TX 3,653,000

8.  Atlanta, GA 3,331,000

9.  Boston, MA\* 3,211,000

10. Riverside, CA 2,907,000

11. Dallas, TX 2,898,000

12. Minneapolis, MN 2,688,000

13. Nassau, NY 2,651,000

14. San Diego, CA 2,621,000

15. Orange Co., CA 2,543,000

16. St. Louis, MO 2,536,000

17. Phoenix, AZ 2,473,000

18. Baltimore, MD 2,458,000

19. Pittsburgh, PA 2,402,000

20. Akron, OH 2,222,000

21. Oakland, CA 2,182,000

22. Seattle, WA 2,180,000

23. Tampa, FL 2,157,000

24. Miami, FL 2,025,000

25. Newark, NJ 1,934,000

26. Denver, CO 1,796,000

27. Portland, OR 1,676,000

28. Kansas City, KS 1,647,000

29. San Francisco, CA 1,646,000

30. Cincinnati, OH 1,581,000

31. San Jose, CA 1,557,000

32. Norfolk, VA 1,529,000

33. Fort Worth, TX 1,464,000

34. Indianapolis, IN 1,462,000

35. Milwaukee, WI 1,456,000

36. Sacramento, CA 1,441,000

37. San Antonio, TX 1,437,000

38. Columbus, OH 1,423,000

39. Fort Lauderdale, FL 1,383,000

40. Orlando, FL 1,361,000

41. New Orleans, LA 1,309,000

42. Bergen, NJ 1,304,000

43. Charlotte, NC 1,260,000

44. Buffalo, NY 1,189,000

45. Salt Lake City, UT 1,178,000

46. Hartford, CT\* 1,156,000

47. Providence, RI\* 1,131,000

48. Greensboro, NC 1,107,000

49. Rochester, NY 1,090,000

50. Las Vegas, NV 1,076,000

51. Nashville, TN 1,070,000

52. Middlesex, NJ 1,069,000

53. Memphis, TN 1,056,000

54. Monmouth, NJ 1,035,000

55. Oklahoma City, OK 1,007,000

56. Grand Rapids, MI 985,000

57. Louisville, KY 981,000

58. Jacksonville, FL 972,000

59. Raleigh, NC 965,000

60. Austin, TX 964,000

61. Dayton, OH 956,000

62. West Palm Beach, FL 955,000

63. Richmond, VA 917,000

64. Albany, NY 875,000

65. Honolulu, HI 874,000

66. Birmingham, AL 872,000

67. Greenville, SC 837,000

68. Fresno, CA 835,000

69. Syracuse, NY 754,000

70. Tulsa, OK 743,000

71. Tucson, AZ 732,000

72. Ventura, CA 703,000

73. Cleveland, OH 677,000

74. El Paso, TX 665,000

75. Omaha, NE 663,000

76. Albuquerque, NM 646,000

77. Tacoma, WA 638,000

78. Scranton, PA 637,000

79. Knoxville, TN 631,000

80. Gary, IN 620,000

81. Toledo, OH 614,000

82. Allentown, PA 612,000

83. Harrisburg, PA 610,000

84. Bakersfield, CA 609,000

85. Youngstown, OH 604,000

86. Springfield, MA\* 584,000

87. Baton Rouge, LA 558,000

88. Jersey City, NJ 552,000

89. Wilmington, DE 539,000

90. Little Rock, AR 538,000

91. New Haven, CT\* 527,000

92. Charleston, SC 522,000

93. Sarasota, FL 518,000

94. Stockton, CA 518,000

95. Ann Arbor, MI 515,000

96. Mobile, AL 512,000

97. Wichita, KS 507,000

98. Columbia, SC 486,000

99. Vallejo, CA 483,000

100\. Fort Wayne, IN 469,000

\* Population figures for New England's city and town based MSAs are for
1992, while others are for 1994.

**C. MSAs and Their Associated CMSAs in Which States Can Extend Pooling
to Non-Exempted Carriers**

Boston -- Worcester -- Lawrence, MA-NH-ME-CT CMSA

> **Boston, MA -- NH MSA\*\***
>
> Brockton, MA MSA

Fitchburg -- Leominster, MA MSA

Lawrence, MA-NH MSA

Manchester, NH MSA

Nashua, NH MSA

New Bedford, MA MSA

Portsmouth -- Rochester, NH-ME MSA

Worcester, MA-CT MSA

Chicago -- Gary -- Kenosha, IL-IN-WI CMSA

**Chicago, IL MSA**

**Gary IN, MSA**

Kankakee, IL MSA

Kenosha, WI MSA

Cincinnati -- Hamilton, OH-KY-IN CMSA

**Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN MSA**

Hamilton-Middleton, OH MSA

Cleveland -- Akron, OH CMSA

**Akron, OH MSA**

**Cleveland -- Lorain -- Elyria, OH MSA**

Dallas -- Fort Worth, TX CMSA

**Dallas, TX MSA**

**Fort Worth** -- **Arlington, TX MSA**

Denver -- Boulder -- Greeley, CO CMSA

Boulder -- Longmont, CO MSA

**Denver, CO MSA**

> Greeley, CO MSA

Detroit-Ann Arbor -- Flint, MI CMSA

**Ann Arbor, MI MSA**

**Detroit, MI MSA**

Flint, MI MSA

Houston -- Galveston -- Brazoria, TX CMSA

Brazoria, TX MSA\
Galveston -- Texas City, TX MSA

**Houston, TX MSA**

Los Angeles -- Riverside -- Orange County, CA CMSA

**Los Angeles** -- **Long Beach, CA MSA**

**Orange County, CA MSA**

**Riverside** -- **San Bernardino, CA MSA**

**Ventura, CA MSA**

Miami -- Fort Lauderdale, FL CMSA

**Fort Lauderdale, FL MSA**

**Miami, FL MSA**

Milwaukee -- Racine, WI CMSA

**Milwaukee** -- **Waukesha, WI MSA**

Racine, WI MSA

New York -- Northern New Jersey -- Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA

> **Bergen** -- **Passaic, NJ MSA**
>
> Bridgeport, CT MSA
>
> Danbury Ct, MSA
>
> Duchess County, NY PMSA
>
> **Jersey City, NJ MSA**
>
> **Middlesex** -- **Somerset** -- **Hunterdon, NJ MSA**
>
> **Monmouth** -- **Ocean, NJ MSA**
>
> **Nassau** -- **Suffolk, NY MSA**
>
> Newburgh, NY-PA MSA
>
> **New Haven** -- **Meriden, CT MSA**
>
> **New York, NY MSA**
>
> **Newark, NJ MSA**
>
> Stamford -- Norwalk, CT MSA
>
> Trenton, NJ MSA
>
> Waterbury, CT MSA

Philadelphia -- Wilmington -- Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA

Atlantic -- Cape May, NJ MSA

**Philadelphia, PA-NJ MSA**

Vineland -- Millville -- Bridgeton, NJ MSA

**Wilmington** -- **Newark, DE-MD MSA**

Portland -- Salem, OR-WA CMSA

**Portland** -- **Vancouver, OR-WA MSA**

Salem, OR MSA

Sacramento -- Yolo, CA CMSA

**Sacramento, CA MSA**

Yolo, CA MSA

San Francisco -- Oakland -- San Jose, CA CMSA

**Oakland, CA MSA**

**San Francisco, CA MSA**

**San Jose, CA MSA**

Santa Cruz -- Watsonville, CA MSA

Santa Rosa, CA MSA

Vallejo -- Fairfield -- Napa, CA MSA

San Juan -- Caguas -- Arecibo, PR CMSA

Arecibo, PR MSA

Caguas, PR MSA

**San Juan** -- **Bayamon, PR PMSA**

Seattle -- Tacoma -- Bremerton, WA CMSA

Bremerton, WA MSA

Olympia, WA MSA

**Seattle -- Bellevue -- Everett, WA MSA**

**Tacoma, WA MSA**

Washington -- Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSA

**Baltimore, MD MSA**

Hagerstown, MD MSA

**Washington, DC--MD-VA-WV MSA**

**\*\*** Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in bold are already
required to participate in pooling in accordance with the national
rollout schedule.

77. **APPENDIX C**

    **List of Parties**

**Numbering Resource Optimization 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**

**A. [Parties Filing Comments in Response to *Numbering Resource
Optimization Third Order on Reconsideration*]{.underline}**

AT&T Wireless

Beacon Telecommunications Advisors, LLC (Beacon)

California Public Utility Commission (California Commission)

Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA)

Independent Companies

Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc (Iowa Telecom)

Iowa Utilities Board

Michigan Public Service Commission (Michigan Commission)

Mid-Missouri Cellular

National Association of State Utilities Consumer Advocates (NASUCA)

National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA)

National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., the National Rural Telecom
Association, and The Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of
Small Telecommunications Companies (NECA)

New York State Department of Public Service (NYSDPS)

New York State Telecommunications Association, Inc. (NYSTA)

Ohio Public Utility Commission (Ohio Commission)

Rural Cellular Association (Rural Cellular)

TDS Telecommunications Corporation (TDS)

United States Cellular Corporation

United States Telecom Association (USTA)

VoiceStream Wireless (VoiceStream)

Western Wireless

WorldCom

**B. [Parties Filing Reply Comments in Response to *Numbering Resource
Optimization Third Order on Reconsideration*]{.underline}**

AllTell

AT&T Wireless

California Commission

CeturyTel

CTIA

Iowa Telecom

Public Utility Commission of Texas (Texas Commission)

Rural Telecommunications Group

Sprint

Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative

USTA

**C. [Petition for Reconsideration of the *Numbering Resource
Optimization Third Order on Reconsideration*]{.underline}**

AT&T

**D. [Parties Filing Comments to the Petition for Reconsideration of the
*Numbering Resource Optimization Third Order on
Reconsideration*]{.underline}**

Verizon

WorldCom

**E. [Parties Filing Reply Comments to the Petition for Reconsideration
of the *Numbering Resource Optimization Third Order on
Reconsideration*]{.underline}**

AT&T

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

Re: *Numbering Resource Optimization, Implementation of the Local
Competition*

*Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Telephone Number*

*Portability*, 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

Today we are moving forward to ensure that carriers around the country
deploy local number portability. Portability frees consumers from the
hassle and financial hardship associated with switching to a new number
and allows consumers to take advantage of the latest and most current
calling plans offered by the industry. Portability also provides a
related benefit---it aids our efforts to conserve numbers.

The progress we make, however, depends on both the good faith efforts of
carriers and the vigilance of our state partners. We trust that when
consumers demand it, carriers will make requests of other carriers for
the provision of local number portability. This is true today for
wireline carriers and will become true for wireless carriers later this
fall. We also trust that states will monitor closely carrier requests
and not hesitate to use the delegated authority we grant them in this
Order. I, for one, urge state commissions to step in and set new rules
if there is evidence of consumer demand for local number portability
that is not being met through carrier requests. As in any other
competitive market, consumers who are unhappy or dissatisfied with a
provider should be able to pack up and bring their business elsewhere. I
expect our rules to deliver such benefits to consumers, but stand
willing to revisit the principles we adopt here today if time proves
they do not.

[^1]: The NANP was established over 50 years ago by AT&T to facilitate
    the expansion of long distance calling. It is the basic numbering
    scheme for the United States, Canada, and most Caribbean countries.
    The NANP is based on a 10-digit dialing pattern in the format
    NXX-NXX-XXXX where "N" represents any digit 2-9 and "X" represents
    any digit 0-9. The first three digits represent the numbering plan
    area (NPA), commonly known as the area code. The second three digits
    represent the central office code, or NXX, commonly referred to as
    an exchange. The last four digits represent the subscriber line
    number.

[^2]: *Numbering Resource Optimization*, Third Order on Reconsideration
    in CC Docket No.99-200, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    in CC Docket 99-200, and Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking in CC Docket 95-116*,* 17 FCC Rcd 4784 (2002) (*Numbering
    Resource Optimization Third Order on Reconsideration*).

[^3]: *See* *Numbering Resource Optimization*, CC Docket No. 99-200,
    Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7347 (2002) (*Pooling Rollout Schedule*).

[^4]: *See* Verizon Wireless Petition for Partial Forbearance from the
    Commercial Mobile Radio Services Number Portability Obligation, WT
    Docket No. 01-184, and Telephone Number Portability, CC Docket No.
    95-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 14972 2002)
    (*Verizon Wireless LNP Forbearance Order*); *Cellular
    Telecommunications & Internet Association v. FCC*, No. 02-1264 (D.C.
    Cir. June 6, 2003) (Dismissed in part and denied in part CTIA's
    appeal of the Commission's decision in the *Verizon Wireless LNP
    Forbearance Order.*).

[^5]: CMSAs include and combine the populations of multiple MSAs, some
    of which would not otherwise be included as one of the 100 largest
    MSAs when ranked separately. *See* 2000 U.S. Census, available at
    <http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab03.pdf>.

[^6]: *See* AT&T Corp. Petition for Reconsideration of Numbering
    Resource Optimization Third Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket
    No. 99-200 (filed May 6, 2002) (AT&T Petition for Reconsideration).

[^7]: *Telephone Number Portability*, CC Docket No. 95-116, First Report
    and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd
    8352, 9393 (1996) (*Number Portability First Report and Order*).

[^8]: *Telephone Number Portability*, CC Docket No. 95-116, First
    Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 7236,
    7272 (1997) (*Number Portability First Order on Reconsideration*).

[^9]: *Verizon Wireless LNP Forbearance Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 14981.

[^10]: *Numbering Resource Optimization*, First Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 7574 (2000)
    (*Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order*).

[^11]: *Numbering Resource Optimization Third Order on Reconsideration*,
    17 FCC Rcd at 4787.

[^12]: *Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd at 7628.

[^13]: *Pooling Rollout Schedule*, 17 FCC Rcd at 7352-54.

[^14]: *See* *Numbering Resource Optimization*, Third Report and Order
    and Second Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 99-200, 17 FCC
    Rcd 252, 306 (2001) (*Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report
    and Order*).

[^15]: *See* California Public Utilities Commission Further Comments to
    *Numbering Resource Optimization Second Report and Order* at 17.

[^16]: *Numbering Resource Optimization Third Order on Reconsideration*,
    17 FCC Rcd at 4784.

[^17]: *Number Portability First Order on Reconsideration,* 12 FCC Rcd
    at 7272-73. We note that carriers operating outside of the 100
    largest MSAs must also provide LNP within six months of receiving a
    request from another carrier. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 52.23(c). *See
    also* *Number Portability First Order on Reconsideration*, 12 FCC
    Rcd at 7314.

[^18]: California Commission Comments at 4-8; California Commission
    Reply Comments at 4-13; Iowa Utilities Board Comments at 2-4;
    Michigan Commission Comments at 3-4; NASUCA Comments at 2-6; NYSDPS
    Comments at 1-2; Ohio Commission Comments at 2-6; Texas Commission
    Reply Comments at 1-2; WorldCom Comments at 1-3.

[^19]: *Number Portability First Order on Reconsideration*, 12 FCC Rcd
    at 7272. *See also* AT&T Wireless Comments at 4.

[^20]: TDS Comments at 4.

[^21]: Sprint Reply Comments at 4.

[^22]: *Id*. at 5.

[^23]: *See* CenturyTel Reply Comments at 3; Sprint Reply Comments at 2;
    TDS Comments at 2-3.

[^24]: Number Portability First Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at
    7272.

[^25]: WorldCom Comments at 2.

[^26]: Requests for covered CMRS providers to offer LNP by November 24,
    2003 were required to be made by February 24, 2003. *See* 47 C.F.R.
    §§ 52.23, 52.31.

[^27]: *Id*.

[^28]: See, e.g., Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association's
    Petition for Forbearance From Commercial Mobile Radio Services
    Number Portability Obligations, WT Docket No. 98-229, and Telephone
    Number Portability, CC Docket No. 95-116, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 14 FCC Rcd 3092, 3096-97 (1999) (*CTIA Forbearance Order*).

[^29]: *See* *Verizon Wireless LNP Forbearance Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at
    14983; Verizon Wireless Petition Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160 for
    Partial Forbearance from the Commercial Mobile Radio Services Number
    Portability Obligation, WT Docket No. 01-184 (filed July 26, 2001)
    (Verizon Wireless LNP Forbearance Petition*);* AT&T Wireless
    Comments to Verizon Wireless LNP Forbearance Petition at 3-4;
    Cingular Wireless Comments to Verizon Wireless LNP Forbearance
    Petition at 15-16; Sprint Comments to Verizon Wireless LNP
    Forbearance Petition at 7-8; VoiceStream and US Cellular Comments to
    Verizon Wireless LNP Forbearance Petition at 10.

[^30]: LRN architecture breaks the association between the central
    office code, or NXX, and a particular service provider. A unique
    10-digit number, the LRN, serves as a network address and is
    assigned to each central office to identify each switch or point of
    interconnection in the network. To facilitate LNP and pooling,
    databases and appropriate records are established and maintained to
    make the proper network and carrier association for call routing
    purposes.

[^31]: *See* AT&T Wireless Comments at 5.

[^32]: *See* California Commission Comments at 16.

[^33]: Carriers required to implement LNP pursuant to a state commission
    order would be required to implement LNP in accordance with the
    schedules established in our rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 52.23, 52.31.

[^34]: *See Numbering Resource Optimization Third Order on
    Reconsideration*, 17 FCC Rcd at 4787. Covered CMRS providers were
    required to participate in national pooling by November 24, 2002,
    pursuant to the national rollout schedule. CMRS carriers were
    required to support nationwide roaming for customers with pooled
    numbers by November 24, 2002, regardless of whether they are
    receiving numbering resources from thousands-block number pools by
    that date. The transition plan and milestones for carriers can be
    found on the National Pooling Administrator's web site at
    [www.nationalpooling.com](http://www.nationalpooling.com/). We also
    note that carriers choosing not to implement the industry selected
    MIN/MDN separation solution for pooling are not excused from their
    obligation to deliver valid call back numbers to Public Safety
    Answering Points, in accordance with our enhanced 911 rules. *See*
    47 C.F.R. § 20.18(d).

[^35]: *See* Verizon Wireless LNP Forbearance Petition at 3-4, 9-12;
    AT&T Wireless Comments to Verizon Wireless LNP Forbearance Petition
    at 3-4; Cingular Wireless Comments to Verizon Wireless LNP
    Forbearance Petition at 15-16; Sprint Comments to Verizon Wireless
    LNP Forbearance Petition at 7-8; VoiceStream and US Cellular
    Comments to Verizon Wireless LNP Forbearance Petition at 10.

[^36]: Covered CMRS carriers were also required to begin participating
    in thousands-block number pooling in areas where pooling has been or
    will be established. *See* *Verizon Wireless LNP Forbearance Order*,
    17 FCC Rcd at 14986.

[^37]: California Commission Comments at 4-8; Iowa Utilities Board
    Comments at 4-5; NASUCA Comments at 2-6; NYSPDS Comments at 1-2;
    Ohio Commission Comments at 7-9 (the Ohio Commission believes that
    thousands-block number pooling is better for number conservation
    than LNP at this time because of limited competition); Texas
    Commission Reply Comments at 2; VoiceStream Comments at 2-4;
    WorldCom Comments at 1-3.

[^38]: *Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd at 7625.

[^39]: *Id.* at 7628.

[^40]: *Id.* at 7624. Most wireline carriers in the 100 largest MSAs are
    participating in pooling, and some carriers are voluntarily
    participating in pooling in rate centers outside of the 100 largest
    MSAs.

[^41]: *Id.* at 7625.

[^42]: *See* CTIA Comments at 4; Independent Companies Comments at 4;
    Iowa Telecom Comments at 7-8, 10-14; Iowa Telecom Reply Comments at
    3-5; NTCA Comments at 4-5; TDS Comments at 5-6; USTA Comments at 5.

[^43]: *See* CTIA Comments at 3-4; Iowa Telecom Comments at 3-4, 7-8,
    10-14; Iowa Telecom Reply Comments at 2-12; NECA Comments at 6;
    Rural Cellular Comments at 4-5; TDS Comments at 5-6; USTA Comments
    at 4-6.

[^44]: *See* Beacon Comments at 2-3; CTIA Comments at 4; Independent
    Companies Comments at 4; Rural Cellular Comments at 5-6; USTA
    Comments at 4-5.

[^45]: Iowa Telecom Comments at 10-14.

[^46]: *See* Iowa Telecom Comments at 10-15; Iowa Telecom Reply Comments
    at 2-12.

[^47]: In the *Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order*,
    the Commission determined that rate of return incumbent LECs may
    recover their carrier-specific number pooling costs through
    interstate access charges in the common line category. *See
    Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd
    at 268. If recovery of these costs would result in end user charges
    that exceed the caps established for rate of return carriers, these
    carriers may seek recovery of the unrecovered portion of these costs
    through the Universal Service interstate common line support fund
    (USF). *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.901, 69.104 (n), (o) adopted in
    *Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan for Regulation of Interstate
    Services of Non-Price Cap Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers and
    Interexchange Carriers*, CC Docket No. 00-256, Second Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 19613
    (2001). The USF is supported by assessments on the interstate
    revenues of telecommunications carriers, and carriers typically
    recover these costs from consumers, either through a line item fee
    or through interstate rates.

[^48]: We note that this limited exemption, however, does not obviate
    the pooling requirements established under prior orders. *See
    Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd
    at 258-63*; Numbering Resource Optimization,* Second Report and
    Order, Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98 and CC Docket
    No. 99-200, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC
    Docket No. 99-200, 16 FCC Rcd 306, 328-30 (2000) (*Numbering
    Resource Optimization Second Report and Order*); *Numbering Resource
    Optimization First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7621-36.

[^49]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(37). Similarly, the Commission lessened the
    reporting requirement for rural telephone companies by allowing them
    to report their historical utilization data at the NXX level rather
    than at the thousand-block level in areas where LNP is not
    available. *See Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7594-95.

[^50]: In the *E911Stay Order*, the Commission classified CMRS carriers
    with 500,000 subscribers or fewer as of the end of 2001 as Tier III
    wireless carriers. *See* *Revision of the Commission's Rules to
    Ensure Compatibility with the Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling
    Systems*, CC Docket No. 94-102, Order to Stay, 17 FCC Rcd 14841
    (2002) (*E911 Stay Order*). The Small Business Administration (SBA)
    has approved the Tier III wireless classification as a small
    business size standard. *See* Letter from Hector V. Barreto,
    Administrator, SBA to Blaise Scinto, Acting Chief, Policy Division,
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (dated Jan. 21, 2003).

[^51]: According to statistics compiled by the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau using publicly available information, such
    as operators\' news releases and filings made with the Securities
    and Exchange Commission, there are approximately 1300 wireless
    carries, of which 435 are Tier III wireless carriers. Of the 435
    Tier III wireless carriers, less than ten have over 50,000
    subscribers.

[^52]: For example, such authority may be granted to state commissions
    demonstrating that a particular area is experiencing a numbering
    resource shortage due to competition and a significant demand for
    numbering resources by rural telephone companies and/or Tier III
    wireless carriers.

[^53]: In essence, we agree with those comments stating that pooling is
    unnecessary where no competing carrier exists. *See* NYSTA Comments
    at 16-17; VoiceStream Comments at 4; WorldCom Comments at 3.

[^54]: In the *Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order*,
    we clarified that the "largest 100 MSAs" include those MSAs
    identified in the *LNP First Report and Order* as well as those
    areas included on any subsequent list of the largest 100 MSAs. *See*
    *Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order,* 17 FCC Rcd
    at 305-06.

[^55]: *See* Appendix B, which lists MSAs included in CMSAs on the list
    of the 100 largest MSAs that would not otherwise be on that list.

[^56]: *See* NASUCA Comments at 7.

[^57]: Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order, 17 FCC
    Rcd at 4787.

[^58]: *Id*.

[^59]: *See* Iowa Utilities Board Comments at 5-6; Michigan Commission
    Comments at 6; NASUCA Comments at 6-7.

[^60]: A state commission seeking to require thousands-block number
    pooling in such areas shall notify the Wireline Competition Bureau,
    the NANPA and the Pooling Administrator prior to extending the
    thousands-block number pooling requirements, and shall give affected
    carriers a reasonable amount of time to deploy the necessary LRN
    architecture to begin participating in pooling.

[^61]: *See* AT&T Petition for Reconsideration.

[^62]: 47 U.S.C. § 405(a); 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(d); *see also* Verizon
    Comments to AT&T Petition for Reconsideration at 1. Because the time
    for filing a petition for reconsideration is prescribed by statute,
    the Commission may not ordinarily waive or extend the filing period.
    *See Virgin Islands Telephone Corp v. FCC*, 989 F.2d 1231, 1237
    (D.C. Cir. 1993); *Reuters Ltd. v. FCC*, 781 F.2d 946, 951-52 (D.C.
    Cir. 1986); *cf*. *Freeman Engineering Associates v. FCC,* 103 F.3d
    169, 183 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ("late filed petitions should be
    considered by an agency 'where the late filing is in some sense
    attributable to a procedural violation by the Commission'" (quoting
    *Gardner v. FCC*, 530 F.2d 1086, 1091 (D.C.Cir.1976))).

[^63]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.4(b).

[^64]: *See* 67 Fed. Reg. 6431 (Feb. 12, 2002).

[^65]: May 6, 2002 was the deadline for filing petitions for
    reconsideration of the *Numbering Resource Optimization Third Order
    on Reconsideration*. Because the *Numbering Resource Optimization
    Third Order on Reconsideration* did not address pooling cost
    recovery, however, AT&T's petition cannot be considered to seek
    reconsideration of that order.

[^66]: *See* AT&T Petition for Reconsideration at 7-8 n.19.

[^67]: *See* *Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order*,
    17 FCC Rcd at 268.

[^68]: *Id*. at 271.

[^69]: *See* AT&T Petition for Reconsideration at 1; AT&T Reply Comments
    to AT&T Petition for Reconsideration at 1.

[^70]: *See Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order*, 17
    FCC Rcd at 269.

[^71]: *Id.*

[^72]: *See* AT&T Petition for Reconsideration at 2-4; 47 U.S.C. §
    254(e).

[^73]: *See* *Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order*,
    17 FCC Rcd at 271.

[^74]: *See* AT&T Petition for Reconsideration at 4-6; 47 U.S.C. §
    251(e).

[^75]: *See Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order*, 17
    FCC Rcd at 269-70.

[^76]: *See id.;* *see also Numbering Resource Optimization First Report
    and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7669. Section 251(e)(2) requires that
    "\[t\]he cost of establishing telecommunications numbering
    administration arrangements and number portability shall be borne by
    all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as
    determined by the Commission." 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(2). In the
    *Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order*, the
    Commission determined that a pooling cost recovery mechanism was
    necessary for price cap and rate-of-return carriers but, noting
    disagreement among commenters as to how costs should be recovered,
    sought further comment as to the form that recovery mechanism should
    take. *Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order*, 15
    FCC Rcd at 7669, 7670-71.

[^77]: *See* AT&T Petition for Reconsideration at 3 (referring to
    *Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd
    at 7662-63; *Telephone Number Portability*, CC Docket No. 95-116,
    Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11701, 11773 (1998) (*LNP Third
    Report and Order*)).

[^78]: *Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd at 7662-63.

[^79]: *See Numbering Resource Optimization Third Report and Order*, 17
    FCC Rcd at 269-70 (*citing LNP Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd
    at 11726-28, 11731-32).

[^80]: *See* Motion to Accept Late-Filed Comments of California Public
    Utilities Commission (filed May 9, 2002).

[^81]: AT&T Wireless Comments at 7.

[^82]: *Id*. at n.19.

[^83]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA has been amended by the Small
    Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub.
    L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

[^84]: *Numbering Resource Optimization*, Third Order on Reconsideration
    in CC Docket No.99-200, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    in CC Docket 99-200, and Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking in CC Docket 95-116, 17 FCC Rcd 4784 (2002) (*Further
    Notice*).

[^85]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^86]: Tier III CMRS providers are defined as CMRS providers with
    500,000 or fewer subscribers as of the end of 2001. The Small
    Business Administration has approved the Commission's use of this
    size standard. *See* Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator,
    SBA to Blaise Scinto, Acting Chief, Policy Division, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (dated Jan. 21, 2003).

[^87]: California Commission Comments at 4-8; California Commission
    Reply Comments at 4-13; Iowa Utilities Board Comments at 2-4;
    Michigan Commission Comments at 3-4; NASUCA Comments at 2-6; NYSDPS
    Comments at 1-2; Ohio Commission Comments at 2-6; Texas Commission
    Reply Comments at 1-2; VoiceStream Comments; WorldCom Comments at
    1-3.

[^88]: California Commission Comments at 4-8; Iowa Utilities Board
    Comments at 4-5; NASUCA Comments at 2-6; NYSDPS Comments at 1-2;
    Ohio Commission Comments at 7-9 (the Ohio Commission believes that
    thousands-block number pooling is better for number conservation
    than LNP at this time because of the limited amount of competition
    that currently exists);Texas Commission Reply Comments at 2;
    VoiceStream Comments at 2-4; WorldCom Comments at 1-3.

[^89]: *Id*.

[^90]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

[^91]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^92]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an
    agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,
    establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^93]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^94]: FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3,
    page 5-5 (May 2002) (Trends in Telephone Service). FCC web site
    location (see online page 34):
    http://fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend502.pdf.

[^95]: *Id*.

[^96]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^97]: Letter *from* Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA,
    *to* William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small
    Business Act contains a definition of \"small business concern,\"
    which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of \"small
    business.\" *See* 15 U.S.C. § 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C.
    § 601(3) (RFA). SBA regulations interpret \"small business concern\"
    to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. 13 C.F.R.
    121.102(b).

[^98]: 13 C.F. R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) code 513310.

[^99]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income
    Tax: 1997," Table 5, NAICS code 513310 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^100]: *Id*. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is "Firms with 1,000
    employees or more."

[^101]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513310*.*

[^102]: Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.

[^103]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513310.

[^104]: Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.

[^105]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513310.

[^106]: Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.

[^107]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513330.

[^108]: Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.

[^109]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322.

[^110]: Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.

[^111]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513321.

[^112]: Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.

[^113]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^114]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^115]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^116]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § § 601 -- 612,
    has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
    Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110
    Stat. 857 (1996).

[^117]: *See* 5 U.S.C. §603(a).

[^118]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

[^119]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^120]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an
    agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,
    establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^121]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^122]: FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3,
    page 5-5 (May 2002) (Trends in Telephone Service). FCC web site
    location (see online page 34):
    http://fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend502.pdf.

[^123]: *Id*.

[^124]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^125]: Letter *from* Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA,
    *to* William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small
    Business Act contains a definition of \"small business concern,\"
    which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of \"small
    business.\" *See* 15 U.S.C. § 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C.
    § 601(3) (RFA). SBA regulations interpret \"small business concern\"
    to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. 13 C.F.R.
    121.102(b).

[^126]: 13 C.F. R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513310*.*

[^127]: *Id.*

[^128]: Estimates are based upon FCC Form 499-A worksheets, filed April
    1, 2001, combined with public employment data from FCC ARMIS filings
    and Securities Exchange Commission filings. These estimates do not
    reflect affiliates that do not provide telecommunications service or
    that operate solely outside the United States. Trends in Telephone
    Service at Table 5.3.

[^129]: *Id.*

[^130]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 513322.

[^131]: *Id.*

[^132]: Trends in Telephone Service at Table 16.3.

[^133]: The Commission has adopted a number of service-specific
    definitions of small businesses for various categories of wireless
    service, principally in the context of the Commission's rules
    governing spectrum auctions. *See* *Assessment and Collection of
    Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2001*, MD Docket No. 01-76, FCC
    01-196, Attachment A, paras. 31-54 (rel. July 2, 2001). For purposes
    of administering the schools and libraries universal service
    program, however, we find that it is appropriate to address the
    various non-telephony wireless services as a group.

[^134]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 513322.

[^135]: Estimates are based upon FCC Form 499-A worksheets, filed April
    1, 2001, combined with public employment data from FCC ARMIS filings
    and Securities Exchange Commission filings. These estimates do not
    reflect affiliates that do not provide telecommunications service or
    that operate solely outside the United States. Trends in Telephone
    Service.

[^136]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1) -- (c)(4).