```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9535-9540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3173]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[CC Docket No. 99-200; FCC 00-429]

Numbering Resource Optimization

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this document the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or 
Commission) continues to develop, adopt and implement a number of 
strategies to ensure that the numbering resources of the North American 
Numbering Plan (NANP) are used efficiently, and that all carriers have 
the numbering resources they need to compete in the rapidly expanding 
telecommunications marketplace.

[[Page 9536]]

DATES: Comments for the NPRM are due February 14, 2001 and reply 
comments are due March 7, 2001. Comments for the proposed information 
collection are due the same date as the comments on the NPRM and must 
be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on or before 
April 9, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Secretary, 445 12th 
Street, SW, Room TW-B204F, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing 
comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the proposed 
information collection contained herein should be submitted to Judy 
Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, 
SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected], and to 
Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanford Williams, (202) 418-2320 or 
email at [email protected] Cheryl Callahan at (202) 418-2320 or 
[email protected]. For additional information concerning the information 
collection contained in this document, contact Judy Boley at 202-418-
0214, or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-200 (Second 
Further Notice) that was released with the 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, adopted on December 7, 2000, and released on December 29, 2000 
(For a review of the Federal Register summary for Numbering Resource 
Optimization, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 7574 (rel. March 31, 2000), see 65 Fed. Reg. 
37749 (2000)). The full text of this document is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. Comments 
and reply comments will be available for public inspection during 
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center. The complete text 
may also be obtained through the world wide web, at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/CommonCarrier/Orders, or may be purchased from the Commission's 
copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th 
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Second Further Notice Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    This Second Further Notice contains a proposed information 
collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information 
collections contained in the Second Further Notice, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency 
comments are due at the same time as other comments on the Second 
Further Notice; OMB comments are due 60 days after publication of the 
Second Further Notice in the Federal Register. Comments should address: 
(a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including 
whether the information shall enhance the quality, utility and clarity 
of the information collected; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's 
burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 
of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of 
the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.
    OMB Control Number: None.
    Title: Proposed Reporting Requirements for Secondary Market 
Transactions.
    Form Number: N/A.
    Type of Review: Proposed new collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit.
    Estimated Cost and Time Burden:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Number of       Estimated time per      Total estimated annual
                Title                    respondents           response                   burden           Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Reporting Requirements for             2,500  Ten (10) minutes per      833 burden hours.......      $0
 Secondary Market Transactions.                         transaction at 5000
                                                        transactions per year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Needs and Uses: We propose to collect data that stems from 
secondary market transactions. In particular, we propose and seek 
comment on the types of reporting requirements that might be necessary 
to ensure that secondary markets are open, competitive, and effective. 
Data from such reporting will permit us to evaluate the efficacy of 
permitting the secondary market to reallocate numbering resources. We 
request comments on the type of data and the frequency with which they 
should be reported. At a minimum, we believe that quantities of numbers 
involved in transactions should be reported in the numbering resource 
utilization and forecast (NRUF) reports which are required to be filed 
by our current rules twice a year. We also request comment on whether 
we should require carriers to file information on purchase or lease 
prices and the quantities involved in the transaction. Commenters 
should address whether such reporting requirements would impose an 
unreasonable burden on either carriers or the NANPA. Finally, 
commenters should also comment on how numbers sold in the secondary 
market should be reported in the NRUF report.

Synopsis of the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC 
Docket No. 99-200

    1. In the Second Further Notice, we seek further comment on 
service-specific and technology-specific overlays. We specifically seek 
comment on the conditions under which service-specific and technology-
specific overlays must be implemented in order to promote competitive 
equity, maximize the efficient use of numbering resources, and minimize 
customer inconvenience. We also seek comment on proposals to permit 
state commissions to implement service or technology-specific overlays 
on a phased in or transitional basis, subject to certain conditions. 
Comments should address the relative advantages from a numbering 
resource optimization perspective, a competitive perspective, and a 
consumer convenience perspective of service or technology-specific 
overlays as opposed to all-services overlays.
    2. We seek comment on how the perceived advantages of service or 
technology-specific overlays relate to the specific conditions under 
which they are permitted. We also seek comment on whether it is 
appropriate to allow the creation of transitional technology-specific 
overlays that distinguish between carriers based on whether or not they 
have implemented

[[Page 9537]]

local number portability (LNP). We tentatively conclude that 
transitional technology-specific overlays must be prospective, and may 
not include mandatory ``take-backs'' (the taking back of numbers from 
existing customers of carriers assigned to the technology-specific 
overlay). We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We further seek 
comment on whether geographic boundaries of a transitional technology-
specific overlay should conform to the boundaries of an existing area 
code, or whether it would be appropriate to allow a transitional 
technology-specific overlay that covers a geographic area larger than 
the area covered by the pre-existing area code. We also seek comment on 
how transitional overlays should operate, and if state commissions' 
implementation of transitional overlays should be dependent on whether 
pooling has been or will be implemented. We seek comment on the 
appropriate time for transition from technology-specific to all-
services overlays. We also seek comment on whether and how our 
mandatory ten-digit dialing rule should apply in the context of 
transitional technology-specific overlays. We seek comment on whether 
LNP-capable carriers should be prohibited from taking numbers out of 
the transitional overlay code prior to the time that it is converted to 
an all-services overlay.
    3. We further seek comment on whether there should be any 
limitations on when states are permitted to implement transitional 
technology-specific overlays, and whether we should permit states that 
wish to designate transitional service or technology-specific area 
codes for groups besides non-LNP capable carriers to do so. We also 
seek comment on whether it would be appropriate for states to establish 
long-term overlays for certain services.
    4. Rate Center Issues. We seek comment on the rate center problem, 
particularly on what policies could be implemented at the federal level 
to reduce the extent to which the rate center system contributes to 
and/or accelerates numbering resource exhaust. We recognize that rate 
center consolidation may deprive some carriers of toll revenue; 
therefore, we seek comment on ways of severing the connection between 
number assignment and call rating and routing. We also seek comment on 
past and present rate center consolidation efforts. We further seek 
comment on the costs and benefits of rate center consolidation in the 
100 largest MSAs.
    5. Liability of Related Carriers. We tentatively conclude that 
carriers should, in certain instances, have numbering resources 
withheld when related carriers are subject to withholding for failure 
to comply with our mandatory reporting requirements. We seek comment on 
how to identify the relationships among reporting carriers, and what 
geographic limitations should be placed on those relationships in 
determining liability among related carriers.
    6. State Commissions' Access to Mandatorily Reported Data. We 
tentatively conclude that states should have password-protected access 
to mandatorily reported data received by the North American Numbering 
Plan Administrator (NANPA). We seek comment on whether password-
protected access is sufficient to accommodate states' requirements for 
access to mandatorily reported data.
    7. Fee for Number Reservations. In the Second Report and Order, we 
conclude that the period for reserving numbers should be a maximum of 
180 days with no extensions. In the Second Further Notice, we seek 
comment on whether the reservation period should be extended, or if we 
should allow unlimited reservations of numbers on a month to month 
basis. Commenters should propose a time period for which numbers may be 
reserved. We also seek comment on whether charging a fee to carriers 
would provide appropriate incentives for efficient number use. 
Commenters should state whether a fee should be charged for reserving 
numbers, who should pay the fee, and what amount the fee should be. 
Commenters should also address how the fee revenues should be used or 
applied, particularly if the Commission imposes a fee on carriers.
    8. Enforcement. We tentatively conclude that carriers that violate 
our numbering requirements, or that fail to cooperate with the auditor 
to conduct either a ``for cause'' or random audit, should be denied 
numbering resources in certain instances. We seek comment on this 
tentative conclusion. We seek comment on how this remedy should be 
invoked. We also seek comment on whether only the Commission should 
direct the NANPA or the Pooling Administrator to withhold numbering 
resources.
    9. State Commissions' Authority To Conduct ``For Cause'' and Random 
Audits. We further seek comment on whether state commissions should be 
given independent authority to conduct ``for cause'' and random audits 
in lieu of or in addition to the national audit program established in 
the Second Report and Order, and what parameters should apply to any 
such authority. In particular, commenters should address concerns about 
state commissions employing different standards in performing ``for 
cause'' and random audits that might force carriers operating in 
multiple states to comply with different demands. In seeking comment on 
this issue, we do not address state commissions' authority to perform 
audits under state law.
    10. Developing Market-Based Approaches for Optimizing Numbering 
Resources. In the Second Further Notice, we provide detailed 
information on the form that market-based mechanisms might take, and 
request that commenters propose specific market-based number allocation 
mechanisms. We seek comment on whether the Commission has the requisite 
authority to implement the proposals contained in the Second Further 
Notice, as well as any proposed by commenters. If such authority is 
lacking, we request that commenters address what authority would be 
necessary. Commenters should address the scope of the Commission's 
plenary authority over numbering resource allocation in the United 
States pursuant to section 251(e). Commenters should also address 
statutory provisions pertaining to the Commission's authority to 
collect funds from carriers, as well as the statutory requirements on 
how such funds should be expended.
    11. We also seek comment on whether our authority under section 254 
enables us to implement a market-based number allocation system as a 
means for funding universal services. We further seek comment on how 
the Commission could structure an efficient market-based allocation 
system that would work within the constraints of existing statutory 
authority. We also seek comment on how to structure a numbering 
resources market mechanism that treats all users of numbering resources 
and their customers in an equitable manner.
    12. We tentatively conclude that any market-based allocation system 
for numbering resources that we consider should include both primary 
and secondary markets for numbering resources. We seek comment on 
whether the most direct approach for implementing a primary market, an 
auction, should be implemented, and whether it is cost effective. We 
also seek comment on whether the NANPA or the national thousands-block 
pooling administrator would be in the best position to conduct such 
auctions, and how an auction methodology should be designed. We further 
seek comment on how the supply of numbers to be

[[Page 9538]]

auctioned in each geographic area would be determined.
    13. We also seek comment on whether prices for numbers in the 
primary market should be structured as a one-time charge, a recurring 
charge, or a combination of flat non-recurring and recurring charges, 
and on the feasibility of auctions under these scenarios. We 
tentatively conclude that it would be preferable for carriers to pay 
for all of the resources that they hold, and we seek comment on this 
tentative conclusion.
    14. We also seek comment on whether there will be a continuing need 
to retain existing administrative measures for allocating numbers in 
conjunction with the implementation of a market-based approach. We seek 
comment on the appropriate geographic scope of secondary markets, 
including areas where there is only one or no competitive LEC. We seek 
comment on the extent to which the Commission should regulate 
transactions in the secondary market, and whether we should determine 
how the market is organized.
    15. We also seek comment on the types of reporting requirements 
that might be necessary to ensure that secondary markets are open, 
competitive, and effective. We seek comment on whether implementation 
of a market-based allocation system should be delayed until covered 
CMRS carriers are required to become LNP-capable, and whether we should 
limit implementation to areas where LNP has been deployed. We also seek 
comment on whether primary and secondary markets should be implemented 
simultaneously.
    16. Recovery of Pooling Shared Industry and Direct Carrier-Specific 
Costs. We seek comment and cost studies that quantify shared industry 
and direct carrier-specific costs of thousands-block number pooling. 
Cost studies should take into account the cost savings associated with 
thousands-block number pooling in comparison to the current numbering 
practices that result in more frequent area code changes.
    17. Thousands-Block Number Pooling for Non-LNP Capable Carriers. 
Under the Commission's current rules, certain carriers are exempt from 
pooling requirements, e.g., carriers outside the 100 largest MSAs that 
have not received a request to deploy LNP from a competing carrier, and 
paging carriers. We seek comment about whether it would be appropriate 
to extend pooling requirements to these carriers. We seek comment on 
the extent to which these carriers' participation in thousands-block 
number pooling helps to avoid premature exhaust of numbering resources 
at the 10,000 number block level (NXXs) and extends the life of the 
NANP. We also seek comment on the specific types of implementation 
costs that would be imposed, and the magnitude of these costs. We seek 
comment on whether the incremental number optimization benefits of 
requiring these carriers to participate in pooling outweigh the 
associated costs. We also seek comment on the benefits of thousands-
block number pooling for competing carriers that need initial numbering 
resources in each rate center for the purpose of establishing their 
``footprints.''
    18. We further seek comment on whether we should limit any 
additional pooling requirements to certain classes of carriers, and if 
so, what exemptions should be made. In addition, if we were to impose 
pooling requirements on carriers irrespective of their LNP status, we 
seek comment on whether rural carriers should be exempt from any such 
requirements.
    19. Waiver of Growth Numbering Resource Requirements. We recognize 
the possibility that certain conditions may prevent carriers from 
meeting their rate center-based utilization threshold when they 
actually need additional numbers. We therefore seek comment on the need 
to establish a ``safety valve'' apart from the general waiver process 
to allow carriers that do not meet the utilization threshold in a given 
rate center to obtain additional numbering resources. We seek data on 
the extent to which this problem exists, and we seek comment on 
possible solutions. We also seek comment on whether the NANPA or state 
commissions should be given the authority to decide on requests for 
waiver of the utilization threshold requirement in certain narrowly 
defined instances. Proposals to adopt a ``safety valve'' should include 
specific criteria for determining when a waiver is warranted. We 
further seek comment on how any proposed ``safety valve'' would be 
consistent with other numbering optimization measures.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    20. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small 
entities by the policies and rules proposed in Second Further Notice. 
See 5 U.S.C. 603. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. 
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed 
by the deadlines for comments on the Second Further Notice. The 
Commission will send a copy of the Second Further Notice, including 
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

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

    21. In the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress gave the Commission plenary 
jurisdiction over the NANP within the United States. 47 U.S.C. 
251(e)(1). In discharging our authority over numbering resources, we 
seek to balance two competing goals. First, we must ensure that 
carriers have the numbering resources that they need to compete and 
bring new and innovative services to the consumer marketplace. Second, 
we must ensure that, to the extent possible, numbering resources are 
used efficiently. Inefficient use of numbering resources speeds the 
exhaust of area codes, imposing on carriers and consumers alike the 
burdens and costs of implementing new area codes. It also shortens the 
life of the NANP as a whole.

B. Legal Basis

    22. The proposed action is authorized under 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.

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

    23. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(6). The term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one 
or more definitions that are appropriate for its activities. 5 U.S.C. 
601(3). Under the Small Business Act, a ``small business concern'' is 
one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant 
in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 
established by the SBA. 15 U.S.C. 632.
    24. The most reliable source of information regarding the total 
numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as 
well as the

[[Page 9539]]

number of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the 
Commission publishes in its Trends in Telephone Service report and the 
data in its Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers Report. 
However, in a recent news release, the Commission indicated that there 
are 4,144 interstate carriers. These carriers include, inter alia, 
local exchange carriers, wireline carriers and service providers, 
interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, operator service 
providers, pay telephone operators, providers of telephone service, 
providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers.
    25. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (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.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3). The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends 
that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their 
field of operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' in 
scope. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA 
analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on 
Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    26. Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The U.S. Bureau 
of the Census (Census Bureau) reports that, at the end of 1992, there 
were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as defined 
therein, for at least one year. This number contains a variety of 
different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, 
interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular 
carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay 
telephone operators, covered specialized mobile radio providers, and 
resellers. It seems certain that some of these 3,497 telephone service 
firms may not qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs because 
they are not ``independently owned and operated.'' See generally 15 
U.S.C. 632(a)(1). For example, a personal communications system 
provider that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more 
than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small business. 
It is reasonable to conclude that fewer than 3,497 telephone service 
firms are small entity telephone service firms or small incumbent LECs 
that may be affected by the proposed regulations.

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

    27. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
    28. Service-Specific and Technology-Specific Overlays. Due to the 
numbering crisis, we are reconsidering our prohibition against using 
service-specific and technology-specific overlays as methods for area 
code relief. We seek comment, especially from small entities, on when 
and if these overlays should occur and if so, the conditions under 
which service-specific and technology-specific overlays should be 
implemented in order to promote competitive equity, maximize the 
efficient use of numbering resources, and minimize customer 
inconvenience. In determining appropriate conditions for implementing 
these overlays, we will examine how such conditions would impact small 
businesses.
    29. The Rate Center Problem. In this Second Further Notice we seek 
comment on rate center consolidation. Such consolidation efforts should 
significantly impact numbering resources by providing small and large 
businesses with access to more numbers. In responding to this issue, 
commenters should also consider alternatives to rate center 
consolidation, such as extending local calling areas.
    30. Fee for Number Reservations. We encourage comments regarding 
any unique small business needs related to the reservation of numbers, 
and the disproportionate impact, if any, of fees on small businesses.
    31. Audit Compliance and Enforcement. We tentatively conclude that, 
at a minimum, carriers that fail to cooperate with the auditor should 
be denied numbering resources. The imposition of penalties would 
encourage both large and small carriers to comply with auditors' 
requests.
    32. State Authority to Perform Audits. In addition to maintaining a 
national audit program, we seek comment on whether state commissions, 
given their extensive involvement in numbering issues, should be 
permitted to conduct independently ``for cause'' and random audits of 
carrier data. Small businesses should comment, in particular, on 
whether the potential existence of differing state audit standards 
would be a significant cost burden for them.
    33. Market for Numbering Resources. Proper implementation of a 
market-based number allocation system should encourage the efficient 
use of numbering resources by carriers as well as be competitively 
neutral, especially towards small businesses. The system's benefits 
(i.e., more efficient use of numbers) should outweigh carriers' 
concerns over costs. We believe that alternatives to this system (i.e., 
allocating numbers for free) do not promote the efficient use of 
numbers as effectively. Commenters are encouraged to propose ways to 
implement such a system so as to minimize any unfavorable impact on 
small entities.
    34. Recovery of Pooling Shared Industry and Direct Carrier Specific 
Costs. We determined in this Second Further Notice that we still do not 
possess sufficient cost data to establish a cost recovery mechanism at 
this time. Cost studies from commenters quantifying shared industry and 
direct carrier-specific costs of thousands-block number pooling should 
assist us in ascertaining an appropriate cost recovery mechanism for 
small carriers.
    35. Mandating LNP Capability for Thousands-Block Number Pooling. We 
seek comment on whether we should require carriers to become LNP 
capable for the purpose of participating in thousands-block number 
pooling. In the alternative, we seek comment on whether carriers can 
utilize other network architecture to increase participation in 
thousands-block number pooling, or at least central office code 
sharing, without having fully deployed LNP. In examining alternatives 
to improve the efficient use of numbering resources, we request 
comments from all carriers, but especially small businesses that may 
become disadvantaged by a requirement to become LNP-capable.
    36. Waiver of Growth Numbering Resource Requirement. Currently, 
carriers may obtain a waiver of growth numbering resource requirements 
by demonstrating their need for additional numbering resources. 
Commenters are encouraged to provide data demonstrating small business' 
need for a ``safety valve'' mechanism (when they fail to meet the 
utilization threshold in a given rate center) as well as specific 
criteria for granting a waiver that would

[[Page 9540]]

impose a minimal burden on small entities.

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

    37. None.

Ordering Clauses

    38. Pursuant to Sections 1, 3, 4, 201-205, 251 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201-
205, and 251, this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 
hereby Adopted.
    39. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, Shall Send a copy of this Second Report and Order 
and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial 
and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects

    Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.

    Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-3173 Filed 2-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
```