[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9528-9532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3172]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[CC Docket No. 99-200; CC Docket No. 96-98; FCC 00-429]


Numbering Resource Optimization

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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.

DATES: Section 52.15(f)(1)(vi) is effective December 29, 2000. Section 
52.15(h) is effective May 8, 2001. All other amendments are effective 
March 12, 2001 except for Secs. 52.15(g)(4) and 52.15(k)(1), which 
contain information collection requirements that have not been approved 
by the Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Communications 
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing 
the effective date of those sections.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Secretary, 445 12th 
Street, SW, Room TW-B204F, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanford Williams, (202) 418-2320 or 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#215256484d4d48404c614742420f464e57"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="95e6e2fcf9f9fcf4f8d5f3f6f6bbf2fae3">[email protected]</span></a> or Cheryl Callahan at (202) 418-2320 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bedddddfd2d2dfd6dffed8dddd90d9d1c8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="234040424f4f424b42634540400d444c55">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98 and 
CC Docket No. 99-200 (Second Report and Order), adopted on December 7, 
2000, and released on December 29, 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.

Synopsis of the Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration 
in CC Docket No. 96-98 and CC Docket No. 99-200

    1. With the rules adopted in the Second Report and Order, the FCC 
creates national standards to address numbering resource optimization. 
The Second Report and Order, among other things: (1) Establishes a 
utilization threshold for carriers; (2) clarifies the national 
framework for allocating numbers in blocks of 1,000, rather than 10,000 
(``thousands-block number pooling'') and for thousands-block number 
pooling administration; and (3) sets forth a comprehensive audit 
program to verify carrier compliance with federal rules and orders and 
industry guidelines.
    2. The Second Report and Order also adopts and clarifies 
administrative measures that will allow the FCC to monitor more closely 
the way numbering resources are used within the U.S. Specifically, the 
FCC clarifies certain numbering status definitions, the definition of 
Parent Operating Company Number (OCN), and the scope of access state 
commissions have to mandatorily reported data and numbering resource 
application information.
    3. The rules adopted herein facilitate increased carrier 
accountability and incentives to use numbers efficiently, and promote 
the judicious conservation of numbering resources.

Final Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    4. This Second Report and Order contains some new information 
collections, which will be submitted to OMB for approval, as prescribed 
by the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    5. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 
603, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated 
into the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice). The Commission sought 
written public comment on the proposals in the Notice, including 
comment on the IRFA. In addition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604, a Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was incorporated in the First 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 65 FR 43251

[[Page 9529]]

(2000) (First Report and Order and Further Notice). Also in the First 
Report and Order and Further Notice, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, was a 
second IRFA. The Commission sought written public comment on the 
proposals in the First Report and Order and Further Notice, including 
comment on the second IRFA. No comments specifically addressing the 
second IRFA are relevant to the matters addressed in this Second Report 
and Order; however, comments received concerning small business issues 
in general are summarized below. This present FRFA conforms to the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Second Report and Order

    6. In the First Report and Order and Further Notice, we sought 
public comment on (a) what specific utilization threshold carriers not 
participating in thousands-block number pooling, should meet in order 
to request growth numbering resources; (b) whether state commissions 
should be allowed to set rate-center based utilization thresholds based 
on Commission-established criteria; (c) whether covered commercial 
mobile radio services (CMRS) carriers should be required to participate 
in thousands-block number pooling immediately upon expiration of the 
Local Number Portability (LNP) forbearance period on November 24, 2002, 
or whether a transition period should be allowed; and (d) how a market-
based allocation system for numbering resources could be implemented. 
We also sought additional information regarding: (a) Cost studies that 
quantify the incremental costs of thousands-block number pooling; (b) 
cost studies that quantify shared industry and direct carrier-specific 
costs of thousands-block number pooling; and (c) cost studies that 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.
    7. In doing so, we sought to (1) ensure that the limited numbering 
resources of the NANP are used efficiently; (2) protect customers from 
the expense and inconvenience that result from the implementation of 
new area codes; (3) forestall the enormous expense that will be 
incurred from expanding the NANP; and (4) ensure that all carriers have 
the numbering resources they need to compete in the rapidly growing 
telecommunications marketplace.
    8. In this Second Report and Order, we continue to develop, adopt 
and implement a number of strategies to ensure that the numbering 
resources of the NANP are used efficiently, and that all carriers have 
the numbering resources they need to compete in the rapidly expanding 
telecommunications marketplace. In particular, we finalize plans 
implementing thousands-block number pooling, and also seek comment on 
additional strategies to increase further the efficiency with which 
numbering resources are used.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments

    9. Commenters expressed support and opposition to several issues 
addressed in this Second Report and Order that concern small entities. 
Their opinions are summarized below and, where applicable, discussed in 
Section E. Other comments filed by small entities which are not 
addressed in this Second Report and Order, such as those relating to 
carriers' cost recovery mechanisms for thousands-block number pooling 
and developing markets for numbering resources, will be addressed at a 
later date.
    10. Geographic Splits and All-Services Area Code Overlays. One 
commenter, Small Business Alliance for Fair Utility Regulation (Small 
Business Alliance), described geographic splits as harmful for small 
businesses because the phone number plays a critical role in the 
identity of the business. Geographic splits may cause small businesses 
to lose customers who are unaware of the phone number change as well as 
incur additional costs on advertising materials as a result of an area 
code change. Thus, all-services area code overlays are strongly 
preferred by commenters because small businesses would not be exposed 
to such costs.
    11. Audits. Commenters generally support ``for cause'' and random 
audits. The Small Business Alliance strongly supports ``for cause'', 
scheduled and random audits given the rapid depletion of numbering 
resources. Another commenter, PrimeCo Personal Communications, supports 
``for cause'' audits, but not random audits.
    12. Mandatory Nationwide Ten-Digit Dialing. Commenters representing 
small businesses support mandatory ten-digit dialing. For example, the 
Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small 
Telecommunications Companies believes that ten-digit dialing would be 
less disruptive for customers, and technical modifications would be 
less expensive.

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

    13. 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 Small Business Administration (SBA). 15 U.S.C. 632.
    14. 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 in its Trends in Telephone Service report and 
the data in its Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers Report. 
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.
    15. The SBA has defined establishments engaged in providing 
``Radiotelephone Communications'' and ``Telephone Communications, 
Except Radiotelephone'' to be small businesses when they have no more 
than 1,500 employees. 13 CFR 121.201.
    16. 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 
FCC analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    17. Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The U.S. Bureau 
of

[[Page 9530]]

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 services (PCS) 
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, herein adopted.

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

    18. Audit Program. The Second Report and Order approves the 
Commission's proposal to supplement the need verification measures and 
data collection requirements, adopted in the First Report and Order, 
with a comprehensive audit program. The audits, which include ``for 
cause'' and random audits, will be used to verify carrier compliance 
with federal rules and orders and industry guidelines. In addition, the 
Commission declines to provide a specific cost recovery mechanism for 
carrier-specific auditing costs, including costs related to providing 
documentation to the Auditor. We believe that such costs are minimal 
and do not significantly affect a carrier's ability to compete. 
Nevertheless, even if such costs impose a burden on small carriers, the 
benefits of monitoring numbering resource use, thereby enabling us to 
predict accurately exhaustion of numbering resources, would far 
outweigh those costs.
    19. ``For Cause'' Auditing Requests. To request a ``for cause'' 
audit, the North America Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA), the 
Pooling Administrator or a state commission must submit a written 
request to the Auditor stating the reason for the request, such as 
misleading or inaccurate data, as well as supporting documentation 
evidencing such grounds for the audit. The audits will be performed by 
the Commission's auditors in the Audits Branch of the Accounting 
Safeguards Division in the Common Carrier Bureau, or other designated 
agents.
    20. Numbering Resource Application Materials. State commissions 
should request copies of carriers' applications for initial and growth 
numbering resources directly from the carriers, instead of NANPA or the 
Pooling Administrator. Such an approach avoids a costly burden on the 
national numbering administrator while placing only a minimal burden on 
carriers because small and large carriers merely need to duplicate 
applications previously submitted to the NANPA. Carriers receiving 
numbering resources must comply with state requests and will be denied 
numbering resources for noncompliance.

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

    21. 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).
    22. Utilization Threshold. We require carriers to utilize 60% of 
their existing inventory of numbers before receiving additional 
resources within a particular rate center. We find that 60% is an 
appropriate threshold level because, for example, according to the data 
reported to NANPA, average industry utilization levels range from 
approximately 45%-65%. We considered adopting a 50% threshold as an 
alternative, however, we believe that a 60% utilization threshold will 
more successfully encourage carriers to use numbers from existing 
inventories while making such utilization achievable for carriers that 
need additional numbering resources. The threshold will increase by 5% 
each year starting June 30, 2002, to a maximum threshold of 75%. We 
establish these small yearly percentage increases in order to allow 
carriers, especially small carriers, sufficient time to maximize their 
utilization levels.
    23. Thousands-Block Number Pooling for Covered CMRS Carriers. CMRS 
carriers will be required to participate in thousands-block number 
pooling once the LNP forbearance period expires on November 24, 2002. 
No transition period between the CMRS carriers' LNP implementation and 
participation in mandatory number pooling will be granted because such 
carriers have almost two years' advance notice of the pooling 
requirement, and technical modifications for pooling and LNP are 
largely similar. We believe that given the deadline date for 
compliance, carriers, including small businesses, should have ample 
time to prepare for these changes without the need for a transition 
period.
    24. Geographic Splits and All-Services Area Code Overlays. We 
considered whether to impose additional rules on state commissions or 
to leave the development of any rules to the states. We have decided 
that additional rules or guidelines will not be enumerated at the 
federal level with regard to geographic splits or all-services 
overlays. We believe that state commissions should be allowed to choose 
an appropriate measure, including geographic splits or overlays, for 
area code relief. However, state commissions must ensure that, in 
implementing area code relief, carriers receive numbers on an equitable 
basis and that such numbers are available in a timely and efficient 
manner. Such an approach allows state commissions to consider the 
surrounding local circumstances, including the needs of small, local 
businesses, in deciding whether or how to provide area code relief.
    25. In the alternative, we could have mandated state commissions to 
impose all-services area code overlays as the primary method for area 
code relief. As discussed in Section B, small businesses that incur 
additional costs related to geographic splits may have benefited from 
this alternative proposal. However, the Commission believes that states 
should have the flexibility to determine the best method for area code 
relief given their unique knowledge of their geographic region.
    26. In addition, we will continue to require ten-digit dialing 
within and throughout the geographic area covered by an all-services 
overlay. Such a requirement ensures that no dialing disparity exists to 
disadvantage competitors, including small businesses.
    27. Audits. A comprehensive audit program will be established to 
verify carriers' actual need for numbering resources, in accordance 
with federal rules and industry guidelines. As

[[Page 9531]]

discussed in Section B, small entity commenters generally support 
audits. This audit program, which will consist of ``for cause'' and 
random audits, should help to determine whether carriers accurately 
record data or inconspicuously stockpile numbers. Failure to comply 
with auditor requests will result in penalties. For small carriers, 
audits will help to ensure that large businesses are not hoarding 
numbers or otherwise preventing small carriers from gaining access to 
numbering resources. In addition, costs should not impose a significant 
burden on small or large carriers. However, the benefits of being able 
to rely on carrier data in order to monitor numbering resource use and 
to predict accurately exhaustion of numbering resources would far 
outweigh any significant costs incurred by small carriers.
    28. Mandatory Nationwide Ten-Digit Dialing. At the present time, we 
decline to adopt nationwide mandatory ten-digit dialing as a method of 
area code relief. Although commenters, including small entities, 
supported the adoption of this measure, the burdens of implementation 
at this time outweigh the benefits. Such a transition would require 
technical modifications by both large and small carriers, at a 
potentially expensive cost. In addition, ten-digit dialing adds to 
consumer inconvenience and confusion. At this time, the need for area 
code relief does not outweigh these burdens on carriers.
    29. Reconsideration of Reserved Number Period. In this Second 
Report and Order, we extend the period for reserving numbers from 45 
days to 180 days. We considered extending the period to 12 months, but 
we believe that, at the present time, 180 days is a sufficient time 
period to allow small and large carriers to address their customers' 
needs while mitigating the effects of such reservations on the 
depletion of numbering resources. It also allows small and large 
business customers to plan for implementation and/or expansion of 
telephone service. For carriers requesting more time to reserve 
numbers, we are considering a proposal by the North American Numbering 
Council to charge a fee for extending the reservation period and are 
seeking comment on this proposal in the Second Further Notice.

Report to Congress

    30. The Commission will send a copy of this Second Report and 
Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant 
to the Congressional Review Act. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In 
addition, the Commission will send a copy of this Second Report and 
Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
SBA.

Ordering Clauses

    31. 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, the Second Report and Order is hereby adopted and part 52 
of the Commission's rules are amended and adopted as set forth in the 
attached Rule Changes.
    32. Section 52.15(f)(1)(vi) is effective December 29, 2000. Section 
52.15(h) is effective May 8, 2001. All other amendments are effective 
March 12, 2001 except for Secs. 52.15(g)(4) and 52.15(k)(1), which 
contain information collection requirements that have not been approved 
by the Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Communications 
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing 
the effective date of those sections.
    33. The establishment of a five year term for the Thousands-Block 
Pooling Administrator is effective on December 7, 2000, the date of 
adoption of the Second Report and Order.
    34. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of the Second Report and Order 
and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial and 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of Small Business Administration.
    35. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this Second 
Report and Order, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 
604, is contained herein.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 52

    Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.

Rule Changes

PART 52--NUMBERING

    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. In Sec. 52.15, revise paragraphs (f)(1)(vi), (f)(3)(ii), 
(g)(3)(iv) and add paragraphs (g)(4), (h) and (k) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.15  Central office code administration.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) Reserved numbers are numbers that are held by service 
providers at the request of specific end users or customers for their 
future use. Numbers held for specific end users or customers for more 
than 180 days shall not be classified as reserved numbers.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Reporting shall be by separate legal entity and must include 
company name, company headquarters address, Operating Company Number 
(OCN), parent company OCN, and the primary type of business in which 
the reporting carrier is engaged. The term ``parent company'' refers to 
the highest related legal entity located within the state for which the 
reporting carrier is reporting data.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) The NANPA shall withhold numbering resources from any U.S. 
carrier that fails to comply with the reporting and numbering resource 
application requirements established in this part. The NANPA shall not 
issue numbering resources to a carrier without an OCN. The NANPA must 
notify the carrier in writing of its decision to withhold numbering 
resources within ten (10) days of receiving a request for numbering 
resources. The carrier may challenge the NANPA's decision to the 
appropriate state regulatory commission. The state commission may 
affirm or overturn the NANPA's decision to withhold numbering resources 
from the carrier based on its determination of compliance with the 
reporting and numbering resource application requirements herein.
    (4) State access to applications. State commissions shall have 
access to service provider's applications for numbering resources. 
State commissions should request copies of such applications from the 
service providers operating within their states, and service providers 
must comply with state commission requests for copies of numbering 
resource applications. Carriers that fail to comply with a state 
commission request for numbering resource application materials shall 
be denied numbering resources.
    (h) National utilization threshold. All applicants for growth 
numbering

[[Page 9532]]

resources shall achieve a 60% utilization threshold, calculated in 
accordance with paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this section, for the rate 
center in which they are requesting growth numbering resources. This 
60% utilization threshold shall increase by 5% on June 30, 2002, and 
annually thereafter until the utilization threshold reaches 75%.
* * * * *
    (k) Numbering audits. (1) All telecommunications service providers 
shall be subject to ``for cause'' and random audits to verify carrier 
compliance with Commission regulations and applicable industry 
guidelines relating to numbering administration.
    (2) All telecommunications service providers shall be prepared to 
demonstrate compliance with Commission regulations and applicable 
industry guidelines at all times. Service providers shall be prepared 
to demonstrate compliance with Commission regulations and applicable 
industry guidelines at all times. Service providers found to be in 
violation of Commission regulations and applicable industry guidelines 
relating to numbering administration may be subject to enforcement 
action.

    3. In Sec. 52.16, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.16  Billing and collection agent.

* * * * *
    (a) Calculate, assess, bill and collect payments for all numbering 
administration functions and distribute funds to the NANPA, or other 
agent designated by the Common Carrier Bureau that performs functions 
related to numbering administration, on a monthly basis;
* * * * *

    4. In Sec. 52.20, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.20  Thousands-block number pooling.

* * * * *
    (c) Donation of thousands-blocks. (1) All service providers 
required to participate in thousands-block number pooling shall donate 
thousands-blocks with ten percent or less contamination to the 
thousands-block number pool for the rate center within which the 
numbering resources are assigned. (2) All service providers required to 
participate in thousands-block number pooling shall be allowed to 
retain at least one thousands-block per rate center, even if the 
thousands-block is ten percent or less contaminated, as an initial 
block or footprint block.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-3172 Filed 2-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>