9528 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

2001 (66 FR 1883). The final rule will:

clarify the responsibilities of oil and gas

lessees and operating rights owners for

protecting Federal and Indian oil and

gas resources from drainage; specify

when the obligations of the lessee or

operating rights owner to protect against

drainage begin and end; clarify what

steps to take to determine if drainage is

occurring; and specify the

responsibilities of assignors and

assignees for reclamation and other

lease obligations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the

Oil and Gas Leasing: Onshore Oil and

Gas Operations Final Rule, amending 43

CFR 3100, 3106, 3108, 3130, and 3160;

published in the Federal Register on

January 10, 2001. (66 FR 1883), is

delayed for 60 days; from February 9,

2001 to a new effective date of April 10,

2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donnie Shaw, Fluid Minerals Group,

Bureau of Land Management, Mail Stop

401LS, 1849 ‘‘C’’ Street, NW,

Washington, D.C. 20240; telephone

(202) 452–0382 (Commercial or FTS).

Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Services at 1–800–877–8339,

seven days a week, 24 hours a day,

except holidays, for assistance in

reaching Mr. Shaw.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To the

extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this

action, the action is exempt from notice

and comment because it constitutes a

rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(A). Alternatively, the

Department’s implementation of this

action without opportunity for public

comment, effective immediately upon

publication today in the Federal

Register, is based on the good cause

exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and

553(d)(3), in that seeking public

comment is impractical, unnecessary

and contrary to the public interest. The

temporary 60-day delay in the effective

date is necessary to give Department

officials the opportunity for further

review and consideration of new

regulations, consistent with the

Assistant to the President’s

memorandum of January 20, 2001.

Given the imminence of the effective

date, seeking prior public comment on

this temporary delay would have been

impractical, as well as contrary to the

public interest in the orderly

promulgation and implementation of

regulations.

Dated: January 31, 2001.

Piet deWitt,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and

Minerals Management.

[FR Doc. 01–3365 Filed 2–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P

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 §§ 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 swilliam@fcc.gov or Cheryl

Callahan at (202) 418–2320 or

ccallaha@fcc.gov.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 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

9530 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 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 §§ 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 § 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:

§ 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

9532 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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 § 52.16, revise paragraph (a) to

read as follows:

§ 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 § 52.20, revise paragraph (c) to

read as follows:

§ 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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket RSPA–99–6355; Amdt. 195–70]

RIN 2137–AD45

Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity

Management in High Consequence

Areas (Hazardous Liquid Operators

With 500 or More Miles of Pipelines)

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), Department of

Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective

date.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

memorandum of January 20, 2001, from

the Assistant to the President and Chief

of Staff, titled ‘‘Regulatory Review

Plan,’’ published in the Federal Register

on January 24, 2001, this action

temporarily delays for 60 days the

effective date of the rule titled ‘‘Pipeline

Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management

in High Consequence Areas (Hazardous

Liquid Operators with 500 or More

Miles of Pipelines),’’ published in the

Federal Register on December 1, 2000,

65 FR 75378. That rule requires

operators of hazardous liquid pipelines

to establish and implement plans to

assess the integrity of pipeline in areas

in which a failure could impact certain

populated and environmentally

sensitive areas.

DATES: The effective date of the final

rule is delayed for 60 days, from March

31, 2001, to a new effective date of May

29, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Israni, (202) 366–4571, or by email: mike.israni@rspa.dot.gov,

regarding the subject matter of this final

rule, or the Dockets Facility for copies

of this final rule or other material in the

docket. All materials in this docket may

be accessed electronically at http://

dms.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To the

extent that 5 U.S.C. section 553 applies

to this action, it is exempt from notice

and comment because it constitutes a

rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. section

553(b)(A). Alternatively, the RSPA’s

implementation of this action without

opportunity for public comment,

effective immediately upon publication

today in the Federal Register, is based

on the good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C.

section 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3). Seeking

public comment is impracticable,

unnecessary and contrary to the public

interest. The temporary 60-day delay in

effective date is necessary to give

Department officials the opportunity for

further review and consideration of new

regulations, consistent with the

Assistant to the President’s

memorandum of January 20, 2001.

Given the imminence of the effective

date, seeking prior public comment on

this temporary delay would have been

impractical, as well as contrary to the

public interest in the orderly

promulgation and implementation of

regulations. The imminence of the

effective date is also good cause for

making this action effective

immediately upon publication.

Issued in Washington, DC on January 31,

2001.

Edward A. Brigham,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01–3215 Filed 2–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket RSPA–99–5455; Amdt. 195–71]

RIN 2137–AC34

Pipeline Safety: Areas Unusually

Sensitive to Environmental Damage

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), Department of

Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective

date.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

memorandum of January 20, 2001, from

the Assistant to the President and Chief

of Staff, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Review

Plan,’’ published in the Federal Register

on January 24, 2001, this action

temporarily delays for 60 days the

effective date of the final rule titled

‘‘Pipeline Safety: Areas Unusually

Sensitive to Environmental Damage,’’

published in the Federal Register on

December 21, 2000, 65 FR 80530. That

rule defines drinking water and

ecological areas that are unusually

sensitive to environmental damage if

there is a hazardous liquid pipeline

release.