65FR37749 Numbering Resource Optimization
robop...@us.govnews.org
Posting-number: Volume 65, Issue 117, Page 37749
[Federal Register: June 16, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 117)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37749-37752]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16jn00-22]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 52
[CC Docket No. 99-200; FCC 00-104]
Numbering Resource Optimization
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Further notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document seeks further comments on the following matters:
Thousands-block number pooling; charging for numbering resources;
utilization thresholds for carriers, and consideration of a transition
period for wireless service providers implementation of thousand-block
number pooling. The foregoing issues were addressed in a previous
proposed rule; however, the comments and information received were
insufficient for the agency to proceed on these matters. Therefore, the
agency has formulated further questions and is now seeking additional
comment.
DATES: Comments are due June 30, 2000, and reply comments are due July
7, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Secretary, 445 12th
Street, SW, Room TW-B204F, Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Goldberger, (202) 418-2320 or e-
mail at agol...@fcc.gov or Cheryl Callahan at (202) 418-2320 or
ccal...@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted on March 17, 2000, and
released on March 31, 2000. The full text of this Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we seek
further comment on what specific utilization threshold carriers not
participating in thousands-block number pooling carriers should meet in
order to request growth numbering resources. Commenters that offered a
specific utilization threshold suggested that utilization thresholds
should be set as low as 60% and as high as 90%. However, very little
information was
[[Page 37750]]
provided as to the basis for these specific threshold levels. We seek
comment on specific utilization threshold(s). Comments should include
rationale for the specific threshold(s) recommended, including the
initial level, annual increases, and the maximum level. We tentatively
conclude that a nationwide utilization threshold for growth numbering
resources should be initially set at 50%. This threshold would increase
by 10% annually until it reaches 80%. Additionally, we propose to
require carriers to meet a specific rate center-based utilization
threshold for the rate center in which it is seeking additional
numbering resources. If parties propose a utilization threshold range,
parties should explain in detail what criteria should be used to
determine the specific rate-center based utilization threshold within
that range. We seek further comment on whether state commissions should
be allowed to set the rate-center based utilization threshold within
this range based on criteria that we establish. We also seek further
comment on utilization thresholds at the rate center level that should
operate in unison with the thresholds at the NPA level.
2. Implementation of pooling for non-LNP capable carriers. We seek
comment on whether covered CMRS carriers should be required to
participate in pooling immediately upon expiration of the LNP
forbearance period on November 24, 2002. In the alternative, we seek
comment on whether we should allow some sort of transition period
between the time that covered CMRS carriers must implement LNP, and the
time that they must participate in pooling, and if so, what the minimum
reasonable allowance for such a transition period would be. We note
that by determining in this order that covered CMRS carriers will be
required to participate in pooling once they have acquired LNP
capability, we are providing a fairly long lead-time--more than two
years--in which all of the necessary preparations may be accomplished.
We further note that after they have acquired LNP capability, covered
CMRS providers will be subject to the same terms and conditions
regarding participation in thousands-block number pooling as are other
LNP-capable carriers. For example, CMRS providers within and outside
the top 100 MSAs will not be subject to pooling unless they have
received a request for LNP from another carrier, and pooling will be
limited to the same service area as their LNP deployment.
3. Pricing for Numbers. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
(64 FR 32471, June 17, 1999) we indicated that an alternative approach
for improving the allocation and utilization of numbering resources
would be to require carriers to pay for them. We noted that this
approach could be in isolation or in combination with the
administrative and numbering optimization approaches identified in the
NPRM. One of the primary economic reasons given for opposing a market-
based allocation system was that numbering resources are allocated in
10,000 blocks by rate center. Pricing under this paradigm, it was
argued, would create a barrier to entry to new markets. In any case, we
continue to believe that a market-based approach is the most pro-
competitive, least intrusive way of ensuring that numbering resources
are efficiently allocated. We believe that thousands-block pooling will
substantially reduce the quantity of numbering resources new entrants
will need to accumulate to enter a market. Therefore, we seek further
comment on how a market-based allocation system for numbering resources
could be implemented. Specifically, we seek comment on how a market-
based allocation system would affect the efficiency of allocation of
numbers among carriers. Given that our motivation in seeking comment on
such an approach is to increase the efficiency with which numbering
resources are allocated and not to raise additional funds, we also seek
comment on whether funds collected in this way could be used to offset
other payments carriers make such as contributions to the universal
service and TRS programs. Commenters addressing this issue should
specifically address how to account for the fact that some carriers,
such as interexchange carriers, do not generally use numbering
resources but currently contribute to these other programs. Commenters
should also ensure that their proposals provide market-based incentives
for carriers to economize their use of numbering resources.
4. Recovery of Shared Industry and Direct Carrier-Specific Costs.
Requiring incumbent LECs to bear their own costs related to thousands-
block number pooling will not disadvantage any telecommunications
carrier. All other carriers are also required to bear their own shared
industry and carrier-specific costs. In the NPRM, the Commission
tentatively concluded that incumbent LECs subject to rate-of-return or
price cap regulation may not recover their interstate carrier-specific
costs directly related to thousands-block number pooling through a
federal charge assessed on end-users, but may recover the costs through
other cost recovery mechanisms. Several parties agree with the
tentative conclusion that thousands-block number pooling costs should
not be recovered through a federal charge assessed on end users, but
should be recovered through access charges. Some commenters recommend
that price cap LECs should be allowed to treat the thousands-block
pooling number costs as exogenous cost adjustments or, alternatively,
place the costs in a new or existing price cap basket. Other parties,
however, urge us to abandon our tentative conclusion because recovery
through access charges would violate the competitive neutrality
standard of section 251(e)(2).
5. In the Notice, we requested detailed estimates of the costs of
thousands-block number pooling and asked that commenters separate the
estimates by category of costs. We also sought comment on the
appropriate methodology for developing these and other cost estimates.
The amount and detail of the data provided in response to our request
is insufficient for us to determine the amount and/or magnitude of the
costs associated with thousands-block number pooling. Without
sufficient cost data, it is difficult for us to determine the
appropriate cost recovery mechanism for these costs. We, therefore,
find it necessary to request additional cost information prior to
making a final decision on the appropriate method of cost recovery. We
seek further comment and cost studies that quantify shared industry and
direct carrier-specific costs of thousands-block number pooling. We
also seek comment and cost studies that take into account the cost
savings associated with thousands-block pooling in comparison to the
current numbering practices that result in more frequent area code
changes.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
6. The actions contained in this FNPRM have been analyzed with
respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found that there are
no new reporting requirements or burden on the public.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
7. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 603
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this FNPRM.
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be
identified as responses to the IRFA
[[Page 37751]]
and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM provided
above in section VIII. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.\1\ In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules. The Commission is
issuing this Further Notice to seek 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 criteria that we
establish; (c) whether covered CMRS carriers should be required to
participate in thousands-block number pooling immediately upon
expiration of the 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 seek to obtain the following: (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.
9. The Commission seeks to ensure that the limited numbering
resources of the NANP are used efficiently; to protect customers from
the expense and inconvenience that result from the implementation of
new area codes; to forestall the enormous expense that will be incurred
in expanding the NANP, and to ensure that all carriers have the
numbering resources they need to compete in the rapidly growing
telecommunications marketplace.
10. Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized under sections
1, 4(i) and (j), 201, 208, and 251 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201 and 251(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities That
May Be Affected by this Report and Order. The RFA requires that an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-
comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the
rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.'' \3\ The RFA generally defines
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' \4\ In addition, the term ``small business'' has the
same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small
Business Act.\5\ 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).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
\4\ Id. section 601(6).
\5\ Id. section 601(3) (incorporating by reference the
definition of ``small business concern'' in Small Business Act, 15
U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition
of a small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation
with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
Register.''
\6\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. In this IRFA, we have considered the potential impact of this
FNPRM on all users of telephone numbering resources. The small entities
possibly affected by these rules include wireline, wireless, and other
entities, as described in Appendix B. The SBA has defined a small
business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4,812
(Radiotelephone Communications) and 4,813 (Telephone Communications,
Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities having no more than 1,500
employees.\7\ Although some affected incumbent local exchange carriers
(ILECs) may have 1,500 or fewer employees, we do not believe that such
entities should be considered small entities within the meaning of the
RFA because they are either dominant in their field of operations or
are not independently owned and operated, and therefore by definition
are not ``small entities'' or ``small business concerns'' under the
RFA. Accordingly, our use of the terms ``small entities'' and ``small
businesses'' does not encompass small ILECs. Out of an abundance of
caution, however, for regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will
separately consider small ILECs within this analysis and use the term
``small ILECs'' to refer to any ILECs that arguably might be defined by
the SBA as ``small business concerns.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 13 CFR 121.201.
\8\ See 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4813. Since the time of the
Local Competition decision, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16144-45 (1996), 61 FR
45476 (Aug. 29, 1996), the Commission has consistently addressed in
its regulatory flexibility analyses the impact of its rules on such
ILECs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The most reliable source of information regarding the total
numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as
well as the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data
the Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator: Interstate
Service Providers Report (Locator).\9\ These carriers include, inter
alia, local exchange carriers, competitive local exchange carriers,
interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, satellite service
providers, wireless telephony providers, operator service providers,
pay telephone operators, providers of telephone toll service, providers
of telephone exchange service, and resellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ FCC, Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers at 1-2.
This report lists 3,604 companies that provided interstate
telecommunications service as of December 31, 1997 and was compiled
using information from Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Fund
Worksheets filed by carriers (Jan. 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Total Number of 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.\10\ 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, personal communications services providers,
covered specialized mobile radio providers, and resellers.\11\ It seems
certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service firms may not
qualify as small entities or small ILECs because they are not
``independently owned and operated.'' \12\ For example, a 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 ILECs that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992
Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities:
Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1-123 (1995) (1992
Census).
\11\ A description of the effected entities are list in the
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, Appendix B.
\12\ See generally 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
[[Page 37752]]
Compliance Requirements.\13\ This FNPRM requests comment and cost
studies (1) that quantify the incremental costs of thousands-block
number pooling; (2) that quantify shared industry and direct carrier-
specific costs of thousands-block number pooling; and (3) that take
into account the costs savings associated with thousands-block number
pooling in comparison to the current number practices that result in
more frequent area code changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See NPRM, 64 FR 32471 (June 17, 1999) for an Initial
Paperwork Reduction Act analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Recordkeeping. None.
17. Other Compliance Requirements. None.
18. Steps taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered. We have stated that
section 251(e) does not exclude any class of carriers and that all
telecommunications carriers must bear numbering administration costs on
a competitively neutral basis.\14\ Therefore, we find that section
251(e)(2) requires us to ensure that the costs of numbering
administration, including thousands-block number pooling, do not affect
the ability of carriers to compete. As such, the costs of thousands-
block number pooling should not give one provider an appreciable,
incremental cost advantage over another when competing for a specific
subscriber; and should not have a disparate effect on competing
providers' abilities to earn a normal return.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Telephone Number Portability Third Report and Order, 13 FCC
Rcd at 11731, 63 FR 35150 (June 29, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules. None.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-15200 Filed 6-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U