[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 116 (Thursday, June 17, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32471-32475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15334]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 52
[CC Docket No. 99-200; FCC 99-122]
Numbering Resource Optimization
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document examines a variety of measures intended to
increase the efficiency with which telecommunications carriers use
telephone numbering resources. The purpose of this effort is two-fold:
to slow the rate of number exhaust in this country as evidenced by the
ever-increasing rate at which new area codes are assigned; and to
prolong the life of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP).
DATES: Comments are to be filed on or before July 30, 1999, and reply
comments are due on or before August 30, 1999. Written comments must be
submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed
information collections on or before August 16, 1999.
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 information
collections 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 jboley@fcc.gov, and to
Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 72--17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain5__t@al.eop.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jared Carlson, (202) 418-2320 or email
at jcarlson@fcc.gov or Tejal Mehta at (202) 418-2320 or tmehta@fcc.gov.
For additional information concerning the information collections
contained in this NPRM contact Judy Boley at 202-418-0214, or via the
Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking adopted on May 27, 1999, and released on June 2,
1999. The full text of this Notice 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information
collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections
contained in this NPRM, 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 this NPRM; OMB notification of action is due
60 days from date of publication of this NPRM 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 have practical
utility; (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 No.: None.
Title: Numbering Resource Optimization, CC Docket No. 99-200.
Form No.: N/A.
Type of Review: New collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Estimated annual Burden
Proposed number of collections time per response (Annual)
respondents (hours) (hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verification of Need for Numbers
Submissions:
a. Quarterly Report.......... 3000 48 144,000
b. Initial Codes............. 3000 1 3000
c. Growth Codes.............. 3000 3 9000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency of Response: Quarterly; on occasion.
Total Annual Burden: 156,000 hours.
Estimated Costs Per Respondent: $0.
Needs and Uses: In CC Docket No. 99-200, the Commission examines a
variety of measures intended to increase the efficiency with which
telecommunications carriers use numbering resources in order to slow
the rate of number exhaust in this country. The Notice examines
existing mechanisms for the administration and allocation of numbering
resources, which are governed by industry-developed Central Office Code
Guidelines. The Notice proposes certain verification measures designed
to prevent carriers from obtaining numbering resources that they do not
need in the near term. The Notice tentatively concludes that a more
extensive, detailed and uniform reporting mechanism should be developed
that will improve numbering utilization and forecasting on a nationwide
basis. The Notice tentatively concludes that carriers should report
utilization and forecast data on a quarterly basis and that the
Commission should mandate that all users of numbering resources must
supply utilization and forecast data to the NANPA. With respect to an
applicant's ability to obtain initial codes, the Notice seeks comment
on what type of showing
[[Page 32472]]
would be appropriate. The Notice seeks comment on whether applicants
should be required to make a particular showing regarding the equipment
they intend to use to provide service, the state of readiness of their
network or switches, or their progress with their business plans, prior
to obtaining initial codes, or whether any other type of showing should
be required. Applicants for NXX codes currently are required to
complete a Months-to-Exhaust Worksheet prior to applying for growth
codes. The Notice seeks comment on whether requiring applicants to
submit the Months-to-Exhaust Worksheet with an application for growth
codes would be an adequate demonstration of need in order to obtain
additional numbering resources. Alternatively, the Notice seeks comment
on whether carriers should be required to demonstrate that they have
achieved a specified level of numbering utilization (or fill rate) in
the area in question before they may receive additional numbering
resources. All the proposed collections will be used to prevent the
premature exhaustion of numbering resources pursuant to the Commissions
plenary authority over numbering set forth at 47 U.S.C. Section 251(e).
Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. In 1947, AT&T adopted the current nationwide numbering scheme,
under which the ten-digit telephone number serves not only as a network
``address,'' but also conveys information to the network as to how
phone calls should be routed and billed. A principal benefit of this
system was that it permitted automated routing of long-distance phone
calls, obviating the need for operators to assist in routing. Under the
allocation system that developed to support this system, numbering
resources are allocated to local telephone exchange carriers on the
basis of physical geography, rather than on the basis of end-user
demand for those numbers. That is, typically a large block of numbers
is allocated to a carrier for use in a geographic area, even though
there may not be end-users assigned to each individual number available
in the area. This system worked smoothly so long as only one entity
(the local exchange carrier) offered only one type of service (wireline
telephony) to customers.
2. New services using the same numbering system, particularly
cellular telephones, began to enter the telecommunications marketplace
with increasing frequency beginning in the late 1980's. More recently,
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened the market for competitive
local wireline service, again giving rise to more players entering the
market. In addition, many customers are obtaining additional telephone
lines to support additional services such as Internet, data, and
facsimile services. Because of the relatively recent explosion of
market entry and customer demand for new services, as well as the
assignment of telephone numbers to multiple service providers in large
blocks on a geographic basis, we have witnessed an incredible increase
in demand for numbering resources.
3. Although we are only just beginning to see the benefits of
competition in the marketplace for local wireline telephone service,
the coincident costs in the form of the rapid exhaust of area codes are
already all too apparent. The effect on consumers having to undergo, in
some cases, multiple area code changes in relatively short time frames
is an unacceptable byproduct of burgeoning competition in the
telecommunications marketplace. To illustrate the pace of area code
exhaust, consider California, which, at the end of 1992, had thirteen
area codes in use. The California Public Utilities Commission projects
that by the end of 2002, it will have 41 area codes. When the task of
splitting the 323 area code from the 213 area code in the Los Angeles
area was completed in April 1999, rather than lasting for ten or even
five years, the new area code was immediately declared to be in
jeopardy of exhausting its numbering resources.
4. The goal of this proceeding is to address the underlying drivers
of area code exhaust so that consumers are spared the enormous costs
and inconveniences associated with the rapid pace of implementation of
new area codes. In addition, clearly, implementing new area codes is
not a solution that can continue indefinitely. As of the end of 1998,
it was estimated that nearly one-third of the total number of
geographic area codes assignable to the United States had been put into
service. By some projections, the NANP could exhaust within ten years.
Because the estimated cost of expanding the NANP is enormous, and the
time to effect such an expansion is estimated to be on the order of ten
years, the need to extend the life of the current NANP through
effective conservation and efficient utilization of numbering resources
is apparent and immediate.
5. This Commission, with input from industry groups, advisory
bodies, state public utility commissions and the public, has already
begun to examine various numbering conservation and optimization
methods. Continuing in these efforts, we issue this Notice to seek
public comment on how best to create national standards for numbering
resource optimization. In doing so, we seek to: (1) minimize the
negative impact on consumers; (2) ensure sufficient access to numbering
resources for all service providers that need them to enter into or to
compete in telecommunications markets; (3) avoid, or at least delay,
exhaust of the NANP and the need to expand the NANP; (4) impose the
least societal cost possible, in a competitively neutral manner, while
obtaining the highest benefit; (5) ensure that no class of carrier or
consumer is unduly favored or disfavored by our optimization efforts;
and (6) minimize the incentives for carriers to build and carry
excessively large inventories of numbers.
Executive Summary
6. In this Notice, we consider and seek comment on a variety of
administrative and technical measures that would promote more efficient
allocation and use of NANP resources. In Section III, we seek specific
comment on the relative costs and benefits, both financial and
societal, of implementing each measure. We also ask that commenters
weigh the cost of extending the life of the current NANP through
various numbering resource optimization strategies against the
projected cost of expansion of the NANP.
7. In Section IV, we examine the existing mechanisms for the
administration and allocation of numbering resources, which are
governed by industry-developed CO Code Guidelines. We find that the
guidelines have not been effective in constraining the ability of
carriers to obtain and carry excessively large inventories of numbering
resources for which they have no immediate need. We seek comment on
whether the guidelines should be modified or replaced, wholly or in
part, by enforceable federal rules. Within the section, we outline
proposals for a uniform set of numbering status definitions. We also
seek comment on measures that would tie the allocation of new numbering
resources to a showing of need by the carrier, increase carrier
accountability for number utilization through enhanced data reporting
and audit requirements, and speed the return of unused numbering
resources. We specifically seek comment on the possibility of requiring
carriers to meet number utilization thresholds before they can obtain
additional numbering resources. These measures would not require
[[Page 32473]]
implementation of new systems or technologies, and we believe that they
could be implemented in a relatively short time period at minimal cost.
8. In Section V, we consider and seek comment on some specific
numbering resource optimization solutions that could be implemented in
addition to, or in combination with, stricter administrative standards
for the administration and allocation of numbering resources. These
methods include rate center consolidation, mandatory ten-digit dialing,
and number pooling. We consider the likely costs and potential number
optimization benefits of each of these solutions. We also seek comment
on a host of issues related to the way in which number pooling might be
implemented and administered, if we were to make carrier participation
mandatory at some level.
9. In light of the potential costs of these numbering resource
optimization solutions, we seek comment on whether the magnitude of the
number exhaust problem justifies requiring carriers to participate in
one or more of these solutions on a mandatory basis, either at the
federal level or through delegation of authority to the states. In the
alternative, we consider whether optimal use of numbering resources
could be accomplished without the need for such mandates, provided that
carriers achieved sufficiently high levels of efficiency in their usage
of numbers. Under this approach, we would require carriers to meet
specific number utilization thresholds, but would leave to each carrier
the choice of what numbering optimization method or methods to use to
achieve that threshold.
10. In Section VI, we consider whether establishing a pricing
mechanism for numbering resources would improve the efficiency of
number allocation and use. Although it is probably not feasible in the
short-term to replace our existing numbering resource allocation
mechanism with a market-based approach, we believe it is important to
consider using market-based mechanisms to allocate numbers as a
possible long-term alternative to regulatory mandates. We seek comment
on whether moving to a market-based system of allocating numbering
resources is feasible, and how the transition to such a system could be
implemented.
11. In Section VII, we consider area code relief methodologies,
including splits, overlays, and boundary realignments, as numbering
optimization strategies. We recognize that our consideration of both
short-term and long-term numbering resource optimization measures in
this Notice does not eliminate the need for states to continue to
implement area code relief in those area codes that are approaching
depletion. We seek comment on what action the Commission can take to
assist states in implementing area code relief in a manner that is
consistent with the objectives of this proceeding.
Procedural Matters
A. Ex Parte Presentations
12. This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance
of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects
discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and
arguments presented is generally required.
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
13. The following is a summary of the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) created for the Notice. Pursuant to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), See 5 U.S.C. section 603. The RFA,
See 5 U.S.C. section 601 et seq., was amended by the Contract With
America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847
(1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). The Commission has prepared
the following IRFA of the possible significant economic impact on small
entities of the policies and rules in this Notice. Written public
comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in
accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of
the Notice, and should have a separate and distinct heading designating
them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission shall send a copy of this
Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
14. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules. The Commission
is issuing this Notice to seek public comment on how best to create
national standards for numbering resource optimization. In doing so, we
seek to: (1) ensure sufficient access to numbering resources for all
service providers that need them to enter into or to compete in
telecommunications markets; (2) avoid, or at least delay, exhaust of
the NANP and the need to expand the NANP; (3) minimize the negative
impact on consumers; (4) impose the least cost possible, in a
competitively neutral manner, while obtaining the highest benefit; (5)
ensure that no class of carrier or consumer is unduly favored or
disfavored by our numbering resource optimization efforts; and (6)
minimize the incentives for building and carrying excessively large
inventories of numbers.
15. 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. 47 U.S.C. sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, and 251(e).
16. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities That
May Be Affected by this Notice. 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.'' 5 U.S.C. section 605(b). The
RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as
the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' Id. section 601(6). In addition, the term
``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business
concern'' under the Small Business Act. Id. section 601(3)
(incorporating by reference the definition of ``small business
concern'' in Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. section 632). 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). Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. section 632.
17. In this IRFA, we consider the potential impact of this Notice
on all users of telephone numbering resources. The small entities
possibly affected by the proposed rules, if adopted, include wireline,
wireless, and other entities, as described below. 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. 13 CFR section 121.201. In the FRFA to the
Universal Service Order, we described and estimated in detail the
number of small entities that would be affected by the new universal
service rules. 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 9227-9243 (1997). Although some
affected incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) may have 1,500 or
fewer employees, we do not believe that such
[[Page 32474]]
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
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.'' See 13 CFR section 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.
18. 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). 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). 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.
19. Local Service Providers. There are two principle providers of
local telephone service; ILECS and competing local service providers.
Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for small
providers of local exchange services (LECs). The closest applicable
definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications
companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. According to
data set forth in the FCC Statistics of Communications Common Carriers
(SOCC), 34 ILECs have more than 1,500 employees. We do not have data
specifying the number of these carriers that are either dominant in
their field of operations or are not independently owned and operated,
and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the
number of ILECs that would qualify as small business concerns under the
SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that fewer than 1,376 ILECs
are small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if
adopted.
20. Competitive Local Service Providers. This category includes
competitive access providers (CAPs), competitive local exchange
providers (CLECs), shared tenant service providers, local resellers,
and other local service providers. The closest applicable definition
under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other
than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. According to the most recent
Locator data, 145 carriers reported that they were engaged in the
provision of competitive local service. We estimate that there are
fewer than 145 small entity competitive local service providers that
may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
21. Providers of Toll Service. The toll industry includes providers
of interexchange services (IXCs), satellite service providers and other
toll service providers, primarily resellers. The closest applicable
definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications
companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. According to
the most recent Locator data, 164 carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of toll services. We estimate that there are
fewer than 164 small entity toll providers that may be affected by the
proposed rules, if adopted.
22. In addition, an alternative SBA standard may apply to satellite
service providers. The applicable definition of small entity generally
is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Communications
Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC). This definition provides that
a small entity is expressed as one with $11.0 million or less in annual
receipts. According to the Census Bureau, there were a total of 848
communications services providers, NEC, in operation in 1992, and a
total of 775 had annual receipts of less than $9,999 million. The
Census report does not provide more precise data.
23. Resellers. This category includes toll resellers, operator
service providers, pre-paid calling card providers, and other toll
service providers. The closest applicable SBA definition for a reseller
is a telephone communications company other than radiotelephone
(wireless) companies. According to the most recent Locator data, 405
carriers reported that they were engaged in the resale of telephone
service. We estimate that there are fewer than 405 small entity
resellers that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
24. Wireless Telephony and Paging and Messaging. Wireless telephony
includes cellular, personal communications service (PCS) or specialized
mobile radio (SMR) service providers. The closest applicable SBA
definition for a reseller is a telephone communications company other
than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. According to the most recent
Locator data, 732 carriers reported that they were engaged in the
provision of wireless telephony and 137 companies reported that they
were engaged in the provision of paging and messaging service. We
estimate that fewer than 732 carriers are engaged in the provision of
wireless telephony and fewer than 137 companies are engaged in the
provision of paging and messaging service.
25. The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for cable
and other pay television services, which includes all such companies
generating $11 million or less in revenue annually. This definition
includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services,
direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems,
satellite master antenna systems and subscription television services.
According to the Census Bureau data from 1992, there were 1,788 total
cable and other pay television services and 1,423 had less than $11
million in revenue.
26. The Commission has developed its own definition of a small
cable system operator for the purposes of rate regulation. Under the
Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is one serving fewer than
400,000 subscribers nationwide. Based on our most recent information,
we estimate that there were 1,439 cable operators that qualified as
small cable system operators at the end of 1995. Paul Kagan Associates,
Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30,
1995). 47 U.S.C. section 543(m)(2). 47 CFR section 76.1403(b). Since
then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000
subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that
caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, we
estimate that there are fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system
operators.
27. The Communications Act also contains a definition of a small
cable system operator, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer
[[Page 32475]]
than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in
the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that
there are 66,000,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, we
found that an operator serving fewer than 660,000 subscribers shall be
deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the
total annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do not exceed $250
million in the aggregate. Based on available data, we find that the
number of cable operators serving 660,000 subscribers or less totals
1,450. We do not request nor do we collect information concerning
whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, and thus are unable at this time
to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the
Communications Act.
28. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements. The Notice seeks comment on whether all NXX
codeholders should be required to report the status of all telephone
numbers within the NXX blocks assigned to them. In the alternative, the
Notice seeks comment on whether utilization data reporting on a more
aggregated basis (or some more aggregated set of telephone number
status categories) would provide sufficient data to accurately track
number utilization. The Notice proposes that any utilization reporting
obligation that the Commission adopts would be in addition to the
demand forecasting requirement that the COCUS currently places on
carriers. The Notice seeks comment on whether any modifications should
be made to improve the quality and accuracy of carriers' demand
forecasts. Alternatively, the Notice seeks comment on several
alternative data collection options, including the forecast and
utilization reporting process in the current Thousand Block Pooling
Guidelines, and the Line Number Use Survey (LINUS) data collection
model designed by NANPA staff as a replacement for COCUS. The Notice
also seeks comment on other industry proposals for a number utilization
and forecasting mechanism to replace COCUS. Finally, it seeks comment
on whether to supplement the need verification measures and data
collection program with a comprehensive audit program that verifies
carrier compliance with federal rules and industry numbering
guidelines.
29. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered. The rules we propose
in this Notice are designed to ensure sufficient access to numbering
resources for all service providers that need them. The Notice seeks
public comment on how best to create national standards for numbering
resource optimization in order to: (1) ensure sufficient access to
numbering resources for all service providers that need them to enter
into or to compete in telecommunications markets; (2) avoid, or at
least delay, exhaust of the NANP and the need to expand the NANP; (3)
minimize the negative impact on consumers; (4) impose the least cost
possible, in a competitively neutral manner, while obtaining the
highest benefit; (5) ensure that no class of carrier or consumer is
unduly favored or disfavored by our optimization efforts; and (6)
minimize the incentives for carriers to build and carry excessively
large inventories of numbers. We seek comment on our tentative
conclusions and proposals, and on additional actions we might take in
this regard to relieve burdens on users of telephone numbering
resources.
30. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules. None.
C. Comment Filing Procedures
31. Interested parties may file comments on or before July 30, 1999
and reply comments on or before August 30, 1999. Parties must file an
original and four copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to
the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW,
Room TW-B204F, Washington, DC 20554. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper
copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24,121 (1998). Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an
electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/
ecfs.html>. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must
be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should
include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket number, CC Docket 99-200 or rulemaking number, RM No.
9258.
32. Written comments by the public on the proposed information
collections are due by July 30, 1999. Written comments must be
submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed
information collections on or before August 16, 1999. In addition to
filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the
information collections 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 jboley@fcc.gov and to
Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain__t@al.eop.gov.
33. Parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in
this docket with the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC
20036. Comments and reply comments will be available for public
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center,
445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 52
Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-15334 Filed 6-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
