FR Doc 06-2330

[Federal Register: March 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 50)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13323-13328]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15mr06-36]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[CC Docket No. 99-200; FCC 06-14]

Numbering Resource Optimization

AGENCY Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission seeks comment on whether
we should extend mandatory thousands-block number pooling by, for
example, giving the states delegated authority to implement mandatory
thousands-block number pooling at their discretion. Alternatively, we
could continue to review requests from the states for authority to
extend mandatory thousands-block number pooling to new NPAs on a case-
by-case basis. Also, we could extend pooling to all rate centers, using
a phased implementation schedule. As many state commissions can attest,
mandatory number pooling can extend the life of numbering plan areas
(NPAs) more effectively than

[[Page 13324]]

optional pooling requirements. In addition, the Wireline Competition
Bureau specifically stated that the Commission would ``consider
extending pooling to NPAs outside of the top 100 Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSAs) once pooling is implemented in the top MSAs.''

DATES: Submit comments on or before May 15, 2006; submit reply comments
on or before June 13, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [CC Docket No. 99-
200], by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Mail: Sheryl Todd, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecom Access Policy
Division, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
4. People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable
accomodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY:
202-418-0432.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Jones, Telecommunications
Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 415-4357
or Marilyn.Jones@fcc.gov. The fax number is: (202) 418-2345.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fifth
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-200 released
on February 24, 2006. The full text of this document is available for
public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

I. Introduction

1. In this Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek
comment on whether we should delegate authority to all states to
implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling.
2. In the First Report and Order, 65 FR 37703, June 16, 2000, the
Commission determined that implementation of thousands-block number
pooling is essential to extending the life of the North American
Numbering Plan (``NANP'') by making the assignment and use of NXX codes
more efficient. Therefore, the Commission adopted national thousands-
block number pooling as a valuable mechanism to remedy the inefficient
allocation and use of numbering resources and determined to implement
mandatory thousands-block pooling in the largest 100 MSAs within nine
months of selection of a pooling administrator. The Commission also
allowed state commissions to continue to implement thousands-block
pooling pursuant to delegated authority and agreed to continue to
consider state petitions for delegated authority to implement pooling
on a case-by-case basis. The Commission delegated authority to the
Common Carrier Bureau, now the Wireline Competition Bureau
(``Bureau''), to rule on state petitions for delegated authority to
implement number conservation measures, including thousands-block
number pooling, where no new issues were raised.
3. The Commission held that such state positions for delegated
authority must demonstrate that: (1) An NPA in its state is in
jeopardy; (2) the NPA in question has a remaining life span of at least
a year; and (3) the NPA is in one of the largest 100 MSAs, or
alternatively, the majority of wireline carriers in the NPA are local
number portability (``LNP'')-capable. The Commission recognized that
there may be ``special circumstances'' where pooling would be of
benefit in NPAs that do not meet all three criteria, and may be
authorized in such an NPA upon a satisfactory showing by the state
commission of such circumstances. These three criteria were adopted
before implementation of nationwide thousands-block number pooling and
before the Commission recognized that full LNP capability is not
necessary for participation in pooling.
4. National rollout of thousands-block number pooling commenced on
March 15, 2002, in the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(``MSAs'') and area codes previously in pooling pursuant to state
delegation orders. All carriers operating within the 100 largest MSAs,
except those specifically exempted by the order, were required to
participate in thousands-block number pooling in accordance with the
national rollout schedule. The Commission specifically exempted from
the pooling requirement rural telephone companies and Tier III CMRS
providers that have not received a specific request for the provision
of LNP from another carrier, as well as carriers that are the only
service provider receiving numbering resources in a given rate center.
In exempting certain carriers from the pooling requirement, the
Commission confirmed that ``it is reasonable to require LNP only in
areas where competition dictates its demand.'' The Commission directed
the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (``NANPA'') to cease
assignment of NXX codes to carriers after they were required to
participate in pooling. Instead, carriers required to participate in
pooling received numbering resources from the national thousands-block
number Pooling Administrator responsible for administering numbers in
thousands-blocks.
5. In implementing nationwide pooling, the Commission had concluded
that mandatory pooling should initially take place in the largest 100
MSAs. In the Pooling Rollout Order, the Bureau explained that it would
consider extending pooling outside of the top 100 MSAs after pooling
was implemented in the top 100 MSAs. The Bureau also encouraged
voluntary pooling in areas adjoining qualifying MSAs.

II. Order Granting Petitions

6. In the Order accompanying the Fifth Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register,
we grant petitions for delegated authority to implement mandatory
thousands-block number pooling filed by the Public Service Commission
of West Virginia, the Nebraska Public Service Commission, the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission, the Michigan Public Service Commission, and the
Missouri Public Service Commission. Although all three criteria are not
consistently met in these petitions, we find that special circumstances
justify delegation of authority to require pooling.
7. With respect to the first criterion, the petitions before us
present both jeopardy and non-jeopardy situations. The 304 NPA is
currently in jeopardy, whereas the 402, 417, 573, 580, and 989 NPAs are
not in jeopardy as defined by industry standards, but are projected to
exhaust within three years. Given that most of the NPAs in question are
expected to exhaust within one to three years, it is most efficient and
in the public interest to permit the state petitioners to implement
mandatory thousands-block number pooling at this time. Moreover, if we
deny these petitions pursuant to a strict application of the jeopardy
requirement, the state commissions will have to refile the petitions in
the near future when the NPAs at issue will be in jeopardy. This would
be an inefficient use of resources and would further delay the state
commissions' ability to optimize

[[Page 13325]]

numbering resources. With regard to the second criterion, all petitions
have demonstrated that the NPAs in question have a remaining life span
of at least a year. Thus, this prong of the test is met.
8. The third criterion, that the NPA is in one of the largest 100
MSAs or the majority of wireline carriers in the NPA are LNP-capable,
is not relevant here. These petitions seek authority to implement
pooling outside of the largest 100 MSAs, and we have since determined
that pooling can be implemented without full LNP capability. Instead,
we are guided by the principle, expressed in our pooling precedent,
that it is reasonable to require LNP only in areas where competition
dictates demand. For this reason, we have exempted from pooling rural
telephone companies and Tier III CMRS providers that have not yet
received a specific request for the provision of LNP from another
carrier and carriers that are the only service provider receiving
numbering resources in a given rate center. Although this exemption
should ensure that LNP is only required in areas where completion
dictates demand, it is important to also note that, for carriers who
are required to participate in number pooling, full LNP capability is
not required. In this case, we require state commissions, in exercising
the authority delegated herein to implement number pooling, to
implement this delegation consistent with the exemption for the
carriers described above. We therefore expect that rural carriers who
are not LNP capable will not be required to implement full LNP
capability solely as a result of the delegation of authority set forth
herein.
9. As several commenters observe, allowing states to mandate
pooling outside of the top 100 MSAs will delay the need for area code
relief by using numbering resources more efficiently. Demand for
numbering resources in these states is increasing in rural rate
centers, where number pooling is not mandatory, due to additional
wireless and competitive carriers entering those areas. The petitioners
have demonstrated that many carriers are not participating in optional
pooling and instead continue to request full NXX codes in these NPAs.
The petitioners observe, and we agree, that mandatory thousands-block
number pooling would extend the life of these NPAs by using the
resources that otherwise would be stranded. Denying the petitions would
allow carriers to continue to request 10,000 blocks of numbers when
fewer numbers may be needed to serve their customers, which would
further hasten the exhaust of these NPAs. We find that this is a
special circumstance that permits us to delegate authority to these
states to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling.
10. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, we determine that
the petitioners have demonstrated the special circumstances necessary
to justify delegation of authority to require pooling, and we grant:
The public Service Commission of West Virginia authority to implement
mandatory thousands-block number pooling in the 304 NPA; the Nebraska
Public Service Commission authority to implement mandatory thousands-
block number pooling in the 402 NPA; the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission authority to implement mandatory thousands-block number
pooling in the 580 NPA; the Michigan Public Service Commission the
authority to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling in the
989 NPA; and the Missouri Public Service Commission the authority to
implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling in the 417, 573,
636, and 660 NPAs.
11. The Ohio Commission and NARUC request that in addition to
granting the Oklahoma Petition for mandatory thousands-block number
pooling, we extend such delegated authority to all states. SBC opposes
this request and observes that in order to adopt such a rule change, we
must provide opportunity for notice and comment. We agree and do so in
our Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemking.
12. Finally, we observe that several commenters asked the
Commission to reaffirm that it will not permit states to implement
pooling methods that are inconsistent with the national pooling
framework set forth in the Commission's rules and industry pooling
guidelines. We note that the petitions specifically seek authority to
order mandatory thousands-block number pooling in rate centers located
outside the top 100 MSAs, but in accordance with the national pooling
framework. Thus, these state commissions are not seeking to implement
pooling methods that are inconsistent with the national pooling
framework.

III. Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

13. The Order that accompanies this Fifth Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (``FNPRM'') recognizes the invaluable role of the
state commissions in number administration and optimization. In that
Order, we granted the requesting state commissions authority to
implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling in the certain NPAs.
We took this action because in each case the remaining life in the NPAs
at issue was within three years of exhaust. In this FNPRM, we seek
comment now on whether we should extend mandatory pooling by, for
example, giving the states delegated authority to implement mandatory
thousands-block number pooling at their discretion. As many state
commissions can attest, mandatory number pooling can extend the life of
NPAs more effectively than optional pooling requirements. In addition,
in the Pooling Rollout Order, the Bureau specifically stated that the
Commission would ``consider extending pooling to NPAs outside of the
top 100 MSAs once pooling is implemented in the top MSAs.''
14. Alternatively, we could continue to review requests from the
states for authority to extend mandatory thousands-block number pooling
to new NPAs on a case-by-case basis. If we were to adopt this approach,
the Commission would continue to review state petitions on a case-by-
case basis, as we did in the Order preceding this FNPRM. Also, we could
extend pooling to all rate centers, using a phased implementation
schedule. For example, we could initially expand pooling to NPAs that
are within three years of exhaust and continue to expand pooling to
other NPAs as they reach a certain state of exhaust. We seek comment on
the costs and benefits to each approach. Commenters advocating a case-
by-case review of state petitions should propose criteria for such a
review. As we discussed in the preceding Order, the third prong in the
three-prong test adopted in the First Report and Order is no longer
relevant, and the first prong was not strictly met by all petitioners.
Commenters should discuss whether we should use primarily the second
prong of that test in determining whether to extend delegated authority
to the states. In particular, we seek comment on whether we should
grant authority for mandatory thousands-block number pooling based
primarily on the remaining life of the NPA, as we did in the foregoing
Order. Commenters should also address whether ``special circumstances''
would be a more appropriate criterion.
15. We are limiting this FNPRM to the issue of extending mandatory
thousands-block number pooling to NPAs outside of the top 100 MSAs. Any
such expansion of number pooling would be subject to our current
numbering rules and number pooling guidelines. Commenters should
discuss any related thousands-block numbering rule changes or new rules
that we

[[Page 13326]]

should adopt to facilitate this expansion. We recognize that many of
the number pooling procedures are in the pooling guidelines, not in the
Commission's rules.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

16. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended, 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') for this Fifth Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``FNPRM''), of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the
policies and rules proposed in this FNPRM. The IFRA is in the attached
Appendix. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments on the FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of
the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration. In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

17. This FNPRM does not contain information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA''), Public Law
104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified
``information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

C. Ex Parte Presentations

18. These matters 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. Other requirements
pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.

D. Comment Filing Procedures

19. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
interested parties may file comments on this FNPRM within 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register and may file reply comments within
90 days after publication in the Federal Register. All filings shall
refer to CC Docket No. 99-200. Comments may be filed using (1) the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (``ECFS''), (2) the
Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.
20. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic
file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. If multiple docket or

rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters
must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or
rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the
transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S.
Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking
number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-
mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should
send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words
in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and directions
will be sent in reply.
21. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking
number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must
submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking
number. All filings must contain the docket or rulemaking number that
appears in the caption of this proceeding.
22. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail).
23. The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002.
The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber
bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering
the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and
Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20554.
All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
24. People with disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
25. Parties must also send a courtesy copy of their filing to
Sheryl Todd, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline
Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street,
SW., Room 5-B540, Washington, DC 20554. Ms. Todd's e-mail address is
Sheryl.Todd@fcc.gov; her telephone number is (202) 418-7386.

26. Filings and comments are also available for public inspection
and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554. Copies may also be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, BCPI, 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI through its
Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com by e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com, by telephone at

(202) 488-5300 or (800) 378-3160, or by facsimile at (202) 488-5563.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

27. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), the
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(``IRFA'') of the possible significant economic impact on small
entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (``FNPRM''). Written public comments are requested
on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as response to IRFA and must
be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM. The Commission
will send a copy of this FRPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (``SBA''). In
addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published
in the Federal Register.

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

28. In the FNPRM, we seek comment on whether we should extend
mandatory thousands-block number

[[Page 13327]]

pooling by giving states delegated authority to implement mandatory
thousands-block number pooling at their discretion. We also see comment
on whether we should, alternatively, continue to review requests from
states for authority to extend mandatory thousands-block number pooling
on a case-by-case basis. We also seek comment on what criteria we
should use for such a review.

2. Legal Basis

29. The legal basis for the FNPRM is contained in sections 1, 4(i),
201 through 205, 214, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 9134,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201--205, 214, 254, and 403.

3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
Rules May Apply

30. 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. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the the Small
Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA. A small organization is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.'' Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 small organizations.
The term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is defined as
``governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts,
or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.''
As of 1997, there were about 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. This number includes 39,044 county governments,
municipalities, and townships, of which 73,546 (approximately 96.2
percent) have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of which 1,498 have
populations of 50,000 or more. Thus we estimate the number of small
governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 or fewer.
a. Telecommunications Service Providers
31. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in
this RFA analysis. A ``small business'' under the RFA is one that,
inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a
telephone communcations business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and
``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of
Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local
exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because
any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore
included small incumbent carriers in this RFA analysis, although we
emphasize that this RFA action has not effect on the Commission's
analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
32. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small
incumbent local exchange services. The closest size standard under SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 1,303 incumbent carriers reported that
they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these
1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are
small business that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted
herein.
33. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access
Providers (CAPs) and ``Other Local Exchange Carriers.'' Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to providers of competitive exchange
services or to competitive access providers or to ``Other Local
Exchange Carriers.'' The closest applicable size standard under SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 769 companies reported that they were
engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services
or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 769 companies,
an estimated 676 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 93 have more than
1,500 employees. In addition, 39 carriers reported that they were
``Other Local Service Providers.'' Of the 39 ``Other Local Service
Providers,'' an estimated 36 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has
more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that
most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive
access providers, and ``Other Local Service Providers'' are small
entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
34. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to interexchange services. The closest applicable size
standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to the Commission data, 316 companies
reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the
provision of interexchange services. Of these 316 companies, an
estimated 292 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 24 have more than 1,500
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
IXCs are small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies
adopted herein.
35. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for wireless small businesses within the two
separate categories of Paging and Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications. Under both SBA categories, a wireless business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the Commission
data, 1,012 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision
of wireless service. Of these 1,012 companies, an estimated 829 have
1,500 or fewer employees and 183 have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most wireless service
providers are small entities that may be affected by the rules and
policies adopted herein.
36. Private and Common Carrier Paging. In the Paging Third Report
and Order, we developed a small business size standard for ``small
businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining
their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
installment payments. A ``small business'' is an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, have average gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.
Additionally, a ``very small business'' is an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, have average gross
revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three
years. An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on
February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 985 licenses
auctioned, 440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies

[[Page 13328]]

claiming small business status won. At present, there are approximately
24,000 Private-Paging site-specific licenses and 74,000 Common Carrier
Paging licenses. Also, according to Commission data, 375 carriers
reported that they were engaged in the provision of either paging or
messaging services, or other mobile services. Of those, the Commission
estimates that 370 are small, under the SBA-approved small business
size standard.
b. Internet Service Providers
37. Internet Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs
``provide clients access to the Internet and generally provide related
services such as Web hosting, Web page designing, and hardware or
software consulting related to Internet connectivity.'' Under the SBA
size standard, such a business is small if it has average annual
receipts of $21 million or less. According to Census Bureau data for
1997, there were 2,751 firms in this category that operated for the
entire year. Of these, 2,659 firms had annual receipts of under $10
million, and an additional 67 firms had receipts of between $10 million
and $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these
firms are small entities that may be affected by our action. In
addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the
total number of internet service providers increased approximately five
percent from 1997 to 2002.

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

38. In the FNPRM, we seek comment on whether we should extend
mandatory thousands-block number pooling by giving states delegated
authority to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling at
their discretion. We also see comment on whether we should,
alternatively, continue to review requests from states for authority to
extend mandatory thousands-block number pooling on a case-by-case
basis. We also seek comment on what criteria we should use for such a
review. If we extend thousands-block number pooling, beyond the top 100
MSAs, carriers required by states to implement number pooling will be
required to comply with the existing reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for number pooling in part 52, subpart C of the
Commission's rules.

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

39. 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 and 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 part thereof, for small
entities.
40. In the FNPRM, we seek comment on whether we should extend
mandatory thousands-block number pooling by giving states delegated
authority to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling at
their discretion. We also seek comment on whether we should,
alternatively, continue to review requests from states for authority to
extend mandatory thousands-block number pooling on a case-by-case
basis. We also seek comment on what criteria we should use for such a
review. If we adopt some form of additional number pooling, beyond the
top 100 MSAs, more carriers may be required to comply with the filing
requirements for number pooling. Expanding number pooling will,
however, conserve numbering resources and will prevent or delay the
adoption of other, possibly more burdensome, measures.

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

None.

IV. Ordering Clauses

41. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1,
4(i), 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154(i), 251, and pursuant to section 52.9(b) of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 52.9(b), it is ordered that the Petition of the Nebraska Public
Service Commission for Expedited Decision for Authority to Implement
Additional Number Conservation Measures is granted; the Petition of the
West Virginia Public Service Commission for Expedited Decision for
Authority to Implement Additional Number Conservation Measures is
granted; and the Petition of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission for
Expedited Decision for Authority to Implement Additional Number
Conservation Measures is granted; the Petition of the Missouri Public
Service Commission for Additional Delegated Numbering Authority to
Implement Number Conservation Measures is granted; and the Petition of
the Michigan Public Service Commission for Additional Delegated
Authority over Numbering Resource Conservation Measures is granted.
42. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained
in sections 1, 4(i), 201-205, 214, 254, and 403 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201-205, 214, 254, and
403, this Order and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
adopted.
43. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Order and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-2330 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M