******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) ) CC Docket No. 92-237 Administration of the ) North American Numbering Plan ) Carrier Identification Codes (CICs) ) FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND ORDER Adopted: October 8, 1997 Released: October 9, 1997 By the Commission: Comment Date: November 24, 1997 Reply Comment Date: December 22, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph No. I. Introduction 1 II. Background 3 A. Expansion from Three to Four-digit 3 Carrier Identification Codes B. New Uses for Feature Group D Carrier Identification Codes 4 III. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 8 A. Use and Application of CICs 14 B. Definition of Entity 21 C. Conservation 33 1. Limit on CIC Assignments Per Entity 33 2. Limit on Assignable Four-digit CICs 41 3. Reclamation 44 4. Usage Reporting Requirements 52 D. Procedural Matters 54 1. Ex Parte Presentations 54 2. Regulatory Flexibility Act 55 3. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 56 4. Comment Filing Procedures 57 IV. Order: North American Numbering Council Recommendations 61 Regarding CIC Assignment Guidelines V. Ordering Clauses 64 APPENDICES Appendix A: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis I. INTRODUCTION 1. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) continues the Commission's analysis of issues related to carrier identification code (CIC) use and assignment. CICs are numeric codes that enable all local exchange carriers (LECs), as providers of interexchange access services, to identify access customers in order to bill and route traffic to such customers. CICs facilitate competition by enabling callers to use the services of any number of telecommunications service providers. For example, they enable a caller to presubscribe to the long-distance carrier of his or her choice and, where there is more than one provider of local exchange service, to choose a local provider as well. In addition, a carrier's CIC enables callers to reach any carrier from any telephone by dialing a seven-digit carrier access code, or CAC, ("101XXXX") for which the last four digits ("XXXX") are that carrier's unique four-digit Feature Group D CIC. 2. In this FNPRM, we seek comment on the use and application of Feature Group D CICs, the CICs that are used to provide equal access. We also seek comment on the definition of "entity" used to determine who may receive a CIC and on CIC conservation issues, such as: (1) the limit on CIC assignments per entity; (2) the limit on assignable four- digit CICs; (3) CIC reclamation; and (4) usage reporting requirements. For some of these issues, the FNPRM proposes rules. Many of these issues are already addressed in the CIC Assignment Guidelines, developed by the industry for the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) administrator. Our intention here is not to propose modifications to the existing guidelines, but rather to propose new Commission rules to govern CIC use and assignment. In the Order, we direct the North American Numbering Council (NANC) to present to the Commission, no later than December 15, 1997, the NANC's recommendations on the tentative conclusions and proposals in the FNPRM, supra, including any alternatives to them. The NANC's recommendations (including any recommended rules or recommended resolutions of ambiguities or policy disputes) should address, for example, how to define "entity" and whether CIC conservation measures such as a limit on cic assignments per entity, a limit on the total number of four-digit CICs available for assignment, and mandatory cic reclamation procedures, are needed to meet the Commission's numbering policy goals. Our actions here are intended to ensure fair and efficient overall administration of numbering resources; to foster an integrated approach to numbering administration across NANP member countries; and to enable this Commission and regulatory bodies of other nations to ensure that domestic numbering administration is effective through reliance upon the expertise and innovative efforts of industry. II. BACKGROUND A. Expansion from Three to Four-digit Carrier Identification Codes 3. Over the past two decades, through a series of proceedings, the Commission has developed policies to foster competition in interstate telecommunications. Among these has been its policy governing the management of CICs. In a Second Report and Order in this docket released April 11, 1997, the Commission affirmed the NPRM's tentative conclusion that an industry plan to expand Feature Group D CICs from three to four digits, in anticipation of all the three-digit codes being assigned, was a reasonable way to ensure that future demand for CICs could be met. We also determined that the transition, or permissive dialing period, for the conversion from three to four-digit Feature Group D CICs, and from five to seven-digit Feature Group D CACs, will end on January 1, 1998, after we had concluded that this timeframe would provide a reasonable period for the industry to complete the steps necessary for a total conversion. The Commission found that, because of the changing circumstances and increase in demand for Feature Group D CICs since the record in this docket closed in 1994, the transition should end as soon as practicable. Moreover, we concluded that a two-year and nine-month transition would serve the overall pro-competitive purposes of the Communications Act, as amended. We concluded that this transition would also serve the specific purpose of Section 251(e) by ensuring that numbers are available on an equitable basis, and of Section 251(b)(3) by lessening hardships caused by the conservation plan's limitation of access to CICs, consistent with the duty imposed on all LECs to provide nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers. To lessen any disadvantage to new entrants during the transition, the Commission also modified the ongoing CIC conservation plan to allow each entity to have two CIC assignments. VarTec Telecom, Inc. (VarTec) filed an emergency motion for stay of implementation of the CICs Second Report and Order. In an Order issued July 18, 1997, the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) denied VarTec's motion. Three parties (one of which was VarTec) filed petitions for reconsideration of the CICs Second Report and Order, and VarTec filed an application for review of the Bureau's decision to deny VarTec's motion for stay. The Commission will adress these petitions in a separate order in this docket. B. New Uses for Feature Group D Carrier Identification Codes 4. CICs were originally developed so that LECs, as providers of interexchange access services, could identify access customers in order to bill and route traffic to those customers. Carriers currently use CICs for additional purposes, however. For example, the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) use CICs for their internal networks. Certain RBOCs use CICs to route traffic under "corridor exceptions" to the AT&T Consent Decree's ban on the RBOCs' carrying of traffic across LATA boundaries. "Corridor CICs" have enabled the affected telephone companies to operate under these corridor exceptions. 5. Resellers may use their own CICs to bill their end users through the LECs' bill. Large corporate consumers of telecommunications services may purchase bulk telecommunications services from many carriers and use CICs to route calls to particular carriers to take advantage of the volume discounts they have purchased. Carriers joined through mergers or acquisitions may use separate and distinct CICs to isolate, route, and bill traffic within their own network if they continue to provide services under the original carrier's name. 6. CICs also may be used to manage high-capacity digital trunk groups more efficiently. For example, a CIC may be assigned to an individual service offering, such as international digital facsimile service, to separate that service for billing purposes from the other services using the same digital trunk group. Also, a separate CIC might be assigned to a single end user to distinguish its usage of high-capacity facilities from the usage of those facilities by others. An access provider may utilize multiple CICs for each Feature Group D trunk that it accesses. 7. In addition to the uses described above, carriers may find many other uses for CICs in the future. For example, the dialing parity requirement in the Communications Act, as amended, may lead to an increased demand for CICs as carriers seeking to enter local and long distance markets simultaneously attempt to use CICs to segment their local customers from long distance customers. In the future, Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) may be required to use Feature Group D CICs to provide equal access services. III. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 8. In the CICs Second Report and Order, the Commission focused on when the transition from three to four-digit CICs should end and how many CICs should be assigned per entity until that time. In narrowing the focus of the Second Report and Order to allow us to make determinations more quickly on issues having immediate ramifications, we left unresolved several important issues related to CIC use and assignment. With the increase in demand for CICs, CIC expansion and conservation, two inherently intertwined issues, become of utmost importance. This FNPRM is intended to begin the Commission's analysis of issues related to allocation of this scarce numbering resource. 9. The NANP administrator assigns CICs using guidelines developed by the industry. As noted above, the CIC Assignment Guidelines were established by the ICCF. Currently, the INC, a subcommittee of the CLC, develops such guidelines. The ICCF was, and the INC is, open to participation by LECs, IXCs, competitive access providers, wireless carriers, and others. The most recent version of the guidelines was issued in September 1996. The guidelines address, among other issues, the maximum number of codes any entity may be assigned, code reclamation procedures, and conservation. 10. While the CIC Assignment Guidelines provide assistance to the NANP administrator, industry compliance with the guidelines is voluntary. The recent increased demand for CICs and the changing competitive environment have prompted us to consider adopting rules to govern CIC use and assignment that are crucial to facilitating competition. We tentatively conclude that Commission rules would serve better our objectives of promoting competition and minimizing costs associated with CIC expansion than voluntary industry guidelines. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. 11. Our proposals below are intended to continue the Commission's efforts, begun with the establishment of the NANC, to maintain and foster an integrated approach to number administration and to establish a structure for number administration that is impartial and pro-competitive. A nationwide, uniform system of numbering is essential to the efficient delivery of interstate and international telecommunications. At the same time, the use of CICs for new purposes will require that carriers, large end users, and equipment manufacturers modify facilities and service offerings to accommodate longer CICs. The costs of such upgrades are ultimately borne by users of telecommunications services. Therefore, we seek to establish a plan for the distribution and management of CICs that minimizes the frequency of CIC expansion while promoting competition to the greatest extent possible. 12. We identify certain key issues addressed in the CIC Assignment Guidelines that have become the subject of controversy and differing interpretation and propose rules pertaining to those issues. Specifically, our proposals address the following issues: (1) the proper use and application of CICs; (2) the definition of "entity;" and (3) conservation issues, including the limit on CIC assignments per entity, the limit on assignable four-digit CICs, and reclamation. The proposed rules would establish a baseline for CIC management. Industry consensus groups or the NANP administrator could address other aspects of the CIC Assignment Guidelines or CIC assignment and use not covered by our rules. 13. In addressing CIC assignment and usage issues, we recognize that numbering resources within the NANP are used not only in the United States but also in other NANP member countries. Our jurisdiction extends only to those portions of the NANP that pertain to the United States. The rules proposed below, therefore, would apply only to United States entities. We seek comment on what would be the consequences if CIC usage and assignment were regulated by federal regulations for United States carriers and by industry guidelines for carriers in the other 18 NANP member countries, especially if the regulations and the guidelines were to differ. Commenters should discuss any such impacts in responding to the proposals below. A. Use and Application of CICs 14. Background. Increasingly, carriers are using Feature Group D CICs for purposes other than routing traffic. The resulting increase in the demand for these codes has led both to the existing conservation plan and to our continuing investigation of CICs' usage. Because CICs were originally used solely to identify access customers, the industry's projected demand for CICs reflected only its expectation of the number of carriers that would compete in the interLATA market. With CICs being used for other purposes, however, demand projections must consider these uses, or, perhaps, some of these uses must be prohibited. We must explore how carriers are using CICs to enable the industry, and this Commission, to ensure the continued availability of this limited resource. 15. While we encourage the development of new services for the public, uses of CICs for purposes other than identifying access customers ("non-access uses") may be significantly increasing the demand for these codes, hastening the time when the costs of lengthening CICs must be incurred. We must fully analyze these issues to determine whether the apparent increased demand for four-digit CICs compels restrictions on non-access uses for Feature Group D CICs or other conservation measures. 16. Section 2.1 of the existing CIC guidelines presents general CIC assignment principles and establishes a request for Feature Group D trunk access as a prerequisite to eligibility for a CIC assignment. In the past, entities that requested Feature Group D CICs without acquiring Feature Group D trunk access were denied a CIC. Since the CICs Second Report and Order was released, however, the INC accepted for industry consideration a proposed change to the CIC Assignment Guidelines to eliminate the requirement that an applicant for a Feature Group D CIC must use that CIC for its own Feature Group D trunk access if the applicant will be using the Feature Group D access already provided to an underlying transport provider. This change may be implemented as early as November 1997. If this change is implemented, under the CIC Assignment Guidelines, entities previously denied CIC assignments will become eligible to receive up to two CICs. Between May 19, 1997 (the effective date of the CICs Second Report and Order) and June 30, 1997, six of nine Feature Group D CIC requests were rejected because the requesting parties had not acquired Feature Group D trunk access; after the change is implemented, each of those six previously ineligible entities would become eligible to receive two Feature Group D CICs. 17. Request for Comment. While we seek to develop a more complete record on CIC uses beyond access, we tentatively conclude that a Feature Group D access request should continue to be a necessary prerequisite for a CIC assignment. We seek comment on the following proposed rule: Only entities requesting Feature Group D trunk access will be eligible to apply for a four-digit Feature Group D CIC. A request for such access is a prerequisite to the NANP administrator's consideration of an entity's application for a Feature Group D CIC. The NANP administrator must ensure that all of its assignments are made on a non-discriminatory basis and without distinction between end user and telecommunications service provider customers. CICs will be assigned on an exclusive basis, except that the sharing of CICs between entities is permitted consistent with these rules. An entity may, therefore, use its assigned code throughout the NANP area. 18. To develop a record on how carriers are using CICs for purposes other than Feature Group D trunk access, we seek comment on such uses. Specifically, we ask parties: (1) to identify current and projected uses for Feature Group D CICs and to explain how each such use could affect the demand for CICs; (2) to discuss whether these other uses should be allowed to continue; and (3) if other uses are prohibited, to identify possible alternatives to Feature Group D CICs for those uses. We ask commenters to discuss the feasibility of the following options or other alternatives to the use of Feature Group D CICs: (1) the use of the Signaling System 7 (SS7) database to identify classes of service or carrier types; (2) the use of pseudo-CICs for billing and identification of services; and (3) the use of flexible automatic numbering identification (Flex ANI) for billing and identification of services. When discussing these alternatives, commenters should note any advantages or disadvantages, both technical and economic, associated with introducing any of the alternatives, as well as the extent to which their uses may decrease the demand for CICs. We also seek comment on whether any of these options are already available as network features, and, if so, on how much time a more extensive deployment would require. To the extent they are not presently available, we seek comment on the amount of time that would be necessary to implement each of these alternatives. 19. Section 3.2 of the existing CIC Assignment Guidelines allows "special use" CICs to be assigned if "extraordinary and infrequent technical constraints in access provider's networks . . . arise where an entity, whose intent was to offer a service without the use of a CIC, is required to use a CIC." Under the guidelines, the access provider and the entity must agree that a CIC assignment is warranted and file a joint letter with the NANP administrator certifying the need for the CIC. Under the guidelines, an entity is permitted a total of two special use CICs, which do not count towards the entity's or the access provider's maximum CIC limit. 20. The CIC Assignment Guidelines provide that the INC will review the special use CIC category on an annual basis. Upon assignment of a second special use CIC to a particular entity, the INC is to meet to examine the reasons for the assignments and to determine whether a change to CIC assignment limits is necessary. Bellcore, in its capacity as NANP administrator, indicates that, as of April 7, 1997, no special use CICs have been assigned. We seek comment on whether the special use CIC category remains necessary. When they discuss this issue, we ask commenters to cite examples of technical constraints that may necessitate a continuation of this CIC category. These comments will assist the Commission in evaluating whether the continuation of the special use CICs category will affect the demand on the total supply of four-digit CICs. B. Definition of "Entity" 21. Background. Section 1.3 of the CIC Assignment Guidelines states that CICs are assigned to access customers or industry entities and defines an "entity" as "a firm or group of firms under common ownership or control." The Guidelines' definition of "entity" also addresses the franchiser-franchise operator relationship, providing that the franchiser will be considered the "entity" for purposes of CIC assignments but allowing franchisees to use CICs obtained by the franchiser. 22. Under the CIC Assignment Guidelines' definition of "entity," the NANP administrator, in determining whether a CIC applicant is an entity separate from an existing CIC assignee for purposes of obtaining a CIC assignment, must consider whether that CIC assignee has ownership or control over the CIC applicant. CIC applicants, whose requests for CIC assignments have been denied because the NANP administrator viewed them as part of the same entity as an existing CIC assignee, have come to the Commission requesting relief. In response to one recent request, the Bureau directed Bellcore to assign a CIC to the applicant, and, at Bellcore's request, issued a letter explaining the Bureau's analysis of the ownership structure in question using the CIC Assignment Guidelines' definition of "entity." In the case of another request, the Bureau concluded that Bellcore had not been unreasonable in denying a CIC assignment to the applicant. In both situations, the Bureau's determinations were based on its review not only of information provided by the CIC applicants regarding their ownership structures but also of relevant principles of corporate and partnership law. As noted above, in a letter dated August 14, 1997, the NANC, through its Chairman, Alan C. Hasselwander, asked the Commission to consider the issue of the definition of "entity." 23. Request for Comment. Given the differing interpretations of the term "entity" by the NANP administrator, CIC applicants, and the Commission staff, we propose eliminating the "control" element in the existing definition of "entity" to minimize future confusion, facilitate administration of CICs by the NANP administrator, and maximize competition. Nonetheless, we discuss below other possible definitions of the term "entity" and invite commenters to suggest other alternatives and to propose specific rule language. 24. Eliminate the Control Element from the Existing Guidelines' Definition of Entity. Under this option, we would eliminate the control element from the definition of "entity" in the CIC Assignment Guidelines. The subjective nature of the concept "control" has made it sometimes difficult to administer CICs and has prompted CIC applicants to seek relief from the Commission following the denial of a request for a CIC assignment by the NANP administrator. As a result, we seek comment on the following proposed definition of "entity": Two or more entities shall be deemed commonly owned and a single entity if -- (1) one entity directly or indirectly has an ownership interest in the other entity; or, (2) such entities are directly or indirectly owned by the same person, as defined in 47 U.S.C.  153(32). Based on this definition, if the NANP administrator determines that an existing CIC assignee already holding the maximum permitted number of CIC assignments has any ownership interest in the CIC applicant, the applicant would be denied the assignment because it would be considered the same entity as the existing assignee. 25. Common ownership could occur through, for example, corporate and non- corporate structures; general and limited partnerships; joint ventures; subsidiaries, affiliates, and associate companies; joint trust associations; and other arrangements involving an identity of interest. Under the proposed definition, we tentatively conclude that all of these types of commonly owned entities would be considered a single "entity" for purposes of CIC assignments and we request comment on this tentative conclusion. In addition, we seek comment on whether, under the above definition of ownership, it is necessary to define the terms "directly" or "indirectly." Commenters advocating that we define these terms should propose specific rule language to accomplish this. We also seek comment on whether all agreements potentially conveying an ownership interest, such as warrants, stock options, and convertible debentures, should be treated as if the rights underlying them had been fully exercised for purposes of determining ownership. Furthermore, we seek comment on whether agreements appearing to terminate or divest ownership interests should not be treated as if divestiture had occurred before it actually has. 26. We tentatively conclude that because the concept of control would have no role if this definition of "entity" were adopted, the franchiser-franchisee provision in the definition of "entity" contained in the CIC Assignment Guidelines should not be incorporated in the definition of "entity" under an "ownership-only" option. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. In addition, we seek comment on whether the above proposed definition of ownership should also apply under the CIC Assignment Guidelines' definition of "entity" (either ownership or control). 27. Eliminating the control element, and permitting the NANP administrator to determine an applicant's eligibility for a CIC assignment on the basis of ownership only, would simplify the CIC eligibility determination without denying CIC assignments to eligible entities. We seek comment on whether the "ownership-only" option achieves this objective. We also ask parties to address whether omitting the "control" prong from the definition of entity will significantly affect the availability of CICs; that is, whether the exercise of control over another entity without any ownership interest is a commonly encountered situation. 28. Incorporate Existing Guidelines' Definition of "Entity". The first option we seek comment on is our codifying the current CIC Assignment Guidelines' definition of "entity." Under this definition, if the NANP administrator determines that an existing CIC assignee already holding the maximum permitted number of CIC assignments exercises either ownership or control over the CIC applicant, the applicant would be denied the assignment because it would be considered the same entity as the existing assignee. 29. As noted above, the existing definition of "entity" treats the franchiser, and not each of its individual franchisees, as the "entity" for purposes of CIC assignments. Under the guidelines, a franchiser may grant use of its CIC to franchisees. We seek comment on whether we should incorporate this reference to the franchise relationship in our rules. We ask that parties advocating incorporation of the franchise language explain the need for, and benefits of, including this reference. 30. Exception to the Ownership Test for Certain Commonly Owned Entities. We seek comment on whether there are circumstances in which we should permit certain CIC applicants to have their own CICs, notwithstanding a determination that the applicant is owned by (and thus the same entity as) an existing CIC assignee with the maximum permitted CIC assignments. For example, Bell Atlantic Mobile is a CMRS provider owned by the incumbent LEC, Bell Atlantic. Bell Atlantic Mobile does business in the same geographic region, reselling local and long distance service to its wireless subscribers under its own name. If Bell Atlantic begins offering long distance service, it is possible that Bell Atlantic Mobile would compete with its parent, Bell Atlantic. Such affiliated companies, while they may be considered the same "entity," would, in reality, be competing with each other. Requiring the CIC applicant to share the owner's CIC would route all traffic first to the owner before the traffic is segregated. This could place the CIC applicant at a competitive disadvantage because its owner would be provided with the telephone numbers of the CIC applicant's customers. 31. The purpose of this exception to the ownership test would be to address situations in which the denial of a separate CIC assignment to a company could weaken competition in the telecommunications services market. Thus, the proposed exception would protect the public interest and foster the open competition policies underlying the 1996 Act amendments to the Communications Act. We seek comment on whether we should create an exception. Commenters advocating an exception should identify the specific situations that may warrant its application. In addition, we seek comment on how defining "entity" to enable affiliated organizations to obtain separate CICs would affect CIC conservation. 32. CIC Sharing Arrangements. Finally, we seek comment on CIC sharing arrangements in situations when a CIC applicant is determined to be commonly owned by an existing CIC assignee and, thus, part of a single entity. Commenters should discuss: (1) how sharing arrangements would work in practice, for example, how sharing would affect transport, switching, billing, and routing; and (2) how sharing arrangements would affect competition. We seek comment on whether we should require CIC assignees to negotiate, in good faith, sharing arrangements, including with their commonly owned entities, and whether those sharing arrangements must protect both entities' costs and CPNI. Commenters should specifically discuss whether and, if so, how Sections 222 and 251 of the Communications Act, as amended, govern such sharing arrangements. We ask commenters to discuss how a determination that CIC assignees must negotiate sharing arrangements with their commonly owned entities affects CIC conservation and reclamation. In addition, we ask commenters to indicate whether situations may arise in which CIC sharing arrangements would exist between entities that are not commonly owned. C. Conservation 1. Limit on CIC Assignments Per Entity 33. Background. As we noted in the CICs Second Report and Order, conservation measures "have been, and continue to be, used to manage CIC consumption." One of the most recent measures was instituted by the Common Carrier Bureau when, on March 17, 1995, it directed Bellcore to limit CIC assignments to one three or four-digit Feature Group D CIC per applicant until the Bureau could fully investigate the reasons for the precipitous increase in CIC demand. In September 1995, the Bureau modified the CIC conservation plan to permit a carrier to apply to Bellcore for one additional four-digit CIC to be used in a state's intraLATA presubscription process. Thereafter, in October 1995, the Bureau stated that Bellcore should assign only four-digit CICs, and only those from the 5XXX and 6XXX pool. In the recent CICs Second Report and Order, the Commission modified that conservation plan to allow each entity to have two CIC assignments and to remove the condition that second CICs be used only in connection with providing intraLATA toll services. 34. Request for Comment. As previously stated, CICs facilitate competition by enabling callers to use the services of any number of telecommunications service providers and to reach any carrier from any telephone. It is crucial, therefore, that CICs continue to be available for assignment. In the CICs Second Report and Order, the Commission found that the conservation plan, as modified, is necessary during the transition from three to four-digit CICs because abolishing the plan during that period "would likely cause rapid depletion of unassigned four-digit CICs in the 5XXX and 6XXX range and necessitate a flash-cut conversion to four-digit codes." CIC conservation will remain an important consideration once that transition ends. 35. We tentatively conclude that a conservation plan will be necessary to limit the number of CIC assignments an entity may hold when four-digit Feature Group D CICs outside the 5XXX and 6XXX pool are made available at the end of the transition. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and on how many CICs an entity should be allowed under a conservation plan. Commenters should indicate, for example, whether the CIC Assignment Guidelines' limit of 6 CICs per entity should apply in place of the existing conservation plan limit of two CICs per entity, or whether the limit should be another number. Parties should note that comments addressing what uses should be allowed for CICs will affect our determination of that limit. Conversely, the limit on CIC assignments per entity may affect our decision on the uses to which those CICs may be put. It appears that an increase in the number of CICs an entity may be assigned, beyond the current limit of two, would adversely affect conservation efforts. Therefore, we expect parties favoring an increase in this limit to explain thoroughly how this would promote competition among telecommunications providers. Commenters should discuss the specific functions and services that CICs would facilitate. 36. In an effort to encourage efficient use of this scarce numbering resource, we propose requiring that each of an entity's four-digit Feature Group D CIC assignments count toward the limit on the number of CICs that entity may hold, regardless of how those CICs were obtained. This proposal differs from the CIC Assignment Guidelines, which provide that: [T]he maximum number of CICs an entity may be assigned under these guidelines pertains to the number of CICs the administrator may directly assign to that entity. Accordingly, codes obtained via means other than direct assignment by the NANPA are outside the scope of these assignment guidelines and hence, are not included in the maximum code assignment limits. We tentatively conclude that eliminating the distinction between CICs obtained by direct assignment from the NANP administrator and CICs obtained through other means is prudent and reasonable in light of the increased demand for CICs and their importance to meeting the pro-competitive objectives of the 1996 Act. We seek comment on whether this action will eliminate any competitive advantage one entity might enjoy over others as a result of its having a greater number of CICs at its disposal. We also propose that, when processing CIC assignment applications, the NANP administrator require an entity to certify the number of its current CIC assignments, regardless of how those assignments were obtained. We seek comment on these proposals. 37. Transfer of CICs through mergers and acquisitions is a common means by which entities obtain CICs. Section 5.2 of the CIC Assignment Guidelines, addressing the transfer of CICs between entities, notes that "[a]lthough not a formal asset of an entity, a CIC may be transferred to another entity through merger or acquisition as long as the CIC is in use, i.e., . . . FG D access is being reported or can be verified by an access provider." Section 5.2 requires that the NANP administrator be informed of transfers to ensure that the CIC Assignment Guidelines' requirements associated with retention of CICs are satisfied. Under the CIC Assignment Guidelines, CICs obtained by transfer, like other CICs, are subject to reclamation. 38. We propose incorporating Section 5.2 of the CIC Assignment Guidelines into our rules with the following proposed addition: "CICs may not be acquired through transfer if an entity to whom the CIC is being transferred would, as a result of the transfer, have more than the maximum number of CICs allowed per entity." We seek comment on the proposed incorporation of Section 5.2 with our proposed addition. We also seek comment on whether any CICs received by an entity through transfer, that cause the entity to have more than the maximum number of allowed CICs, should revert to the NANP administrator. Specifically, we seek comment on a timeframe within which CICs should revert to the NANP administrator in such situations and on whether there should be an automatic reversion procedure, or whether reversion should occur only after Commission review. Commenters urging exceptions to automatic reversion should identify particular circumstances warranting exception. In addressing these questions, commenters should consider to what extent traffic routing would depend on the CIC and should indicate whether we may need to provide relief for changes in operations that would result from a reversion of the CICs, such as an extension of the time within which reversion to the NANP administrator occurs. 39. In addition, we seek comment on whether, when a predetermined percentage of all four-digit Feature Group D CICs had been assigned, we should institute a conservation plan that would automatically be triggered, and that would lower the cap on the number of CIC assignments per entity. We note that the Commission, in a recent Order addressing toll free codes, stated that a Responsible Organization (RespOrg) could not reserve more than a certain percentage of the toll free numbers available in the spare pool. The Commission noted that this measure "will balance the draw among all RespOrgs when the pool is low, and will conserve numbers while reducing the likelihood of the necessity for 'emergency' action by the Common Carrier Bureau." We ask for comment on what threshold number should trigger an automatic conservation plan and on the number of CICs per entity that should be assigned under this plan. As an alternative to automatically lowering the cap on CIC assignments per entity, we seek comment on whether delegating to the Common Carrier Bureau authority to modify the conservation plan as needed to respond to changes in CIC consumption would be a more effective way to conserve this numbering resource until plans for expanding the length of CIC codes could be implemented. 40. The seven-digit carrier access code format could also support a five-digit CIC, making a transition to five-digit CICs a logical solution once all four-digit CICs have been assigned. Although the costs of converting from a four to a five-digit CIC format will ultimately be borne by subscribers, subscribers benefit from the additional access choices that such an expansion brings. We seek comments weighing the costs against the benefits of a future expansion of CICs from four to five digits. Commenters should discuss whether the Commission should preserve the four-digit CIC format for as long as possible through conservation measures, or remove the limitations on CIC consumption, monitor the four-digit CIC availability and anticipate conversion to a five-digit CIC format as the assignment of the last available four-digit CICs approaches. 2. Limit on Assignable Four-digit CICs 41. Background. Section 1.7 of the CIC Assignment Guidelines discusses the limited number of four-digit Feature Group D CICs available for assignment during the transition (only those in the 5XXX and 6XXX pool). The CIC Assignment Guidelines state: In the future, it is the intent of the industry to open all four-digit FG D 1000s blocks for assignment. The industry will review this intention to verify if all four-digit FG D codes will be made available for assignment, or if it is necessary to restrict such availability to specific 1000s blocks. 42. Request for Comment. The rapid increase in CIC demand necessitated the conservation measures initiated in March, 1995. In light of that experience, we tentatively conclude that continuing to draw four-digit Feature Group D CICs from a discrete pool (such as the pool consisting of numbers between 5000 and 6999 during the transition) beyond the transition would require continuing conservation measures and significantly limit the number of CICs an entity could hold. To avoid this, we propose that all four-digit Feature Group D CICs become available for assignment once the transition ends, rather than our continuing to limit the number of available CICs to a discrete pool (e.g., by only opening up specific 1000s blocks of CICs for assignment). We seek comment on this proposal. 43. In addition, we seek to develop a record to help us and the industry plan future CIC expansion. We ask parties to file any information of which they are aware, and to comment on plans to increase, the length of a CIC from four to five digits or more, or other plans to conserve the number of available CICs. Projections regarding when all four-digit CICs are likely to be assigned would be useful. We intend to use this information in reaching a decision about whether to make all four-digit Feature Group D CICs available for assignment once the transition from three to four-digit CICs ends. 3. Reclamation 44. Background. The CIC Assignment Guidelines define the reclamation process as "[t]he procedure whereby the NANP administrat[or], as maintenance agent for the CIC assignment guidelines, recovers codes which do not meet the requirements specified in the guidelines." Sections 6.1-6.3 of the guidelines set out mandatory reclamation procedures. Section 4.3 encourages the "voluntary return of CICs which are no longer needed by an entity," and Appendix B to the guidelines establishes procedures for the voluntary return of CICs to the NANP administrator. 45. The guidelines governing mandatory return of CICs impose obligations not only on CIC assignees but also on the NANP administrator and the INC. CIC assignees must return CICs that are no longer needed for their original purpose, that were assigned for a now discontinued service, or that have not been used or activated within the prescribed timeframe. Under the CIC Assignment Guidelines, the NANP administrator must contact CIC assignees that have been identified as having such CICs and must refer to the INC for resolution any alleged non-use or misuse of CICs. The INC, in turn, must accept, investigate, review, and attempt to resolve referrals. The INC then must direct the NANP administrator regarding what action, if any, should be taken regarding CIC reclamation. 46. Request for Comment. We believe that steps to prolong the time that there are unassigned four-digit Feature Group D CICs available for assignment to meet the industry's need for such codes is in the public interest, and we tentatively conclude that mandatory reclamation of four-digit Feature Group D CIC could prolong that period. Mandatory reclamation also should ensure that the costs of expanding CICs' lengths are not incurred prematurely because some CIC assignees fail either to use their CICs or to return them voluntarily to the NANP administrator. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We also tentatively conclude that mandatory reclamation procedures should be codified, and hence enforceable, and seek comment on the form and content of such rules. In light of the changed structure of NANP administration following the inception of the NANC, we propose that the NANP administrator assume all functions associated with the reclamation process, and refer any disputes to the NANC. We seek comment on this proposal. We tentatively conclude that our proposal is consistent with the role the Commission has defined for the NANC. In addition, we seek comment on whether we should incorporate Section 6.1 of the CIC Assignment Guidelines specifying the situations in which CIC assignees must return CICs. 47. We also seek comment on other aspects of the reclamation process. For example, the CIC Assignment Guidelines state that if a CIC assignee does not begin to use its CIC within four months of the date of code assignment the NANP administrator would commence reclamation procedures. The NANP may learn of a CIC assignee's failure to use its CIC through (1) the NANP administrator's failure to receive the activation form associated with the CIC that the NANP administrator provides to the CIC assignee at the time of the assignment and which instructs the assignee to send back the activation form to the NANP administrator when usage is established; or (2) the semi-annual access usage reports filed by the LECs under the CIC Assignment Guidelines. Under the CIC Assignment Guidelines, to commence reclamation procedures, the NANP administrator would inquire as to the status of the CIC and, "if appropriate," send the entity a certified letter initiating the reclamation process. The letter would state that the NANP administrator intends to reclaim the CIC at the expiration of 60 days if access service has not been initiated by that date. We ask whether the Commission should codify this practice. 48. In its capacity as NANP administrator, Bellcore indicates that the process of requiring access service associated with a CIC to be initiated within four months "has been effective." Nonetheless, Bellcore notes that numerous extensions have been requested by CIC assignees receiving initial reclamation letters. Bellcore indicates that if a CIC assignee demonstrates compelling circumstances, Bellcore would grant the assignee a 90-day extension of time in which to initiate access service. Bellcore notes that it has not kept records of the number of extensions requested or granted. 49. We seek comment on whether four-month maximum for initiating usage of a CIC has worked effectively and should continue. We ask parties to comment on whether the four-month maximum in the CIC Assignment Guidelines is the appropriate time period for the initiation of access service and whether we should incorporate it in our rules. Those parties asserting that the four-month period is unreasonable should suggest alternative periods within which it would be reasonable to expect that an assigned CIC will be used. We also ask parties to comment on circumstances that would justify extensions of the time period for commencing access service. 50. We also seek comment on the appropriate time period within which the NANP administrator must make CIC assignments. The CIC Assignment Guidelines require the NANP administrator to assign a CIC within 10 working days of its receiving a request from an access provider. We tentatively conclude that this requirement is reasonable and we propose to codify it. 51. Finally, we ask parties to comment on the six-month idle period called for in Sections 4.2 (for involuntary reclamation) and 4.3 (for voluntary reclamation) of the CIC Assignment Guidelines and to suggest alternatives periods, if appropriate. Bellcore, as NANP administrator, indicates that the six-month period both minimizes customer confusion and mitigates the likelihood of multiple assignment of the same code. We note that numbering changes, such as CIC reassignments, affect many parties, including callers, carriers, and equipment owners. Those commenters suggesting alternatives to the six-month idle period should discuss how their alternative would better address these interests. 3. Usage Reporting Requirements 52. Background. Section 7.2 of the CIC Assignment Guidelines requires the NANP administrator to "monitor the CIC assignment rate level, predict the potential for exhaust, and report its findings to the industry." This requirement is intended to assist the industry in determining when a formal conservation plan and associated measures are needed. The guidelines request that LECs and other entities with CICs provide the NANP administrator with semi-annual access and usage information for four-digit CICs. 53. Request for Comment. We believe that monitoring and reporting on CIC usage will significantly aid the industry's and this Commission's joint effort to conserve CICs. Accordingly, we propose to codify the requirement now appearing in Section 7.2 that the NANP administrator monitor CIC usage. We also propose that the CIC Assignment Guidelines' semi-annual access and usage reporting requirements for Feature Group D CICs be imposed on all incumbent LECs and CIC assignees and that this information be filed with the NANP administrator. In addition, we propose requiring that the NANP administrator file, also on a semi-annual basis, a report with the Commission based on the information the former receives from the incumbent LECs and CIC assignees in their semi-annual reports, and that it include any information obtained as a result of its monitoring CIC usage. We seek comment on the information that should be required under our proposed reporting requirements. We request that parties discuss the specific requirements for semi-annual access and usage reports for four-digit CICs in Appendix A of the CIC Assignment Guidelines, as well as other reporting requirements that we should consider. We tentatively conclude that our proposed reporting requirements will: (1) impose minimum burdens on businesses, including small businesses; and (2) ensure CIC availability to current and new small business competitors, thereby serving the goals of section 257 of the Act, as amended, and offsetting any burdens of the reporting requirements. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. D. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 1. Ex Parte Presentations 54. This is a permit-but-disclose notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206. Written submissions, however, will be limited as discussed below. 2. Regulatory Flexibility Act 55. See Appendix A, infra for the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. 3. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 56. This FNPRM contains proposed information collections. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in this FNPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this FNPRM; OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication of this FNPRM in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collections 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. 4. Comment Filing Procedures 57. General Requirements. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before November 24, 1997 and reply comments on or before December 22, 1997. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original and six copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original and 11 copies. Comments and reply comments should be sent to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 222, Washington, D.C. 20554, with a copy to Carmell Weathers of the Common Carrier Bureau, 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 221, Washington, D.C. 20554. 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, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 1919 M Street, N.W., room 239, Washington, D.C. 20554. 58. Paperwork Reduction Act Comments. Written comments by the public on the proposed information collections are due on November 24, 1997. Written comments must be submitted by the OMB on the proposed information collections on or before 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register. 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 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 - 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov. 59. Other requirements. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and reply comments must also comply with Section 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the Commissions rules. We also direct all interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. Comments and reply comments also must clearly identify the specific portion of this FNPRM to which a particular comment or set of comments is responsive. If a portion of a party's comments does not fall under a particular topic listed in the outline of this FNPRM, such comments must be included in a clearly labelled section at the beginning or end of the filing. 60. Parties are also asked to submit comments and reply comments on diskette. Such diskette submissions would be in addition to and not a substitute for the formal filing requirements addressed above. Parties submitting diskettes should submit them to Carmell Weathers, Network Services Division, 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 235, Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and WordPerfect 5.1 software. The diskette should be submitted in "read only" mode. The diskette should be clearly labelled with the party's name, proceeding, type of pleading (comment or reply comments) and date of submission. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter. IV. ORDER: NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CIC ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES 61. In the NANP Order, the Commission adopted a new model for administration of the NANP resources used in the United States by announcing its intent to establish the NANC under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The NANC, which held its first meeting on October 1, 1996, was created to advise the Commission on numbering issues, select and guide a neutral NANP administrator, apply Commission policy to resolve issues arising in the administration of the NANP, and conduct initial dispute resolution. As noted above, operation of this model is guided by several overriding principles, including maintaining and fostering an integrated approach to number administration and establishing a structure for number administration that is impartial and pro-competitive. 62. The NANC recently asked the INC to review the industry's CIC Assignment Guidelines for the purpose of identifying and remedying "ambiguities that have or might lead to difficulty in administration and application." The NANC asked the INC to "bring to the NANC for resolution those ambiguities which reflect unreconciled policy disputes," and to report the results of its actions at the NANC meeting on June 10, 1997. As noted above, in a letter dated August 14, 1997, the NANC asked the Commission to consider the issue of the definition of "entity." 63. We direct the NANC to present to the Commission, no later than December 15, 1997, the NANC's recommendations on the tentative conclusions and proposals in the FNPRM, supra, including any alternatives to them. The NANC's recommendations (including any recommended rules or recommended resolutions of ambiguities or policy disputes) should address, for example, how to define "entity" and whether CIC conservation measures such as a limit on cic assignments per entity, a limit on the total number of four-digit CICs available for assignment, and mandatory cic reclamation procedures, are needed to meet the Commission's numbering policy goals. This will permit the Commission to review the NANC's recommendations concurrently with the comments received to this FNPRM and to perform our analysis of both in a timely and efficient way. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 64. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201-205, 218 and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 218 and 251(e)(1), that the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby ADOPTED. 65. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201-205, 218 and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 218 and 251(e)(1), that the North American Numbering Council present to the Commission, no later than December 15, 1997, the NANC's recommendations on CIC use and assignment, as discussed herein. 66. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Managing Director SHALL SEND a copy of the Second 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 William F. Caton Acting Secretary APPENDIX A: INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected economic impact on small entities by the policies and proposals in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in the Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, Carrier Identification Codes (CICs). 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 the submission of comments in this proceeding. A copy of this FNPRM, including the IRFA, shall be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C.  603(a). In addition, this FNPRM and IRFA will be published in the Federal Register. See id. A. Need for and Objectives of Proposed Rules 2. The FNPRM continues the Commission's analysis of issues related to carrier identification code (CIC) use and assignment. The FNPRM seeks comment on the use and application of Feature Group D CICs, the CICs that are used to provide equal access. The FNPRM also seeks comment on the definition of "entity" used to determine eligibility to receive a CIC and on CIC conservation issues, such as: (1) the limit on CIC assignments per entity; (2) the limit on assignable four-digit CICs; (3) CIC reclamation; and (4) usage reporting requirements. In seeking comments, the FNPRM identifies certain issues related to CIC use and assignment for which it proposes rules. Many of these issues currently are addressed in the CIC Assignment Guidelines, developed by the industry for the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) administrator. The Commission's intention here is not to propose modifications to the existing guidelines, but rather to propose new Commission rules to govern CIC use and assignment. The Commission's actions here are part of an effort to ensure fair and efficient overall administration of numbering resources; to foster an integrated approach to numbering administration across NANP member countries; and to enable this Commission and regulatory bodies of other nations to ensure that domestic numbering administration is effective through reliance upon the expertise and innovative efforts of industry. B. Legal Basis 3. Authority for actions proposed in this FNPRM may be found in: Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201-205, 218 and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 218 and 251(e)(1). C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 4. The RFA generally defines "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction" and 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. Under the Small Business Act, a "small business concern" is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA has defined companies listed under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (radiotelephone communications) and 4813 (telephone communications, except radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have 1500 or fewer employees. These standards also apply in determining whether an entity is a small business for purposes of the RFA. 5. Because the small incumbent LECs that would be subject to these proposals are either dominant in their field of operations or are not independently owned and operated, consistent with our prior practice, they are excluded from the definition of "small entity" and "small business concerns." Accordingly, our use of the terms "small entities" and "small businesses" does not encompass small incumbent LECs. Out of an abundance of caution, however, for regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will consider small incumbent LECs within this analysis and use the term "small incumbent LECs" to refer to any incumbent LECs that arguably might be defined by SBA as "small business concerns." 6. The proposals made by the Commission in this FNPRM may apply to a variety of entities listed below. 7. Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of local exchange services. The closest applicable definition is that under SBA rules for telephone communications, except radiotelephone, SIC 4813, which defines a small entity as one with 1500 or fewer employees. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of LECs nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). According to our most recent data, 1,347 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange service. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with any more certainty the number of LECs that would qualify as small business concerns. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,347 small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the proposals in this FNPRM. 8. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of interexchange services (IXCs). The closest applicable definition is that under SBA rules for telephone communications, except radiotelephone, SIC 4813. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of IXCs nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with TRS. According to our most recent data, 130 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of interexchange services, and 30 companies reported they were engaged in "other" toll services. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of IXCs that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 130 small entity IXCs and 30 "other" toll carriers that may be affected by the proposals in this FNPRM. 9. Wireless Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of wireless services. The closest applicable definition is that under SBA rules for radiotelephone communications, SIC 4812, which defines a small entity as one with 1500 or fewer employees. The 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, conducted by the Bureau of the Census, shows that only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,176 such firms that operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. Therefore, even if all 12 of these large firms were radiotelephone companies, all of the remainder were small businesses under the SBA's definition. We assume that, for purposes of our evaluations and conclusions in the FRFA, all of the current radiotelephone licensees are small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA. 10. Cellular and Mobile Radio Telephone Service. In an effort to further refine our calculation of the number of radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the proposals herein, we consider the categories of radiotelephone carriers, Cellular Service Carriers and Mobile Service Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to Cellular Service Carriers and to Mobile Service Carriers. The closest applicable definition under SBA rules for both services is for telephone companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of Cellular Service Carriers and Mobile Service Carriers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with the TRS. According to our most recent data, 792 companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of cellular services and 138 companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of mobile services. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of Cellular Service Carriers and Mobile Service Carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 792 small entity Cellular Service Carriers and fewer than 138 small entity Mobile Service Carriers that might be affected by the proposals in this FNPRM. We assume that all of the current rural cellular and mobile licensees are small businesses. 11. Personal Communications Service. The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined "small entity'' for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional classification for "very small business" was added and is defined as an entity that, together with their affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These regulations defining "small entity'' in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40% of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. Licenses for blocks C through F. however, have not been awarded fully, therefore there are few, if any, small businesses currently providing PCS services. Based on this information, we conclude that the number of small broadband PCS licensees will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and the 93 qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, for a total of 183 small PCS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules. 12. Paging and Radiotelephone Service, and Private Land Mobile Radio Services, Paging Operations. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers paging services. The closest applicable definition is that under SBA rules for radiotelephone communications, SIC 4812, which defines a small entity as one with 1500 or fewer employees. The Commission anticipates that a total of 15,531 non-nationwide geographic area licenses will be granted or auctioned. The geographic area licenses will consist of 3,050 MTA licenses and 12,481 EA licenses. In addition to the 47 Rand McNally MTAs, the Commission is licensing Alaska as a separate MTA and adding three MTAs for the U.S. territories, for a total of 51 MTAs. No auctions of paging licenses have been held yet, and there is no basis to determine the number of licenses that will be awarded to small entities. Because nearly all radiotelephone companies have fewer than 1,000 employees, and no reliable estimate of the number of prospective paging licensees can be made, we assume, for purposes of this FRFA, that all the 15,531 geographic area paging licenses will be awarded to small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA. We estimate that the approximately 600 current paging carriers could partition or disaggregate a license or take the opportunity to obtain an additional license through partitioning or disaggregation. We estimate that up to 48,393 licensees or potential licensees could take the opportunity to partition or disaggregate a license or obtain a license through partitioning or disaggregation. This estimate is based on the total estimate of paging carriers (approximately 600) and non- nationwide geographic area licenses to be awarded (15,531) and our estimate that each license will probably not be partitioned or disaggregated among more than three parties. Because nearly all radiotelephone companies have fewer than 1,000 employees, and no reliable estimate of the number of future paging licensees can be made, we assume for purposes of this FRFA that all of the licensees will be awarded to small businesses. We believe that it is possible that a significant number of the estimated 48,393 licensees or potential licensees who could take the opportunity to partition or disaggregate a license or who could obtain a license through partitioning or disaggregation will be a small business. 13. Competitive Access Providers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of competitive access services (CAPs). The closest applicable definition is that under SBA rules for telephone communications, except radiotelephone, SIC 4813, which defines a small entity as one with 1500 or fewer employees. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of CAPs nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with TRS. According to our most recent data 57 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of competitive access services. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of CAPS that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 57 small entity CAPS that may be affected by the proposals in this FNPRM. 14. Operator Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of operator services. The closest applicable definition is that under SBA rules for telephone communications, except radiotelephone, SIC 4813. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of operator service providers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with TRS. According to our most recent data 25 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of operator services. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of operator service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 25 small entity operator service providers that may be affected by the proposals in this FNPRM. 15. Pay Telephone Operators. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of pay telephone operator services. The closest applicable definition is that under SBA rules for telephone communications, except radiotelephone, SIC 4813. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of pay telephone operators nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with TRS. According to our most recent data, 271 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of pay telephone services. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of pay telephone operators that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 271 pay telephone operators that may be affected by the proposals in this FNPRM. 16. Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entity specifically applicable to resellers. The closest applicable definition is that under SBA rules for all telephone communications companies, SIC 4812 and SIC 4813, combined, both of which define a small entity as one with 1500 or fewer employees. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of resellers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with TRS. According to our most recent data, 260 companies reported that they were engaged in the resale of telephone services. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of resellers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 260 small entity resellers that may be affected by the proposals in this FNPRM. 17. Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturers. The SBA classifies manufacturers of telecommunications equipment in two categories, one for wireless and another for wireline. 18. Wireline Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific definition of small entities applicable to manufacturers of wireline telecommunications equipment. Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition of manufacturers of Telephone and Telegraph Apparatus. According to the SBA's regulations, a small entity must have 1000 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern. Census Bureau data indicates that there are 479 U.S. firms that manufacture telephone and telegraph equipment, and that 436 of these firms have fewer than 1000 employees and would be classified as small entities. The Census Bureau category is very broad, and specific figures are not available as to how many of these firms are manufacturers of wireline telecommunications equipment that would be subject to these proposals or how many are independently owned and operated. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 436 small manufacturers of wireline telecommunications equipment. 19. Wireless Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific definition of small entities applicable to manufacturers of wireless telecommunications equipment. Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition of manufacturers of Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications Equipment. According to the SBA's regulations, a small entity must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern. Census Bureau data indicates that there are 858 U.S. firms that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would be classified as small entities. The Census Bureau category is very broad, and specific figures are not available as to how many of these firms are manufacturers of wireless telecommunications equipment or how many are independently owned and operated. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 778 small manufacturers of wireless telecommunications equipment. 20. Fire and Burglar Equipment Manufacturers. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to manufacturers of fire and burglar alarm equipment. We will utilize the SBA classification of such manufacturers under Communications Equipment Not Elsewhere Classified. This definition provides that a small entity is an alarm equipment manufacturer employing 750 or less persons. Census Bureau data indicates that there are 498 U.S. firms that manufacture alarm equipment, and that 469 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would be classified as small entities. The Census Bureau category is very broad, and includes manufacturers of other equipment such as traffic signalling and intercommunications equipment. Specific figures are not available as to how many of these firms produce alarm equipment or how many are independently owned and operated. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 469 small manufacturers of alarm equipment that may be affected by the proposals in this FNPRM. 21. Alarm Service Providers. The SBA has developed a definition of alarm service providers (SIC 7382) which are entities that are primarily engaged in the monitoring and maintenance of security systems devices, such as burglar and fire alarms. According to the SBA, a small security system provider must have $9 million or less in annual receipts. Census Bureau data reports that there were 2,190 security system service providers with $7.499 million or less in annual receipts and 2,200 with less than $9.999 million in annual receipts. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that there are approximately 2,190 small security system service providers that may be affected by the proposals in this FNPRM. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 22. In the FNPRM, the Commission proposes to codify the requirement now appearing in Section 7.2 of the CIC Assignment Guidelines that the NANP administrator monitor CIC usage. The FNPRM also proposes that the CIC Assignment Guidelines' semi- annual access and usage reporting requirements for Feature Group D CICs be imposed on all incumbent LECs and CIC assignees and that this information be filed with the NANP administrator. In addition, the FNPRM proposes requiring that the NANP administrator file, also on a semi-annual basis, a report with the Commission based on the information the former receives from the incumbent LECs and CIC assignees in their semi-annual reports, and that the NANP administrator include any information obtained as a result of its monitoring CIC usage. The FNPRM seeks comment on the information that should be required under the proposed reporting requirements. The FNPRM requests that parties discuss the specific requirements for semi-annual access and usage reports for four-digit CICs in Appendix A of the CIC Assignment Guidelines, as well as other reporting requirements that the Commission should consider. The FNPRM tentatively concludes that the proposed reporting requirements will: (1) impose minimum burdens on businesses, including small businesses; and (2) ensure CIC availability to current and new small business competitors, thereby serving the goals of section 257 of the Act, as amended, and offsetting any burdens of the reporting requirements. The FNPRM seeks comment on this tentative conclusion. We seek further comment here on whether small entities will have additional burdens imposed as a result of these proposed requirements. We believe that monitoring and reporting on CIC usage will significantly aid the industry's and this Commission's joint effort to conserve CICs. See FNPRM at paras. 52- 53. E. Steps Taken to Minimize Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered 23. The proposals in the FNPRM, and the comments the Commission seeks regarding them, initiate the Commission's analysis of issues related to allocation of a scarce numbering resource. The recent increased demand for CICs and the changing competitive environment have prompted the Commission to consider adopting rules to govern CIC use and assignment that are crucial to facilitating competition. The proposals in the FNPRM are intended to continue the Commission's efforts, begun with the establishment of the NANC, to maintain and foster an integrated approach to number administration and to establish a structure for number administration that is impartial and pro-competitive. A nationwide, uniform system of numbering is essential to the efficient delivery of interstate and international telecommunications. See FNPRM at para. 11. To gather relevant information from all interested parties, including small business entities, about allocation of this scarce numbering resource, we seek comment on a wide array of issues and ask that commenters suggest alternatives to our proposals. We tentatively conclude that our proposals in the FNPRM would impose minimum burdens on small entities. We seek comment on these proposals and the impact they may have on small entities. F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 24. None.