WPC 2BVWZ 3|C cpi)?xxx,;Xx6X@JQX@HP LaserJet IIISiPostScriptHPLAIISI.WRSx  @,,,G# X@2zC ZS3G3|C HP LaserJet IIISiPostScriptHPLAIISI.WRSC\  P6Q,,,G# P I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)2Zheading 1heading 1C9#g2PQP# #X P7XP#heading 2heading 2F<#XX2PQXP#  #X P7XP#heading 3heading 3heading 4heading 4C9#XP\  P6QXP##X P7XP#2nl2heading 5heading 5;1#&Q2PQ&P##X P7XP#heading 6heading 6>4#&Q2PQ&P##X P7XP#heading 7heading 7;1#I2PQP##X P7XP#Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font 2  v  v footnote textfootnote text ;1#I2PQP##X P7XP#Normal IndentNormal Indent  footnote referencefootnote reference 4#C\  P6QP#a8DocumentgDocument Style Style XX` `  ` 2) p> k k  a4DocumentgDocument Style Style  . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2v[ t Ea7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersC @` A. ` ` (#` 2{[a3DocumentgDocument Style StyleB b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersL! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersUj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2uEa6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2P  .a1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style <6  ?  A.   2!"#[$a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style!9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style"8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style#F!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style$(@D i) . 2"%&3['(!a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style%(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Style&z   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper'E!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:*7*8+Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g50     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g6J` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g7S` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g8\` ` `  @hhh hhh 2/9w,:6-;-<.Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g9e` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g:n` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g;w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g@0?0@a1Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g=&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g>&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g?*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g@''(   2v4A(2B2Cl3D3Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gA&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gB4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gC&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gD&/0  . 2uCEv 4FoAGAHi BMACNormalE;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#FootnoteFÍčfootnote tex#G'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#headerHAx 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2pHICJ~:DKiELO!GreferenceI;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1J&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2KI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!L!!#d\  PCP#2tKM HNIOrpJPJCitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileMW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentNiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#a2AgendaOa1AgendaAgenda ItemsP7D yP ) I. 2NQrKRLSLTjMa3AgendaQHeadingChapter HeadingRJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingT0\ E A.  2tQUd2NVNWOX1CPHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddU+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateV X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offW@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5X 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   2UY1QZ1R[1T\n9ULEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5Yf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11ZL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14[ 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a Document\K\ * ă2GY]U^dZV_jV`(WBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented]N X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large^B*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored_ V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins`u H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   2[^aEyYb-Zc8[d8#]INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoicea ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatbD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoicec:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macrodz 4p, $0$002 PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5o$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIpJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2mqljrIlslt|qmStyle 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabsq )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsrDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fonts4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5t$ )^ `> XifQ 2uunvnw_oxoStyle 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointu$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5v$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointw$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advancedx U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2ry8uz?z{D| ZStyle 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggyi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediatez )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Module{ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 MACDocument|4     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP##u\4 PXP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# ,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP##:}D4PXP#2}~}pupara numnumbered indented paragraphs}' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.Ҳa1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf~$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf:` ` `  2:ؕ5a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfE` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfP  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrff  2N&vvfrܙa8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfq heading 8heading 8 endnote textendnote text endnote referenceendnote reference 2ڠtoc 1toc 1` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#toc 2toc 2` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#toc 3toc 3` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#toc 4toc 4` hp x (# (# (#` hp x (#2*Hvfܧtoc 5toc 5` hp x (#h(#h(#` hp x (#toc 6toc 6` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#toc 7toc 7 toc 8toc 8` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#2,Jhtoc 9toc 9` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#index 1index 1` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#2vvֲlLZdcaptioncaption _Equation Caption_Equation Caption 1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .2+Sfootnote refK&7>footnote referenceGw) "7>NGI "+WXpage numberK&7>page number"Gw* "7>NGI "(YZDefault ParaK&7>Default Paragraph Fontw+ "7>NGI "([(\endnote refeK&7>endnote referenceGw- "7>NGI "+_+`23)۸mannotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "2c(d2G2*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "8ij@  3G3*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Akl@` ` `  ` ` ` 2:޺A4G4*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Jmn` ` ` @  ` ` ` 5G5*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Sop` ` `  @  6G6*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "\qr` ` `  @hhh hhh 7G7*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "est` ` `  hhh@ hhh 22p˾;8G8*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "nuv` ` `  hhh@  9G9*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "wwx` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 10G0*(Q&7tDocument Style Gl0 "7t GI "קGH` ` ` 11G1*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ר4I$J     2gN12G2*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ש*KL    13G3*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ת'MN   14G4*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׫&OP   15G5*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׬&QR  . 2(16G6*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׭&ST  . 17G7*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׮&UV  . 18G8*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ׯ&WX  . 19G9*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "װ8YZ@  2+20G:*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "ױA[\@` ` `  ` ` ` 21G;*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "ײJ]^` ` ` @  ` ` ` 22G<*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׳S_`` ` `  @  23G=*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "״\ab` ` `  @hhh hhh 2G24G>*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׵ecd` ` `  hhh@ hhh 25G?*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׶nef` ` `  hhh@  26G@*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׷wgh` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 27wSg K6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJmn` ` @  ` `  2Q28wSg L6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ESop` `  @  29wSg M6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\qr` `  @hh# hhh 30wSg N6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Eest` `  hh#@( hh# 31wSg O6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Enuv` `  hh#(@- ( 2 pK32wSg P6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ewwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 33wSg R6w Document Style=(H8g Rܺ*HںwSg E{|` ` ` 34wSg S6w Technical Document Styleg Sܺ*HںwSg E4}$~     35wSg T6w Technical Document Styleg Tܺ*HںwSg E*    2^w36wSg U6w Technical Document Styleg Uܺ*HںwSg E'   37wSg V6w Technical Document Styleg Vܺ*HںwSg E&   38wSg W6w Technical Document Styleg Wܺ*HںwSg E&  . 39wSg X6w Technical Document Styleg Xܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2e.840wSg Y6w Technical Document Styleg Yܺ*HںwSg E&  . 41wSg Z6w Technical Document Styleg Zܺ*HںwSg E&  . 42wSg [6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   43wSg \6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2];44wSg ]6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  45wSg ^6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  46wSg _6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 47wSg `6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2W(48wSg a6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 49wSg b6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 50wSg c6w Document Style=(H8g cܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  51wSg d6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  2e52wSg e6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  53wSg f6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 54wSg g6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 55wSg h6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 2ap56wSg i6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 57wSg j6w Document Style=(H8g jܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 58wSg k6w Technical Document Styleg kܺ*HںwSg E4$     59wSg l6w Technical Document Styleg lܺ*HںwSg E*    2(A60wSg m6w Technical Document Styleg mܺ*HںwSg E'   61wSg n6w Technical Document Styleg nܺ*HںwSg E&   62wSg o6w Technical Document Styleg oܺ*HںwSg E&  . 63wSg p6w Technical Document Styleg pܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2/}64wSg q6w Technical Document Styleg qܺ*HںwSg E&  . 65wSg r6w Technical Document Styleg rܺ*HںwSg E&  . 66wSg s6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   67wSg t6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2'ah68wSg u6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  69wSg v6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  70wSg w6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 71wSg x6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2?Y!72wSg y6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 73wSg z6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 74wSg {6w Document Style=(H8g {ܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  75wSg |6w Document Style=(H8g |ܺ*HںwSg E*   2Aqqewe76wSg }6w Document Style=(H8g }ܺ*HںwSg E0    77wSg ~6w Document Style=(H8g ~ܺ*HںwSg E  . 78wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  79wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  2pspS80wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 81wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 82wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E4$     83wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E*    2f84wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E'   85wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&   86wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 87wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2m6@88wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 89wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 90wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   91wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2eC92wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  93wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  94wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 95wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2_X0@96wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 97wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp y.C8*,/C\  P6QP<y.G8*,`G4  pQ7PC2,CXP\  P6QXP<7UC2,XU4  pQX"5@^*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ*7777BE7TTxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/xTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxJxTxTxTxTxT\TxTxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TAxTf/fExTxTxTxo7oE\A\AN:*KT7JTTTTT.3}}T2T}277JJT77TT7J72t7[[[[^ee*B`^-wSTTn[Cfx`xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwhe*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ7TJTT7\777JJ:T7A7xx*7TTTT!T7.T^7TB[227`K*723T}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx\TJJJJJJoJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTTT2@@:@zR"5@^*7\TT/77T_*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77___TxoxxofAToxfx\oxxxxo7/7aT7T\J\J7T\/7\/\T\\JA7\TxTTJB%BW*7777BE7T\xTxTxTxTxTxxJoJoJoJoJA/A/A/A/x\TTTTx\x\x\x\xTxTx\TTxTxTf\xTxTxTxJxJxJoJoJoJTTTT\\B\A\A7A\T\o/oEx\x\TxxJxJ\A\AN:*ZT7TTTTTT27}}T2}}T}277TTT77TT7T72t7[[[[_ee*B`_-wSTTn[Cfx`xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwhe*7\TT/77T_*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77___TxoxxofAToxfx\oxxxxo7/7aT7T\J\J7T\/7\/\T\\JA7\TxTTJB%BW7TTTT7\777TT:T7A7xx*7TTTT%T7}2T_7}TB[227`Z*727T}}}TxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf\TTTTTTxJJJJJ////T\TTTTT[T\\\\T\"5@^2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Boddȧ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BB!BBPRBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNBNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldBdddddd&"Ԍ X2` ` 1. ,Ex Parte PresentationsppX  xx 54  X2` ` 2. ,Regulatory Flexibility ActppX  xx 55  X2` ` 3.  ,Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis  xx 56  X-x` ` 4. Comment Filing Procedureshpp  xx57  X-IV.xOrder: North American Numbering Council Recommendations  xx61  X-XxRegarding CIC Assignment Guidelines   X_-V.xOrdering Clauseshh@hpp  xx64 APPENDICES  X -Appendix A:` ` Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  X - I. xINTRODUCTION  X-x1.` ` 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  X4-route traffic to such customers.x4: yO- xxԍ Access providers are typically incumbent local exchange carriers that provide access customers with circuits  xthat interconnect to the local carrier's public switched telephone network. Commission rules require that "interstate  x-access services should be made available on a nondiscriminatory basis and, as far as possible, without distinction  yO- xbetween end user and IC [interexchange carrier] customers." Petition of First Data Resources, Inc., Regarding the  yO- xAvailability of Feature Group B Access Service to End Users, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 1986 WL 291786,  yO- x(rel. May 28, 1986) (First Data Resources Order) at para. 13. Typical access customers include interexchange carriers, wireless carriers, competitive access providers, and large corporate users. 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 longdistance 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 sevendigit carrier access code, or CAC, ("101XXXX") for which the last four digits ("XXXX") are that  X-carrier's unique fourdigit Feature Group D CIC.)@: yOc - x č Feature Group D access, or "equal access," is known in the industry as "Oneplus" ("1+") dialing. This type  xof access allows calls to be routed directly to the caller's carrier of choice. Feature Group D/equal access offers  xfeatures, including presubscription, not generally available through other forms of access. With threedigit Feature  xLGroup D CICs, the CAC is five digits ("10XXX"), with the last three digits ("XXX") representing the chosen  x;carrier's assigned CIC. For example, AT&T has "288" as its threedigit CIC. Existing threedigit CICs become four  xdigits by adding a "0" before the threedigit CIC. "0288" would, therefore, become AT&T's fourdigit CIC.  yO%- xlThroughout this FNPRM, we use the terms "threedigit Feature Group D CICs" and "threedigit CICs" interchangeably, and "fourdigit Feature Group D CICs" and "fourdigit CICs" interchangeably.) ",N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X-x2.` ` In this FNPRM , we seek comment on the use and application of Feature Group  X-D CICs, the CICs that are used to provide equal access. : yOb- xԍ See n.2, supra, for an explanation of equal access. We do not address issues related to Feature Group B CICs  yO*- xin this FNPRM because these codes are of more limited utility and less technically desirable than Feature Group D  x=CICs. As a result, there is less demand for Feature Group B CICs and expansion from three to four digits was relatively simple. 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 fourdigit CICs; (3) CIC reclamation; and (4) usage reporting requirements. For some of these  X-issues, the FNPRM proposes rules. Many of these issues are already addressed in the CIC  Xv-Assignment Guidelines, developed by the industry for the North American Numbering Plan  X_-(NANP) administrator._: yO - xԍ The NANP is the basic numbering scheme for the telecommunications networks located in Anguilla, Antigua,  xBahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Dominican Republic,  xYGrenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Turks & Caicos Islands, Trinidad & Tobago,  xJand the United States (including Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern  xMariana Islands). The NANP administrator assigns CICs using guidelines developed by the industry. These  xguidelines were established by the Industry Carriers Compatibility Forum (ICCF), operating under the Alliance for  xTelecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), Carrier Liaison Committee (CLC). In January 1997, the ICCF  x,became part of the Network Interconnection Interoperability Forum (NIIF), which also operates under the auspices  yO- x<of the CLC. The most recent version of the guidelines was issued in September 1996. See Carrier Identification  yO- xCode Assignment Guidelines, INC 950127006, formerly ICCF 920726002, Revision September 1996 (CIC  yO-Assignment Guidelines, September 1996). 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.  X1-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  X -conclusions and proposals in the FNPRM, supra, including any alternatives to them. The NANC's recommendations (including any recommended rules or recommended resolutions of  X -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 fourdigit 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  X-efforts of industry.: yO"-ԍ See Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 2588,  yO#-para. 25 (1995) (NANP Order). "h,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X- _II.xBACKGROUND  X-x A. Expansion from Three to Fourdigit Carrier Identification Codes  X-x3.` ` Over the past two decades, through a series of proceedings, the Commission has developed policies to foster competition in interstate telecommunications. Among these  Xv-_has been its policy governing the management of CICs. v: yO- xԍ See generally, Exchange Network Facilities for Interstate access (ENFIA) Memorandum Opinion and Order,  yO- x71 FCC 2d 440 (1979) (ENFIA Order); MTS and WATS Market Structure, Report and Third Supplemental Notice  yO - x;of Inquiry and Proposed Rulemaking, 81 FCC 2d 177 (1980) (Market Structure Order); Economic Implications and  x Interrelationships Arising from Policies and Practices Relating to Customer Interconnection, Jurisdictional Separations  yO - xand Practices Relating to Customer Interconnection, Jurisdictional Separations and Rate Structures, Second Report, 5 FCC 2d 506 (1980).  In a Second Report and Order in  X_-this docket released April 11, 1997,_X_@: yOP- xԍ See Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, Carrier Identification Codes (CICs), Second  yO- xReport and Order, CC Docket No. 92237, FCC 97125 (rel. Apr. 11, 1997), recon. pending (CICs Second Report  yO-and Order)._ the Commission affirmed the NPRM's_` : yOp- xԍ See Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd  yO8-2068 (1994) (NPRM). tentative  XH-conclusion that an industry plan to expand Feature Group D CICs from three to four digits,O H : yO- xԍ In 1988, the ICCF began to develop a twopart plan to convert and expand threedigit CICs (both Feature  x<Groups B and D) to four digits. The second part of the plan, originally scheduled to occur in the third quarter of  x1993, contemplated expansion of threedigit Feature Group D CICs to four digits and eventual elimination of the  yO - x10XXX CAC format. See Letter from G.J. Handler, Vice President, Network Planning, Bellcore, to Richard M.  xFirestone, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (October 13, 1989) at p. 2. In 1994  yO-the planned time for the expansion of Feature Group D CICs was the first quarter of 1995. See NPRM at para. 48.O in anticipation of all the threedigit 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 fourdigit Feature Group D CICs, and from five to sevendigit 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  X -the steps necessary for a total conversion.Q X 0: yO- xԍ During the transition, callers may dial either five or sevendigit CACs (for example, for AT&T either "10288"  xor "1010288"). Once the transition ends, however, callers can reach a carrier only by dialing its sevendigit CAC in which a fourdigit CIC is embedded.Q The Commission found that, because of the changing circumstances and increase in demand for Feature Group D CICs since the record in  X-this docket closed in 1994,Q XP: yO$-Ѝ Demand for CICs has grown for two principal reasons. First, the number of carriers providing telecommunications services, and thus requiring CICs, has grown. Second, carriers are using CICs for an  yO!&-increasing number of purposes. See paras. 47, infra.Q the transition should end as soon as practicable. Moreover, we concluded that a twoyear and ninemonth transition would serve the overall procompetitive"yp ,N(N(ZZ"  X-purposes of the Communications Act, as amended. : yOy- xKԍ The transition began on April 1, 1995, the day after assignment of the last threedigit CIC, and, under the  yOA-CICs Second Report and Order, will end of January 1, 1998. 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  Xv-allow each entity to have two CIC assignments.z v : yOG -ԍ For a description of CIC conservation measures, see para. 33, infra.z VarTec Telecom, Inc. (VarTec) filed an  X_-emergency motion for stay of implementation of the CICs Second Report and Order._: yO -ԍ See Emergency Motion for Stay of VarTec Telecom., Inc, CC Docket No. 92237, May 19, 1997 In an  XH-Order issued July 18, 1997, the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) denied VarTec's motion.+H@: yO9- xԍ See Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, Carrier Identification Codes (CICs), Order, CC  yO-Docket No. 92237, FCC 97125 (rel. Jul. 18, 1997), app'n. for review pending (CICs Stay Order).+  X1-Three parties (one of which was VarTec) filed petitions for reconsideration of the CICs  X -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.  X -x B.` ` New Uses for Feature Group D Carrier Identification Codes  X-x4.` ` 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  XK-Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) use CICs for their internal networks.K: yO- xԍ RBOCs use CICs on these networks to route toll free calls to their business offices. They also use CICs to route their own corporate traffic between offices within their territories. Certain RBOCs use CICs to route traffic under "corridor exceptions" to the AT&T Consent Decree's  X-ban on the RBOCs' carrying of traffic across LATA boundaries.x : yO- xJԍ These exceptions permitted both New Jersey Bell and New York Telephone to continue to offer switched and  yO - xprivate line services between northern New Jersey and the Borough of Manhattan in New York. See United States  yON!- xv. Western Electric Co., 569 F. Supp. 990, 1019. Simultaneously, the court permitted Bell of Pennsylvania and New  xJersey Bell to continue to offer switched and private line services between five Pennsylvania and three neighboring  yO"- xNew Jersey counties in the Philadelphia area. See id. at 1023. See also Letter from Robert H. Jackson, Executive  xDirector, Federal Regulatory for US WEST, to Linda Dubroof, Deputy Chief, Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated June 29, 1995. "Corridor CICs" have enabled the affected telephone companies to operate under these corridor exceptions. "0,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X-x5.` ` Resellers may use their own CICs to bill their end users through the LECs'  X-bill.: yOb- x,ԍ Many interexchange carriers (IXCs) arrange for the LECs to include the former's charge for toll services with  xthe LECs' bills for intraLATA and local exchange services so that the end user receives only one monthly telephone  x[bill. A reseller's CIC allows the LEC to identify on the customer's bill the reseller, rather than the carrier the  xreseller used to provide its services. This procedure reduces confusion for the end user and assists the reseller in  yO- xmaintaining a favorable relationship with the end user customer. See n.33, infra, for further discussion of issues related to resellers. 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  Xv-carrier's name.v@: yOg - xԍ See e.g., Bellcore, September 4, 1996 Report of CIC Activity to Carrier Identification Code Distribution List at 2.  XH-x6.` ` CICs also may be used to manage highcapacity 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 highcapacity 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.  X-x7.` ` 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  X4-from long distance customers.t4: yO}-ԍ See Local Competition Second Report and Order at paras. 3196.t In the future, Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS)  X-may be required to use Feature Group D CICs to provide equal access services.( : yO- xԍ Even though they are not classified as LECs, CMRS providers also provide interexchange access services.  xUnlike LECs, however, CMRS providers, to the extent they are engaged in the provision of commercial mobile  xservices, are not required to provide equal access to common carriers for the provision of telephone toll services.  xIf the Commission were to find that CMRS subscribers are denied access to their chosen provider of telephone toll  xservices, and that such denial is contrary to the public interest, convenience, and necessity, then the Commission  xwould have to prescribe regulations to afford subscribers unblocked access to the provider of telephone toll services  yO#- xof the subscribers' choice, through the use of a CIC assigned to such provider or some other mechanism. See 47  yOn$- xU.S.C.  332(c)(8); see also Interconnection and Resale Obligations Pertaining to Commercial Mobile Radio Services,  xOrder, CC Docket No. 9454, FCC 96126 (rel. Mar. 22, 1996) (Commission stated that information currently  xwavailable to it does not establish a need at this time to initiate an inquiry into the imposition of the unblocked access  yO&-rule). See CICs Second Report and Order at n.11. ",N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X-ԙ III.XxFURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING   X-x8.` ` In the CICs Second Report and Order, the Commission focused on when the transition from three to fourdigit CICs should end and how many CICs should be assigned  X-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  XH-of utmost importance. This FNPRM is intended to begin the Commission's analysis of issues related to allocation of this scarce numbering resource.  X -x9.` ` The NANP administrator assigns CICs using guidelines developed by the  X -industry. As noted above, the CIC Assignment Guidelines were established by the ICCF. : yOe - xԍ As noted above, in January 1997, the ICCF became part of the (NIIF), which, as did the ICCF, operates  yO--under the auspices fo the CLC. See n.4, supra.  X -Currently, the INC, a subcommittee of the CLC, develops such guidelines.E : yO-ԍ See n.4, supra.E The ICCF was, and the INC is, open to participation by LECs, IXCs, competitive access providers, wireless  X -carriers, and others. : yO- xԍ The administrative guidelines for both the ICCF and the INC establish the types of entities that may attend  x<meetings. The INC administrative guidelines state: [m]eetings of the INC may be attended by Wireless Carriers,  xCompetitive Access Providers, Exchange Carriers, Interexchange Carriers, Paging Companies, and other Industry  xKSegments including equipment suppliers, consultants, trade associations, and government representatives; i.e., all  yO(- xinterest groups, as well as the general public, are encouraged to participate. See INC Administrative Guidelines,  xINC 950127005, Reissued 4/97 at p. 9. The ICCF administrative guidelines were almost identical to those of the  xINC, except that the guidelines referred to "Cellular Carriers," rather than "wireless carriers." The ICCF guidelines  yO- xaslo did not mention that its meetings were open to the general public. See ICCF Administrative Guidelines, ICCF 920726001, Revision 1, 11/16/94. The most recent version of the guidelines was issued in September  X-1996. : yO- xԍ See CIC Assignment Guidelines, September 1996, cited in n.4, supra. A copy of the CIC Assignment  yO-Guidelines, September 1996 is on file in this docket. The guidelines address, among other issues, the maximum number of codes any entity may be assigned, code reclamation procedures, and conservation.  XK-x  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. ",N(N(ZZR"Ԍ X-x 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  X-delivery of interstate and international telecommunications.\ : yO- xԍ See The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, First Report and Order and Further  yO- xNotice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 92105, FCC 9751 at para. 58 (rel. Feb. 19, 1997), recon. pending  yO- x<(N11 First Report and Order) at para. 58, citing NANP Order at para. 26 and Proposed 708 Relief Plan and 630  yOu-Numbering Plan Area Code by AmeritechIllinois, 10 FCC Rcd 4596, para. 13 (1995) (Ameritech Order).\ 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.  X -x 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 fourdigit CICs, and reclamation. The proposed rules would establish a baseline for CIC management. Industry  Xy-consensus groups or the NANP administrator could address other aspects of the CIC  Xb-Assignment Guidelines or CIC assignment and use not covered by our rules.  X4-x 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  X-to the United States.M: yOP-ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(1).M 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.  XN-x A. ` ` Use and Application of CICs (#` x  X -x 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" @,N(N(ZZ" 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.  X-x15.` ` While we encourage the development of new services for the public, uses of CICs for purposes other than identifying access customers ("nonaccess 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 fourdigit CICs compels restrictions on nonaccess uses for Feature Group D CICs or other conservation measures.  X -x16.` ` 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  X -eligibility for a CIC assignment.` : yO7-ԍ Section 2.1 states, in pertinent part:  4XxEntities purchasing FG B or FG D trunk access . . . will be assigned a CIC . . . A request  for...FG D access must have been made before an entity's request for the issuance of a CIC will  be considered. Assignments will be made consistent with all regulatory directives such as the  @standing FCC mandate which directs that access be available to all customers, not only traditional  Acarriers. CICs will be assigned on a North American Numbering Plan area basis; i.e., there will  "be no duplicate assignments segregated by geographic region and, therefore, an entity can use the assigned code throughout the North American Numbering Plan area. ` In the past, entities that requested Feature Group D CICs  X -without acquiring Feature Group D trunk access were denied a CIC. Since the CICs Second  X-Report and Order was released, however, the INC accepted for industry consideration a  Xy-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  X4-underlying transport provider.;X4: yO}- xLԍ See July 23, 1997 facsimile from Frank Colaco, Bellcore, to David O. Ward, FCC; Industry Numbering  xiCommittee Issue Identification Form, "Translations Access for Feature Group D CICs," Issue 103, Submitted and Accepted October 25, 1996.; This change may be implemented as early as November  X-1997. : yO - x-ԍ See Letter from Susan Miller, ATIS, to Kris Monteith, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications  yON!-Commission, dated October 6, 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  X-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  X-previously ineligible entities would become eligible to receive two Feature Group D CICs.=: yOk'-ԍ See id.= " ,N(N(ZZ4"Ԍ X-ԙx17.` ` 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: XxOnly entities requesting Feature Group D trunk access will be eligible to apply for a fourdigit 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  X1-that all of its assignments are made on a nondiscriminatory 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.   X -x18.` ` 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  XK-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  X-Signaling System 7 (SS7) database to identify classes of service or carrier types ;_ x: yO-ԍ In Telephone Number Portability, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,  xY11 FCC Rcd 8352 (1996), the Commission identified two methods of providing service provider number portability.  xOne method, using SS7 databases, known as Call Completion to a Portable Number, could match a calling party to  yO- xits pre-registered carrier in the same way that the database method uses SS7 for number portability. See id. at 8359  xxand 8361. When a calling party dialed a 1+ toll call, that dialing initiated an automatic query to the SS7 database  xto match the calling party with its PIC, and the SS7 database could eliminate the need for CICs to accomplish presubscribed calling._ (2) the use  X-of pseudoCICs for billing and identification of services;!` : yO- xԍ In 1995, the Commission prescribed the general form and content of the letter of agency (LOA) used to  yOp- xauthorize a change in a consumer's primary long distance telephone company. See Policies and Rules Concerning  yO8- xUnauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9560 (1995)  yO - x(Slamming Order). In the Slamming Order, in response to comments by BellSouth, the Commission stated that it  xhrecognized that a consumer may be confused if after agreeing to switch long distance service providers, the customer  xfound on his or her bill the name of some other IXC. The Commission stated that it expected all IXCs without a  xCIC to explain to their new customers that another IXC's name may appear on the customer's bill (BellSouth had  xwnoted that the IXC on a customer's bill is determined by the CIC used to route the call). The Commission also noted  xhthat the newly chosen IXC may also describe any relationship it has with the IXC named on the bill and urged LECs,  xsuch as BellSouth, to develop a coding system to assign and maintain pseudo-CICs for non facilities-based IXCs  x;(BellSouth had suggested creation of a national coding system to assign and maintain pseudoCICs for non facilities yO@&-based IXCs). The Commission deferred a full examination of this issue to a later proceeding. See id. and (3) the use of flexible" 0!,N(N(ZZU"  X-automatic numbering identification (Flex ANI) for billing and identification of services."x: yOy- xJԍ Flex ANI is a technology used to provide originating line screening (OLS) services. This technology provides  xboth the billing number for the originating line (with the ANI) and the nature of the originating line (with twodigit  yO - xcodes generated by databases generally located in end offices. See Policies and Rules Concerning Operator Service  yO- xwAccess and Pay Telephone Compensation, Third Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17021 (1996). Flex ANI is deemed  yO- x"flexible" because of the ease with which new codes can be added to the technology. See Policies and Rules  yOa- xConcerning Operator Service Access and Pay Telephone Compensation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 1996 WL 731629, CC Docket No. 9135, DA 962169 (rel. Dec. 20, 1996).  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.  X1-x19.` ` 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  X-CIC limit.s#: yOI-ԍ See CIC Assignment Guidelines, September 1996 at Section 3.2.s  Xb-x20.` ` 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  X-determine whether a change to CIC assignment limits is necessary.C$: yOf-ԍ See id.C Bellcore, in its capacity as NANP administrator, indicates that, as of April 7, 1997, no special use CICs have been  X-assigned.%( : yO - xZԍ See Letter from Nancy Fears, Bellcore, NANP Administration, to Elizabeth Nightingale, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated April 7, 1997 (Fears Apr. 7, 1997 Bellcore Letter). 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 fourdigit CICs. "| %,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X-x B.` ` Definition of "Entity"  X- x21.` ` 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 franchiserfranchise operator relationship, providing that the franchiser will be considered the "entity" for purposes of CIC assignments but allowing franchisees to use  X_-CICs obtained by the franchiser.&_: yO- xԍ See CIC Assignment Guidelines, September 1996 at Section 1.3. The CIC Assignment Guidelines refer to "franchise operators," but we will refer to "franchisees."  X1-x22.` ` 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  Xy-ownership structure in question using the CIC Assignment Guidelines' definition of "entity."' y : yOJ- xԍ See Letter from Regina M. Keeney, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,  xito Ron Conners, Bellcore, NANP Administration, dated February 5, 1997 (King Salmon Letter) (concluding that  xKing Salmon Communications Inc. is an entity separate from GTE Mobilnet, Incorporated, for purposes of obtaining a CIC assignment). A copy of the King Salmon Letter is on file in this docket. In the case of another request, the Bureau concluded that Bellcore had not been unreasonable  XK-in denying a CIC assignment to the applicant.)(K: yO-Ѝ See Letter from Regina M. Keeney, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Mr. Thomas Gutierrez, Lukas, McGowan, Nace & Gutierrez, dated April 1, 1997, recon. pending (BACTC Letter) (concluding that CMT Partners, Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company, and Cellular One of Kansas are, for purposes of CIC assignments, the same entity as AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., and the same entity as AirTouch Communications). A copy of the BACTC Letter is on file in this docket.) 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  X-definition of "entity."d) : yOA#- xԍ See Letter from Alan C. Hasselwander, Chairman, North American Numbering Council, to Regina M.  x;Keeney, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated August 14, 1997 (stating that  yO$- xthe current definition in the CIC Assignment Guidelines is "often not sufficiently clear in the determination of  yO%- xKwhether the assignment of a CIC to an entity with multiple affiliates should be made.") (August 14, 1997 NANC  yOa&-Letter).d " h),N(N(ZZq"Ԍ X-x23.` ` 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  X-invite commenters to suggest other alternatives and to propose specific rule language.*: yO- xԍ Our proposed definition of "entity," and the comments we seek on other possible definitions, are intended to apply only to the CIC assignment context, with no consequences beyond that context.  X_-x24.` ` Eliminate the Control Element from the Existing Guidelines' Definition of  XH-Entity. Under this option, we would eliminate the control element from the definition of  X1-"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": XxTwo or more entities shall be deemed commonly owned and a single entity if (# XxX` ` (1) one entity directly or indirectly has an ownership interest in the other entity; or,(#` Xx(# XxX` ` (2) such entities are directly or indirectly owned by the same person, as defined  X-in 47 U.S.C.  153(32).+ : yO- xԍ 47 U.S.C.  153(32) defines "person" as follows: "The term 'person' includes an individual, partnership, association, jointstock company, trust, or corporation."(#` 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.  Xe-x25.` ` Common ownership could occur through, for example, corporate and noncorporate 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"! x+,N(N(ZZ " 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.  Xv-x26.` ` We tentatively conclude that because the concept of control would have no role if this definition of "entity" were adopted, the franchiserfranchisee provision in the definition  XH-of "entity" contained in the CIC Assignment GuidelinesY,H: yO -ԍ See paras. 21 and 29, supra.Y should not be incorporated in the definition of "entity" under an "ownershiponly" option. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. In addition, we seek comment on whether the above proposed definition of  X -ownership should also apply under the CIC Assignment Guidelines' definition of "entity" (either ownership or control).  X -x27.` ` 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 "ownershiponly" 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.  X-x28. ` ` Incorporate Existing Guidelines' Definition of "Entity". The first option we  X-seek comment on is our codifying the current CIC Assignment Guidelines' definition of  X-"entity."J-X: yO-ԍ See para. 21, supra.J 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.  Xe-x29.` ` As noted above,=.e: yO-ԍ See id.= 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  X -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.  X -x30.` ` 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"!x.,N(N(ZZ " 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  X1-owner before the traffic is segregated.k/1: yO -ԍ See para. 32, infra, for a discussion of CIC sharing.k This could place the CIC applicant at a competitive disadvantage because its owner would be provided with the telephone numbers of the CIC  X -applicant's customers.90 X: yO - xԍ CICs transmit the telephone number of the calling party to carriers that complete calls on behalf of the  xxpresubscribed carrier. When a CIC is shared by competitors, the CIC owner must separate its traffic from that of  xthe CIC applicant by distinguishing its customers from the customers of the CIC applicant through their telephone  xZnumbers. Knowledge of the customers of the CIC applicant could be use by the CIC owner to gain a competitive advantage. 9  X -x31.` ` 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  Xy-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  X4-affiliated organizations to obtain separate CICs would affect CIC conservation.14: yO-ԍ See paras. 4451, infra. for discussion of CIC reclamation and related issues.  X-x32.` ` 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" 1,N(N(ZZ[" indicate whether situations may arise in which CIC sharing arrangements would exist between entities that are not commonly owned.  X-x C.` ` Conservationx`  X-x` ` 1. Limit on CIC Assignments Per Entity  X_-x 33.` ` Background. As we noted in the CICs Second Report and Order, conservation  XH-measures "have been, and continue to be, used to manage CIC consumption."b2H: yO -ԍ See CICs Second Report and Order at para. 8.b 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 fourdigit Feature Group D CIC per applicant until the Bureau could fully investigate the reasons for the precipitous  X -increase in CIC demand.3 X: yO-Ѝ See Letter from Kathleen M. H. Wallman, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Ron Conners, Director of NANP Administration, dated March 17, 1995. In September 1995, the Bureau modified the CIC conservation plan to permit a carrier to apply to Bellcore for one additional fourdigit CIC to be used in a  X -state's intraLATA presubscription process.4 : yO- xԍ See Letter from Kathleen M. H. Wallman, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Ronald R. Conners, NANP Administration, dated Sept. 26, 1995. Thereafter, in October 1995, the Bureau stated that Bellcore should assign only fourdigit CICs, and only those from the 5XXX and 6XXX  X-pool.5: yOI- xԍ See Letter from Kathleen M. H. Wallman, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Ronald R. Conners, NANP Administration, dated Oct. 23, 1995. 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  XK-services.c6K` : yO\-ԍ See CICs Second Report and Order at para. 31.c  X-x!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  X-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 fourdigit CICs because abolishing the plan during that period "would likely cause rapid depletion of unassigned fourdigit CICs in the 5XXX and 6XXX range and necessitate a flashcut  X|-conversion to fourdigit codes."@7| : yO&-ԍ Id. at para. 30.@ CIC conservation will remain an important consideration once that transition ends."e 7,N(N(ZZ1"Ԍ X-ԙx"35.` ` We tentatively conclude that a conservation plan will be necessary to limit the number of CIC assignments an entity may hold when fourdigit 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  X-under a conservation plan. Commenters should indicate, for example, whether the CIC  X-Assignment Guidelines' limit of 6 CICs per entityi8: yO-ԍ CIC Assignment Guidelines, September 1996 at Section 3.1.i 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.  X-x#36.` ` In an effort to encourage efficient use of this scarce numbering resource, we propose requiring that each of an entity's fourdigit Feature Group D CIC assignments count toward the limit on the number of CICs that entity may hold, regardless of how those CICs  XK-were obtained. This proposal differs from the CIC Assignment Guidelines, which provide that: Xx[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  X-and hence, are not included in the maximum code assignment limits.C9X: yO-ԍ Id. at Section 1.1.C  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 procompetitive 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. "!9,N(N(ZZ "Ԍ X-x$37.` ` Transfer of CICs through mergers and acquisitions is a common means by  X-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  Xv-CIC Assignment Guidelines' requirements associated with retention of CICs are satisfied.  X_-Under the CIC Assignment Guidelines, CICs obtained by transfer, like other CICs, are subject to reclamation.  X -x%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.  X-x&39.` ` In addition, we seek comment on whether, when a predetermined percentage of all fourdigit 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  XN-free codes, :N: yO- xԍ Toll Free Service Access Codes, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC  yO-Docket No. 95155, FCC 97123 (rel. Apr. 11, 1997) (Toll Free Second R&O).  stated that a Responsible Organization (RespOrg)Q;N : yO - xԍ A RespOrg is the entity (many times, but not always a carrier) that manages the records of a toll free  xsubscriber in the database. The database is managed by Database Service Management, Inc. (DSMI), a subsidiary  xof Bellcore. If an individual or company seeks a toll free number, it requests a number from a RespOrg (for  xexample, the individual's or company's long distance carrier) that, in turn, checks to see if the number is available in the database administered by DSMI.Q 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" ;,N(N(ZZ"  X-by the Common Carrier Bureau."[<: yOy-ԍ See Toll Free Second R&O at para. 80.[ 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.  XH-x'40.` ` The sevendigit carrier access code format could also support a fivedigit CIC, making a transition to fivedigit CICs a logical solution once all fourdigit CICs have been assigned. Although the costs of converting from a four to a fivedigit 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 fourdigit CIC format for as long as possible through conservation measures, or remove the limitations on CIC consumption, monitor the fourdigit CIC availability and anticipate conversion to a fivedigit CIC format as the assignment of the last available fourdigit CICs approaches. v  XK-x` ` 2. Limit on Assignable Fourdigit CICs   X-x(41.` ` Background. Section 1.7 of the CIC Assignment Guidelines discusses the limited number of fourdigit Feature Group D CICs available for assignment during the  X-vtransition (only those in the 5XXX and 6XXX pool). The CIC Assignment Guidelines state: XxIn the future, it is the intent of the industry to open all fourdigit FG D 1000s blocks for assignment. The industry will review this intention to verify if all fourdigit FG D codes will be made available for assignment, or if it is necessary to restrict such availability to specific 1000s blocks.   XN-x)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 fourdigit 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 fourdigit Feature Group D CICs become available for assignment once the transition ends, rather than our continuing to  X!-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. "#X<,N(N(ZZe""Ԍ X-x*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 fourdigit CICs are likely to be assigned would be useful. We intend to use this information in reaching a decision about whether to make all fourdigit Feature Group D CICs available for assignment once the transition from three to fourdigit CICs ends.  XH-x` ` 3. Reclamation  X - x+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  X -guidelines."= : yON- xԍ See CIC Assignment Guidelines, September 1996 at note to Section 4.1. The CIC Assignment Guidelines refer to "NANP administration." We interpret this to mean "NANP administrator." Sections 6.16.3 of the guidelines set out mandatory reclamation procedures. Section 4.3 encourages the "voluntary return of CICs which are no longer needed by an  X -entity," and Appendix B to the guidelines> : yOx- x<ԍ Section 4.3 of the CIC Assignment Guidelines states that the voluntary return procedures are in Appendix C, but they actually are in Appendix B. establishes procedures for the voluntary return of CICs to the NANP administrator.  Xb-x,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  X-timeframe.S?x: yO/-ԍ See id. at Section 6.1.S 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  X-resolution any alleged nonuse or misuse of CICs.M@: yO-ԍ See id. at Section 6.2.M The INC, in turn, must accept,  X-investigate, review, and attempt to resolve referrals.CA: yO !-ԍ Id. at Section 6.3.C The INC then must direct the NANP  X-administrator regarding what action, if any, should be taken regarding CIC reclamation.3B( : yO#-ԍ Id.3  X|-x-46.` ` Request for Comment. We believe that steps to prolong the time that there are unassigned fourdigit 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"N B,N(N(ZZ" reclamation of fourdigit 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  X-enforceable, and seek comment on the form and content of such rules.CX: yO- xԍ As noted in paras. 4445, supra, Sections 6.16.3 of the CIC Assignment Guidelines address, respectively, the  yO- xxresponsibilities of CIC assignees, the CIC administrator, and the INC. See CIC Assignment Guidelines, September  yO-1996 at Sections 6.16.3.Ć 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  X -NANC.UD : yO-ԍ See NANP Order at paras. 4253.U In addition, we seek comment on whether we should incorporate Section 6.1 of the  X -CIC Assignment Guidelines specifying the situations in which CIC assignees must return  X -CICs.E x: yO-ԍ See CIC Assignment Guidelines, September 1996 at Sections 6.1, discussed in para. 45, supra.  X -x.47.` ` We also seek comment on other aspects of the reclamation process. For  X -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  Xy-commence reclamation procedures.MFy: yO2-ԍ See id. at Section 4.2.M 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  X-administrator when usage is established;GX: yOf- xԍ According to the NANP administrator, most CIC assignees never send back the activation form. See Letter  xfrom Nancy Fears, Bellcore, NANP Administration, to Elizabeth Nightingale, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated October 8, 1997 (Fears Oct. 8, 1997 Bellcore Letter). or (2) the semiannual access usage reports filed by  X-the LECs under the CIC Assignment Guidelines.H : yOo!- xZԍ See id; CIC Assignment Guidelines, September 1996 at Appendix A. See paras. 5253, infra, for discussion of proposed reporting requirements. 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"H,N(N(ZZ"  X-expiration of 60 days if access service has not been initiated by that date.CI: yOy-ԍ See id.C We ask whether the Commission should codify this practice.  X-x/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  X-effective."WJX: yO-ԍ See Fears Apr. 7, 1997 Bellcore Letter.W Nonetheless, Bellcore notes that numerous extensions have been requested by  Xv-CIC assignees receiving initial reclamation letters.9Kv: yO -ԍ Id.9 Bellcore indicates that if a CIC assignee demonstrates compelling circumstances, Bellcore would grant the assignee a 90day extension  XH-of time in which to initiate access service.ILXHx: yOq- xZԍ Id. Section 6.1 of the CIC Assignment Guidelines allows the assignee to apply to the NANP administrator  xfor an extension of time and requires that a request for extension include the reason for the delay and a new activation time commitment.I Bellcore notes that it has not kept records of the  X1-number of extensions requested or granted.WM1: yOz-ԍ See Fears Apr. 7, 1997 Bellcore Letter.W  X -x049.` ` We seek comment on whether fourmonth maximum for initiating usage of a CIC has worked effectively and should continue. We ask parties to comment on whether the  X -fourmonth 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 fourmonth 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.  X4-x150.` ` We also seek comment on the appropriate time period within which the NANP  X-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  X-an access provider.sN( : yO -ԍ See CIC Assignment Guidelines, September 1996 at Section 2.2.s We tentatively conclude that this requirement is reasonable and we propose to codify it.  X-x251.` ` Finally, we ask parties to comment on the sixmonth idle periodO : yO%-ԍ An "idle period" is the time during which a reclaimed CIC remains unavailable for reassignment. called for in  X-Sections 4.2 (for involuntary reclamation) and 4.3 (for voluntary reclamation) of the CIC  X|-Assignment Guidelines and to suggest alternatives periods, if appropriate. Bellcore, as NANP"|H O,N(N(ZZn" administrator, indicates that the sixmonth period both minimizes customer confusion and  X-mitigates the likelihood of multiple assignment of the same code.XPX: yOb- xԍ See Fears Apr. 7, 1997 Bellcore Letter (stating that because all access providers do not supply the NANP  xadministrator with CIC access/usage reports, a reclaimed CIC could possibly still be in use at the time the NANP administrator reassigns it to another entity).X We note that numbering changes, such as CIC reassignments, affect many parties, including callers, carriers, and  X-equipment owners.gQ: yOT-ԍ See CICs Second Report and Order at paras. 3544.g Those commenters suggesting alternatives to the sixmonth idle period should discuss how their alternative would better address these interests.  Xv- x` ` 3. Usage Reporting Requirements  XH-x352.` ` Background. Section 7.2 of the CIC Assignment Guidelines requires the NANP administrator to "monitor the CIC assignment rate level, predict the potential for  X -exhaust, and report its findings to the industry."sR x: yOC-ԍ See CIC Assignment Guidelines, September 1996 at Section 7.2.s 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  X -administrator with semiannual access and usage information for fourdigit CICs.MS : yO-ԍ See id. at Appendix A.M  X -x453.` ` 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  Xb-NANP administrator monitor CIC usage. We also propose that the CIC Assignment  XK-Guidelines' semiannual 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 semiannual basis, a report with the Commission based on the information the former receives from the incumbent LECs and CIC assignees in their semiannual 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 semiannual access  X-and usage reports for fourdigit 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. " S,N(N(ZZy"Ԍ X- xD.` ` PROCEDURAL MATTERS  X- x` ` 1. Ex Parte Presentations  X-x554.` ` This is a permitbutdisclose noticeandcomment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that  Xv-they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202,  X_-1.1203, 1.1206. Written submissions, however, will be limited as discussed below.NT_: yO-ԍ See paras. 5760, infra.N  X1- x` ` 2. Regulatory Flexibility Act  X -x655.` ` See Appendix A, infra for the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  X -x` ` 3.  Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis  X -x756.` ` 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  Xb-collections contained in this FNPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 10413. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other  X4-comments on this FNPRM; OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication of this  X-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.  Xe-  x` ` 4. Comment Filing Procedures  X7-x857.` ` 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  X -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"h$XT,N(N(ZZF#" 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.  X-x958.` ` Paperwork Reduction Act Comments. Written comments by the public on the  Xv-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.  X -x:59.` ` Other requirements. hhComments 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  Xb-Commissions rules.LUXb: yO- xԍ See 47 C.F.R.  1.49. We require, however, that a summary be included with all comments and reply  yO- xcomments. The summary may be paginated separately from the rest of the pleading (e.g., as "i, ii"). See 47 C.F.R.  1.49.L 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.  X4-Comments and reply comments also must clearly identify the specific portion of this FNPRM  X-to which a particular comment or set of comments is responsive. If a portion of a party's  X-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.  X-x;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. "U,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X- I#YZ  I#YZ  IV.XxORDER: NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING COUNCIL  X-RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CIC ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES   X-x<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  X-NANC under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.BV: yO-ԍ 5 U.S.C., App. 2 (1988).B The NANC, which I#YZ  I#YZ  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  X -maintaining and fostering an integrated approach to number administration and establishing a  X -structure for number administration that is impartial and pro-competitive.JW X: yO -ԍ See para. 10, supra.J  X -x=62.` ` The NANC recently asked the INC to review the industry's CIC Assignment  X -Guidelines for the purpose of identifying and remedying "ambiguities that have or might lead  X -to difficulty in administration and application."X : yO@- xԍ Letter dated February 28, 1997, from Alan C. Hasselwander, NANC Chairman, to Josephine Gallagher, Bell Atlantic Network Technologies and INC Moderator. The NANC asked the INC to "bring to the NANC for resolution those ambiguities which reflect unreconciled policy disputes," and to  Xy-report the results of its actions at the NANC meeting on June 10, 1997.9Yy@: yOj-ԍ Id.9 As noted above, in a letter dated August 14, 1997, the NANC asked the Commission to consider the issue of the  XK-definition of "entity."kZK: yO-ԍ See August 14 NANC Letter, cited at n.41 supra.k  X-x>63.` ` We direct the NANC to present to the Commission, no later than December  X-15, 1997, the NANC's recommendations on the tentative conclusions and proposals in the  X-FNPRM, supra, including any alternatives to them. The NANC's recommendations (including  X-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 fourdigit 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  Xe-NANC's recommendations concurrently with the comments received to this FNPRM and to perform our analysis of both in a timely and efficient way. "7` Z,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X-  I#YZ  I#YZ V.xORDERING CLAUSES  X-x?64.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201205, 218 and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i),  I#YZ  I#YZ 154(j), 201205, 218 and 251(e)(1), that the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby ADOPTED.  X_-x@65.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201205, 218 and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201205, 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.  X -xA66.` ` 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. x x` ` hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` ` hhWilliam F. Caton x` ` hhActing Secretary"Z,N(N(ZZ"  X- APPENDIX A: INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS  X-  1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)B I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)Z  X-x1.` ` As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)iX: yOK-Ѝ See 5 U.S.C.  603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601, et seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).i the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected economic impact  X-on small entities by the policies and proposals in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking  X-(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  XH-the submission of comments in this proceeding. A copy of this FNPRM, including the IRFA,  X1-shall be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. See 5  X -U.S.C.  603(a). In addition, this FNPRM and IRFA will be published in the Federal  X -Register. See id.  X -x A.` ` Need for and Objectives of Proposed Rules x`  X -x2.` ` The FNPRM continues the Commission's analysis of issues related to carrier  X-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  Xb-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 fourdigit CICs; (3) CIC reclamation; and (4) usage  X-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  X-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  XN-administration is effective through reliance upon the expertise and innovative efforts of  X7-industry.7: yO!- xԍ See Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 92237, 11  yO"-FCC Rcd 2588, 2601 (1995) (NANP Order). I#YZ  " @,N(N(ZZ\"Ԍ X- I#YZ  I#YZ  x B.` ` Legal Basis x`  X-x3.` ` Authority for actions proposed in this FNPRM may be found in: Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201205, 218 and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C.  I#YZ  I#YZ Sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201205, 218 and 251(e)(1).  Xv- xC.` ` Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To  X_-Which the Proposed Rules Will Applyx`  XH-  X1-x4.` ` 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  X -Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate for its activities.s : yOe - xԍ Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency after  xconsultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after an opportunity for public  xcomment, establishes one ore more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and  xpublishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. 632).s 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  X -criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).Y x: yO-ԍ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632 (1996).Y The SBA has defined  X-companies listed under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (radiotelephone communications) and 4813 (telephone communications, except radiotelephone)  Xb-to be small entities when they have 1500 or fewer employees.b: yO- xԍ See 13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes 4812 and 4813 (SIC 4812 and SIC 4813, respectively). These standards also apply in determining whether an entity is a small business for purposes of the RFA.  X-x5.` ` 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  X-"small business concerns."` : yO - x ԍ See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report  yO!- x-and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996) (First Interconnection Order), motion for stay of the FCC's rules pending  yOy"- xjudicial review denied, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996,  yOA#- xOrder, 11 FCC Rcd 11754 (1996), partial stay granted, Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, No. 963321, 1996 WL 589204  yO $-(8th Cir. Oct. 15, 1996) (Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC) at paras. 13281330 and 1342. Accordingly, our use of the terms "small entities" and "small  X-businesses" does not encompass small incumbent LECs.R: yO&-ԍ See id. at para. 1342.R Out of an abundance of caution, however, for regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will consider small incumbent LECs",N(N(ZZp" within this analysis and use the term "small incumbent LECs" to refer to any incumbent LECs  X-that arguably might be defined by SBA as "small business concerns."=: yOb-ԍ See id.=  X-x6.` ` The proposals made by the Commission in this FNPRM may apply to a variety of entities listed below.  Xv-x7.` ` 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  X -companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange service.f X X: yO- x.ԍ Federal Communications Commission, CCB, Industry Analysis Division, Telecommunications Industry  yO- xxRevenue: TRS Fund Worksheet Data, Tbl. 1 (Average Total Telecommunications Revenue Reported by Class of  yOn-Carrier) (Dec.1996) (TRS Worksheet). f 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  Xb-affected by the proposals in this FNPRM.  X4-x8.` ` 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  X-they were engaged in "other" toll services.  x: yO- xԍ Id. Firms filing TRS Worksheets are asked to select a single category that best describes their operation. As a result, some carriers describes themselves as IXCs, some as resellers, some as OSPs, and some as "other."  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  X -the proposals in this FNPRM. "  ,N(N(ZZ["Ԍ X-x9.` ` 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 12radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,176 such firms that operated during 1992  Xv-had 1,000 or more employees.; Xv: yO- x;ԍ U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications,  x-and Utilities, UC92-S-1, Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5, Employment Size of Firms: 1992, SIC 4812 (issued May 1995).; 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.  X - x 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  X-are engaged in the provision of mobile services.H : yO-ԍ See TRS Worksheet.H 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  X|-be affected by the proposals in this FNPRM. We assume that all of the current rural cellular and mobile licensees are small businesses.  X7-x 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" x ,N(N(ZZ="  X-average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. X: yOy- xKԍ See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and  yOA- xthe Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap, Report and Order, FCC 96278, WT Docket No. 96253, paras.  yO -57 60 (rel. June 24, 1996); See also 47 C.F.R.  24.720(b) . 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  X-million for the preceding three calendar years. <X: yOT- xKԍ See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and  yO - xthe Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap, Report and Order, FCC 96278, WT Docket No. 96253, para. 60 (1996).< These regulations defining "small entity'' in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBAapproved 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  XH-Blocks D, E, and F.H: yO-ԍ FCC News, Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, Mimeo No. 71744 (rel. Jan. 14, 1997). 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  X -blocks, for a total of 183 small PCS providers as defined by the SBAI : yO5-ԍ See para. 9, supra.I and the Commission's auction rules.  X -x 12.` ` Paging and Radiotelephone Service, and Private Land Mobile Radio Services,  X-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 nonnationwide 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  X-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. "  ( ,N(N(ZZ" This estimate is based on the total estimate of paging carriers (approximately 600) and nonnationwide 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.  X -x 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  Xy-that they were engaged in the provision of competitive access services.Hy: yO-ԍ See TRS Worksheet.H 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  X-affected by the proposals in this FNPRM.  X-x 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  XN-reported that they were engaged in the provision of operator services.3NX: yOW-ԍ Id.3 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  X-service providers that may be affected by the proposals in this FNPRM.  X!-x15.` ` Pay Telephone Operators. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of pay telephone operator""!,N(N(ZZ!" 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  X-services.3: yO-ԍ Id.3 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  X1-pay telephone operators that may be affected by the proposals in this FNPRM.  X -x16.` ` 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  Xb-services.3bX: yOk-ԍ Id.3 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  X-resellers that may be affected by the proposals in this FNPRM.  X-x17.` ` Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturers. The SBA classifies manufacturers of telecommunications equipment in two categories, one for wireless and another for wireline.  X|-x18.` ` 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  X -business concern.K : yO#-ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC 3661.K 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""x,N(N(ZZ<"  X-1000 employees and would be classified as small entities.: yOy- xԍ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities, Table 1D, (issued May 1995), SIC 3661. 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.  Xv-x19.` ` 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  X -Equipment. : yO - xԍ This category excludes establishments primarily engaged in the manufacturing of household audio and visual equipment which is categorized as SIC 3651. According to the SBA's regulations, a small entity must have 750 or fewer  X -employees in order to qualify as a small business concern.K x: yO,-ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC 3663.K 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  X -would be classified as small entities. : yOw- xԍ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities, Table 1D, (issued May 1995), SIC 3663. 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.  X4-x20.` ` 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  X-entity is an alarm equipment manufacturer employing 750 or less persons.K` : yO -ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC 3669.K Census Bureau data indicates that there are 498 U.S. firms that manufacture alarm equipment, and that 469 of  X-these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would be classified as small entities. : yOK$- xԍ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities, Table 1D, (issued May 1995), SIC 3669. 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"|#H ,N(N(ZZP" 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  X-alarm equipment that may be affected by the proposals in this FNPRM.  X-x21.` ` 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  Xv-maintenance of security systems devices, such as burglar and fire alarms.v: yO- x>ԍ Standard Industrial Classification Manual, (SIC) 7382, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (1987). According to the  X_-SBA, a small security system provider must have $9 million or less in annual receipts.K_ : yO0 -ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC 7382.K 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  X -receipts. : yO{- xKԍ 1992 Economic Census Industry and Enterprise Receipts Size Report, Table 2D, SIC 7382 (U.S. Bureau of the Census data under contract to the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration).  Therefore, we tentatively conclude that there are approximately 2,190 small  X -security system service providers that may be affected by the proposals in this FNPRM.  X -x D.` ` Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and  X -Other Compliance Requirements x`  X-x22.` ` In the FNPRM, the Commission proposes to codify the requirement now  Xy-appearing in Section 7.2 of the CIC Assignment Guidelinesy: yO2- xԍ These guidelines were developed by the Industry Carriers Compatibility Forum (ICCF), under the auspices  xof the Carrier Liaison Committee (CLC), which is sponsored by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry  xSolutions (ATIS). Currently, the Industry Numbering Committee (INC), a subcommittee of the ICCF, develops these  yO- xJguidelines. The most recent version of the guidelines was issued in September 1996. See Carrier Identification Code  yOR- xAssignment Guidelines, INC 950127006, formerly ICCF 920726002, Revision September 1996 (CIC Assignment  yO-Guidelines, September 1996). that the NANP administrator  Xb-monitor CIC usage. The FNPRM also proposes that the CIC Assignment Guidelines' semiannual 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  X-administrator. In addition, the FNPRM proposes requiring that the NANP administrator file, also on a semiannual basis, a report with the Commission based on the information the  X-former receives from the incumbent LECs and CIC assignees in their semiannual reports, and that the NANP administrator include any information obtained as a result of its monitoring  X-CIC usage. The FNPRM seeks comment on the information that should be required under the  X-proposed reporting requirements. The FNPRM requests that parties discuss the specific requirements for semiannual access and usage reports for fourdigit CICs in Appendix A of  X|-the CIC Assignment Guidelines, as well as other reporting requirements that the Commission  Xe-should consider. The FNPRM tentatively concludes that the proposed reporting requirements"e$ ,N(N(ZZ" 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.  X-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  Xv-the industry's and this Commission's joint effort to conserve CICs. See FNPRM at paras. 5253.  X1-x E.` ` Steps Taken to Minimize Economic Impact on Small Entities  X -and Significant Alternatives Considered x`  X -x23.` ` 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  X-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  XK-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  X-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  X-suggest alternatives to our proposals.w X: yOQ- xԍ See e.g., FNPRM at para. 18 (asking for alternatives to Feature Group D CICs); para. 23 (inviting commenters  xto suggest alternatives for the definition of "entity"); para.49 (asking for alternative time periods for requirements to initiate access service using a newly assigned CIC).w We tentatively conclude that our proposals in the  X-FNPRM would impose minimum burdens on small entities. We seek comment on these proposals and the impact they may have on small entities.  X|-x F.` ` Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With  Xe-the Proposed Rules x`  X7-x24.` ` None.