WPCm 2MBERKZ3|j  Y4#Xw PE37|XP#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNA.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/g><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx5;;}<3=a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2Ch>elBBQCPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"",?2?2>,H2H2H2H2H2J2J2!2222!2I822F2>>$?2>>J2:J2J2H2H2YHB$B$C26&6&6&62>$>?2J2J2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,@,@,J2?2J262?2H2<!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22<"0*$$33*"  X4the specific tariff provisions."Q#kn {Oy'ԍBureau Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 6341. Q The Commission's rules state that "[s]pecific reference must be made [in the pleadings] to any tariff provision relied on in support of a claim or  X4defense."$Zkn yO'ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.720(h). This rule further provides that, "Parties are encouraged to provide copies of the  {O'tariff or relevant portions thereof." Id. To comply with our rules, Erdman was thus required at least to identify the applicable tariff provisions, and specifically allege violations of those provisions, which govern the rights of Sprint and Erdman with respect to Sprint's provision of 800 telephone  X4service.%kn {O 'ԍSee, e.g., Richman Bros. Records, Inc. v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co., Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 13639, 13641 (Com. Car. Bur. 1995) ("[e]ffective tariffs are 'the law' between customers and carriers"). Erdman entirely failed to meet this standard. Its complaint contains only broad  Xv4references to the requirements of Sprint's Tariff No. 2.}&2 vkn {O5'ԍSee, e.g., 2d Am. Complaint at 5 ("Sprint's Tariff No. 2 requires Sprint to provide notice to an account  {O'holder prior to terminating any 1800 number associated with that account."); id. at 6 ("Sprint's Tariff No. 2 requires Sprint to wait six (6) months before reassigning any 1800 number."). We note that Erdman quoted what appear to be two excerpts from Sprint's tariffs (although presented without citation or other identification) in an exhibit to its second amended complaint. The complaint made no  yO'explicit reference to the excerpts and nowhere relied on them to support Erdman's claim. As they appear in this exhibit, the provisions are: (1) "If a US Sprint customer terminates service, [the 800 number] will no longer be made available for the customer's use"; and (2) "US Sprint may, upon written notice, make the number  {OA'unavailable for the customer's use." See 2d Am. Complaint, Exhibit F at 3 (Complaint Exhibit List of Departures from Tariff). The second quotation appears to be incomplete; in the form provided by Sprint, the  {O'tariff states that Sprint may make a number unavailable if a number is not being used except for test calls. See  {O'text accompanying note TARIFF LANGUAGE5, supra.}  XH4 13.` ` Erdman's petition for reconsideration faults Sprint for its failure to provide  X14tariff provisions in response to Erdman's request.>'1kn yO'ԍRecon. Petition at 6. > This evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of Erdman's burden as a complainant before the Commission. Carriers' interstate tariffs are on file at the Commission, and are available for public inspection during regular business hours. Copies of these tariffs also can be obtained from the Commission's contract copying service. Unlike Erdman, Sprint was not required either to provide or to identify the applicable tariff provisions. Nevertheless, Sprint did, in fact, provide, as an exhibit to its first answer, a copy of section 3.23 of its tariff, which contains the restrictions" '0*$$33 "  X4upon which Erdman appears to rely for much of its argument in counts one through three.?(kn {Oy'ԍSee Answer, Exhibit 1; cf. text accompanying note TARIFF LANGUAGE5, supra. The tariff provisions attached as Sprint's Exhibit I, effective March 1, 1993, are virtually identical to those cited herein with an effective date of January 1, 1991 (the 1991 version refers to "US Sprint"; the 1993 version (Exhibit 1) refers to "Sprint" and applies to  {O'"800 and 900 numbers"). The district court's order also cited to and quoted Section 3.23 of Tariff No. 2. See Dist. Ct. Order at 3.? In order to dispel any suggestion that the Bureau did not thoroughly and adequately consider Erdman's allegations, and notwithstanding Erdman's failure adequately to plead or otherwise support its case, we now consider to the extent that it is possible based on the minimal record that Erdman has developed counts one through three in light of the relevant tariff provisions.  X_4 14.BURDEN START` ` In count one, Erdman alleged that Sprint violated its tariff and section 203(c) of the Act by failing to comply with its tariff provision that, according to Erdman, requires Sprint "to provide notice to an account holder prior to terminating any 1800 number  X 4associated with that account."@) |kn yOG'ԍ2d Am. Complaint at 56.@ This count was appropriately dismissed because Erdman failed to carry its burden of establishing that Sprint disconnected the numbers without notice.  X 4Erdman concedes that it requested disconnection of one of the numbers.J* kn {O'ԍSee 2d Am. Complaint at 3. J Sprint contends that Erdman requested termination of all four 800 numbers, then approximately two months later, asked to have three of the numbers reinstated. Sprint argues that Erdman would have contacted Sprint immediately to inform it of the mistaken disconnection if, in fact, Erdman  X4had not requested disconnection of all four 800 numbers. +Zkn {O'ԍSee Sum. Judg. Opp. at 67 (also arguing that Sprint's three month delay "strongly suggests that Sprint did not make a 'mistake' but rather that Mr. Erdman had changed his mind and wanted the three numbers reinstalled").  Erdman responds to this argument by relying on transcripts of calls with Sprint representatives that Erdman's president secretly recorded.  X4415.BURDEN END` ` We decline to consider the content of Erdman's proffered transcripts. Consistent with its policy of protecting the privacy of communications, the Commission has prescribed provisions governing the recording of interstate telephone conversations by the general public that all carriers must incorporate into their tariffs. The tariff provisions generally require (with few exceptions) that telephone subscribers wishing to record a telephone call must provide appropriate notification that the conversation is being recorded, or" +0*$$331"  X4must obtain prior consent from all parties to the conversation.r,kn {Oy'ԍSee Use of Recording Devices in Connection With Telephone Service, 2 FCC Rcd 502 (1987)  {OC'(Recording Devices); 2d Answer, Exhibit I (Sprint Tariff F.C.C. No. 2,  3.24). The Commission likewise requires common carriers to notify parties that their conversations are being recorded, in the interest of protecting  {O'users' privacy. Recording Devices, 2 FCC Rcd at 502; 47 C.F.R.  64.501. See also 47 U.S.C.  705  yO'(prohibiting the unauthorized publication of communications). r Sprint maintains, and Erdman does not dispute, that Erdman failed to notify Sprint before recording their interstate telephone  X4conversations. Erdman argues, however, that "many of the [recorded] calls were made within the State of New York," which, according to Erdman, permits the recording of intrastate  X4telephone conversations with one party's consent.Q-~kn {O 'ԍSee Erdman Sum. Judg. Motion at 9. Q Based on the record before us, we are unable to determine which of the recorded calls may have been intrastate and therefore possibly lawfully recorded, rather than in violation of the Commission's policy against secret recording of interstate communications. Accordingly, we decline to consider the contents of  XH4any of the transcripts in this proceeding..Hkn yO 'ԍBecause Erdman proffered the transcripts as evidence, it has the burden of proving which calls were not recorded in violation of the Commission's tariff prescription. Erdman has not met this burden. Furthermore, even if we were to consider their contents, they would fall short of meeting Erdman's burden to demonstrate that Sprint  X 4wrongfully or unlawfully terminated Erdman's 800 service./ h kn yO3'ԍCertain passages in the transcripts may support Erdman's contention that Sprint mistakenly disconnected all four of the numbers when Erdman had requested termination of service on only one number.  {O'See note E'S SUPPORTING EVID13 supra. However, as Sprint points out, Erdman took a substantial period of time to report the purportedly mistaken disconnection to Sprint. When weighed against this undisputed fact, we find that the transcript passages, even if we were to consider them, would fail to carry Erdman's burden of establishing that Sprint disconnected the disputed numbers without any request from Erdman.  In the absence of additional evidence in the record to support Erdman's claim, count one must fail.  X 416.` ` Erdman has failed to compile a record that permits us to address the substance of counts two and three. Both of these counts purport to rely on tariff provisions that appear nowhere in the record. Count two alleged that Sprint violated its tariff and section 203(c) by reassigning the subject numbers before the end of the sixmonth waiting period allegedly  Xy4contained in its tariff.@0ykn yO 'ԍ2d Am. Complaint at 6. @ Count three alleged similar violations arising from Sprint's failure to "provide written notification" or "obtain authorization from the account holder" before  XK4terminating Erdman's service.B1Krkn yOn#'ԍ2d Am. Complaint at 67. B Having failed to provide any support for its allegations about"K 10*$$33*" the contents of Sprint's tariffs, Erdman must lose on these counts. We thus affirm the Bureau's rulings with respect to counts one through three.  X417.` ` Erdman also argues that, in terminating the numbers at issue, Sprint acted  X4according to its "internal guidelines" not included in its tariff.?2kn yO'ԍRecon. Petition at 6. ? Erdman offers the carrier's adherence to "internal guidelines," rather than published tariff provisions, as an independent violation of the Act, and seeks, for the first time in its petition for reconsideration, to amend  X_4its complaint to state this additional violation of unspecified sections of the Act.53X_Xkn yOh 'ԍRecon. Petition at 67. It appears that Erdman is referring to section 203(c), which provides, in pertinent part, that no carrier shall "employ or enforce any classifications, regulations, or practices [ ] except as specified in [its tariff]." 47 U.S.C.  203(c). 5 Our rules state that any amendment to a formal complaint "will be considered a new filing which must  X14be made within the statutory periods of limitations of actions."A41xkn yOZ'ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.728(a). A Erdman's reconsideration petition, filed in 1996, falls well beyond the twoyear limitation period for damage claims  X 4arising from the 1991 disconnection and reassignment of the 800 numbers.5 kn yO'ԍSection 415 of the Act provides that complaints against carriers for the recovery of damages must be brought within two years from the time the action accrues. 47 U.S.C.  415. Erdman's request to amend its complaint is therefore denied.  X ' 4C.Counts Five Through Eight  X 4  X418.` ` Erdman claims that the Bureau "committed reversible error in its inconsistent  Xy4application of certain industry guidelines.">6y` kn yO'ԍRecon. Petition at 5. > The Bureau found that Erdman relied on certain4 tariffs and guidelines that did not apply to the proceeding because they went into effect two years after the events of which Erdman complains. According to Erdman, however, the Bureau referred to those same guidelines as being applicable to the proceeding in footnote 45  X4of the Bureau Order.97 kn {O'ԍId. at 4. 9 Moreover, Erdman insists that, upon considering Sprint's activities in light of the industry guidelines, the Bureau must find that Sprint acted in an unjust and unreasonable manner. Finally, Erdman claims that counts five through eight also implicitly" 70*$$33" allege a violation of Section 201(b) of the Act, "which the Bureau has completely failed to  X4mention."8kn {Ob'ԍId. at 7 (referring to section 201(b)'s requirement that carrier practices not be unjust or unreasonable. 47 U.S.C.  201(b)).  X419.ADMIN CHANGE` ` The Bureau did not err in denying counts five through eight. The events forming the substance of Erdman's complaint took place in 1991. At that time, Bellcore was the administrator of the system of management and assignment for 800 numbers, referred to as the 800 NXX, or threedigit system. Under this system, 800 service providers were  X_4identified by the three digits immediately following the 800 prefix (or, the NXX digits); i.e.,  XJ4particular NXXs were assigned to particular carriers.r9\J"kn {O 'ԍProvision of Access for 800 Service, 4 FCC Rcd 2824, 2825 (1989). The local exchange carrier (LEC) in whose area an 800 call originates must be able to identify the carrier to which the 800 call should be routed.  {O 'The NXX digits enabled the LEC to identify the carrier for this purpose. See id. r Thus, a subscriber that wished to change carriers could not do so without changing its 800 number under threedigit number administration. On May 1, 1993, the management and assignment of 800 numbers  X 4transitioned from the 800 NXX system to the Service Management System (SMS).: Fkn yO'ԍIndustry Guidelines for 800 Number Administration, Issue 3.0, at iii (Dec. 1, 1993) (National Administration and Service Center Guidelines). The  X 4SMS is a centralized database that contains all records pertaining to toll free numbers.;Z kn {O='ԍToll free numbers, which now include, inter alia, numbers with a prefix of "800" or "888," are "telephone number[s] for which the toll charges for completed calls are paid by the toll free subscriber." 47 C.F.R.  52.101(f). The Number Administration and Service Center (NASC) provides user support for the database. Access to the SMS is provided pursuant to a tariff (SMS Tariff) filed jointly by the Bell  X 4Operating Companies (BOCs).< kn {O'ԍ800 Presubscription Rules for 800 Providers and Responsible Organizations, 8 FCC Rcd 7315 (Com. Car. Bur. 1993). Under the SMS, number portability, or the ability to keep the same number when changing toll free service providers, became possible with the  X{4implementation of tendigit number administration.M=\{kn yOF'ԍNASC Guidelines at iii, 4. Under tendigit administration, LECs identify carriers for the purpose of  {O 'routing toll free calls by the prefix (e.g., 800) plus the sevendigit number. See Provision of Access for 800  {O 'Service, 4 FCC Rcd at 2825.M  XM420.` ` Under both the NXX system and the SMS, the respective administrators developed their own "industry guidelines" for 800 service providers. Sprint attached a page"6 >=0*$$33."  X4from a document it referred to as "800NXX guidelines" as an exhibit to its initial answer.>kn {Oy'ԍSee Answer, Exhibit III (regarding "Choice of 800 NXX Codes" and "Administration Procedures for Requesting 800 NXX Code Assignments"). The only portion of this exhibit that is relevant to the issues raised in Erdman's petition provides that "no proprietary right is implied or intended with respect to the allocated  X4NXX(s)." In the Bureau Order, the Bureau found that these were guidelines "issued by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator that were in effect at the time of the relevant  X4events,"U?"kn {Ob 'ԍBureau Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 6342.U and that they applied to threedigit, or NXX 800 number administration. Thus, the  Xx4Bureau's reference to this provision in footnote 45 of the Bureau OrderE@xkn {O 'ԍId. at 6342 n.45.E was not erroneous, as Erdman claims.  X5421.` ` In their various pleadings, the parties also refer to a second body of "industry guidelines" that Bellcore appears to have developed. A copy of these guidelines, presented in a technical advisory entitled "TenDigit Number Administration Guidelines," was attached to  X 4Erdman's complaint as Exhibit F.A" Fkn yO'ԍTATAP000459, Issue 2 (Aug. 1987) (Bellcore guidelines). The document purports to "outline basic principles regarding 800 service number assignment and recovery," and states that the guidelines "describe the process of administering tendigit 800 Service numbers and should in no way be used to infer a description or  {O?'limitation of the 800 Service offerings of any 800 Service provider." Id. at 1.  In the Bureau Order, the Bureau did not consider these  X 4"Bellcore guidelines" in deciding the merits of Erdman's complaint.B 0 kn {O'ԍSee Bureau Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 6341 ("all of the tariffs, procedures, rules, and policies established with regard to 800 number portability under the SMS are irrelevant to Erdman's complaint").  X 422.` ` The parties apparently concede that the guidelines attached to Erdman's  X4complaint as Exhibit F are applicable to this proceeding.C kn {O'ԍBoth parties refer to them as the "Bellcore guidelines." See, e.g., Erdman Sum. Judg. Motion at 10; Recon. Opp. at 78. Although these guidelines purport to regulate tendigit number administration, which was officially established in 1993, they are dated March 1991; as such, they were in existence when the events relevant to this proceeding  XQ4took place.FDZQkn yO!'ԍAlthough we do not explicitly find so, these guidelines are likely guidelines for the "interim 800 NXX" referred to in the introduction to the NASC guidelines, since tendigit number administration was not adopted  {Ov#'until 1993. See para. 19, supra.F Because these guidelines were issued by Bellcore as the 800 number service"Q D0*$$33Q" administrator at that time, we will consider them to be relevant "industry guidelines" for resolution of this petition for reconsideration.  X423.GUIDELINES VOLUNTARY` ` Although the Commission has stated its support for the cooperative efforts  X4among industry participants to develop industry standards,Ekn {O'ԍSee, e.g., US Telecom, Inc., 1 FCC Rcd 1104, 1106 (Com. Car. Bur. 1986) ("[t]he Commission has also supported the efforts of the telecommunications industry to develop standards"). industry guidelines are generally  X4subject to voluntary compliance.F"kn {O` 'ԍSee, e.g., NASC Guidelines at iii ("while compliance is voluntary, deliberate abuse of these guidelines may be referred by any participant to the [Commission]"). Industry guidelines may, however, become enforceable if  Xv4the Commission specifically adopts them in an order or other Commission action. GZv|kn {O 'ԍSee, e.g.,Waiver of Access Billing Requirements and Investigation of Permanent Modifications, 3 FCC Rcd 13, 1617 (Com. Car. Bur. 1987) (Commission order requiring carriers to modify their tariffs to accept and adhere to industry guidelines).  The Commission has stated, for example, that the adoptionof certain industry rules would "lead to more effective enforcement because compliance with the Industry Guidelines is voluntary,  X14while [carriers] who disregard our rules will be subject to penalties."H&1kn {O'ԍToll Free Service Access Codes, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,  {OJ'12 FCC Rcd 11162, 11193 (1997) (Toll Free Access Order) (also stating that, "Our recent experience with 800 numbers illustrates the need for Commission involvement in modifying the lag time intervals in effect, although  {O'we prefer to leave operational procedures to industry forums where possible." Id.).  Although the Commission has acknowledged that the industry guidelines for 800 number administration have provided useful guidance to local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, and  X 4Responsible Organizations,I$ kn yO)'ԍResponsible Organizations are entities that access the SMS central database to perform such functions  {O'as reserving new numbers or changing 800 customers' interexchange carrier assignments. See 800 Data Base  {O'Access Tariffs and the 800 Service Management System Tariff and Provision of 800 Services, 11 FCC Rcd 15227, 15233 (1996). the Commission has not adopted the guidelines. Thus,  X 4compliance with the industry guidelines remains voluntary.J xkn {O'ԍSee, e.g., id. at 1532728 (requiring BOCs to remove provisions from the central database tariff that purport to incorporate the voluntary industry guidelines by reference).  X 424.` ` Despite their voluntary nature, industry guidelines may be relevant in determining whether certain practices comply with section 201(b)'s requirement that carrier  Xy4practices be just and reasonable.>Kykn yO#'ԍ47 U.S.C.  201(b).> For example, the Commission has stated its willingness to"ybK0*$$33" examine the evidence surrounding complaints regarding industry practices to determine if the "failure to follow industry standards is unjust and unreasonable within the meaning of Section  X4201(b) of the [Act]."Lkn {OK'ԍUS Telecom, 1 FCC Rcd at 1107 n.25. Additionally, entities may petition or complain to the  {O'Commission if they believe that industry guidelines are unfair or not in the public interest. See, e.g., Provision  {O'of Access for 800 Service, 4 FCC Rcd 2824, 2835 (1989) ("if, however, a party has reason to believe that the 800 number administration guidelines are unfair or not in the public interest, it may file a petition or complaint  {Oq'specifying its objection, and we will consider the matter accordingly"); Id. at 2846 n.182 ("if [any entity] objects to the 800 number administration guidelines adopted by the industry, it may file a complaint").  X425.` ` Erdman alleged in counts five through seven that Sprint's actions and tariff  X4violate, inter alia, the Bellcore guidelines, but not that such violations constitute violations of  Xx4the Act or of a Commission order or rule.KMxHkn {Oq 'ԍSee 2d Am. Complaint at 810.K Erdman explains in its petition for reconsideration, however, that because they failed to comport with the Bellcore guidelines, Sprint's actions were unjust and unreasonable, and not supported by Sprint's tariffs, thereby  X34violating "Sections 201204 of the Act."NZ3kn {O'ԍRecon. Petition at 5 (stating, e.g., that "[w]hen the Bureau considers Sprint's activities in light of [the industry] guidelines, it must find that Sprint acted in an unjust and unreasonable manner"); 47 U.S.C.  201204. We could, as did the Bureau, end our inquiry here because Erdman's failure to allege specific violations of the Act in its complaint renders the  X 4complaint defective.O kn {O'ԍSee generally 47 C.F.R.  1720 (listing general pleading requirements for formal complaints). We will nevertheless consider whether Sprint's actions are unjust and unreasonable within the meaning of section 201(b), and whether Sprint's tariff provision regarding reinstatement of 800 numbers terminated by a customer is in violation of section  X 4203(c).LP kn yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  201(b), 203(c). L ` `  X426.` ` Erdman appears to claim in counts five through seven that any actions or tariff  X{4provisions that do not comport with the Bellcore guidelines are per se unjust or unreasonable under section 201(b). Erdman's position is untenable for two reasons. First, as discussed  XO4above, compliance with industry guidelines is voluntary.eQOkn {O!'ԍSee supra paragraph GUIDELINES VOLUNTARY23. e Second, the guidelines themselves"OQ0*$$33*" acknowledge that 800 service providers are free to offer 800 service as they deem  X4appropriate.Rkn {Oy'ԍSee 2d Am. Complaint, Exh. F, Bellcore guidelines (guidelines "should in no way be used to infer a description or limitation of the 800 Service offerings of any 800 Service provider"). Moreover, the language used in the guidelines is mostly advisory, not  X4mandatory, in nature.S9kn {O'ԍSee, e.g., Bellcore guidelines at para. 5.4 ("the original subscriber/assignee may be allowed to reactivate its 800 Service number within three (3) months from the disconnect effective date") (emphasis added). Nor has Erdman shown that the provisions in the Bellcore guidelines are identical to the requirements in Sprint's tariff, the violation of which would be actionable  X4under section 203(c).?Tkn yO 'ԍ47 U.S.C.  203(c). ?  Xv427. COUNT 5 ` ` Erdman alleged in count five that Sprint's disconnection of its 800 numbers and immediate reassignment of the numbers to another customer violated the SMS tariffs and  XH4industry guidelines.VUH#kn yO'ԍ2d Am. Complaint at 8; Recon. Petition at 5. V As discussed above, the record of this proceeding fails to establish that Sprint disconnected the numbers for any reason other than Erdman's own instruction to  X 4Sprint.uV kn {O~'ԍSee supra paragraphs BURDEN START14שBURDEN END15. u Therefore, Erdman has not demonstrated that Sprint's disconnection of the four 800 numbers was either unjust or unreasonable, or a violation of either the SMS tariffs or the industry guidelines.  X 428.` ` We also find that Erdman has not shown that Sprint's reassignment of two of the 800 numbers was unjust or unreasonable. By relying solely on industry guidelines to demonstrate that the reassignment was unreasonable, Erdman again ignores the voluntary  Xy4nature of the guidelines.#W"yE kn yOo'ԍFor example, Erdman relied on a guideline that provides that the original assignee of a disconnected  {O7'800 number may be allowed to reactivate an 800 number within three months. See 2d Am. Complaint at 8  yO'(referring to Bellcore guidelines at para. 5.4). Even if this guideline were controlling, it merely suggests, but  yO'does not require, that Erdman be given the opportunity to reclaim the number within three months. # The guidelines suggest various minimum waiting or "aging"  Xd4periods for reassignment of disconnected 800 numbers. XXd/ kn yOD'ԍFor example, the guidelines provide for a standard aging period of one year, but also state that the minimum aging period before disconnected 800 numbers should be reassigned is six months. Bellcore guidelines at para. 4.5.  The aging provisions are designed to minimize the new assignee's expenses due to misdialed calls, and to eliminate confusion"MOX0*$$33x"  X4for callers attempting to reach the previous assignee.hYkn {Oy'ԍSee, e.g., Toll Free Access Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 1119697.h That is, they are for the benefit of new assignees and callers, but do not, as Erdman suggests, confer any rights or protection on the previous assignee. Moreover, since the Commission has not mandated compliance with the guidelines, we are free to consider the facts in this instance to determine the lawfulness of Sprint's aging practices.  X4   Xv429.COUNT 5 END` ` Sprint has presented uncontroverted evidence that there was very little traffic  X_4over the four 800 numbers while they were under Erdman's control.\Z_Zkn {Oj 'ԍSee supra paragraph CALL REVENUE3. \ Although we do not  XH4decide whether such use by Erdman constitutes hoarding as alleged by Sprint,[Hkn yO 'ԍHoarding is the acquisition of more toll free numbers than one intends to use for the provision of toll  {O 'free service. See Toll Free Access Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 11189. The Commission has held that hoarding (or  {Ow'stockpiling), as well as brokering 800 numbers, are against the public interest. See, e.g., Provision of Access for  {OA'800 Service, 4 FCC Rcd at 2846 n.182 ("certain guidelines are necessary to prevent users or carriers from reserving or retaining 800 numbers for long periods of time without using them. Such stockpiling of 800  yO'numbers is not in the public interest."). #Xj\  P6G;ynXP# HOARDING  we believe that a new assignee likely would not experience misdialing or other customer complaints in this instance because the lines carried very little traffic while they were under Erdman's  X 4control.\ j kn yO'ԍEven if such problems arise, they would affect only Sprint and the new assignee, and would not give Erdman grounds for regaining control of the reassigned 800 number. Thus, the prompt reassignment of the subject numbers did not frustrate the purpose behind the guideline. Because Erdman has failed to show either the disconnection or reassignment of the 800 numbers by Sprint to be unjust or unreasonable, we find that the Bureau properly denied count five of Erdman's complaint.  X430.` ` In count six, Erdman alleged that Sprint marketed and sold 800 numbers, and moved 800 numbers to larger accounts for its own benefit. Specifically, Erdman alleged that Sprint violated the "requirements" in the SMS tariff and guidelines that one cannot have a proprietary interest in an 800 number, and that 800 numbers can only be disconnected for  X44cause.>]4 kn yO'ԍ2d Am. Complaint at 9.> Erdman, however, failed to show that Sprint either exercised a proprietary interest in 800 numbers, or disconnected its 800 numbers without cause. Erdman also alleged in this count that Sprint's actions violated another requirement in the SMS tariff and guidelines that  X4800 numbers may not be brokered.1^R kn {O#'ԍId.1 The Commission has defined brokering as "the selling"^0*$$33"  X4of numbers by private entities for a fee."d_kn {Oy'ԍSee Toll Free Access Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 11189.d Erdman has not shown that Sprint engaged in the  X4brokering of 800 numbers "to maximize its earnings at the expense of its customers,"`Zkn yO'ԍRecon. Petition at 8. Erdman claims that, "It is clear from a review of the transcripts that Sprint actively engaged in brokering telephone numbers for its own account, and sought to maximize telephone traffic  {O'over its network with blatant disregard for the rights of its customers." Id. at 9.  Erdman does not, however, identify the relevant passages from the transcripts, nor can we find any such "clear" proclamations of brokering activity by Sprint in the record. or for  X4any other reason.$a kn yO 'ԍIn fact, Erdman's evidence in support of this allegation consists only of Erdman's own averments. For example, Erdman states that "Sprint employees admitted to be actively engaged in the sale and marketing of 800 numbers, calling themselves sales reps, and called Erdman to ask that he release certain numbers for other Sprint  {O 'customers." Id. at 5. We do not find that Erdman's statements, in the absence of additional evidence, are sufficient to demonstrate brokering by Sprint.$ Thus, we find that the Bureau properly denied count six of Erdman's complaint.  X431. COUNT 7 ` ` Erdman alleged in count seven that Sprint's tariff "requires that an [800] number terminated by a customer may not be reinstated to that customer," and that such a  X_4requirement violates the SMS tariff and guidelines.?b_ kn yO'ԍ2d Am. Complaint at 10.? However, Sprint's tariff, which provides that Sprint will no longer make a number available to a customer who disconnects an 800 number, comports with the Commission's stated view that carriers should not "warehouse" numbers, or reserve them without having an identified subscriber, to ensure that 800 numbers  X 4are allocated efficiently and fairly.kc N kn {O'ԍSee, e.g., Toll Free Access Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 11176.k Thus, we find that Erdman failed to show that this tariff provision is unjust or unreasonable in violation of section 201(b), or is otherwise unlawful.  X 432.` ` Erdman alleged in count eight that Sprint actively marketed and sold 800 numbers, and held and transferred them among its customers, in violation of the  X4Commission's rules and policies regarding 800 number portability.?dkn yO!'ԍ2d Am. Complaint at 11.? The Commission's rules and regulations that apply to 800 number portability came into effect in 1993, two years after  Xb4the events of which Erdman complains.debpkn {O"'ԍSee paragraph ADMIN CHANGE19, supra. d As such, they are not relevant to this proceeding. Moreover, Erdman has not produced evidence, admissible or otherwise, demonstrating that"Ke0*$$33x" Sprint marketed, brokered, or stockpiled 800 numbers in violation of the Commission's  X4policies against such activity.fkn {Ob'ԍSee note HOARDING91, supra (describing the Commission's policies against the stockpiling and brokering of 800 numbers by users and carriers). Therefore, count eight was also properly denied by the Bureau.  X' D. Primary Jurisdiction Referral  Xv4 33.` ` Finally, Erdman contends that, because the district court referred three issues to the Commission for consideration, "[t]he proper procedure for this Commission to follow is to  XH4formulate answers [to the district court's questions] based upon its policies and practices."CgH"kn yO 'ԍReply Recon. Petition at 3.C  X14As we have explained above, Erdman's argument is without merit.oh1kn {O'ԍSee paragraph CHOSE TO BRIN COMPLAINT11, supra. o Nevertheless, in deference to the district court and finally to lay to rest this matter, we now specifically address the issues raised by the district court below. Those issues are:  X 4X1.X` ` Whether Sprint's tariff provisions regarding licensing and terminating 800 numbers are unjust or unreasonable. ` #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#  X4X2.X` ` Whether Sprint's actions in disconnecting and reassigning the 800 numbers were unjust or unreasonable. `  XK4X3.` ` Whether Erdman has a proprietary or ownership interest in the 800 numbers.tiZKDkn {O@'ԍSee Dist. Ct. Order at 56 ("interpreting the tariff, scrutinizing the reasonableness of Sprint's actions and determining whether Erdman has proprietary rights in the telephone numbers sufficient to maintain a cause of action are issues involving policy matters that are not within the conventional experience of this Court").t(#  X' 1.` ` Sprint's Tariff  X4  X4!34.` ` Section 201(b) states that "[a]ll charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with [interstate] communication services, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or  X4unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful.">jf kn yO"'ԍ47 U.S.C.  201(b).> It is well established that the Commission" j0*$$33" has "broad authority to interpret the Communications Act and determine when a tariff is just  X4and reasonable."kZkn {Ob'ԍRCA American Communications, Inc., 94 FCC2d 1338, 1340 (1983) (citing Nader v. FCC, 520 F.2d 182, 192 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (also stating that "[r]easonableness ultimately depends on the special facts of each case")).  X4"35.` ` We find nothing in the record to demonstrate that the provisions in Section  X43.23 of Sprint's Tariff No. 2_lkn {O? 'ԍSee supra paragraph TARIFF LANGUAGE2. _ are unjust or unreasonable. To the contrary, the tariff provisions comport with the Commission's stated policies regarding 800 number administration in effect at the time of the events of which Erdman complains, as well as with applicable industry guidelines. For example, the tariff mirrors the Bellcore guidelines by  XH4providing that no one has a proprietary interest in 800 numbers.ZmH|kn {Ou'ԍSee. e.g., Bellcore guidelines at para. 3.7.Z Moreover, the tariff provisions regarding Sprint's right to discontinue service upon written notice to customers  X 4attempting to broker or hoard numbers, while not relevant to this proceeding,n kn yO'ԍWhile Sprint argued that it could have disconnected Erdman's 800 service because of alleged hoarding and brokering of the 800 numbers, it did not do so. are designed to promote the efficient use of 800 numbers. The Commission has emphasized the importance of returning unused numbers to the "pool" so that they may be reassigned as soon  X 4as it is practical to do so.o f kn {O'ԍSee, e.g., Toll Free Access Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 11189 (stating the Commission's view that hoarding and brokering of 800 numbers are against the public interest). These provisions promote the fair administration of 800 numbers. We find that they are neither unjust nor unreasonable.  X' 2.` ` Sprint's Actions  Xb4#36.` ` Erdman complained to the district court that Sprint wrongfully (1) disconnected three of its 800 numbers; (2) failed to reassign two of the numbers to Erdman; and (3) reassigned two of the numbers to another customer before proper aging. We have already addressed the alleged impropriety of these actions in deciding the merits of Erdman's complaint. In deciding count five, we found that Erdman had failed to show that Sprint acted unreasonably either by disconnecting the 800 numbers or by reassigning two of them to other  X4customers.qp kn {OI#'ԍSee supra paragraphs COUNT 527שCOUNT 5 END29. q In deciding count seven, we determined that Sprint's tariff provision, which provides that Sprint will no longer make a number available to a customer who disconnects an"R p0*$$33"  X4800 number, is not unjust or unreasonable.qkn {Oy'ԍSee supra para. COUNT 731 (also finding that this tariff provision comports with the Commission's stated view that carriers should not reserve 800 numbers, but should allocate them efficiently and fairly). Sprint's actions in disconnecting and reassigning Erdman's 800 numbers were neither unjust nor unreasonable.  X' 3.` ` Proprietary Interest in 800 Numbers  X4$37.` ` The Bureau addressed this issue directly in the Bureau Order, finding that Erdman had no proprietary interest in the numbers. In support of its finding, the Bureau noted that "Sprint's tariff, like those of other 800 carriers, provides that no customer has any  XJ4proprietary right or interest in the 800 numbers it uses."rJ"kn {O 'ԍBureau Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 6342 (citing Sprint Tariff F.C.C. No. 2  3.23, 2.1.7(C)). The Bureau Order also noted that "[t]hese tariff provisions are consistent with guidelines issued by the North American  X 4Numbering Plan Administrator that were in effect at the time of the relevant events."ds kn {O'ԍId. (apparently referring to the Bellcore guidelines).d Moreover, the Commission has stated in numerous other proceedings that 800 numbers are  X 4public property.)tZ Fkn {O'ԍSee, e.g., Toll Free Access Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 11185 (stating that "carriers do not own codes or numbers, but rather administer their distribution for the efficient operation of the public switched telephone network") (citation omitted).) Thus, we find that Erdman had no proprietary or ownership interest in the 800 numbers sufficient to maintain a cause of action.  X 4}? IV. CONCLUSION ă  X}4%38.` ` "It is well established that in a formal complaint proceeding pursuant to  Xf4Section 208 of the Act, the complainant has the burden of proof.".u\fh kn {O'ԍRSI, 9 FCC Rcd at 2414 (citing Amendment of Rules Concerning Procedures to be Followed When  {OI'Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, 8 FCC Rcd 2614, 261617 (1993)). See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.7201.735.. Erdman did not meet its burden on any of the counts in its complaint. For the reasons discussed above, we deny Erdman's petition seeking reconsideration of the Bureau's order denying Erdman's complaint. This ruling renders moot the portion of Erdman's reconsideration petition challenging the Bureau's denial of his motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we decline to address that portion of Erdman's petition. " u0*$$33"Ԍ X'%6 V. ORDERING CLAUSES \  X4&39.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 203(c), and 208 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 203(c), 208, and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Erdman Technologies Corporation IS DENIED.  X_4'40.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Erdman's request to amend its Second Amended Complaint IS DENIED.  X 4(41.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau, shall forward a copy of this decision to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York promptly upon release of this Order on Reconsideration. ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCqMagalie Roman Salas ` `  hhCqSecretary