Numbering Resource Optimization

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[CC Docket No. 99-200; FCC 99-122]

Numbering Resource Optimization

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document examines a variety of measures intended to

increase the efficiency with which telecommunications carriers use

telephone numbering resources. The purpose of this effort is two-fold:

to slow the rate of number exhaust in this country as evidenced by the

ever-increasing rate at which new area codes are assigned; and to

prolong the life of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP).

DATES: Comments are to be filed on or before July 30, 1999, and reply

comments are due on or before August 30, 1999. Written comments must be

submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed

information collections on or before August 16, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Secretary, 445 12th

Street, SW, Room TW-B204F, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing

comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information

collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected], and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 72--17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jared Carlson, (202) 418-2320 or email

at [email protected] or Tejal Mehta at (202) 418-2320 or [email protected].

For additional information concerning the information collections

contained in this NPRM contact Judy Boley at 202-418-0214, or via the

Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking adopted on May 27, 1999, and released on June 2,

1999. The full text of this Notice is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445

12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will

be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the

FCC Reference Center. The complete text may also be obtained through

the world wide web, at http:/www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/CommonCarrier/Orders,

or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,

International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20036.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information

collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections

contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same

time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB notification of action is due

60 days from date of publication of this NPRM in the Federal Register.

Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of

the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical

utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents, including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

OMB Control No.: None.

Title: Numbering Resource Optimization, CC Docket No. 99-200.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

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

Total

Estimated annual Burden

Proposed number of collections time per response (Annual)

respondents (hours) (hours)

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

Verification of Need for Numbers

Submissions:

a. Quarterly Report.......... 3000 48 144,000

b. Initial Codes............. 3000 1 3000

c. Growth Codes.............. 3000 3 9000

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

Frequency of Response: Quarterly; on occasion.

Total Annual Burden: 156,000 hours.

Estimated Costs Per Respondent: $0.

Needs and Uses: In CC Docket No. 99-200, the Commission examines a

variety of measures intended to increase the efficiency with which

telecommunications carriers use numbering resources in order to slow

the rate of number exhaust in this country. The Notice examines

existing mechanisms for the administration and allocation of numbering

resources, which are governed by industry-developed Central Office Code

Guidelines. The Notice proposes certain verification measures designed

to prevent carriers from obtaining numbering resources that they do not

need in the near term. The Notice tentatively concludes that a more

extensive, detailed and uniform reporting mechanism should be developed

that will improve numbering utilization and forecasting on a nationwide

basis. The Notice tentatively concludes that carriers should report

utilization and forecast data on a quarterly basis and that the

Commission should mandate that all users of numbering resources must

supply utilization and forecast data to the NANPA. With respect to an

applicant's ability to obtain initial codes, the Notice seeks comment

on what type of showing

[[Page 32472]]

would be appropriate. The Notice seeks comment on whether applicants

should be required to make a particular showing regarding the equipment

they intend to use to provide service, the state of readiness of their

network or switches, or their progress with their business plans, prior

to obtaining initial codes, or whether any other type of showing should

be required. Applicants for NXX codes currently are required to

complete a Months-to-Exhaust Worksheet prior to applying for growth

codes. The Notice seeks comment on whether requiring applicants to

submit the Months-to-Exhaust Worksheet with an application for growth

codes would be an adequate demonstration of need in order to obtain

additional numbering resources. Alternatively, the Notice seeks comment

on whether carriers should be required to demonstrate that they have

achieved a specified level of numbering utilization (or fill rate) in

the area in question before they may receive additional numbering

resources. All the proposed collections will be used to prevent the

premature exhaustion of numbering resources pursuant to the Commissions

plenary authority over numbering set forth at 47 U.S.C. Section 251(e).

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

1. In 1947, AT&T adopted the current nationwide numbering scheme,

under which the ten-digit telephone number serves not only as a network

``address,'' but also conveys information to the network as to how

phone calls should be routed and billed. A principal benefit of this

system was that it permitted automated routing of long-distance phone

calls, obviating the need for operators to assist in routing. Under the

allocation system that developed to support this system, numbering

resources are allocated to local telephone exchange carriers on the

basis of physical geography, rather than on the basis of end-user

demand for those numbers. That is, typically a large block of numbers

is allocated to a carrier for use in a geographic area, even though

there may not be end-users assigned to each individual number available

in the area. This system worked smoothly so long as only one entity

(the local exchange carrier) offered only one type of service (wireline

telephony) to customers.

2. New services using the same numbering system, particularly

cellular telephones, began to enter the telecommunications marketplace

with increasing frequency beginning in the late 1980's. More recently,

the Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened the market for competitive

local wireline service, again giving rise to more players entering the

market. In addition, many customers are obtaining additional telephone

lines to support additional services such as Internet, data, and

facsimile services. Because of the relatively recent explosion of

market entry and customer demand for new services, as well as the

assignment of telephone numbers to multiple service providers in large

blocks on a geographic basis, we have witnessed an incredible increase

in demand for numbering resources.

3. Although we are only just beginning to see the benefits of

competition in the marketplace for local wireline telephone service,

the coincident costs in the form of the rapid exhaust of area codes are

already all too apparent. The effect on consumers having to undergo, in

some cases, multiple area code changes in relatively short time frames

is an unacceptable byproduct of burgeoning competition in the

telecommunications marketplace. To illustrate the pace of area code

exhaust, consider California, which, at the end of 1992, had thirteen

area codes in use. The California Public Utilities Commission projects

that by the end of 2002, it will have 41 area codes. When the task of

splitting the 323 area code from the 213 area code in the Los Angeles

area was completed in April 1999, rather than lasting for ten or even

five years, the new area code was immediately declared to be in

jeopardy of exhausting its numbering resources.

4. The goal of this proceeding is to address the underlying drivers

of area code exhaust so that consumers are spared the enormous costs

and inconveniences associated with the rapid pace of implementation of

new area codes. In addition, clearly, implementing new area codes is

not a solution that can continue indefinitely. As of the end of 1998,

it was estimated that nearly one-third of the total number of

geographic area codes assignable to the United States had been put into

service. By some projections, the NANP could exhaust within ten years.

Because the estimated cost of expanding the NANP is enormous, and the

time to effect such an expansion is estimated to be on the order of ten

years, the need to extend the life of the current NANP through

effective conservation and efficient utilization of numbering resources

is apparent and immediate.

5. This Commission, with input from industry groups, advisory

bodies, state public utility commissions and the public, has already

begun to examine various numbering conservation and optimization

methods. Continuing in these efforts, we issue this Notice to seek

public comment on how best to create national standards for numbering

resource optimization. In doing so, we seek to: (1) minimize the

negative impact on consumers; (2) ensure sufficient access to numbering

resources for all service providers that need them to enter into or to

compete in telecommunications markets; (3) avoid, or at least delay,

exhaust of the NANP and the need to expand the NANP; (4) impose the

least societal cost possible, in a competitively neutral manner, while

obtaining the highest benefit; (5) ensure that no class of carrier or

consumer is unduly favored or disfavored by our optimization efforts;

and (6) minimize the incentives for carriers to build and carry

excessively large inventories of numbers.

Executive Summary

6. In this Notice, we consider and seek comment on a variety of

administrative and technical measures that would promote more efficient

allocation and use of NANP resources. In Section III, we seek specific

comment on the relative costs and benefits, both financial and

societal, of implementing each measure. We also ask that commenters

weigh the cost of extending the life of the current NANP through

various numbering resource optimization strategies against the

projected cost of expansion of the NANP.

7. In Section IV, we examine the existing mechanisms for the

administration and allocation of numbering resources, which are

governed by industry-developed CO Code Guidelines. We find that the

guidelines have not been effective in constraining the ability of

carriers to obtain and carry excessively large inventories of numbering

resources for which they have no immediate need. We seek comment on

whether the guidelines should be modified or replaced, wholly or in

part, by enforceable federal rules. Within the section, we outline

proposals for a uniform set of numbering status definitions. We also

seek comment on measures that would tie the allocation of new numbering

resources to a showing of need by the carrier, increase carrier

accountability for number utilization through enhanced data reporting

and audit requirements, and speed the return of unused numbering

resources. We specifically seek comment on the possibility of requiring

carriers to meet number utilization thresholds before they can obtain

additional numbering resources. These measures would not require

[[Page 32473]]

implementation of new systems or technologies, and we believe that they

could be implemented in a relatively short time period at minimal cost.

8. In Section V, we consider and seek comment on some specific

numbering resource optimization solutions that could be implemented in

addition to, or in combination with, stricter administrative standards

for the administration and allocation of numbering resources. These

methods include rate center consolidation, mandatory ten-digit dialing,

and number pooling. We consider the likely costs and potential number

optimization benefits of each of these solutions. We also seek comment

on a host of issues related to the way in which number pooling might be

implemented and administered, if we were to make carrier participation

mandatory at some level.

9. In light of the potential costs of these numbering resource

optimization solutions, we seek comment on whether the magnitude of the

number exhaust problem justifies requiring carriers to participate in

one or more of these solutions on a mandatory basis, either at the

federal level or through delegation of authority to the states. In the

alternative, we consider whether optimal use of numbering resources

could be accomplished without the need for such mandates, provided that

carriers achieved sufficiently high levels of efficiency in their usage

of numbers. Under this approach, we would require carriers to meet

specific number utilization thresholds, but would leave to each carrier

the choice of what numbering optimization method or methods to use to

achieve that threshold.

10. In Section VI, we consider whether establishing a pricing

mechanism for numbering resources would improve the efficiency of

number allocation and use. Although it is probably not feasible in the

short-term to replace our existing numbering resource allocation

mechanism with a market-based approach, we believe it is important to

consider using market-based mechanisms to allocate numbers as a

possible long-term alternative to regulatory mandates. We seek comment

on whether moving to a market-based system of allocating numbering

resources is feasible, and how the transition to such a system could be

implemented.

11. In Section VII, we consider area code relief methodologies,

including splits, overlays, and boundary realignments, as numbering

optimization strategies. We recognize that our consideration of both

short-term and long-term numbering resource optimization measures in

this Notice does not eliminate the need for states to continue to

implement area code relief in those area codes that are approaching

depletion. We seek comment on what action the Commission can take to

assist states in implementing area code relief in a manner that is

consistent with the objectives of this proceeding.

Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Presentations

12. This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''

proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons

making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda

summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance

of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects

discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and

arguments presented is generally required.

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

13. The following is a summary of the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) created for the Notice. Pursuant to the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), See 5 U.S.C. section 603. The RFA,

See 5 U.S.C. section 601 et seq., was amended by the Contract With

America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847

(1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). The Commission has prepared

the following IRFA of the possible significant economic impact on small

entities of the policies and rules in this Notice. Written public

comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in

accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of

the Notice, and should have a separate and distinct heading designating

them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission shall send a copy of this

Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration.

14. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules. The Commission

is issuing this Notice to seek public comment on how best to create

national standards for numbering resource optimization. In doing so, we

seek to: (1) ensure sufficient access to numbering resources for all

service providers that need them to enter into or to compete in

telecommunications markets; (2) avoid, or at least delay, exhaust of

the NANP and the need to expand the NANP; (3) minimize the negative

impact on consumers; (4) impose the least cost possible, in a

competitively neutral manner, while obtaining the highest benefit; (5)

ensure that no class of carrier or consumer is unduly favored or

disfavored by our numbering resource optimization efforts; and (6)

minimize the incentives for building and carrying excessively large

inventories of numbers.

15. Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized under sections

1, 4(i) and (j), 201, 208, and 251 of the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended. 47 U.S.C. sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, and 251(e).

16. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities That

May Be Affected by this Notice. The RFA requires that an initial

regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment

rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule

will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. section 605(b). The

RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as

the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small

governmental jurisdiction.'' Id. section 601(6). In addition, the term

``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business

concern'' under the Small Business Act. Id. section 601(3)

(incorporating by reference the definition of ``small business

concern'' in Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. section 632). A small

business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated;

(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any

additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration

(SBA). Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. section 632.

17. In this IRFA, we consider the potential impact of this Notice

on all users of telephone numbering resources. The small entities

possibly affected by the proposed rules, if adopted, include wireline,

wireless, and other entities, as described below. The SBA has defined a

small business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories

4,812 (Radiotelephone Communications) and 4,813 (Telephone

Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities having no

more than 1,500 employees. 13 CFR section 121.201. In the FRFA to the

Universal Service Order, we described and estimated in detail the

number of small entities that would be affected by the new universal

service rules. 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 9227-9243 (1997). Although some

affected incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) may have 1,500 or

fewer employees, we do not believe that such

[[Page 32474]]

entities should be considered small entities within the meaning of the

RFA because they are either dominant in their field of operations or

are not independently owned and operated, and therefore by definition

not ``small entities'' or ``small business concerns'' under the RFA.

Accordingly, our use of the terms ``small entities'' and ``small

businesses'' does not encompass small ILECs. Out of an abundance of

caution, however, for regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will

separately consider small ILECs within this analysis and use the term

``small ILECs'' to refer to any ILECs that arguably might be defined by

the SBA as ``small business concerns.'' See 13 CFR section 121.201, SIC

code 4813. Since the time of the Local Competition decision, 11 FCC Rcd

15499, 16144-45 (1996), 61 FR 45476 (Aug. 29, 1996), the Commission has

consistently addressed in its regulatory flexibility analyses the

impact of its rules on such ILECs.

18. The most reliable source of information regarding the total

numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as

well as the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data

the Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator: Interstate

Service Providers Report (Locator). FCC, Carrier Locator: Interstate

Service Providers at 1-2. This report lists 3,604 companies that

provided interstate telecommunications service as of December 31, 1997

and was compiled using information from Telecommunications Relay

Service (TRS) Fund Worksheets filed by carriers (Jan. 1999). These

carriers include, inter alia, local exchange carriers, competitive

local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, competitive access

providers, satellite service providers, wireless telephony providers,

operator service providers, pay telephone operators, providers of

telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange service, and

resellers.

19. Local Service Providers. There are two principle providers of

local telephone service; ILECS and competing local service providers.

Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for small

providers of local exchange services (LECs). The closest applicable

definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications

companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. According to

data set forth in the FCC Statistics of Communications Common Carriers

(SOCC), 34 ILECs have more than 1,500 employees. We do not have data

specifying the number of these carriers that are either dominant in

their field of operations or are not independently owned and operated,

and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the

number of ILECs that would qualify as small business concerns under the

SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that fewer than 1,376 ILECs

are small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if

adopted.

20. Competitive Local Service Providers. This category includes

competitive access providers (CAPs), competitive local exchange

providers (CLECs), shared tenant service providers, local resellers,

and other local service providers. The closest applicable definition

under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other

than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. According to the most recent

Locator data, 145 carriers reported that they were engaged in the

provision of competitive local service. We estimate that there are

fewer than 145 small entity competitive local service providers that

may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.

21. Providers of Toll Service. The toll industry includes providers

of interexchange services (IXCs), satellite service providers and other

toll service providers, primarily resellers. The closest applicable

definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications

companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. According to

the most recent Locator data, 164 carriers reported that they were

engaged in the provision of toll services. We estimate that there are

fewer than 164 small entity toll providers that may be affected by the

proposed rules, if adopted.

22. In addition, an alternative SBA standard may apply to satellite

service providers. The applicable definition of small entity generally

is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Communications

Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC). This definition provides that

a small entity is expressed as one with $11.0 million or less in annual

receipts. According to the Census Bureau, there were a total of 848

communications services providers, NEC, in operation in 1992, and a

total of 775 had annual receipts of less than $9,999 million. The

Census report does not provide more precise data.

23. Resellers. This category includes toll resellers, operator

service providers, pre-paid calling card providers, and other toll

service providers. The closest applicable SBA definition for a reseller

is a telephone communications company other than radiotelephone

(wireless) companies. According to the most recent Locator data, 405

carriers reported that they were engaged in the resale of telephone

service. We estimate that there are fewer than 405 small entity

resellers that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.

24. Wireless Telephony and Paging and Messaging. Wireless telephony

includes cellular, personal communications service (PCS) or specialized

mobile radio (SMR) service providers. The closest applicable SBA

definition for a reseller is a telephone communications company other

than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. According to the most recent

Locator data, 732 carriers reported that they were engaged in the

provision of wireless telephony and 137 companies reported that they

were engaged in the provision of paging and messaging service. We

estimate that fewer than 732 carriers are engaged in the provision of

wireless telephony and fewer than 137 companies are engaged in the

provision of paging and messaging service.

25. The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for cable

and other pay television services, which includes all such companies

generating $11 million or less in revenue annually. This definition

includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services,

direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems,

satellite master antenna systems and subscription television services.

According to the Census Bureau data from 1992, there were 1,788 total

cable and other pay television services and 1,423 had less than $11

million in revenue.

26. The Commission has developed its own definition of a small

cable system operator for the purposes of rate regulation. Under the

Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is one serving fewer than

400,000 subscribers nationwide. Based on our most recent information,

we estimate that there were 1,439 cable operators that qualified as

small cable system operators at the end of 1995. Paul Kagan Associates,

Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30,

1995). 47 U.S.C. section 543(m)(2). 47 CFR section 76.1403(b). Since

then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000

subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that

caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, we

estimate that there are fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system

operators.

27. The Communications Act also contains a definition of a small

cable system operator, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or

through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer

[[Page 32475]]

than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not

affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in

the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that

there are 66,000,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, we

found that an operator serving fewer than 660,000 subscribers shall be

deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the

total annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do not exceed $250

million in the aggregate. Based on available data, we find that the

number of cable operators serving 660,000 subscribers or less totals

1,450. We do not request nor do we collect information concerning

whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross

annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, and thus are unable at this time

to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators

that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the

Communications Act.

28. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other

Compliance Requirements. The Notice seeks comment on whether all NXX

codeholders should be required to report the status of all telephone

numbers within the NXX blocks assigned to them. In the alternative, the

Notice seeks comment on whether utilization data reporting on a more

aggregated basis (or some more aggregated set of telephone number

status categories) would provide sufficient data to accurately track

number utilization. The Notice proposes that any utilization reporting

obligation that the Commission adopts would be in addition to the

demand forecasting requirement that the COCUS currently places on

carriers. The Notice seeks comment on whether any modifications should

be made to improve the quality and accuracy of carriers' demand

forecasts. Alternatively, the Notice seeks comment on several

alternative data collection options, including the forecast and

utilization reporting process in the current Thousand Block Pooling

Guidelines, and the Line Number Use Survey (LINUS) data collection

model designed by NANPA staff as a replacement for COCUS. The Notice

also seeks comment on other industry proposals for a number utilization

and forecasting mechanism to replace COCUS. Finally, it seeks comment

on whether to supplement the need verification measures and data

collection program with a comprehensive audit program that verifies

carrier compliance with federal rules and industry numbering

guidelines.

29. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small

Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered. The rules we propose

in this Notice are designed to ensure sufficient access to numbering

resources for all service providers that need them. The Notice seeks

public comment on how best to create national standards for numbering

resource optimization in order to: (1) ensure sufficient access to

numbering resources for all service providers that need them to enter

into or to compete in telecommunications markets; (2) avoid, or at

least delay, exhaust of the NANP and the need to expand the NANP; (3)

minimize the negative impact on consumers; (4) impose the least cost

possible, in a competitively neutral manner, while obtaining the

highest benefit; (5) ensure that no class of carrier or consumer is

unduly favored or disfavored by our optimization efforts; and (6)

minimize the incentives for carriers to build and carry excessively

large inventories of numbers. We seek comment on our tentative

conclusions and proposals, and on additional actions we might take in

this regard to relieve burdens on users of telephone numbering

resources.

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

Proposed Rules. None.

C. Comment Filing Procedures

31. Interested parties may file comments on or before July 30, 1999

and reply comments on or before August 30, 1999. Parties must file an

original and four copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to

the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the

Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW,

Room TW-B204F, Washington, DC 20554. Comments may be filed using the

Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper

copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,

63 FR 24,121 (1998). Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an

electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/

ecfs.html>. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must

be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should

include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the

applicable docket number, CC Docket 99-200 or rulemaking number, RM No.

9258.

32. Written comments by the public on the proposed information

collections are due by July 30, 1999. Written comments must be

submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed

information collections on or before August 16, 1999. In addition to

filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the

information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected] and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].

33. Parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in

this docket with the Commission's copy contractor, International

Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC

20036. Comments and reply comments will be available for public

inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center,

445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 52

Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 99-15334 Filed 6-16-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P