WPC\d 2 BT w (TT)3|C (TT)Arrus Blk BT (TT)Clarendon BT (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (TT)pt_230_1HPLAS4.WRSSx  @,, @[X@2@ P ZZ)3|j'HP LaserJet 4/4MScript_230_1HPLAS4.WRSSC\  P6Q,, @[Pxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNannotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "(OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#2/)X`!@5$annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI ")2c(dy.C8*XC\  P6QPGmCBXdXmP`  P mQXP 9iC@X)Xi% p"QX7PC2X DXP\  P6QXPd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdTimes New Roman (TT)Arrus Blk BT (TT)Clarendon BT (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&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""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNd<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd9z-X80,h|X9 xOG;:y.\80,'>\4  pG;;6jC:,h̃Xj9 xOG;X?xxxX[x6X@B X@APF,D\  P6G;PAPF,'4  pG;"i~'^FR`xxʻRRRx>R>CxxxxxxxxxxCCjݭR[ӭ⭭RCRnxRjxjxjRxxCCxCxxxxR[Cxxxxjs0sR>nRRR>RRRRRRxRxCjjjjjӜjjjjjRCRCRCRCxxxxxxxxxxjxvxxxxjjjjjjjjjjxxxxxRCRxRRRxxC`RRCxxxxxӭRRR[[[eCnxxxxxx⭭jjjxRx[Rx>xxP+PWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNVVnxRjxxxxxCMxHMxHRRjjxRRxx됶VVņRjxH"x𐋂x됐x2aK_D@u'"i~'^FRxxRRRx>R>CxxxxxxxxxxRRx⭞[x⭻𭭞RCRxRxjjRxCRCʆxj[Rxxxj`5`}R>}RRR>RRRRRRxRCxxxxxjjjjjYCYCYCYCxxxxxxxxxxxxxjj}jjjjjxxx}x[C[[R[†}}ClR`Cxxjjj[[[}zR}jjjR[Rx>xxPAPWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNVVxRxxxxxxHRxHRxHRRxxxRRxxVVņRxxH"x𐎂x됐x2Zb3dZdy.C8*XC\  P6QPGmCBXdXmP`  P mQXP 9iC@X)Xi% p"QX7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.7UC2XCxXU4  pQX,-./01234DXp٘*4ab!r2 ``n  X4     Z4Z#Xx P7dXP# Version 1 August 7, 1996 ć#Xj\  P6G; DXP#*` Before thepp  *FCC 96333 x Federal Communications Commission  X'-Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  ) In the Matters of ) ) Implementation of the Local Competition)  X 4Provisions of the Telecommunications Act)ppCC Docket No. 9698 of 1996) ) Interconnection Between Local Exchange)  X 4Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio)ppCC Docket No. 95185 Service Providers) ) Area Code Relief Plan for Dallas and )  Xb4Houston, Ordered by the Public Utility)ppNSD File No. 968 Commission of Texas) )  X4Administration of the North American)ppCC Docket No. 92237 Numbering Plan) ) Proposed 708 Relief Plan and 630)  X4Numbering Plan Area Code by Ameritech)ppIAD File No. 94102 Illinois) )   X74T[ SECOND REPORT AND ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER \  X'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:0*(("  X-network information disclosures;B yOy-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(c)(5).B and numbering administration.B X yO -ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(1).B In this Order we also deny the Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling on the area code relief plan for Dallas and Houston that the Texas Public Utility Commission (Texas Commission) filed with this  X-Commission on May 9, 1996.  {OV-ԍ In the Matter of Area Code Relief Plan for Dallas and Houston, Ordered by the Public Utility Commission  {O -of Texas, Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling filed May 9, 1996. We also address petitions for clarification or reconsideration  X-in the Ameritech and NANP proceedings. (D {O -ԍ See In the Matter of Proposed 708 Relief Plan and 630 Numbering Plan Area Code by Ameritech  {Oe -Illinois, IAD File no. 94102, Declaratory Ruling and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 4596 (1995) (Ameritech Order) and  {O/ -Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, CC Docket No. 92237, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd  {O -2588, 2591 (1995) (NANP Order). 3. Dialing parity, nondiscriminatory access, network disclosure, and numbering administration issues are critical issues for the development of local competition. As stated in  XL-the First Report and Order, incumbent local exchange carriers have little incentive to provide access to potential competitors to their networks. In other words, potential competitors in the local and long distance markets face numerous operational barriers to entry notwithstanding their legal right to enter such markets. The dialing parity, nondiscriminatory access, and network disclosure requirements should remove those barriers to entry. The rules we adopt herein will benefit consumers by making some of the strongest aspects of local exchange carrier incumbency the local dialing, telephone numbers, operator services, directory assistance, and directory listing available to all competitors on an equal basis.  X- A. Actions to Implement Section 251(b)(3)  1. Dialing Parity  X:-  X#-4. Section 251(b)(3) of the 1996 Act directs each local exchange carrier (LEC) #4  yO-ԍ The 1996 Act defines the term "local exchange carrier" as "any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access. Such term does not include a person insofar as such person is engaged in the provision of commercial mobile service under section 332(c), except to the extent that the Commission finds that such provider should be included in the definition of such term." 47 U.S.C.  153(26). For purposes of the dialing parity and nondiscriminatory access obligations that we impose pursuant to section  {O"-251(b)(3), we find that commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers are not LECs. See infra para. 29.  to provide dialing parity to competing providers of telephone exchange and telephone toll"  0*(("  X-service.$  yOy-ԍ According to the 1996 Act, the term "dialing parity" means "that a person that is not an affiliate of a local exchange carrier is able to provide telecommunications services in such a manner that customers have the ability to route automatically, without the use of any access code, their telecommunications to the telecommunications services provider of the customer's designation from among 2 or more telecommunications services providers (including such local exchange carrier)." 47U.S.C.153(15).$ This requirement means that customers of these competitors should not have to dial extra digits to have their calls routed over that LEC's network. To implement this statutory requirement, we adopt broad guidelines and minimum federal standards that build upon the experiences and accomplishments of state commissions. Although the 1996 Act requires a LEC to provide dialing parity only to providers of telephone exchange and toll services, section 251(b)(3) does not limit the type of traffic or service for which dialing parity must be afforded to those providers. We conclude, therefore, that section 251(b)(3) requires LECs to  X_-provide dialing parity to providers of telephone exchange or toll service with respect to all telecommunications services that require dialing to route a call and encompasses international, interstate, intrastate, local and toll services.  X -5. With respect to toll service, we further find that section 251(b)(3) requires, at a minimum, that customers be entitled to choose different presubscribed, or preselected, carriers for both their intraLATA and interLATA toll calls. In states, like Alaska and Hawaii, that  X -have no LATAs,|x x yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C. 153(25). According to the 1996 Act, a LATA is a "local access and transport area." It is a "contiguous geographic area (A) established before the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by a Bell operating company such that no exchange area includes points within more than 1 metropolitan statistical area, consolidated metropolitan statistical area, or State, except as expressly permitted under the AT&T Consent Decree; or (B) established or modified by a Bell operating company after such date of enactment and approved by the Commission."| customers must be able to choose different presubscribed carriers for both their intrastate and interstate toll calls. Based on this finding, we adopt a rule requiring all LECs to implement intraLATA and interLATA toll dialing parity, using the "full 2PIC"  Xy-presubscription method.$y  yO-ԍ We note that the abbreviation "PIC" in the past has stood for the term "primary," or "preferred, interexchange carrier." While we retain the acronym "PIC," we define the term to include any toll carrier for  {Or-purposes of the presubscription rules that we adopt in this Order. For a discussion of the full 2PIC  {O<-presubscription methodology, see infra section II.B(4). The toll dialing parity requirement we adopt is defined by LATA boundaries given that the Bell Operating Companies' (BOCs') operations are likely to be shaped by LATA boundary restrictions for a period of unforeseeable duration. Given that implementation of the 1996 Act over time may diminish the significance of LATA boundaries, however, we permit states to redefine the toll dialing parity requirement based on state, rather than LATA, boundaries where a state deems such a requirement to be pro X-competitive and otherwise in the public interest.)X yOD&-ԍ To illustrate, if the presubscription requirement were based on LATA boundaries, a customer would be entitled to choose a primary carrier for all intraLATA toll calls and a separate, or the same, primary carrier for all interLATA toll calls. If the presubscription requirement were based on state boundaries, a customer would be"'0*(('" entitled to choose a primary carrier for all intrastate toll calls and a separate, or the same, primary carrier for all interstate toll calls.) " 0*(("Ԍ X-ԙ6. In order to facilitate the orderly implementation of toll dialing parity, we require each LEC, including a BOC, to submit a plan to the state regulatory commission for each state in which it provides telephone exchange service setting forth the LEC's plan for implementing toll dialing parity, including the methods it proposes to enable customers to select alternative providers. In the event that a state elects not to evaluate such a plan sufficiently in advance of the date on which a LEC is required to implement toll dialing parity, we require the LEC to file its plan with the Commission. The Commission will act upon such a plan within 90 days of the date on which it is filed with the Commission.  X1-7. Under the toll dialing parity implementation schedule we adopt, we require each LEC, including a BOC, to implement toll dialing parity no later than February 8, 1999. In addition, we require a LEC, including a BOC, to provide toll dialing parity throughout a state coincident with its provision of inregion, interLATA or inregion, interstate toll services in that state. LECs, other than BOCs, that are either already offering or plan to begin to provide inregion, interLATA or inregion, interstate toll services before August 8, 1997, must implement toll dialing parity by August 8, 1997. We note that smaller LECs, for which this implementation schedule may be unduly burdensome, may petition their state commission for  Xy-a suspension or modification of the application of this requirement.By  yOJ-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(f)(2).B  XK-8. Those states desiring to impose more stringent presubscription methodologies, e.g.,  X6-multiPIC or smartPIC,:Z6 yO-ԍ The multiPIC or smartPIC presubscription method would enable subscribers to select multiple carriers for various categories of toll traffic. For a discussion of multiPIC and smartPIC presubscription methodologies,  {O'-see infra section II.B(4). : will retain the flexibility to impose such additional requirements. We also announce our intention to issue a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing the technical feasibility and nationwide availability of a separate presubscription choice for international calling based on the use of multiPIC or smartPIC technologies.  X-9. Pursuant to the local dialing parity requirements of section 251(b)(3), we require a LEC to permit telephone exchange service customers, within a defined local calling area, to dial the same number of digits to make a local telephone call, notwithstanding the identity of the customer's or the called party's local telephone service provider. We decline at this time to prescribe additional guidelines to address the methods that LECs may use to accomplish local dialing parity given our finding that local dialing parity will be achieved upon implementation of the number portability and interconnection requirements of section 251, as well as the provisions requiring nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers found in section 251(b)(3). " 0*(("Ԍ X- 10. We also decline to adopt federal consumer education programs or procedures that would inform consumers of the existence of competitive telecommunications providers. Instead, we leave decisions regarding consumer education and carrier selection procedures to the states. We conclude that, in order to ensure that dialing parity is implemented in a procompetitive manner, national rules are needed for the recovery of dialing parity implementation costs.   X_- 11. Section 271 of the 1996 Act requires BOCs to provide intraLATA toll dialing parity throughout a state coincident with the exercise of their authority to offer interLATA  X1-services originating within the state.E1 yO -ԍ 47U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A).E BOC entry into the interLATA market is conditioned upon their offering "nondiscriminatory access to such services or information as are necessary to allow the requesting carrier to implement local dialing parity in accordance with the  X -requirements of Section 251(b)(3)."eZ X {O-ԍ 47U.S.C. 271(c)(2)(B)(xii). We decline to address section 271(c)(2)(B) issues in this Order. We will consider each BOC's application to enter inregion, interLATA services pursuant to section 271(c)(2)(B) on a casebycase basis to determine whether the BOC has complied with section 271(c)(2)(B)(xii).e  X -  X - 2. Nondiscriminatory Access   X- 12. Section 251(b)(3) also requires all LECs to permit competing providers of telephone exchange service and toll service "nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers,  Xb-operator services, directory assistance and directory listings."Bbz yO-ԍ 47U.S.C. 251(b)(3).B We conclude that "nondiscriminatory access," as used in section 251(b)(3), encompasses both: (1) nondiscrimination between and among carriers in rates, terms and conditions of access; and (2) the ability of competing providers to obtain access that is at least equal in quality to that of the providing LEC. This definition of "nondiscriminatory access" in section 251(b)(3) recognizes the more general application of that section to all LECs, whereas section 251(c) places more specific duties upon incumbent LECs in terms of nondiscriminatory access. We conclude that the term "nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers" requires all LECs to permit competing providers access to telephone numbers that is identical to the access the  X-LEC provides to itself.  Xe- 13. We conclude that the term "operator services," for purposes of section 251(b)(3), means any automatic or live assistance to a consumer to arrange for billing or completion, or both, of a telephone call. Such a definition includes busy line verification, emergency assistance, operatorassisted directory assistance, and any other such services used to arrange for the billing and/or completion of telephone calls. We further conclude that any customer of a telephone service provider that provides operator services should be able to obtain these services by dialing "0" or "0plus the desired telephone number." If a dispute arises regarding" 0*((" a competitor's access to operator services, the burden will be upon the providing LEC to demonstrate, with specificity, that it has permitted nondiscriminatory access and that any disparity is not caused by network elements within its control. To the extent that operator services use any information services and adjuncts that are not "telecommunications services," of which resale is required under 251(b)(1), LECs are required to make available such services to competing providers in their entirety as a requirement of nondiscriminatory access  Xv-under 251(b)(3).2v {O-ԍ Id.2 Finally, we find that the refusal of a LEC providing nondiscriminatory access to comply with reasonable requests of competing providers to "brand" resold operator services as those of the reseller, or to remove its brand, creates a presumption that the LEC is unlawfully restricting access to operator services.  X - 14. We conclude that the requirement in section 251(b)(3) of nondiscriminatory access to directory assistance means that LECs that provide directory assistance must permit access to this service to competing providers that is at least equal in quality to the access that the LEC provides to itself. We impose obligations upon all LECs to satisfy the requirement of nondiscriminatory access to directory listings. If a LEC provides directory assistance, that LEC must permit competing providers to have access to its directory assistance, so that any customer of a competing provider can access any listed number on a nondiscriminatory basis, notwithstanding the identity of the customer's local service provider. Further, we require LECs to share directory listings with competing service providers, in "readily accessible" tape or electronic formats, upon request, and in a timely manner. To the extent that all or part of directory assistance services are not "telecommunications services," of which resale is required under 251(b)(1), LECs must make available such services in their entirety as part of their  X-obligation to permit nondiscriminatory access to competing providers.2Z {O-ԍ Id.2 This requirement thus extends to any information services and adjuncts used to provide directory assistance. Finally, as with the branding of resold operator services, we find that the refusal of a LEC providing nondiscriminatory access to directory assistance to "brand" resold directory assistance services as those of the reseller, or to remove its brand, creates a presumption that the LEC is unlawfully restricting access to directory assistance.  XN-15. We also conclude that section 251(b)(3)'s requirement of nondiscriminatory access and its prohibition of unreasonable dialing delays applies to both the provision of local and toll dialing parity. We conclude that the dialing delay experienced by customers of a competing provider should not be greater than that experienced by customers of a LEC providing dialing parity or nondiscriminatory access, for identical calls or call types. Finally, we conclude that the statutory obligation to avoid unreasonable dialing delays places a duty on LECs that provide dialing parity, or nondiscriminatory access to operator services or directory assistance, to process all calls from competing providers on the same terms as calls  X"-from its own customers.  "# 0*((""Ԍ X- B. Actions to Implement Section 251(c)(5)   X-16. In addition to the duties imposed by section 251(b)(3) on all LECs, new section 251(c)(5) imposes upon incumbent LECs the duty to "provide reasonable public notice of changes in the information necessary for the transmission and routing of services using that local exchange carrier's facilities or networks, as well as of any other changes that would  Xv-affect the interoperability of those facilities or networks."kv yO-ԍ An incumbent LEC, with respect to an area, is defined under the 1996 Act as "the local exchange carrier that: (A) on the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, provided telephone exchange service in such area; and (B)(i) on such date of enactment, was deemed to be a member of the exchange carrier association pursuant to section 69.601(b) of the Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 69.601(b)); or (ii) is a person or entity that, on or after such date of enactment, became a successor or assign of a member described in clause (i)." 47U.S.C. 251(h)(1).k We adopt broad guidelines to implement section 251(c)(5). We also specify how public notice must be made whenever an upcoming change may affect the way in which a competing service provider transmits, routes, or otherwise provides its services.  X -17. We conclude that "information necessary for transmission and routing" in section 251(c)(5) means any information in the incumbent LEC's possession that affects a competing service provider's performance or ability to provide either information or telecommunications services. We define "interoperability" as the ability of two or more facilities, or networks, to be connected, to exchange information, and to use the information that has been exchanged.  Xy- C. Actions Taken to Implement Section 251(e)  Xb-  XK-18. New section 251(e)(1) restates the Commission's authority over matters relating to the administration of numbering resources by giving the Commission "exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan that pertain to the United  X-States."D@ yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(1). D This section also requires the Commission to "create or designate one or more impartial entities to administer telecommunications numbering and to make such numbers  X-available on an equitable basis."2 {OY-ԍ Id.2 Finally, section 251(e)(2) provides that the cost of establishing telecommunications numbering administration arrangements "shall be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as determined by the  X-Commission."Bb  yO#-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(2).B In this Order, we address whether further action is required to create or designate an impartial entity to administer telecommunications numbering. We clarify the states' role in number administration, and provide direction to states wishing to use area code overlay plans. We also clarify how cost recovery for numbering administration will occur. We deny the petition for expedited declaratory ruling filed by the Texas Commission based on"9 0*((" our finding that the Texas Commission's wirelessonly area code overlay plan violates the  X-guidelines set forth in our Ameritech Order. We authorize Bellcore and the incumbent LECs to perform number administration functions as they did prior to the enactment of the 1996 Act until such functions are transferred to the new North American Numbering Plan Administrator.  Xx-19. We conclude that we have taken appropriate action to designate an impartial number administrator pursuant to section 251(e)(1). We further conclude that the Commission should retain its authority to set policy with respect to all facets of numbering administration to ensure the creation of a nationwide, uniform system of numbering that is essential to the efficient delivery of interstate and international telecommunications services and to the development of a competitive telecommunications services market. While we retain this policymaking authority, we authorize the states to resolve matters involving implementation  X -of new area codes subject to the guidelines set forth in this Order.  X -20. In this Order, we also prohibit the use of servicespecific or technologyspecific area code overlay plans. States may employ allservices overlays only if they also mandate 10digit dialing for all local calls within the area affected by the area code change and ensure the availability of at least one central office code in the existing area code to every entity authorized to provide local exchange service in that area, including CMRS providers.  X#-21. To fulfill the mandate of section 251(e)(2), we require that (1) only "telecommunications carriers," as defined in Section 3(44) of the 1996 Act, shall contribute to  X-the costs of numbering administration;E yOn-ԍ The term "telecommunications carrier" means "any provider of telecommunications services, except that such term does not include aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined in section 226). A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services, except that the Commission shall determine whether the provision of fixed and mobile satellite service shall be treated as common carriage." 47 U.S.C.  153(44).E and (2) that such contributions shall be based on each contributor's gross revenues from its provision of telecommunications services reduced by all payments for telecommunications services and facilities that have been paid to other telecommunications carriers.  Xk- { ` hpX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:|,  {O-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:%-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:63. We further conclude that the 1996 Act does not authorize the Commission to give effect to a state order that purports to grant a BOC a deferral, waiver or suspension of the BOC's obligation to implement dialing parity. We note that section 251(f)(2) provides procedures for suspending or modifying application of the dialing parity requirements only for  X~-certain LECs, i.e., those "with fewer than 2 percent of the Nation's subscriber lines installed  Xi-in the aggregate nationwide."2i",  yO<-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:{,  yO-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: MFS justifies this position by noting "some incumbent LECs say they already provide access, some say they are not obligated to offer such offering for resale, some assert that they are included in various unbundled elements or that they should not be unbundled . . . incumbent LECs should not be allowed to unilaterally decide whether, or to what extent to offer access to operator services, directory assistance and  X-directory listings.")0 ,  yO-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:H!0*((<"  X-call.k",  {Oy-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: d ,  {O-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:-in the NPRM."JE>|,  {Ok -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:s,  yOK-ԍ GVNW comments at 12.> These incumbent LECs claim that competing providers' informational needs would be fulfilled even if public disclosure were limited to "relevant  X-interfaces or protocols."ItXX,  yO-ԍ Nortel states that the incumbent local exchange carrier should only "provide the interface information," and the competing service provider should then "perform its own `reverse engineering' in developing its own products so as to be compatible with the interface." Nortel comments at 5.I USTA suggests an alternate definition: "all changes in information necessary for the transmission and routing of services using the local exchange carrier's facilities, or that affects interoperability."   XH-169. According to some competing providers, narrowing the scope of information that must be publicly disclosed would preserve the information advantage that incumbent  X -LECs possessed before the passage of the 1996 Act.Vu x,  {OC-ԍ See, e.g., Time Warner comments at 34.V Also, AT&T notes that a narrowly constructed disclosure requirement would contradict the language of the statute that specifically identifies "changes that would affect the interoperability of those facilities or  X -networks."=v ,  yO-ԍ AT&T reply at 2526.= AT&T states that some information "is both necessary for proper transmission and routing and can affect the network's interoperability" although it is not directly relevant to  X -the interconnection point.2w ,  {O-ԍ Id.2 AT&T presents five examples of technical changes that do not directly relate to the interconnection point but that nevertheless could have "profound" implications for competing service providers. These changes include those that (1) alter the timing of call processing; (2) require competing service providers to install new equipment, such as echo cancelers; (3) affect recognition of messages from translation nodes; (4) alter loop impedance levels, which could cause service disruptions; and (5) could disable a  X-competing service provider's loop testing facilities.<x, ,  yO-ԍ AT&T reply at n.56.<  X-170. Some incumbent LECs suggest that network disclosure requirements should also  X-apply to competing service providers.y ,  yOE#-ԍ Ameritech comments at 29; BellSouth comments at 2; NYNEX comments at 1516; Rural Tel. Coalition comments at n.4. MCI and MFS contend, however, that the plain language of the statute requires imposition of public disclosure requirements only upon incumbent LECs. MFS states that the duty to disclose change information was imposed upon incumbent local exchange carriers because they have sufficient "control over network standards to harm competition" and the "requisite size and market power to change their"|Oy0*((n"  X-networks in a manner that stymies competition.";z,  yOy-ԍ MFS reply at 26. ; MFS argues that imposing notification requirements on competing service providers would be an "empty exercise" because "new entrants . . . can do little, if anything,to change their networks in a manner that adversely  X-impacts the [incumbent LECs]."<{X,  yO-ԍ MFS reply at 2627.< MFS also argues that competing service providers have "powerful economic incentives" for maintaining compatibility with incumbent local exchange  X-networks.2|,  {O& -ԍ Id.2  X_- ` `  b.Discussion   X1-171. Section 251(c)(5) requires that information about network changes must be disclosed if it affects competing service providers' performance or ability to provide service. Requiring disclosure about network changes promotes open and vigorous competition contemplated by the 1996 Act. We find that additional qualifiers that restrict the types of  X -information that must be disclosed, such as "relevant information or protocols," would create uncertainty in application and appear inconsistent with the statutory language. Timely disclosure of changes reduces the possibility that incumbent LECs could make network changes in a manner that inhibits competition. In addition, notice of changes to ordering, billing and other secondary systems is required if such changes will have an effect on the operations of competing service providers, because the proper operation of such systems is essential to the provision of telecommunications services.  X-172. We agree with MCI and MFS that the plain language of the statute requires  X-imposition of public disclosure requirements only upon incumbent LECs.M}z,  yO3-ԍ MCI reply at 7; MFS reply at 25, 26.M In addition, we conclude that imposing this requirement upon competing service providers would not enhance competition or network reliability. While competing service providers must respond to incumbent LEC network changes, competing service providers, in general, are not in a position to make unilateral changes to their networks because they must rely so heavily on their connection to the incumbent LEC's network in order to provide ubiquitous service. Accordingly, competing service providers already face sufficient incentives to ensure compatibility of their planned changes with the incumbent LEC's network. In addition, if an incumbent LEC were permitted to obtain such information from a competing service provider, the incumbent LEC might be able to obtain the competing service provider's business plans  X"-and thereby stifle competition.~X" ,  yO%-ԍ NCTA asserts that incumbent LECs are "entirely capable of providing adequate notice of their network changes without 'full disclosure of competing service provider's operations and future plans.'" NCTA reply at 12.""P* ~0*(("Ԍ X-ԙ173. We conclude that our disclosure standard is consistent not only with section  X-251(c)(5), but also with the requirements of the "all carrier rule" D,  {Ob-ԍ Unless clearly specified otherwise, in this Order, we use the term "all carrier rule" to refer to the  {O,-Commission's network disclosure rule contained in 47 C.F.R. 64.702, as interpreted in the Second Computer  {O-Inquiry. The all carrier rule obligates "all carriers owning basic transmission facilities [to release] all information relating to network design . . . to all interested parties on the same terms and conditions, insofar as such information affects either intercarrier interconnection or the manner in which interconnected [customerpremises  {OP-equipment] operates." Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (Second  {O-Computer Inquiry), Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 84 F.C.C.2d 50, 8283 (1980), further  {O-recon., 88 FCC 2d 512 (1981), aff'd sub nom. Computer and Communications Indus. Ass'n v. FCC, 693 F.2d  {O -198 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 938 (1983).  The all carrier rule also requires that "[w]hen such information is disclosed to the separate corporation it shall be disclosed and be available to any member of the  {O@ -public on the same terms and conditions." See 47 C.F.R. 64.702; Application of The Southern New England  {O -Tel. Co., 10 FCC Rcd 4558, 4559 n.23 (1995); Competition in the Interstate Interexchange Marketplace, Report  yO -and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5880, 5911 n.270 (1991) (The all carrier rule obligates "all carriers to disclose, reasonably in advance of implementation, information regarding any new service or change in the network.");  {Od-Competition in the Interstate Interexchange Marketplace, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd. 5880, 5911 n.270. (1991).  yO-Another of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 68.110(b), requires similar disclosure to customers of network changes "if such changes can be reasonably expected to render any customer's terminal equipment incompatible with telephone company communications facilities, or require modification or alteration of such  yO-terminal equipment, or otherwise materially affect its use or performance." We will refer to this rule specifically by number where necessary. and the scope of the  X-Computer IIIS,  {OW-ԍ See infra para. 204 and n.449.S disclosure requirement, both of which have been applied to incumbent LEC activities for some time. In light of these preexisting requirements, we find that the standard we proposed in the NPRM is not burdensome but reasonable, providing sufficient disclosure to insure against anticompetitive acts as well as to ensure certain and consistent disclosure requirements.  XJ-174. We have considered the impact of our rules in this section on small incumbent LECs, including Rural Tel. Coalition's and GVNW's requests for a less inclusive definition of  X -"information necessary for transmission and routing."a f,  yO3-ԍ Rural Tel. Coalition comments at 2; GVNW comments at 1.a We do not adopt these proposals because we are unable to grant such leniency to small businesses and simultaneously ensure adequate information disclosure to facilitate the development of a procompetitive environment for every market participant, including other small businesses. We note, however, that under section 251(f)(1) certain small incumbent LECs are exempt from our  X -rules until (1) they receive a bona fide request for interconnection, services, or network elements; and (2) their state commission determines that the request is not unduly economically burdensome, is technically feasible, and is consistent with the relevant portions"}Q0*((K" of section 254. In addition, certain small incumbent LECs may seek relief from our rules  X-under section 251(f)(2).,  {Ob-ԍ For a discussion of the implications and operation of section 251(f), see First Report and Order at section XII.  X- ` ` 2. Definition of "Services"  X-  X- ` `  a.Background and Comments   X_-175. Commenters, including incumbent LECs, interexchange carriers, and industry organizations, unanimously support our tentative conclusion that the term "services," as used in section 251(c)(5), includes both telecommunications services and information services, as  X -defined in sections 3(46) and 3(20), respectively." ",  {O -ԍ 47 U.S.C.  153(20), (46). See NPRM at para. 189; ALTS comments at 2; Ameritech comments at 25; BellSouth comments at 3; District of Columbia Commission comments at 67; GCI comments at 4; Illinois Commission comments at 59; MCI comments at 15; MFS comments at 12; Telecommunications Resellers Association comments at 11; U S WEST comments at 12. Parties agree that it is reasonable to require that providers of both telecommunications and information services receive this information. ALTS points out that exclusion of information services or telecommunications  X -services from our definition would be "needlessly restrictive."< ,  yO-ԍ ALTS comments at 2.< BellSouth also notes that the inclusion of information services for public notice purposes should not vest information service providers with substantive rights under Section 251, except where they are also  X-operating as a telecommunications carrier under the 1996 Act.A,  yO-ԍ BellSouth comments at 3.A  Xb- ` `  b.Discussion   X4-176. We conclude that the term "services" includes both telecommunications services and information services, as defined in sections 3(46) and 3(20) of the Act, respectively. Providers of both telecommunications services and information services may make significant use of the incumbent LEC's network in making these offerings. Accordingly, exclusion of either information services providers or telecommunications services providers would be needlessly restrictive. We also affirm that the inclusion of information services for public notice purposes does not vest information service providers with substantive rights under other provisions within section 251, except to the extent that they are also operating as telecommunications carriers. "NR, 0*(("  X- ` ` 3. Definition of "Interoperability"  X-` `  a.Background and Comments   X-177. The Commission tentatively concluded that the term "interoperability," as used in section 251(c)(5), should be defined as "the ability of two or more facilities, or networks, to be connected, to exchange information, and to use the information that has been  X_-exchanged."A_,  {O-ԍ NPRM at para. 189.A This definition of "interoperability" was taken from the IEEE Standard  XJ-Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms.JZ,  {OU -ԍ See IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms 461 (J. Frank ed. 1984). Commenters, including incumbent LECs, interexchange carriers, state commissions, and industry associations, are unanimous in their  X -support for our tentative conclusion.n  ,  yO-ԍ ALTS comments at 2; Ameritech comments at 25; AT&T comments at 23; District of Columbia Commission comments at 67; GCI comments at 4; Illinois Commission comments at 4; MCI comments at 15; MFS comments at 1213; Ohio Commission comments at 4; Telecommunications Resellers Association comments at 12; U S WEST comments at 12.n The Ohio Commission also suggests that we expand our definition of "interoperability" to "recognize that the exchange of traffic between an [incumbent local exchange carrier] and an interconnector must be seamless and transparent to  X -both parties' end users."G ,  yO^-ԍ Ohio Commission comments at 4.G No alternative definitions for the term "interoperability" were proposed by commenting parties.  X- ` `  b.Discussion    Xf-178. We define the term "interoperability" as "the ability of two or more facilities, or networks, to be connected, to exchange information, and to use the information that has been  X8-exchanged." As this definition of "interoperability" was taken from the IEEE Standard  X#-Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms, we believe that this well established and widely accepted industry standard can be applied easily and consistently. We find that the concepts of seamlessness and transparency are already adequately incorporated into this definition's specific interoperability criteria, and that further exposition of these concepts is not necessary. "Sd 0*((3"  X- ` ` 4. Changes that Trigger the Public Notice Requirement  X-` `  a.Background and Comments   X-179. In the NPRM, we noted that "public notice is critical to the uniform implementation of network disclosure, particularly for entities operating networks in numerous  Xx-locations across a variety of states."Ax,  {O-ԍ NPRM at para. 190.A We requested comment as to what changes should trigger the notice requirement.  X3-180. Several commenters suggest that timely notice should be provided whenever an upcoming change in the incumbent LEC's network may affect the way in which a competing  X -provider offers its service. Z,  yO-ԍ ACSI comments at 11; ALTS comments at 23; AT&T comments at 23; Cox comments at 910; GCI comments at 5; Ohio Commission comments at 4; and Time Warner comments at 4. Examples of such changes include, but are not limited to, changes in transmission, signalling standards, call routing, network configuration and logical  X -elements.= ,  yO:-ԍ ACSI comments at 11.= Also, commenters assert that public notice should be required when a change will affect the electronic interfaces, data elements, or transactions that support ordering,  X -provisioning, maintenance and billing of the network facilities.i B,  {O-ԍ See, e.g., AT&T comments at 24; Time Warner comments at 4.i The Illinois Commission notes, however, that the types of changes that trigger public notice should not be "microdefined" because overly specific trigger requirements could create situations in which carriers would not be required to provide public notice if a particular change has not been clearly  XM-identified.LM,  yO-ԍ Illinois Commission comments at 59.L ALTS also supports a broadly defined class of changes that trigger network disclosure requirements, asserting that some changes, such as those affecting provisioning and billing for a carrier's service, might not otherwise be reported adequately, resulting in service  X-disruptions.?d ,  yO-ԍ ALTS comments at 2, 3.?  X-181. Ameritech claims that disclosure obligations should only be triggered by a new or "substantially changed" network interface, or a change that "otherwise affects the routing or  X-termination of traffic delivered to or from the incumbent LEC's network."F ,  yOQ$-ԍ Ameritech comments at 26, 27.F Ameritech also claims that changes "that do not impact interconnection and interoperability . . . do not need"T 0*(("  X-to be disclosed at all."2,  {Oy-ԍ Id.2 AT&T observes, however, that public notice requirements should  X-also apply to some changes that do not directly relate to the interconnect point.?Z,  yO-ԍ AT&T reply at 26 n.56.?  X- ` `  b.Discussion   X-182. We conclude that an incumbent LEC must provide public notice in accordance with the rules and schedules we adopt in this proceeding, once the incumbent LEC makes a decision to implement a change that either (1) affects competing service providers' performance or ability to provide service; or (2) otherwise affects the ability of the incumbent LEC's and a competing service provider's facilities or network to connect, to exchange information, or to use the information exchanged. We believe that a broad standard is appropriate, to reduce the possibility that incumbent LECs may fail to disclose information a competing service provider may need in order to maintain adequate interconnectivity and interoperability in response to incumbent LEC network changes. Examples of network changes that would trigger public disclosure obligations include, but are not limited to, changes that affect: transmission; signalling standards; call routing; network configuration; logical elements; electronic interfaces; data elements; and transactions that support ordering, provisioning, maintenance and billing. This list is not exclusive but exemplary; incumbent LECs are not exempted from public notice requirements for a particular change that is not included among these examples.  X-` ` 5. Types of Information to be Disclosed  X-` `  a.Background    X-183. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that incumbent LECs should be required to "disclose all information relating to network design and technical standards, and  X-information concerning changes to the network that affect interconnection."\,  {O0-ԍ NPRM at para. 190. We referred, as an example, to the "All Carrier Rule," which requires public disclosure of "all information relating to network design and technical standards...[affecting]  {O-interconnection...prior to implementation and with reasonable advance notification." See note 383, supra. We also tentatively concluded that incumbent LECs specifically must provide: (1) the date changes are to occur; (2) where changes are to be made or to occur; (3) the type of changes; and (4) the potential impact of changes; and that these four categories represented the "minimum information that a potential competitor would need in order to achieve and maintain efficient  X"-interconnection."A",  {O%-ԍ NPRM at para. 190.A  X- "U0*((Z"  X-` `  b.Comments   X-184. A number of commenters agree with our tentative conclusions regarding the breadth of information that must be reported, as well as our minimum reporting  X-requirements.KX,  yO-ԍ Illinois Commission comments at 60; ALTS comments at 3; AT&T comments at 2324; District of Columbia Commission comments at 7; Excel comments at 10; GCI comments at 45; MCI comments at 15; MFS comments at 1213; NCTA comments at 12; Telecommunications Resellers Association comments at 12.K Ameritech, however, claims that our requirement is "too broad" and would "impose an onerous burden" on incumbent LECs, exceeding the statutory requirements of  Xv-section 251(c)(5).Bv,  yO -ԍ Ameritech comments at 26.B Ameritech asserts that "excessive exchange of information between competitors is inconsistent with . . . a competitive marketplace" and could spur "allegations of  XH-collusion and concerted action."2Hx,  {Oq-ԍ Id.2 Cox and Time Warner, however, state that uniform public notice of sufficient information can attenuate anticompetitive behavior. ALTS, AT&T and MCI suggest that the information that must be disclosed should include, but should not be limited to, technical specifications and references to standards regarding transmission, signaling, routing and facility assignment as well as references to technical standards that are applicable to any new technologies or equipment, or which may otherwise affect interconnection.  X-185. A significant crosssection of commenters specifically advocates disclosure of the  Xy-potential impact of changes.X y ,  yO4-ԍ ACSI comments at 11; ALTS comments at 3; District of Columbia Commission comments at 7; Excel comments at 10; GCI comments at 5; MCI comments at 15; MFS comments at 1213; Ohio Commission comments at 5; TCC reply at 23; Telecommunications Resellers Association comments at 12; Time Warner comments at 8.X For example, Cox notes that disclosure should, at a minimum, enable a competing service provider to understand: "(1) how its existing technical interconnection arrangements will be affected; and (2) how the form and content of the  X4-information passed between the interconnected networks will change."94 ,  yO-ԍ Cox reply at 13.9 ACSI clearly states that "the content of the notice should specifically identify . . . the impact of the change on  X-current interconnection or access arrangements."= ,  yO9"-ԍ ACSI comments at 11.=  X-186. Some incumbent LECs, however, take exception to our tentative conclusion to impose on them an obligation to make public disclosure of the potential impact of network"V0*(("  X-changes.,  yOy-ԍ Ameritech comments at 28; BellSouth comments at 3; GVNW comments at 3; NYNEX reply at 9; USTA reply at 11. They argue that this obligation would require incumbent LECs to become "experts on the operations of other carriers," or impose a "duty to know what [an] interconnector's  X-service performance abilities are." ,  {O-ԍ BellSouth comments at 3. See, e.g., Ameritech comments at 28; GVNW Comments at 3; NYNEX reply at 9. Specifically, USTA expresses concern that this requirement "could be misconstrued as a duty to predict what the precise impact might be, or  X-to educate a competitor on how to reengineer their network.":z,  yO -ԍ USTA reply at 11.: Ameritech claims that this requirement is "unfair," and "of little or no value," and implies that this requirement creates a "general duty for [incumbent LECs] to operate their competitor's businesses or help them  X_-market their services."H_ ,  yO-ԍ Ameritech comments at 28.H BellSouth asserts that "the better approach would be to [disclose] information from which an interconnecting carrier would be able to determine for itself  X1-whether its service performance or abilities might be affected."A1,  yO|-ԍ BellSouth comments at 3.A NYNEX alleges that "[s]uch proposals are overbroad and unnecessary to ensure...network  X -interconnection/interoperability.": * ,  yO-ԍ NYNEX reply at 9.: NYNEX rejects responsibility for evaluating the effect that changes it would make might have upon competing service providers and asserts that "there is no basis for changing the traditional responsibility of each carrier to maintain its own  X -network and respond to technological and market changes."2 ,  {O)-ԍ Id.2 NYNEX also claims that while it has the ability to "make an assessment of the likely impact of a technical change at the interface with a competitor's network," it would require "detailed knowledge of a competitor's network architecture" in order to calculate the impact a change may have on a competing  Xb-service provider's performance.?bL ,  yO_-ԍ NYNEX reply at 9 n.24.?  X4-187. MCI and TCC suggest that an incumbent LEC should also be required to designate a contact for additional information in its public notice. PacTel argues, in response, that such a requirement would be "impossible to fulfill" because it would require an  X-incumbent LEC to designate a "single omniscient individual."=,  yO|%-ԍ PacTel reply at 67.= MFS states that the public notice should also include: "(a) the charges that the incumbent LEC anticipates will apply to the carrier for the change; (b) the specific number of circuits affected if the change occurs at"Wl0*((" the time of the notification; (c) the projected minimum, maximum, and average down times  X-per affected circuit; (d) alternatives available to the interconnector;_X,  yOb-ԍ Although MFS does not elaborate on this requirement, we interpret this suggestion as a request that an incumbent LEC identify in its public notice a range of proposed competing service provider responses to the planned change that will maintain interconnectivity and interoperability of the carriers' networks._ and (e) any other information necessary to evaluate alternatives and effectuate necessary changes or  X-challenges."=,  yOT-ԍ MFS comments at 14.= The Ohio Commission, in contrast, claims that information relating to network design should be excepted from public disclosure, and that incumbent LECs should only be  X-obliged to disclose information regarding changes to existing interconnection arrangements.Gx,  yO -ԍ Ohio Commission comments at 5.G  X_- ` `  c.Discussion   X1-188. We conclude that we should adopt a requirement of uniform public notice of sufficient information to deter anticompetitive behavior and that, at a minimum, incumbent LECs should give competing service providers complete information about network design, technical standards and planned changes to the network. Specifically, public notice of changes shall consist of: (1) the date changes are to occur; (2) the location at which changes are to occur; (3) types of changes; (4) the reasonably foreseeable impact of changes to be implemented, and (5) a contact person who may supply additional information regarding the changes. Information provided in these categories must include, as applicable, but should not be limited to, references to technical specifications, protocols, and standards regarding transmission, signaling, routing and facility assignment as well as references to technical standards that would be applicable to any new technologies or equipment, or that may otherwise affect interconnection.  X-189. We find that making available a contact person will simplify the public notification process and reduce the risk that the notifications will be misunderstood or misconstrued. Commenters have requested that public notices include a variety of specific information categories, some of which may not be covered by the specific categories  X-identified in the NPRM. Such specific information, however, may be inapplicable, unnecessary or proprietary in some circumstances and inadequate or confusing in others. Accordingly, we require instead that incumbent LECs identify a contact person. Such a contact need not be "omniscient," but rather should be able to serve as an initial contact point for the sharing of information regarding the planned network changes.  X"-190. Providing notice of the reasonably foreseeable potential impact of changes does not require incumbent LECs to educate a competitor on how to reengineer its network, or to be experts on the operations of other carriers, or impose a duty to know the competing service provider's service performance or abilities. Rather, we intend that incumbent LECs perform"X0*((" at least rudimentary analysis of the network changes sufficient to include in its notice (where appropriate) language reasonably intended to alert those likely to be affected by a change of anticipated effects. We find that such cautionary language will be a valuable, but not burdensome, element of reasonable public notice.  X-191. We do not limit network disclosure to information pertinent to those changes in incumbent LEC network design or technical standards that will affect existing interconnection arrangements, as requested by the Ohio Commission. Such a limitation is neither consistent with the obligations imposed by section 251(c)(5) nor consistent with the development of competition. In formulating interconnection and service plans, both actual and potential competing service providers need information concerning network changes that potentially could affect anticipated interconnection, not just those changes that actually affect existing interconnection arrangements.  X - B.` ` How Public Notice Should be Provided   Xy-` ` 1. Dissemination of Public Notice Through Industry Fora and Publications(#  X4-` `  a.Background  X- 192. Section 251(c)(5) requires incumbent LECs to provide "reasonable public notice"  X-of relevant network changes. In the NPRM, the Commission requested comment on how this notice should be provided. The Commission tentatively concluded that "full disclosure of the required technical information should be provided through industry fora or in industry  X-publications.",  yO%-ԍ The Commission gave as examples the Network Operations Forum (NOF) and the Interconnection Carrier  {O-Compatibility Forum (ICCF). NPRM at para. 191. The Commission stated that "this approach would build on a voluntary practice that now exists in the industry and would result in broad availability of the  X~-information."A~",  {OQ-ԍ NPRM at para. 191.A The Commission sought comment on this tentative conclusion. The Commission also requested comment on whether a reference to information on network changes should be filed with the Commission and, if so, where that information should be located.  X"- " Y0*((="  X-` `  b.Comments   X-193. Most commenters agree with our tentative conclusion in the NPRM that existing  X-industry fora and publications are appropriate vehicles for public notice of network changes.,  yO6-ԍ ALTS comments at 34; Ameritech comments at 2829, reply at 1718; AT&T comments at 24; Bell Atlantic comments at 10; Cox reply at 13; GCI comments at 5; Illinois Commission comments at 62; MCI comments at 15; MFS reply at 25; NCTA reply at 11; NYNEX comments at 15, reply at 10; PacTel comments  {O-at 7, reply at 6; Teleport comments at 11; Telecommunications Resellers Association at 12. See also NPRM at para. 191. Bell Atlantic notes that "industry participants with an interest in new interfaces routinely  X-monitor publications and announcements for disclosures."(Xz,  yO -ԍ Bell Atlantic also states that exchange carriers should be able to satisfy their disclosure obligation by indicating their intention to deploy specifications at the time that they are published by a standards organization. Bell Atlantic comments at 1011.( Some incumbent LECs support the use of industry fora and publications because they are well established, already in place, reach the targeted audience, have worked effectively for a number of years, or allow for  XJ-widespread dissemination.UJ,  yO-ԍ Ameritech reply at 1718; GTE comments at 7.U USTA states that "voluntary practices can serve as a platform  X3-from which to implement this act."@3* ,  yO-ԍ USTA comments at 1112.@  X -194. Several commenters, however, caution that industry fora and publications should  X -not be the only vehicles used for the public dissemination of network change information ,  {OY-ԍ E.g., Cox reply at 12; MCI comments at 17; GVNW comments at 4; Rural Tel. Coalition comments at 3.  X -and request flexible disclosure methods.Z L ,  {O-ԍ E.g., Rural Tel. Coalition comments at 3,5.Z Although MCI does not object to utilizing industry fora and publications, MCI cautions against over reliance on these vehicles because it "do[es] not believe that...parties affected by technical changes [will] receive information in  X-sufficient detail, objectivity, and timeliness."?,  yO!-ԍ MCI comments at 1718.? Many commenters indicate that additional disclosure vehicles are required because not all carriers participate in these fora on a regular  Xd-basis (partly as a result of limited resources)dn,  {O"-ԍ See, e.g., Cox comments at 11, reply at 13; MCI comments at 17; GVNW comments at 4; Rural Tel. Coalition comments at 3. or because the BOCs, in the past, have used industry fora to limit competitors' access to full and timely information in order to put them  X6-at a competitive disadvantage.6,  yO&-ԍ MCI comments at 1718, reply at 7. Bell Atlantic refutes this allegation. Bell Atlantic reply at 10. Several commenters have noted the potential of the Internet"6ZX0*(("  X-as a vehicle for providing public notice of network changes.,  {Oy-ԍ See, e.g., ALTS comments at 34; U S WEST comments at 14; MCI comments at 17; Time Warner comments at 10 n.12; MFS reply at 25; TCC reply at 24. Others specifically suggest that incumbent LECs should be required to file technical change information with the Commission "in order to ensure a complete, reliable, and consistent body of information that  X-all parties may utilize."Z",  {O-ԍ MCI comments at 19; MFS comments at 13. See also Time Warner comments at 10 (establishing the Commission as a "central point of reference" could be less burdensome on incumbent LECs than other means of providing public notice). Some incumbent LECs, however, disagree, arguing that the Commission need not become a repository of disclosure notices because such Commission filings would be "redundant with existing industry functions and contrary to the Commission's  Xv-current initiative to eliminate unnecessary filings."|vD,  {Ok -ԍ BellSouth comments at 4 n.11. See also NYNEX reply at 10; PacTel reply at 6.|  XH-195. Bell Atlantic suggests that "direct disclosure to a mailing list of interconnectors  X1-should also be allowed."F1,  yO-ԍ Bell Atlantic comments at 10.F MFS proposes extending direct mail notification to "any other  X -carrier...who specifically requests such notice."I f ,  yO1-ԍ MFS comments at 14, reply at 25.I PacTel, however, claims that imposing these sorts of requirements would "impose excessive and unnecessary costs on [incumbent]  X -LECs."; ,  yO-ԍ PacTel reply at 6.;  X -196. BellSouth argues that no Commission rule is necessary because current voluntary  X -practices are "sufficient to ensure that this information is broadly available."A ,  yO-ԍ BellSouth comments at 4.A Similarly, GVNW suggests that information should only be passed to competing service providers "case  Xy-by case...as required."<y,  yO@-ԍ GVNW comments at 4.< Several commenters, however, disagree. Time Warner, for example, contends that "the Commission must adopt a uniform . . . rule which prescribes a specific method by which notification and disclosure must be provided" and that will allow  X4-interested parties to gain ready access to the information they require.4,  {O#-ԍ Time Warner comments at 9. See also AT&T reply at 27 n.58. (arguing that the very existence of such broad disagreement on this issue itself bespeaks the need for a uniform national rule and that the absence of a uniform public disclosure requirement would lead to "disparate application of a uniform federal statutory duty, unduly narrow interpretations of that duty by [independent local exchange carriers] . . . and competitive harm to new entrants"). "[X0*(("Ԍ X-197. The District of Columbia Commission asserts that state commissions may also require information to be filed at the state level, and may need the same information in order to comply with section 252. As such, state commissions could also be used to make information available to small competing service providers. AT&T, however, argues that there are no specific differences among the various states that are "material" to our network  X-disclosure requirements.<,  yO-ԍ AT&T reply at n.59.<  X_- ` `  c.Discussion   X1-198. We conclude that incumbent LECs may fulfill their network disclosure obligations either (1) by providing public notice through industry fora, industry publications, or on their own publicly accessible Internet sites; or (2) by filing public notice with the Commission's Common Carrier Bureau, Network Services Division, in accordance with the format and method requirements of the rules we are adopting in this proceeding. In either case, the public notice must contain the minimum information categories identified in paragraph 188, above. Incumbent LECs using public notice methods other than Commission filings must file a certification with the Common Carrier Bureau, Network Services Division, identifying the proposed change(s), stating that public notice has been given in compliance with this Order, identifying the location of the information describing the change and stating how the information can be obtained by interested parties. This certification must also comply with the rules we adopt in this proceeding.  X-199. As discussed above, we conclude that industry fora, industry publications, and the Internet may be used to make public disclosure of network changes and required technical information. We affirm our belief that "this approach would build on a voluntary practice  X-that now exists in the industry and would result in broad availability of the information."AX,  {O-ԍ NPRM at para. 191.A Reliance solely on voluntary participation in industry fora and publications, however, may inhibit the ability of some small carriers to disseminate or receive this information. Because of their more limited resources, some smaller incumbent LECs and competing service providers do not participate in these fora on a regular basis; nevertheless, all carriers, competing service providers, and potential competitors must have equal opportunities to provide and to receive change information on a national scale. We believe that wide availability of pertinent network change information effectively removes potential barriers to entry, which could otherwise frustrate the efforts of new competitors. As a consequence, we conclude that the Commission should function as a "backstop" source of information for other interested parties. Accordingly, in lieu of disclosure in industry fora, publications, or the Internet, an incumbent LEC may file network change information directly with the Commission. In the alternative, if an incumbent LEC chooses to provide public notice through one or more industry fora or publications, or the Internet, we require that it also file a certification with the Commission containing the information outlined above. We are"#\0*(("" confident that even small incumbent LECs with limited resources will be able to use one of these alternatives to give public notice of network changes.  X-200. An incumbent LEC must maintain both the information disclosed in its public notice and any nondisclosed supporting information that is nevertheless relevant to the  X-planned change, until the change is implemented. As discussed in paragraph 235, infra, once a change is implemented in the incumbent LEC's network, information on the change must be disclosed under the general interconnection obligations imposed by section 251(c)(2).  X3-201. We find that information filed with the Commission under section 251(c)(5) should eventually be made available on the FCC Home Page or through other online access vehicles, such as "LISTSERV" subscription mailings or others, and we intend to explore this option fully for the future. In addition, we will explore vigorously the possibility that hypertext links from the Commission Home Page to incumbent LEC Internet sites could both facilitate public notice and centralize access to change information. We find that direct mail notification alone does not comport with our interpretation of "public notice" as used in this proceeding, because such direct mailings do not provide notice to the "public," but rather provide individual notice to a selected group of recipients. Such mailings could, however, supplement other methods of notification.  X6-202. We also address the impact on small incumbent LECs. We agree with GVNW=6,  yO-ԍ GVNW comments at 4.=  X-and Rural Tel. CoalitionOX,  yO(-ԍ Rural Tel. Coalition comments at 3,5.O that we can mitigate the impact of our rules on small incumbent LECs by allowing public notice to be given at several alternative locations. Because many of these carriers lack the resources to participate in industry fora, we have also provided low cost alternatives, including Internet postings or Commission filings. We expect that our requirement that either public notice or certification be filed with the Commission will allow small entities, both incumbent LECs and new entrants, to locate network change information quickly and inexpensively. In any event, under section 251(f)(1), certain small incumbent  X~-LECs are exempt from our rules until (1) they receive a bona fide request for interconnection, services, or network elements; and (2) their state commission determines that the request is not unduly economically burdensome, is technically feasible, and is consistent with the relevant portions of section 254. In addition, certain small incumbent LECs may seek relief  X$-from our rules under section 251(f)(2).$,  {O"-ԍ For a discussion of the implications and operation of section 251(f), see First Report and Order, section XII.  X- "]B0*((<"  X-` ` 2. When Should Public Notice of Changes Be Provided?(#  X-  X- ` `  a.Background   X-203. Section 251(c)(5) requires an incumbent LEC to provide "reasonable public  X-notice" of certain changes to its network. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that this statutory language requires incumbent LECs: (1) to provide notice of these changes within a "reasonable" time in advance of implementation; and (2) to make the information available  XJ-within a "reasonable" time if responding to an individual request.AJ,  {O -ԍ NPRM at para. 192.A We sought comment on what constitutes a reasonable time in each of these situations, and on whether the Commission should adopt a specific timetable for disclosure of technical information.  X -204. In the NPRM, we specifically sought comment on whether we should adopt a  X -disclosure timetable similar to that adopted by the Commission in the Computer III  X -proceeding.x Z,  {O-ԍ Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (Computer III), Phase I, 104  {O-F.C.C.2d 958 (1986) (Phase I Order), recon., 2 FCC Rcd 3035 (1987) (Phase I Recon. Order), further recon., 3  {Oc-FCC Rcd 1135 (1988) (Phase I Further Recon. Order), second further recon., 4 FCC Rcd 5927 (1989) (Phase I  {O--Second Further Recon.), Phase I Order and Phase I Recon. Order vacated, California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217  {O-(9th Cir. 1990) (California I); Phase II, 2 FCC Rcd 3072 (1987) (Phase II Order), recon., 3 FCC Rcd 1150  {O-(1988) (Phase II Recon. Order), further recon., 4 FCC Rcd 5927 (1989) (Phase II Further Recon. Order), Phase  {O-II Order, vacated, California I, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990); Computer III Remand Proceedings, 5 FCC Rcd  {OU-7719 (1990) (ONA Remand Order), recon., 7 FCC Rcd 909 (1992), pets. for review denied, California v. FCC, 4  {O-F.3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1993) (California II); Computer III Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company  {O-Safeguards and Tier 1 Local Exchange Company Safeguards, 6 FCC Rcd 7571 (1991) (BOC Safeguards Order);  {O-BOC Safeguards Order, vacated in part and remanded, California v. FCC, 39 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 1994)  {O}-(California III), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1427 (1995).#XN\  PynXP#Ѹ In Phase II of that proceeding, the Commission required AT&T and the BOCs to disclose information about network changes or new network services that affect the  X-interconnection of enhanced services with the network at two points in time.m\ ,  {O-ԍ Phase II Recon. Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 1164. Although the Ninth Circuit vacated the Phase II Recon.  {O-Order, the Commission reimposed the network disclosure requirements on remand. See BOC Safeguards Order,  yOu-6 FCC Rcd at 76027604.#XN\  PynXP#m First, these carriers were required to disclose such information at the "make/buy" point that is, when the carrier decides to make itself, or to procure from an unaffiliated entity, any product the  XQ-design of which affects or relies on the network interface.Q,  {O"-ԍ Phase II Recon. Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 1164.#XN\  PynXP# Second, carriers were required to release publicly all technical information at least twelve months prior to the introduction of a new service or network change that would affect enhanced service interconnection with the  X -network.> P,  {O '-ԍ Id. at 116465.> If a carrier could introduce a new service between six and twelve months of the" ^0*((" make/buy point, public disclosure was permitted at the make/buy point, but in no event could  X-the carrier introduce the service earlier than six months after the public disclosure.;,  {Ob-ԍ Id. at 1165.;  X-205. The disclosure obligations imposed by section 251(c)(5) are broader than those  X-adopted in the Computer III proceeding. While Computer III applies only to the BOCs and to AT&T, section 251(c)(5) imposes disclosure requirements on all incumbent LECs.  Xx-Furthermore, while the Computer III disclosure requirements apply only to technical  Xc-information related to new or modified network services affecting the interconnection of  XN-enhanced services to the BOC networks, section 251(c)(5) mandates disclosure of a much  X9-broader spectrum of information.9Z,  {OD -ԍ See discussion of the definitions of "information necessary for the transmission and routing of services"  {O -and "interoperability," supra.#XN\  P!ynXP# Accordingly, we sought comment in the NPRM on  X$ -whether the Commission should adopt a timetable comparable to that imposed in Computer III for section 251(c)(5) network disclosure purposes and, if so, how such a timetable should be implemented.  X -#A\  P"ɒP# #XN\  P#ynXP#` `  b.Comments   X-206. Most commenters express support for our tentative conclusion that section 251(c)(5) requires incumbent LECs to disclose publicly information on network changes  Xn-within a reasonable time in advance of implementation.n,  {O-ԍ See, e.g., Ameritech comments at 29; GCI comments at 5; MCI comments at 15; Time Warner comments at 6; U S WEST reply at 1. No commenters suggest that the timing of disclosure is not governed by section 251(c)(5)'s "reasonableness" standard, although at least two commenters appear to indicate that it would be reasonable to implement  X)-network changes immediately upon disclosure.),  yO-ԍ BellSouth argues that "the Commission should permit the offering of the new interface immediately upon  {O-the disclosure of the requisite information." BellSouth comments at 5; see also Nortel comments at 4. Commenters also support our tentative conclusion that an incumbent LEC must make this information available within a "reasonable"  X-time if responding to an individual request.Mj ,  {O -ԍ See, e.g., MCI comments at 15.M Time Warner requests a concrete standard in this area and suggests that the Commission should indicate that, once an incumbent LEC has released a public notice of change under section 251(c)(5), it must respond to individual requests for detailed, technical information concerning network changes under section  X-251(c)(5) within ten business days of receiving the request.D ,  yOL%-ԍ Time Warner comments at 11.D "_ 0*((P"Ԍ X-207. Commenters were split on whether we should adopt a specific disclosure  X-timetable for section 251(c)(5) purposes. Several commenters,  {Ob-ԍ See, e.g., Ameritech comments at 29; BellSouth comments at 2, 5; District of Columbia Commission comments at 6, 78; GVNW comments at 5; Bell Atlantic reply at 89. oppose the adoption of a specific timetable, primarily arguing that: (1) any regulations adopted under section 251(c)(5) should define only minimum guidelines, allowing the states flexibility under section 251(d)(3) to adopt more stringent disclosure requirements dictated by local conditions; (2) a fixed disclosure timetable will needlessly or arbitrarily delay the introduction of new services or technical advances; (3) overly long advance disclosure periods will put the incumbent LECs at a competitive disadvantage because competitors will be able to bring planned services to market more quickly; (4) the industry already has in place detailed disclosure guidelines that are widely followed on a voluntary basis and that obviate the need for independent Commission examination of this issue; and (5) the Commission's existing "all carrier" rule, which contains a flexible standard, adequately addresses the obligations imposed by section  X -251(c)(5).x ",  {O-ԍ The requirements of the all carrier rule are discussed in note 383 supra.x GVNW warns that the interval from the make/buy decision to inservice for small LECs is often less than twelve months and states that the Commission should not require technology to be implemented at a slower pace than is technically feasible merely to  X -satisfy a notice requirement.= ,  yO -ԍ GVNW comments at 4.= Commenters also argue that carriers already face powerful incentives to ensure that their networks interconnect properly because the reputation of both  Xy-the incumbent LEC and the interconnecting LEC are at stake if service fails.SyD,  {On-ԍ See, e.g., Ameritech comments at 30.S In addition, BellSouth claims that section 251(c)(5) is "selfeffectuating and needs no interpretive  XK-regulations."AK,  yO-ԍ BellSouth comments at 1.A  X-208. Several other commenters argue that, while a disclosure timetable may be  X-necessary, the Computer III requirements are too rigid. The District of Columbia Commission notes that any eventual disclosure timetable must balance "the need to ensure the earliest possible disclosure of information needed by competitors [against] the need to impose the  X-least administrative burden on" incumbent LECs.Wf ,  yO!-ԍ District of Columbia Commission comments at 8.W Accordingly, the District of Columbia Commission maintains that state commissions should be afforded flexibility to set timetables  X-that are appropriate in light of local conditions.2 ,  {O<%-ԍ Id.2 Several commenters note existing industry notification timing standards adopted and issued by the Industry Carriers Compatibility Forum"~` 0*((n"  X-("ICCF"),  {Oy-ԍ Industry Carriers Compatibility Forum, Recommended Notification Procedures to Industry for Changes in  {OC-Access Network Architecture, ICCF 920726004, Rev. 2 (Jan. 5, 1996). and argue that widespread industry use of these standards has obviated the need  X-for an additional Commissionimposed timetable.j$,  yO-ԍ USTA comments at 13; NYNEX comments at 1617; SBC comments at 14.j MCI, however, cautions that these existing industry guidelines are inadequate because industry fora, in general, have historically  X-been controlled by the RBOCs.8,  yO -ԍ MCI reply at 7.8 U S WEST supports disclosure at the "make/buy" point, but argues that additional notice should not be required for deployment of standard interfaces  X-and services.AD,  yO -ԍ U S WEST comments at 13.A While MCI supports adoption of the Computer III timetable in this proceeding, it requests that, in addition: (1) we impose a mandatory 6month disclosure period for network changes that can be implemented within 6 months of the "make/buy" point; and (2) we clarify that incumbent LECs must disclose relevant information they discover after services have been introduced, if such information would have been subject to prior  X -disclosure.? ,  yO-ԍ MCI comments at 2021.? AT&T also supports the general parameters of the Computer III timetable, but requests that we specifically impose a one year minimum advance disclosure obligation on  X -changes to network elements or operations support system technology.= d ,  yO-ԍ AT&T comments at 25.= Similarly, while  X -ACSI notes that the Computer IIIĠtimetable is a "useful starting place," it argues for a minimum oneyear notice period for modification of the physical form of interconnection, with an additional 6 month period in which use of the changes by a competing service  X-provider is permissive only.= ,  yO;-ԍ ACSI comments at 12.=  Xh-209. Cox argues that disclosure should be made at the "earliest possible time" and, in particular, at the time the decision is made internally to implement a change, with the "make/buy" point being considered the "absolute latest date" on which disclosure is  X#-permitted.?# ,  yOX!-ԍ Cox comments at 1011.? In addition, Cox requests that we obligate incumbent LECs to disclose any unimplemented network changes that are subject to the section 251(c)(5) notice requirement at  X-the outset of interconnection negotiations.9,  {O$-ԍ Id. at 11.9 "a0*((&"Ԍ X-210. MFS proposes a tripartite scheme, loosely based on the Computer III timetable,  X-that classifies certain changes as "major," "location," or "minor."?,  yOd-ԍ MFS comments at 1516.? "Major" changes, would be defined as those "introducing any change in network equipment, facilities, specifications, protocols, or interfaces that will require other parties to make any modification to hardware or software in order to maintain interoperability." Major changes would be subject to 18 months advance notice. "Location" changes would be defined as those "that require changes in the geographic location to which traffic is routed, or at which unbundled network elements can be obtained, but [that] do not otherwise change the manner of interconnection or of access"; such changes could be implemented on 12 months notice. "Minor" changes, including those in "numbering, routing instructions, signalling codes, or other information necessary for the exchange of traffic that do not require construction of new facilities or changes in hardware or software" could be made upon notice in accord with the time intervals prescribed by the  X -ICCF. X,  {O-ԍ These intervals are prescribed in the ICCF Recommended Notification Procedures. See note 466 supra.  X -211. Many commenters recognize the need for a concrete disclosure timetable. AT&T argues that the broad disagreement among commenters itself is evidence that section  X-251(c)(5) is not selfeffectuating.:,  yO--ԍ AT&T reply at 27.: AT&T opposes the statebystate approach advocated by the District of Columbia Commission, as well as the casebycase approach advocated by Rural Tel. Coalition, because these approaches could lead to the disparate application of the uniform statutory duty imposed by section 251(c)(5). AT&T notes that the record does not reflect any material conditions that vary among states or justify differing rules. In addition, AT&T disputes the applicability of the ICCF timetable, since that document sets forth only  X-guidelines to be used by the independent LECs in notifying the BOCs of network changes.2z,  {O3-ԍ Id.2  X-212. Of the commenters supporting concrete federal standards, most support the  X-adoption of the Computer III disclosure timetable.w ,  {O-ԍ See, e.g., Teleport comments at 11; GCI comments at 5; AT&T reply at 27.w PacTel notes that existing Commission disclosure requirements are familiar to the industry and adequate to meet the requirements of section 251(c)(5); accordingly it supports the establishment of "safe harbor" rules based on  X-Computer III and the disclosure requirements contained in our existing rules.u,  {O#-ԍ PacTel comments at 5. See 47 C.F.R. 64.702(d)(2), 68.110(b).u As discussed above, although it advocates certain revisions, U S WEST agrees that "disclosure pursuant to  XT-the Computer [III] Rules would seem to satisfy the requirements of the [1996] Act."DT0 ,  yO5'-ԍ U S WEST comments at 1213.D GTE"Tb 0*((" notes that the "make/buy" point is an appropriate disclosure trigger because it ensures both the delivery of timely information to parties that use the networks and the promotion of carriers'  X-development efforts to support network innovation.W,  yOK-ԍ GTE reply at 78 and comments cited at 7 n.15.W  X-213. Several commenters urge us to adopt rules prohibiting an incumbent LEC from disclosing network changes to certain preferred entities, including long distance or equipment  Xv-manufacturing affiliates, prior to public disclosure.vX,  {O -ԍ See, e.g., Time Warner comments at 8; NCTA reply at 12; Ohio Consumer's Council reply at 56.  XH- ` `  c.Discussion   X -214. We find that it would be unreasonable to expect other telecommunications carriers or information services providers to be able to react immediately to network changes that the incumbent LEC may have spent months or more planning and implementing; accordingly we reject requests to permit incumbent LECs to implement changes immediately on disclosure. In order to clarify incumbent LECs' obligations to disclose these changes a "reasonable time in advance of implementation," we adopt a disclosure timetable based on that  X-developed in the Computer III proceeding. Under this timetable, incumbent LECs will be required to disclose planned changes, subject to the section 251(c)(5) disclosure requirements,  Xd-at the "make/buy" point,d,  {O-ԍ The definition of the "make/buy" point for section 251(c)(5) purposes is discussed infra at paras. 216217. but a minimum of twelve months before implementation. If the planned changes can be implemented within twelve months of the make/buy point, then public notice must be given at the make/buy point, but at least six months before implementation.  X-215. With respect to changes that can be implemented within six months of the make/buy point, incumbent LECs may wish to provide less than six months notice. In such a case, the incumbent LEC's certification or public notice filed with the Commission, as applicable, must also include a certificate of service: (1) certifying that a copy of the incumbent LEC's public notice was served on each provider of telephone exchange service that interconnects directly with the incumbent LEC's network a minimum of five business days in advance of the filing; and (2) providing the name and address of all such providers of local exchange service upon which the notice was served. The Commission will issue public notice of such shortterm filings. Such short term notices will be deemed final on the tenth business day after the release of the Commission's public notice unless a provider of information services or telecommunications services that directly interconnects with the incumbent LEC's network files an objection to the change with the Commission and serves it on the incumbent LEC no later than the ninth business day following the release of the Commission's public notice. If such an objection is filed, the incumbent LEC will have the opportunity to respond within an additional five business days and the Common Carrier" c|0*((" Bureau, Network Services Division, will issue, if necessary, an order determining the reasonable public notice period.  V-i. The Section 251(c)(5) Timetable  X-216. Without adequate notice of changes to an incumbent LEC's network that affect the "information necessary for the transmission and routing" of traffic, a competing service provider may be unable to maintain an adequately high level of interoperability between its network and that of the incumbent LEC. This inability could degrade the quality of transmission between the two networks or, in a worse case, could interrupt service between  X -the two service providers. ,  yO -ԍ Because the incumbent LECs control the vast majority of both facilities and customers in most markets, the impact of such difficulties, at least at present, would be felt most acutely by a competing service provider. Under the rules we adopt today, incumbent LECs must disclose  X -changes subject to section 251(c)(5) at the "make/buy" point, i.e., the time at which the incumbent LEC decides to make for itself, or procure from another entity, any product the  X -design of which affects or relies on a new or changed network interface,f ,  {O-ԍ BOC Safeguards Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 7603. The Commission has stated that, "make/buy applies not only to a carrier's decision to make or buy products to implement a change in the network, but also to any  {O:-decision to make or buy products that would rely on such changes." Phase II Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3087. The  {O-precise definition of the "make/buy" point has been clarified in some detail. See, e.g., id.; Phase I Order, 104  {O-F.C.C.2d at 108086; Computer and Business Equip. Mfrs. Assoc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding  {O-Section 64.702(d)(2) of the Commission's Rules and the Policies of the Second Computer Inquiry, Report and  {Ob-Order ("CBEMA Order"), 93 F.C.C.2d 1226, 124344 (1983).f but at least twelve  X -months in advance of implementation of a network change. In Computer III, the Commission defined "product" in the enhanced services context to be "any hardware or software for use in the network that might affect the compatibility of enhanced services with the existing  X}-telephone network, or with any new basic services or capabilities."S}l ,  {O-ԍ Phase I Order, 104 F.C.C.2d at 1084.S We believe that this definition can be used to craft a definition of "product" for purposes of section 251(c)(5). Accordingly, for purposes of network disclosure under section 251(c)(5), we define "product" to be "any hardware or software for use in an incumbent LEC's network or in conjunction with an incumbent LEC's facilities that, when installed, could affect the compatibility of the network, facilities or services of an interconnected provider of telecommunications or information services with the incumbent LEC's network, facilities or services."  X-217. We recognize that some network changes that affect interconnection, e.g., some location changes, may not require an incumbent LEC to make or buy any products. Disclosure of such changes, however, may be required under section 251(c)(5). For purposes of section 251(c)(5), therefore, we clarify that the "make/buy" point includes the point at which the incumbent LEC makes a definite decision to implement a network change in order to begin offering a new service or change the way in which it provides an existing service. Such a "definite decision" requires the incumbent LEC to move beyond exploration of the"=d 0*((" costs and benefits of a change or the feasibility of a change. Instead, a "definite decision" is reached when the incumbent LEC determines that the change is warranted, establishes a timetable for anticipated implementation, and takes the first step toward implementation of the  X-change within its network.U,  {O4-ԍ Cf. Phase II Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3087.U  X-218. We recognize that many changes to an incumbent LEC's network that are subject to disclosure under section 251(c)(5) can be fully implemented less than twelve months after the make/buy point. Accordingly, if the service using the network changes can be initiated within twelve months after the make/buy date, public notice must be given on the make/buy date, but at least six months before implementation of the planned changes.  X -219. We agree with several commenters that competing service providers should not require a full six months to respond to some categories of relatively minor network changes and that we would needlessly slow the pace of technical advance were we to require a full six months notice in such a case. As evidence of this fact, several commenters have submitted or referred us to industry guidelines developed by ICCF, which detail recommended notice  X-periods of 45 days to six months for certain network changes.sZ,  {O-ԍ ICCF Recommended Notification Procedures. See supra note 466.s Based on the record before us, we agree that six months may be too long a minimum in some circumstances. We conclude, however, that neither the ICCF guidelines nor any other categorization scheme adequately encompasses every potential change affecting interconnection that an incumbent LEC may wish to make to its network. In addition, for changes that can be implemented in less than six months, the length of time required for notice to be considered "reasonable" may vary considerably based on advances in technology, the specific implementation plan developed by an incumbent LEC, the particular capabilities of interconnecting carriers to adapt, and the willingness of the incumbent LEC to be forthcoming with information. Based on these considerations, we find that a fixed timetable for such shortterm notices would not be appropriate.  X|-220. Accordingly, with respect to changes subject to section 251(c)(5) disclosure that the incumbent LEC wishes to implement on less than six months' notice, we require that the incumbent LEC's Commission filing, whether certification or public notice, also include a certificate of service: (1) certifying that a copy of the incumbent LEC's public notice was served on each provider of telephone exchange service that interconnects directly with the incumbent LEC's network a minimum of five business days in advance of the filing; and (2) providing the name and address of all such providers of local exchange service upon which the notice was served. Such filings must be clearly titled "Short Term Public Notice (or Certification of ShortTerm Public Notice) Pursuant to Rule 51.333(a)."  X"-221. The Commission will issue a public notice of such shortterm filings separate from its public notice of other section 251(c)(5) filings. Unlike sixmonth or twelvemonth"#e0*(("" notices, certain interested parties will have an opportunity to file objections to such shortterm public notices. Specifically, short term notices will be deemed final on the tenth business day after the release of the Commission's public notice unless a provider of information services or telecommunications services that directly interconnects with the incumbent LEC's network files an objection to the change with the Commission and serves it on the incumbent LEC no later than the ninth business day following the release of the Commission's public notice. Such an objection must state: (1) specific reasons why the objector is unable to implement adjustments to accommodate the incumbent LEC's changes by the date the incumbent LEC has specified, including specific technical information, questions, or other assistance required that would allow the objector to accommodate those changes; (2) specific steps the objector is taking to implement changes to accommodate the incumbent LEC's changes on an expedited basis; (3) the earliest possible date by which the objector anticipates that it can accommodate the incumbent LEC's changes, assuming it receives the assistance requested in item (1) (not to exceed six months from the date the incumbent LEC gave its original public notice); (4) the affidavit of the objector's president, chief executive officer, or other corporate officer or official with suitable authority to bind the corporation and knowledge of details of the objector's inability to adjust its network on a timely basis that he or she has read the objection, that the statements contained in it are true, that there is good ground to support the objection, and that it is not interposed for purposes of delay; and (5) any other information relevant to the objection. Because the power to interpose such objections could vest competing service providers with extensive power to delay implementation of changes, we caution competing service providers that we will not hesitate to intervene where necessary to ensure that objections are not posed merely to delay implementation of incumbent LEC network changes and that abuse of the Commission's processes for such a purpose would  X-expose a competing service provider to sanctions.Q,  {OQ-ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 1.17, 1.52.Q  X-222. If one or more objections are filed, the incumbent LEC will have five additional  X-business days (i.e., until no later than the fourteenth business day following the release of the Commission's public notice) within which to file a response to the objection(s) and serve it on all objectors. Such a response shall: (1) include information responsive to the allegations and concerns identified by objectors; (2) state whether the implementation date(s) proposed by the objector(s) would be acceptable; (3) indicate any specific technical assistance that the incumbent LEC is willing to give to the objector(s); and (4) state any other information relevant to the incumbent LEC's response. In the case of such contested shortterm public notices, the Common Carrier Bureau will issue an Order fixing a reasonable public notice period. In the alternative, if the incumbent LEC does not file a response within the fiveday time period allotted, or if the response accepts the latest date stated by an objector in response to item (3) of its objection, then the incumbent LEC's public notice shall be deemed amended to specify implementation on the latest date stated by an objector in item (3) of its objection without further Commission action. "j$fZ0*((F#"Ԍ X-223. At the make/buy point, incumbent LEC plans should be sufficiently developed that the incumbent LEC could provide adequate and useful information to competing service providers. At earlier stages of the planning process, options are still being explored and alternatives weighed. Disclosure at such an early stage could cause interconnecting carriers to waste resources in an effort to respond to network changes that may not occur or that occur ultimately in a significantly different way. As the process of implementing the planned changes into the network goes forward, specific information may also require revision. Accordingly, we require an incumbent LEC to keep its public notice information complete, accurate, and uptodate in whatever forum it has chosen for disclosure.  X -224. We agree with several commenters that incumbent LECs should not make preferential disclosure to selected entities prior to disclosure at the make/buy point.  X -Accordingly, we prohibit disclosure to separate affiliates, separated affiliates,< ,  yOe -ԍ 47 U.S.C. 274.< or unaffiliated entities (including actual or potential competing service providers), until the time of public notice.  V-ii. Other Disclosure Proposals  Xb-225. We find that section 251(d)(3) does not require the Commission to preserve state authority over the timing of public notice of changes to the "information necessary for the transmission and routing" of traffic. Section 251(d)(3) prevents the Commission from "preclud[ing] the enforcement of any [state commission] regulation, order or policy," to the extent that such regulation, order or policy "establishes [LEC] access and interconnection  X-obligations,"EX,  yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C. 251(d)(3)(A).E is "consistent with the requirements of [section 251]"E,  yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C. 251(d)(3)(B).E and does not  X-"substantially prevent implementation of this section and the purposes of this part."Ex,  yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C. 251(d)(3)(C).E  X-226. Public notice requirements that varied widely from state to state could subject both incumbent LECs and potential competing service providers to burdensome, duplicative, and potentially inconsistent obligations that would impermissibly hamper the achievement of the goals of section 251. Such varied filings requirements would obligate incumbent LECs to file in, and potential interconnecting carriers to canvass, a multitude of statelevel fora in order to glean information concerning network changes. Incumbent LECs that operate in multiple states could be required to disclose a single networkwide change piecemeal in a variety of state filings; interconnecting carriers would then need to retrieve the information, also piecemeal, from many different locations. Neither section 251(c)(5) nor a fixed disclosure timetable limits the range of network changes an incumbent LEC might make;"g0*((" rather incumbent LECs remain free to make any otherwise permissible change upon appropriate notice. Accordingly, particularly with respect to entities whose operations span several states, clear, national rules are essential to the uniform implementation of network  X-disclosure.G,  {O4-ԍ See NCTA comments at 12.G  X-227. Several commenters argue that a fixed disclosure timetable will needlessly or arbitrarily delay the introduction of technical advances or new services. It is our intention in this proceeding, however, to develop disclosure rules that minimize unnecessary delay by providing competing service providers with adequate, but not excessive, time to respond to changes to an incumbent LEC's network that affect interconnection. The primary concern reflected in section 251(c)(5) is continued interconnection and interoperability. If proper planning occurs, however, the delay associated with this goal should be minimal.  X -228. At least one commenter argues that, because incumbent LECs and competing service providers have a common interest in ensuring that their networks function together properly an interest that removes incentives to withhold vital interconnection information  X-and obviates the need for fixed, enforceable advance disclosure obligationsOZ,  yO-ԍ Ameritech comments at 30, reply at 17.O any fixed timetables for disclosure should be negotiated between carriers as part of individual interconnection agreements. We disagree. The mere fact that interconnection failures can adversely affect both an incumbent LEC and a competing service provider does not remove the incumbent LEC's incentives to delay release of information concerning network changes solely in order to inconvenience its competitors. The impact of such failures would fall disproportionately on the competing service provider because, at least in the near term, the incumbent LEC's network will connect most of the customers in its service area directly, without using any facilities of a competing service provider. Indeed, we believe that this is the reason that Congress chose to place this obligation on incumbent LECs only and not on all LECs. In addition, notice of network changes provided to an interconnecting carrier, pursuant to a privately negotiated agreement, will not necessarily be provided to members of  X|-the public who are not parties to the specific agreement."|,  yO-ԍ Although the contents of privately negotiated interconnection agreements themselves must be disclosed to  {O-the public through state level filings, see 47 U.S.C. 252(h), information exchanged pursuant to the terms of such an interconnection agreement might not be provided at all to this Commission, state commissions or the public. Accordingly, while carriers may negotiate individual notice arrangements (consistent with the preferential disclosure prohibitions discussed in paragraph 224, above) as part of private interconnection agreements, we are unable to rely on such private notice to satisfy section 251(c)(5)'s duty to provide  X"-reasonable public notice.  X-229. Although advance disclosure periods will place competing service providers on notice of certain products and services the incumbent LECs intend to bring to market, we do"h0*((" not believe that this information will automatically translate into a competitive advantage for the competing service providers. The incumbent LEC's network disclosure obligations are intended to allow competing service providers to make required changes to their own networks in order to maintain interoperability and uninterrupted, high quality service to the public. These obligations are designed to prevent incumbent LECs from using their currently substantial percentages of subscribers and highly developed networks anticompetitively to prevent the entry of potential competitors.  XH-230. Several commenters have argued that existing practices under industry issued,  X1-ICCF guideliness1,  {O -ԍ ICCF Recommended Notification Procedures. See supra note 466.s or the Commission's "all carrier" rule,Q1Z,  {O< -ԍ See supra n.383.Q satisfy the requirements of section 251(c)(5) and that no further Commission action is necessary. We disagree. The guidelines that commenters bring to our attention are neither compulsory nor enforceable at the Commission. We cannot rely on continued goodwill among carriers that soon may be locked in competition to assure timely disclosure of network changes. Similarly, we cannot trust in the "mutually satisfactory arrangements for timely information exchange" that GVNW alleges  X -IXCs and small LECs reached to ease the conversion to equal access.< ,  yOD-ԍ GVNW comments at 5.< Our new rules, and the new market dynamics, may not produce such agreements.  Xb-231. While we are aware of no specific complaints concerning the functioning of the "all carrier rule," the advent of competition for basic telephone service in the local market will require rules that are specific, easily enforced and very clear. In this respect, we believe that the all carrier rule standard lacks adequate specificity to function efficiently in the section 251 context. Requiring carriers to litigate the meaning of "reasonable" notice through our complaint process on a casebycase basis might slow the introduction and implementation of new technology and services, and burden both carriers and the Commission with potentially lengthy, factspecific enforcement proceedings. A fixed timetable will create a clear, specific standard that will be more easily and quickly enforceable and that will better facilitate the development of competition and serve the public interest.  Xe-232. At least one commenter urges us to adopt the Computer III timetable merely as a  XP-"safe harbor" provision.>P|,  yO}"-ԍ PacTel comments at 6.> If we were to do so, however, we would open the notice process to many of the same risks that lead us to reject the all carrier rule. Under "safe harbor" rules, competing service providers' notice complaints could become bifurcated into an initial inquiry as to whether an incumbent LEC met the safe harbor provisions of the timetable. If the answer were in the negative, a second, factspecific inquiry as to whether notice was nevertheless reasonable, would then follow. The delay in resolving such disputes would not"i 0*((" serve the public interest. We believe the better course is to adopt a binding, fixed standard applicable to notice by all incumbent LECs.  X-233. MFS's proposed regulatory structure based on a tripartite scheme, classifying changes as "major," "location," or "minor," subject to advance disclosure of 18 months, 12 months, and according to industry standards, respectively, is flawed in several respects. Initially, section 251(c)(5) disclosure applies to a broad spectrum of potential network changes and we are not confident that MFS's definitions, or any similar definitions, could adequately capture and clarify every potential alteration affecting interconnection that an incumbent LEC could make to its network. Categorization debates would inevitably arise among carriers concerning the status of specific, planned changes. Reasonable public notice is a function of the length of time an incumbent LEC will take to implement a change and the length of time an interconnecting carrier will need to respond. Fixed 18month and 12month disclosure periods will not be flexible enough to take advantage of advances in technology that may permit increasingly rapid implementation of and reaction to network changes. Also, we find that the extended notice periods MFS proposes are too long. MFS provides no evidence or explanation to support its assertion that competing service providers will need a minimum of  Xy-18 months notice of major changes,y,  {O-ԍ Cf. NYNEX reply at 1011 (Such a long notice period would "hamstring technological progress and deny customer benefits"); U S WEST reply at 23. and the record contains broad support for the 12 month  Xb-notice period from Computer III.$b",  {O5-ԍ See, e.g., AT&T comments at 2425 (Noting that the time periods from Computer III are familiar to incumbent LECs and a oneyear minimum for certain changes would be sufficient advance notice to alternative LECs); MCI comments at 16 (agreeing 12 months advance notice is sufficient); Cox comments at 11 ("The  {O-proposal in the [NPRM] represents the minimum possible standard for disclosure"). While we intend that competing service providers have adequate notice of planned network changes, we acknowledge the valid concerns of some commenters that overextended advance notification intervals could needlessly delay the introduction of new services, provide the interconnecting carrier with an unfair competitive  X-advantage, or slow the pace of technical innovation.TZ,  {O-ԍ Cf. Phase II Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3087 ("[W]hile we believe enhanced service providers are entitled to receive network information on a timely basis, we are also concerned that premature disclosure of this information could impair carriers' development efforts and inhibit network innovation").T  V-iii. Application to Network Changes in Progress  X-234. On the effective date of the rules implementing incumbent LECs' network disclosure obligations under section 251(c)(5), some incumbent LECs may be implementing network changes that the new rules otherwise would have required them to disclose. With respect to these changes, we do not perceive a need to delay implementation, and no commenter has requested that we do so. We do require, however, that incumbent LECs give public notice of such changes as soon as it is practical, and that notice in accordance with the section 251(c)(5) network disclosure rules be given: (1) before the incumbent LEC begins""j0 0*((z" offering service using the changes to its network; and (2) no later than 30 days after the effective date of the rules adopted in this Order.  X-235. We similarly find no need to adopt rules obligating incumbent LECs to make any formal, initial public disclosure of comprehensive information concerning their networks to provide background information against which connecting carriers could then evaluate  Xv-changes. In the First Report and Order, we have concluded that, under section 251(c)(2), incumbent LECs are under an obligation to provide, interconnection for purposes of transmitting and routing telephone exchange traffic alone, exchange access traffic alone, or  X3-both.U3,  {O -ԍ First Report and Order at section IV. U Implicit in this obligation under section 251(c)(2) is the obligation to make available to requesting carriers information indicating the location and technical characteristics of incumbent LEC network facilities. Accordingly, actual or potential competing service providers needing this type of baseline information may request it from the incumbent LEC under section 251(c)(2); subsequent changes to this information will be addressed by the section 251(c)(5) rules we adopt today.  V-iv. Small Business Considerations  Xd-236. We have considered the impact of our rules on small incumbent LECs. We agree with GVNW that many network changes may not require twelve months advance disclosure. Accordingly, we have provided for six month, or shorter, notice periods, when such changes can be accomplished quickly. In addition, we note that, under section 251(f)(1),  X-certain small incumbent LECs are exempt from our rules until (1) they receive a bona fide request for interconnection, services, or network elements; and (2) their state commission determines that the request is not unduly economically burdensome, is technically feasible, and is consistent with the relevant portions of section 254. In addition, certain small  X-incumbent LECs may seek relief from our rules under section 251(f)(2).Z,  {O-ԍ For a discussion of the implications and operation of section 251(f), see First Report and Order, section XII.  X- C.` ` Relationship with other Public Notice Requirements and Practices.   XR- X ` ` 1. Relationship of Sections 273(c)(1) and 273(c)(4) with Section 251(c)(5).  X   X$-` `  a.Background   X-237. Section 273(c)(1) requires each BOC to maintain and file with the Commission "full and complete information with respect to the protocols and technical requirements for connection with and use of its telephone exchange facilities," in accordance with Commission" k0*(("  X-rules.,  yOy-ԍ 47 U.S.C. 273(c)(1). The Commission will address section 273 in a separate rulemaking proceeding. Section 273(c)(4) obligates the BOCs to provide timely information on the planned deployment of telecommunications equipment to interconnecting carriers providing telephone  X-exchange service.BX,  yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C. 273(c)(4).B We sought comment in the NPRM on the relationship between these  X-sections and the network disclosure obligations contained in section 251(c)(5).A,  {OV-ԍ NPRM at para. 193.A  X- ` `  b.Comments   Xa-238. Ameritech states that the requirements of section 251(c)(5) "should be reconciled  XJ-with [the] related obligations" set forth in section 273(c)(1) and 273(c)(4)."BJz,  yOu-ԍ Ameritech comments at 31.B Bell Atlantic  X3-suggests that sections 251(c)(5) and 273(c)(1) cover the same type of technical information.F3 ,  yO-ԍ Bell Atlantic comments at 12.F Bell Atlantic further recommends that we find that "timely" release of the information covered by section 273(c)(4) means that the information should be made available "a sufficient time in advance that the competing service providers may make any necessary changes to their  X -networks." ,  {O"-ԍ Id. Bell Atlantic advocates the same "reasonable advance notice" standard for use in connection with section 251(c)(5). SBC comments that the disclosure obligations imposed by sections 251(c)(5),  X -273(c)(1), and 273(c)(4) are "substantially similar."? ,  yOe-ԍ SBC comments at 1314.? MCI argues that section 273(c)(1) imposes on the RBOCs substantially the same information disclosure obligations that 251(c)(5) imposes on the incumbent LECs in general, with the exception that 273(c)(1)  X{-explicitly obligates the RBOCs to file the information with the Commission.<{ ,  yO-ԍ MCI comments at 19.< MCI further argues that section 273(c)(4)'s "timely" disclosure requirement goes beyond that contained in  XM-section 251(c)(5).2M,  {O!-ԍ Id.2  X-239. USTA suggests that "there is no basis to impose different requirements on the BOCs for purposes of compliance with section 273(c)(1) than those they are required to follow for section 251(c)(5). This is in fact one area in which uniformity would provide a  X-benefit to the industry and would be administratively simple."=,  yO1'-ԍ USTA comments at 13.= In contrast, the Rural Tel."l60*((&" Coalition argues that the requirements of section 273 apply only to the BOCs and "are not  X-expected to correlate with the requirements of 251(c)(5) that apply to all incumbent LECs."L,  yOb-ԍ Rural Tel. Coalition comments at 4.L The Rural Tel. Coalition states that the Commission should fashion flexible notice requirements under these sections, recognizing differences in size, market power, and ability to impact competing service providers' operations that exist among the BOCs and independent  X-LECs, and competing service providers.:X,  {O-ԍ Id. at 45.: AT&T also disagrees with USTA, arguing that the Commission filing contemplated by section 273(c)(1) is more detailed than the disclosure  X_-mandated in section 251(c)(5).J_,  yO -ԍ AT&T comments at 24, reply at 28.J  X1- ` `  c.Discussion   X -240. Because the BOCs clearly meet the 1996 Act's definition of an "incumbent  X -LEC,"? z,  yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C. 251(h).? the minimum disclosure requirements of section 251(c)(5) apply to the BOCs. We will address the specific implications of section 273, including the question whether section 273 imposes additional disclosure requirements on the BOCs, in a separate rulemaking proceeding.  Xy- ` ` 2. Relationship of Sections 251(a) and 251(c)(5) with Section 256.   XK- ` `  a.Background   X-241. Section 251(a) sets forth general duties of telecommunications carriers, including the duty to interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities and equipment of other telecommunications carriers, and the duty not to install network features, functions or capabilities that do not comply with the guidelines and standards established pursuant to  X-section 255  ,  yO|-ԍ Section 255, "Access by Persons with Disabilities," will be addressed in a separate rulemaking proceeding. and 256.? ,  yO !-ԍ 47 U.S.C. 251(a).? Section 251(c)(5) sets forth the duty of all incumbent LECs to provide reasonable public notice of changes in the information necessary for the transmission  X-and routing of services using the incumbent LEC's network.B * ,  yOn$-ԍ 47 U.S.C. 251(c)(5).B The goal of section 256, entitled "Coordination for Interconnectivity," is "to promote nondiscriminatory accessibility by the broadest number of users and vendors of communications products and services to public telecommunications networks used to provide telecommunications service" and defines the"Nm 0*(("  X-Commission's role in achieving this goal.< ,  yOy-ԍ 47 U.S.C. 256.< In the NPRM, we sought comment on the  X-relationship of sections 251(a) and 251(c)(5) with section 256.A X,  {O-ԍ NPRM at para. 193.A  X- ` `  b.Comments   X-242. We received few comments on this issue. USTA states that, "in developing oversight procedures for public telecommunications network interconnectivity standards under Section 256, the Commission can assist in alerting the industry to general types of technology  XJ-changes which may lead to specific upgrades or modifications by individual carriers."=J,  yO -ԍ USTA comments at 13.= In addition, USTA notes that all telecommunications carriers are obligated by section 251(a)(2) to comply with standards prescribed under sections 255 and 256 and, accordingly, cautions that the section 256 process should be conducted with carriers' section 251(a)(2) obligations  X -in mind.< z,  {O-ԍ Id. at 1314.< USTA therefore suggests the possibility that an industry group could develop a set of uniform guidelines for use by all carriers in providing notice of changes that could affect  X -interconnection or interoperability.9 ,  {O}-ԍ Id. at 14.9  X-243. Ameritech comments that section 251(c)(5) is only one part of the overall regulatory structure for coordinating network planning by the industry and facilitating  Xd-interconnection and interoperability.Bd,  yO-ԍ Ameritech comments at 31.B Based on this analysis, Ameritech argues that the notification obligations section 251(c)(5) imposes should be extended to all LECs under  X6-section 256.26. ,  {O-ԍ Id.2  X- ` `  c.Discussion   X-244. Section 251(a)(2) imposes a duty on all telecommunications carriers to act in ways that are not inconsistent with any guidelines and standards established under section 256. Section 251(c)(5) imposes network disclosure obligations on incumbent LECs that are related to the goals of section 256, inasmuch as section 251(c)(5) sets forth one specific procedure to promote interconnectivity. We do not decide here whether compliance with section 251(c)(5) is sufficient to satisfy section 256, however. The Network Reliability and Interoperability Council will develop recommendations to the Commission on the implementation of section"Pn 0*((0"  X-256.k,  yOy-ԍ At its meeting on July 15, 1996, the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council discussed (1) barriers to interconnectivity; (2) how the FCC most efficiently can oversee network planning to assure  {O -interoperability; (3) need for standards-setting; and (4) the overall reliability of networks. See Communications  {O-Daily, June 11, 1996 (announcing July 15 meeting); Public Notice, NYNEX CEO Seidenberg to Head New  {O-Network Reliability and Interoperability Council, 1996 WL 185795 (F.C.C. Apr. 18, 1996).k We intend to address carrier and Commission obligations under section 256 in a future rulemaking proceeding.  X- D.` ` Enforcement and Safeguards  X-` ` 1. Enforcement Mechanisms  X_-` `  a.Background and Comments   X1-245. In the NPRM, we sought comment on what enforcement mechanism, if any, we  X -should use to ensure compliance with the section 251(c)(5) public notice requirement.A ~,  {OK-ԍ NPRM at para. 193.A Bell Atlantic, in conjunction with its advocacy of a flexible disclosure standard based on "reasonableness," suggests that the Commission review complaints of premature  X -implementation on a casebycase basis and, where necessary, issue ceaseanddesist orders.F ,  yO-ԍ Bell Atlantic comments at 12.F Ameritech and GTE argue that no specific, additional enforcement mechanisms are necessary, because there is no evidence that existing industry practices are producing network conflicts  X-or hardships, or are otherwise not working.S,  yO-ԍ Ameritech comments at 29; GTE reply at 10.S U S WEST suggests that, if carriers fail to  X{-make timely disclosure, additional enforcement options can be considered in the future.={0 ,  yO\-ԍ U S WEST reply at 3.= In contrast, NCTA states that we must adopt meaningful sanctions to enforce our new network disclosure rules, including significant monetary sanctions whenever a competitor's service is  X6-disrupted because of an incumbent LEC's failure to comply with the notice requirements.=6 ,  yO-ԍ NCTA comments at 12.= Cox argues that any incumbent LEC found to violate section 251(c)(5)'s disclosure requirements should be required to inform all affected customers of interconnecting carriers that the incumbent LEC's actions caused any adverse effects attributable to the improperly  X-disclosed network changes.<P ,  yO$-ԍ Cox comments at 12.<  X-246. MFS states that the Commission should adopt rules that would: (1) require each incumbent LEC to respond to Commission questions regarding the information previously"o0*((" made available regarding any network changes within the scope of section 251(c)(5), and to supplement the information if requested by the Commission; (2) establish a procedure for temporarily blocking any proposed network change until the Commission has time to investigate any alleged violations, with respect to either provision of notice, or the nature of the network change; and (3) allow the Commission, for good cause, to issue an order, without prior notice or hearing, requiring an incumbent LEC to cease and desist from making any specified changes for a period of up to 60 days to permit Commission investigation of alleged  X_-violations.X_,  yO-ԍ MFS comments at 16. MFS does not explain what type of network change might require Commission investigation or what type or level of allegations we should considered sufficient in issuing cease and desist orders. Time Warner suggests that any failure to comply with the rules we establish  XH-should be addressed through our existing section 208 complaint process.DH,  yO -ԍ Time Warner comments at 11.D  X -` `  b.` Discussion (#  X -247. It is essential to the development of local competition that incumbent LECs comply with the network disclosure obligations of section 251(c)(5). Even if a competing provider of local exchange service had made significant inroads into the incumbent LEC's customer base, it would have to transmit a substantial number of its customers' calls to the incumbent LEC's network for termination. If these calls cannot be terminated reliably, customers will be more reluctant to use the competing provider's services.  XK-248. We recognize the importance of compliance with our network disclosure rules, and note that many of the specific enforcement sanctions offered by commenters may have merit. The commenters' suggestions indicate a belief that the Commission should delay or prohibit the implementation of changes if we receive sufficiently credible allegations of notice violations. Our existing enforcement authority would permit us to impose such a sanction and we will not hesitate to do so in appropriate circumstances. The Commission, however, also has a range of other penalties it could impose to ensure incumbent LEC compliance with the network disclosure rules. The record currently before us does not reveal a need for us to mandate specific enforcement procedures in the section 251(c)(5) context. Rather, we will intervene in appropriate ways if necessary to ensure adequate disclosure of public notice information, should sanctions become necessary to encourage full compliance with our  XN-network disclosure rules.Nx,  {Ow"-ԍ See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 206209, 218; 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291. In addition, we intend to explore how we can increase the efficiency of the current section 208 formal complaint process in a separate rulemaking proceeding. "p 0*((<"  X-` ` 2. Protection of Proprietary Information, Network and National  X-Security (#   X-` `  a.` Background and Comments (#  X-249. In the NPRM, we sought comment on the extent to which safeguards may be necessary to ensure that information regarding network security, national security and the proprietary interests of manufacturers and others is not compromised by the section 251(c)(5)  XJ-network disclosure process.AJ,  {O -ԍ NPRM at para. 194.A  X -250. BellSouth states that, to address these concerns, the Commission should permit disclosing incumbent LECs to require the recipient of such information to execute a confidentiality agreement, which could be drafted to include liquidated damages,  X -indemnification, or other appropriate remedial provisions.p Z,  {O-ԍ BellSouth comments at 5. See Illinois Commission comments at 63.p In addition, BellSouth requests that the Commission confirm that incumbent LECs are not obligated to disclose proprietary information of third parties, but may instead require competing service providers to negotiate  X-directly with the third party for access.8,  {O/-ԍ Id. at 6.8  Xd-251. GVNW suggests that we limit incumbent LEC disclosure only to references to industry and manufacturers' specifications that are widely available, and to other information required to interconnect at the interface, which would reduce the amount of proprietary or  X-sensitive information that would be subject to disclosure. ~,  yON-ԍ GVNW comments at 5. Ameritech advocates a similar narrowing of the disclosure obligation. Ameritech comments at 26 n.52. In addition, GVNW and the Rural Tel. Coalition state that an incumbent LEC should not be obligated to disclose the specific location of physical plant facilities except under strict nondisclosure agreements, in order to preserve the LEC's competitive position and protect against potential terrorist  X-disruptions.W!,  {OJ -ԍ Id.; Rural Tel. Coalition comments at 4.W  X-252. Noting that the telecommunications equipment market is competitive, Nortel states that a manufacturer would be seriously disadvantaged if its proprietary information were  Xg-disclosed to competitors."Xgh ,  yO%-ԍ Nortel comments at 3; Motorola, Inc. reply at 5. Citing similar concerns, GTE urges us to strike a balance between the information necessary to ensure seamless interconnection and the protection of proprietary information. GTE comments at 6. In addition, Nortel argues that, in such a case, manufacturers"gq "0*(("  X-would face substantially reduced incentives to develop advanced products.2#,  {Oy-ԍ Id.2 Motorola, Inc.,  X-expresses its agreement with both BellSouth and NortelH$Z,  yO-ԍ Motorola, Inc. comments at n.4.H and comments that disclosure of proprietary information may undermine the competitive position of U.S. manufacturers in the  X-global market.E%,  yOV-ԍ Motorola, Inc. reply at n.5.E Motorola, Inc., also asks us to clarify that no disclosure is required of  X-technical information at "testing" or "trial" stages,8&z,  {O -ԍ Id. at 6.8 where typically a carrier is evaluating  X-new technology in the field.2' ,  {OJ -ԍ Id.2  X_-253. Sprint, in ex parte comments, states that nondisclosure agreements related to the  XJ-marketing of new services that will be available from both carriers may be appropriate.(J,  {O-ԍ Ex parte letter from Jay C. Keithley, Sprint, to Mr. William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, filed in CC Docket No. 9698, June 26, 1996, at 2. Sprint also notes, however, that many routine network upgrades, such as establishment of new central offices, remote offices, or tandems, elimination of tandem locations, changes in the incumbent LEC's SS 7 network, and basic software upgrades, may not require the use of  X -nondisclosure agreements.2) ,  {O-ԍ Id.2 While agreeing that network and national security issues deserve the highest attention, Teleport expresses concern that proprietary interest claims could be used  X -to keep essential network interconnection information from potential competitors.A* ,  yO-ԍ Teleport comments at 12.A  X-` `  b.` Discussion (#   Xd-254. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the judicious use of nondisclosure agreements will help protect incentives to develop innovative network improvements, and will also protect against potential threats to both national and network security by limiting the flow of detailed information concerning the operation of the national telecommunications  X-network.+,  yO#-ԍ Should these agreements prove inadequate for this purpose, we would revisit this issue. Accordingly, we will permit the use of nondisclosure agreements, subject to certain restrictions.  X-255. Incumbent LECs have a statutory obligation to provide "reasonable public notice of changes in the information necessary for the transmission and routing of services using that"r+0*((" [incumbent LEC's] facilities or network, as well as of any other changes that would affect the  X-interoperability of those facilities and networks,"B,,  yOb-ԍ 47 U.S.C. 251(c)(5).B as defined in this proceeding. Under another provision of the 1996 Act, however, the BOCs and any entities that they own or otherwise control must protect "the proprietary information submitted for procurement  X-decisions from release not specifically authorized by the owner of such information."B-X,  yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  273(e)(5).B Thus a rule requiring a BOC to provide change information publicly, without any provision for the use of a nondisclosure agreement, could place a BOC in the position of having to choose between compliance with the Commission's rule and compliance with section 273(e)(5). We also find that requiring disclosure to the public of competitively sensitive, proprietary, or trade secret information without allowing for the possible use of nondisclosure agreements would be  X -inconsistent with section 251(c)(5)'s requirement that incumbent LECs provide "reasonable public notice" (emphasis added). It would not be "reasonable" to require such disclosures because they have significant implications with respect to network and national security, as well as the development of competition and innovative network improvements. Accordingly, we find that section 251(c)(5) requires incumbent LECs to provide notice of planned changes to the public sufficient to allow an interested party to assess the possible ramifications of the change and evaluate whether it needs to seek disclosure of additional information. The five categories of information disclosure we mandate here will meet this standard.  XM-256. We do not anticipate that the minimum public notice requirements we are adopting will obligate carriers to disclose competitively sensitive, proprietary, or trade secret information in the public arena. In addition, despite the concerns of Motorola, Inc., Nortel, and others, we do not anticipate that the level of information required by a competing service provider either to transmit and to route services, or to maintain interoperability will, in the ordinary case, include proprietary information. In the event that such information is required, however, an incumbent LEC's public notice must nevertheless identify the type of change planned in sufficient detail to place interested persons on notice that they may potentially be affected, and must state that the incumbent LEC will make further information available to persons signing a nondisclosure agreement. We believe that suitably fashioned nondisclosure agreements can appropriately balance the competing service provider's need for knowledge of network changes with the interests of the incumbent LEC and equipment manufacturers in retaining control of proprietary information.  X -257. Accordingly, to the extent that otherwise proprietary or confidential information of an incumbent LEC falls within the scope of the network disclosure obligation of section 251(c)(5), it must be provided by that incumbent LEC on a timely basis. If an interconnecting carrier or information service provider requires genuinely proprietary information belonging to a third party in order to maintain interconnection and interoperation with the incumbent LEC's network, the incumbent LEC is permitted to refer the competing service provider to the owner of the information to negotiate directly for its release. While"#s-0*(("" the incumbent LEC might represent the most expedient source of the required information, third parties would be less able to protect themselves from misuse of their proprietary information and preserve potential remedies if the incumbent LEC were to disclose directly a third party's proprietary information directly in response to a request.  X-258. We are concerned that protracted negotiation periods over the terms of a suitable nondisclosure agreement, or the payment of fees or royalties, could consume a significant portion of a competing service provider's notice period. The rules we adopt today require that, except under shortterm public notice procedures, an incumbent LEC must give public notice of network changes a minimum of either six months or twelve months in advance of implementation. We find that these periods will provide adequate notice to interconnecting carriers and information service providers, to ensure that a high level of interconnectivity and interoperability can be maintained between networks. These periods, however, are not excessive and will not allow excessive time for the negotiation of the terms of nondisclosure agreements. Because section 251(c)(5) places an affirmative obligation on the incumbent LEC to ensure reasonable public notice of changes to its network, we require that disclosure of information designated by the incumbent LEC as proprietary, whether owned by the incumbent LEC or a third party, be accomplished on appropriate terms as soon as possible after an actual or potential competing service provider makes a request to the information owner for disclosure. Specifically, upon receipt by the incumbent LEC of a competing service provider's request for disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, the applicable public notice period will be tolled to allow the interested parties to agree on suitable terms for a nondisclosure agreement. This tolling is consistent with the incumbent LEC's public notice obligations and will preserve the competing service provider's ability to implement required changes in its own network to accommodate those planned by the incumbent LEC. In accordance with its obligation to keep the public notice information complete, accurate, and uptodate, the incumbent LEC must, if necessary, amend its public notice: (1) on the date it receives a request from a competing service provider for disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, to state that the notice period is tolled; and (2) on the date the nondisclosure agreement is finalized, to specify a new implementation date.  X7-259. Given these incentives, we conclude that it is unnecessary either to adopt a precise definition of "competitively sensitive" or "proprietary" information, or to mandate the  X -terms of nondisclosure agreements. The Computer III rules, upon which we have modeled the disclosure timetable for use in the section 251(c)(5) context, explicitly permit the use of nondisclosure agreements in connection with carrier disclosure of planned changes to the  X -enhanced services industry at the "make/buy" point.Q. ,  {O?#-ԍ Phase II Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3092.Q In that proceeding also, the Commission explicitly rejected requests to prescribe a specific type of agreement, instead holding that: Xwe do not think it necessary or helpful for us to dictate the terms of these private agreements. Nondisclosure agreements are widely used in"S%tZ.0*(('$" telecommunications, as well as in other fields. We believe it better to leave the exact specifications of the terms of such agreement to the parties. We would of course be prepared to intervene should parties bring to our attention evidence  X-of noncompliance with the requirements established in this proceeding.>/,  {O4-ԍ Id. at 309293.>  Although we recognize that legitimate concerns exist regarding the security of proprietary information, the potential exists for some incumbent LECs to use such concerns as either a shield against the entry of competitors into their markets, or a sword to hamper the competitor's business operations. We emphasize that incumbent LECs are required to provide adequate access to even proprietary information if a competing service provider needs that information to make adjustments to its network to maintain interconnection and interoperation.  X -260. We agree with Motorola, Inc., that market and technical trials are not subject to disclosure under section 251(c)(5). Trials are not considered regular service and, because the validity of the incumbent LEC's trial results rests, in part, on successful interconnection, the incumbent LEC has sufficient incentives ensure that competing service providers receive adequate information. Notice of trials may be given, as needed, on a private, contractual basis.  XK-   V. NUMBERING ADMINISTRATION\  X- 261. The Commission has repeatedly recognized that access to telephone numbering resources is crucial for entities wanting to provide telecommunications services because telephone numbers are the means by which telecommunications users gain access to and  X-benefit from the public switched telephone network.0Z,  {O-ԍ See Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, CC Docket No. 92237, Report and Order, 11  {O-FCC Rcd 2588, 2591 (1995) (NANP Order). In enacting the 1996 Act, Congress also recognized that ensuring fair and impartial access to numbering resources is a critical component of encouraging a robustly competitive telecommunications market in the United States. Congress has required the Commission to designate an impartial administrator of telecommunications numbering and has conferred upon the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) that pertain to the United  XN-States.B1N,  yO!-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(1).B " uF10*((z"  X- A.` ` Designation of an Impartial Number Administrator  X-  X-` ` 1. Background   X-262. Section 251(e)(1) requires the Commission to "create or designate one or more impartial entities to administer telecommunications numbering and to make such numbers  Xv-available on an equitable basis."22v,  {O-ԍ Id.2 In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that action taken  Xa-by the Commission in its July 1995 NANP Order satisfied this requirement.3&aZ,  {Ol -ԍ See NANP Order. The NANP Order was initiated in response to Bellcore's stated desire to relinquish its  {O6 -role as NANP administrator.  See Letter from G. Heilmeier, President and CEO, Bellcore to the Commission (Aug. 19, 1993). Bellcore, however, will continue performing its NANP Administration functions until those  {O -functions are transferred to a new NANP administrator pursuant to the NANP Order. In that Order, the Commission directed that functions associated with NANP administration be transferred to a new administrator of the NANP, unaligned with any particular segment of the  X -telecommunications industry. In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether this action  X -satisfied the Section 251(e)(1) requirement that we designate an impartial administrator. (#(#  X - ` ` 2. Comments   X -263. There is nearly unanimous agreement that action taken by the Commission in the  X-NANP Order satisfies the requirement of Section 251(e)(1).4H,  {O-ԍ See, e.g., Ameritech comments at 22; District of Columbia Commission comments at 1; GCI comments at 5; NYNEX comments at 18; AT&T reply at 23. GTE states that the NANP  X-Order "will ensure that numbering mechanisms are applied in a carrierneutral fashion,  Xl-consistent with the objectives of the 1996 Act."J5l,  {O-ԍ See, e.g., GTE reply at 34.J Parties, contending that number administration now performed by Bellcore potentially disadvantages nonBOC providers of telecommunications services by delay or denial of numbering resources to them, nevertheless  X'-urge the Commission to move quickly to implement the NANP Order fully.a6'4 ,  {O -ԍ See, e.g., CTIA comments at 4; MCI comments at 10.a Moreover,  X-some argue that to give the NANP Order full effect, the North American Numbering Council  X-(NANC) must be convened promptly.7" ,  {Ot"-ԍ See, e.g., AT&T comments at 11. The North American Numbering Council (NANC) is a Federal Advisory Committee created for the purpose of addressing and advising the Commission on policy matters relating to administration of the NANP. NANC will provide the Commission advice reached through consensus to foster efficient and impartial number administration.  CTIA states that until that time, "contentious numbering issues will either go unresolved, leading to additional pressure on already burdened numbering resources, or these issues will be resolved by the remnant of a monopoly era"v70*(("  X-system."M8,  {Oy-ԍ See, e.g., CTIA comments at 4.M One commenter, Beehive, argues that the NANP Order does not meet the requirements of Section 251(e)(1) because it does not address toll free number  X-administration.A9Z,  yO-ԍ Beehive comments at 24.A  X-` ` 3. Discussion    Xx-264. We conclude that the action taken in the NANP Order satisfies the section 251(e)(1) requirement that the Commission create or designate an impartial numbering  XL-administrator. The NANP Order requires that functions associated with NANP administration  X7-be transferred to a new NANP administrator. In the NANP Order, the Commission articulated  X" -its intention to undertake the necessary procedural steps to create the NANC.N:" ,  {O-ԍ NANP Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2608.N Additionally, it directed the NANC to select as NANP administrator an independent, nongovernment entity  X -that is not closely associated with any particular industry segment.G; |,  {O!-ԍ Id. at 2610, 2614, 2617.G These actions satisfy section 251(e)(1).  X -265. Commenters' arguments that we have not fulfilled our duty pursuant to section 251(e)(1) because the NANC has not been convened and has not selected a new NANP  X-administrator are not persuasive. In the NANP Order, we required that there be a new, impartial number administrator and established the model for how that administrator will be chosen. We thus have taken "action necessary to establish regulations" leading to the designation of an impartial number administrator as required by section 251(e)(1).  X- 266. We disagree with Beehive's contention that the NANP Order does not meet the requirements of section 251(e)(1) because it does not address toll free number administration.  X-In the NANP Order, we directed the NANC to provide recommendations on the following question: "What number resources, beyond those currently administered by the NANP  X-Administrator should the NANP Administrator administer?";<,  {Ow -ԍ Id. at 2610.; Our purpose in directing NANC to address this question was to develop a record with respect to commenters' suggestions that the new administrator assume additional responsibilities beyond those of the current NANP administrator, if necessary, to facilitate competition in telecommunications services. By asking this question and seeking recommendations from the NANC, we set into  XE-motion a process designed to foster competition in all telecommunications services, including  X0-toll free, through neutral numbering administration. While the NANP Order outlines broad objectives for number administration for all telecommunications services, the specific details"w<0*((" of implementation for toll free services are addressed in the ongoing toll free proceeding, CC Docket No. 95155.  X- B.` ` Delegation of Numbering Administration Functions  X-  X- 267. In this section, we address the role of state public utility commissions in numbering administration. We authorize states to perform the task of implementing new area  X_-codes subject to our numbering administration guidelines contained in the Ameritech Order  XJ-and further clarified in this Order  . We also incorporate the petition for declaratory ruling, the application for review, and the record in that proceeding and address the Texas Commission's pleadings regarding its plan for area code relief in Dallas and Houston which includes wireless overlays. We view prompt examination of the Texas Commission's plan as necessary because the area codes currently assigned to these cities have already reached  X -exhaust.= ,  yOR-ԍ Area code exhaust occurs when nearly all of the NXXs in a given numbering plan area (NPA) have been consumed. Area code exhaust is a subset of number exhaust, which describes the situation in which numbers used for any purpose to support telecommunications services are consumed. NPAs are known commonly as area codes. The second three digits of a telephone number are known as the NXX code or Central Office code (CO code) . Typically there are 792 NXX codes available for assignment in an area code (every possible combination of three digits excluding numbers beginning with a 0 or 1 and numbers ending with 11).  X - 1.` ` Delegation of Matters Related to Implementation of New Area Codes (#`  X}-` `  a.Background    XO- 268. Section 251(e)(1) confers upon the Commission "exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan that pertain to the United States," but states that "[n]othing in this paragraph shall preclude the Commission from delegating to state  X -commissions or other entities all or any portion of such jurisdiction."B> @,  yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(1).B In response to this  X-provision, the Commission tentatively concluded in the NPRM that it should authorize state commissions to address matters involving the implementation of new area codes so long as  X-they act consistently with the Commission's numbering administration guidelines.A?,  {OH -ԍ NPRM at para. 256.A  X- ` `  b.Comments   Xk- 269. Most parties contend that the Commission should "retain [its] plenary authority over all facets of [numbering] administration with delegation to states of only certain limited"Txb ?0*(("  X-functions."@,  {Oy-ԍ ALTS comments at 8; See also Frontier comments at 5; GCI comments at 5; Indiana Commission Staff comments at 3; NYNEX comments at 18. PageNet urges that any delegation "should be clearly defined as to scope,  X-review standards, and decision time limits."@A",  yO-ԍ PageNet comments at 6. @ Similarly, Time Warner recommends that any  X-such delegation be accomplished in conformity with the Commission's guidelines.DB,  yO5-ԍ Time Warner comments at 18.D Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile, while stating that states may be in the best position to implement area code relief tailored to the particular needs of their residents, warns that the Commission must intervene promptly when any state "departs from federal numbering policies prohibiting  Xv-discrimination against any type of carrier."OCvB,  yOi -ԍ Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile reply at 2.O  XH- 270. While some commenters argue that the Ameritech Order strikes a "proper jurisdictional balance," permitting state commissions to make initial determinations regarding area code administration, subject to Commission review," others request further clarification  X -of the federal and state role in numbering.D ,  {O-ԍ See Ameritech Order, 10 FCC Rcd 4596.  See, e.g., AT&T reply at 7; Bell Atlantic comments at 9;  yOR-Pennsylvania Commission comments at 5; ACSI comments at 12.  The Texas Commission specifically requests that the "FCC clarify the states' roles in number administration by expanding on statements in  X -the Ameritech Order and elsewhere regarding the balance of authority between the FCC and  X -the states."QE , ,  yO-ԍ Texas Commission comments at 6.hhCQ  X -  X-` `  c.Discussion   Xf-271. We retain our authority to set policy with respect to all facets of numbering administration in the United States. By retaining authority to set broad policy on numbering administration matters, we preserve our ability to act flexibly and expeditiously on broad policy issues and to resolve any dispute related to numbering administration pursuant to the 1996 Act. While we retain this authority, we note that the numbering administration model  X-established in the NANP Order will allow interested parties to contribute to important policy recommendations.  X-272. We authorize the states to resolve matters involving the implementation of new area codes. State commissions are uniquely positioned to understand local conditions and what effect new area codes will have on those conditions. Each state's implementation method is, of course, subject to our guidelines for numbering administration, including the  XT-guidelines enumerated in the Ameritech Order and in this Order as detailed below. We note"Ty E0*((" that this authorization for states to resolve matters involving implementation of new area codes is effective immediately. Because of the need to avoid disruption in numbering administration, there is good cause for this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553  (d)(3). Some states have implemented new area codes prior to our release of this order. We ratify their actions insofar as they are consistent with these guidelines.  Xv-` ` 2. Area Code Implementation Guidelines   XH-` ` a.Background   X -273. When almost all of the central office (CO) codes in an area code are consumed, a new area code must be assigned to relieve the unmet demand for telephone numbers. Prior to the enactment of the 1996 Act, state commissions approved plans developed and proposed by the LECs, as CO code administrators, for implementing new area codes. New area codes can be implemented in three ways. Traditionally, states have preferred to implement new area codes through a geographic split, in which the geographic area using an existing area code is split into two parts, and roughly half of the telephone customers continue to be served through the existing area code and half must change to a new area code. States can, however, simply require a rearrangement of existing area code boundaries to accommodate local needs. The third method available to them is called an area code overlay, in which the new area code covers the same geographic area as an existing area code; customers in that area may thus be served through either code.  X-274. In the Ameritech Order, the Commission recognized the states' role in area code relief, attempted to clarify the balance of jurisdiction over numbering administration between the Commission and the states, and enumerated guidelines governing number administration.  X-Additionally, the Ameritech Order declared that Ameritech's proposed wirelessonly area code overlay would be unreasonably discriminatory and anticompetitive in violation of the  X-Commission's guidelines and the Communications Act of 1934. The NPRM sought comment on whether the Commission should reassess the jurisdictional balance between the  XT-Commission and the states that was crafted in the Ameritech Order in light of Congress' grant to the Commission of exclusive jurisdiction over numbering administration, with permission to  X(-assign to the states any portion of that authority.LF(,  {O-ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(1).L The NPRM also sought comment on what action the Commission should take when a state appears to be acting inconsistently with the  X-Commission's numbering administration guidelines.AGZ,  {O#-ԍ NPRM at para. 257.A " zG0*(("  X-` ` b.Comments   X-275. Several commenters request that we clarify the Ameritech Order to prohibit  X-servicespecific overlays.H,  {O6-ԍ See, e.g., Cox comments at 6 n.11; PageNet comments at 23; SBC comments at 11; WinStar reply at 16; Vanguard reply at 5. Others request clarification about all area code overlays, not just servicespecific overlays. NCTA, for example, argues that all overlays deter the development of local competition. If competitors are relegated to new area codes, it says, potential customers will be forced to change their telephone numbers to obtain service from  Xa-competitors.<Ia",  yO4 -ԍ NCTA comments at 9.< NCTA adds that a customer is unlikely to trade a familiar code for a number that may appear to involve a toll charge, or to purchase additional lines from a competitor if  X3-those lines receive a different area code than other lines in their home or business.2J3,  {O-ԍ Id.2 Customers who do change to competing LECs, it claims, will have to dial ten or eleven digits to place local calls to incumbent LEC customers in the same local calling area. By contrast, NCTA maintains that incumbent LEC customers will be able to reach most other local  X -customers through traditional sevendigit dialing.WK D,  {O-ԍ Id. See also MFS comments at 89.W Sprint agrees that all overlays are  X -anticompetitive and argues that the industry should adopt a geographic split approach.L ,  {OG-ԍ Sprint reply at 13. See also Cox reply at 35; MCI comments at 11; WinStar reply at 17.  X-276. MCI urges the Commission to allow an overlay only when it is the only practical alternative, and suggests that such circumstances might include: (a) exhaust in a small metropolitan area; (b) multiple nearlysimultaneous area code exhausts; or (c) when exhaust is  XM-so imminent that a split cannot be implemented quickly enough.<MMh ,  yOf-ԍ MCI comments at 12.< Numerous commenters  X6-suggest that the Commission should clarify the Ameritech Order by imposing conditions on  X!-the adoption of area code overlays.N! ,  {O-ԍ See, e.g., Cox comments at 5, 6 n.12; MFS comments at 89; California Commission comments at 8; MCI comments at 1214; NCTA comments at 10; WinStar reply at 17. Suggested conditions include: (a) mandatory tendigit  X -dialing for all calls within the overlay area;O R ,  {O #-ԍ See, e.g., MFS comments at 89; California Commission comments at 8; MCI comments at 1213; WinStar reply at 17; PageNet comments at 8. (b) permanent service provider local number" {O0*((("  X-portability;P",  {Oy-ԍ See, e.g., MFS comments at 89; Cox comments at 5; California Commission comments at 8; MCI comments at 12 14 (overlays should be conditioned upon the substantial mitigation of the cost of interim local number portability to competing LECs pending the implementation of permanent local number portability); NCTA comments at 10; WinStar reply at 17. and (c) the reservation for each competing LEC authorized to operate within a numbering plan area (NPA) of at least one NXX code from the  X-original area code.Q,  {O5-ԍ See, e.g., MFS comments at 89; MCI comments at 1213 (all remaining NXXs in the old NPA should be assigned to competitors).  X-277. Cox asserts that area code overlays should be prohibited until the competitive  X-concerns they raise are addressed by the implementation of number portability.=R ,  yOJ -ԍ Cox comments at 34.= Similarly, PageNet asserts that number portability may render the concept of an area code meaningless;  X_-once location portability is feasible, numbers will be ported from one area code to another.^S\_,  yO-ԍ The term "port" means the transfer of a telephone number from one carrier's switch to another carrier's  {Ot-switch, which enables a customer to retain his or her number when transferring from one carrier to another. See   {O>-Number Portability Order at n.32.^  XH-When this happens, it says, public preference for a particular area code will disappear.=TH ,  yO-ԍ PageNet reply at 4. =  X -278. In the view of some, the Ameritech Order does not prohibit all area code overlays and they request clarification that overlays are an appropriate response to area code  X -exhaust.~U P ,  {O-ԍ See, e.g., Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile reply at 46; BellSouth comments at 20. ~ In Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile's view, for example, the Commission should not  X -prohibit overlays when they may be the best solution to area code exhaust.RV ,  yOj-ԍ Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile reply at 46. R PacTel agrees that overlays are valuable and, in some metropolitan areas, are preferable to geographic splits because: (1) overlays do not require existing customers to change their numbers; (2) overlays maintain existing communities of interest in their existing geographical area code boundaries; (3) overlays do not change the boundaries of existing area codes; and (4) overlays take less  Xd-time to implement than a split.AWdr,  yO"-ԍ PacTel reply at 3132. A These are significant considerations for states facing  XM-number exhaust at an accelerated pace, it says.2XM,  {O%-ԍ Id.2 pp   X-279. According to some commenters, issues pertaining to area code relief plans should be addressed in the first instance by state commissions, with the understanding that the"|X0*((d"  X-Commission can intervene if necessary._Y,  {Oy-ԍ See, e.g., NYNEX reply at 12; GTE reply at 34. _ Similarly, the Texas Commission argues that the  X-Ameritech Order can and should be interpreted to allow for "innovative" means of area code relief crafted to balance the interests, benefits, and burdens for all interested parties. Should  X-the Commission determine that the Ameritech Order does not permit such an interpretation,  X-the Texas Commission requests that the Ameritech Order be overruled.ZZ,  yO-ԍ Texas Commission comments at 5. See our discussion below at paras. 294295 for the Texas Commission's proposed means of area code relief. By contrast,  X-Vanguard warns against allowing states too much latitude in interpreting the Ameritech Order. It argues that, if the Commission does not set boundaries for state action, the Commission's procompetitive objectives will remain unrealized as state regulators deprive Commission  XP-initiatives of their effect.B[P,  yO -ԍ Vanguard comments at 34.B  X" -280. Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile states that, if states act inconsistently with  X -Commission guidance on numbering policies, the Commission should intervene promptly.O\ B,  yO-ԍ Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile reply at 2.O The District of Columbia Commission urges that "on a showing that a particular state is acting in violation of FCC guidelines, the FCC may revoke its delegation of jurisdiction to that  X -state."W] ,  yOI-ԍ District of Columbia Commission comments at 2.W PageNet says the Commission should impose a strict time limit on state commission  X -review of relief plans.A^ b ,  yO-ԍ PageNet comments at 78.A Sprint advises that any party "retains the right to appeal any detrimental state commission mandate to the FCC, and . . . the FCC will act promptly on such  X-appeals."?_ ,  yO$-ԍ Sprint comments at 15.?   XS-` `  c.  Discussion .   X%-281. In this Order, we are authorizing the states to continue the task of overseeing the introduction of new area codes subject to the Commission's numbering administration  X-guidelines.P` ,  {O,#-ԍ See para. 272, supra.P We are reiterating the guidelines enumerated in the Ameritech Order and  X-clarifying the Ameritech Order to prohibit all servicespecific or technologyspecific overlays, and to impose conditions on the adoption of an allservices overlay. Existing Commission  X-guidelines, which were originally enumerated in the Ameritech Order, state that numbering administration should: (1) seek to facilitate entry into the communications marketplace by making numbering resources available on an efficient and timely basis; (2) not unduly favor"}`0*((" or disadvantage any particular industry segment or group of consumers; and (3) not unduly  X-favor one technology over another.Sa,  {Ob-ԍ Ameritech Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 4604.S The Commission's conclusion in the Ameritech Order that Ameritech's proposed wirelessonly overlay plan would be unreasonably discriminatory and anticompetitive in violation of Sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 has also provided guidance to local central office code administrators and state  X-commissions implementing area code relief.DbZ,  {O-ԍ Id. at 4608, 461012.D We find that the guidelines and the reasoning enumerated in that decision should continue to guide the states and other entities participating in the administration of numbers because these guidelines are consistent with Congress' intent to encourage vigorous competition in the telecommunications marketplace. In addition, we  X3-codify in this Order the directives of the NANP Order that ensure fair and impartial  X -numbering administration. c( ,  {O-ԍ See generally NANP Order. Although we resolve specific issues relating to area code implementation in  {O-this Order, many other important numbering administration issues will be addressed in other proceedings. For  {OO-example, the use of N11 codes, (e.g., 211, 311, 411, 511, 611, 711, 811, 911) will be addressed in The Use of  {O-N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, CC Docket No. 92105.   X -282. We disagree with the suggestion of some parties that we prohibit or severely restrict the states' right to choose overlay plans. For example, PageNet urges the Commission to impose specific time constraints on states and to require default area code plans if states do not take action within those time constraints. Such restrictions would not be consistent with our dual objectives of encouraging competition through fair numbering administration while at the same time delegating to the states the right to implement area codes.  XO-283. As we note above, states are uniquely situated to determine what type of area code relief is best suited to local circumstances. Certain localities may have circumstances that would support the use of area code overlays. Most significantly, area code overlays do not require any existing customers to change their telephone number, in contrast to geographic splits. Additionally, in some metropolitan areas continuously splitting area codes will result in area codes not covering even single neighborhoods, a situation that can only be avoided by implementing overlays. Finally, area code overlays can be implemented quickly. States may make decisions regarding the relative merits of area code splits and overlays so long as they act consistently with the Commission's guidelines. We emphasize that the burdens created by area code overlays will be greatest during the transition to a competitive marketplace. As competition in telecommunications services takes root, consumers will become more accustomed to tendigit dialing and to area code overlays and the states will face less resistance in their efforts to implement new area codes than they will in the near term.  X -284. Nevertheless, we find that it is necessary to clarify the Commission's numbering administration guidelines as they apply to area code relief. Recent action taken by the Texas"~c0*((<" Commission has demonstrated that state commissions might interpret our existing guidelines  X-in a manner that is inconsistent with those guidelines.d,  {Ob-ԍ As discussed at paras. 304308 infra, we find that the Texas Commission's Order addressing area code  {O,-relief in Dallas and Houston is inconsistent with the Ameritech Order. Thus, while we conclude that geographic area code splits and boundary realignments are presumptively consistent with the Commission's numbering administration guidelines, we clarify our guidelines with respect to how area code overlays can be lawfully implemented.  Xv-285. First, we conclude that any overlay that would segregate only particular types of telecommunications services or particular types of telecommunications technologies in discrete area codes would be unreasonably discriminatory and would unduly inhibit  X1-competition. We therefore clarify the Ameritech Order by explicitly prohibiting all servicespecific or technologyspecific area code overlays because every servicespecific or technologyspecific overlay plan would exclude certain carriers or services from the existing area code and segregate them in a new area code. Among other things, the implementation of a service or technology specific overlay requires that only existing customers of, or customers changing to, that service or technology change their numbers. Exclusion and segregation were specific elements of Ameritech's proposed plan, each of which the Commission held violated the Communications Act of 1934.  Xd-286. To ensure that competitors, including small entities, do not suffer competitive disadvantages, we also conclude that, if a state commission chooses to implement an allservices area code overlay, it may do so subject to two conditions. Specifically, we will permit allservices overlay plans only when they include: (1) mandatory 10digit local dialing by all customers between and within area codes in the area covered by the new code; and (2) availability to every existing telecommunications carrier, including CMRS providers, authorized to provide telephone exchange service, exchange access, or paging service in the affected area code 90 days before the introduction of a new overlay area code, of at least one NXX in the existing area code, to be assigned during the 90day period preceding the  X-introduction of the overlay.TeX$,  yOj-ԍ One NXX will give each carrier the ability to give at least some of its customers numbers in a familiar area code. Guaranteeing more than one NXX in this situation is difficult because by the time the need for the overlay becomes imminent, few NXX codes remain unassigned in the familiar area code.T Clarifying the conditions that must exist in order to implement an area code overlay will reduce the likelihood that states will act inconsistently with the Commission's guidelines and the consequent need for the Commission to review area code relief plans.  X"-287. We are requiring mandatory 10digit dialing for all local calls in areas served by overlays to ensure that competition will not be deterred in overlay area codes as a result of dialing disparity. Local dialing disparity would occur absent mandatory 10digit dialing, because all existing telephone users would remain in the old area code and dial 7digits to call others with numbers in that area code, while new users with the overlay code would have to" De0*(("  X-dial 10digits to reach any customers in the old code.  When a new overlay code is first assigned, there could be nearly 8 million numbers assigned in the old code, with just a few thousand customers using the new overlay code. If most telephone calls would be to customers in the original area code, but only those in the new code must dial tendigits, there would exist a dialing disparity, which would increase customer confusion. Customers would find it less attractive to switch carriers because competing exchange service providers, most of which will be new entrants to the market, would have to assign their customers numbers in the new overlay area code, which would require those customers to dial 10digits much more often than the incumbent's customers, and would require people calling the competing exchange service provider's customer to dial 10digits when they would only have to dial 7digits for most of their other calls. Requiring 10digit dialing for all local calls avoids the potentially anticompetitive effect of allservices area code overlays.  X -288. Allowing every telecommunications carrier authorized to provide telephone exchange service, exchange access, or paging service in an area code to have at least one NXX in the existing NPA will also reduce the potential anticompetitive effect of an area code overlay. This requirement would reduce the problems competitors face in giving their customers numbers drawn from only the new "undesirable" area codes while the incumbent  Xd-carriers continue to assign numbers in the "desirable" old area code to their own customers.fd,  yO-ԍ The new overlay area code may be considered less desirable by customers during the beginning of its life because it is less recognizable. For example, business users that have a telephone number in the overlay area code because they have switched carriers or obtained new telephone lines might be thought to be in a distant location due to the "unrecognized" area code. Thus, incumbent carriers would have a competitive advantage because most of their customers would remain in the old, more recognizable code. This effect would persist until customers become accustomed to the new overlay code.  X6- 289. Incumbent LECs have an advantage over new entrants when a new code is about  X-to be introduced, because they can warehouse NXXs in the old NPA.Eg@,  {O-ԍ See supra n.573.E Incumbents also have an advantage when telephone numbers within NXXs in the existing area code are returned to them as their customers move or change carriers. Thus, to advance competition, we require that, when an area code overlay is implemented, each provider of telephone exchange service,  X-exchange access, and paging service must be assigned at least one NXX in the old NPA.   X-!290. A number of commenters suggested that the Commission permit area code  X~-overlays only if permanent number portability has been implemented in the applicable NPA.hx\~,  yO#-ԍ Teleport Communications Group, Inc. (TCG) has raised this issue in a petition for declaratory ruling filed with the Commission on July 12, 1996. TCG's petition for declaratory ruling asks the Commission to: (1) require that overlay area code plans may not be implemented unless permanent number portability and mandatory 10-digit dialing exist, and that geographic area code splits must be used absent these conditions; (2) require the implementation of TCG's "Number Crunch" proposal, which would permit NXX assignments across multiple rate centers in blocks of one thousand numbers; and (3) require as part of a BOC's application to provide in-region interLATA services pursuant to section 271 of the 1996 Act a demonstration that numbering resources are"'g0*(('"  {O-available to competing local carriers. We will address TCG's petition in a separate proceeding. See Petition for  {OZ-Declaratory Ruling to Impose Competitively Neutral Guidelines for Numbering Plan Administration, filed by Teleport Communications Group, Inc. (July 12, 1996). "~h0*((" We decline to do so. We recognize that the implementation of permanent service provider number portability will reduce the anticompetitive impact of overlays by allowing end users to keep their telephone numbers when they change carriers. Requiring the existence of permanent service provider number portability in an area before an overlay area code may be implemented, however, would effectively deny state commissions the option of implementing any allservices overlays while many area codes are facing exhaust. While permanent number portability is being implemented, end users will be allowed to keep their telephone numbers  X_-when they change carriers, under the Commission's mandate of interim number portability.Ki_,  {O -ԍSee Number Portability Order.K  X -"291. If a state acts inconsistently with federal numbering guidelines designed to ensure the fair and timely availability of numbering resources to all telecommunications carriers, parties wishing to dispute a proposed area code plan may file a petition for declaratory ruling, rulemaking, or other appropriate action with the Commission. Pursuant to  X -section 5(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,Bj ~,  yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  155(c)(1).B authority is delegated to the Common Carrier Bureau to act on such petitions. We expect that with the clarifications  X-we provide in this Order, there will be a reduced need for such petitions. Unless it becomes necessary to do so, we decline to follow the recommendations of parties urging that we enumerate more specific procedures to be invoked if states fail to follow our numbering guidelines. We expect that the need for our review of any state commissions' actions with respect to area code relief should diminish as states gain more experience with the area code relief process generally and with area code overlays in particular, particularly as states become more familiar with the Commission's guidelines in this area.  X-#292. Finally, we address petitions for clarification or reconsideration that were filed in  X-the Ameritech and NANP proceedings. On February 22, 1995, Comcast Corporation filed a  X-Petition for Clarification or Reconsideration of the Ameritech Order regarding the  X-Commission's jurisdiction over numbering administration.k,  {OX!-ԍ See Petition for Clarification or Reconsideration, filed by Comcast Corporation (February 22, 1995). PageNet and Nextel Communications, Inc. ("Nextel") filed Comments in support of Comcast's petition. In its petition, Comcast seeks  X-clarification of the Ameritech Order to the extent that it implies the Commission does not have broad statutory authority over the assignment of numbering resources, and seeks  XV-reconsideration of any implication in the Ameritech Order that the Commission's authority is"Vh k0*(("  X-limited by or subordinate to state interests.Ql^,  {Oy-ԍ Comcast Petition at 1. According to Comcast, footnote 18 of the Ameritech Order explicitly overruled  {OC-dicta in a prior Commission decision that stated that the Commission had plenary jurisdiction over CO code  {O -allocation. Id. at 3.Q Because section 251(e)(1) gives the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over numbering matters in the United States, any uncertainty about the Commission's and the states' jurisdiction over numbering administration that may have existed prior to the 1996 Act has now been eliminated. In light of the enactment of section 251(e)(1), Comcast's request that the Commission reconsider its  X-conclusion in the Ameritech Order that the Commission does not retain plenary jurisdiction over numbering issues in the United States is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss Comcast's petition.  X3-$293. In the NANP Order the Commission discussed the states' authority over area code changes and central office code administration. In response the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners filed a Request for Clarification and the Pennsylvania  X -Public Utility Commission filed a Petition for Limited Clarification and/or Reconsideration.m$ ,  {O-ԍ See Request for Clarification, filed by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners  {OY-(NARUC Petition) (August 28,1995); Petition for Limited Clarification and/or Reconsideration, filed by the Pennsylvania Commission (Pennsylvania Commission Petition) (August 28, 1995). Nextel filed Comments in response to the petitions. NARUC and the Pennsylvania Commission have asked the Commission to clarify that, while  X -the Commission intended in the NANP Order to transfer the incumbent LEC functions associated with CO code assignment and area code exhaust to the new NANP Administrator,  X-the Commission did not intend to alter the role of the States in overseeing those functions.n,  {O!-ԍ See NARUC Petition at 5; Pennsylvania Commission Petition at 3. The Pennsylvania Commission also  {O-seeks clarification or reconsideration of the Commission's NANP Order to the extent that it suggests the  {O-Commission would interfere with or preempt a state's ability to address local number portability. Id. at 34. We do not address the states' role with respect to number portability here because this issue has already been  {OG-addressed by the Commission. See Number Portability Order at para. 5.ā Because section 251(e)(1) gives the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over numbering matters in the United States, and because we clarify the role of the states in numbering  XQ-administration in this Order,zoQ ,  {O-ԍ See supra paras. 281291, and infra paras. 309322.z we dismiss the petitions of NARUC and the Pennsylvania Commission as moot.  "$o0*(("  X-` ` 3. Texas Public Utility Commission's Area Code Relief Order for  X-Dallas and Houston (#  X-` ` %a.Background   X-%294. On May 9, 1996, the Texas Commission filed two substantively identical  Xv-pleadings: (1) a petition for expedited declaratory ruling pursuant to 47 CFR  1.2; and (2)  X_-an application for expedited review pursuant to 47 CFR  1.115.p_,  yO-ԍ The Texas Commission explains that it is filing both pleadings simultaneously, hoping that the Commission will find one or the other an appropriate vehicle by which to determine expeditiously whether a  {Oh -Texas Commission order (PUCT Order) pertaining to a proposed area code relief plan is acceptable. For ease of reference, all citations will be to the Texas Commission petition (PUCT petition) unless citations to both pleadings are needed for clarification. In this order, we are ruling on the PUCT petition. Therefore, action on  yO -the Texas Commission's application, a procedurally distinct but substantively identical pleading, is unnecessary.  The Texas Commission states that in July 1995, MCI petitioned it for an investigation into numbering practices of  X1-Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWB)q1B,  yO$-ԍ We note that, although SWB was the LEC proposing the originally disputed area code relief plan, SBC filed comments on the Texas Commission's proposed plan. SWB is a subsidiary of SBC. related to exhaustion of telephone numbers  X -in the 214 area code serving the Dallas metropolitan area.r  ,  yOe-ԍ PUCT petition at 2. The Texas Office of Public Utility Council filed a similar petition in August 1995 regarding SWB's numbering practices related to the exhaustion of telephone numbers in the 713 area code in Houston. The Texas Commission consolidated the petitions into Texas Public Utilities Commission Docket No. 14447 because similar issues were presented. SWB proposed to relieve numbering exhaustion by implementing allservices overlays, which would require tendigit  X -local dialing within Houston and Dallas metropolitan areas.2s ,  {O-ԍ Id.2 In October 1995, an administrative law judge heard evidence regarding numbering relief plans and issued a written proposal for decision in November 1995. In December 1995, the Texas Commission determined that public comment on the matter was necessary; in January 1996 it conducted  X-public forums in both Dallas and Houston.2t,  {OU-ԍ Id.2 In March 1996, the Texas Commission issued  Xy-an Order setting out an area code relief plan.2uy,  {O -ԍ Id.2 On May 17, 1996, we released a public  Xb-notice establishing a pleading cycle for comments on the Texas Commission's pleadings.vb8,  {OK#-ԍ See Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Public Utility Commission of Texas' Petition for  {O$-Expedited Declaratory Ruling and Application for Expedited Review of Area Code Plan for Dallas and Houston, Public Notice, DA 96794 (rel. May 17, 1996). Comments were due June 6, 1996, and reply comments were due June 21, 1996. Nineteen parties filed comments, and twelve parties filed replies, in response to the Texas Commission's petitions.  "Kv0*(("Ԍ X-` ` b.Petition and Comments   X-&295. The Texas Commission ordered a plan that combines an immediate landline geographic split with a prospective wireless overlay in the Dallas and Houston metropolitan  X-areas.>w,  yO-ԍ PUCT petition at 23.> In its pleadings to the FCC, the Texas Commission alleges that it specifically  X-considered the Ameritech Order in crafting its plan.JxX,  {O-ԍ Id. at 3. In the Ameritech Order, the Commission held that three elements of a proposed wirelessonly overlay each violated the prohibition in section 202(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 against unjust or unreasonable discriminiation, and also represented unjust and unreasonable practices under section 201(b). Those objectionable elements were: (1) Ameritech's proposal to continue assigning NPA 708 codes (the old codes) to wireline carriers, while excluding paging and cellular carriers from such assignments (the "exclusion" proposal); (2) Ameritech's proposal to require only paging and cellular carriers to take back from their subscribers and return to Ameritech all 708 telephone numbers previously assigned to them, while wireline carriers would not be required to do so (the "take back" proposal); and (3) Ameritech's proposal to assign all numbers from the new  {O-NPA (630) to paging and cellular carriers exclusively (the "segregation" proposal).  See Ameritech Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 4608, 4611. J The Texas Commission's Order required SWB to request new area codes from the NANP administrator (Bellcore) for the prospective wireless overlays. Bellcore refused to supply the new area codes unless ordered  XJ-to do so by the FCC.ByJ ,  {O-ԍ PUCT petition at 3.B According to the Texas Commission, Bellcore incorrectly relied on  X3-the Ameritech Order to support a position that wireless overlays are, per se, invalid and  X -wasteful.2z ,  {OU-ԍ Id.2  X -'296. On March 21, 1996, Bellcore sent a letter to the Network Services Division of the Common Carrier Bureau, FCC, explaining its view that the Texas Commission plan  X -violated the Ameritech Order.E{ ,  yO-ԍ PUCT petition, Attachment B.E In that letter, Bellcore asserts that the Ameritech Order is controlling precedent because  251(e)(1) confers exclusive jurisdiction over numbering administration on the Commission. Bellcore further opposes use of NPAs for servicespecific overlays, because such assignments, it says, are inefficient, wasteful, and potentially  Xh-discriminatory.2|h,  {O!-ԍ Id.2 The Network Services Division responded to the letter on April 11, 1996,  XQ-agreeing that the Ameritech Order forbids servicespecific overlays such as those ordered by the Texas Commission and supporting Bellcore's decision, as acting NANP Administrator, not to make the requested NPA assignments for use in Dallas and Houston as a wirelessspecific  X-overlay.>}:,  yO&-ԍ PUCT petition at 34.>"}0*(( "Ԍ X-ԙ(297. The Texas Commission acknowledges that the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction  X-over numbering pursuant to  251(e)(1) of the 1996 Act.8~,  {Ob-ԍ Id. at 5.8 The Texas Commission states  X-that the NPRM might provide additional clarification on these issues, but that, currently, it is uncertain whether the FCC intended to preempt the Texas Order, and asks that the  X-Commission consider the specific facts of this matter.H~Z,  yO-ԍ The Texas Commission argues that the April 11, 1996, letter did not rule directly on the validity of its  {Oy-Order. Moreover, noting that, in the NPRM, the Commission references the April 11 Common Carrier Bureau  {OC -letter, Texas says that the NPRM states that the Commission (rather than the Network Services Division) agreed  {O -with Bellcore's decision not to make the area code assignments requested by SWB. NPRM at para. 257, n.358. Therefore, in Texas' view, the Common Carrier Bureau letter is an action taken pursuant to delegated authority that affirmatively adopts Bellcore's decision and preempts its order. The Texas Commission argues that this action should be reviewed by the Commission. PUCT petition at 4.H It contends that it carefully deliberated the issues and made a balanced and equitable decision that is consistent with the  Xx-Ameritech Order. Therefore, it insists, any preemption is unwarranted.  x,  yO-ԍ PUCT petition at 5. In its petition for declaratory ruling, the Texas Commission requests that we declare: (1) that the refusal of the Chief, Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau, to direct the NANP administrator to assign area codes to SWB for use as wireless overlays in Dallas and Houston was erroneous; (2) that the NANP administrator is directed to assign such codes to SWB; and (3) that the Texas Commission's March 13, 1996 Order directing a combination wireline area code split and wireless overlay in  {O-Dallas and Houston is lawful.  Id. at 10. In its application for expedited review, it requests that we: (1) review and reverse the Network Services Division's action in its letter to the NANP administrator; (2) order the NANP administrator to assign the requested area codes for use as wireless overlays in Dallas and Houston; and (3) uphold the Texas Commission's Order pursuant to analysis of Commission precedent. PUCT application at 10.   XL-)298. According to the Texas Commission, the Ameritech Order does not, on its face,  X7-prohibit all servicespecific overlays.>7r,  yOZ-ԍ PUCT petition at 56.> Instead, it says, the Ameritech Order requires a factspecific examination of each situation to determine whether the proposed numbering plan  X -violates the statutory prohibition of unreasonable and unjust discrimination.8 ,  {O-ԍ Id. at 6.8 Further, in the Texas Commission's view, its Order "strikes the optimal balance" and is "evenhanded" in its  X -effect on carriers and customers. ,  {O"!-ԍ Id. at 69. In the Ameritech Order, we stated that any area code relief plan that becomes effective should strike an optimal balance among three objectives Ameritech had identified: (1) an optimal dialing plan for customers; (2) as minimal a burden as feasible; and (3) an uninterrupted supply of codes and numbers. We further found that the optimal balance must assure that any burden associated with the introduction of the new numbering code falls in as evenhanded a way as possible upon all carriers and customers affected by its  {O %-introduction. Ameritech Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 4611. The Texas Commission alleges that it weighed different proposals offered by several parties, and that, although a geographic split was found superior" 0*(( "  X-to an allservices overlay, neither plan alone was found to be the best solution.<,  yOy-ԍ PUCT petition at 7.< For this reason, it chose a twostep, integrated relief plan involving a landline geographic split and a  X-prospective wireless overlay.3X,  {O-ԍ Id. 3 The Texas Commission argues that its plan permits intraNPA sevendigit dialing, unlike an allservices overlay, which would have required tendigit intraNPA dialing. Also, it says that its plan will reduce customer confusion and provide greater  X-competitive fairness to service providers.2,  {O( -ԍ Id.2  X_-*299. Many parties contend that the Texas Commission's plan violates Commission  XH-policy as outlined in the Ameritech Order and request its clarification.H|,  {Ou-ԍ See, e.g., AT&T comments at 5; Century Cellunet comments at 34; Cox comments at 34; GTE comments at 814; HCTC comments at 310; MCI comments at 34; Nextel comments at 36; PageNet comments at 610; PCIA comments at 46; ProNet comments at 714; Sprint comments at 45; Sprint Spectrum comments at 511; Teleport comments at 412; US West comments at 910; Vanguard comments at 23; SBC comments at 512. Still others argue  X3-that the plan violates  201(b) or  202(a),3. ,  {O-ԍ See, e.g., AT&T comments at 5; HCTC comments at 310; PageNet comments at 9; ProNet comments at 1; Sprint comments at 45; Sprint Spectrum comments at 611. as well as  251(e)(1), which confers exclusive jurisdiction over numbering administration on the Commission that we have not assigned to  X -any other entity. ,  {O>-ԍ See, e.g., Century Cellunet comments at 4; GTE comments at 7; PCIA comments at 67; U S WEST  {O-comments at 45.  See also Teleport comments at 13. Still others argue that the plan violates  253, which provides that no state requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide  X -any telecommunications service.G ,  yOl-ԍ Sprint Spectrum comments at 4.G  X -+300. In Sprint Spectrum's view, for example, the proposed wireless overlays will undermine the ability of telecommunications carriers to provide service because they allow existing customers of wireless incumbents to retain 7digit dialing for most calls if they do not switch to a new entrant. Similarly, it says, current customers of wireline incumbents will retain 7digit dialing to businesses and residences in either the suburban or metropolitan area,  X6-unless they switch to a new wireless provider.S6t,  yO[$-ԍ Sprint Spectrum comments at 45 and 1112.S Sprint Spectrum maintains that, by creating a distinction between services offered by incumbent providers and those seeking entry into the market using wireless technology, the Texas Commission has created a disincentive for new"0*((F"  X-wireless providers to seek entry into these telecommunications markets.9,  {Oy-ԍ Id. at 12.9 Similarly, PageNet argues that this interference with customer choice, and the inhibition of wireline/wireless  X-competition, are contrary to the objectives stated in the Ameritech Order, and urges the  X-Commission to expressly declare the Texas Commission's plan prohibited.iZ,  {O-ԍ PageNet comments at 610. See also SBC comments at 1216.i  X-,301. Twelve reply comments were received. The Texas Commission contends that it had jurisdiction to issue its order containing its proposed area code relief plan, and the 1996  Xa-Act does not deprive the Texas Commission of that jurisdiction.Ga,  yO -ԍ Texas Commission reply at 27.G The Texas Commission argues that the exclusion, segregation, and takeback facets of the wirelessonly overlay proposal should not be considered separate and independent grounds for finding an NPA relief  X -plan unlawful.: |,  {OI-ԍ Id. at 78.: The Texas Commission maintains that we should not order an alternative  X -form of relief such as an allservices overlay,; ,  {O-ԍ Id. at 910.; and that we should not find unlawful the Texas Commission's proposed consideration of takeback of wireless numbers during the  X -geographic split if the wireless overlays are deemed unlawful.< ,  {O(-ԍ Id. at 1011.<  X --302. The Texas Public Utility Counsel filed reply comments in support of the Texas Commission's proposed area code relief plan. The Texas Public Utility Counsel maintains that the proposed wirelessonly overlay is neither discriminatory nor unreasonable under  Xd-sections 202(a) and 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934.Td2 ,  yOG-ԍ Texas Public Utility Counsel reply at 911.T Further, the Texas Public  XM-Utility Counsel claims that the wireless carriers' interpretation of the Ameritech Order is  X8-unreasonably strict and would preclude all forms of area code relief.<8 ,  {O-ԍ Id. at 1215.< "!T 0*((e"Ԍ X-.303. In reply, several parties continue to maintain that the Texas Commission's  X-proposed prospective wirelessonly overlay is unlawful.c\,  {Ob-ԍ See, e.g., CTIA reply at 23; Vanguard reply at 14; MCI reply at 35; ProNet reply at 1; Sprint reply at 12. SBC states that the Texas Commission overlays are unlawful, and argues that we should expressly state that  {O-servicespecific overlays are per se unlawful. SBC reply at 1.c Most of these commenters contend  X-that an allservices overlay can be an appropriate method of area code relief.~,  yOo-ԍ ProNet reply at 24; BellSouth reply at 26; U S WEST reply at 16; SBC reply at 24.~  X- ` `  c.  Discussion   Xv-/304. We conclude that the Texas Commission's wirelessonly overlay violates our  X_-Ameritech Order on its face. It is also inconsistent with our clarification of the Ameritech  XJ-Order contained in this Order, wherein we specifically prohibit wirelessonly overlays.  X -0305. The Texas Commission itself admits to the presence of exclusion and segregation  X -in its plan.D |,  yO4-ԍ The record also indicates that the plan also calls for some takeback of existing wireless numbers.  The Texas Commission states that two groups of wireless customers will experience take back due to the geographic split. Those with Type 1 cellular and Type 1like paging connections will experience takeback for "technical  {O-and practical implementationrelated reasons. PUCT Order at 12 n.9. In addition, the Texas Commission envisions that after the date on which NXX codes are activated for the prospective wireless overlay, wireless carriers holding NXX codes from the prior area codes will not be allowed to assign any additional numbers from those prior area codes, regardless of the fill factor of the NXX codes. Remaining unused numbers in those NXX  {O-codes will be returned to the NPA administrator. PUCT Order at 6.  In the Ameritech Order, we clearly indicated that the presence of any one of the following elements including: (1) exclusion; (2) segregation; or (3) takeback, renders a  X -servicespecific overlay plan unacceptable and violative of the Communications Act. ,  {O-ԍ See Ameritech Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 4608. "[W]e find as a matter of law that each of these three Ameritech proposals violates the prohibition in the Act against unjust or unreasonable discrimination."  {O-(Emphasis added). See also id. at 4611. In discussing whether Ameritech's plan constituted an unjust or unreasonable practice and therefore violated  201(b) of the Act, we stated that three facets of Ameritech's plan  {O8-ԩ its exclusion, segregation, and takeback proposals would each impose significant competitive disadvantages on the wireless carriers, while giving certain advantages to wireline carriers.   X -Texas' plan features all these elements. Like the plan proposed in the Ameritech Order, the Texas Commission's plan would unreasonably discriminate against wireless carriers. It is thus unreasonably discriminatory under section 202(a) and would constitute an unreasonable practice in violation of section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934. Moreover, in this  Xj-Order, we have clarified the Ameritech Order by prohibiting all servicespecific and technologyspecific area code overlays. Servicespecific and technologyspecific overlays do not further the federal policy objectives of the NANP. They hinder entry into the telecommunications marketplace by failing to make numbering resources available on an efficient, timely basis to telecommunications services providers. As we describe in detail above, servicespecific overlays would provide particular industry segments and groups of"0*((" consumers an unfair advantage. We have also stated that administration of the NANP should be technology neutral; servicespecific overlays that deny particular carriers access to numbering resources because of the technology they use to provide their services are not technology neutral.  X-1306. We find the Texas Commission's arguments in support of its proposed wirelessonly overlay unpersuasive. It argues, for example, that the wireless overlay will extend the life span for the area code relief plan. What extends the life span of a relief plan, however, is not so much the wireless overlay as the introduction of a new NPA with its 792 additional NXXs. This being the case, the Texas Commission provides no compelling reason for isolating a particular technology in the new NPA. The Texas Commission also states that there will be less confusion regarding NPA assignments, but a plan calling for overlay for one service and a split for another is likely to lead to increased customer confusion regarding NPA assignments, because parties making calls would have to be aware of what type of service the party being called has in order to know whether to dial the tendigit number or just the last seven digits. The Texas Commission also argues that its plan allows for continued sevendigit dialing for intraNPA calls, but we note that the same would be true if a geographic split for all services and technologies was imposed. Although an allservices overlay would have required tendigit intraNPA dialing, there would not be discrimination based on technology.  X4-2307. Several parties raise concerns about dialing disparity resulting from the implementation of the Texas Commission's plan. It is these concerns about dialing disparity in the context of an overlay that have led us to require mandatory tendigit dialing as part of any all services overlay plan.  X-3308. Some parties also advance concerns about the Texas Commission's statements that, if the proposed wirelessonly overlay were found to be unlawful, it would consider a mandatory prorata takeback of wireless numbers under the geographic split plan in order to balance the remaining burdens of inconvenience and confusion caused by the number changes necessitated by a split. We do not take action here to prevent the Texas Commission from taking back some wireless numbers in the course of introducing a geographic split plan. In a geographic split, roughly half of the customers in the existing NPA, including wireless customers, will have to change their telephone numbers. We recognize that wireless customers may need to have their equipment reprogrammed to change their telephone number, and that this will inconvenience wireless customers to some extent. This illustrates the fact that geographic splits also have burdensome aspects. Our goal is to have technologyblind area code relief that does not burden or favor a particular technology. Requiring approximately half of the wireless customers and wireline customers to change telephone numbers in a geographic split is an equitable distribution of burdens. This is the kind of implementation detail that is best left to the states. "Q%0*(( $"  X-` ` 4. Delegation of Additional Numbering Administration Functions (#  X-` ` 4a.Background   X-4309. In the NANP Order, we transferred CO code administration to the new NANP administrator. We stated that a "requirement that CO code administration be centralized in the NANP administrator simply transfers the functions of developing and proposing NPA relief plans from the various LEC administrators to the new NANP Administrator" and that "[s]tate regulators will continue to hold hearings and adopt the final NPA relief plans as they  X3-see fit."N3,  {O -ԍ NANP Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2622.N  X -5310. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that, pursuant to Section 251(e)(1), the Commission should authorize states to address matters related to implementation of new area  X -codes, and we are doing so in this Order. In the NPRM, we also sought comment on whether the Commission should authorize states or other entities to address any additional number administration functions. We address this issue here.  X-` ` b.  Comments   XQ-6311. Some commenters raise issues about the proper role of the states in number administration both before and after transfer of number administration functions to the NANP. BellSouth, for example, argues that we should authorize states to address additional number administration functions until their transfer to the NANP. Specifically, BellSouth recommends that states should take active oversight in CO code implementation activities,  X-including the power to allow for cost recovery.CZ,  yO-ԍ BellSouth comments at 20. C  X-7312. SBC expresses concern regarding the expeditious transfer and centralization of CO code administration into the new NANP. In SBC's view, such transfer is appropriate, but before it can take place, all relevant issues must first be fully addressed and resolved. SBC states that code administrators need local knowledge of authorized carriers, service areas, and toll and local calling areas for the transfer to be effective. SBC asserts that, because CO code administration has significant impacts on local areas in terms of relief plans and dialing plans,  X&-state regulatory commissions should be included in any decision.?&,  yO"-ԍ SBC comments at 1113.? In reply, MFS, stating that the Commission should not "be swayed" by SBC's singular concerns about the complexity of CO code assignments and the need for state involvement, argues against any  X-potential delay in the transfer of numbering responsibilities.8z,  yO '-ԍ MFS reply at 4.8 Similarly, WinStar, stating that" 0*((" such delay would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the 1996 Act, argues against any delay  X-in transferring numbering administration from the LECs to the NANP administrator.@,  yOb-ԍ WinStar reply at 1516.@  X-8313. Some parties argue that, when the new NANP administrator is established, the Commission should allow state commissions to handle the current functions of the LEC,  X-including development of area code relief plans and assignment of CO codes.X,  yO-ԍ See, e.g., Florida Commission comments at 67; Indiana Commission Staff comments at 6. According to the Florida Commission, if the state commissions do not decide to handle these functions, the  X_-NANP administrator should be responsible for these processes.L_,  yO -ԍ Florida Commission comments at 67.L Cox, however, does not support delegation of CO code assignment responsibility to the states and contends that if the Commission does authorize the states to perform this function, it should adopt specific policies for CO code assignment requiring that such assignments be made on a non X -discriminatory basis.0 x,  yO,-ԍ Cox states that the policies should state that carriers and states currently administering CO codes are not permitted to deny codes to new entrants, and are not permitted to levy "code opening" charges to avoid imposing barriers on the entry and expansion of new competitors. Cox comments 89. In its reply, Cox notes that incumbent LECs have argued that there is no need for Commission intervention in the assignment of CO codes. Cox argues that, in practice, despite the existence of "neutral" CO code assignment guidelines, significant potential for discriminating against new entrants remains. Until an impartial entity is responsible for assigning CO codes, Cox contends, there is a need for specific Commission rules preventing discrimination. Cox would prefer that CO codes be administered by a neutral administrator, and believes that the possibility that a neutral administrator will lack some local knowledge does not form an insurmountable barrier to a swift transition from the current regime. Cox reply at 1011.0 The Pennsylvania Commission states that, after the new NANP administrator assumes LEC administrative responsibilities, the Commission should allow states to continue their regulatory oversight role. Specifically, the Pennsylvania Commission asserts that the Commission should delegate to state commissions regulatory oversight of CO code  X -assignment, including local number portability and local dialing parity measures.O ,  yOh-ԍ Pennsylvania Commission comments at 7.O   Xy-9314. In the Indiana Commission Staff's view, we should authorize state commissions to make decisions regarding the implementation or changing of dialing patterns consistent with nondiscriminatory and competitive guidelines, and changes in dialing patterns should be incorporated into the area code relief planning process. The Indiana Commission Staff asserts that states are in a better position to determine what impact changes in dialing will have on  X-the local area.P,  yOW%-ԍ Indiana Commission Staff comments at 7.P Conversely, Vanguard argues the Commission should satisfy its  X-Congressional mandate by establishing national numbering and dialing parity guidelines.?0,  yO'-ԍ Vanguard reply at 23.?"0*(("Ԍ X-ԙ` ` c.  Discussion   X-:315. We conclude that the states may continue to implement or change local dialing patterns subject to any future decision by the Commission regarding whether to require  X-uniform nationwide dialing patterns.c\,  yO-ԍ Uniform nationwide dialing, which would require uniform dialing patterns throughout the United States,  {O-was raised in the NANP NPRM, Docket No. 92237, 9 FCC Rcd 2068, 2075 (1994), but was not addressed in the  {O-NANP Order and remains unaddressed by the Commission.c The Commission will retain broad policymaking jurisdiction over numbering. We further conclude that states that wish to be responsible for initiating area code relief planning, a function currently performed by the LECs as CO code administrators, may do so now and after transfer of CO code administration from the LECs to the new NANP administrator. Again, because of the need to avoid disruption in numbering administration, we find good cause to make this authorization effective immediately pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  553(d)(3). We decline, however, to delegate to the states on a permanent basis oversight of CO code administration. Finally, we decline to authorize states to handle CO code assignment functions.  X -;316. Currently, state commissions are responsible for determining the number of  X -digits that must be dialed for intraNPA toll calls and interNPA local calls.\ ,  yOD-ԍ In every state, intraNPA local calls can be dialed using 7digits, while all interNPA calls require 1 plus  {O -10digit dialing. For a list of standard and permissible dialing patterns in each state, see North American  {O-Numbering Plan, Numbering Plan Area Codes 1996 Update, Bellcore (January 1996) at 1116. For example, while most states require 1 plus 10digit dialing for all intraNPA toll calls, California and New Jersey permit such toll calls to be completed with 7digit dialing. Illinois requires 7digit dialing for all intraNPA calls, whether local or toll. Similarly, a number of states, including the District of Columbia, Maryland, and parts of Virginia require 10digit dialing for all interNPA local calls and permit 10digit or 1 plus 10digit dialing for all intraNPA local calls.  X-<317. States are in the best position at this time to determine dialing patterns because of their familiarity with local circumstances and customs regarding telephone usage. For example, one state commission might want to allow its residents to dial 7digits for all intraNPA calls, whether toll or local, whereas another state commission might wish to require 10digit dialing for intraNPA calls to ensure that its residents recognize that they are making a toll call rather than a local call. Therefore, states may continue to implement appropriate local dialing patterns, subject to the Commission's numbering administration guidelines,  XN-including the Commission's requirement in this Order of 10digit dialing for all calls within and between NPAs in any area where an area code overlay has been implemented.  X -=318. Two state commissions specifically ask the Commission to authorize states to perform functions associated with initiating and planning area code relief, as distinct from"0*(("  X-adopting final area code relief plans.t,  yOy-ԍ Indiana Commission Staff comments at 67; Florida Commission comments at 5.t We agree that states should be authorized to initiate and plan area code relief. Currently, when an incumbent LEC in its role as CO code administrator predicts that NPA exhaust is imminent, it initiates the NPA relief planning process by holding industry meetings, developing an appropriate area code relief plan or plans, and proposing that plan or several alternative plans for the state commission's  X-consideration and adoption.X,  {O-ԍ See, e.g., Illinois Bell Telephone Company Petition for Approval of NPA Relief Plan for 708 Area Code  {O` -by Establishing a 630 Area Code, Order, No. 940315 (Ill. Comm. Comm'n March 20, 1995). Thus, state commissions do not initiate and develop area code  Xv-relief plans,xv,  yO -ԍ The process of area code relief initiation and development varies by state. In most cases the incumbent LEC (as CO code administrator) declares that the supply of CO codes in a particular area code is about to exhaust, and invites all telecommunications entities with interests in the area code at issue to meet and attempt to reach consensus on a plan for area code relief. Issues before the industry include whether to propose an area code overlay or a geographic split. If the industry can agree on the proposal, it is submitted to the state commission for adoption. If the industry cannot agree, the incumbent LEC may submit a number of alternatives to the state commission from which to choose.  but states adopt, codify or reject the final plan.!v ,  yO-ԍ State commissions have, however, recently begun to reject or significantly alter LEC proposals as area  {O-code relief has become more controversial. See, e.g., Illinois Bell Telephone Company Petition for Approval of  {O-NPA Relief Plan for 708 Area Code by Establishing a 630 Area Code, Order, No. 940315 (Ill. Comm. Comm'n  {Ow-March 20, 1995); AirTouch V. Pacific Bell, Case 9409058, MCI V. Pacific Bell, Case 9501001, Decision No.  {OA-9508052 (Cal. Pub. Util. Comm'n Aug. 11, 1995); Petition of MCI Telecommunications Corp. for an Investigation of the Practices of Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. Regarding the Exhaustion of Telephone Numbers in the 214 Numbering Plan Area and Request for a Cease and Desist Order Against Southwestern Bell  {M-Telephone Co., Petition of the Office of the Public Utility Counsel for an Investigation of the Practices of Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. Regarding the Exhaustion of Telephone Numbers in the 713 Numbering Plan  {O+-Area and Request for a Cease and Desist Order Against Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., Order on Rehearing, Docket No. 14447 (Tex. Pub. Util. Comm'n. Apr. 29, 1996).!  XH->319. We conclude that states wishing to become responsible for initiating area code relief planning, a function currently performed by the LECs as CO code administrators, may do so, even after transfer of CO code administration from the LECs to the new NANP administrator. We find that enabling states to initiate and develop area code relief plans is generally consistent with our previous delegation of new area code implementation matters to the state commissions based on their unique familiarity with local circumstances. We make this delegation, however, only to those states wishing to perform area code relief initiation and development. We recognize that many state commissions may not wish to perform these  X-functions because, inter alia, the initiation and development of area code relief can require specialized expertise and staff resources that some state commissions may not have. Those states that seek to perform any or all of these functions must notify the new NANP administrator within 120 days of the selection of the NANP administrator. Those states wishing to perform functions relating to initiation and development of area code relief prior to the transfer of such functions to the new NANP administrator must notify promptly the entity"^0*((" currently performing CO code administration. States should inform the entities of the specific functions upon which the state wishes to take action. Area code relief initiation and development functions will be transferred to and performed by the new NANP administrator for those states that do not seek to perform such functions. We emphasize that, pursuant to our decision to authorize the states to address matters related to the implementation of area code relief, all state commissions will continue to be responsible for making the final decision on how new area codes will be implemented, subject to this Commission's guidelines.  XH-?320. While we authorize states to resolve specific matters related to initiation and development of area code relief plans, we do not delegate the task of overall number allocation, whether for NPA codes or CO codes. To do so would vest in fiftyone separate commissions oversight of functions that we have already decided to centralize in the new NANPA. A nationwide, uniform system of numbering, necessarily including allocation of NPA and CO code resources, is essential to efficient delivery of telecommunications services  X -in the United States.S ,  {O7-ԍ Ameritech Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 4602.S  X-@321. With specific regard to CO code allocation, two BOCs and one state commission have asked us to delegate oversight of this function to the states on a permanent basis. We decline. In addition to the problems noted in the preceding paragraph, we are concerned that such an arrangement could complicate and increase the NANP administrator's workload, and could also lead to inconsistent application of CO code assignment guidelines. The oversight  X-and dispute resolution process established in the NANP Order, whereby for the U.S. portions of NANP administration the NANC will have initial oversight and dispute resolution duties, with the Commission as the final arbiter, provides an adequate process for overseeing CO  X-code administration.WZ,  {O-ԍ See NANP Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 26052610.W This process also guarantees state participation in the oversight process through their representation on the NANC.  X-A322. Finally, we decline to authorize states to perform CO code assignment functions  X~-as suggested by the Florida Commission for two reasons set forth in the NANP Order.@~,  {O-ԍ Id. at 26202623.@ First, centralizing CO code assignment in one neutral entity will increase the efficiency of CO code assignment because it will preclude varying interpretations of CO code assignment guidelines. Consistent application of assignment guidelines will also diminish the administrative burden, which can be a potential barrier to entry, facing those carriers seeking codes in various states that would otherwise have to associate with a number of separate code assignment bodies rather than one. Second, a centralized CO code administration mechanism would allow the Commission and regulators from other NANP member countries to keep abreast of CO code assignments and predict potential problem areas, such as exhaust, sooner than is possible under the current system. "!~0*(( "Ԍ X-ԙ` ` 5. Delegation of Existing Numbering Administration Functions Prior  X-to Transfer (#  X-` ` Ba.Background   X-B323. Prior to the enactment of the 1996 Act, Bellcore, as the NANP Administrator, the incumbent LECs, as central office code administrators, and the states performed the  X_-majority of functions related to the administration of numbers._,  {O-ԍ For a discussion of NANP administration functions, see NANP Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2595. In the NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that it should authorize Bellcore, the incumbent LECs and the states to continue performing each of their functions related to the administration of numbers as they existed prior to enactment of the 1996 Act until such functions are  X -transferred to the new NANP administrator pursuant to the NANP Order.A Z,  {O-ԍ NPRM at para. 258.A We address this issue here.  X -` ` b.Comments   X-C324. Several commenters agree with our tentative conclusion to authorize Bellcore, the LECs, and states to continue performing the numbering administration functions they  Xf-currently perform until such functions are transferred to the new NANP administrator."f,  {O-ԍ See, e.g., MFS comments at 9; ACSI comments at 13; Ameritech comments at 24; AT&T comments at 12; Bell Atlantic comments at 9; BellSouth comments at 20; District of Columbia Commission comments at 3; Florida Commission comments at 6; GTE comments at 30; NYNEX comments at 1819; Pennsylvania Commission comments 67; PacTel comments at 25; Texas Commission comments at 6; SBC comments at 9. Generally, these commenters contend that this is the most efficient and least disruptive solution, and that it should be implemented in the interest of numbering administration continuity. Using this approach, NYNEX says, the Commission can intervene and exercise its  X -authority as specific future matters may warrant.  ,  yO-ԍ NYNEX comments at 1819. NYNEX asserts that we should reject arguments in favor of implementation of an interim arrangement so that incumbent LECs no longer have responsibility for NXX code administration. Incumbent LECs currently assign the NXXs according to industry standards, and under Commission oversight, NYNEX notes. Therefore, there is no need for a shortlived transfer of the responsibilities to another party.  AT&T states that current functions should continue until transferred, provided that those functions are not expanded and that the  X-Commission ensures prompt compliance with the NANP Order.= ,  yOK#-ԍ AT&T comments at 12.= MFS supports interim delegation of current functions, but asserts that states should have the authority to implement"N 0*((" interim changes in number administration as long as their actions are consistent with our  X-numbering policy objectives.,  yOb-ԍ By way of example, MFS notes that California is considering sharing CO code assignment with LECs until that function is transferred to the NANP administrator. MFS comments at 9.   X-D325. The California Commission states that it is considering serving as CO code administrator until the NANC has developed its policy on numbering administration. It urges the Commission to allow states with unique number administration problems to resolve these  Xv-issues in the interim.Ov ,  yOG -ԍ California Commission comments at 78.O PacTel states that it has proposed a partial transfer of CO code administration to the California Commission or a third party. In the alternative, it says, the California Commission could serve as an interim CO code administrator until the NANC completes its work, or until the California Commission selects a permanent administrator. In PacTel's view, these options are consistent with our proposal to permit the LECs, Bellcore, and the states to continue performing each of their respective functions related to number  X -administration until those functions are transferred to the new entity.? ,  yOM-ԍ PacTel comments at 25.? PacTel asserts that California's plan to share code assignment functions between PacTel and the California Commission until the transfer to the new NANP administrator should be identified as a "safe  X -harbor" under the Act.< @,  yO-ԍ PacTel reply at 28.<  Xy-E326. Other commenters oppose the Commission's proposal to authorize Bellcore, the incumbent LECs, and the states to continue performing those numbering administration functions they performed prior to enactment of Section 251(e)(1) on an interim basis until  X4-such functions are transferred to the new NANP administrator.4,  {O-ԍ See, e.g., CTIA comments at 5; Indiana Commission Staff comments at 6; NCTA reply at 10; Teleport comments at 4. They express concern about the appearance of incumbent LEC dominance and discrimination in the assignment and administration of scarce numbering resources. The Indiana Commission Staff recommends that area code planning and implementation be removed from the responsibility of the LECs in favor of state commissions. In its view, delegating the planning and implementation process to state commissions will foster a "more competitive spirit" among the industry. The Indiana Commission Staff envisions that state commissions could obtain periodic reports from the present incumbent LEC administrator as well as Bellcore on projected exhaust dates for  X|-area codes.P|* ,  yOW%-ԍ Indiana Commission Staff comments at 6.P Sprint states that, as long as Bellcore and the LECs serve as NANP and CO code administrators, they should be required to apply identical standards and procedures for"e 0*((1" processing all numbering requests, irrespective of the identity of the party submitting the  X-request.?,  yOb-ԍ Sprint comments at 14.?  X-F327. Cox recommends that, in the event the Commission authorizes the state commissions to handle CO assignment, such assignment must be made on a nondiscriminatory basis, and states or the carriers currently administering the CO codes should not be permitted to deny codes to new entrants or to levy "code opening" charges. In Cox's view, the Commission should adopt specific CO code guidelines because: (a) there is evidence of continued discrimination in CO code assignment; and (b) without Commission guidance, states will develop inconsistent regimes. Cox notes that Commission action is especially important  X -here because CO code assignments have not been transferred to a neutral party.= X,  yO# -ԍ Cox comments at 79.= Similarly, several commenters argue in CC Docket No. 95185 that many incumbent LECs are charging paging carriers and other CMRS providers discriminatory fees for activating CO codes, as  X -well as unreasonable and discriminatory recurring monthly charges for blocks of numbers.[ ,  yOn-ԍ With regard to the specific issue of paging carriers being charged recurring monthly fees for blocks of  {O6-numbers, it is necessary to incorporate the record from CC Docket No. 95185, In the Matter of Interconnection  {O-Between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers. See, e.g., AirTouch Communications comments, CC Docket No. 95185, at 22 n.22; Arch Communications Group comments, CC Docket No. 95185, at 78, 15, 2324; PageNet comments, CC Docket No. 95185, at 22 and App. C.[  X-` ` c.Discussion   Xb-G328. Until such functions are transferred to the new NANP administrator, we authorize Bellcore and the incumbent LECs to continue performing the number administration functions they performed prior to the enactment of the 1996 Act. Again, because of the need to avoid disruption in numbering administration, we find that there is good cause to make these authorizations effective immediately pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  553(d)(3). We also conclude that any incumbent LEC charging competing carriers fees for assignment of CO codes may do so only if it charges the same fee to all carriers, including itself and its affiliates.  X-H329. Numbering administration is a complex task that Bellcore, the incumbent LECs, and, to some extent, the states have been performing for over a decade. It is crucial that efficient and effective administration of numbers continues as the local market opens to competition. This delegation is the most practicable way that numbering administration can continue without disruption. During the transition period, those parties with experience should continue to perform the administrative functions that they have become uniquely equipped to handle. Thus, we authorize Bellcore to continue to perform its functions as the North American Numbering Plan Administrator in the same manner it did at the time of"0*((<" enactment of the 1996 Act. We also allow the incumbent LECs to continue to perform the CO code administration functions that they performed at the time of enactment of the 1996 Act. Finally, we allow the states, if they performed any number administration functions prior to enactment of the 1996 Act, to continue to do so until such functions are transferred to the new NANP administrator.  Xv-I330. Some commenters argue that we should not authorize Bellcore and the incumbent LECs to perform numbering administration functions on a transitional basis because continued administration of numbers by these entities, which are not neutral administrators, will permit discriminatory treatment of the incumbents' competitors with respect to access to number resources. While we recognize these concerns, we see no alternative to the action we take here. Transfer of numbering administration functions will be a complex task, one that cannot be accomplished immediately even on transitional basis. The Commission, for example, does not have the resources to administer numbers on a daytoday basis.  X-J331. In this regard, we note that a proposal has been made to the California Commission to transfer CO code administration to the California Commission or a third party or, in the alternative, to have the California Commission serve as the interim CO code administrator until the NANC completes its work or until the California Commission selects a  X4-permanent administrator.P4,  yO-ԍ California Commission comments at 78.P We conclude that the record does not support allowing states to change the way CO code administration is performed during the transition to the new NANP administrator. Uniform CO code administration is critical to efficient operation of the public switched network for proper delivery of telecommunications services. The transfer of CO code administration to the states pending the transition to the new NANP administrator would not foster that consistency because states wishing to assume such responsibilities would lack the necessary experience to perform them with speed and accuracy. The California Commission does not refute this persuasively. We therefore urge parties wishing to alter the administration of certain numbers or to change the assignment of responsibilities for administering numbers pending transfer of these functions to the new NANP administrator to raise these issues with the Commission on a casebycase basis in separate proceedings. In their filings, these parties should state who would bear the cost of a temporary delegation and how such a delegation could be implemented without confusion to carriers and customers.  X-K332. Some commenters have expressed concern that numbering administration will be performed in a discriminatory and anticompetitive manner as long as interested parties exercise these functions. For this reason, some commenters urge the Commission to adopt guidelines for CO code administration with which the incumbent LECs must comply prior to transfer of CO code administration to a new NANP administrator. Specifically, they ask the Commission to prohibit incumbent LECs from levying disparate "code opening" fees on different carriers. We conclude that charging different "code opening" fees for different providers or categories of providers of telephone exchange service constitutes discriminatory"Q%X0*(('$" access to telephone numbers and therefore violates section 251(b)(3)'s requirement of nondiscrimination. Charging different "code opening" fees for different providers or categories of providers of any telecommunications service (not just telephone exchange service) also violates section 202(a)'s prohibition of unreasonable discrimination and also  X-constitutes an "unjust practice" and "unjust charge" under section 201(b).Y,  yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(b)(3); 47 U.S.C.  202(a).Y Further, it is inconsistent with the principle stated in section 251(e)(1), which states that numbers are to be available on an equitable basis. Incumbent LECs have control over CO codes, a crucial resource for any competitor attempting to enter the telecommunications market; incumbent LECs must therefore treat other carriers as the incumbent LECs would treat themselves. To ensure that numbering administration does not become a barrier to competition in the telecommunications marketplace prior to the transfer of NANP administration functions to a neutral number administrator, we conclude that any incumbent LEC charging competing carriers fees for assignment of CO codes may only do so if the incumbent LEC charges one uniform fee for all carriers, including itself or its affiliates.  X -L333. We are explicitly extending this protection, pursuant to section 202, from discriminatory "code opening" fees to telecommunications carriers, such as paging carriers, that are not providers of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service, and therefore  Xb-are not covered by Section 251(b)(3).XbX,  yOk-ԍ Paging is not "telephone exchange service" within the meaning of the Act because it is neither "intercommunicating service of the character ordinarily furnished by a single exchange" nor "comparable" to such service. See 47 U.S.C.  153(47). Paging carriers are increasingly competing with other CMRS providers, and they would be at an unfair competitive disadvantage if they alone could be charged discriminatory code activation fees. For the reasons stated above, we explicitly forbid incumbent LECs from assessing unjust, discriminatory, or unreasonable  X-charges for activating CO codes on any carrier or group of carriers . To the extent that recurring pernumber charges represent charges for interconnection, they are governed by the  X-principles set out in the First Report and Order in this proceeding. Moreover, the Commission has already stated that telephone companies may not impose recurring charges  X-solely for the use of numbers.x,  {O-ԍ See The Need to Promote Competition and Efficient Use of Spectrum for Radio Common Carrier Services,  yO-Memorandum Opinion and Order, 59 R.R.2d 1275, 1284 (1986).  X~-M334. We emphasize that incumbent LEC attempts to delay or deny CO code assignments for competing providers of telephone exchange service would violate section 251(b)(3), where applicable, section 202(a), and the Commission's numbering administration  X9-guidelines found, inter alia, in the Ameritech Order, the NANP Order, and this Order. The Commission expects the incumbent LECs to comply strictly with those guidelines and act in an evenhanded manner as long as they retain their number administration functions. Specifically, incumbent LECs should apply identical standards and procedures for processing all numbering requests, regardless of the identity of the party making the request."0*(("Ԍ X-ԙN335. Indeed, our delegation of matters related to numbering administration during the transition to a new NANP administrator is generally governed by the Commission's existing objectives and guidelines related to number administration as well as those enumerated in this proceeding. We will monitor closely the actions of Bellcore and the LECs with respect to numbering administration to ensure that they perform their tasks impartially and expeditiously until such tasks are transferred.  X_- C.` ` Cost Recovery for Numbering Administration   X1-` ` O1. Background   X -O336. In section 251(e)(2), Congress mandates that "[t]he cost of establishing telecommunications numbering administration arrangements and number portability shall be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as determined by the  X -Commission."B ,  yO7-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(2).B In the NANP Order, the Commission: (1) directed that the costs of the new impartial numbering administrator be recovered through contributions by all communications providers; (2) concluded that the gross revenues of each communications provider will be used to compute each provider's contribution to the new numbering administrator; and (3) concluded that the NANC will address the details concerning recovery of the NANP  XM-administration costs.SMX,  {OV-ԍ NANP Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 26272629.S In the NPRM, we found that we did not need to take further action because the Commission had already determined that cost recovery for numbering administration arrangements must be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a  X -competitively neutral basis.A ,  {O-ԍ NPRM at para. 259.A  X-  X-` ` 2. Comments   X-P337. Several parties believe that the Commission should take further action with  X-regard to cost recovery for numbering administration.|,  {O-ԍ See, e.g., BellSouth comments 20; Telecommunications Resellers Association comments at 10; NCTA comments at 11. BellSouth states that, states should have the power to authorize cost recovery in conjunction with oversight of central office code  Xi-implementation activities, until transfer of numbering administration to the NANP.Bi,  yO#-ԍ BellSouth comments at 20.B   X;-Q338. Telecommunications Resellers Association urges us to reconsider the assessment that the costs associated with the administration of telecommunications numbering should be borne by telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis. It asserts that reliance" f 0*((" upon gross revenues would result in a double or greater recovery from resale carriers and  X-their customers.a,  yOb-ԍ Telecommunications Resellers Association comments at 10.a  X-R339. Similarly, NCTA urges us to require that companies providing telecommunications services in addition to other services fund NANP administration based on a percentage of their gross telecommunications revenues, and not their revenues from other services. Otherwise, NCTA argues, diversified companies that have relatively little need for NXXs but large gross revenues from other sources may have to fund a disproportionately large share of NANP administration expenses. Also, NCTA notes that the 1996 Act requires "telecommunications carriers" to contribute to cost recovery for number administration, but  X -that the NANP Order requires recovery from all "communications providers." NCTA requests clarification that only "telecommunications carriers" as defined by the 1996 Act must  X -contribute to cost recovery for number administration.= X,  yO-ԍ NCTA comments at 11.=  X -S340. Other commenters do not believe that it is necessary for the Commission to take  X -additional action with regard to cost recovery for numbering administration.Z ,  {OB-ԍ See, e.g., ACSI comments at 13; ALTS comments at 8; CTIA comments at 8; Frontier comments at 5 n.14; GCI comments at 6; GTE comments at 31; Ohio Consumers' Council comments at 5; PacTel comments at 26. These parties  X-generally agree that the cost recovery approach taken in the NANP Order satisfies the 1996 Act's requirements with respect to ensuring nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers. Several reiterate that the costs of number administration must be borne by all carriers on a  XO-competitively neutral basis. GTE states that the NANP Order conclusions satisfy the cost recovery requirement of the 1996 Act, if we ensure that those conclusions are implemented in a manner that does not unduly favor or disadvantage any particular industry segment or  X -technology.c  ,  {O-ԍ GTE comments at 31.  See also PacTel comments at 26.c  X-T341. In its reply comments, PacTel rejects MCI's suggestion that costs of implementing number portability should be reduced or eliminated. In PacTel's view, interim number portability is an essential element of achieving equitable number administration and  X-all parties that benefit from this process should contribute to full cost recovery.<,  yO"-ԍ PacTel reply at 33.<  Xk-` ` 3. Discussion   X=-U342. Because of ambiguity between the language of the 1996 Act and language in the  X&-NANP Order, we are persuaded that further action is necessary to meet the 1996 Act's"&, 0*((" requirement that cost recovery for number administration be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis, and to conform the cost recovery requirements  X-specified in the NANP Order to the 1996 Act. First, we require that: (1) only "telecommunications carriers," as defined in Section 3(44), be ordered to contribute to the costs of establishing numbering administration; and (2) such contributions shall be based only  X-on each contributor's gross revenues from its provision of telecommunications services.oZ,  yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(2) also requires that the cost of establishing telecommunications number portability shall be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis. We note that cost recovery  {O-for number portability was addressed in the Number Portability Order. o We note that we have considered the economic impact of our rules in this section on small incumbent LECs and other small entities. We conclude that by basing contributions only on each contributor's gross revenues from its provision of telecommunications services (instead of, for example, imposing a flat fee contribution on all telecommunications carriers), we more equitably apportion the burden of cost recovery for numbering administration.  X -V343. Section 251(e)(2) requires that the costs of telecommunications numbering administration be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis. Contributions based on gross revenues would not be competitively neutral for those carriers that purchase telecommunications facilities and services from other telecommunications carriers because the carriers from whom they purchase services or facilities will have included in their gross revenues, and thus in their contributions to number administration, those revenues earned from services and facilities sold to other carriers. Therefore, to avoid such an outcome, we require all telecommunications carriers to subtract from their gross telecommunications services revenues expenditures for all telecommunications services and  X-facilities that have been paid to other telecommunications carriers. ~,  {O-ԍ See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 1995, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd  {O-13512, at 1355859 (1995) (Regulatory Fees Order) In the Regulatory Fees Order, we stated that, in order to avoid imposing a double payment burden on resellers, we would permit interexchange carriers to subtract from their reported gross interstate revenues any payments made to underlying carriers for telecommunications  {O-facilities or services. Id. Our action here is consistent with that taken in the Regulatory Fees Order. We note that the gross telecommunications services revenues referenced in this discussion are not limited to gross interstate revenues.  It should be noted that this requirement is solely for the purpose of determining a carrier's contribution to numbering administration costs and not for any other purpose, interpretation, or meaning of any other Commission rule such as those contained in Parts 32, 36, 51, 64, 65, or 69 of the Commission's rules. "0 0*(("  X- D.` ` Section 271 Competitive Checklist Requirement that the BOCs Provide NonDiscriminatory Access to Numbers for Entry into Inregion  X-InterLATA Services  q(#`  X-` ` 1. Background  and Comments  Xv-W344. Section 271(c)(2)(B) contains a competitive checklist of requirements governing the access to functions, facilities and services or interconnection that BOCs must provide or generally offer to other competing telecommunications carriers if the BOC wants authority to provide inregion interLATA service. Pursuant to the competitive checklist, BOCs desiring to provide inregion interLATA telecommunications services must afford, "[u]ntil the date by which telecommunications numbering administration guidelines, plans or rules are established, nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers for assignment to the other carrier's telephone exchange service customers . . . [and] [a]fter that date, [must] compl[y] with such guidelines,  X -plan or rules."I ,  yO7-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  271(c)(2)(B)(ix).I In the NPRM, we stated that these measures foster competition by ensuring telecommunications numbering resources are administered in a fair, efficient, and orderly  X-manner.AX,  {O-ԍ NPRM at para. 251.A  Ameritech asks us to clarify that, by complying with the NANP Order, a BOC  X}-satisfies the competitive checklist requirement of nondiscriminatory access to numbers.h},  {O-ԍ Ameritech comments at 23.  See also NYNEX comments at 18.h MCI argues that we must ensure that the BOCs comply with section 271(c)(2)(B) and assign  XO-NXX codes in a competitively neutral manner.$O|,  yO|-ԍ MCI comments at 10. We also note that in its petition for declaratory ruling filed July 12, 1996, TCG has asked the Commission to require, as part of a BOC's application to provide in-region interLATA services  {O -pursuant to section 271, a demonstration that numbering resources are available to competing local carriers. See  {O-supra n.616.  X!-` ` 2. Discussion   X-X345. We decline to address section 271(c)(2)(B) issues in this Order. We will consider each BOC's application to enter inregion interLATA services pursuant to section 271(c)(2)(B) on a case by case basis, and will look specifically at the circumstances and business practices governing CO code administration in each applicant's state to determine whether the BOC has complied with section 271(c)(2)(B)(ix).  Xk- \ VI. FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ă  XT-  X=- Y346. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C.  603, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of  X-Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public"h 0*((y"  X-comments on the proposals in the NPRM, including the IRFA. The Commission's Final  X-Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this Order conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, (CWAAA), Pub. L. No. 104121, 110  X-Stat. 847 (1996).,  yO8-ԍ Subtitle II of the CWAAA is "The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996"  {O-(SBREFA), codified at 5 U.S.C.  601 et. seq.  X- A.` ` Need for and Purpose of this Action  Xc-Z347. The Commission, in compliance with section 251(d)(1), promulgates the rules in  XL-this Order to ensure the prompt implementation of section 251, which is the local competition provision. Congress sought to establish through the 1996 Act "a procompetitive, de X -regulatory national policy framework" for the United States telecommunications industry.c ",  yO -ԍ S. Conf. Rep. No. 104230, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1996).c Three principal goals of the telecommunications provisions of the 1996 Act are: (1) opening the local exchange and exchange access markets to competition; (2) promoting increased competition in telecommunications markets that already are open to competition, including, particularly, the long distance services market; and (3) reforming our system of universal service so that universal service is preserved and advanced as the local exchange and exchange access markets move from monopoly to competition.  Xh-[348. The rules adopted in this Order implement the first of these goals opening the local exchange and exchange access markets to competition by eliminating certain operational  X<-barriers to competition. The objective of the rules adopted in this Order is to implement as quickly and effectively as possible the national telecommunications policies embodied in the  X-1996 Act and to promote the procompetitive, deregulatory markets envisioned by Congress.2,  {Os-ԍ Id.2 We are mindful of the balance that Congress struck between this goal and its concern for the impact of the 1996 Act on small local exchange carriers, particularly rural carriers. This balance is evidenced in section 251(f).  X- B.` ` Summary of Issues Raised by Public Comments Made  X-` ` in Response to the IRFA  XX-\349. Summary of Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). In the NPRM, the  XC-Commission performed an IRFA.FCD,  {O8$-ԍ NPRM at paras. 274287.F In the IRFA, the Commission found that the rules it proposed to adopt in this proceeding may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses as defined by section 601(3) of the RFA. The Commission stated that its regulatory flexibility analysis was inapplicable to incumbent LECs because such entities are"0*((Z" dominant in their field of operation. The Commission noted, however, that it would take appropriate steps to ensure that special circumstances of smaller incumbent LECs are carefully considered in our rulemaking. Finally, the IRFA solicited comment on alternatives to our proposed rules that would minimize the impact on small entities consistent with the objectives of this proceeding.  Xv- ` ` 1.  Treatment of Small LECs  XH-]350. Comments. The Small Business Administration (SBA), Rural Tel. Coalition, and CompTel maintain that the Commission violated the RFA when it sought to exclude incumbent LECs from regulatory flexibility consideration without first consulting the SBA to  X -establish a definition of "small business."{ ,  yO~ -ԍ SBA RFA comments at 35; Rural Tel. Coalition reply at 3839; CompTel reply at 46.{ Rural Tel. Coalition and CompTel also argue that the Commission failed to explain its statement that "incumbent LECs are dominant in their  X -field" or how that finding was reached.J X,  yO-ԍ Rural Tel. Coalition reply at 39.J Rural Tel. Coalition states that the lack of such analysis is inappropriate because incumbent LECs are now facing competition from a variety of sources, including wireline and wireless carriers. Rural Tel. Coalition recommends that the Commission abandon its determination that incumbent LECs are dominant, and perform the  X{-regulatory flexibility analysis for incumbent LECs having fewer than 1500 employees.J{,  yO-ԍ Rural Tel. Coalition reply at 40.J  XM- ^351. Discussion. In essence, the SBA and the Rural Tel. Coalition argue that we exceeded our authority under the RFA by certifying all incumbent LECs as dominant in their field of operations, and therefore concluding on that basis that they are not small businesses under the RFA. They contend that the authority to make a size determination rests solely with the SBA, and that by excluding a group from the scope of regulatory flexibility analysis  X-the Commission makes an unauthorized size determination.x,  yO-ԍ SBA RFA comments at 45 (citing 15 U.S.C.  632(a)(2)); Rural Tel. Coalition reply at 38. Neither the SBA nor the Rural Tel. Coalition cite any specific authority for this latter proposition.   X-` ` 2. Other Issues  Xg-_352. We have found incumbent LECs to be "dominant in their field of operations" since the early 1980's and consequently have consistently since that time certified under the  X9-RFAH9,  {O$-ԍ See 5 U.S.C.  605(b).H that incumbent LECs are not subject to regulatory flexibility analyses because they are"90*(("  X-not small businesses.;\,  {Oy-ԍ See, e.g., Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company Facilities, 6 FCC Rcd 5809 (1991);  {OC-MTS and WATS Market Structure, 2 FCC Rcd 2953, 2959 (1987) (citing MTS and WATS Market Structure, 98 F.C.C.2d 241, 33839 (1983)).; We have made similar determinations in other areas.,  {O-ԍ See, e.g., Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992: Rate  {Og-Regulation, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7418 (1995). We recognize the SBA's special role and expertise with regard to the RFA, and intend to continue to consult with the SBA to ensure that the Commission is fully implementing the RFA. Although we are not fully persuaded on the basis of this record that our prior practice has been incorrect, in light of the special concerns raised by the SBA, the Rural Tel. Coalition, and CompTel in this proceeding, we will, nevertheless, include small incumbent LECs in this FRFA to remove any possible issue of RFA compliance. We, therefore, need not address directly the Rural Tel.  X_-Coalition's arguments that incumbent LECs are not dominant.M_H,  yOX-ԍ Rural Tel. Coalition reply at 3940.M   X1-`353. Comments. Parties raised several other issues in response to the Commission's  X -IRFA in the NPRM. The SBA and CompTel contend that commenters should not be required to separate their comments on the IRFA from their comments on the other issues raised in the  X -NPRM.V ,  yOw-ԍ SBA RFA comments at 23; CompTel reply at 46.V SBA maintains that separating RFA comments and discussion from the rest of the comments "isolates" the regulatory flexibility analysis from the remainder of the discussion, thereby handicapping the Commission's analysis of the impact of the proposed rules on small  X -businesses.2 h ,  {O-ԍ Id.2 The SBA further suggests that our IRFA failed to: (1) give an adequate description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rules, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject  Xf-to the requirement and the professional skills necessary to prepare such reports or records;gf ,  {O-ԍ SBA RFA comments at 56, citing 5 U.S.C.  603(b)(4).g and (2)describe significant alternatives that minimize the significant economic impact of the  X8-proposal on small entities, including exemption from coverage of the rule.d8 ,  {Ou -ԍ SBA RFA comments at 78, citing 5 U.S.C.  603(c).d SBA also asserts  X!-that none of the alternatives in the NPRM are designed to minimize the impact of the proposed rules on small businesses.  X-a354. The Idaho Public Utilities Commission argues that the Commission's rules will  X-be devised for large carriers and therefore will be "de facto" burdensome to Idaho's  X-incumbent LECs and probably to potential new entrants, which may be small companies.I,  yO'-ԍ Idaho Commission comments at 15.I "0*((" Therefore, Idaho requests that state commissions retain flexibility to address the impact of our rules on smaller incumbent LECs.  X-b355. The Small Cable Business Association (SCBA) contends that the Commission's IRFA is inadequate because it does not state that small cable companies are among the small  X-entities affected by the proposed rules.@,  yO-ԍ SCBA RFA comments at 1.@ In its comments on the IRFA, SCBA refers to its proposal that the Commission establish the following national standards for small cable companies: (1) the definition of "good faith" negotiation; (2) the development of less burdensome arbitration procedures for interconnection and resale; and (3) the designation of a small company contact person at incumbent LECs and state commissions. The SCBA also asserts that the Commission must adopt national standards to guide state commissions in their  X -implementation of section 251(f),: X,  {O -ԍ Id. at 12.: the rural telephone company exemption. The First Report  X -and Order and its FRFA discusses issues raised by the SCBA regarding its proposal that the Commission establish national standards for certain provisions of the rules that affect small cable companies. Accordingly, we do not repeat those analyses in this FRFA.  X-c356. Discussion. We disagree with the SBA's assessment of our IRFA. Although the IRFA referred only generally to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements imposed on  Xf-incumbent LECs, our Federal Register notice set forth in detail the general reporting and  XQ-recordkeeping requirements as part of our Paperwork Reduction Act statement.sQ,  {O-ԍ NPRM, summarized at 61 Fed. Reg. 18311, 18312 (Apr.25,1996).s The IRFA  X:-also sought comments on the many alternatives discussed in the body of the NPRM, including  X%-the statutory exemption for certain rural telephone companies.?%|,  yOR-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(f).? The numerous general public comments concerning the impact of our proposal on small entities in response to our notice,  X-including comments filed directly in response to the IRFA, ,  {O-ԍ See SBA RFA comments; Rural Tel. Coalition reply at 3841; Idaho Public Utilities Commission comments at 15; SCBA RFA comments; CompTel reply at 4546. have enabled us to prepare this FRFA. Thus, we conclude that the IRFA was sufficiently detailed to enable parties to comment meaningfully on the proposed rules and, thus, for us to prepare this FRFA. We have been working with, and will continue to work with the SBA, to ensure that both our IRFAs and FRFAs fully meet the requirements of the RFA.  Xm-d357. The SBA also objects to the NPRM's requirement that responses to the IRFA be filed under a separate and distinct heading, and proposes that we integrate RFA comments  XA-into the body of general comments on a rule.?Af ,  yOX'-ԍ SBA RFA comments at 2.? Almost since the adoption of the RFA, we"A 0*(("  X-have requested that IRFA comments be submitted under a separate and distinct heading.,  {Oy-ԍ See, e.g., Inquiry into the Development of Regulatory Policy in Regard to Direct Broadcast Satellites, 86 F.C.C.2d 719, 755 (1981). Neither the RFA nor the SBA's rules prescribe the manner in which comments may be  X-submitted in response to an IRFAY",  {O-ԍ See 5 U.S.C.  603 (IRFA requirements).Y and, in such circumstances, it is well established that an administrative agency can structure its proceedings in any manner that it concludes will enable  X-it to fulfill its statutory duties.3\,  {O -ԍ See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519,  {O -52425 (1978) (citing FCC v. Schreiber, 381 U.S. 279, 290 (1965) and FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 138 (1940)).3 Based on our past practice, we find that separation of comments responsive to the IRFA facilitates our preparation of a compulsory summary of such comments and our responses to them, as required by the RFA. Comments on the impact of our proposed rules on small entities have been integrated into our analysis and consideration of the final rules. We therefore reject SBA's argument that we improperly required commenters to include their comments on the IRFA in a separate section.  X -e358. We also reject SBA's assertion that none of the alternatives in the NPRM were designed to minimize the impact of the proposed rules on small businesses and the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's assertion that our rules will be burdensome on new entrants. For example, we proposed that incumbent LECs be required to disclose all information relating to network design and technical standards and information concerning changes to the  X-network that affect interconnection facilities.C,  {O-ԍ NPRM paras.189190.C This proposal allows a potential competitor, that may be a small entity, to collect the information necessary to achieve and maintain efficient interconnection. Thus, the competitor can enter the market by relying, in part or entirely, on the incumbent LEC's facilities. Reduced operational entry barriers are designed to provide reasonable opportunities for new entrants, particularly small entities, to enter the market by minimizing the initial investment needed to begin providing service.  X-f359. In addition, we disagree with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's contention that the rules devised by the Commission will be burdensome to the majority of Idaho's incumbent LECs. We believe section 251(f) and the rules we have crafted provide states with significant flexibility to "deal with the needs of individual companies in light of public interest concerns," as requested by the Idaho Commission. We note that, pursuant to section 251(f), smaller LECs may petition their state commissioners for suspension or modification of the implementation schedule for toll dialing parity established under section 251(b)(3).  XP-Although we have required incumbent LECs to continue performing their current functions related to the administration of numbers, this requirement will expire when numbering administration is transferred to the new North American Number Plan (NANP) Administrator, pursuant to Section 251(e). As incumbent LECs are currently performing these functions and" j 0*((y" we have received no comments from incumbent LECs objecting to this requirement, we do not consider it burdensome for them to continue to perform these tasks during the transition period.  X-g360. In addition, we disagree with SCBA's assertion that the IRFA was deficient because it did not identify small cable operators as entities that would be affected by the  Xv-proposed rules. The IRFA in the NPRM states: "Insofar as the proposals in this Notice apply to telecommunications carriers other than incumbent LECs (generally interexchange carriers and new LEC entrants), they may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small  X3-entities.">3,  {O -ԍ NPRM para.277.> The phrase "new LEC entrants" clearly encompasses small cable operators that  X -become providers of local exchange service. The NPRM even identifies cable operators as  X -potential new entrants.< Z,  {O-ԍ NPRM para.6.< Thus, the record shows that we have identified small cable operators as entities that would be affected by the proposed rules.  X -  X - C.` ` Description and Estimate of the Small Entities  X -` ` Affected by the Rules  X}-h361. The RFA defines "small entity" to include the definition of "small business  Xf-concern" under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632.f,  {O-ԍ See 5 U.S.C.  601(6) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 5 U.S.C. 632). Under the Small Business Act, a "small business concern" is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the  X!-Small Business Administration.L!F,  {O-ԍ See 15 U.S.C.  632(1)(a).L The SBA has defined companies listed under Standard  X -Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications)t ,  yO-ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 4812.t and 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have  X-fewer than 1,500 employees.th ,  yO -ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 4813.t The SBA has defined companies listed under the SIC category 7379 (Business Services, not otherwise classified) to be small entities when they  X-have annual receipts of less than five million dollars.z ,  yOW$-ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 7379.z These standards also apply in determining whether an entity is a small business for purposes of the RFA. " 0*((n"Ԍ X-i362. The rules we adopt today regarding dialing parity and nondiscriminatory access apply to all LECs. The rules regarding public disclosure of changes to local networks apply to all incumbent LECs. Finally, the rules regarding numbering administration impose financial obligations on all telecommunications carriers. These rules also affect IXCs, providers of cellular, broadband PCS, and geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz specialized mobile radio services, including licensees who have obtained extended implementation authorizations in the 800 MHz or 900 MHz SMR services, either by waiver or under section  X_-90.629 of the Commission's rules,?_,  yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  90.629.? which may be small business concerns. However, these rules will apply to SMR licensees only if they offer realtime, twoway voice service that is interconnected with the public switched network. Additional business entities affected by this rulemaking include providers of telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange service, independent operator service providers, independent directory assistance providers, independent directory listing providers, independent directory database managers, and resellers of these services. These entities could be small business concerns.  X -j363. Consistent with our prior practice, we shall continue to exclude small incumbent LECs from the definition of a small entity for the purpose of this FRFA. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, we include small incumbent LECs in our FRFA. Accordingly, our use of the terms "small entities" and "small businesses" does not encompass "small incumbent LECs." We use the term "small incumbent LECs" to refer to any incumbent LECs that  X4-arguably might be defined by SBA as "small business concerns."U4X,  {O=-ԍ See 13 C.F.R.  121.210 (SIC 4813).U  X-k364. Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small providers of local exchange services. The closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies, SIC category 4813. For the purposes of revenue reporting, 1,347  X-companies reported doing business as LECs at the end of 1994."\,  {OE-ԍ Federal Communications Commission, CCB, Industry Analysis Division, Telecommunications Industry  {O-Revenue: TRS Fund Worksheet Data, Tbl. 21 (Average Total Telecommunications Revenue Reported by Class of Carrier) (Feb.1996)." 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 any more particularity the number of LECs that would qualify as small business concerns. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,347 small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the decisions  X7-and rules adopted in this Order.  X -l365. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entities that would apply specifically to providers of interexchange services (IXCs). The closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for telephone communications"0*((" companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies, SIC category 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 Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). According to our most recent data, 97 companies reported that they  X-were engaged in the provision of interexchange services.2,  {O-ԍ Id.2 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 IXCs that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 97 small entity IXCs that may be affected by the decisions  X1-and rules adopted in this Order.  X -m366. Cellular Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to providers of cellular services. The closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of cellular service carriers 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 789  X{-companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of cellular services.t{Z,  yO-ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 4812.t 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 that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 789 small entity cellular  X-service carriers that may be affected by the decision and rules adopted in this Order.  X-n367. Broadband PCS Licensees. The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  24.720(b), the Commission has defined "small entity" in the auctions for Blocks C and F as a firm that had average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. This regulation defining "small entity" in the context of broadband PCS auctions has been  Xi-approved by the SBA.i,  {O -ԍ See Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, PP Docket  yO -No.93253, Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5532, 558184 (1994). The Commission has auctioned broadband PCS licenses in Blocks A, B, and C. We do not have sufficient data to determine how many small businesses bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auction. Based on this information, we conclude that the  X -number of broadband PCS licensees affected by the decisions in this Order includes, at a minimum, the 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C broadband PCS auction. " D0*(("Ԍ X-o368. At present, no licenses have been awarded for Blocks D, E, and F of broadband PCS spectrum. Therefore, there are no small businesses currently providing these services. A total of 1,479 licenses will be awarded, however, in the D, E, and F Block broadband PCS auctions, which are scheduled to begin on August 26, 1996. Eligibility for the 493 F Block licenses is limited to entrepreneurs with average gross revenues of less than $125 million. We cannot estimate the number of these licenses that will be won by small entities, nor how many small entities will win D or E Block licenses. Given the facts that nearly all radiotelephone  X_-companies have fewer than 1,000 employees_,  {O-ԍ See United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Standard Industrial Classification  {O -Manual (1992) (1992 Census) SIC Code 4812. and that no reliable estimate of the number of prospective D, E, and F Block licensees can be made, we assume, for purposes of our evaluations and conclusions in this FRFA, that all of the licenses will be awarded to small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA. Broadband PCS licensees are affected by the  X -decisions and rules adopted in this Order to the extent that they provide telephone exchange service.  X -p369. SMR Licensees. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  90.814(b)(1), the Commission has defined "small entity" in auctions for geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR licenses as a firm that had average gross revenues of less than $15 million in the three previous calendar years. This definition of a "small entity" in the context of 800 MHz and 900 MHz  Xd-SMR has been approved by the SBA.d$,  {O9-ԍ See Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use of 200 Channels Outside the Designated Filing Areas in the 896901 MHz and the 935940 MHz Bands Allotted to the Specialized  {O-Mobile Radio Pool, PR Docket No. 89583, Second Order on Reconsideration and Seventh Report and Order, 11  {O-FCC Rcd 2639, 2693702 (1995); Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future  {O_-Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93144, First Report and Order, Eighth Report and Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 1463 (1995).  X6-q370. The rule adopted in this Order applies to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands that either hold geographic area licenses or have obtained extended implementation authorizations. We do not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of less than $15 million. Since the RFA amendments were not in effect until the record in this proceeding was closed, the Commission was unable to request information regarding the number of small businesses in this category. We do know that one of these firms has over $15 million in revenues. We assume, for purposes of our evaluations and conclusions in this FRFA, that all of the remaining extended implementation authorizations may be held by small entities, which may be affected by the  XR-decisions and rules adopted in this Order.  X&-r371. The Commission recently held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. There were 60 winning bidders who qualified as small entities in the 900 MHz auction. Based on this information, we conclude that the number of geographic area"0*(("  X-SMR licensees affected by the rule adopted in this  Order includes these 60 small entities. No auctions have been held for 800 MHz geographic area SMR licenses. Therefore, no small entities currently hold these licenses. A total of 525 licenses will be awarded for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz geographic area SMR auction. The Commission, however, has not yet determined how many licenses will be awarded for the lower 230 channels in the 800 MHz geographic area SMR auction. There is no basis to estimate, moreover, how many small entities within the SBA definition will win these licenses. Because nearly all radiotelephone companies have fewer than 1,000 employees and no reliable estimate of the number of prospective 800 MHz licensees can be made, we assume, for purposes of our evaluations and conclusions in this FRFA, that all of the licenses will be awarded to small entities, as defined by the SBA. Those SMR licensees that provide telephone exchange  X -service will be affected by the decisions in this Order.  X -  s372. Providers of Telephone Toll Service, Providers of Telephone Exchange Service. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities applicable to providers of telephone toll service and telephone exchange service. According to the 1992 Census, there were approximately 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as  X}-defined therein, for at least a year.},  {O-ԍ See United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census of Transportation,  {O-Communications, and Utilities; Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1123 (1995) (1992 Census). This number contains a variety of different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, PCS providers, covered SMR providers, providers of telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers. It seems certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify as small businesses because they are not  X-"independently owned and operated."B$,  yO-ԍ 15 U.S.C.  632(a)(1).B It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are providers of telephone toll service or providers of  X-telephone exchange service and are small entities that may be affected by this Order.   X-t373. Independent Operator Service Providers, Independent Directory Assistance Providers, Independent Directory Listing Providers, and Independent Directory Database  Xk-Managers. We were unable to obtain reliable data regarding the number of entities that provide these telecommunications services or how many of these are small entities. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to telecommunications service providers. Therefore, the closest applicable definition of a small entity providing telecommunications services is the definition under SBA rules applicable to business services companies, SIC 7389, which defines a small entity to be a business services company with annual receipts of less than five million dollars. U.S. Census data provides that 46,289 firms  X -providing business services had annual receipts of 5 million dollars or less.T ,  {O/'-ԍ 1992 Census, Table 2D, SIC Code 7389.T Because it" F0*((" seems unlikely that all of the business services firms would meet the other criteria, it seems reasonable to conclude that fewer than 46,289 firms may be small entities that might be  X-affected by our Order.  X- u374. Resellers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to resellers. The closest applicable SBA definition for a reseller is a telephone communications company, SIC category 4813. However, the most reliable source of information regarding the number of resellers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that the Commission collects annually in connection with TRS. For the purposes of revenue reporting, 206 companies reported doing business as resellers at  X -the end of 1994."\ ,  {O -ԍ Federal Communications Commission, CCB, Industry Analysis Division, Telecommunications Industry  {O_ -Revenue: TRS Fund Worksheet Data, Tbl. 21 (Average Total Telecommunications Revenue Reported by Class of Carrier) (Feb.1996)." Although it seems certain that some of these companies 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 resellers that would qualify as small entities or small incumbent LEC concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 206 small entity resellers that may be affected by the decisions and  X -rules adopted in this Order.  X}-v375. Telephone Companies. U.S. Census data provides that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least a  XO-year.O,  {O-ԍ See United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census of Transportation,  {O-Communications, and Utilities; Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1123 (1995) (1992 Census). This number contains a variety of different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service, carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, PCS providers, covered SMR providers, providers of telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers. It seems certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service firms may  X-not qualify as small businesses because they are not "independently owned and operated."BH,  yO-ԍ 15 U.S.C.  632(a)(1).B It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are  X-telephone companies and small entities that may be affected by this Order.  X-w376. Cable System Operators. SBA has developed a definition of small entities for cable and other pay television services, which includes all such companies generating less than $11 million in revenues 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, there were 1,323 such cable and other pay television services generating less"0*((["  X-than $11 million in revenue that were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992.W,  {Oy-ԍ 1992 Census, supra, at Firm Size 1123. W The Commission has developed its own definition of a small cable system operator for the  X-purposes of rate regulation, which has been approved by SBA.Z,  {O-ԍ Small Bus. Admin., 13 C.F.R. Part 121 Small Business Size Regulations, Proposed Rules, 60 Fed. Reg. 57982, 57988 (Nov. 24, 1995). 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. 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 the other cable operators. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,439 small entity cable companies that  X1-may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in this Order.  X -x377. The Communications Act of 1934 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 than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with  X -any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000."D ,  yO%-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  543(m)(2). D There were 63,196,310 basic cable subscribers at the end of 1995, and 1,450 cable system  X-operators serving fewer than 1 percent (631,960) of subscribers.D,  {O-ԍ Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995). Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable systems operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act of 1934.  X- D.` ` Summary of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements and their Effect on Small Businesses And Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and  X-Alternatives Considered (#`  X-y378. Structure of the Analysis. In this section of the FRFA, we analyze the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements that may apply to small entities  Xg-as a result of this Order.Kg,  {O#-ԍ See 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(4).K As a part of this discussion, we mention some of the types of skills that will be needed to meet the new requirements. We also describe the steps taken to minimize the economic impact of our decisions on small entities, including the significant";h 0*(("  X-alternatives considered and rejected.K,  {Oy-ԍ See 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(5).K Due to the size of this Order, we set forth our analysis  X-separately for individual sections of the Order, using the same headings as were used above in  X-the corresponding sections of the Order.  X-z379. To the extent that any statement contained in this FRFA is perceived as creating  X-ambiguity with respect to our rules or statements made in preceding sections of this Order, the rules and statements set forth in those preceding sections shall be controlling.   XP-{380. Dialing Parity Requirements. The dialing parity provisions of section 251(b)(3) entitle customers to choose different carriers for their local exchange, intraLATA toll, and interLATA toll services without the burden of dialing access codes. Each LEC is required to provide dialing parity to providers of telephone exchange and telephone toll service with respect to all telecommunications services that require dialing to route a call. This obligation encompasses international, interstate, intrastate, local and toll services.  X -|381. Summary of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance  X-Requirements. In order to comply with the guidelines and minimum federal standards  X-established in this Order, each LEC must implement toll dialing parity utilizing the "full 2PIC" presubscription method and following the mandated timetable for implementation of toll dialing parity. Although no timetable was adopted for implementing local dialing parity it is expected that it will be achieved through LECs' compliance with other section 251 requirements. LECs may recover the incremental costs of implementing local and toll dialing parity such as the costs of dialing parityspecific switch software, hardware, signalling system upgrades and necessary consumer education. These costs will be recovered from all providers of telephone exchange service and telephone toll service in the area served by the LEC, including the LEC, through the use of a competitivelyneutral allocator established by each state. Compliance with these requirements may entail the use of engineering, technical, operational, and accounting skills.  Xo-}382. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and  XX-Small Incumbent LECs, and Alternatives Considered. This Order adopts broad guidelines and minimum federal standards for toll dialing parity so that LECs and competing providers of telephone toll service, many of whom will be small business entities, will not be subject to an array of differing state standards and timetables requiring them to research and tailor their operations to the unique requirements of each state.  X -~383. First, we required all LECs to implement toll dialing parity based on LATA  X!-boundaries.I!Z,  {O%-ԍ See supra para. 37. I  NonBOC LECs, including many smaller LECs, that implement intraLATA and interLATA toll dialing parity may choose whichever LATA within their state that they deem to be most appropriate to define the area within which they will offer intraLATA toll"#0*(("" dialing parity. State commissions, in ruling upon such a choice of LATA association, shall determine whether the proposed LATA association is in the public interest. Because many smaller LECs have not been subject to LATA boundary distinctions, we also gave states the flexibility to take such factors into account and to require that toll dialing parity be based on state rather than LATA boundaries in their jurisdictions. Insofar as a state determines that presubscription should occur along state, rather than LATA, boundaries, we anticipate that such a determination will assist smaller LECs, in particular, by permitting those LECs to define their service markets based on a geographic distinction that is familiar to consumers.  X1-384. In addition, we adopted the "full 2PIC" nationwide presubscription method for  X -implementing the toll dialing parity requirements.T ,  {O -ԍ See supra paras. 4950. T  In making this decision we considered a number of methodologies, including the "modified 2PIC," "the multiPIC" and the "smartPIC" methods. We concluded that the "modified 2PIC" would limit the number of competitive service providers that could participate in the market and that the "multiPIC" method had not yet proven to be technically and economically feasible. As the "full 2PIC" method is widely available and well defined, we noted that LECs, many of which are small entities, would not be forced to purchase and maintain an expensive, untested, and new  Xy-technology. The Order provides that, until the Commission considers the use of the "multiPIC" or "smartPIC methods," states may impose such additional requirements only after evaluating the technical feasibility and economic impact of those requirements on smaller LECs in their jurisdictions.  X-385. We instituted a federal toll dialing parity implementation schedule rather than  X-allowing states to implement their own schedules.NZ,  {O-ԍ See supra para. 62.N This federallymandated plan will provide certainty for competitors, some of which may be small business entities, seeking to become telephone toll service providers. Both LECs and competing providers of telephone toll service will be able to develop business plans and advertising strategies based upon specific timelines. This ability to plan ahead is costefficient and levels the playing field for all seeking to participate in the marketplace.  XP-386. We also concluded that a LEC may not accomplish toll dialing parity by automatically assigning toll customers to itself, to a customer's currently presubscribed interLATA or interstate toll carrier, or to any other carrier except when, in a state that already has implemented intrastate, intraLATA toll dialing parity, the subscriber has selected the same  X-interLATA and intraLATA, or interstate and intrastate, presubscribed carrier.I,  {O$-ԍ See supra para. 81. I  This requirement prevents a carrier from automatically designating itself as a toll carrier without notifying the customer of the opportunity to choose an alternative carrier, one or more of which may be a small business. "!~0*(( "Ԍ X-ԙ387. Lastly, we implemented national rules for the recovery of dialing parity costs.I,  {Oy-ԍ See supra para. 92. I  Although it was suggested that these costs be borne only by new entrants, and not incumbent LECs, we determined that the network upgrades necessary to achieve dialing parity should be recovered on a competitivelyneutral basis. A competitively neutral cost recovery mechanism prevents incumbent LECs from imposing excessive fees upon competing entrants, some of which may be small businesses. The imposition of excessive fees could constitute an impediment to entry into the intraLATA toll market by small entities that lack extensive financial resources and could reinforce the marketplace dominance of established LECs. A competitivelyneutral cost recovery mechanism also benefits small LECs that might otherwise have been unduly burdened by a cost allocation plan requiring an equal payment from each entity.  X -388. Nondiscriminatory Access Provisions. Under section 251(b)(3), all LECs are required to allow competing providers of telephone exchange service and telephone toll service access to telephone numbers, operator services, directory assistance, and directory listings that is at least equal in quality to the access the LEC itself receives, without unreasonable dialing delays. LECs are required to make available to competing providers operator services and directory assistance and all adjunct features necessary for the use of these services.  X4-389. Summary of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance  X-Requirements. In order to comply with the nondiscriminatory access provisions all LECs must share subscriber listing information with their competitors in "readily accessible" tape or electronic formats. This information must be provided upon request and in a timely  X-manner.J Z,  {O-ԍ See supra para. 141. J In addition, each LEC must process all calls from competing providers, including calls to the LEC's operator services and directory assistance, on an equal basis as calls  X-originating from the providing LEC.C ,  {OG-ԍ See supra para. 159.C LECs that refuse to comply with reasonable, technically feasible requests from competing providers for "rebranding" of resold operator services or directory assistance are presumed to be unlawfully restricting access to these  Xe-services.O e~,  {O!-ԍ See supra paras. 128, 148.O  Compliance with these requests may require the use of engineering, computer, accounting, and legal skills.  X -390. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and  X -Small Incumbent LECs, and Alternatives Considered. The entitlement to access, on a nondiscriminatory basis, to telephone numbers, operator services, directory assistance and directory listings will benefit providers competing with incumbent LECs. Many of these" 0*((;" competitors will be small business entities. The requirement that LECs make their operator assistance and directory listing services available to competitors may allow those competitors to save the time and money it would take to build similar information resources. Additionally, these competing providers will benefit because they will be able to offer consumers at least the same quality of operator service and directory assistance that is provided by the established LEC. Small entities will be able to compete with established LECs more quickly and with less initial investment. Their services will have an opportunity to become equally valuable and equally marketable to consumers. We have declined to support alternatives that would have allowed LECs to degrade or limit access to these services, because such behavior would bar competitive entry into the telecommunications  X -services market.    X -\391. Network Disclosure. Pursuant to section 251(c)(5) incumbent LECs are required to provide "reasonable public notice" of changes in their network which would affect a competing service provider's performance or ability to provide service or otherwise affect carriers' interoperability. The types of changes that incumbent LECs must disclose include, but are not limited to, changes that affect transmission, signalling standards, call routing, network configuration, electronic interfaces or data elements.   XM-392. Summary of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance  X6-Requirements. To implement this disclosure requirement, this Order imposes a new filing requirement on incumbent LECs that plan to make changes to their networks. An incumbent LEC has a choice of filing certain information with the Commission or of filing a short certification with the Commission that the equivalent information has been disclosed elsewhere. In either case, the incumbent LEC is also responsible for maintaining the accuracy of the information. Compliance with this requirement may require the use of engineering, technical, computer, and legal skills.  X-393. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and  Xi-Small Incumbent LECs, and Alternatives Considered. This recordkeeping submission requirement should, in fact, ease the burden on smaller entities in their endeavor to remain  X;-abreast of changes to the incumbent LEC network with which they interconnect. In our  X$-Order, we authorize the use of industry forums, industry publications, and the Internet, to make public disclosure of network changes and required technical information by incumbent  X-LECs.  We believe that "this approach would build on a voluntary practice that now exists in  X-the industry and would result in broad availability of the information."A ,  {OZ"-ԍ NPRM at para. 191.A By making information broadly available, we hope to facilitate the participation of entities, such as small businesses, that lack the resources to participate in industry forums. We originally postulated that public notice should be provided exclusively through industry fora or industry  X#-publications.I #Z,  {O'-ԍ See supra para. 192.I Upon further consideration, however, we broadened the means by which an"# 0*((e"" incumbent LEC could satisfy our public notice requirement to include two alternative lowcost  X-mechanisms use of the Internet or filing with the Commission.C,  {Ob-ԍ See supra para. 198.C These additional options will be beneficial to small incumbent LECs because they will allow those small LECs to meet their network disclosure obligations without incurring the costs associated with attending industry conferences or publishing the information in an industry magazine or journal.  Xv-394. Numbering Administration. Section 251(e) confers upon the Commission exclusive authority over all matters relating to the administration of numbering resources that pertain to the United States. To implement section 251(e)(1) the Commission plans to designate a North American Numbering Plan (NANP) Administrator that will administer telecommunications numbering in the United States equitably and impartially. Pursuant to 251(e)(2) the cost of establishing and maintaining the NANP Administrator will be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis.  X -395. Summary of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance  X -Requirements. The Commission has authorized state public utility commissions to perform the task of implementing new area codes subject to Commission guidelines. If a state commission chooses to initiate and plan area code relief, it must inform the NANP Administrator of the functions the commission will perform. All telecommunications carriers will be required to contribute to the costs of establishing numbering administration. Compliance with this requirement will require engineering, technical, operational, and accounting skills.  X-396. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and  X-Small Incumbent LECs, and Alternatives Considered. Although the Commission has authorized states to implement new area codes, it has stipulated that states may not implement  X-them in a manner that will unduly favor or disadvantage any particular industry segment or  X-group of consumers.JZ,  {O-ԍ See supra para. 281. J   Accordingly, the Commission has prohibited servicespecific or technology specific area code overlays, because they would exclude certain services or carriers, that may be small business entities, from the existing area code and would segregate  XP-their operations in a new area code.DP,  {O -ԍ See supra para. 285. D  If states choose to implement allservice overlays, the Commission has required that there be 10digit dialing for all local calls in areas served by  X"-such overlays to ensure that competition will not be deterred as a result of dialing disparity.D"~,  {OQ$-ԍ See supra para. 286. D  X -Without mandatory 10digit dialing, customers might find it less attractive to switch carriers because competing LECs, many of which may be new entrants to the market and may include small businesses, would have to assign their customers numbers in the new overlay area code. "0*((;" This would require those customers to dial 10 digits much more often than the incumbents' customers. Requiring 10digit dialing for all local calls avoids the potentially anticompetitive effect of allservice area code overlays. In addition, to advance competition, the Commission has required that where an area code overlay is implemented, every entity authorized to provide local exchange service in the old area code, which may include small businesses, must be assigned at least one NXX in that area code.  X_-397. Under the 1996 Act each telecommunications carrier must contribute to cover the cost of numbering administration. Many alternatives for allocating these costs were considered to ensure that each carrier would contribute to a fund to cover the cost of numbering administration on a competitively neutral basis. The contributions will be based on the carrier's gross revenues from its provision of telecommunications services reduced by all payments for telecommunications services or facilities that are paid to other telecommunications carriers. Such a competitively neutral cost allocation plan benefits small incumbent LECs that might have been unduly burdened by a cost apportionment plan  X -requiring an equal payment from each entity.J ,  {O -ԍ See supra para. 343. J   Xy- E.` ` Report to Congress  XK-398. The Commission shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,  X4-along with this Order, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this FRFA will also  X-be published in the Federal Register.  X-3  VII. ORDERING CLAUSES Đ\  X-399. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201209, 218, 251, and 332 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 201209, 218, 251 and 332, Parts 51 and 52 of the  Xi-Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Parts 51, 52 are AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B hereto.  X$-400. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the policies, rules, and requirements set forth herein ARE ADOPTED.  X-401. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 416(a) and 413 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  416(a) and 413, that the Secretary  X!-shall serve this Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order on all local exchange carriers, as defined in Section 3(26) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  153(26), that have designated in writing an agent in the District of Columbia, upon whom service of all notices and process and all orders, decisions, and"n$Z0*((F#" requirements of the Commission may be made for and on behalf of the local exchange carrier, as required by Section 413 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  413.  X- 402. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 408 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  408, all authorizations for state commissions, Bellcore, and local administrators, including LECs, to perform certain  X_-numbering administration functions, consistent with the terms as defined in this Order, are effective immediately. Because of the need to avoid disruption in numbering administration, we find that there is good cause for this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  553(d)(3). All other policies, rules, and requirements set forth herein are effective 30 days after publication of this  X -order in the Federal Register, except for collections of information subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB"), which are effective 70 days following  X -publication in the Federal Register.  X -403. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4, 5, and 405 of the  X-Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154, 155, and 405, In the Matter of  X-Proposed 708 Relief Plan and 630 Numbering Plan Area Code by Ameritech Illinois, IAD File no. 94102, Declaratory Ruling and Order, 10 FCC Rcd. 4596 (1995) IS CLARIFIED to the extent indicated herein at paragraph numbers 281293.  X'-404. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 251(e)(1), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 251(e)(1) and 405, Comcast Corporation's Petition for Clarification or  X-Reconsideration of In the Matter of Proposed 708 Relief Plan and 630 Numbering Plan Area  X-Code by Ameritech Illinois, IAD File no. 94102, Declaratory Ruling and Order, 10 FCC Rcd. 4596 (1995), IS DISMISSED as moot.  X-405. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 251(e)(1), and 405 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 251(e)(1), and 405, the Petition for Limited Clarification and/or Reconsideration filed by the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission and the Request for Clarification filed  X.-by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners of In the Matter of  X-Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, CC Docket No. 92237, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 2588 (1995) ARE hereby DISMISSED.  X -406. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the relief requested in the petition for declaratory ruling filed by the Texas Public Utilities Commission is DENIED.  X#-407. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 5(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  155(c)(1), authority is delegated to the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, to act on petitions filed by parties wishing to dispute proposed area code plans, to act on toll dialing parity implementation plans filed by LECs seeking to implement toll dialing parity, and to issue orders fixing reasonable public notice"5'0*((%" periods in the case of contested short term disclosure by incumbent local exchange carriers of network changes under 251(c)(5).  X- 408. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent that issues from CC Docket No.  X-95185, In the Matter of Interconnection Between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial  X-Mobile Service Providers, are resolved here, we incorporate the relevant portions of the record in that docket pertaining to paging carriers being charged fees for the opening of central office codes and for blocks of numbers. ` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  William F. Caton ` `  Acting Secretary  X- "0*(("  X-  @A- @ APPENDIX A LIST OF PARTIES ă   X- Comments: (filed on or before May 20, 1996)  X-  X-American Communications Services, Inc.q(ACSI) Ameritech  Xv-Association for Local Telecommunications Servicespp(ALTS)  X_-AT&T Corporation (AT&T)  XH-Beehive Telephone Company, Inc.hhC(Beehive)  X1-Bell Atlantic Telephone CompanieshhC(Bell Atlantic)  X -BellSouth Corporation(BellSouth)  X -Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association pp(CTIA)  X -Cincinnati Bell Telephone Companyq(CBT)  X -Citizens Utilities Company(Citizens Utilities)  X -Cox Communications, Inc.(Cox)  X -District of Columbia Public Service Commission(District of Columbia Commission)  X-Excel Telecommunications(Excel)  Xy-Florida Public Service CommissionhhC(Florida Commission)  Xb-Frontier Corporation (Frontier)  XK-General Communication, Inc.hhC(GCI)  X4-General Services Administration/Department of Defensepp(GSA/DOD)  X-GTE Service Corporation(GTE)  X-GVNW Inc./Management(GVNW)  X-Illinois Commerce CommissionhhC(Illinois Commission)  X-Indiana Utility Regulatory Commissionq(Indiana Commission Staff)  X-Lincoln Telephone and Telegraph Company(Lincoln Telephone)  X-Louisiana Public Service Commissionq(LPSC)  X-MCI Telecommunications Corporationq(MCI)  X|-MFS Communications Company, Inc.q(MFS)  Xe-Michigan Public Service Commissionq(Michigan Commission Staff)  XN-National Cable Television Association, Inc.(NCTA)  X7-New Jersey, Staff of Board of Public Utilities(New Jersey Commission)xxX  X -NEXTLINK Communications, L.L.C.q(NEXTLINK)  X -Northern Telecom inc. (Nortel)q  X-NYNEX Telephone CompanieshhC(NYNEX)  X-Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counselq(Ohio Consumers' Counsel)  X -Omnipoint Communications, Inc.hhC(Omnipoint)  X!-Pacific Telesis Group(PacTel)  X"-Paging Network, Inc. (PageNet)  X#-Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissionq(Pennsylvania Commission) People of the State of California and the Public Utility Commission of the State of California (California Commission) Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (Ohio Commission)  X#'-Rural Telephone Coalition(Rural Tel. Coalition)"#'0*((%"Ԍ X-SBC Communications Inc.(SBC)  X-Small Cable Business AssociationhhC(SCBA)  X-Sprint Corporation (Sprint)  X-Telecommunications Resellers Associationq  X-Telecommunications Carriers for Competition(TCC)  X-Teleport Communications Group Inc.q(Teleport)  Xv-Texas Public Utilities Commission hhC(Texas Commission)  X_-The Western Alliance(Western Alliance)  XH-Time Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.(Time Warner)  X1-U S WEST, Inc. (U S WEST)hhC  X -United States Telephone Associationq(USTA)  X -Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.hhC(Vanguard)  X -WinStar Communications, Inc.hhC(WinStar)  X - Replies: (filed on or before June 3, 1996)  X-  Xy-APlus Network, Inc.(APlus) ACSI American Electric Power Service Corp. Ameritech AT&T Bell Atlantic Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile BellSouth California Commission Carolina Power and Light Co. CBT Citizens Utilities Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Ed) Cox  X7-Delmarva Power and Light(Delmarva) District of Columbia Commission  X -General Communication, Inc.hhC(GCI) GSA/DOD  X-GTE Service Corporation(GTE) Iowa Network Services, Inc., SDN Inc., and KIN Network, Inc. (Iowa Network Services) Joint Cable Companies Koch MCI MFS  XQ%-Minnesota Independant Equal Access Corporation(MIEAC) Motorola, Inc. Municipal Utilities"#'0*((%"Ԍ X-National Exchange Carriers Associationq(NECA) NCTA New England Electric Companies New Mexico Public Service Corporation NEXTLINK NYNEX Ohio Consumers' Counsel Ohio Edison Company PacTel PageNet Puerto Rico Telephone Company Rural Tel. Coalition SBC Sprint TCC  X -Telecommunications Resellers Associationq Teleport U S WEST USTA Vanguard Western Alliance WinStar  X- Parties filing comments in the Texas PUC matter Comments  X- AT&T BellSouth  Xe-Century Cellunet, Inc. (Century Cellunet)  XN-Competitive Telecommunications Association(CompTel) Cox GTE  X -Houston Cellular Telephone Company q(HCTC)  X-Intelcom Group (U.S.A.), Inc. hhC(Intelcom) MCI MFS  X!-Nextel Communications, Inc. hhC(Nextel) PageNet  X#-Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)  Xh$-ProNet, Inc. ` ` (ProNet) SBC Sprint Spectrum Sprint "#'0*((%"ԌTeleport US West Vanguard  X- Reply Comments BellSouth CTIA MCI  X1-Omnipoint Communications, Inc.hhC (Omnipoint) ProNet SBC Sprint Teleport Texas Commission  X -Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel q(Texas Public Utility Counsel) U S WEST Vanguard  XK- Parties Filing Comments in CC Docket No. 95185 Arch Communications Group, Inc. AirTouch Communications PageNet   @A- B-@"0*(("  X-  |) APPENDIX B FINAL RULES  X-  X- \Parts 51 and 52 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:  X-  X-PART 51 INTERCONNECTION  Xv- 1.The authority citation for Part 51 is: AUTHORITY: Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C.  151, 152, 154, 155 unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply secs. 3, 4, 20105, 20709, 218, 2257, 2512, 271 and 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C.  153, 154, 20105, 20709, 218, 2257, 2512, 271 and 332 unless otherwise noted.  X -2.Section 51.5 is amended by adding the following definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows:  Xy-  51.5 Terms and definitions.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#  XK- * * * * *  X-Dialing Parity. The term "dialing parity" means that a person that is not an affiliate of a local exchange carrier is able to provide telecommunications services in such a manner that customers have the ability to route automatically, without the use of any access code, their telecommunications to the telecommunications service provider of the customer's designation from among 2 or more telecommunications service providers (including such local exchange carrier).   X~-Information services. The term "information services" means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.  X-Local Access and Transport Area (LATA). A "Local Access and Transport Area" is a contiguous geographic area (A) established before February 8, 1996 by a Bell operating company such that no exchange area includes points within more than 1 metropolitan statistical area, consolidated metropolitan statistical area, or State, except as expressly permitted under the AT&T Consent Decree; or (B) established or modified by a Bell  X#-operating company after February 8, 1996 and approved by the Commission.  Xn$-  XW%-Service provider. A "service provider" is a provider of telecommunications services or  XB&-a provider of information services.  "+'0*((%"Ԍ X-State. The term "state" includes the District of Columbia and the Territories and possessions.  X-  X-  Telecommunications service. The term "telecommunications service" refers to the  X-offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.  Xc-Telephone exchange service. A "telephone exchange service" is: (1) a service within a telephone exchange, or within a connected system of telephone exchanges within the same exchange area operated to furnish to subscribers intercommunicating service of the character ordinarily furnished by a single exchange, and which is covered by the exchange service charge, or (2) a comparable service provided through a system of switches, transmission equipment, or other facilities (or combination thereof) by which a subscriber can originate and terminate a telecommunications service.  X -Telephone toll service. The term "telephone toll service" refers to telephone service between stations in different exchange areas for which there is made a separate charge not included in contracts with subscribers for exchange service.  XS-Unreasonable dialing delay. For the same type of calls, dialing delay is "unreasonable" when the dialing delay experienced by the customer of a competing provider is greater than that experienced by a customer of the LEC providing dialing parity, or nondiscriminatory access to operator services or directory assistance.  X-3.A new section 51.205 is added to read as follows:  X-  X- 51.205 Dialing parity: general.  Xo- A local exchange carrier (LEC) shall provide local and toll dialing parity to competing providers of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service, with no unreasonable dialing delays. Dialing parity shall be provided for all originating telecommunications services that require dialing to route a call.  X-4.A new section 51.207 is added to read as follows:  X!-  51.207 Local dialing parity. A LEC shall permit telephone exchange service customers within a local calling area to dial the same number of digits to make a local telephone call notwithstanding the identity of the customer's or the called party's telecommunications service provider. "-'0*((%"Ԍ X-5.A new section 51.209 is added to read as follows:  X-  51.209 Toll dialing parity. (a) A LEC shall implement throughout each state in which it offers telephone exchange service intraLATA and interLATA toll dialing parity based on LATA boundaries. When a single LATA covers more than one state, the LEC shall use the implementation procedures that each state has approved for the LEC within that state's borders. (b) A LEC shall implement toll dialing parity through a presubscription process that permits a customer to select a carrier to which all designated calls on a customer's line will be routed automatically. LECs shall allow a customer to presubscribe, at a minimum, to one telecommunications carrier for all interLATA toll calls and to presubscribe to the same or to another telecommunications carrier for all intraLATA toll calls. (c) A LEC may not assign automatically a customer's intraLATA toll traffic to itself, to its subsidiaries or affiliates, to the customer's presubscribed interLATA or interstate toll carrier, or to any other carrier, except when, in a state that already has implemented intrastate, intraLATA toll dialing parity, the subscriber has selected the same presubscribed carrier for both intraLATA and interLATA toll calls. (d) Notwithstanding the requirements of subsections (a) and (b), states may require that toll dialing parity be based on state boundaries if it deems that the provision of intrastate and interstate toll dialing parity is procompetitive and otherwise in the public interest.  X-6.A new section 51.211 is added to read as follows:  X-  X|- 51.211 Toll dialing parity implementation schedule.  XN-(a)  A LEC that does not begin providing inregion, interLATA or inregion, interstate toll services in a state before February 8, 1999, must implement intraLATA and interLATA toll dialing parity throughout that state on February 8, 1999 or an earlier date as the state may determine, consistent with section 271(e)(2)(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to be in the public interest.  X -(b) A Bell Operating Company (BOC) that provides inregion, interLATA toll services in a state before February 8, 1999 shall provide intraLATA toll dialing parity throughout that state coincident with its provision of inregion, interLATA toll services.  Xh$-(c) A LEC that is not a BOC that begins providing inregion, interLATA or inregion,  XQ%-interstate toll services in a state before August 8, 1997, shall implement intraLATA and interLATA toll dialing parity throughout that state by August 8, 1997. If the LEC is unable to comply with the August 8, 1997 implementation deadline, the LEC must notify the"#'0*((%" Commission's Common Carrier Bureau by May 8, 1997. In the notification, the LEC must state its justification for noncompliance and must set forth the date by which it proposes to implement intraLATA and interLATA toll dialing parity. (d) A LEC that is not a BOC that begins providing inregion, interLATA or inregion, interstate toll services in a state on or after August 8, 1997, but before February 8, 1999 shall implement intraLATA and interLATA toll dialing parity throughout that state no later than the date on which it begins providing inregion, interLATA or inregion, interstate toll services. (e) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (a) (d) of this section, a LEC shall implement toll dialing parity under a state order as described below: ` ` (i) If the state issued a dialing parity order by December 19, 1995 requiring a BOC to implement toll dialing parity in advance of the dates established by these rules, the BOC must implement toll dialing parity in accordance with the implementation dates established by the state order. ` ` (ii) If the state issued a dialing parity order by August 8, 1996 requiring a LEC that is not a BOC to implement toll dialing parity in advance of the dates established by these rules, the LEC must implement toll dialing parity in accordance with the implementation dates established by the state order.  X-(f) For LECs that are not Bell Operating Companies, the term inregion, interLATA  X-toll service, as used in this section and  51.213, includes the provision of toll services outside of the LEC's study area.  X-7.A new section 51.213 is added to read as follows:  Xi-  XR- 51.213 Toll dialing parity implementation plans.   X&-(a) A LEC must file a plan for providing intraLATA toll dialing parity throughout each state in which it offers telephone exchange service. A LEC cannot offer intraLATA toll dialing parity within a state until the implementation plan has been approved by the appropriate state commission or the Commission.  X!-(b) A LEC's implementation plan must include:  X#-` ` (1) a proposal that explains how the LEC will offer intraLATA toll dialing parity for each exchange that the LEC operates in the state, in accordance with the provisions of this section, and a proposed time schedule for implementation; and "@&0*(($"Ԍ X-` ` (2)  a proposal for timely notification of its subscribers and the methods it proposes to use to enable subscribers to affirmatively select an intraLATA toll service provider. A LEC that is not a BOC also shall identify the LATA with which it will associate for the purposes of providing intraLATA and interLATA toll dialing parity under this subpart.  X_-(c) A LEC must file its implementation plan with the state commission for each state in which the LEC provides telephone exchange service, except that if a LEC determines that a state commission has elected not to review the plan or will not complete its review in sufficient time for the LEC to meet the toll dialing parity implementation deadlines in  51.211, the LEC must file its plan with the Commission: ` ` (1) no later than 180 days before the date on which the LEC will begin providing toll dialing parity in the state, or no later than 180 days before February 8, 1999, whichever occurs first; or ` ` (2) for LECs that begin providing inregion, interLATA or inregion, interstate  Xb-toll service (see  51.211(f)) before August 8, 1997, no later than 90 days after these rules are  XM-published in the Federal Register.   X-(d) The Commission will release a public notice of any LEC implementation plan that is filed with the Commission under paragraph (c) of this section. ` ` (1) The LEC's plan will be deemed approved on the fifteenth day following release of the Commission's public notice unless, no later than the fourteenth day following the release of the Commission's public notice, either ` `  (i) the Common Carrier Bureau notifies the LEC that its plan will not be deemed approved on the fifteenth day; or ` `  (ii) an opposition to the plan is filed with the Commission and served on the LEC that filed the plan. Such an opposition must state specific reasons why the LEC's plan does not serve the public interest. ` ` (2) If one or more oppositions are filed, the LEC that filed the plan will have  X -seven additional days (i.e., until no later than the twentyfirst day following the release of the Commission's public notice) within which to file a reply to the opposition(s) and serve it on all parties that filed an opposition. The response shall: ` `  (i) include information responsive to the allegations and concerns identified by the opposing party; and ">&0*(($"Ԍ` `  (ii) identify possible revisions to the plan that will address the opposing party's concerns. ` ` (3) If a LEC's plan is opposed under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, the Common Carrier Bureau will act on the plan within ninety days of the date on which the Commission released its public notice. In the event the Bureau fails to act within ninety days, the plan will not go into effect pending Bureau action. If the plan is not opposed, but it did not go into effect on the fifteenth day following the release of the Commission's public notice  XH-(see paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section), and the Common Carrier Bureau fails to act on the plan within ninety days of the date on which the Commission released its public notice, the plan will be deemed approved without further Commission action on the ninetyfirst day after the date on which the Commission released its public notice of the plan's filing.  X -8.A new section 51.215 is added to read as follows:  X -  X-  51.215 Dialing parity: cost recovery. q (a) A LEC may recover the incremental costs necessary for the implementation of toll dialing parity. The LEC must recover such costs from all providers of telephone exchange service and telephone toll service in the area served by the LEC, including that LEC. The LEC shall use a cost recovery mechanism established by the state. (b) Any cost recovery mechanism for the provision of toll dialing parity pursuant to this section that a state adopts must not: ` ` (1) give one service provider an appreciable cost advantage over another  X-service provider, when competing for a specific subscriber (i.e., the recovery mechanism may not have a disparate effect on the incremental costs of competing service providers seeking to serve the same customer); or ` ` (2) have a disparate effect on the ability of competing service providers to earn a normal return on their investment.  X-  X- 9.A new section 51.217 is added to read as follows:  X -  X!- "!0*(( "  51.217 Nondiscriminatory access: telephone numbers, operator services, directory assistance services, and directory listings.  X- (a) Definitions. As used in this section, the following definitions apply:  V-  X-` ` (1)  Competing provider. A "competing provider" is a provider of telephone exchange or telephone toll services that seeks nondiscriminatory access from a local exchange carrier (LEC) in that LEC's service area.  XJ-  X3-` ` (2)  Nondiscriminatory access. "Nondiscriminatory access" refers to access to  X -telephone numbers, operator services, directory assistance and directory listings that is at least equal to the access that the providing local exchange carrier (LEC) itself receives.  X -Nondiscriminatory access includes, but is not limited to: (i) nondiscrimination between and among carriers in the rates, terms, and conditions of the access provided; and (ii) the ability of the competing provider to obtain access that is at least equal in quality to that of the providing LEC.  X}-` ` (3)  Providing local exchange carrier (LEC). A "providing local exchange carrier" is a local exchange carrier (LEC) that is required to permit nondiscriminatory access to a competing provider.  X#-(b) General rule. A local exchange carrier (LEC) that provides operator services, directory assistance services or directory listings to its customers, or provides telephone numbers, shall permit competing providers of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service to have nondiscriminatory access to that service or feature, with no unreasonable dialing delays.  X-    X-(c) Specific requirements. A LEC subject to paragraph (b) of this section must also comply with the following requirements:  XX-` ` (1) Telephone numbers.  A LEC shall permit competing providers to have  XC-access to telephone numbers that is identical to the access that the LEC provides to itself.   X-` ` (2) Operator services. A LEC must permit telephone service customers to connect to the operator services offered by that customer's chosen local service provider by dialing "0," or "0" plus the desired telephone number, regardless of the identity of the customer's local telephone service provider.  X"-` ` (3) Directory assistance services and directory listings.   Xz$-` `  (i) Access to directory assistance. A LEC shall permit competing providers to have access to its directory assistance services so that any customer of a competing provider can obtain directory listings, except as provided in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of"N&0*(($" this section, on a nondiscriminatory basis, notwithstanding the identity of the customer's local service provider, or the identity of the provider for the customer whose listing is requested.  X-` `  (ii) Access to directory listings. A LEC shall provide directory listings to competing providers in readily accessible magnetic tape or electronic formats in a timely fashion upon request. A LEC also must permit competing providers to have access to and read the information in the LEC's directory assistance databases.  Xa-   XJ-  ` `  (iii) Unlisted numbers. A LEC shall not provide access to unlisted telephone numbers, or other information that its customer has asked the LEC not to make available. The LEC shall ensure that access is permitted only to the same directory information that is available to its own directory assistance customers.  X -` `  (iv) Adjuncts to services. Operator services and directory assistance services must be made available to competing providers in their entirety, including access to  X -any adjunct features (e.g., rating tables or customer information databases) necessary to allow  X-competing providers full use of these services.      X-  Xl-(d) Branding of operator services and directory assistance services. The refusal of a providing local exchange carrier (LEC) to comply with the reasonable request of a competing provider that the providing LEC rebrand its operator services and directory assistance, or remove its brand from such services, creates a presumption that the providing LEC is unlawfully restricting access to its operator services and directory assistance. The providing LEC can rebut this presumption by demonstrating that it lacks the capability to comply with the competing provider's request.  X-(e) Disputes.  X-` ` (1) Disputes involving nondiscriminatory access. In disputes involving nondiscriminatory access to operator services, directory assistance services, or directory listings, a providing LEC shall bear the burden of demonstrating with specificity: (i) that it is permitting nondiscriminatory access, and (ii) that any disparity in access is not caused by factors within its control. "Factors within its control" include, but are not limited to, physical facilities, staffing, the ordering of supplies or equipment, and maintenance.  X-` ` (2) Disputes involving unreasonable dialing delay. In disputes between providing local exchange carriers (LECs) and competing providers involving unreasonable dialing delay in the provision of access to operator services and directory assistance, the burden of proof is on the providing LEC to demonstrate with specificity that it is processing the calls of the competing provider's customers on terms equal to that of similar calls from the providing LEC's own customers. "5'0*((%"  X-10.Section 51.305 is revised by adding a new subsection (f) as follows:  X-  X-51.305 Interconnection. * * * * * (f) An incumbent LEC shall provide to a requesting telecommunications carrier technical information about the incumbent LEC's network facilities sufficient to allow the requesting carrier to achieve interconnection consistent with the requirements of this section.  X -11.Section 51.307 is revised by adding a new subsection (e) as follows:  X -  X -51.307 Duty to provide access on an unbundled basis to network elements. * * * * *  Xy- (e) An incumbent LEC shall provide to a requesting telecommunications carrier technical information about the incumbent LEC's network facilities sufficient to allow the requesting carrier to achieve access to unbundled network elements consistent with the requirements of this section.  X-12.A new section 51.325 is added to read as follows:  X-  51.325 Notice of network changes: public notice requirement.  X- (a) An incumbent local exchange carrier ("LEC") must provide public notice regarding any network change that: ` ` (1) will affect a competing service provider's performance or ability to provide service; or ` ` (2) will affect the incumbent LEC's interoperability with other service providers.  X -(b) For purposes of this section, interoperability means the ability of two or more facilities, or networks, to be connected, to exchange information, and to use the information that has been exchanged. (c) Until public notice has been given in accordance with  51.325 51.335, an incumbent LEC may not disclose to separate affiliates, separated affiliates, or unaffiliated entities (including actual or potential competing service providers or competitors), information about planned network changes that are subject to this section."%'0*((%"Ԍ X-ԙ(d) For the purposes of  51.325 51.335, the term services means telecommunications services or information services.  X-13. A new section 51.327 is added to read as follows:  Xx- 51.327 Notice of network changes: content of notice .  XJ- (a) Public notice of planned network changes must, at a minimum, include: ` ` (1) the carrier's name and address; ` ` (2) the name and telephone number of a contact person who can supply additional information regarding the planned changes; ` ` (3) the implementation date of the planned changes; ` ` (4) the location(s) at which the changes will occur; ` ` (5) a description of the type of changes planned (Information provided to satisfy this requirement must include, as applicable, but is not limited to, references to technical specifications, protocols, and standards regarding transmission, signaling, routing, and facility assignment as well as references to technical standards that would be applicable to any new technologies or equipment, or that may otherwise affect interconnection); and ` ` (6) a description of the reasonably foreseeable impact of the planned changes. (b) The incumbent LEC also shall follow, as necessary, procedures relating to confidential or proprietary information contained in 51.335.  X9-14.A new section 51.329 is added to read as follows:  X - 51.329 Notice of network changes: methods for providing notice. (a) In providing the required notice to the public of network changes, an incumbent LEC may use one of the following methods: ` ` (1) filing a public notice with the Commission; or ` ` (2) providing public notice through industry fora, industry publications, or the carrier's publicly accessible Internet site. If an incumbent LEC uses any of the methods  X<&-specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, it also must file a certification with the Commission that includes: "%'0*((%"Ԍ` `  (i) a statement that identifies the proposed changes; ` `  (ii) a statement that public notice has been given in compliance with  51.325 51.335; and ` `  (iii) a statement identifying the location of the change information and describing how this information can be obtained. (b) Until the planned change is implemented, an incumbent LEC must keep the notice available for public inspection, and amend the notice to keep the information complete, accurate and uptodate.  X -(c) Specific filing requirements. Commission filings under this section must be made as follows: ` ` (1) The public notice or certification must be labeled with one of the following titles, as appropriate: "Public Notice of Network Change Under Rule 51.329(a)," "Certification of Public Notice of Network Change Under Rule 51.329(a)," "Short Term Public Notice Under Rule 51.333(a)," or "Certification of Short Term Public Notice Under Rule 51.333(a)."  X-` ` (2) Two paper copies of the incumbent LEC's public notice or certification,  X-required under paragraph (a) of this section, must be sent to "Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554." The date on which this filing is received by the Secretary is considered the official filing date. ` ` (3) In addition, one paper copy and one diskette copy must be sent to the "Chief, Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554." The diskette copy must be on a standard 3 inch diskette, formatted in IBMcompatible format to be readable by high-density floppy drives operating under MS DOS 5.X or later compatible versions, and shall be in a wordprocessing format designated, from timetotime, in public notices released by the Network Services Division. The diskette must be submitted in "read only" mode, and must be clearly labeled with the carrier's name, the filing date, and an identification of the diskette's contents.  X -15.A new section 51.331 is added to read as follows:  X"- 51.331 Notice of network changes: timing of notice. (a) An incumbent LEC shall give public notice of planned changes at the make/buy point, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, but at least 12 months before implementation, except as provided below. "%'0*((%"Ԍ` ` (1) If the changes can be implemented within twelve months of the make/buy point, public notice must be given at the make/buy point, but at least six months before implementation. ` ` (2) If the changes can be implemented within six months of the make/buy point, public notice may be given pursuant to the short term notice procedures provided in 51.333.  XH-(b) For purposes of this section, the make/buy point is the time at which an incumbent LEC decides to make for itself, or to procure from another entity, any product the design of which affects or relies on a new or changed network interface. If an incumbent LEC's planned changes do not require it to make or to procure a product, then the make/buy point is the point at which the incumbent LEC makes a definite decision to implement a network change.  X -` ` (1) For purposes of this section, a product is any hardware or software for use in an incumbent LEC's network or in conjunction with its facilities that, when installed, could affect the compatibility of an interconnected service provider's network, facilities or services with an incumbent LEC's existing telephone network, facilities or services, or with any of an incumbent carrier's services or capabilities.  X!-` ` (2) For purposes of this section a definite decision is reached when an incumbent LEC determines that the change is warranted, establishes a timetable for anticipated implementation, and takes any action toward implementation of the change within its network.  X-   X-16.A new section 51.333 is added to read as follows:  X-  X-51.333 Notice of network changes: short term notice.  XT-(a) Certificate of service. If an incumbent LEC wishes to provide less than six  X?-months notice of planned network changes, the public notice or certification that it files with  X(-the Commission must include a certificate of service in addition to the information required by 51.327(a) or 51.329(a)(2), as applicable. The certificate of service shall include: ` ` (1) a statement that, at least five business days in advance of its filing with the Commission, the incumbent LEC served a copy of its public notice upon each telephone exchange service provider that directly interconnects with the incumbent LEC's network; and ` ` (2) the name and address of each such telephone exchange service provider upon which the notice was served.  XB&-(b) Implementation date. The Commission will release a public notice of such short term notice filings. Short term notices shall be deemed final on the tenth business day after"-'0*((%" the release of the Commission's public notice, unless an objection is filed, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.  X-(c) Objection procedures. An objection to an incumbent LEC's short term notice may be filed by an information service provider or telecommunication service provider that directly interconnects with the incumbent LEC's network. Such objections must be filed with the Commission, and served on the incumbent LEC, no later than the ninth business day  Xa-following the release of the Commission's public notice. All objections to an incumbent LEC's short term notice must: ` ` (1) state specific reasons why the objector cannot accommodate the incumbent LEC's changes by the date stated in the incumbent LEC's public notice and must indicate any specific technical information or other assistance required that would enable the objector to accommodate those changes; ` ` (2) list steps the objector is taking to accommodate the incumbent LEC's changes on an expedited basis; ` ` (3) state the earliest possible date (not to exceed six months from the date the incumbent LEC gave its original public notice under this section) by which the objector anticipates that it can accommodate the incumbent LEC's changes, assuming it receives the technical information or other assistance requested under paragraph (c)(1) of this section; ` ` (4) provide any other information relevant to the objection; and ` ` (5) provide the following affidavit, executed by the objector's president, chief executive officer, or other corporate officer or official, who has appropriate authority to bind the corporation, and knowledge of the details of the objector's inability to adjust its network on a timely basis:  XP-X"I, (name and title), under oath and subject to penalty for perjury, certify that I have read this objection, that the statements contained in it are true, that there is good ground to support the objection, and that it is not interposed for purposes of delay. I  X -have appropriate authority to make this certification on behalf of (objector) and I agree to provide any information the Commission may request to allow the Commission to evaluate the truthfulness and validity of the statements contained in this objection."(#  X!-(d) Response to objections. If an objection is filed, an incumbent LEC shall have until no later than the fourteenth business day following the release of the Commission's public notice to file with the Commission a response to the objection and to serve the response on all parties that filed objections. An incumbent LEC's response must: ` ` (1) provide information responsive to the allegations and concerns identified by the objectors;"+'0*((%"Ԍ` ` (2) state whether the implementation date(s) proposed by the objector(s) are acceptable; ` ` (3) indicate any specific technical assistance that the incumbent LEC is willing to give to the objectors; and ` ` (4) provide any other relevant information. ` `  XH-(e) Resolution. If an objection is filed pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, then the Chief, Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau, will issue an order  X -determining a reasonable public notice period, provided however, that if an incumbent LEC does not file a response within the time period allotted, or if the incumbent LEC's response  X -accepts the latest implementation date stated by an objector, then the incumbent LEC's public notice shall be deemed amended to specify the implementation date requested by the objector, without further Commission action. An incumbent LEC must amend its public notice to reflect any change in the applicable implementation date pursuant to  51.329(b).  Xf-17.A new section 51.335 is added to read as follows:  X8- 51.335 Notice of network changes: confidential or proprietary information .  X -(a) If an incumbent LEC claims that information otherwise required to be disclosed is confidential or proprietary, the incumbent LEC's public notice must include, in addition to the information identified in 51.327(a), a statement that the incumbent LEC will make further information available to those signing a nondisclosure agreement.  X-(b) Tolling the public notice period. Upon receipt by an incumbent LEC of a competing service provider's request for disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, the applicable public notice period will be tolled until the parties agree on the terms of a  XT-nondisclosure agreement. An incumbent LEC receiving such a request must amend its public notice as follows: ` ` (1) on the date it receives a request from a competing service provider for disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, to state that the notice period is tolled; and ` ` (2) on the date the nondisclosure agreement is finalized, to specify a new implementation date.  XW%- "W%0*(( $"  X-PART 52 NUMBERING  X-18.The authority citation for Part 52 is amended to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C.  151, 152, 154, 155 unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply secs. 3, 4, 20105, 20709, 218, 2257, 2512, 271 and 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C.  153, 154, 20105, 20709, 218, 2257, 2512, 271 and 332 unless otherwise noted.  X -19.The table of contents for Part 52 is amended to read as follows:  X - Subpart A Scope and Authority  X - 52.1` ` Basis and purpose.(#`  X - 52.3` ` General.(#`  X- 52.5` ` Definitions.  Xb- Subpart B Administration  X4- 52.7` ` Definitions.(#  X- 52.9XX` ` General requirements. (#`  X-  52.11` ` North American Numbering Council.  X-  52.13` ` North American Numbering Plan Administrator.  X-  52.15` ` Central office code administration.  X-  52.17` ` Costs of number administration.  X-  52.19` ` Area code relief.  X|- Subpart C Number Portability  XN- 52.21` ` Definitions.(#`  X7- 52.23` ` Deployment of longterm database methods for number portability by LECs.(#`  X - 52.25` ` Database architecture and administration.(#`  X- 52.27` ` Deployment of transitional measures for number portability.(#`  X- 52.29` ` Cost recovery for transitional measures for number portability.(#`  X - 52.31` ` Deployment of longterm database methods for number portability by CMRS providers.(#`  X"- 52.32 52.99  [Reserved] (#  XQ%-20.Subpart A is added to Part 52 to read as follows: ":&0*(($"Ԍ X- Subpart A Scope and Authority.\  52.1 Basis and purpose.  X-  X-(a) Basis. These rules are issued pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as  X-amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 et. seq.  Xc-(b) Purpose. The purpose of these rules is to establish, for the United States, requirements and conditions for the administration and use of telecommunications numbers for provision of telecommunications services.  X -  52.3 General. The Commission shall have exclusive authority over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) that pertain to the United States. The Commission may delegate to the States or other entities any portion of such jurisdiction.  X-  52.5 Definitions.  Xh- As used in this Part:  X:-  X#-(a) Incumbent local exchange carrier. With respect to an area, an "incumbent local exchange carrier" is a local exchange carrier that (1) on February8, 1996, provided telephone exchange service in such area; and (2) (i) on February8, 1996, was deemed to be a member of the exchange carrier association pursuant to  69.601(b) of this chapter (47CFR69.601(b)); or (ii) is a person or entity that, on or after February8, 1996, became a successor or assign of a member described in clause(i).  X-(b) North American Numbering Council (NANC). The "North American Numbering Council" is an advisory committee created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App (1988), to advise the Commission and to make recommendations, reached through consensus, that foster efficient and impartial number administration.  X-(c) North American Numbering Plan (NANP). The "North American Numbering  X-Plan" is the basic numbering scheme for the telecommunications networks located in Anguilla, Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Turks & Caicos Islands, Trinidad & Tobago, and the United States (including Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands).  X]%-(d) State. The term "state" includes the District of Columbia and the Territories and possessions. "1'0*((%"Ԍ X-(e) State commission. The term "state commission" means the commission, board, or official (by whatever name designated) which under the laws of any state has regulatory jurisdiction with respect to intrastate operations of carriers.   X-(f) Telecommunications. "Telecommunications" means the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.  XL-(g) Telecommunications carrier. A "telecommunications carrier" is any provider of telecommunications services, except that such term does not include aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined in 47U.S.C.226(a)(2)).  X -(h) Telecommunications service. The term "telecommunications service" refers to the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.  X-21.In part 52, subpart B is redesignated as subpart C, and  52.1 through 52.12 are redesignated as  52.21 through 52.31; a new subpart B is added as follows:  X<- 0Subpart B#XP\  P6QynXP# Administration #XP\  P6QynXP# à  X- 52.7 Definitions. As used in this subpart:  X-(a) Area code or numbering plan area (NPA). The term "area code or numbering  X-plan area" refers to the first three digits (NXX) of a tendigit telephone number in the form NXXNXXXXXX, where N represents any one of the numbers 2 through 9 and X represents any one of the numbers 0 through 9.  XA-(b) Area code relief. The term "area code relief" refers to the process by which central office codes are made available when there are few or no unassigned central office codes remaining in an existing area code and a new area code is introduced.  X-(c) Central office (CO) code. The term "central office code" refers to the second three digits (NXX) of a tendigit telephone number in the form NXXNXXXXXX, where N represents any one of the numbers 2 through 9 and X represents any one of the numbers 0 through 9.  X#-  Xv$-(d) Central office (CO) code administrator. The term "central office code  Xa%-administrator" refers to the entity or entities responsible for managing central office codes in each area code. "3'0*((%"Ԍ X-(e) North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA). The term "North American Numbering Plan Administrator" refers to the entity or entities responsible for managing the NANP.  X-  X- 52.9 General requirements. (a) To ensure that telecommunications numbers are made available on an equitable basis, the administration of telecommunications numbers shall, in addition to the specific requirements set forth in this subpart: ` ` (1) facilitate entry into the telecommunications marketplace by making telecommunications numbering resources available on an efficient, timely basis to telecommunications carriers; ` ` (2) not unduly favor or disfavor any particular telecommunications industry segment or group of telecommunications consumers; and ` ` (3) not unduly favor one telecommunications technology over another. (b) If the Commission delegates any telecommunications numbering administration functions to any State or other entity pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1), such State or entity shall perform these functions in a manner consistent with this part.  X-  X- 52.11 North American Numbering Council.  X-The duties of the North American Numbering Council (NANC), may include, but are not limited to: (a) advising the Commission on policy matters relating to the administration of the NANP in the United States; (b) making recommendations, reached through consensus, that foster efficient and impartial number administration; (c) initially resolving disputes, through consensus, pertaining to number administration in the United States; (d) recommending to the Commission an appropriate entity to serve as the NANPA; (e) recommending to the Commission an appropriate mechanism for recovering the costs of NANP administration in the United States, consistent with  52.17; (f) carrying out the duties described in  52.25; and "%'0*((%"Ԍ(g) carrying out this part as directed by the Commission.  X-  52.13 North American Numbering Plan Administrator. (a) The North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) shall be an independent and impartial nongovernment entity. (b) The duties of the NANPA shall include, but are not limited to:  ` ` (1) ensuring that the interests of all NANP member countries are considered; ` ` (2) processing number assignment applications associated with, but not limited to: area codes, N11 codes, carrier identification codes (CICs), "500" central office codes, "900"central office codes, "456" central office codes, Signalling System 7 network codes, and Automatic Number Identification Integration Integers (ANI II); ` ` (3) assigning the numbers and codes described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section; ` ` (4) maintaining and monitoring administrative number databases; ` ` (5) assuming additional telecommunications number administration activities, as assigned; and ` ` (6) ensuring that any action taken with respect to number administration is consistent with this Part.  X-  52.15 Central office code administration. (a) Central Office Code Administration shall be performed by the NANPA, or another entity or entities, as designated by the Commission. (b) Duties of the entity or entities performing central office code administration may include, but are not limited to: ` ` (1) processing central office code assignment applications and assigning such codes in a manner that is consistent with this Part; ` ` (2) accessing and maintaining central office code assignment databases; ` ` (3) contributing to the CO Code Use Survey (COCUS), an annual survey that describes the present and projected use of CO codes for each NPA in the NANP; ":&0*(($"Ԍ` ` (4) monitoring the use of central office codes within each area code and forecasting the date by which all central office codes within that area code will be assigned; and ` ` (5) planning for and initiating area code relief, consistent with  52.19. (c) Any telecommunications carrier performing central office code administration: ` ` (1) shall not charge fees for the assignment or use of central office codes to other telecommunications carriers, including paging and CMRS providers, unless the telecommunications carrier assigning the central office code charges one uniform fee for all carriers, including itself and its affiliates; and ` ` (2) shall, consistent with this subpart, apply identical standards and procedures for processing all central office code assignment requests, and for assigning such codes, regardless of the identity of the telecommunications carrier making the request.  Xy-  52.17 Costs of number administration. All telecommunications carriers in the United States shall contribute on a competitively neutral basis to meet the costs of establishing numbering administration. (a) For each telecommunications carrier, such contributions shall be based on the gross revenues from the provision of its telecommunications services. (b) The contributions in paragraph (a) of this section shall be based on each contributor's gross revenues from its provision of telecommunications services reduced by all payments for telecommunications services and facilities that have been paid to other telecommunications carriers.  XN-  52.19 Area code relief. (a) State commissions may resolve matters involving the introduction of new area codes within their states. Such matters may include, but are not limited to: directing whether area code relief will take the form of a geographic split, an overlay area code, or a boundary realignment; establishing new area code boundaries; establishing necessary dates for the  X -implementation of area code relief plans; and directing public education and notification efforts regarding area code changes. (b) State commissions may perform any or all functions related to initiation and development of area code relief plans, so long as they act consistently with the guidelines enumerated in this part, and subject to paragraph (b)(2) of this section. For the purposes of this paragraph, initiation and development of area code relief planning encompasses all functions related to the implementation of new area codes that were performed by central"#'0*((%" office code administrators prior to February 8, 1996. Such functions may include: declaring that the area code relief planning process should begin; convening and conducting meetings to which the telecommunications industry and the public are invited on area code relief for a particular area code; and developing the details of a proposed area code relief plan or plans. ` ` (1) The entity or entities designated by the Commission to serve as central office code administrator(s) shall initiate and develop area code relief plans for each area code in each state that has not notified such entity or entities, pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section, that the state will handle such functions. ` ` (2) Pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a state commission must notify the entity or entities designated by the Commission to serve as central office code administrator(s) for its state that such state commission intends to perform matters related to initiation and development of area code relief planning efforts in its state. Notification shall be written and shall include a description of the specific functions the state commission intends to perform. Where the NANP Administrator serves as the central office code administrator, such notification must be made within 120 days of the selection of the NANP Administrator. (c) New area codes may be introduced through the use of:  X-` ` (1) a geographic area code split, which occurs when the geographic area served by an area code in which there are few or no central office codes left for assignment is split into two or more geographic parts; ` ` (2) an area code boundary realignment, which occurs when the boundary lines between two adjacent area codes are shifted to allow the transfer of some central office codes from an area code for which central office codes remain unassigned to an area code for which few or no central office codes are left for assignment; or ` ` (3) an area code overlay, which occurs when a new area code is introduced to serve the same geographic area as an existing area code, subject to the following conditions:  ` `  (i) No area code overlay may be implemented unless all central office codes in the new overlay area code are assigned to those entities requesting assignment on a firstcome, firstserve basis, regardless of the identity of, technology used by, or type of service provided by that entity. No group of telecommunications carriers shall be excluded from assignment of central office codes in the existing area code, or be assigned such codes only from the overlay area code, based solely on that group's provision of a specific type of telecommunications service or use of a particular technology;  ` `  (ii) No area code overlay may be implemented unless there exists, at the time of implementation, mandatory tendigit dialing for every telephone call within and between all area codes in the geographic area covered by the overlay area code; and"#'0*((%"Ԍ` `  (iii) No area code overlay may be implemented unless every telecommunications carrier, including CMRS providers, authorized to provide telephone exchange service, exchange access, or paging service in that NPA 90 days before introduction of the new overlay area code, is assigned during that 90 day period at least one central office code in the existing area code.  X_-22.Subpart C is added to read as follows:  XH-  X1-"G Subpart C Number Portability #XP\  P6QynXP#   X -\ **` ` * **  X -  52.1 through 52.12 [Redesignated]  X-23.Sections 52.1 through 52.12 are redesignated as follows:  Xb- Old section ` `   New section  XK-52.1` `  52.21  X4-52.3` `  52.23  X-52.5` `  52.25hhC  X-52.7` `  52.27hhC  X-52.9` `  52.29hhC  X-52.11` `  52.31hhC  X-52.12 52.99` ` [Reserved]52.32 52.99q[Reserved]  X|-24.Paragraphs (f), (l), (s), (t) and (u) of section 52.21 are removed and redesignated respectively as paragraphs (a), (b), (f), (g) and (h) of section 52.5. The remaining paragraphs of section 52.21 are redesignated in alphabetical order to read (a) (q).