*Pages 1--18 from Microsoft Word - 11127.doc* Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of Numbering Resource Optimization Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Expedited Petition for Additional Authority Michigan Public Service Commission Petition for Additional Delegated Authority to Implement Number Conservation Measures Petition of the North Carolina Utilities Commission for Additional Delegated Authority to Implement Number Optimization Measures, CC Docket No. 96- 98 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 99- 200 CC Docket No. 96- 98 NSD- L- 01- 35 NSD- L- 01- 36 NSD- L- 01- 75 ORDER Adopted: August 23, 2001 Released: August 24, 2001 By the Common Carrier Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This Order addresses the petitions for additional delegated authority to implement numbering resource optimization strategies filed by the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (Connecticut Commission), 1 the Michigan Public Service Commission (Michigan Commission), 2 and the North Carolina Utilities Commission (North Carolina Commission). 3 1 Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Expedited Petition for Additional Authority, filed January 10, 2001 (Connecticut Commission Petition). 2 Michigan Public Service Commission Petition for Additional Delegated Authority to Implement Number Conservation Measures, filed January 30, 2001 (Michigan Commission Petition). 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 2 2. In this Order, we conditionally grant the Michigan Commission the authority to institute thousands- block number pooling trials in the 248, 313, 616 and 734 NPA. We also conditionally grant thousands- block number pooling authority in the 810 NPA, but only after the Michigan Commission fully implements area code relief in the 810 NPA. Additionally, we conditionally grant the North Carolina Commission the authority to implement thousands- block number pooling in the 336 NPA. The thousands- block number pooling trials for these NPAs, however, must be initiated prior to the commencement of national pooling, which is currently scheduled for March 2002. 4 We deny the Michigan Commission the authority to implement thousands- block number pooling in the 517 NPA. We further conditionally grant the Michigan Commission the authority to maintain rationing six months following the implementation of area code relief. We also conditionally grant the Connecticut Commission the authority to hear and address claims of carriers seeking numbering resources outside of the rationing process. 3. The Michigan Commission also requests the authority to order sequential number assignments. 5 Because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, 6 already mandated sequential numbering for all carriers using numbering resources, we dismiss this aspect of the petition as moot. 7 4. In the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, released on March 31, 2000, and the Numbering Resource Optimization Second Report and Order, released on December 29, 2000 8 (collectively referred to as Numbering Resource Optimization Orders), the FCC adopted a number of administrative and technical measures that will allow it to monitor more closely the way numbering resources are used within the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) as well as to promote more efficient use of NANP numbering resources. In the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, the FCC recognized that state commissions may be able to resolve certain issues more quickly and decisively than the industry through a consensus process. Thus, the FCC granted authority to state commissions to, among other things, order the NANPA, after an investigation, to reclaim carriers’ NXX codes not activated within the permitted time period. 9 (Continued from previous page) 3 See Letter from Jo Anne Sanford, North Carolina Commission, to Magalie R. Salas, FCC, dated October 10, 2000 (North Carolina Commission Petition). 4 See Federal Communications Commission’s Common Carrier Bureau Selects NeuStar, Inc. as National Thousands- Block Number Pooling Administrator, Press Release (rel. June 18, 2001) (Pooling Administrator Press Release). 5 Michigan Commission Petition at 1. 6 Numbering Resource Optimization, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 7574, 7678- 7885 (2000) (Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order). 7 We note that the Michigan Commission, in its reply comments, withdrew its request for delegated authority to order sequential numbering. See Michigan Commission Reply Comments at 2. 8 Numbering Resource Optimization, Second Report and Order in CC Docket No. 99- 200, Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96- 98, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99- 200, 16 FCC Rcd 305 (rel. Dec. 29, 2000) (Numbering Resource Optimization Second Report and Order). 9 Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7680- 82. 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 3 5. The FCC also reiterated in that Order that previous state delegations of authority to implement number conservation measures were interim in nature and were to be superseded by national numbering conservation strategies adopted in the Numbering Resource Optimization Orders. 10 Although we grant the above state commissions interim authority to institute certain optimization measures in their petitions, this limited grant of delegated authority should not be construed as a prejudgment of any of the remaining numbering resource optimization measures on which the FCC has sought public comment in the Numbering Resource Optimization proceeding. 11 Moreover, the state commissions receiving new delegations of thousands- block number pooling authority in this Order must conform to the national framework as articulated in the Numbering Resource Optimization Orders. II. BACKGROUND 6. Congress granted the FCC plenary jurisdiction over numbering administration. 12 Section 251( e)( 1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), allows the FCC to delegate to state commissions or other entities all or any portion of its jurisdiction over numbering administration. 13 The FCC’s regulations generally require that numbering administration: (1) facilitate entry into the telecommunications marketplace by making numbering resources available on an efficient and timely basis to telecommunications carriers; (2) not unduly favor or disfavor any particular industry segment or group of telecommunications consumers; and (3) not unduly favor one telecommunications technology over another. 14 Moreover, if the FCC delegates any telecommunications numbering administration functions to any state or other entity, the state or entity must perform those functions in a manner consistent with these general requirements. 15 7. On September 28, 1998, the FCC released the Pennsylvania Numbering Order in which it delegated authority to state commissions to order NXX code rationing in conjunction with area code relief decisions, in the absence of industry consensus. 16 In that Order, the FCC also encouraged state commissions to seek further limited delegations of authority to implement number conservation 10 Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7581. 11 See Numbering Resource Optimization, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 10322 (1999) (Numbering Resource Optimization Notice); Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order; see also Numbering Resource Optimization Second Report and Order. 12 47 U. S. C. § 251( e). 13 Id. at § 251( e)( 1). 14 47 C. F. R. § 52.9( a). 15 Id. at § 52.9( b). 16 Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Request for Expedited Action on the July 15, 1997 Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Regarding Area Codes 412, 610, 215, and 717, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 19009, 19025 (1998) (Pennsylvania Numbering Order); see also Numbering Resource Optimization Second Report and Order 16 FCC Rcd at 341- 343 (addressing petitions for clarification and reconsideration that were filed in response to the Pennsylvania Numbering Order). 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 4 measures. 17 In September 1999, the FCC addressed five petitions from state commissions seeking delegations of authority to implement number conservation measures, 18 and, in November 1999, the Bureau addressed five similar petitions from state commissions under delegated authority. 19 Although these orders granted the state commissions interim authority to institute many of the optimization measures they requested in their petitions, they did so subject to the caveat that the grants were to be superseded by national number conservation measures adopted in the FCC’s Numbering Resource Optimization proceeding. 20 In the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, the FCC delegated to the Bureau the authority to rule on state petitions for additional delegation of numbering authority when no new issues are raised. 21 The Bureau subsequently released orders on July 20, 2000, February 14, 2001, and March 14, 2001 addressing fifteen state commissions’ petitions, four state commissions’ petitions, and seven state commissions’ petitions, respectively, for additional delegated authority. 22 Because the requests in the instant petitions raise no new issues, the Bureau exercises its delegated authority to address these petitions herein. 17 Id. at 19030. 18 See California Public Utilities Commission Petition for Delegation of Additional Authority Pertaining to Area Code Relief and NXX Code Conservation Measures, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17485 (1999) (California Delegation Order); Florida Public Service Commission Petition for Expedited Decision for Grant of Authority to Implement Number Conservation Measures, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17506 (1999) (Florida Delegation Order); Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy Petition for Waiver of Section 52.19 to Implement Various Area Code Conservation Methods in the 508, 617, 781, and 978 Area Codes, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17447 (1999) (Massachusetts Delegation Order); New York State Department of Public Service Petition for Additional Delegated Authority to Implement Number Conservation Measures, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17467 (1999) (New York Delegation Order); Maine Public Utilities Commission Petition for Additional Delegated Authority to Implement Number Conservation Measures, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 16440 (1999) (Maine Delegation Order). 19 See Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Petition for Delegation of Additional Authority to Implement Area Code Conservation Measures, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 1240 (1999) (Connecticut Delegation Order); New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission’s Petition for Additional Delegated Authority to Implement Number Optimization Measures in the 603 Area Code, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 1252 (1999) (New Hampshire Delegation Order); Petition of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission for Delegation of Additional Authority to Implement Number Conservation Measures, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 1268 (1999) (Ohio Delegation Order); Petition of the Public Utility Commission of Texas for Expedited Decision for Authority to Implement Number Conservation Measures, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 1285 (1999) (Texas Delegation Order); Petition of the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin for Delegation of Additional Authority to Implement Number Conservation Measures, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 1299 (1999) (Wisconsin Delegation Order). 20 See Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7581; see also California Delegation Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 17486; Connecticut Delegation Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 1240- 41; Florida Delegation Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 17506; Maine Delegation Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 16440; Massachusetts Delegation Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 17447; New Hampshire Delegation Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 1252; New York Delegation Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 17468; Ohio Delegation Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 1268; Texas Delegation Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 1285; Wisconsin Delegation Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 1299. 21 Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7651- 52; see also Pennsylvania Numbering Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 19030- 31. 22 Numbering Resource Optimization, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 23371, DA 00- 1616 (rel. July 20, 2000); Numbering Resource Optimization, Order, 16 FCC Rcd 3479, DA 01- 386 (rel. Feb. 14, 2001); Numbering Resource Optimization, Order, 16 FCC Rcd 5474, DA 01- 656 (rel. Mar. 14, 2001). 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 5 III. DISCUSSION 8. Numbering resource optimization measures are necessary to address the considerable burdens imposed on society by the inefficient use of numbers. Thus, the FCC and the Bureau have enlisted the state commissions to assist in these efforts by delegating significant authority to them to implement certain measures within their local jurisdictions. Although we grant authority below to the state commissions to deploy various numbering resource optimization strategies in their states, we require the state commissions to abide by the same general requirements that the FCC and the Bureau have imposed on the other state commissions that have already received delegated authority to implement conservation measures. Thus, the state commissions, to the extent that they act under the authority delegated herein, must ensure that numbers are made available on an equitable basis; that numbering resources are made available on an efficient and timely basis; that whatever policies the state commissions institute with regard to numbering administration not unduly favor or disfavor any particular telecommunications industry segment or group of telecommunications consumers; and that the state commissions not unduly favor one telecommunications technology over another. 23 9. Although the FCC has not mandated rate center consolidation in its Numbering Resource Optimization Orders, we believe that rate center consolidation is an attractive numbering resource optimization measure because it enables carriers to use fewer NXX codes and thousands-blocks to provide service throughout a region, thereby reducing the demand for NXX codes and thousands- blocks, improving number utilization, and prolonging the life of an area code. 24 We therefore strongly encourage the state commissions to proceed as expeditiously as possible to consolidate rate centers. 10. The grants of authority herein are not intended to allow the state commissions to engage in number conservation measures to the exclusion of, or as a substitute for, unavoidable and timely area code relief. 25 Although we are giving the state commissions tools that may help to prolong the lives of existing area codes, the state commissions continue to bear the obligation of implementing area code relief when necessary, and we expect the state commissions to fulfill this obligation in a timely manner. Under no circumstances should consumers be precluded from receiving telecommunications services of their choice from providers of their choice for want of numbering resources. For consumers to benefit from the competition envisioned by the 1996 Act, it is imperative that competitors in the telecommunications marketplace face as few barriers to entry as possible. If state commissions do not fulfill these obligations in a timely manner, we may be compelled to reconsider the authority delegated to them herein. A. Thousands- Block Number Pooling Authority 11. Thousands- block number pooling involves the allocation of blocks of 1,000 sequential 23 See 47 C. F. R. § 52.9( a); see also 47 U. S. C. § 251( e)( 1). 24 Numbering Resource Optimization Second Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 311- 12. 25 Pennsylvania Numbering Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 19027. 5 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 6 telephone numbers within the same central office code or NXX code 26 to different service providers. In the Pennsylvania Numbering Order, the FCC recognized that state number pooling trials could aid in developing national pooling implementation, architecture and administrative standards. 27 In the Numbering Resource Optimization Notice, the FCC concluded that thousands- block number pooling is an important numbering resource optimization strategy, essential to extending the life of the NANP. 28 As a result, in prior state delegation orders, the FCC granted state commissions the authority to implement thousands- block number pooling trials. 29 12. With the release of the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, the FCC adopted a nationwide system for allocating numbers in blocks of 1,000, rather than 10,000, wherever possible, and announced its intention to establish a plan for national rollout of thousands-block number pooling. The FCC determined that national thousands- block number pooling implementation will occur within nine months after the selection of a thousands- block number Pooling Administrator. The FCC stated that the existing delegations of authority to state commissions to implement thousands- block number pooling trials will continue until national thousands- block number pooling implementation occurs, and adopted a deadline for state commissions to bring their state trials into conformity with the national thousands- block number pooling framework. 30 Because the FCC recognized that thousands- block number pooling trials already underway may not conform to the national standards set forth in the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, the FCC gave state commissions until September 1, 2000, at the latest, to conform their thousands- block number pooling trials with the national framework. In response to petitions filed by the California and Maine Commissions seeking a waiver of the requirement that states conform their thousands- block number pooling trials to the FCC’s national pooling framework by September 1, 2000, 31 the FCC granted the California and Maine Commissions a stay of the requirement to comply with the national pooling framework until December 31, 2000 or until the FCC ruled on the merits of the petitions, whichever date was sooner. 32 In the Numbering Resource Optimization Second Report and Order, the FCC granted the primary relief sought in the California and Maine Commission Petitions by allowing states the option of maintaining a utilization threshold that is higher than the national level. 33 26 “Central office code” or “NXX code” refers to the second three digits (also called digits D- E- F) of a ten- digit telephone number in the form NPA- NXX- XXXX, where N represents any one of the numbers 2 through 9 and X represents any one of the numbers 0 through 9. 47 C. F. R. § 52.7( c). 27 Pennsylvania Numbering Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 19027. 28 Numbering Resource Optimization Notice, 14 FCC Rcd at 10383- 84. 29 See, e. g., Numbering Resource Optimization, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 23371 (2000). 30 See Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7651- 7658. 31 California Public Utilities Commission and the People of the State of California Petition for Waiver, NSD File No. L- 00- 185 (filed August 9, 2000); Maine Public Utilities Commission Petition for Waiver, NSD File No. L- 00- 186 (filed August 21, 2000) (collectively referred to as California and Maine Commission Petitions). 32 See Numbering Resource Optimization, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 17128, 17130 (rel. Aug. 31, 2000). 33 Numbering Resource Optimization Second Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 327. 6 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 7 1. General Delegation 13. The parties to these proceedings raise issues similar to those that the FCC addressed in its prior state delegation orders and in the Numbering Resource Optimization Orders. Because no new issues have been raised, we continue to exercise our delegated authority, at the Bureau level, to grant state commissions authority to implement thousands- block number pooling trials. In so doing, we seek to ensure that the benefits of thousands- block number pooling are realized as soon as feasible. Although the FCC’s national thousands- block number pooling framework implements pooling on an NPA by NPA basis within the largest 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), 34 we will continue to grant states interim authority to implement pooling on an MSA by MSA basis within their states. A state commission may expand pooling to another MSA only after having implemented thousands- block number pooling in the initial MSA and after allowing carriers sufficient time to undertake necessary steps to accommodate thousands- block number pooling, such as modifying databases and upgrading switch software. 14. As indicated in the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, and in the orders delegating authority to implement thousands- block number pooling trials to state commissions, the national thousands- block number pooling framework, including the technical standards and pooling administration provisions, will supersede these interim delegations of authority to state commissions. 35 We reiterate that the state commissions receiving new delegations of authority for pooling in this Order must conform their pooling trials to the national framework as articulated in the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order. 36 15. We grant this authority subject to the conditions and safeguards enumerated by the FCC in the Pennsylvania Numbering Order, in which thousands- block number pooling authority was granted to Illinois, and the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, which sets forth the national thousands- block number pooling framework. 37 Thus, we require that the state commissions, to the extent they have not already done so, prepare an NPA relief plan that may be adopted by the state commissions when numbering resources in an NPA are in imminent danger of 34 MSAs are geographic areas designated by the Bureau of Census for purposes of collecting and analyzing data. The boundaries of MSAs are defined using statistics that are widely recognized as indications of metropolitan character. See Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8115, 8122 (1997). When implementing local number portability, the FCC established a phased implementation schedule based on MSAs. Telephone Number Portability, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 8352, 8394- 95 (1996). 35 See, e. g., First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7651; California Delegation Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 17490- 96; Florida Delegation Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 17510- 16; Maine Delegation Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 16451- 57; Massachusetts Delegation Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 17451- 57; New York Delegation Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 17470- 76. 36 Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7651. 37 Pennsylvania Numbering Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 19029- 30. 7 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 8 being exhausted. 38 This criterion is not intended to require the state commissions to implement an NPA relief plan prior to initiating thousands- block number pooling in all instances. Rather, we seek to ensure that the state commissions are prepared to implement immediately a “back- up” NPA relief plan prior to the exhaustion of numbering resources. 39 Lack of numbering resources should never prevent carriers from providing service to prospective customers. Thus, this criterion attempts to ensure that carriers continue to have numbering resources available to them in the event that a pooling trial fails to alleviate the need for area code relief. 40 16. We also reiterate that only those carriers that have implemented permanent local number portability (LNP) shall be subject to state- mandated thousands- block number pooling trials. 41 Wireline carriers outside the top 100 MSAs are only required to implement LNP if requested by another carrier subject to the requirements established by the FCC. 42 Within areas that are subject to a pooling trial, non- LNP capable carriers shall have the same access to numbering resources after pooling is implemented that they had prior to the implementation of pooling (i. e., non- LNP capable carriers shall continue to be able to obtain full NXX codes). 43 17. We direct the state commissions to conduct their thousands- block number pooling trials in accordance with industry- adopted thousands- block number pooling guidelines to the extent that the guidelines are not in conflict with the FCC’s Numbering Resource Optimization Orders. 44 We also direct the state commissions to ensure that adequate transition time is provided for carriers to adjust their switches and administrative systems prior to commencing thousands- block number pooling. 18. The Bureau has recently chosen NeuStar, Inc. to be the national Pooling Administrator, 45 and the term of the national Pooling Administrator will be five years. 46 Prior to the 38 In Illinois, the Illinois Commission recognized that a “back- up plan” was necessary because the pooling solution had not been completely developed or tested. Thus, the Illinois Commission decided that an all- services overlay would supersede the pooling trial in the event that the NXXs in the 847 NPA were depleted. 39 See Petition by Citizens Utility Board to Implement a Form of Telephone Number Conservation Known as Number Pooling Within the 312, 773, 847, 630, and 708 Area Codes and Petition by Illinois Bell Telephone Company for Approval of an NPA Relief Plan for the 847 NPA, Docket Nos. 97- 0192 and 97- 0211 (Consol.), Order (May 11, 1998) (establishing an area code overlay as a back- up plan concurrently with ordering thousands-block number pooling in the 847 NPA). 40 We intend to closely monitor situations in which states may not be developing and implementing area code relief plans in a timely manner. Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7652. 41 Wireless carriers, for example, are not required to implement LNP until November 24, 2002. See Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association’s Petition for Forbearance From Commercial Mobile Radio Services Number Portability Obligations and Telephone Number Portability, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 3092, 3116 (1999). 42 See 47 C. F. R. § 52.23( b)-( c). 43 California Delegation Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 17493. 44 Thousands- Block Number (NXX- X) Pooling Administration Guidelines, Draft (INC 99- 0127- 023) (rev. Jan. 2001). This document is available at . 45 See Pooling Administrator Press Release. 8 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 9 commencement of national thousands- block number pooling, the state commissions will continue to be responsible for thousands- block number pooling administration. This responsibility includes the selection of an interim thousands- block number Pooling Administrator to allocate thousands- blocks to carriers within the area in the state where a pooling trial is implemented pursuant to this Order. We note that the national Pooling Administrator will replace the interim pooling administrator, which will transfer the pooling trials underway to the national pooling administration framework, thereby permitting these interim delegations of authority for pooling to the state commissions to be superseded by the national pooling framework. 47 2. Cost Recovery 19. Because the FCC’s national cost recovery plan will not be in effect until national thousands- block number pooling implementation occurs, the state commissions conducting pooling trials must develop a cost recovery mechanism for the joint and carrier- specific costs of implementing and administering pooling trials. Cost recovery for national thousands- block number pooling will be under the national cost recovery plan when the latter becomes effective. 20. In the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, the FCC concluded that thousands- block number pooling is a numbering administration function, and that section 251( e)( 2) authorizes the FCC to provide the distribution and recovery mechanisms for the interstate and intrastate costs of number pooling. 48 The FCC determined in the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order that section 251( e)( 2) requires all carriers to bear the shared costs of number pooling on a competitively neutral basis. 49 In exercising their delegated authority, the state commissions must also ensure that costs of number pooling are recovered in a competitively neutral manner. 50 We encourage the state commissions to consider the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order and Telephone Number Portability Order 51 for guidance regarding the criteria with which a cost recovery mechanism must comply in order to be considered competitively neutral. First, “a ‘competitively neutral’ cost recovery mechanism should not give one service provider an appreciable, incremental cost advantage over another service provider, when competing for a specific subscriber.” Second, the cost recovery mechanism “should not have a disparate effect on the ability of competing service providers to (Continued from previous page) 46 Numbering Resource Optimization Second Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 325. NeuStar received a one-year contract with an option to renew each year for up to five years, at the discretion of the FCC. See Pooling Administrator Press Release. 47 Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7651. 48 Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7663- 64. 49 Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7664- 65. 50 47 U. S. C. § 251( e)( 2). 51 Telephone Number Portability, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 16459, 16478- 88 (rel. July 16, 1999) (Telephone Number Portability Order). 9 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 10 earn normal returns on their investments.” 52 21. Consistent with the FCC’s treatment of cost recovery in the Telephone Number Portability proceeding and Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, we believe that even those carriers that cannot participate in thousands- block number pooling at this time will benefit from the more efficient use of numbering resources that pooling will facilitate and thus should share in bearing the costs associated with thousands- block number pooling. We encourage the state commissions to utilize the “road map” provided by the FCC in the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order regarding cost recovery for thousands- block number pooling. 53 3. Petitions for Thousands- Block Number Pooling Authority 22. To ensure that thousands- block number pooling is implemented in areas where it has the potential to be most beneficial, the FCC requires state commissions to demonstrate that certain conditions are satisfied in their states before thousands- block number pooling authority will be delegated to them. In the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, the FCC directed state commissions seeking thousands- block number pooling authority to demonstrate that: 1) an NPA in its state is in jeopardy; 2) the NPA in question has a remaining life span of at least a year; and 3) that the NPA is in one of the largest 100 MSAs, or alternatively, the majority of wireline carriers in the NPA are LNP- capable. The FCC recognized, however, that there may be “special circumstances” in which pooling would be beneficial in NPAs that do not meet all of the above criteria, and stated that it may authorize pooling in such an NPA upon a satisfactory showing by the state commission of such special circumstances. 54 a. Michigan Commission 23. The Michigan Commission requests the authority to implement thousands- block number pooling in six Michigan area codes: the 248, 313, 517, 616, 734 and 810 NPAs. 55 Only the 248 and 616 NPAs meet all three criteria articulated in the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order. Two of the other four area codes, the 517 and 810 NPAs, are estimated to exhaust in 2001. For the 313, 517, 734 and 810 NPAs, which fail to meet all three criteria, the Michigan Commission explains that special circumstances justify a delegation of authority to implement thousands- block number pooling. In particular, the Michigan Commission explains that, until July of 2000, when Governor Engler of Michigan signed legislation, the Michigan Commission was not 52 Telephone Number Portability Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 16478 (citing Telephone Number Portability, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 8352, 8420- 21 (1996)); see also Number Resource Optimization First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7665. 53 Numbering Resource Optimization Notice, 14 FCC Rcd at 10405- 12. 54 Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7652. 55 Michigan Commission Petition at 5- 6. The 248, 313, 734 and 810 NPAs encompass the Detroit MSA and the 616 NPA encompasses the Grand Rapids MSA. Id. 10 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 11 authorized under state law to use its delegated authority from the FCC to implement area code relief. 56 24. Based upon the information in the record, we delegate to the Michigan Commission the authority to implement thousands- block number pooling in the 248, 313, 616 and 734 NPAs. The Michigan Commission’s petition demonstrates that the 248 and 616 NPAs meet all three criteria. 57 It further demonstrates that the 313 and 734 NPAs meet only two of the three criteria articulated in the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order: (1) they have a projected life span of at least a year; and (2) they encompass one of the largest 100 MSAs. 58 Neither the 313 nor the 734 NPA is in jeopardy, however. 59 Nevertheless, we are mindful that the Michigan Commission only recently obtained permission to exercise the area code relief authority granted by the FCC. 60 Since that time, the Michigan Commission has responded quickly to establish public hearings and area code relief plans to ease the numbering crisis. 61 We commend these efforts and agree with the Michigan Commission that there is a critical need to conserve numbers in Michigan. Therefore, we find that special circumstances exist, and grant authority to the Michigan Commission to implement thousands- block number pooling in the 313 and 734 NPAs. 25. We also conditionally grant the Michigan Commission’s request to implement thousands- block number pooling in the 810 NPA. Prior to implementing pooling in the 810 NPA, however, the Michigan Commission must fully implement area code relief in that NPA. The 810 NPA is in jeopardy and is in one of the largest 100 MSAs. 62 Given the projected short lifespan of the 810 NPA, 63 however, we are concerned that all carriers may not have sufficient numbering resources to serve their customers if area code relief is delayed in this NPA. Even in a pooling environment, without available NXX codes, non- LNP- capable carriers are precluded from getting numbering 56 Id. at 4; see also Letter from Yog R. Varma, FCC, to Commissioners John G. Strand, Robert B. Nelson and David A. Svanda, Michigan Public Service Commission, dated July 28, 2000 (July 2000 Letter). According to this letter, the Michigan Commission had informed the FCC in February 2000, that the Michigan statutes effective at that time failed to provide the Michigan Commission with the jurisdiction to accept the FCC’s delegation of area code authority. Id. at 1- 2. 57 Ex Parte Letter of the Michigan Public Service Commission at 4- 6 (May 24, 2001) (Michigan Commission Ex Parte Letter); see also Michigan Commission Petition at 3. The 248 and 616 NPAs have projected exhaust dates in the second quarter and fourth quarter of 2002, respectively. Michigan Commission Ex Parte Letter at 4- 6. Jeopardy for the 248 and 616 NPAs was declared in 1999. Id. 58 Michigan Commission Ex Parte Letter at 4- 5. 59 Id. at 4- 5. 60 See July 2000 Letter at 1. 61 Michigan Commission Petition at 4; Michigan Commission Ex Parte Letter at 1- 2. The Michigan Commission has ordered relief plans for the 248, 517, and 810 NPAs. Id. at 1- 2. Final orders for relief plans are pending for the 313, 616, and 734 NPAs. Id. at 2. 62 Michigan Commission Petition at 4; Michigan Commission Ex Parte Letter at 3. Jeopardy for the 810 NPA was declared in 1999. Id. 63 The 810 NPA has a projected exhaust date in the fourth quarter of 2001. Michigan Commission Ex Parte Letter at 3. 11 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 12 resources. Thus, the Michigan Commission must first implement area code relief in the 810 NPA before implementing thousands- block number pooling. 26. Finally, we deny the Michigan Commission the authority to implement thousands- block number pooling in the 517 NPA. Although the 517 NPA is in jeopardy, the 517 NPA does not encompass one of the largest 100 MSAs, 64 and the Michigan Commission is unable to specify whether a majority of wireline carriers are LNP- capable in the 517 NPA. 65 The 517 NPA also does not have a projected life span of at least one year. 66 Given that only the jeopardy criterion is satisfied, we find that the Michigan Commission has not demonstrated special circumstances sufficient enough to warrant a grant of authority to implement thousands- block number pooling in the 517 NPA. 27. We believe that pooling will increase the efficient use of numbering resources in the 248, 313, 616, 734 and 810 NPAs. According to data from the Numbering Resource Utilization/ Forecast Reports filed by carriers in February 2001, approximately 9,331 thousands- blocks located within a top 100 MSA in Michigan are available for pooling. 67 In addition, one commenter, Oakland County, conducted research that purports to demonstrate that numbers are being used inefficiently in the 248 NPA, which is primarily located in Oakland County. 68 In particular, Oakland County found that there are enough phone numbers in the 248 NPA to provide each county resident with at least six phone numbers. 69 Oakland County further stated that most of its residents have been subjected to area code relief twice since 1993; that a request for area code relief was submitted in 2000; and, without pooling, it appeared likely that area code relief would need to be implemented again in 2004. 70 28. We grant this interim pooling authority to the Michigan Commission subject to the conditions and safeguards set forth herein. In particular, the Michigan Commission must implement its thousands- block number pooling trials before the commencement of national pooling, which is currently scheduled for March 2002. 71 This grant of thousands- block number pooling authority extends to the new area code( s) implemented to relieve all NPAs in which pooling is taking place. In 64 Id. at 3. 65 Supplement to the Michigan Public Service Commission’s Ex Parte Presentation Pursuant to the Commission’s Request for Additional Information (May 29, 2001) at 1- 2. Even though, according to the Michigan Commission, 95% of the customers in the state of Michigan receive service from wireline carriers with LNP-capability, it is unclear whether a majority of the carriers in the 517 NPA are LNP- capable. See id. 66 Michigan Commission Ex Parte Letter at 2- 3. 67 See FCC Releases Numbering Resource Utilization Report, Press Release (rel. June 13, 2001). The report is available at . 68 See Oakland County Comments at 2- 3. 69 See id. at 3. Most Oakland County residents use numbers in the 248 NPA. Id. at 1. 70 Oakland County Comments at 2. On April 17, 2001, the Michigan Commission ordered an all- services overlay for the 248 NPA. Michigan Commission Ex Parte Letter at 3- 4. 71 See Pooling Administrator Press Release. 12 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 13 addition, the Michigan Commission must first implement thousands- block number pooling in a single MSA and may expand pooling to another MSA only after pooling has been fully implemented in the initial MSA and carriers have had sufficient time to make the necessary adjustments for pooling, such as modifying their databases and upgrading their switch software. 29. A number of commenters oppose this grant of delegated pooling authority, indicating that such authority interferes with national thousands- block number pooling. 72 Although our primary focus is national pooling, we agree with the Michigan Commission that state delegated authority will not interfere with pooling at the national level. 73 As discussed in the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, state commissions must conform their thousands- blocks number pooling trials to the national framework in order to minimize additional costs and confusion that stem from differing regulatory requirements. 74 This requirement we believe, will likely facilitate a quicker, easier transition to the national Pooling Administrator in these area codes. As a result, Michigan residents will be able to realize the benefits of pooling as soon as possible. b. North Carolina Commission 30. The North Carolina Commission supplemented its petition with information on the 336 NPA. The North Carolina Commission’s supplemental filing demonstrates that the 336 NPA does not meet all of the criteria set forth in the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order. According to the North Carolina Commission, the 336 NPA is not yet in jeopardy, but has a remaining life span of at least a year. 75 The 336 NPA encompasses the city of Greensboro, one of the 100 largest MSAs. 76 31. The North Carolina Commission asserts that thousands- block number pooling authority should be granted because the 336 NPA has experienced a population growth of 5% within a twelve-month period from July 1998 through July 1999. Moreover, the same area has undergone an area code change in 1993 and in 1997. 77 In addition, the North Carolina Commission states that it has already implemented pooling trials in the 704/ 980 and 919/ 984 NPAs, and thus has the experience needed to quickly implement a thousands- block number pooling trial in the 336 NPA. 78 The North Carolina Commission anticipates that, without the implementation of thousands- block number pooling in the 72 See, e. g., Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) Comments at 1- 2; SBC Comments at 2; United States Telecom Association (USTA) Comments at 2- 5. 73 Michigan Commission Reply Comments at 2- 3. 74 See Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order at 7651. 75 See North Carolina Commission Petition at 1. According to the North Carolina Commission, the 336 NPA is projected to exhaust in the first quarter of 2003. See Letter from Jo Anne Sanford, North Carolina Commission, to Magalie R. Salas, FCC, dated August 9, 2001, at 1 (Supplement to the North Carolina Commission Petition). 76 See North Carolina Commission Petition at 1. 77 Supplement to the North Carolina Commission Petition at 1- 2. 78 Id. at 2. 13 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 14 336 NPA by the fall of 2001, area code relief planning will need to commence. 79 Thus, the North Carolina Commission expects to move forward expeditiously with pooling if it is granted the requested authority. 80 32. We believe, given the population growth and fairly recent prior area code changes, as well as the North Carolina Commission’s experience with implementing pooling trials and commitment to commence pooling in the 336 NPA quickly, that the 336 NPA would benefit from pooling. Although the 336 NPA is currently not in jeopardy, the North Carolina Commission expects to initiate area code relief planning in the near future if thousands- block number pooling authority is not granted. Thus, we find that special circumstances exist, and grant the North Carolina Commission the authority to implement a thousands- block number pooling trial in the 336 NPA. We grant this authority to the North Carolina Commission subject to the conditions and safeguards set forth above. This grant of thousands- block number pooling authority extends to any new area code implemented to relieve an existing area code in which pooling is taking place. B. Authority to Hear and Address Claims of Carriers Outside of the Area Code Rationing Process 33. The Connecticut Commission petitions for authority to respond to requests from individual carriers seeking to obtain NXX codes outside of the rationing process. 81 In particular, the Connecticut Commission asserts that this authority would enable it to efficiently and effectively address carriers’ NXX code issues; potentially prolong the lives of the existing 203 and 860 NPAs; and “ . . . offer Connecticut consumers the ability to continue to choose their service providers in light of the ongoing NXX code rationing system.” 82 In prior orders, the FCC has granted state commissions the authority to hear and address claims from carriers seeking NXX codes outside of the rationing process. 83 We similarly grant the Connecticut Commission the authority to hear and address such claims. 34. If requested, the Connecticut Commission may hear and address claims of carriers stating that they do not, or in the near future will not, have sufficient numbering resources to serve customers if they cannot obtain additional numbering resources, or that they are using or will have to use extraordinary and unreasonably costly measures to provide service. This grant of authority further empowers the Connecticut Commission to direct the NANPA to assign an NXX code to a carrier outside the rationing plan currently in place in an area code, based on a determination that such relief is necessary. We also grant the Connecticut Commission the authority to request whatever information it deems necessary to evaluate a carrier’s request for additional numbering resources outside the rationing process. This information may include the carrier’s business plan, customer requests for new 79 Id. 80 Id. 81 Connecticut Commission Petition at 2- 6. 82 Id. at 4- 5. 83 See, e. g., California Delegation Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 17500- 01; Massachusetts Delegation Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 17462- 63. 14 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 15 service that the carrier cannot fill or has denied because of its lack of numbering resources, historical information on the carrier’s growth rate, and information on any extraordinary steps the carrier is taking or may have to take to provide service. Further, although we delegate to the Connecticut Commission the authority to request and evaluate this information, such information shall be deemed confidential and shall not be released to any entity other than the NANPA, other state government agencies, the FCC, or the Bureau without the concurrence of the carrier submitting the information. 84 35. Only one commenter, Sprint, “is compelled to oppose” this delegated authority for the Connecticut Commission. 85 Sprint claims that the Bureau has “. . . not addressed such fundamental legal issues as the incompatibility of rationing in the new ‘needs- based’ number assignment environment and the significant impacts when some carriers are forced to obtain numbers through lotteries while other carriers are not subjected to this game of chance.” 86 Sprint specifically contends, among other things, that: (1) the Connecticut Commission needs to implement its area code relief plan, rather than exercise additional authority to hear claims, because the lifespans of the 203 and 860 NPAs are too short; (2) the extension of area code lives is not a legitimate reason for such authority because no such extension would result from this authority; (3) the Connecticut Commission does not have the authority to grant the requested relief for wireless carriers because such authority would constitute unlawful state regulation of entry by commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers; (4) the Connecticut lottery is discriminatory and unlawful because only wireless carriers will need to use the lottery, while LNP- capable carriers will be able to participate in pooling; and (5) the Connecticut Commission’s request is not supported by sufficient information concerning the procedures to be used to carry out this authority. 36. Despite Sprint’s contentions, we decline to revisit the FCC’s findings on rationing in general, or to address the appropriateness of the Connecticut Commission’s area code relief activities specifically. In the Pennsylvania Numbering Order, the FCC determined that the rationing of NXX codes should only occur when it is clear that an NPA will run out of NXX codes before timely implementation of a relief plan. 87 In the Numbering Resource Optimization Second Report and Order, the FCC reaffirmed its findings regarding the rationing of NXX codes in the Pennsylvania Numbering Order. 88 Moreover, to address any asserted incompatibility between rationing and needs- based number assignment and the impact of lotteries on different carriers would be beyond the Bureau’s delegated authority. 37. We also disagree with Sprint that this grant of authority to the Connecticut Commission would constitute an unlawful state regulation of entry by a CMRS provider under section 332( c)( 3) of 84 See Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7605- 09. 85 See Sprint Comments. 86 Id. at 2. 87 Pennsylvania Numbering Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 19025. In the Numbering Resource Optimization Second Report and Order, the FCC reaffirmed its commitment to the guidelines enumerated in the Pennsylvania Numbering Order regarding the rationing of NXX codes. Numbering Resource Optimization Second Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 333- 34, 342. 88 Id. at 333- 34. 15 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 16 the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. This grant of authority, which applies to all carriers, stems from the FCC’s exclusive jurisdiction over numbering resources in the United States and the FCC’s ability to delegate a portion of its numbering authority to state commissions. 89 The mere assertion that, according to Sprint, only CMRS providers happen to be requesting codes outside the rationing process does not affect the Connecticut Commission’s ability to exercise its delegated authority to implement this numbering resource optimization strategy. 38. Finally, we disagree with Sprint’s contention that the Connecticut Commission may not receive this delegated authority without identifying the procedures needed to evaluate carriers’ requests. In this Order and prior state delegation orders, the Bureau has set forth the general procedures that are needed to evaluate these requests, and we find that the Connecticut Commission has satisfied the requirements needed to receive this delegated authority. Concerns about the procedures adopted by the Connecticut Commission to evaluate carrier requests may be properly brought to the Bureau by submitting a petition. Thus, notwithstanding Sprint’s assertions, we delegate to the Connecticut Commission the authority to hear and address claims outside the rationing process. This grant of authority also empowers the Connecticut Commission to ensure that carriers in dire need of numbering resources can obtain the numbering resources necessary to continue to provide service to their prospective customers. C. Maintenance of Rationing Procedures for Six Months Following Area Code Relief 39. The Michigan Commission requests the authority to maintain pre- NPA relief NXX code rationing measures for six months following implementation of area code relief to prevent an excessive number of requests for NXX codes. 90 In prior orders, the FCC granted similar authority to state commissions. 91 The FCC reasoned that a continuation of rationing after area code relief neither contradicts the Pennsylvania Numbering Order, 92 as the requisite area code relief has been implemented, nor has the potential— in contrast to rationing prior to area code relief— to forestall area code relief indefinitely. Accordingly, we grant the Michigan Commission the authority to order continuation of any rationing plan in place prior to area code relief for six months following implementation of area code relief. 40. Where area code relief takes the form of an area code split, we grant the Michigan Commission the authority to direct that whatever rationing plan was in place prior to area code relief continue to be applied in both the newly implemented area code and the relieved area code for a period 89 47 U. S. C. § 251( e)( 1). 90 Michigan Commission Petition at 1- 2. 91 See, e. g., Florida Delegation Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 17517- 18; Massachusetts Delegation Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 17458- 59; Wisconsin Delegation Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 1310- 11. 92 The Pennsylvania Numbering Order stated that state commission implementation of number conservation measures could not be used “as substitutes for area code relief or to avoid making difficult and potentially unpopular decisions on area code relief.” See Pennsylvania Numbering Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 19027. 16 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 17 of up to six months following the date of implementation of area code relief. 93 Correspondingly, if the area code relief is in the form of an all- services overlay, the Michigan Commission may direct that the pre- existing rationing plan be applied to each area code (overlay code and relieved code) for a period of six months following the date of implementation of area code relief. Whether the rationing plan in place prior to relief was an industry consensus plan, or whether it was a state commission- ordered plan, only those terms in place prior to area code relief may remain in place following area code relief. The Michigan Commission may order a continuation of rationing for up to six months, but neither they nor the telecommunications industry participants in a consensus plan may alter the terms of the rationing plan. We find this limitation appropriate to prevent a potentially contentious re- opening of the terms of a previously settled NXX code rationing plan, resulting in uncertainty and a drain on resources. 41. Some commenters assert that the Michigan Commission’s request to implement rationing for six months following area code relief should be denied. 94 In particular, Sprint claims that the FCC may no longer rely on the rationing authority in the Pennsylvania Numbering Order because “ . . . the Pennsylvania Numbering Order was adopted in 1998 and it has been modified by the First and Second NRO Orders adopted in 2000.” 95 We disagree. Sprint and the other commenters fail to demonstrate that, in the Numbering Resource Optimization Orders, the FCC intended to change its policies or regulations regarding rationing. In fact, in the Numbering Resource Optimization Second Report and Order, the FCC explicitly reaffirmed its federal guidelines in the Pennsylvania Numbering Order. 96 42. We also disagree with Sprint’s assertion that, in the Numbering Resource Optimization Second Report and Order, the FCC indicated that it views rationing as a threat to competition. 97 In that Order, the FCC expressly referred to long term rationing as a threat to competition but not rationing in general. Moreover, here, the Michigan Commission is requesting authority to implement rationing on a short term basis. IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSE 43. We are mindful of the costs, confusion, and inconvenience that frequent area code changes can impose on consumers. The authority we have herein delegated to the above state commissions, we hope, will provide them the tools they need to address their states’ concerns about numbering resource exhaust. For example, the authority to order thousands- block number pooling trials allows a state commission to address inefficiencies on the supply side of the telephone number 93 The “NPA relief date” is defined in the NPA Code Relief Planning and Notification Guidelines as the date by which the NPA is introduced and routing of normal commercial traffic begins. NPA Code Relief Planning and Notification Guidelines at 14. 0. 94 Sprint Comments at 2; USTA Comments at 6; Verizon Wireless Comments at 9- 10 (asserting that, because of the numbering conservation measures adopted in the Numbering Resource Optimization Orders, continued rationing is no longer needed). 95 Sprint Comments at 3. 96 See Numbering Resource Optimization Second Report and Order 16 FCC Rcd at 332- 34. 97 Sprint Comments at 3. 17 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2013 18 assignment regime by ordering that LNP- capable carriers receive smaller blocks of numbers than they receive now. In addition, the authority to hear and address claims from carriers seeking NXX codes outside of the rationing process empowers a state commission to ensure that carriers in dire need of numbering resources can obtain the numbering resources necessary to continue to provide service to their prospective customers. We are encouraged by the state commissions’ willingness to work with the FCC and the Bureau to achieve national numbering resource optimization goals. 44. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 1, 4( i), and 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §§ 151, 154( i), and 251, and pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.1 and 52.9( b) of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C. F. R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.1 and 52.9( b), IT IS ORDERED that the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Expedited Petition for Additional Authority is GRANTED to the extent described herein; the Michigan Public Service Commission Petition for Additional Delegated Authority to Implement Number Conservation Measures is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent described herein; and the Petition of the North Carolina Utilities Commission for Additional Delegated Authority to Implement Number Optimization Measures, CC Docket No. 96- 98 is GRANTED to the extent described herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jeffrey J. Carlisle Senior Deputy Bureau Chief, Common Carrier Bureau 18