Numbering Resource Optimization, 13393-13395 [06-2331]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13393-13395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2331]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[CC Docket No. 99-200; FCC 06-14]


Numbering Resource Optimization

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this Order, the Federal Communications Commission grants 
petitions for delegated authority to implement mandatory thousands-
block number pooling filed by the Public Service Commission of West 
Virginia, the Nebraska Public Service Commission, the Oklahoma 
Corporation Commission, the Michigan Public Service Commission, and the 
Missouri Public Service Commission. We find that the petitioners have 
demonstrated the special circumstances necessary to justify delegation 
of authority to require thousands-block number pooling. In granting 
these petitions, the Commission permits these states to optimize 
numbering resources and further extend the life of the numbering plan 
areas (``NPAs'') in question.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Jones, Telecommunications 
Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-4357 
or Marilyn.Jones@fcc.gov. The fax number is: (202) 418-2345.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
in CC Docket No. 99-200 released on February 24, 2006. The full text of 
this document is available for public inspection during regular 
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

I. Introduction

    1. In this Order, the Federal Communications Commission grants 
petitions for delegated authority to implement mandatory thousands-
block number pooling filed by the Public Service Commission of West 
Virginia, the Nebraska Public Service Commission, the Oklahoma 
Corporation Commission, the Michigan Public Service Commission, and the 
Missouri Public Service Commission. We find that the petitioners have 
demonstrated the special circumstances necessary to justify delegation 
of authority to require thousands-block number pooling. In granting 
these petitions, the Commission permits these states to optimize 
numbering resources and further extend the life of the numbering plan 
areas (``NPAs'') in question. Specifically, the Commission grants the 
following:
     To the Public Service Commission of West Virginia, the 
authority to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling in the 
304 NPA.
     To the Nebraska Public Service Commission, the authority 
to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling in the 402 NPA.
     To the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the authority to 
implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling in the 580 NPA.
     To the Michigan Public Service Commission, the authority 
to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling in the 989 NPA.
     To the Missouri Public Service Commission, the authority 
to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling in the 417, 573, 
636, and 660 NPAs.
    2. In the First Report and Order, 65 FR 37703, June 16, 2000, the 
Commission determined that implementation of thousands-block number 
pooling is essential to extending the life of the North American 
Numbering Plan (``NANP'') by making the assignment and use of NXX codes 
more efficient. Therefore, the Commission adopted national thousands-
block number pooling as a valuable mechanism to remedy the inefficient 
allocation and use of numbering resources and determined to implement 
mandatory thousands-block pooling in the largest 100 MSAs within nine 
months of selection of a pooling administrator. The Commission also 
allowed state commissions to continue to implement thousands-block 
pooling pursuant to delegated authority and agreed to continue to 
consider state petitions for delegated authority to implement pooling 
on a case-by-case basis. The Commission delegated authority to the 
Common Carrier Bureau, now the Wireline Competition Bureau 
(``Bureau''), to rule on state petitions for delegated authority to 
implement number conservation measures, including thousands-block 
number pooling, where no new issues were raised.
    3. The Commission held that such state petitions for delegated 
authority must 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) the NPA is in one of the largest 100 MSAs, or 
alternatively, the majority of wireline carriers in the NPA are local 
number portability (``LNP'')-capable. The Commission recognized that 
there may be ``special circumstances'' where pooling would be of 
benefit in NPAs that do not meet all three criteria, and may be 
authorized in such an NPA upon a satisfactory showing by the state 
commission of such circumstances. These three criteria were adopted 
before implementation of nationwide thousands-block number pooling and 
before the Commission recognized that full LNP capability is not 
necessary for participation in pooling.
    4. National rollout of thousands-block number pooling commenced on 
March 15, 2002, in the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas 
(``MSAs'') and area codes previously in pooling pursuant to state 
delegation orders. All carriers operating within the 100 largest MSAs, 
except those specifically exempted by the order, were required to 
participate in thousands-block number pooling in accordance with the 
national rollout schedule. The Commission specifically exempted from 
the pooling requirement rural telephone companies and Tier III CMRS 
providers that have not received a specific request for the provision 
of LNP from another carrier, as well as carriers that are the only 
service provider receiving numbering resources in a given rate center. 
In exempting certain carriers from the pooling requirement, the 
Commission confirmed that ``it is reasonable to require LNP only in 
areas where competition dictates its demand.'' The Commission directed 
the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (``NANPA'') to cease 
assignment of NXX codes to carriers after they were required to 
participate in pooling. Instead, carriers required to participate in 
pooling received numbering resources from the national thousands-block 
number Pooling Administrator responsible for

[[Page 13394]]

administering numbers in thousands-blocks.
    5. In implementing nationwide pooling, the Commission had concluded 
that mandatory pooling should initially take place in the largest 100 
MSAs. In the Pooling Rollout Order, the Bureau explained that it would 
consider extending pooling outside of the top 100 MSAs after pooling 
was implemented in the top 100 MSAs. The Bureau also encouraged 
voluntary pooling in areas adjoining qualifying MSAs.

II. The Petitions

    6. Between October 20, 2004 and April 7, 2005, the Commission 
received five petitions from state utility commissions requesting 
permission to expand the scope of thousands-block pooling. The 
petitions are similar in that each state asserts that thousands-block 
pooling is a proactive measure to forestall area code exhaust in the 
area codes listed. In four of the states, there was an optional pooling 
mechanism that was being underutilized by the carriers. Accordingly, 
those state petitioners argued that mandatory thousands-block number 
pooling will likely postpone the need for area code relief in their 
respective NPAs. The petitions differ only with regard to specific 
jeopardy projections, which start within the first quarter of 2006. 
Specifically, the 304 NPA in West Virginia is projected to exhaust in 
the first quarter of 2006; the 402 NPA in Nebraska in the second 
quarter of 2006; the 580 NPA in Oklahoma in the second quarter of 2007; 
the 989 NPA in Michigan in the second quarter of 2008; and the 417 and 
573 NPAs in Missouri in the second and third quarters of 2008, 
respectively, with the Missouri 636 and 660 NPAs facing accelerated 
exhaust due to their close proximity to the St. Louis and Kansas City 
MSAs.
    7. On October 28, 2004, the Bureau released a public notice seeking 
comment on the Oklahoma Petition. On November 30, 2004, the Bureau 
released a public notice seeking comment on the West Virginia and 
Nebraska Petitions. On May 4, 2005, the Bureau released a public notice 
seeking comment on the Missouri and Michigan Petitions. Several parties 
filed comments and reply comments.

III. Order Granting Petitions

    8. In the Order, the Commission grants petitions for delegated 
authority to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling filed 
by the Public Service Commission of West Virginia, the Nebraska Public 
Service Commission, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the Michigan 
Public Service Commission, and the Missouri Public Service Commission. 
Although all three criteria are not consistently met in these 
petitions, we find that special circumstances justify delegation of 
authority to require pooling.
    9. With respect to the first criterion, the petitions before us 
present both jeopardy and non-jeopardy situations. The 304 NPA is 
currently in jeopardy, whereas the 402, 417, 573, 580, and 989 NPAs are 
not in jeopardy as defined by industry standards, but are projected to 
exhaust within three years. Given that most of the NPAs in question are 
expected to exhaust within one to three years, it is most efficient and 
in the public interest to permit the state petitioners to implement 
mandatory thousands-block number pooling at this time. Moreover, if we 
deny these petitions pursuant to a strict application of the jeopardy 
requirement, the state commissions will have to refile the petitions in 
the near future when the NPAs at issue will be in jeopardy. This would 
be an inefficient use of resources and would further delay the state 
commissions' ability to optimize numbering resources. With regard to 
the second criterion, all petitions have demonstrated that the NPAs in 
question have a remaining life span of at least a year. Thus, this 
prong of the test is met.
    10. The third criterion, that the NPA is in one of the largest 100 
MSAs or the majority of wireline carriers in the NPA are LNP-capable, 
is not relevant here. These petitions seek authority to implement 
pooling outside of the largest 100 MSAs, and we have since determined 
that pooling can be implemented without full LNP capability. Instead, 
we are guided by the principle, expressed in our pooling precedent, 
that it is reasonable to require LNP only in areas where competition 
dictates demand. For this reason, we have exempted from pooling rural 
telephone companies and Tier III CMRS providers that have not yet 
received a specific request for the provision of LNP from another 
carrier and carriers that are the only service provider receiving 
numbering resources in a given rate center. Although this exemption 
should ensure that LNP is only required in areas where competition 
dictates demand, it is important to also note that, for carriers who 
are required to participate in number pooling, full LNP capability is 
not required. In this case, we require state commissions, in exercising 
the authority delegated herein to implement number pooling, to 
implement this delegation consistent with the exemption for the 
carriers described above. We therefore expect that rural carriers who 
are not LNP capable will not be required to implement full LNP 
capability solely as a result of the delegation of authority set forth 
herein.
    11. As several commenters observe, allowing states to mandate 
pooling outside of the top 100 MSAs will delay the need for area code 
relief by using numbering resources more efficiently. Demand for 
numbering resources in these states is increasing in rural rate 
centers, where number pooling is not mandatory, due to additional 
wireless and competitive carriers entering those areas. The petitioners 
have demonstrated that many carriers are not participating in optional 
pooling and instead continue to request full NXX codes in these NPAs. 
The petitioners observe, and we agree, that mandatory thousands-block 
number pooling would extend the life of these NPAs by using the 
resources that otherwise would be stranded. Denying the petitions would 
allow carriers to continue to request 10,000 blocks of numbers when 
fewer numbers may be needed to serve their customers, which would 
further hasten the exhaust of these NPAs. We find that this is a 
special circumstance that permits us to delegate authority to these 
states to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling.
    12. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, we determine that 
the petitioners have demonstrated the special circumstances necessary 
to justify delegation of authority to require pooling, and we grant: 
The Public Service Commission of West Virginia authority to implement 
mandatory thousands-block number pooling in the 304 NPA; the Nebraska 
Public Service Commission authority to implement mandatory thousands-
block number pooling in the 402 NPA; the Oklahoma Corporation 
Commission authority to implement mandatory thousands-block number 
pooling in the 580 NPA; the Michigan Public Service Commission the 
authority to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling in the 
989 NPA; and the Missouri Public Service Commission the authority to 
implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling in the 417, 573, 
636, and 660 NPAs.
    13. The Ohio Commission and NARUC request that in addition to 
granting the Oklahoma Petition for mandatory thousands-block number 
pooling, we extend such delegated authority to all states. SBC opposes 
this request and observes that in order to adopt such a rule change, we 
must provide opportunity for notice and comment. We agree and do so in 
our Fifth Further Notice of Proposed

[[Page 13395]]

Rulemaking, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
    14. Finally, we observe that several commenters asked the 
Commission to reaffirm that it will not permit states to implement 
pooling methods that are inconsistent with the national pooling 
framework set forth in the Commission's rules and industry pooling 
guidelines. We note that the petitions specifically seek authority to 
order mandatory thousands-block number pooling in rate centers located 
outside the top 100 MSAs, but in accordance with the national pooling 
framework. Thus, these state commissions are not seeking to implement 
pooling methods that are inconsistent with the national pooling 
framework.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    15. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 
4(i), and 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
151, 154(i), 251, and pursuant to section 52.9(b) of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 52.9(b), it is ordered that the Petition of the Nebraska 
Public Service Commission for Expedited Decision for Authority to 
Implement Additional Number Conservation Measures is granted; the 
Petition of the West Virginia Public Service Commission for Expedited 
Decision for Authority to Implement Additional Number Conservation 
Measures is granted; and the Petition of the Oklahoma Corporation 
Commission for Expedited Decision for Authority to Implement Additional 
Number Conservation Measures is granted; the Petition of the Missouri 
Public Service Commission for Additional Delegated Numbering Authority 
to Implement Number Conservation Measures is granted; and the Petition 
of the Michigan Public Service Commission for Additional Delegated 
Authority over Numbering Resource Conservation Measures is granted.
    16. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained 
in sections 1, 4(i), 201-205, 214, 254, and 403 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201-205, 214, 254, and 
403, this Order and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 
adopted.
    17. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Order and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-2331 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P