**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the matter of                 | *  | CC Docket No. 99-200         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Numbering Resource Optimization  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Petition of the California       | *  |                              |
| Public Utilities Commission for  | *) |                              |
| Waiver of the Federal            | ** |                              |
| Communications Commission's      |    |                              |
| Contamination Threshold Rule     | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: August 5, 2003 Released: August 11, 2003**

By the Commission: Commissioner Abernathy approving in part, dissenting
in part, and issuing a

separate statement; Commissioner Copps concurring and issuing a separate

statement; Commissioner Martin issuing a separate statement.

# INTRoduction 

1.  In this order, we grant, in part, the California Public Utilities
    Commission's (California Commission) request for waiver of the
    Federal Communication Commission's (FCC or Commission) contamination
    threshold rule.[^1] The California Commission seeks authority to
    raise the contamination threshold in all numbering plan areas (NPAs
    or area codes) in California from ten percent to twenty-five
    percent.[^2] Contamination occurs when at least one telephone number
    within a block of telephone numbers is not available for assignment
    to end users or customers.[^3] Although we find that the California
    Commission has not demonstrated good cause to justify raising the
    contamination threshold throughout the state, we find that the
    California Commission has shown good cause to justify raising the
    contamination level in the 310 and 909 area codes, on an interim
    basis. This limited waiver will provide some additional time for the
    California Commission to implement area code relief in those areas.

# Background

2.  *Statutory Provisions and Commission Rules.* Section 251(e) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), gives the
    Commission plenary jurisdiction over the North American Numbering
    Plan (NANP) and related telephone numbering issues in the United
    States.[^4] In the *Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and
    Order*, the Commission set the framework for national
    thousands-block number pooling (pooling).[^5] The Commission adopted
    a ten percent contamination level for thousands-block number
    pooling, concluding that the donation of thousands-blocks with up to
    ten percent contamination had the potential to add significant
    numbering resources in areas where pooling has been implemented.
    [^6]

3.  Today, all carriers participating in thousands-block number pooling
    are required to donate thousands-blocks that have ten percent or
    less contamination to the thousands-block number pool for the rate
    center from which the numbering resources are assigned.[^7] Carriers
    may retain at least one thousands-block per rate center, even if the
    thousands-block is less than ten percent contaminated, as an initial
    block or "footprint" block. Carriers are also permitted to retain
    enough thousands-blocks to meet their projected six-month inventory
    needs.[^8]

4.  *The California Petition*. On September 5, 2002, the California
    Commission filed a petition for waiver of the Commission's
    contamination threshold requirement. Specifically, the California
    Commission seeks to increase the contamination threshold from ten
    percent to twenty-five percent in California.[^9] The California
    Commission asserts that raising the contamination threshold will
    allow California to retrieve a larger quantity of numbers from
    carriers currently holding blocks, and that those numbers can be
    donated to active number pools to maximize the amount of available
    numbering resources in areas where number pooling has been
    implemented.[^10] On October 17, 2002, the California Commission
    filed a motion to accept supplemental data in support of its waiver
    petition.[^11] This updated data was considered by the North
    American Numbering Council (NANC) in its analysis of the California
    Commission's petition. We consider it as well.

5.  *Comments.* On October 24, 2002, the Commission's Wireline
    Competition Bureau (Bureau) released a Public Notice seeking comment
    on the California Commission's petition.[^12] Fifteen parties
    submitted comments and three parties submitted reply comments. All
    but one commenter, the Michigan Public Service Commission, opposed
    the California Commission's proposal.[^13] One commenter discussed a
    partial grant of the proposal as an alternative to denial.[^14]

6.  The Bureau also directed the NANC, the Commission's advisory
    committee on numbering issues, to evaluate the technical viability
    of increasing the contamination level.[^15] The NANC created an
    Issue Management Group (IMG) to perform the evaluation. Because the
    IMG was unable to reach consensus on one proposal, the NANC offered
    two different analyses prepared by the IMG.[^16] Each analysis
    presents the expected benefits and disadvantages of increasing the
    contamination threshold from ten to twenty-five percent, one without
    and the other with certain external factors taken into
    consideration[^17] The NANC concluded, however, that the real
    benefits of increasing the contamination level can only be
    determined when the actual number of blocks that carriers could
    donate to the pools is established.[^18] Appendix A summarizes the
    North American Numbering Plan Administrator's (NANPA's) projected
    exhaust dates for each California area code and the NANC's findings
    with respect to the length of time the exhaust would be extended if
    the contamination threshold is increased to twenty-five percent.

7.  The IMG's first analysis (Analysis A) calculated the additional
    lifespan of pooled NPAs in California solely attributed to the
    donation of thousands-blocks that are more than ten percent and up
    to twenty-five percent contaminated. This analysis eliminated any
    external factors that may influence the life spans of the California
    NPAs.[^19] The IMG concluded that although it is technically
    feasible to increase the contamination level from ten to twenty-five
    percent, considerable efforts would be required to make this
    proposal viable.[^20] The IMG also found that raising the
    contamination level would only result in a minimal increase in the
    life spans of the California NPAs. According to Analysis A, the
    lifespans for the majority of the 25 NPAs in California would only
    increase by up to three months, eight would not increase, and none
    would increase by more than nine months.[^21]

8.  Unlike its first analysis, the IMG's second analysis (Analysis B)
    considers external factors that may influence the lifespans of the
    California NPAs.[^22] Specifically, Analysis B assumes that demand
    for pooled blocks from November 2002 through July 2003 is
    representative of the future demand for pooled blocks. Also,
    Analysis B assumes that additional NXXs will be used to replenish
    the pools until the last NXX in the area code is assigned, at which
    point the area code will exhaust.[^23] This analysis concludes that,
    although technically feasible,[^24] increasing the contamination
    threshold in California to twenty-five percent would extend the
    lives of most of the twenty-five area codes in California by less
    than a year.[^25] The IMG also generally reviewed costs that would
    be incurred to implement the California Commission's proposal. The
    IMG, however, did not develop any specific cost estimates. Rather,
    the IMG agreed that it would not factor cost into the analysis, but
    found it appropriate to identify factors that have associated costs
    (e.g., Operations System Support changes).[^26]

9.  *Waiver Standard*. Generally, the Commission's rules may be waived
    for good cause shown.[^27] As noted by the Court of Appeals for the
    D.C. Circuit, however, agency rules are presumed valid.[^28] The
    Commission may exercise its discretion to waive a rule where the
    particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the public
    interest.[^29] In addition, the Commission may take into account
    considerations of hardship, equity, or more effective implementation
    of overall policy on an individual basis.[^30] Waiver of the
    Commission's rules is therefore appropriate only if special
    circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule and such a
    deviation will serve the public interest.[^31]

# Discussion

10. We find that that the California Commission has shown good cause to
    justify raising the contamination level in the 310 and 909 area
    codes, on an interim basis, while it implements area code relief in
    those areas, but has not shown good cause to support increasing the
    contamination threshold from ten percent to twenty-five percent
    throughout the state.[^32] Specifically, the California Commission
    has not demonstrated that special circumstances warrant a deviation
    from the national rules for all California NPAs or that raising the
    contamination threshold level in all California NPAs is consistent
    with the public interest. We conclude, however, that increasing the
    contamination threshold for the 310 and 909 area codes is warranted
    under our waiver standard and will provide the California Commission
    with some additional time and flexibility to implement area code
    relief in those NPAs, which are in need of immediate relief.

11. We emphasize that our action in this order is intended to assist the
    California Commission as it implements area code relief for the 310
    and 909 NPAs, and should not be used to justify delaying this much
    needed relief. In recent years, the FCC has sought to prevent the
    premature exhaust of the NANP by ensuring that numbering resources
    are used more efficiently. The California Commission has worked
    diligently with the FCC to accomplish this goal. Although we applaud
    the California Commission's numbering resource optimization efforts,
    raising the contamination level across the state is not a practical
    solution to the telephone shortage that exists in the 310 and 909
    area codes. We have repeatedly emphasized that numbering resource
    optimization measures should not be used as a substitute for area
    code relief.[^33] Other states with NPAs facing exhaust have
    implemented timely area code relief when needed. We, therefore,
    expect that the California Commission will expedite area code relief
    in the 310 and 909 area codes, which are both projected to exhaust
    in the fourth quarter of 2003.[^34]

12. Concurrent with this limited partial grant, we expect that the
    California Commission will prepare for potential area code relief by
    undertaking any necessary public hearings in the 909 area code, and
    proceed with adopting an area code relief plan in the 310 area code
    where it has already undertaken the requisite public hearings.[^35]
    We also request that the NANC submit a report to the Bureau by April
    30, 2004, evaluating the effectiveness of increasing the
    contamination threshold in 310 and 909. The NANC report should
    include the number of additional blocks that are made available as a
    result of increasing the contamination threshold.

13. We find that special circumstances justify granting a limited waiver
    to raise the contamination threshold to twenty-five percent in the
    310 and 909 area codes.[^36] We agree with AT&T Wireless, that good
    cause exists for a partial waiver "because of the special exigency
    situation in the 310 and 909 NPAs, which cannot be alleviated by any
    other measure in time to prevent immediate exhaust."[^37] The
    NANPA's projected exhaust date for these NPAs is the fourth quarter
    of calendar year 2003, which is by far the earliest exhaust date of
    the California NPAs. According to the NANC's projections, raising
    the contamination level in the 310 and 909 area codes could extend
    the lives of the 310 and 909 NPAs by two months and one month,
    respectively.[^38] Such a delay, although not significant enough to
    obviate the need for area code relief, would provide additional time
    for the California Commission to implement area code relief for the
    310 and 909 area codes, while at the same time providing some
    limited relief for carriers and customers that currently need
    numbers. The California Commission asserts that if the contamination
    threshold is raised to twenty-five percent, approximately 250 and
    approximately 275 thousands-blocks could be available for the 310
    and 909 NPAs, respectively.[^39] Although we find that the evidence
    in the record indicates that fewer blocks than projected by the
    California Commission will actually be available,[^40] even a
    limited number of additional blocks will help delay exhaust and
    prevent denial of numbers for carriers and consumers while area code
    relief is implemented in the 310 and 909 area codes. The increased
    contamination level in the 310 and 909 area codes should therefore
    be viewed and used as a tool to facilitate immediate area code
    relief in those NPAs.

14. We also find that raising the contamination threshold from ten to
    twenty-five percent in only the 310 and 909 area codes is in the
    public interest. Providing such relief will allow the California
    Commission additional time to target area code relief to the areas
    where it is most needed without requiring carriers to undertake
    extraordinary measures where such relief is not imminently needed.
    Although we recognize that increasing the contamination level in 310
    and 909 will have some adverse effects on carriers and
    consumers,[^41] we find that the exigencies in 310 and 909 justify
    this added burden. Further, because this waiver will expire when
    area code relief is implemented in the 310 and 909 area codes or
    sooner, as discussed below, the burden on carriers and consumers
    will be of a limited duration.

15. In contrast, we find that California has not shown special
    circumstances justify increasing the contamination level for all
    NPAs in California as it has requested. Although both the 909 and
    310 area codes are projected to exhaust in the fourth quarter of
    this year, the next closest projected exhaust date for an area code
    will occur in the 760 area code in the third quarter of 2005.
    Moreover, the majority of the state's area codes are not projected
    to exhaust for at least several years.[^42] These projections
    contradict California's claim that the severe shortage of available
    numbers constitutes "special circumstance warranting a deviation
    from the ten percent contamination rule."[^43] Based upon these
    projections, it appears that California has substantial time to plan
    for the exhaust and, in turn, relief of the remaining area codes in
    the state.

16. In addition, increasing the contamination threshold to twenty-five
    percent throughout California would not be in the public interest,
    as it would have adverse effects on carriers and consumers without a
    corresponding benefit that would justify the costs. If the
    contamination threshold is increased, the maximum amount of numbers
    donated per thousands-block would rise from 100 to 250, a 150%
    increase. This increase could require additional "intra-carrier
    ports."[^44] When thousands-blocks with contaminated numbers are
    donated to the pool, the contaminated numbers must be ported back to
    the original carrier and marked as unavailable for assignment by the
    new carrier.[^45] As several commenters explain, automated pooling
    and porting processes will likely be supplanted by the manual
    processing of each of these additional porting orders.[^46] Each
    additional manual port will add costs for the carriers and, in turn,
    for customers. These additional manual ports will also increase the
    probability for errors during the pooling and porting processes and
    thereby increase the risk of customer service problems, including
    the loss of service.[^47] Unlike 310 and 909, there are no
    exigencies that warrant imposing these burdens throughout the state
    of California.

17. We also conclude that increasing the contamination threshold for the
    entire state of California would not likely produce the numbering
    resource optimization benefits asserted by the California
    Commission. The California Commission states that approximately
    7,000 more blocks could be placed in pools in California if the
    contamination threshold is raised to twenty-five percent in
    California.[^48] We agree with commenters that this estimate is not
    reliable because it does not take into account that many of the
    blocks included in the California Commission's estimate will not be
    available for donation to the pools.[^49] For example, the
    California Commission did not account for blocks that would be
    retained in carriers' six-month inventories and blocks that would be
    retained as initial blocks.[^50] Commenters also point out that the
    California Commission failed to exclude blocks that must be retained
    by a carrier because they contain the carrier's location routing
    number (LRN), and blocks that are set aside as necessary for 911
    service, which are not available for donation.[^51]

18. We emphasize that this limited waiver should not be construed as a
    retreat from our long-standing policy that numbering resource
    optimization measures are not a substitute for needed area code
    relief.[^52] Because of the severe shortage of numbering resources
    available in the 310 and 909 area codes, granting this petition will
    not obviate the need for immediate relief in these area codes. By
    granting this partial waiver, we only acknowledge that raising the
    contamination threshold level in the 310 and 909 area codes is
    justified as a special measure to defer exhaust in the interim
    period between now and the implementation of area code relief. In
    order to facilitate the process, as described above, we expect that
    the California Commission will, concurrent with this limited waiver,
    undertake the requisite proceedings or otherwise proceed with
    adopting an area code relief plan where it has held such
    proceedings. Also, because of the unique nature of this grant, we
    shall require a report from the California Commission that evaluates
    the effectiveness of this waiver. This report must be filed with the
    Bureau by April 30, 2004 to determine whether this limited relief
    should be extended. We also request the NANC to evaluate the extent
    to which increasing the contamination threshold made additional
    numbering resources available in the 310 and 909 area codes. The
    NANC report should be submitted to the Bureau by April 30, 2004 as
    well.

# Procedural ISSUES

19. We find that the California Commission provided its supplemental
    data in a timely manner. On October 17, 2002, the California
    Commission filed a motion to accept supplemental data with respect
    to its waiver petition.[^53] In its supplemental filing, the
    California Commission updated its data on the number of blocks
    contaminated between ten and twenty-five percent based on the June
    30, 2002 Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast Report. This data
    was unavailable until September of 2002.[^54] This information was
    submitted soon after it was received and analyzed, as discussed in
    the California Commission's initial filing.[^55] We hereby grant the
    California Commission's motion to accept this supplemental data into
    the record in this proceeding.

# ORdering CLAUSES

20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 3, 4, 201-205
    and 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
    151, 153, 154, 201-205, 254, and section 1.3 of the Commission's
    rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.3 that the Petition for Waiver filed by the
    California Public Utilities Commission and the People of the State
    of California on September 5, 2002, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
    PART, as discussed in this Order.

21. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Accept Supplemental Data
    filed by the California Public Utilities Commission and the People
    of the State of California on October 17, 2002, IS GRANTED.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch Secretary

**Appendix A**

**Projected Exhaust of California NPAs**

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **NPA**           **NANPA Projected **NANC Analysis A **NANC Analysis B
                    Exhaust           --Extension in    --Extension in
                    Date**[^56]       Months**[^57]     Months**[^58]

  209               4Q2012            0                 8

  213               3Q2022            8                 29

  310               4Q2003            1                 2

  323               2Q2009            2                 9

  408               1Q2008            0                 7

  415               1Q2008            4                 9

  510               3Q2008            3                 6

  530               2Q2011            0                 13

  559               3Q2013            3                 9

  562               2Q2016            4                 10

  619               1Q2013            0                 8

  626               1Q2014            3                 9

  650               2Q2011            3                 14

  661               1Q2011            0                 N/A

  707               3Q2009            0                 7

  714               2Q2006            2                 3

  760               3Q2005            0                 5

  805               1Q2009            0                 8

  818               4Q2006            1                 4

  831               1Q2022            9                 8

  858               2Q2018            3                 11

  909               4Q2003            1                 1

  916               1Q2011            3                 13

  925               2Q2013            3                 8

  949               3Q2017            6                 10
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY,\
APPROVING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART\
**

Re: *Numbering Resource Optimization Petition of the California Public
Utilities Commission for Waiver of the Federal Communications
Commission's Contamination Threshold Rule.*

I share my colleagues' desire to provide flexibility to state
commissions to address numbering issues, but I respectfully dissent in
part from this decision because granting an unconditional waiver in this
case is inconsistent with the public interest. Congress gave this
Commission plenary authority over numbering issues. In exercising that
authority, based on careful consideration of the costs and benefits at
issue, the Commission adopted a contamination threshold of 10 percent.
The Commission also has made clear (in a succession of orders) that
numbering resource optimization measures should not be used as a
substitute for area code relief.[^59] The Commission may waive its rules
in exceptional circumstances, but, as the record in this proceeding
overwhelmingly demonstrates, the costs associated with increasing the
contamination threshold are considerable, while the benefits are
negligible. Nevertheless, in light of the impending numbering crisis in
the 310 and 909 area codes, I would have been willing to grant the
requested increase in the contamination threshold in those NPAs ― *if*
it were conditioned on prompt implementation of area code relief. While
area code splits and overlays may be unpopular in the short term,
independent experts have projected that the 310 and 909 area codes will
exhaust by the end of *this year*, making such action not only
necessary, but urgently so. Raising the contamination threshold is a
band-aid that, according to the North American Numbering Council (NANC),
will extend the life of those area codes by only *one to two months*.
Accordingly, I cannot support a decision that fails to include any
assurance of more meaningful relief. When the inevitable train wreck
occurs, this Commission unfortunately will bear part of the blame.

The record makes clear that authorizing a change in the contamination
threshold would be difficult to justify even on a conditional basis. The
California Commission's waiver petition includes no discussion of the
costs associated with a change in the contamination threshold. The
public comments and NANC Report, however, demonstrate that the costs
will be significant. In particular, the NANC Report catalogues a variety
of substantial costs including intra-carrier porting (which is not only
expensive but threatens customer disconnections), OSS changes, and
adverse impacts on Efficient Data Representation (EDR) software, among
others. *See* NANC Report at 6.[^60] The first analysis in the NANC
Report concludes that "it would be difficult to cost-justify
expenditures to increase the contamination level from 10 to 25 percent,"
given that there would be "little if any increase in the life of the
California NPAs that would support the additional economic burden that
would be placed on the consumers of California." NANC Report at 16.[^61]
Not surprisingly, service providers unanimously echoed this conclusion.

Notwithstanding these costs, the impending number exhaust in the 310 and
909 area codes appears to justify increasing the contamination threshold
*on an interim basis* while the California Commission prepares to
implement an area code split or overlay. But absent any assurance that
the state commission will in fact pursue area code relief ― and none has
been given ― such costs may well be incurred for naught. While the
California Commission asserts that a waiver "would dramatically slow the
pace at which numbering resources in California are depleted," Petition
at 5-6, the NANC Report squarely refutes this claim. The first analysis
conducted by the NANC concludes that raising the contamination threshold
would extend the 310 and 909 area codes by one month each, and the
second concludes that the waiver would extend these NPAs by two months
and one month, respectively. NANC Report at 13, 15. No commenter
supplies any data indicating more substantial extensions. Given these
scant gains, modifying the contamination threshold as a stand-alone
measure ― without any assurance of area code relief ― is likely to
undermine the public interest, rather than advance it.

In conclusion, while I would ordinarily defer to the California
Commission's judgment about the appropriate course of action, the record
overwhelmingly weighs against granting an unconditional waiver. Far from
demonstrating circumstances unique to California ― as the waiver
standard requires[^62] ― the California Commission is grappling with the
very same issue numerous other states have successfully addressed
through area code relief. And far from implicating considerations
isolated to California, changing the contamination threshold will
require nationwide carriers, which manage their numbering resources on a
centralized basis, to make system-wide changes to accommodate a single
state.[^63] This is just one reason why Congress granted this Commission
exclusive jurisdiction over the management of numbering resources ― and
why the Commission previously ruled that service providers should not
have to "conform with different requirements for every jurisdiction in
which they operate, which would be unwieldy and inefficient."[^64]
Because the unconditional grant of this waiver contravenes sound
Commission policy and is at odds with the input of our independent
expert advisory body and a chorus of nearly unanimous commenters, I
respectfully dissent in part.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS,**

**CONCURRING**

Re: *Numbering Resource Optimization Petition of the California Public
Utilities*

*Commission for Waiver of the Federal Communications Commission's*

*Contamination Threshold Rule.*

Number conservation is not an issue that the federal government can
undertake by itself. States have an integral role to play. They are our
partners in the effort to address the proliferation of new telephone
numbers and area codes that have frustrated so many consumers. When
state commissions devise innovative ways to address local number
crunches, we need to treat these proposals seriously and with the speed
necessary to ensure their effectiveness.

I fear today's decision is less than optimal, because it does not afford
the experimental efforts of the California Public Utilities Commission
the deference they deserve. I concur because I would have preferred to
grant this petition in a less area code restricted fashion than the
majority does in its decision today. Furthermore, I would have preferred
to have done so some time ago. I fear that we may have jeopardized the
ability of the California Public Utilities Commission to provide some of
the relief sought, through the slow regulatory speed with which we
resolved this matter. With the release of this decision, our state
counterparts in California will need to shift into high gear to ensure
that the new contamination threshold still can serve as a meaningful
numbering resource optimization measure. I am confident they will do so.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KEVIN J. MARTIN**

Re: *Numbering Resource Optimization* *Petition of the California Public
Utilities Commission for Waiver of the Federal Communications
Commission's Contamination Threshold Rule.*

Nearly a year ago, the California Public Utilities Commission filed a
petition for waiver of the Commission's contamination threshold
requirement. While I am pleased that we are finally taking action on the
petition, I would have granted the State of California greater
flexibility.

During the past two years, I have supported the Commission's effort to
grant the requests of several states for additional assistance to
address local numbering resource issues. As I have said before, giving
States additional flexibility in how to address numbering issues is
crucial, because it is the State Commissions, not this Commission, that
feel the outcry from consumers when numbering conservation measures are
adopted.[^65]

I expect this Commission to continue to work with the States to
facilitate their number conservation plans and look forward to quick
Commission action on other requests for regulatory flexibility.[^66]

[^1]: *See Petition of the California Public Utilities Commission and
    the People of the State of California for Waiver of the Federal
    Communications Commission's Contamination Threshold Rule*, CC Docket
    No. 99-200 (filed Sept. 5, 2002) (California Commission Petition);
    47 C.F.R. § 52.20(c)(1).

[^2]: California Commission Petition at 1. The Commission's rules
    require that "\[a\]ll service providers required to participate in
    thousands-block number pooling donate thousands-blocks with ten
    percent or less contamination to the thousands-block number pool for
    the rate center within which the numbering resources are assigned."
    47 C.F.R. § 52.20(c)(1).

[^3]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 52.7(h). A contamination level of ten percent
    means that ten percent of the numbers in a block are not available
    for assignment.

[^4]: Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996 Act). The 1996 Act amended
    the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-174. Section
    251(e)(1) states:

    > The Commission shall designate one or more impartial entities to
    > administer telecommunications numbering and to make such numbers
    > available on an equitable basis. The Commission shall have
    > exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North American
    > Numbering Plan that pertain to the United States. Nothing in this
    > paragraph shall preclude the Commission from delegating to State
    > commissions or other entities all or any portion of such
    > jurisdiction.

[^5]: *See Numbering Resource Optimization*, Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 99-200, 15 FCC
    Rcd 7574, 7660-62 (2000) (*Numbering Resource Optimization First
    Report and Order*). Thousands-block number pooling is a process by
    which the 10,000 numbers in a central office code (NXX) are
    separated into to sequential blocks of 1,000 numbers each
    (thousands-blocks), and allocated separately within a rate center.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 52.20(a).

[^6]: The Commission had sought comment on a ten percent threshold, a
    twenty-five percent threshold, and the combination of a twenty-five
    percent threshold for incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) with
    a ten percent contamination level for competitive LECs. *Numbering
    Resource Optimization*, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket
    99-200, 14 FCC Rcd 10322, 10403-04 (1999). The ten percent
    contamination level was supported by state commissions and used in
    state pooling trials. *See Numbering Resource Optimization First
    Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7661 n.463.

[^7]: *See Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order*, 15
    FCC Rcd at 7661.

[^8]: *Id*. at 7661-62.

[^9]: *See* California Commission Petition at 1.

[^10]: *Id*. at 1-2.

[^11]: *See* *Motion of the California Public Utilities Commission to
    Accept Supplemental Data With Respect to its Petition for Waiver of
    the* *Communications Commission's Contamination Threshold Rule*, CC
    Docket 99-200 (filed Oct. 17, 2002). (California Commission
    Supplemental Data).

[^12]: *See Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on the Petition of
    the California Public Utilities Commission and the People of the
    State of California for Waiver of the Federal Communications
    Commission's Contamination Threshold Rule*, CC Docket No. 99-200, DA
    02-2822 (rel. Oct. 24, 2002) (*Contamination Threshold Public
    Notice*).

[^13]: *See* *generally* Michigan Commission Comments.

[^14]: *See, e.g.,* AT&T Comments at 6-8.

[^15]: *See Contamination Threshold Public Notice*.

[^16]: *See* *Report on the Technical Viability of Increasing the
    Pooling Contamination Threshold*, Prepared for the NANC by the
    Contamination Levels Issues Management Group (dated Dec. 6, 2002)
    (NANC IMG Report) at 3.

[^17]: *Id*. at 12, 14.

[^18]: *See* Letter to William Maher, Chief, Wireline Competition
    Bureau, from Robert C. Atkinson, Chairman, North American Numbering
    Council at 2 (filed Dec. 12, 2002).

[^19]: *See* NANC IMG Report at 3, 12. External factors include, but are
    not limited to, thousands-blocks held by the Pooling Administrator,
    NXX codes held by the NANPA, and returned codes. *See id*. at 12.
    "NXX code" or "Central office 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).

[^20]: *Id*. at 16.

[^21]: According to Analysis A, an increase of the utilization threshold
    to twenty-five percent would have the following effects: 8 NPAs
    would exhaust as scheduled; the lives of 3 NPAs would be extended by
    one month; the lives of 2 NPAs would be extended by two months; the
    lives of 7 NPAs would be extended by three months; the lives of 2
    NPAs would be extended by four months; the life of 1 NPA would be
    extended by six months; the life of 1 NPA would be extended by 8
    months; and the life of 1 NPA would be extended by nine months.
    *See* Appendix A. *See also* NANC IMG Report at 13, 16-17.

[^22]: *Id*. at 14. These factors include, but are not limited to, the
    current supply of pooled thousands-blocks and whole NXX codes. *Id*.
    at 14. Analysis B also assumes that carriers would not have to draw
    on their six month inventories in donating the ten to twenty-five
    percent contaminated blocks to existing number pools. *Id*. at 18.

[^23]: *See* NANC IMG Report at 14. Area code exhaust occurs when there
    are no NXX codes available for assignment. A new area code should be
    implemented prior to exhaust so that carriers that need new numbers
    in that geographic area can obtain numbers and customers are not
    deprived of their carrier of choice.

[^24]: *Id*. at 17.

[^25]: According to Analysis B, an increase of the utilization threshold
    to twenty-five percent would have the following effects: the life of
    1 NPA would be extended by one month; the life of 1 NPA would be
    extended by two months; the life of 1 NPA would be extended by three
    month; the life of 1 NPA would be extended by four months; the life
    of 1 NPA would be extended by five months; the life of 1 NPA would
    be extended by six months; the lives of 2 NPAs would be extended by
    seven months; the lives of 5 NPAs would be extended by eight months;
    the lives of 4 NPAs would be extended by nine months; the lives of 2
    NPAs would be extended by ten months; the life of 1 NPA would be
    extended by eleven months; the lives of 2 NPAs would be extended by
    thirteen months; the life of 1 NPA would be extended by fourteen
    months; and the life of 1 NPA would be extended by 29 months. Data
    on the change in 1 NPA was not available. *Id*. at 15. *See also*
    Appendix A.

[^26]: NANC IMG Report at 17.

[^27]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.

[^28]: *WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969), *cert.
    denied,* 409 U.S. 1027 (1972).

[^29]: *Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC*, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166
    (D.C. Cir. 1990).

[^30]: *WAIT Radio*, 418 F.2d at 1159; *Northeast Cellular*, 897 F.2d at
    1166.

[^31]: *WAIT Radio*, 418 F.2d at 1159.

[^32]: *See* AT&T Comments at 1, 3; AT&T Wireless Comments at 2-8;
    Nextel Comment at 8, 12; SBC Comments at 5; Sprint Comments at 5;
    Time Warner Comment at 2-3; T-Mobile Comments at 9-10; Verizon
    Comments at 2; WorldCom Comments at 5-6.

[^33]: *See, e.g., Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Request for
    Expedited Action on the July 15, 1997 Order of the Pennsylvania
    Public Utilities Commission Regarding Area Codes 412, 610, 215, and
    717*, *Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, CC Docket No. 96-98, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 19009,
    19027 (1998) (*Pennsylvania Numbering Order*); *Numbering Resource
    Optimization First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7581; *Numbering
    Resource Optimization,* Second Report and Order, Order on
    Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98 and CC Docket No. 99-200, and
    Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No.
    99-200, 16 FCC Rcd 306, 310 (2000); *Numbering Resource
    Optimization*, Third Report and Order and Second Order on
    Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 99-200, 17 FCC Rcd 252, 258-263
    (2001).

[^34]: *See*
    <http://www.nanpa.com/pdf/NRUF/2003_NPA_Exhaust_Projections-WebPosting1.pdf>
    (NANPA June 2003 Exhaust Data). In June, the NANPA updated its
    January 2003 exhaust data. The projected exhaust date of the 310 NPA
    remained the fourth quarter of 2003. The projected exhaust date of
    the 909 NPA was extended from the second quarter of 2003 until the
    fourth quarter of 2003. *See also See* North American Numbering Plan
    Administrator 2002 NRUF and NPA Exhaust Analysis, June 5, 2002
    available at <http://www.nanpa.com/pdf/NRUF/nruf061501results.pdf>
    (NANPA June 2002 Exhaust Data); North American Numbering Plan
    Administrator NPA Exhaust Analysis; Changes as of January 21, 2003,
    available at <http://www.nanpa.com/pdf/NRUF/01_21_03_delta_nruf.pdf>
    (NANPA Jan. 2003 Updated Exhaust Data).

[^35]: Moreover, the California Commission must file a report with the
    Bureau by April 30, 2004 on the outcome of the public hearings and
    addressing whether the interim waiver has accomplished the
    anticipated goals.

[^36]: *See* AT&T Wireless Comments at 6-8 (proposing that a limited
    waiver to raise the contamination threshold in 310 and 909 be
    granted). AT&T Wireless also states that the Commission should not
    grant the California Commission's waiver without requiring immediate
    area code relief. Several other commenters also discuss the need for
    area code relief in the 310 and 909 NPAs. *See* CTIA Comments at
    4-5; Cingular Comments at 3; Nextel Comments at 14-15.

[^37]: AT&T Wireless Comments at 6-7. Specifically, AT&T Wireless states
    that it would take at least seven months to implement an
    all-services overlay, and at least 12 months to implement a
    geographic split.

[^38]: *See* NANC IMG Report at 13, 15.

[^39]: *See* California Commission Supplemental Data, Attachment.

[^40]: The California Commission's projections do not account for blocks
    that are not available for donation. Rather, it assumes that all
    blocks with twenty-five percent or less contamination will be
    donated for pooling. *See* para. 17, *infra*.

[^41]: *See* para. 16, *infra*.

[^42]: The projected exhaust dates for most California area codes are
    beyond 2010. See Appendix A. See *also* NANPA Jan. 2003 Updated
    Exhaust Data.

[^43]: California Petition at 2.

[^44]: *See* AT&T Comments at 2; BellSouth Comments at 5; Sprint
    Comments at 10; Verizon Comments at 5.

[^45]: *See* AT&T Comments at 2.

[^46]: *See* AT&T Comments at 2, 8-9; Cox Comments at 4; Nextel Comments
    at 9-10; SBC Comments at 6-8; Sprint Comments at 10; T-Mobile
    Comments at 7.

[^47]: *See* AT&T Comments at 2, 8-9; SBC Comments at 8.

[^48]: California Commission Petition at 4-5; California Commission
    Supplemental Data at 1-2, Attachment.

[^49]: Cingular Comments at 5 (pointing out that the bulk of the blocks
    that are between ten and twenty-five percent contaminated may not be
    available for donation); Cox Comments at 2-3 (arguing that most of
    the blocks identified by the California Commission are likely to be
    exempt from pooling regardless of the contamination threshold
    because of carriers' six-month inventories and the number of blocks
    that would be retained as initial blocks); Verizon Comments at 3-4
    (arguing that the California Commission's analysis ignores factors
    that would substantially reduce the number of additional blocks that
    raising the contamination threshold would produce).

[^50]: Cingular Comments at 5; Cox Comments at 2-3 (noting that more
    than two thirds of the blocks in California with a ten to
    twenty-five percent contamination level are accounted for as part of
    a carrier's six-month inventory or as the only block in a rate
    center); Verizon Comments at 3-4.

[^51]: Cingular Comments at 6 (stating that the California Commission's
    analysis does not account for blocks that are received to obtain an
    LRN, which cannot be donated); Verizon Comments at 3-4 (noting that
    blocks that contain a service providers LRN and blocks that are
    necessary for 911 service would not be available for donation).

[^52]: *See, e.g., Pennsylvania Numbering Order,* 13 FCC Rcd at 19027.

[^53]: *See* California Commission Supplemental Data.

[^54]: *Id*. at 2.

[^55]: *See* California Commission Petition at 4 n.8.

[^56]: North American Numbering Plan Administrator NPA Exhaust Analysis;
    Changes as of January 21, 2003, available at
    <http://www.nanpa.com/pdf/NRUF/01_21_03_delta_nruf.pdf>.

[^57]: *Report on the Technical Viability of Increasing the Pooling
    Contamination Threshold*, Prepared for the NANC by the Contamination
    Levels Issues Management Group (dated Dec. 6, 2002).

[^58]: *Id.*

[^59]: *See, e.g.*, *Numbering Resource Optimization*, Report and Order
    and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 7574 ¶ 120
    (2000) ("*First NRO Order*") (state commissions may not "engage in
    thousands-block number pooling to the exclusion of, or as a
    substitute for, unavoidable and timely area code relief"). Moreover,
    the Commission has ruled that states should not be delegated
    authority to undertake numbering conservation measures when the NPAs
    at issue have a life span of less than a year ― as is the case here.
    *Id.* at 7648 ¶ 164. I appreciate that the Commission seeks today to
    reaffirm that increasing the contamination threshold "should not be
    used to justify delaying . . . much needed \[area code\] relief,"
    Order at para. 11, but that is precisely what this decision will do.
    The only way to avoid delaying area code relief is to condition the
    waiver on prompt implementation of such relief.

[^60]: Commenters note that additional costs will arise from the need
    for increase Signal Control Point capacity and other network and
    software modifications. *See* Ex Parte Presentation of BellSouth,
    Qwest, SBC, Sprint, and Verizon at 6 (June 18, 2003).

[^61]: The NANC Report includes an alternative conclusion that
    tentatively makes the case for raising the contamination threshold,
    but that analysis expressly states that cost considerations were
    ignored (NANC Report at 17) ― something the Commission cannot do in
    evaluating a waiver petition.

[^62]: *See, e.g.*, *Florida Cellular Mobil Communications Corp. v.
    FCC*, 28 F.3d 191, 199 (D. C. Cir. 1994).

[^63]: *See First NRO Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7580 ¶ 7 ("Although we have
    delegated to the states certain elements of numbering
    administration, such as implementing area code relief, that are
    local in nature, numbering resource optimization policy is part of
    our role as guardian of the nationwide NANP resource.").

[^64]: *Numbering Resource Optimization*, Second Report and Order, Order
    on Reconsideration, and Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 306, 328 ¶ 46 (2002).

[^65]: See Remarks by Kevin J. Martin, Commissioner, Federal
    Communications Commission, to the Southeastern Association of
    Regulatory Utility Commissioners (SEARUC) Conference 2002 (June 3,
    2002).

[^66]: Separate Statement of Commissioner Kevin J. Martin, *Petition of
    the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control for Delegated
    Authority to Implement Specialized Transitional Overlays (CC Docket
    No. 99-200) (rel. May 15, 2003).*