**Before the**

# **Federal Communications Commission** {#federal-communications-commission .unnumbered}

### **Washington, D.C. 20554** {#washington-d.c.-20554 .unnumbered}

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | ) | CC Docket No. 96-98          |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Massachusetts Department of      | ) | NSD File No. L-99-19         |
| Telecommunications and Energy's  |   |                              |
| Petition for Waiver of Section   | ) |                              |
| 52.19 to Implement Various Area  |   |                              |
| Code Conservation Methods in the | ) |                              |
| 508, 617, 781, and 978 Area      |   |                              |
| Codes                            | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

ORDER

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Adopted: September 15, 1999         Released: September 15, 1999

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

By the Commission:

## INTRODUCTION

1.  This order responds to the Massachusetts Department of
    Telecommunications and Energy's (Department) Petition for Waiver of
    Section 52.19 (Petition) requesting additional authority from the
    Commission to implement various area code conservation measures in
    the 508, 617, 781, and 978 area codes in eastern Massachusetts. We
    herein conditionally grant the Department the authority to institute
    thousands-block pooling trials; reclaim unused and reserved NXX
    codes, and portions of those codes; maintain rationing procedures
    for six months following area code relief; set numbering allocation
    standards; and hear and address claims of carriers seeking numbering
    resources outside of the rationing process. We determine that
    authorizing carriers to use inconsistent rate centers and extended
    local calling areas already is within the authority of the
    Department, and therefore no action on our part is necessary with
    respect to this aspect of the Department's request. We deny the
    Department's request for authority to implement unassigned number
    porting. We decline to reach the Department's request to revise NXX
    code rationing procedures at this time. Although we grant the
    Department interim authority to institute many of the optimization
    measures raised in its Petition, this grant will be superseded by
    forthcoming decisions in the *Numbering Resource Optimization*
    proceeding[^1] that will establish national guidelines, standards,
    and procedures for numbering optimization. Thus, this limited grant
    of delegated authority should not be construed as prejudging any of
    the issues on which the Commission has sought public comment in the
    *Numbering Resource Optimization Notice*.

2.  Although the Petition is styled as a petition for waiver of 47
    C.F.R. § 52.19(c)(3), because that section refers only to the
    requirements for implementing an area code overlay, we will
    interpret the Petition as a request for an additional delegation of
    authority, as paragraph 31 of the *Pennsylvania Numbering Order*
    contemplates.[^2] In order to grant the Department's request, we
    must find that the Department's proposed number usage optimization
    plans do not negatively impact consumers' ability to choose from
    competing telecommunications service providers in the marketplace,
    and that the plans do not impair the functioning of the public
    switched telephone network in eastern Massachusetts and nationwide.

## BACKGROUND

3.  Congress granted the Commission plenary jurisdiction over numbering
    issues.[^3] Section 251(e)(1) of the Act also allows the Commission
    to delegate to state commissions all or any portion of its
    jurisdiction over numbering administration.[^4] The Commission's
    regulations generally require that numbering administration: (1)
    facilitate entry into the telecommunications marketplace by making
    telecommunications 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.[^5] Further, our
    regulations specify that, if the Commission delegates any
    telecommunications numbering administration functions to any state,
    the states must perform the functions in a manner consistent with
    these general requirements.[^6]

4.  On September 28, 1998, the Commission released the *Pennsylvania
    Numbering Order* delegating additional authority to state
    commissions to order NXX code rationing in conjunction with area
    code relief decisions, in the absence of industry consensus.[^7] The
    order further approved a mandatory thousands-block number pooling
    trial in Illinois.[^8] The order provided that state utility
    commissions could order voluntary pooling trials,[^9] but in view of
    the Commission's efforts to develop national pooling standards, we
    declined to delegate to state commissions the general authority to
    order mandatory number pooling.[^10] The *Pennsylvania Numbering
    Order*, however, encouraged state commissions to seek further
    limited delegations of authority to implement other innovative
    number conservation methods prior to implementing number
    conservation plans.[^11]

5.  In its Petition, the Department requests that the Commission grant
    it the authority, in the 508, 617, 781, and 978 area codes, to: (1)
    reclaim unused and reserved exchange codes; (2) maintain current
    central office code rationing measures for at least six months after
    implementation of all the area code relief plans; (3) revise
    rationing procedures; (4) hear and address claims of carriers
    seeking additional codes outside of the rationing plan; (5) set code
    allocation standards; (6) institute thousands-block number
    pooling; (7) implement extended local calling areas; (8) implement
    inconsistent rate centers; and (9) implement Unassigned Number
    Porting.[^12] The Department states that it requests this additional
    authority as part of its ongoing area code relief plan investigation
    and area code conservation investigation for these area codes.[^13]
    The Department also believes that a grant of the requested authority
    will help mitigate the need for additional area codes in eastern
    Massachusetts.[^14] Furthermore, the Department maintains that state
    regulators, on the basis of their knowledge of local market
    conditions, are best able to explore whether a given area code
    conservation method would unreasonably discriminate against certain
    carriers or industry segments and unduly inhibit competition in
    Massachusetts.[^15] On March 5, 1999, the Petition was placed on
    Public Notice for public comment.[^16]

## DISCUSSION

6.  We recognize that the area code situation in Massachusetts is
    critical, with area code relief necessary for the second time in
    only two years.[^17] In light of this extreme situation and in order
    to empower the Department to take steps to make number utilization
    more efficient, we herein grant significant additional authority to
    the Department. In some instances, we are granting the Department
    authority that goes beyond the parameters outlined in the
    *Pennsylvania Numbering Order*, because we find such grant to be
    appropriate in light of the specific circumstances in Massachusetts.

7.  Many of the measures proposed in the Department's Petition are also
    examined in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that this Commission
    recently released.[^18] Although we grant the Department interim
    authority to institute many of the optimization measures in the
    Petition, we do so subject to the caveat that this grant will be
    superseded by forthcoming decisions in the *Numbering Resource
    Optimization* proceeding that will establish national guidelines,
    standards, and procedures for numbering optimization. This limited
    grant of delegated authority should not be construed as a
    prejudgment of any of the measures on which the Commission has
    sought public comment in the *Numbering Resource Optimization
    Notice*.

8.  Congress granted this Commission exclusive jurisdiction over those
    portions of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) that relate to
    the United States, and directed that the Commission administer the
    NANP in a manner which assures that numbering resources are
    available on an equitable basis.[^19] The Commission was also
    granted the authority to delegate this jurisdiction to state utility
    commissions. Thus, while we grant authority below to the Department
    to engage in various matters related to administration of the NANP
    in Massachusetts, we require the Department to abide by the same
    general requirements that this Commission has imposed on the
    numbering administrator. Thus, the Department, to the extent it acts
    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 Department institutes with regard to numbering
    administration not unduly favor or disfavor any particular
    telecommunications industry segment or group of telecommunications
    consumers; and that the Department not unduly favor one
    telecommunications technology over another.[^20]

9.  The grants of authority herein are not intended to allow the
    Department to engage in number conservation measures to the
    exclusion of, or as a substitute for, unavoidable and timely area
    code relief.[^21] While we are giving the Department tools that may
    prolong the lives of existing area codes, the Department continues
    to bear the obligation of implementing area code relief when
    necessary, and we expect the Department 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 a want of numbering resources.
    For consumers to benefit from the competition envisioned by the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, it is imperative that competitors in
    the telecommunications marketplace face as few barriers to entry as
    possible.

10. Several commenting parties urged the Commission to grant the
    Department's Petition in its entirety on the basis that state
    utility commissions require greater authority to implement number
    conservation measures in order to rectify the causes of area code
    exhaust.[^22] Other parties suggested that we deny the Petition on
    the basis that number conservation measures must be developed at the
    national level, and that the Petition does not provide an adequate
    basis on which to grant the requested delegations of authority.[^23]

11. *Thousands-block number pooling*. The Department requests authority
    to institute thousands-block number pooling.[^24] This Commission
    tentatively concluded that thousands-block pooling is an important
    numbering resource optimization strategy, essential to extending the
    life of the NANP.[^25] In granting the Illinois Commission the
    authority to engage in a mandatory thousands-block pooling trial in
    the *Pennsylvania Numbering Order*, this Commission recognized that
    state number pooling trials could aid in developing national pooling
    implementation, architecture, and administrative standards. The
    Department, noting that the North American Numbering Council (NANC)
    estimates that thousands-block number pooling would take between 10
    and 19 months to implement on a nationwide scale,[^26] requests the
    authority to implement its own thousands-block pooling requirements
    in advance of any federal rules.

12. Commenters representing incumbent local exchange carriers oppose
    permitting state utility commissions to order thousands-block
    pooling trials, mainly on the basis that multiple, inconsistent
    trials would pose an administrative burden to carriers that are
    present in various states.[^27] Several wireless carriers have also
    voiced their opposition to thousands-block pooling trials based on
    the premise that such trials would require the implementation of
    local number portability (LNP).[^28] Some competitive local exchange
    carriers and other state utility commissions have voiced their
    support for thousands-block pooling trials as a means to allocate
    numbers more efficiently and ensure that carriers are given greater
    access to numbering resources.[^29]

13. We have been concerned that the existence of multiple pooling trials
    in a state or region may strain the capacities of carriers' Service
    Control Points (SCPs),[^30] which could affect the ability of
    carriers' networks to perform LNP and pooling functions. We note,
    however, that the volume of ported numbers is significantly lower
    than previously anticipated.[^31]

14. Although we remain concerned about the potential strain which
    multiple thousands-block pooling trials in an MSA, state or region
    may have on the functioning of the public switched telephone
    network, we nonetheless believe this relief is appropriate given the
    strain on Massachusetts' numbering resources. Furthermore, since the
    release of the *Pennsylvania Numbering Order*, the
    telecommunications industry has arrived at detailed guidelines
    governing the technical and administrative functioning of
    thousands-block number pooling. In the *Pennsylvania Numbering
    Order*, we stated that upon the establishment of uniform, national
    standards for pooling, we may determine that it is appropriate to
    delegate to state commissions the additional authority to implement
    and enforce those standards. [^32] We therefore grant authority to
    the Department to conduct mandatory thousands-block number pooling
    trials in Massachusetts. We agree with the concern raised by many
    wireline commenters, however, that inconsistent pooling trials could
    pose a burden to carriers. To ameliorate this concern, we direct the
    Department to conduct its pooling trial in accordance with
    industry-adopted thousands-block pooling guidelines. [^33] Where the
    Department determines that changes, modifications, or departures
    from the guidelines are desirable, we direct the Department to
    consult with the industry prior to implementing such changes.
    Although we will not dictate the manner in which the Department
    should consult with industry, the Department should, at a minimum,
    seek input from the industry regarding the implications of any
    proposed changes to the guidelines so that the Department may be
    able to weigh the industry's concerns in its decision-making
    process.

15. We grant this authority subject to the conditions and safeguards
    similar to those enumerated in the *Pennsylvania Numbering Order*
    that granted such authority to Illinois.[^34] Thus, we require that
    in any NPA which is in jeopardy in which the Department implements a
    pooling trial, the Department must take all necessary steps to
    prepare an NPA relief plan that may be adopted by the Department in
    the event that numbering resources in the NPA at issue are in
    imminent danger of being exhausted.[^35] This criterion is not
    intended to require the Department to implement an NPA relief plan
    prior to requiring thousands-block number pooling in eastern
    Massachusetts. Rather, we require only that the Department must be
    prepared to implement a "back-up" NPA relief plan prior to the
    exhaustion of numbering resources in the NPA at issue.[^36]
    Consumers should never be in the position of being unable to
    exercise their choice of carrier because that carrier does not have
    access to numbering resources. This criterion attempts to ensure
    that consumers continue to retain a choice of telecommunications
    providers in the event that the pooling trial or trials do not stave
    off the need for area code relief.

16. Only those carriers that have implemented permanent LNP shall be
    subject to the trial.[^37] At the present time, we do not grant the
    state commission the authority to require a carrier to acquire LNP
    solely for the purpose of being able to participate in a
    thousands-block pooling trial. Carriers are only required to
    implement LNP if requested by another carrier subject to the
    requirements established by this Commission.[^38] Within NPAs that
    are subject to the 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 a pooling
    regime, *i.e.*, non-LNP capable carriers shall continue to be able
    to obtain full NXX codes. We recognize that conditioning the
    Department's authority to implement a mandatory thousands-block
    pooling trial on exemption of non-LNP capable carriers from
    participation in the trial will create a disparity in the way
    different types of service providers obtain access to numbering
    resources, in tension with the criteria set forth above.[^39] In
    order to ensure that consumers may continue to obtain service from
    non-LNP capable carriers of their choosing, however, we find that
    for the purposes of this interim delegation, it is necessary to
    safeguard these carriers' access to numbering resources, while they
    lack the technical capability to participate in pooling. The
    *Numbering Resource Optimization Notice* raises a number of issues
    relating to non-LNP capable carriers' participation in pooling, and
    we believe these issues are best addressed in the larger rulemaking
    context. In the meantime, we suggest to the Department that it urge
    the non-LNP capable carriers to use various other numbering resource
    optimization strategies such as those discussed in the *Numbering
    Resource Optimization Notice* to improve the efficiency of numbering
    resources assigned to such carriers.

17. We direct the Department to ensure that an adequate transition time
    is provided to carriers to implement pooling in their switches and
    administrative systems. Thousands-block pooling requires carriers to
    alter significantly the manner in which they account for their
    inventory of telephone numbers, including changing their Operations
    Support Systems (OSSs) and retraining their staffs.[^40] In
    addition, we also urge the Department not to require carriers to
    engage in processes related to thousands-block pooling which might
    divert critical resources away from preparations related to the Year
    2000 rollover.[^41]

18. We further require that the Department determine the method to
    recover the costs of the pooling trial.[^42] The Department must
    also determine how carrier-specific costs directly related to
    pooling administration should be recovered.[^43] The Commission has
    tentatively concluded that thousands-block number pooling is a
    numbering administration function, and that section 251(e)(2)
    authorizes the Commission to provide the distribution and recovery
    mechanisms for the interstate and intrastate costs of number
    pooling.[^44] We conclude that inasmuch as we are hereby delegating
    numbering administration authority to the Department, the Department
    must abide by the same statute applicable to this Commission, and,
    therefore, ensure that costs of number pooling are recovered in a
    competitively neutral manner.[^45] We note that the *Telephone
    Number Portability* proceeding found that section 251(e)(2) requires
    all carriers to bear the costs of number portability on a
    competitively neutral basis, and, thus, established a cost recovery
    mechanism that assesses even carriers that cannot or have not
    implemented LNP to date.[^46] The Department may consider the
    recently released *Telephone Number Portability* Order 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
    earn normal returns on their investments."[^47]

    Consistent with our treatment of cost recovery in the *Telephone
    Number Portability* proceeding, we believe that even those carriers
    that cannot participate in pooling at this time will benefit from
    the more efficient use of numbering resources that pooling will
    facilitate. We also encourage the Department to consider the "road
    map" provided by the *Numbering Resource Optimization Notice*
    regarding cost recovery for thousands-block number pooling.[^48]

19. In order to minimize possible disruption and expense and maximize
    the value of the information that can be obtained from a number
    pooling trial, we believe that such a trial should be limited in
    nature. As an initial matter, we limit the authority we grant to the
    Department to a trial that generally covers one Metropolitan
    Statistical Area (MSA).[^49] We believe that such a limitation
    strikes the appropriate balance between the Department's desire to
    move quickly to implement measures that will enhance number
    utilization efficiency, and possibly prolong the lives of certain
    area codes in eastern Massachusetts and our obligation to ensure
    that such pooling trials are implemented and conducted in a manner
    that does not disrupt network operations or reliability. We believe
    these goals ultimately benefit consumers in eastern Massachusetts by
    allowing the Department to move forward with a pooling trial quickly
    in whatever area it determines it is most necessary, while providing
    some assurance that the network changes required for the trials are
    implemented in a manner that does not disrupt the normal functioning
    of the network in Massachusetts and nationwide.

20. After having implemented a thousands-block number pooling trial in
    one MSA, the Department may wish to expand to another MSA.[^50]
    Should it wish to do so, we direct the Department to allow
    sufficient transition time for carriers to undertake any necessary
    steps, such as modifying databases and upgrading switch software, to
    prepare for an expansion of thousands-block pooling to another MSAs.
    [^51] In other words, start dates for thousands-block pooling trials
    in different MSAs should be appropriately staggered to permit the
    industry to undertake all necessary steps. The purpose of a
    staggered roll-out is to provide carriers time to upgrade or replace
    their SCPs and other components of their network, as necessary, if
    the increased volume of ported numbers as a result of the pooling
    trial requires them to do so.

21. We suggest to the Department that it consider concentrating its
    thousands-block pooling trial in those NPAs which are the best
    candidates for pooling, based on the considerations set forth in the
    *Numbering Resource Optimization Notice*.[^52] For example, we
    encourage the Department to consider number pooling in areas where
    multiple, LNP-capable carriers exist. We also suggest to the
    Department that it allow for exceptions to participating in a
    pooling trial, if doing so would prove prohibitively expensive to a
    particular carrier. For example, certain switch types may not be
    able to accommodate thousands-block number pooling.[^53] Finally, as
    we stated in the *Numbering Resource Optimization Notice*, we
    encourage the Department, to the extent it has not already done so,
    to consider consolidating rate centers prior to implementing
    pooling.[^54] Fewer, larger pools logically increase the
    effectiveness of thousands-block pooling.[^55]

22. We reiterate that the authority we grant herein to the Department to
    undertake a thousands-block pooling trial is interim in nature, and
    is in no way intended to relieve the Department of its obligation to
    implement necessary area code relief in a timely fashion. Whatever
    decisions this Commission reaches with regard to thousands-block
    pooling administration and guidelines will supersede whatever
    systems the Department puts in place prior to enactment of those
    rules.

23. *Reclamation of unused and reserved NXX codes*. The CO Code
    Assignment Guidelines provide that carriers shall activate NXXs
    within six months of the "initially published effective date."[^56]
    The Department provided information following its filing of the
    Petition that several carriers had voluntarily returned unused NXXs
    to the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA).[^57] We
    are encouraged to learn that certain carriers are voluntarily
    returning codes that they have not used, but we are concerned that
    enforcement of the guidelines has been lax.[^58] Most commenters
    support the reclamation of unused codes,[^59] and those opposed to
    this delegation are not necessarily opposed to reclaiming unused
    codes in general, but rather assert that the NANPA is responsible
    for reclamation activities.[^60] Reclaiming NXX codes that are not
    in use may serve to prolong the life of an area code, because these
    codes are added to the total inventory of assignable NXX codes in
    the area code. Therefore, we grant authority to the Department to
    investigate whether code holders have activated NXXs assigned to
    them within the time frames specified in the CO Code Assignment
    Guidelines, and to direct the NANPA to reclaim NXXs that the
    Department determines have not been activated in a timely manner.
    This authority necessarily implies that the Department may request
    proof from all code holders that NXX codes have been "placed in
    service" according to the CO Code Assignment Guidelines.[^61] We
    further direct the NANPA to abide by the Department's determination
    to reclaim an NXX code if the Department is satisfied that the code
    holder has not activated the code within the time specified by the
    CO Code Assignment Guidelines.

24. We note that the CO Code Assignment Guidelines dictate substantial
    procedural hurdles prior to reclaiming an unused NXX, in part to
    afford the code holder an opportunity to explain the circumstances
    that have led to a delay in code activation.[^62] New entrants, in
    particular, may suffer unexpected delays or scheduling setbacks
    beyond their control, which lead to code activation delays. [^63] We
    clarify that the Department need not follow the reclamation
    procedures set forth in the CO Code Assignment Guidelines relating
    to referring the issue to the Industry Numbering Committee (INC), as
    long as the Department accords the code holder an opportunity to
    explain the extenuating circumstances behind the unactivated NXX
    codes.

25. The Department has also requested authority to investigate whether
    any NXX codes demarcated as "reserved" by Bell
    Atlantic-Massachusetts can be placed in carriers' pools for
    allocation. Bell Atlantic did not address this portion of the
    Petition in its comments. Given the assertions of the Department
    that a meaningful percentage of NXX codes are reserved for testing
    or other purposes, we grant the Department the authority to
    investigate whether any of these codes can be placed in carriers'
    pools for potential activation, without causing disruption to Bell
    Atlantic's operations. If, after such an investigation, the
    Department is satisfied that Bell Atlantic's use of these codes for
    testing purposes is not warranted, the Department may direct the
    NANPA to reclaim these codes for assignment to other carriers.

26. *Reclamation of portions of unused NXX codes*. The Department also
    requests the authority to reclaim unused blocks of 1,000 numbers
    from code holders in Massachusetts. Although not explicitly stated
    by the Department, the only logical purpose for reclaiming unused
    thousands blocks would be in conjunction with a number pooling
    trial. Reclamation of blocks of 1,000 numbers with no, or a
    relatively low contamination rate, has the potential to add
    significant numbering resources in areas where thousands-block
    number pooling has been implemented.[^64] Parties opposed to
    thousands-block pooling trials are similarly opposed to reclaiming
    unused, or lightly used, blocks of 1,000 numbers.[^65] Therefore, to
    the extent we have delegated the authority to initiate a
    thousands-block number pooling trial, we also delegate authority to
    the Department to reclaim unused thousands blocks in connection with
    that trial. The conditions that apply to the implementation of a
    thousands-block number pooling trial shall also apply to any
    reclamation of unused blocks of numbers. In particular, the
    industry's guidelines regarding reclamation of thousands blocks
    shall apply to the Department.[^66]

27. *Maintenance of rationing procedures for 6 months following area
    code relief*. The Department requests the authority to maintain
    current NXX code rationing measures for six months following area
    code relief in the area codes at issue in the Petition. It states
    that this authority would be used to delay another declaration of
    jeopardy immediately following implementation of an area code relief
    plan. According to the Department, the 781 and 978 area codes went
    into jeopardy shortly after their activation.[^67]

28. Although most industry parties are opposed to granting an extension
    of rationing procedures because it delays needed area code relief
    and thereby inhibits carriers' ability to obtain numbering resources
    with which to serve customers,[^68] there are a few competitive LECs
    that contend that allowing an additional six months of rationing
    would not cause undue harm to any carrier.[^69]

29. 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."[^70]
    Requesting a continuation of rationing after area code relief has
    been implemented does not contradict the *Pennsylvania Numbering
    Order*, as the requisite area code relief has, in fact, been
    implemented. This measure seeks only to provide "breathing room" to
    state commissions that have just undergone the difficult process of
    implementing a new area code. Furthermore, a limitation of six
    months does not have the potential---in contrast to rationing prior
    to area code relief---to forestall area code relief indefinitely.

30. When area code relief takes the form of an area code split, we grant
    the Department 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 of up to six months following the area code relief
    date.[^71] Correspondingly, if the area code relief is in the form
    of an overlay, the Department may direct that the pre-existing
    rationing plan be applied to both the overlay code and the relieved
    code for a period of six months following the area code relief date.
    For reasons discussed in paragraph 38 below, we limit this authority
    to continuing the pre-NPA relief rationing procedures. 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 for up
    to six months following area code relief. The Department may order a
    continuation of rationing for up to six months, but neither the
    Department, nor the telecommunications industry participants in a
    consensus plan may alter the terms of the rationing plan. We find
    this limitation appropriate to prevent potentially contentious
    re-opening of the terms of a previously settled code rationing plan,
    resulting in uncertainty and a drain on resources.

31. *Setting NXX code allocation standards*. The Department seeks broad
    authority to "set the standards for allocation of exchange
    codes."[^72] Included in this request is the authority to address
    fill rate and inventory level requirements. We agree with the
    Department that extension of this authority to non-jeopardy NPAs
    will encourage more efficient use of NXX codes and thereby defer an
    NPA being declared in jeopardy.[^73] Subject to the conditions set
    forth below, we hereby delegate authority to the Department to
    require NXX code applicants to demonstrate that they have met
    certain fill rates prior to obtaining additional numbering
    resources, even in non-jeopardy NPAs.[^74] Specifically, the
    Department may require that carriers achieve a certain fill rate in
    growth NXX codes[^75] and within thousands blocks, in areas where it
    has implemented thousands-block pooling.

32. Notwithstanding this grant of authority to the Department, we remain
    very concerned about the potential competitive impact of imposing a
    fill-rate regime on carriers' ability to serve customers. For
    example, commenters point out that mandatory fill rates or
    utilization thresholds may interfere with a carrier's ability to
    meet customers' demands for new services.[^76] This is largely due
    to the time it takes to activate an NXX code in nationwide
    databases. [^77] If a carrier has a relatively high rate of customer
    demand for service, it may reach the requisite fill rate, but be
    unable to get more numbering resources in time to meet customer
    demand.[^78] Furthermore, a strict fill-rate regime may not
    accommodate customers' requests for specific numbers or specific
    ranges of numbers. These concerns and others about the use of fill
    rates as opposed to the industry's current "months-to-exhaust" model
    are set forth in the *Numbering Resource Optimization Notice*.[^79]
    In this light, although we do not wish to dictate the parameters of
    the fill-rate regime, we urge the Department to allow for some
    flexibility in establishing fill rates and applying them to
    carriers. Our primary concern, therefore, is that fill rates not be
    applied in such a manner as to deprive customers of their choice of
    carriers from whom to purchase service upon request.

33. We are also concerned about the impact of multiple, disparate number
    conservation regimes on the availability of telecommunications
    services and the industry's ability to forecast and plan properly
    for exhaust of the NANP.[^80] Therefore, during its implementation
    of this authority, we ask that the Department consult and coordinate
    with other state commissions that may obtain authority to impose
    fill rates.[^81] We encourage the Department to establish fill rates
    that are not inconsistent with those imposed by other states.

34. Despite these concerns, we recognize the need to address the
    critical situation in eastern Massachusetts. In setting certain
    guidelines for the Department to follow, we hope to allay concerns
    about possible competitive impacts, while enabling the Department to
    adopt a quantifiable means of ensuring that carriers are using their
    numbers with maximum efficiency.

35. First, the Department may only consider a carrier's fill rate in
    relation to growth codes. We do not believe that a carrier's ability
    to establish a service "footprint" should be restricted. That is, a
    carrier ought to be able to obtain initial numbering resources in
    rate centers where the carrier is authorized to offer service and
    plans to do so within the NXX activation timeframe established by
    the CO Code Assignment Guidelines (six months). We wish to avoid
    imposing barriers to competitive entry into the telecommunications
    marketplace to service providers with a legitimate demand for
    service in Massachusetts. A carrier that is newly providing service
    may not be able to achieve a prescribed fill rate in an NXX code (or
    thousands-block, if the numbering request is in an area where the
    Department has instituted thousands-block number pooling) for quite
    some time. With respect to fill rates, however, we conclude that the
    importance of bringing choice to consumers outweighs the numbering
    inefficiencies experienced by new entrants.

36. Second, as stated in the *Pennsylvania Numbering Order*, we are
    concerned that granting this request and other, similar requests
    will overburden the NANPA, which based its bid for providing number
    administration services on industry guidelines that are applicable
    nationwide.[^82] Therefore, to avoid imposing an additional burden
    on the NANPA, to the extent that the Department chooses to implement
    a fill-rate requirement, we delegate authority to the Department to
    ascertain carrier compliance with the fill-rate requirement. To
    avoid delay in NXX code application processing, we direct the
    Department to conduct its review of carrier compliance with any
    required fill rate within the ten-day timeframe established by the
    CO Code Assignment Guidelines as the time in which the NANPA must
    respond to an applicant's NXX code request. Of course, a carrier's
    failure to provide the Department with adequate evidence of
    compliance with the fill-rate requirement upon request will toll the
    running of this 10-day timeframe. Further, while we delegate to the
    Department the authority to request and evaluate information
    provided by carriers to demonstrate compliance with the fill rate,
    we request that the Department not release such information to any
    entity other than the NANPA, this Commission, or the Common Carrier
    Bureau.

37. *Hearing and addressing claims outside of the rationing process*.
    The Department seeks the authority to hear and address claims of
    carriers seeking additional NXX codes to ensure that those carriers
    otherwise unable to serve their customers acquire additional
    numbering resources outside of the rationing plan. In response to a
    request in the Pennsylvania Numbering Order, the NANC considered
    this issue, but was unable to reach a consensus on whether state
    commissions or the NANPA should be the entity to rule on requests
    from carriers for numbering resources outside of a rationing
    plan.[^83] Of all the measures proposed, most of the commenters
    supported this aspect of the Department's petition.[^84]

38. We grant the Department's request to address extraordinary need for
    numbering resources in an NPA subject to a rationing plan. If
    requested, the Department may hear and address claims of carriers
    claiming that they do not, or in the near future will not, have any
    line numbers remaining in their NXX codes, and will be unable to
    serve customers if they cannot obtain an NXX code, or that they are
    using or will have to use extraordinary and unreasonably costly
    measures to provide service.[^85] This grant of authority further
    empowers the Department to direct the NANPA to assign an NXX code to
    a carrier outside the rationing plan currently in place in an area
    code, upon the Department's determination that such relief is
    necessary. We also grant the Department the authority to request
    whatever information the Department deems necessary to evaluate a
    carrier's request for additional numbering resources. This
    information may include the carrier's business plan, requests for
    new service that the carrier 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 to provide service.[^86] Further, while we delegate to the
    Department the authority to request and evaluate this information,
    we request that the Department not release such information to any
    entity other than the NANPA, this Commission, or the Common Carrier
    Bureau. This grant of authority empowers the Department 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, if the rationing plan will not ensure
    that the carrier will have adequate and timely access to numbering
    resources.

39. *Inconsistent Rate Centers and Extended Local Calling Areas*. The
    Department also requests the authority to implement Inconsistent
    Rate Centers and Extended Local Calling Areas (ELCAs). An
    inconsistent rate center exists when the rate center boundaries of a
    competitive LEC do not match the boundaries of the ILEC in a given
    area.[^87] ELCAs are technical arrangements which typically allow
    wireline callers to call wireless subscribers within a large
    geographic area. The wireless carrier can assign numbers from a
    single NXX to cover the ELCA, which may cover several of the
    incumbent LEC's rate centers. In this way, wireless carriers may
    only require as many NXX codes as are necessary to serve their
    customers, rather than obtaining one NXX per rate center.[^88]
    Although, to date, ELCAs have been deployed only between wireless
    and wireline service providers, the NANC Report notes that nothing
    precludes wireline to wireline participation in ELCAs.[^89]

40.  Both IRCs and ELCAs have the potential to make more efficient use
    of numbers, as fewer NXX codes may need to be assigned to serve a
    larger geographic area than might have been possible under the
    standard procedure of using one NXX per ILEC rate center.[^90] A
    potential downside to IRCs is that they may compromise the
    effectiveness of pooling by creating more, smaller pools than would
    otherwise exist.[^91] ELCAs, which today exist only as arrangements
    between CMRS carriers and incumbent LECs, would require CLECs to
    enter into traffic exchange arrangements similar to those which
    incumbent LECs have entered with wireless carriers.[^92] These
    measures, as they involve matters relating to local calling scopes
    and local call rating, fall under state utility commissions'
    rate-making authority.[^93] We, therefore, do not need to address
    this request of the Department, but rather leave implementation of
    these measures to the discretion of the Department.

41.  *Revision of rationing procedures*. The Department has also sought
    the authority to revise the rationing procedures now in effect
    expressly for the purpose of prolonging the lives of the existing
    area codes.[^94] Although the Department may order and revise
    rationing processes where it has ordered area code relief and
    established a relief date or, the industry has been unable to reach
    consensus on a rationing plan,[^95] rationing of NXX codes should
    only be for the express purpose of extending the life of the area
    code until the date of area code relief implementation.[^96] As
    determined in the *Pennsylvania Numbering Order*, state commissions
    may not use rationing as a substitute for area code relief.[^97] We
    believe that the authority we are herein delegating to the
    Department will provide the Department the tools it needs to address
    the underlying behaviors contributing to the inefficiencies of
    numbering use in eastern Massachusetts. We hope that the
    Department's judicious exercise of these measures will, indeed,
    extend the lives of the area codes at issue in the Petition, as well
    as whatever new area codes might be introduced in eastern
    Massachusetts, and we invite the Department to keep this Commission
    apprised regarding the efficacy of these measures. Accordingly, at
    this time, we decline to reach the Department's request for
    authority to revise rationing plans put into place pursuant to
    industry consensus.

42. *Unassigned Number Porting*. The Department requests the authority
    to implement Unassigned Number Porting (UNP) as an additional tool
    to conserve numbering resources. As described in the 1998 NANC
    Numbering Resource Optimization Report (NANC Report), UNP is a
    telephone number usage optimization measure where available
    individual telephone numbers in one service provider's inventory are
    ported, using LNP, to another service provider under the direction
    of a neutral third party coordinator for assignment by the second
    service provider to a specific customer.[^98] The NANC Report
    focused on the use of UNP in extreme cases of number shortages,
    where individual service providers are otherwise completely unable
    to otherwise obtain telephone number to serve customers.[^99] The
    Department has not provided us with information relating to the
    details of the proposed use of UNP in eastern Massachusetts.

43. We agree with most of the industry commenters that UNP is currently
    at too early a stage of development to order implementation.[^100]
    We are also concerned with the impact of UNP on carriers' ability to
    control their own number inventories. With UNP, because service
    providers will obtain telephone numbers from other service
    providers' inventories, the service provider donating numbers will
    face difficulty forecasting future numbering needs.[^101] The NANC
    Report indicates that many companies' OSSs are designed to
    accommodate large inventories of telephone numbers, linking each
    street address to an NPA/NXX combination. If UNP leads to
    significant number porting, this mapping logic becomes quite
    difficult to support.[^102] We are also concerned with UNP's
    potential impact on companies' switching systems. UNP may cause
    problems with switches that can only accept a limited number of NXX
    codes, as number inventories will be increasingly composed of random
    telephone numbers from many different NXX codes.[^103] Bell Atlantic
    raises the concern that implementing UNP now might complicate the
    effort to move to thousands-block pooling, as carriers' efforts to
    preserve uncontaminated, or minimally contaminated, blocks of
    numbers may be undermined.[^104] For the aforementioned reasons, we
    decline to grant the Department's request for authority to implement
    UNP.

44. We emphasize, however, that our determination not to grant the
    Department the authority to order carriers to use UNP does not
    preclude carriers from voluntarily engaging in UNP where mutually
    agreeable and where there are no public safety or network
    reliability concerns. As a matter of fact, we encourage the carriers
    to do so. Furthermore, we also encourage the Department and the
    carriers to work together to identify and promote other innovative
    measures as well that would encourage the conservation of NXX codes.

## CONCLUSION

45. We recognize the difficult situation for consumers in eastern
    Massachusetts, having had to undergo several area code changes in
    only a few years, with the potential for more on the near horizon.
    The authority we have herein delegated to the Department, we hope,
    will provide it the tools it needs to address the situation. For
    example, the authority to order a thousands-block pooling trial
    allows the Department to address inefficiencies on the supply side
    of the telephone number assignment regime by ordering that
    LNP-capable carriers receive smaller blocks of numbers than they now
    do. The authority to address carriers' fill rates allows the
    Department to address the demand side of the number assignment
    regime by requiring that carriers not request more numbering
    resources until they have used a certain percentage of those already
    in their inventory.

## ORDERING CLAUSE

46. 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 1.1 and 52.9(b) of the
    Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1 and 52.9(b), IT IS ORDERED that
    the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy's
    Petition for Waiver of Section 52.19 to Implement Various Area Code
    Conservation Methods in the 508, 617, 781, and 978 Area Codes is
    GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent described herein.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

[^1]: *See* Numbering Resource Optimization, *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, CC Docket No. 99-200, FCC 99-122 (rel. June 2, 1999)
    (*Numbering Resource Optimization Notice*).

[^2]: 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*, CC Docket No.
    96-98, 13 FCC Rcd 19009, 19030, ¶ 31 (1998) (*Pennsylvania Numbering
    Order*). The Petition specifies that the Massachusetts Department of
    Telecommunications and Energy seeks "additional authority to
    implement various area code conservation measures." Petition at 1.

[^3]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(e).

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(1).

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 52.9(a).

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. § 52.9(b).

[^7]: *Pennsylvania Numbering Order* at 19025, ¶ 24.

[^8]: *Id.* at 19029-30, ¶ 30.

[^9]: *Id.* at 19027-28, ¶¶ 27-28.

[^10]: *Id.* at 19027, ¶ 27. Subject to conditions, we permitted states
    to order the withholding of a certain number of NXX codes within a
    new area code from assignment and saved for pooling. *Id.*

[^11]: *Id.* at 19030, ¶ 31.

[^12]: Petition at 4.

[^13]: Petition at 1.

[^14]: Petition at 5.

[^15]: *See* Petition at 5.

[^16]: Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment on Massachusetts Department
    of Telecommunications and Energy Request for Additional Authority to
    Implement Various Area Code Conservation Methods in the 508, 617,
    781, and 978 Area Codes, *Public Notice*, DA 99-461 (rel. Mar. 5,
    1999).

[^17]: Petition at 1.

[^18]: *See Numbering Resource Optimization Notice*.

[^19]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(1).

[^20]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 52.9(a). *See also* 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(1).

[^21]: *Pennsylvania Numbering Order* at 19027, ¶ 26.

[^22]: *See* Connecticut Commission comments; Missouri Commission
    comments; New Hampshire Commission comments; Pennsylvania Office of
    Consumer Advocate comments; Pennsylvania Commission comments; Texas
    Commission comments; Representative Judith A. Powers comments;
    Attorney General of Massachusetts reply.

[^23]: *See* CTIA comments; Nextel comments; PageNet comments; PCIA
    comments; SBC comments; US West comments.

[^24]: Historically, network routing mechanisms are based upon the
    understanding that geographic numbers are assigned on an NXX code
    basis and associated with a specific switch, and, correspondingly,
    that the network address to which the call must be routed is
    embedded in the first six digits (NPA-NXX) of the called number.
    Thousands-block umber pooling allows service providers in a given
    area to receive numbers in blocks of 1,000 by breaking the
    association between the NPA-NXX and the service provider to whom the
    call is routed. Through number pooling, participating carriers can
    effectively share numbering resources from NXX codes rather than
    receiving an entire NXX code at a time. *Numbering Resource
    Optimization Notice* at ¶ 130.

[^25]: *Numbering Resource Optimization Notice* at ¶ 138.

[^26]: *See id.* at ¶ 158.

[^27]: *See* USTA comments at 8.

[^28]: *See* CTIA comments at 8; PageNet comments at 4-5; PCIA comments
    at 9.

[^29]: *See* California Commission comments at 11; Focal comments at 4;
    MediaOne comments at 8; New York Commission comments at 4.

[^30]: A Service Control Point (SCP) is a database in the public
    switched network which contains information and call processing
    instructions needed to process and complete a telephone call. The
    network switches access an SCP to obtain such information. Telephone
    Number Portability, *First Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemakin*g, CC Docket No. 95-116, 11 FCC Rcd 8352, 8402
    n.288 (1996).

[^31]: A projection by the Local Number Portability Administrator,
    Lockheed Martin IMS, and all seven LLCs projected that over a
    two-year period a total of 634,556 numbers would be ported during
    1998 and 2,658,669 numbers would be ported during 1999 for a single
    region. Since there are seven LLCs, the total amount of ported
    numbers nationwide for the two years is projected to be 23.05
    million. LNPA Industry Demand Model, Exhibit N-1, at 5 (1998). The
    actual amount of total numbers ported as of May 1999 was only
    1,789,369. *See Local Competition: August 1999*, Industry Analysis
    Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission.

[^32]: *Id.* at 19028, ¶ 28.

[^33]: Thousand Block (NXX-X) Pooling Administration Guidelines, Draft
    (INC 99-0127-023) (rev. Jan. 27, 1999) (Thousand Block Pooling
    Guidelines). This document is available at
    \<http://www.atis.org/atis/clc/inc/incdocs.htm\>.

[^34]: *Pennsylvania Numbering Order* at 19029-30, ¶ 30.

[^35]: In Illinois, the Illinois Commission recognized a "back-up plan"
    was necessary because the pooling solution had not been completely
    developed or tested. Thus, it ordered that an all-services overlay
    would supersede the pooling trial in the event that the NXXs in the
    847 NPA were depleted. *Id.*

[^36]: *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 pooling in the 847 NPA).
    Although the Illinois Commission had an NPA relief plan in place in
    the 847 NPA to relieve what it had forecast to be imminent exhaust,
    through number conservation measures, including thousands-block
    pooling, it has forestalled the need for area code relief. *See*
    Petition of the Illinois Commerce Commission for Expedited Temporary
    Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 52.19(c)(3)(ii) at 2-3 (filed August 11,
    1999).

[^37]: Wireless carriers are not require to implement LNP until November
    2002, or until this Commission releases an order establishing
    requirements for wireless carriers' participation in number pooling
    in the *Numbering Resource Optimization* docket. *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*, WT
    Docket No. 98-229 and CC Docket No. 95-116, 14 FCC Rcd. 3092, 3116 ¶
    48 (1999).

[^38]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 52.23(b)-(c).

[^39]: *See supra* ¶ 8.

[^40]: *See* Letter from Todd D. Daubert, Counsel for Winstar, to
    Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, FCC, dated July 28, 1999.

[^41]: *See* National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
    (NARUC), "Resolution Urging State Commissions to Consider Honoring
    Utility Requests to Defer Deadlines Because of Y2K Considerations,"
    adopted July 23, 1999. *See also* Memorandum from Jacob J. Lew,
    Director, Chief Information Officers Council, to the heads of
    executive departments and agencies, dated May 14, 1999 (requesting
    that federal agencies refrain from establishing requirements that
    would have an adverse effect on the Year 2000 readiness of regulated
    entities).

[^42]: The *Numbering Resource Optimization Notice* tentatively
    concluded that thousands-block number pooling administration
    involved three categories of costs: (1) shared industry costs, which
    include the cost to fund the pooling administrator; (2)
    carrier-specific costs directly related to thousands-block pooling
    implementation, including, for example, costs directly related to
    updating carriers' LSMS to support pooling; and (3) carrier-specific
    costs not directly relating to thousands-block pooling
    implementation. *Numbering Resource Optimization Notice* at ¶¶
    203-09.

[^43]: *See id.* at ¶ 197.

[^44]: *Id.* at ¶ 193.

[^45]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(2).

[^46]: Telephone Number Portability, *Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC
    Rcd 11701, 11759 (1998). The Commission also found that it was
    equitable for all telecommunications carriers, even those without
    end-user revenues and those not directly involved in number
    portability, to contribute towards LNP costs because they will all
    benefit from number portability's role in increasing local
    competition and ameliorating number exhaust concerns by making
    number pooling possible. *Id*.

[^47]: Telephone Number Portability, *Fourth Memorandum Opinion and
    Order on Reconsideration*, CC Docket No. 95-116, RM 8535, FCC
    99-151, at ¶ 32 (rel. July 16, 1999) (citing Telephone Number
    Portability, CC Docket No. 95-116, *First Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd 8352, 8420-21
    (1996)).

[^48]: *Numbering Resource Optimization Notice* at ¶¶ 193-210.

[^49]: 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*, CC Docket No. 87-313, FCC 97-168 (rel. May 30, 1997) at 17
    n.26. When implementing LNP, the Commission established a phased
    implementation schedule based on MSAs. Telephone Number Portability,
    *First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,
    CC Docket No. 95-116, RM 8535, 11 FCC Rcd 8352, 8394-95, ¶ 81 (1996)

[^50]: A thousands-block pooling trial is implemented when LNP-capable
    carriers are contributing and receiving numbers in blocks of 1,000
    from the pool. Furthermore, for a pooling trial to have been
    implemented, a pooling administrator must be chosen and responding
    to requests from carriers for numbering resources.

[^51]: *See* Letter from Todd D. Daubert, Counsel for Winstar, to
    Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, FCC, dated July 28, 1999 (detailing
    concerns with expanding the thousands-block pooling trial in
    Illinois to other NPAs, and noting that Winstar requires
    approximately 90 days to prepare its OSS systems for new pooling
    markets).

[^52]: *Numbering Resource Optimization Notice* at ¶¶ 148-53.

[^53]: *See id.* at ¶ 149.

[^54]: *See id.* at ¶ 151.

[^55]: *See id.*

[^56]: *See* Central Office Code (NXX) Assignment Guidelines, INC
    95-0407-008 (rev. Apr. 26, 1999) at § 6.3.3 (CO Code Guidelines).
    This document is available at
    \<http://www.atis.org/atis/clc/incdocs.htm\>.

[^57]: *See* Letter from Janet Gail Besser, Chair, Massachusetts
    Department of Telecommunications and Energy, to Lawrence E.
    Strickling, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, dated May 10, 1999, at 2.

[^58]: *See* MediaOne comments at 6.

[^59]: California Commission comments at 4-5; Focal comments at 2; Level
    3 comments at 3; MediaOne comments at 6; New York Commission
    comments at 8; RCN comments at 4.

[^60]: AT&T comments at 19; MCI WorldCom comments at 14; USTA comments
    at 4.

[^61]: Under the CO Code Assignment Guidelines, carriers are obligated
    to submit to the NANPA within six months of the requested effective
    date of newly obtained NXX codes a Part 4 certification that the
    code has been placed in service. *See* CO Code Assignment Guidelines
    NXX Assignment Request Form, Part 4.

[^62]: For example, the CO Code Guidelines dictate that the CO Code
    Administrator must refer to the INC for resolution of any matter
    relating to an NXX code that has not been activated within the
    timeframe specified in the guidelines. CO Code Assignment Guidelines
    at § 8.2.2. The INC must then investigate the referral and attempt
    to resolve the referral. CO Code Assignment Guidelines at § 8.3.
    Absent consensus resolution, the matter is then referred to the
    "appropriate regulatory body" for resolution. *Id.*

[^63]: *See* Level 3 comments at 3-4 (stating that carriers should not
    be forced to return unused NXX codes prematurely if business plans
    call for their use in the foreseeable future); MediaOne comments at
    6 (stating that CLECs that obtain codes prior to launching service
    must have the flexibility to activate initial codes while in the
    process of rolling out telephony throughout the state); RCN comments
    at 4 (noting that CLECs may place orders for NXX codes months in
    advance to ensure sufficient resources when they begin offering
    service).

[^64]: *Numbering Resource Optimization Notice* at ¶ 187.

[^65]: *See*, *e.g.*, MCI WorldCom comments at 14.

[^66]: *See* Thousand Block Pooling Guidelines at §§ 8.1.4-8.1.5
    (specifying only that blocks with less than ten percent
    contamination shall be donated to the industry pool of thousands
    blocks).

[^67]: Petition at 8.

[^68]: AT&T comments at 21; Bell Atlantic comments at 3; Focal comments
    at 2; MCI WorldCom comments at 14; MediaOne comments at 11; Sprint
    comments at 9-10; USTA comments at 5.

[^69]: Level 3 comments at 5; RCN comments at 5.

[^70]: *Pennsylvania Numbering Order* at 19027, ¶ 26.

[^71]: 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.

[^72]: Petition at 9.

[^73]: *See* Petition at 9.

[^74]: The *Pennsylvania Numbering Order* invited states to consider
    imposing usage thresholds on carriers before obtaining NXX codes
    within the same rate center in jeopardy situations subject to
    state-ordered NXX code rationing plans. *Pennsylvania Numbering
    Order* at 19025-26, ¶ 24.

[^75]: A "growth" code is an additional NXX code requested for an
    established switching entity, point of interconnection, or rate
    center when the telephone numbers available for assignment in
    previously assigned NXX codes will not meet expected demand. CO Code
    Guidelines at § 13.0. An "initial" code is the first NXX code
    assigned to the carrier at a new switching entity, POI or unique
    rate center, and the administrator is to assign initial codes to the
    extent required to terminate traffic. *Id.*

[^76]: AT&T comments at 13-14.

[^77]: The CO Code Guidelines state that NXX code applicants should
    request "effective dates" for code activation at least 66 days after
    the receipt of a code request to allow 45 days for activation plus
    21 days for code request processing. CO Code Guidelines at § 6.1.2.

[^78]: *See* AT&T comments at 14; MCI WorldCom comments at 12.

[^79]: *Numbering Resource Optimization Notice* at ¶¶ 62-68.

[^80]: *See Pennsylvania Numbering Order* at 19019-20, ¶ 15.

[^81]: *See* Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment on State Utility
    Commission Requests for Additional Authority To Implement
    Telecommunications Numbering Conservation Measures, *Public Notice*,
    NSD File Nos. L-98-136, L-99-19, L-99-21, L-99-27, L-99-33, DA
    99-1198 (rel. June 22, 1999) (California, Florida, Maine,
    Massachusetts, New York); Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment on the
    Texas Public Utility Commission Petition for Delegation of
    Additional Authority to Implement Number Conservation Measures,
    *Public Notice*, NSD File No. L-99-55, DA 99-1380, (rel. July 14,
    1999); Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment on the Connecticut
    Department of Public Utility Control's Petition for Delegation of
    Additional Authority to Implement Area Code Conservation Measures,
    *Public Notice*, NSD File No. L-99-62, DA 99-1555 (rel Aug. 5,
    1999).

[^82]: *See* *Pennsylvania Numbering Order* at 19031-32, ¶ 33 (finding
    that if every state commission implemented its own NXX code
    administration measures, the NANPA would have the potentially
    impossible task of performing its code administration and NPA relief
    planning functions in a manner consistent with industry guidelines
    and fifty-one different state regimes).

[^83]: Letter from Alan C. Hasselwander, Chairman, North American
    Numbering Council, to Lawrence E. Strickling, Chief, Common Carrier
    Bureau, dated December 7, 1998.

[^84]: *See* Focal comments at 3; Level 3 comments at 6; MCI WorldCom
    comments at 15 (contending it is unnecessary to grant the request
    given the FCC's letter regarding Sprint's request for additional
    numbering resources in New York); MediaOne comments at 13; RCN
    comments at 5; Sprint comments at 13. *But see* USTA comments at 6
    (noting that the NANC concluded the NANPA should address such
    claims).

[^85]: *See Pennsylvania Numbering Order* at 19039, ¶ 49.

[^86]: *See id*.

[^87]: *See* "Number Resource Optimization Working Group Modified Report
    to the North American Numbering Council on Number Optimization
    Methods" at § 3.1 (dated October 21, 1998) (hereinafter NANC
    Report).

[^88]: NANC Report at § 2.1.

[^89]: *Id.*

[^90]: *See* Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment On North American
    Numbering Council Report Concerning Telephone Number Pooling And
    Other Optimization Measures, *Public Notice*, NSD File No. L-98-134,
    DA 98-2265, at 4 (rel. Nov. 6, 1998) (NANC Report Public Notice).

[^91]: *See* MCI WorldCom comments at 16.

[^92]: *See* *Id.* at 17.

[^93]: *See* NANC Report Public Notice at 3.

[^94]: According to the Department, 6 NXX codes are being rationed each
    month in the 508 and 617 area codes, 8 are being rationed monthly in
    the 781 area code, and 10 are being rationed in the 978 area code.
    Petition at 8.

[^95]: *See Pennsylvania Numbering Order* at 19026-27, ¶ 25

[^96]: *Id.* at 19038-39, ¶ 48.

[^97]: *See id.* at 19027, ¶ 26.

[^98]: NANC Report at § 6.1.1.

[^99]: NANC Report at § 6.1.1.

[^100]: AT&T comments at 12 (stating that UNP is undeveloped and cannot
    be implemented in any meaningful way, but it may be appropriate to
    revisit the issue of whether a state-ordered UNP trial is
    appropriate following successful implementation of thousands-block
    pooling); Bell Atlantic comments at 4 (stating that implementing UNP
    with nationwide implementation of thousands-block pooling would only
    complicate and delay thousands-block pooling); MediaOne comments at
    8-9 (stating that UNP puts a carrier at the mercy of its competitors
    to satisfy numbering requirements); RCN comments at 8 (stating that
    national standards are necessary for implementation of UNP); USTA
    comments at 9 (stating that implementing UNP anywhere would divert
    essential industry resources from the resolution of issues
    associated with thousands-block number pooling). *See also*
    California Commission comments at 13 (noting that more information
    is needed as to how UNP would work, and urging this Commission to
    address and resolve the issue).

[^101]: NANC Report at § 6.6.2.

[^102]: NANC Report at § 6.6.3.

[^103]: NANC Report at § 6.6.4.1.

[^104]: Bell Atlantic comments at 4.