**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | CC Docket No. 99-200         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Numbering Resource Optimization  | ** | CC Docket No. 96-98          |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Implementation of the Local      | *  |                              |
| Competition Provisions of the    | *) |                              |
| Telecommunications Act of 1996   | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Petition of the Kentucky Public  | *  |                              |
| Service Commission for           | *) |                              |
| Additional Delegated Authority   | ** |                              |
| to Implement Number Conservation |    |                              |
| Measures                         | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: May 31, 2007 Released: May 31, 2007**

By the Associate Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau:

# INtroduction

1.  In this Order, we grant a petition filed by the Kentucky Public
    Service Commission (Kentucky Commission) for delegated authority to
    implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling.[^1]
    Specifically, we conclude that the petitioner has demonstrated that
    it has met the criteria established by the Federal Communications
    Commission (Commission) for delegation of authority to implement
    mandatory pooling in the 270 numbering plan area (NPA). In granting
    this petition, we permit the state of Kentucky to optimize numbering
    resources and further extend the life of the 270 NPA.

# BACKGROUND

2.  *The 1996 Act and Commission Rules and Orders*. In the *NRO First
    Report and Order*, the Commission determined that implementation of
    thousands-block number pooling is essential to extending the life of
    the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) by making the assignment
    and use of NXX codes more efficient.[^2] Therefore, the Commission
    adopted national thousands-block number pooling as a valuable
    mechanism to remedy the inefficient allocation and use of numbering
    resources and required thousands-block pooling in the largest 100
    Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) within nine months of
    selection of a pooling administrator.[^3] The Commission also
    allowed state commissions previously delegated authority to
    implement thousands-block pooling to continue to do so.[^4] The
    Commission stated that it would continue to consider state petitions
    for delegated authority to implement pooling outside the top 100
    MSAs on a case-by-case basis.[^5] The Commission delegated authority
    to the Common Carrier Bureau, now the Wireline Competition Bureau
    (Bureau), to rule on state petitions for delegated authority to
    implement number conservation measures, including thousands-block
    number pooling, where no new issues were raised.[^6]

3.  In implementing thousands-block number pooling, the Commission said
    that state petitions for delegated authority must demonstrate
    that: (1) an NPA in the state is in jeopardy; (2) the NPA in
    question has a remaining life span of at least one year; and (3) the
    NPA is in one of the largest 100 MSAs or, alternatively, the
    majority of wireline carriers in the NPA are local number
    portability (LNP)-capable.[^7] The Commission recognized that there
    may be "special circumstances" where pooling would be of benefit in
    NPAs that do not meet all three criteria and said that pooling may
    be authorized in such an NPA upon a satisfactory showing by the
    state commission of such special circumstances.[^8]

4.  National rollout of thousands-block number pooling commenced on
    March 15, 2002, in the 100 largest MSAs and area codes previously
    subject to pooling pursuant to state delegation orders.[^9] All
    carriers operating within the 100 largest MSAs, except those
    specifically exempted by the order, were required to participate in
    thousands-block number pooling in accordance with the national
    rollout schedule.[^10] The Commission specifically exempted from the
    pooling requirement rural telephone companies and Tier III
    Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers that have not
    received a specific request for the provision of LNP from another
    carrier, as well as carriers that are the only service provider
    receiving numbering resources in a given rate center.[^11] In
    exempting certain carriers from the pooling requirement, the
    Commission recognized that pooling is most effective in areas where
    competition exists and confirmed that "it is reasonable to require
    LNP only in areas where competition dictates its demand."[^12] The
    Commission directed the North American Numbering Plan Administrator
    (NANPA) to cease assignment of NXX codes to carriers after they were
    required to participate in pooling.[^13] Instead, carriers required
    to participate in pooling would receive numbering resources from the
    national thousands-block number Pooling Administrator responsible
    for administering numbers in thousands-blocks.[^14]

5.  As discussed above, the Commission concluded that mandatory pooling
    should initially take place in the largest 100 MSAs.[^15] In the
    *Pooling Rollout Order*, the Bureau explained that it would consider
    extending pooling outside of the top 100 MSAs after pooling was
    implemented in the top 100 MSAs.[^16] The Bureau also encouraged
    voluntary pooling in areas adjoining qualifying MSAs.[^17] Since the
    completion of the national rollout of pooling in the top 100 MSAs,
    the Commission has extended pooling in response to petitions from
    state utility commissions requesting permission to expand the scope
    of thousands-block pooling.[^18]

6.  *The Kentucky Petition*. On October 10, 2006, the Kentucky
    Commission filed a petition for authority to implement mandatory
    thousands-block number pooling in the 270 NPA.[^19] In its petition,
    the Kentucky Commission asserts that it has met the criteria for
    delegation of authority to implement pooling established by the
    Commission, and that, in addition, special circumstances exist to
    justify such delegation.[^20] According to the Kentucky Commission,
    the utilization rate for the 270 NPA is low and despite the
    availability of optional pooling, carriers are reluctant to
    participate and instead continue to request full NXX codes.[^21] The
    Kentucky Commission is particularly concerned that the 270 NPA
    requires relief so soon after its creation seven years ago.[^22]

# DISCUSSION

7.  Based upon the record, we delegate to the Kentucky Commission the
    authority to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling in
    the 270 NPA. We conclude that the Kentucky Commission has
    demonstrated that the 270 NPA meets the criteria for delegated
    pooling authority established in the *NRO* *First Report and Order*.

8.  *Pooling Authority Criteria*. First, we find that the petition
    before us presents a jeopardy situation as defined by industry
    standards.[^23] As the Kentucky Commission notes in its petition,
    the NANPA has declared a status of jeopardy in the 270 NPA, with
    final jeopardy procedures taking effect on October 1, 2006.[^24]
    Second, we find that the record demonstrates that the NPA in
    question has a remaining life span of at least a year. [^25]
    Specifically, although the Kentucky Commission reported, at the time
    of its filing, an exhaust date for the 270 NPA in the fourth quarter
    of 2007,[^26] more recent NANPA data now forecast exhaust of the 270
    NPA in the fourth quarter of 2008.[^27] Third, the Kentucky
    Commission asserts that to the best of its knowledge, a majority of
    the providers within the 270 NPA are currently LNP capable,[^28] and
    data from the Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG) confirms this
    assertion.[^29] Thus, we conclude that the Kentucky Commission has
    satisfied the three-prong test for delegation of authority to
    implement mandatory pooling in the 270 NPA.

9.  *LNP Exemption for Rural Carriers.* The National Telecommunications
    Cooperative Association (NTCA) asks that we deny the Kentucky
    Petition for failure to include financial impact data for rural
    carriers or that we impose a requirement that number pooling not
    jeopardize rural carriers' LNP exemption, as was done in *Second
    Pooling Order*.[^30] The Commission continues to be mindful of the
    concerns regarding costs to rural and small carriers associated with
    the implementation of thousands-block number pooling and guided by
    the principle, expressed in our pooling precedent, that pooling has
    less impact on numbering resource exhaust where there is no
    competition.[^31] For these reasons, the Commission has exempted
    from pooling rural telephone companies, as defined in the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended,[^32] and Tier III CMRS
    providers, as defined in the *E911 Stay Order*,[^33] that have not
    yet received a specific request for the provision of LNP from
    another carrier, and carriers that are the only service provider
    receiving numbering resources in a given rate center.[^34] We
    believe these exemptions continue to be appropriate in the expansion
    of pooling. We therefore mandate that the Kentucky Commission, in
    exercising the pooling authority delegated in this Order, implement
    this delegation consistent with the federal exemption for these
    carriers, as described above. Accordingly, we expect that rural
    carriers that are not LNP-capable will not be required to implement
    pooling solely as a result of the delegation of authority set forth
    in this Order.

10. In addition, we note, as explained in the *NRO First Report and
    Order,* that costs of numbering administration, specifically the
    costs of thousands-block number pooling, will be recovered through
    an exclusive federal recovery mechanism to enable the Commission to
    satisfy its mandate that costs be borne on a competitively neutral
    basis, and to minimize the administrative and enforcement
    difficulties that might arise if jurisdiction over numbering
    administration cost recovery were divided.[^35] The Commission
    addressed the specifics of that mechanism in the *NRO Third Report
    and Order*, concluding, in particular, that rate-of-return carriers
    will recover their costs in their interstate access charges in the
    ordinary course.[^36] Finally, given that we have delegated the
    Kentucky Commission authority to implement mandatory number pooling
    subject to the exemption for "rural telephone companies," we do not
    anticipate that rural carriers will require a waiver of the pooling
    requirement. Rural carriers nonetheless retain the option of filing
    a petition to demonstrate that they meet the standard to have this
    requirement waived to the extent that pooling obligations apply.
    Thus, beyond the general exemption from pooling requirements for
    rural telephone companies, we believe that the availability of a
    federal cost recovery mechanism and an option to petition for waiver
    further allay the NCTA's concerns regarding the asserted lack of
    financial impact data for rural carriers.

# CONCLUSION

11. The Kentucky Commission has demonstrated that it has met the
    Commission's criteria for delegation of authority to implement
    mandatory pooling in the 270 NPA, and we expect that pooling will be
    beneficial in extending the life of that NPA. Given that the 270 NPA
    has a low utilization rate and that many carriers are not
    participating in optional pooling, it is most efficient and in the
    public interest to permit the Kentucky Commission to implement
    mandatory thousands-block number pooling in the NPA at this time.
    The petitioner observes, and we agree, that mandatory
    thousands-block number pooling would extend the life of the 270 NPA
    by putting to use resources that otherwise would be stranded.[^37]
    Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we hereby grant the
    Kentucky Commission authority to implement mandatory thousands-block
    number pooling in the 270 NPA.

# ordering clauseS

12. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1,
    4(i), and 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
    U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 251, and sections 0.91, 0.291 and 52.9(b) of
    the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 52.9(b), IT IS
    ORDERED that the Kentucky

    Public Service Commission's Petition for Additional Delegated
    Authority to Implement Number Conservation Measures filed on October
    10, 2006 IS GRANTED to the extent discussed herein.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marcus Maher

Associate Chief

Wireline Competition Bureau

[^1]: *See* Kentucky Public Service Commission Petition for Additional
    Delegated Authority to Implement Number Conservation Measures, CC
    Docket Nos. 99-200, 96-98 (filed Oct. 10, 2006) (Kentucky Petition);
    *see also Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on the Kentucky
    Public Service Commission's Petition for Additional Delegated
    Authority to Implement Number Conservation Measures,* CC Docket Nos.
    99-200, 96-98, Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 957 (2007). The following
    parties filed comments: National Association of Regulatory Utility
    Commissioners (NARUC); National Telecommunications Cooperative
    Association (NCTA); Nebraska Public Service Commission (Nebraska
    Commission); and Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint). The Kentucky
    Commission and NCTA filed reply comments.

[^2]: *Numbering Resource Optimization*, CC Docket No. 99-200, Report
    and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd
    7574, 7625, para. 122 (2000) (*NRO* *First Report and Order*). The
    NANP was established over 50 years ago by AT&T to facilitate the
    expansion of long distance calling. The NANP, the basic numbering
    scheme for the United States, Canada, and most Caribbean countries,
    is based on a 10-digit dialing pattern, NPA-NXX-XXXX, where N
    represents any digit from 2 through 9 and X represents any digit
    from 0 through 9. Thousands-block number pooling is a numbering
    resource optimization measure in which 10,000 numbers in an NXX are
    divided into ten sequential blocks of 1,000 numbers and allocated to
    different service providers (or different switches) within a rate
    center. *See Numbering Resource Optimization*, CC Docket Nos.
    99-200, 95-116, Fourth Report and Order,18 FCC Rcd 12472, 12474,
    para. 5 (2003) (*NRO* *Fourth Report and Order*).

[^3]: *See* *NRO First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7625, 7644-45,
    paras. 122, 157-158. MSAs, designated by the Bureau of Census,
    follow geographic borders and are defined using statistics that are
    widely recognized as indicative of metropolitan character. *See
    Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers*, CC Docket
    No. 87-313, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8115, 8122,
    para. 17 n.26 (1997).

[^4]: Section 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
    (the Act), allows the Commission to delegate to state commissions
    jurisdiction over numbering administration. 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(1).

[^5]: *See NRO First Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 7651, para. 169.
    At the time the *NRO First Report and Order* was adopted, several
    states already had delegated authority to implement thousands-block
    pooling and several more states had petitions pending with the
    Commission. *Id.* The Commission observed that the national pooling
    framework, when adopted, would supersede the interim delegations of
    authority to state commissions. *Id.*

[^6]: *See* *NRO First Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 7651-52, para.
    170.

[^7]: *See* *id.* These three criteria were adopted before
    implementation of nationwide thousands-block number pooling and
    before the Commission recognized that full LNP capability is not
    necessary for participation in pooling. *See* *NRO Fourth Report and
    Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 12476, para. 11 (recognizing that full LNP
    capability is not necessary for participation in pooling but the
    underlying architecture, Location Routing Number (LRN), must be
    deployed); *see also* *Numbering Resource Optimization*, CC Docket
    No. 99-200, Third Report and Order and Second Order on
    Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd 252, 262, para. 21 n.47 (2001) (*NRO*
    *Third Report and Order*). In the *NRO Third Report and Order*, the
    Commission rejected a request to delegate authority to the states to
    determine on a case-by-case basis whether to extend pooling
    requirements. *NRO Third Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 262, para.
    21. The Commission explained that uniform national standards for
    pooling are necessary to minimize confusion and additional expense
    related to compliance with inconsistent regulatory requirements.
    *Id.*

[^8]: *See* *NRO First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7651-52, para.
    170.

[^9]: *Numbering Resource Optimization*, Docket 99-200, Order, 17 FCC
    Rcd 7347, 7348, paras. 3-4 (WCB 2002) (*Pooling Rollout Order*).

[^10]: *See* *NRO Fourth Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 12477, para.
    14.

[^11]: *See id*. at 12473, para. 1. Tier III carriers are non-nationwide
    CMRS providers with no more than 500,000 subscribers as of the end
    of 2001. *See id*. at 12479 n.50.

[^12]: *Id*. at 12476, 12478, paras. 11, 17.

[^13]: *See* *id.* at 12477, para. 14.

[^14]: *See* *id.*

[^15]: *See NRO First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7645, para. 158.

[^16]: *Pooling Rollout Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 7348, para. 3.

[^17]: *See id.* at 7348, para. 4

[^18]: *See* *Numbering Resource Optimization*, Docket 99-200, Order and
    Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 21 FCC Rcd 1833 (2006);
    *Numbering Resource Optimization*, CC Docket 99-200, Order, 21 FCC
    Rcd 13188 (2006) (*Second Pooling Order*).

[^19]: Kentucky Petition at 1.

[^20]: *Id*. at 3.

[^21]: *See* *id.* at 5.

[^22]: *See* *id.* at 6.

[^23]: The NPA Code Relief Planning and Notification Guidelines
    (ATIS-0300061) define a jeopardy NPA as existing "when the
    forecasted and/or actual demand for CO Code resources will exceed
    the known supply during the planning/implementation interval for
    relief. Accordingly, pending exhaust of CO Code resources within an
    NPA does not represent a jeopardy condition if NPA relief has been
    or can be planned and the additional CO Codes associated with the
    NPA will be implemented in time to satisfy the need for new CO
    codes." *See* section 15.0 of the NPA Code Relief Planning and
    Notification Guidelines (ATIS 03-0061) at page 22.

[^24]: Kentucky Petition at 6; *see also* NANPA: Publications --
    Jeopardy Procedures 270 NPA (KY) Final Jeopardy Procedures (visited
    May 22, 2007)
    http://www.nanpa.com/news/jeopardy_declaration_table.html.

[^25]: Kentucky Petition at 3, 6**.**

[^26]: *See id*.

[^27]: *See* NANPA 2006 Annual Report, Attachment 6 -- 2006 NRUF and NPA
    Exhaust Analysis (NANPA 2006 Report).

[^28]: Kentucky Petition at 3, 6.

[^29]: *See* Traffic Routing Administration, *Local Exchange Routing
    Guide* (updated April 1, 2007).

[^30]: NTCA Comments at 2; *see also* *Second Pooling Order*, 21 FCC Rcd
    at 13194, para. 14.

[^31]: *See* *NRO* *Fourth Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 12476,
    paras. 18-19.

[^32]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(37).

[^33]: *Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
    the Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems*, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    Order to Stay, 17 FCC Rcd 14841 (2001) (*E911 Stay Order*).

[^34]: *See NRO Fourth Report and Order* at 12478-79, para. 18.

[^35]: *NRO First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7663-64, para. 196.

[^36]: *See* *NRO Third Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 264, para. 25;
    *see also NRO Fourth Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 12479 n.47
    (discussing cost recovery for rural carriers).

[^37]: Kentucky Petition at 2, 5.