Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Cellular Telecommunications Industry ) WT Docket No. 98-229

Association's Petition for Forbearance )

From Commercial Mobile Radio Services )

Number Portability Obligations )

)

and )

)

Telephone Number Portability ) CC Docket No. 95-116

###### ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION {#order-on-reconsideration .unnumbered}

**Adopted: February 9, 2000 Released: February 23, 2000**

By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth issuing a statement.

# INTRODUCTION 

1.  On May 27, 1999, four parties filed petitions for reconsideration or
    clarification of the Commission's Order forbearing from imposing
    service provider local number portability (LNP) requirements on
    commercial mobile radio service providers (CMRS providers)[^1] until
    November 24, 2002.[^2] We deny these petitions for the reasons
    discussed below.

# background

2.  Under the Commission's prior LNP decisions, CMRS providers were
    required to implement LNP in the top 100 Metropolitan Statistical
    Areas (MSAs) and to support nationwide roaming by March 31,
    2000.[^3] Implementation of LNP by CMRS providers would enable
    wireless customers to "port" their telephone numbers in the event
    that they switch from one wireless carrier to another, or from a
    wireless to a wireline carrier.

3.  In the *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, we granted a petition filed by
    the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA)
    requesting forbearance from the Commission's service provider LNP
    requirements for CMRS providers until the expiration of the
    five-year buildout period for broadband PCS carriers.[^4] We found
    that the limited forbearance granted in the *CMRS LNP Forbearance
    Order* satisfied the three-prong test for granting forbearance set
    forth in section 10 of the Communications Act.[^5] Accordingly, we
    extended the deadline for CMRS providers to support service provider
    LNP in the top 100 MSAs until November 24, 2002.[^6] We also stated
    our intention to promptly initiate a rulemaking proposing certain
    non-LNP based numbering optimization techniques applicable to all
    telecommunications carriers and to develop standards for other
    number conservation methods, possibly including one or more pooling
    methods.[^7] On June 2, 1999, we released a Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking on numbering resource optimization, and we are currently
    considering the record developed in response to that Notice.[^8]

4.  In their petitions for reconsideration of the *CMRS LNP Forbearance
    Order*, MCI WorldCom, the Pennsylvania Commission, and TRA argue
    that the Commission should not have forborne from imposing these
    requirements on CMRS providers for any length of time.[^9] GTE's
    petition for reconsideration of the *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, on
    the other hand, contends that the Commission should have forborne
    indefinitely from imposing service provider LNP requirements on CMRS
    providers. Four parties submitted comments or oppositions to these
    petitions,[^10] three parties submitted replies,[^11] and three
    parties submitted *ex parte* filings.[^12]

# discussion

5.  As discussed below, we find that none of the petitions raises
    arguments that warrant reconsideration of our decision in the *CMRS
    LNP Forbearance Order* to forbear from imposing service provider LNP
    requirements on CMRS providers until November 24, 2002.[^13]
    Generally, the petitioners raise four challenges to our *CMRS LNP
    Forbearance Order*: (1) it did not properly consider the effect of
    LNP forbearance on number conservation; (2) it did not properly
    consider the effect of LNP forbearance on competition in the
    wireless industry; (3) it failed to evaluate TRA's alternate LNP
    proposal; and (4) it failed to properly apply section 10 of the
    Communications Act. We address these challenges in turn.

6.  [Number Conservation]{.underline}. MCI WorldCom, TRA, and the
    Pennsylvania Commission argue that the Commission\'s decision to
    extend the CMRS LNP deadline until November 24, 2002 will hamper the
    implementation of number optimization solutions that require LNP
    technology, such as thousands-block number pooling.[^14] We
    disagree. In the *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, we reserved the
    authority to require wireless participation in pooling at an earlier
    date if we decide in a future rulemaking proceeding that number
    pooling requirements should be adopted and that wireless
    participation in pooling is necessary to address specific number
    exhaust problems.[^15] We also stated that our decision to grant
    forbearance similarly does not limit our ability to invoke number
    exhaust remedies that may provide relief only for carriers that are
    LNP‑capable. In the *Numbering Resource Optimization Notice*, we
    sought comment on these issues and will resolve them in the context
    of that rulemaking.[^16]

7.  In GTE's petition for reconsideration, GTE argues that the
    Commission's consideration of number conservation issues as a basis
    for limiting forbearance was impermissible speculation.[^17] In
    particular, GTE contends that the Commission failed to raise number
    conservation as one of the rationales to support its original
    decision to impose LNP obligations on CMRS carriers and that,
    accordingly, the Commission lacked an adequate record in this
    proceeding to evaluate the effect of wireless LNP capability on
    number conservation efforts.[^18] Moreover, GTE argues that it was
    improper for the Commission to limit forbearance on the basis of a
    link between CMRS LNP implementation and number pooling because the
    Commission has not yet determined that number pooling generally, or
    CMRS participation in number pooling specifically, is necessary to
    address number exhaust problems.[^19]

8.  We disagree that GTE's contentions require reconsideration. The
    third prong of the section 10 forbearance test requires that we
    consider whether forbearance from applying a Commission rule is
    consistent with the public interest.[^20] As explained in the *CMRS
    LNP Forbearance Order*, there is a strong public interest in
    addressing number exhaust problems, and certain important number
    optimization strategies, including number pooling, are based on
    existing LNP architecture.[^21] We do not believe that the public
    interest analysis required by section 10 is necessarily limited to
    issues we raised in the proceeding in which the rule at issue was
    adopted. Nonetheless, in this case, we expressly raised number
    conservation issues in the LNP rulemaking.[^22] We also do not
    believe that it was necessary to conclude definitively that CMRS LNP
    implementation is necessary to address number conservation issues
    before considering the potential impact of CMRS LNP implementation
    on number conservation as part of the public interest analysis
    required by section 10. As discussed more fully below,[^23] we find
    that the record in this proceeding contained sufficient evidence of
    a link among LNP, number pooling, and number conservation to warrant
    our consideration of this relationship as part of our section 10
    public interest analysis.

9.  GTE also contends that, even if it were permissible for the
    Commission to consider number conservation issues as a basis for
    limiting the forbearance granted, the Commission incorrectly
    determined that continued LNP implementation by CMRS carriers is a
    necessary precondition for CMRS providers to participate in number
    conservation efforts generally.[^24] We disagree. We did not find in
    the *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order* that continued implementation of
    service provider LNP by CMRS carriers is necessary for such carriers
    to participate in number conservation efforts generally. In fact, we
    recognized that there are many number conservation methods that are
    not based on LNP architecture, and we subsequently sought comment on
    these methods in the *Numbering Resource Optimization Notice*. [^25]

10. In addition, GTE contends that the Commission incorrectly determined
    that continued LNP implementation by CMRS carriers is a necessary
    precondition for CMRS providers to participate in thousands-block
    pooling specifically.[^26] In particular, GTE argues that the only
    part of LNP infrastructure that is necessary for CMRS participation
    in thousands-block pooling has already been implemented by CMRS
    providers in Phase I of LNP deployment. [^27] Moreover, GTE argues
    that further implementation of LNP infrastructure by CMRS providers
    under Phase II, which involves the separation of the Mobile
    Directory Number (MDN) from the Mobile Identification Number (MIN),
    is an inefficient mechanism for CMRS providers to develop the
    capability to participate in thousands-block number pooling.[^28]

11. We disagree with these contentions. GTE has not demonstrated that
    CMRS providers could develop the capability to participate fully in
    thousands-block number pooling without continued Phase II LNP
    implementation through the separation of the MDN from the MIN, a
    process which the CMRS industry has yet to complete. The record
    developed in response to CTIA's petition amply supported our
    conclusion in the *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order* that continued LNP
    implementation by CMRS providers is a necessary precondition for
    CMRS participation in number pooling techniques.[^29] Moreover, in
    July, the NANC's Wireless Number Portability Subcommittee identified
    significant limitations on the ability of CMRS providers to
    participate in thousands-block number pooling absent the separation
    of the MDN from the MIN. For instance, the Subcommittee concluded
    that, absent the separation of the MDN from the MIN, CMRS
    participation in pooling would permit only one CMRS provider per
    pooled NPA-NXX to receive numbers in thousands-blocks.[^30] The
    record and the NANC's findings support our view that continued Phase
    II LNP implementation by CMRS providers is necessary to ensure that
    all CMRS providers are capable of participating in thousands-block
    number pooling.

12. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, regardless of number
    conservation issues, we found, and reaffirm our finding, that
    granting forbearance from applying LNP requirements to CMRS carriers
    until November 24, 2002, but not beyond that date, was independently
    justified on competitive grounds. Specifically, we found that,
    separate and apart from number conservation concerns, the
    competitive reasons that led us to mandate wireless LNP remained
    fundamentally valid.[^31] We observed that the wireless LNP
    requirement had been imposed to promote both wireless-to-wireless
    and wireless-to-wireline competition for the benefit of
    consumers.[^32] However, we rejected the view of some commenters
    that if consumer demand for wireless LNP were to develop, market
    forces alone would be sufficient to ensure its development and
    implementation. We found that in the absence of a regulatory
    requirement, carriers who feared losing customers might not have a
    market-based incentive to develop LNP. We also determined that a
    regulatory requirement was necessary to ensure that wireless
    networks would support nationwide roaming by wireless customers with
    ported numbers.[^33] Finally, we concluded that retaining a uniform
    regulatory deadline for wireless LNP implementation would provide
    the wireless industry with needed certainty and would promote steady
    progress in the development of standards, testing hardware and
    software, and deployment.[^34]

13. In its petition for reconsideration, the Pennsylvania Commission
    requests clarification on how the forbearance granted in the *CMRS
    LNP Forbearance Order* will affect the authority of state
    commissions to implement number conservation measures for
    telecommunications carriers generally and wireless carriers
    specifically.[^35] The Pennsylvania Commission also requests
    clarification that states can implement number conservation methods
    which may provide relief only for LNP-capable carriers.[^36] As an
    initial matter, we note that whether, and the extent to which, we
    should delegate additional authority to states to implement various
    numbering optimization measures is the subject of the *Numbering
    Resource Optimization* proceeding.[^37] We emphasize that our
    decision to grant forbearance in the *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*
    does not preclude our ability to delegate additional authority to
    implement various optimization measures, including measures thay may
    provide relief only for carriers that are LNP-capable. We also note
    that we recently granted in part five state petitions for additional
    delegated authority to implement various optimization measures, such
    as thousand-block pooling trials on an interim basis, subject to the
    national guidelines, standards, and procedures for numbering
    optimization that the Commission will adopt in the *Numbering
    Resource Optimization* proceeding.[^38]

14. The Pennsylvania Commission also requests that the Commission
    clarify that states have authority to develop "default systems,
    procedures and determinations" for the implementation of wireless
    LNP, such as a standard for the separation of the MIN from the MDN,
    if the wireless industry is not able to reach consensus on these
    standards.[^39] Moreover, the Pennsylvania Commission requests that
    the Commission agree to be an "arbiter of those measures developed
    by the \[wireless\] industry," as well as "an arbiter of any action
    the state commissions opt to take if the industry fails to
    internally develop such measures." [^40] In addition, MCI WorldCom
    recommends that we require the top ten wireless carriers to report
    quarterly to the Commission on their individual progress in
    implementing LNP.[^41]

15. We believe it is premature to consider mandating specific wireless
    LNP implementation measures or reporting requirements at this time
    before the wireless industry has had an opportunity to develop and
    implement such measures.[^42] We note that the Pennsylvania
    Commission recognizes that the wireless industry has the expertise
    to decide technical issues with respect to implementation of
    wireless LNP.[^43] The wireless industry submits monthly reports to
    the NANC on the status of the industry's number portability
    efforts.[^44] In addition, under section 52.31(e) of the
    Commission's rules, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau)
    has the authority to establish direct reporting requirements if the
    Bureau considers such requirements necessary to monitor the progress
    of CMRS providers in implementing number portability.[^45] Moreover,
    under section 52.31(e), the Bureau may direct carriers to take any
    actions necessary to ensure compliance with the deployment
    schedule.[^46] Accordingly, we believe that the existing NANC
    reporting mechanism, as well as the authority of the Bureau to
    address any wireless LNP implementation problems that may arise, are
    sufficient to address the LNP implementation concerns raised by MCI
    WorldCom and the Pennsylvania Commission.

16. [Competition]{.underline}. TRA disagrees with our conclusion in the
    *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order* that an extension of the CMRS LNP
    deadline until November 24, 2002 would not harm competition in the
    CMRS market in that timeframe and would likely promote competition
    in that timeframe by giving CMRS carriers greater flexibility to
    complete network buildout, technical upgrades, and other
    improvements.[^47] GTE, on the other hand, disagrees with our
    affirmation in the *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order* that, in the long
    term, CMRS LNP implementation will promote competition in the CMRS
    market and competition between wireless and wireline carriers.[^48]
    We find that petitioners failed to raise arguments or facts not
    already considered in the *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*. In the
    Order, we carefully considered the effect of forbearance from the
    CMRS LNP requirements on wireless-to-wireless and
    wireless-to-wireline competition and found that extending the
    wireless LNP deadline until November 24, 2002, but not beyond that
    date, would promote competition in the short term and in the long
    term.[^49]

17. [TRA's Alternate LNP Proposal]{.underline}. TRA argues that the
    Commission failed to adequately consider the alternative approach
    for implementing LNP that was proposed by TRA in *ex parte* filings
    in the *CMRS LNP Forbearance* proceeding.[^50] In TRA's *ex parte*
    filings in this proceeding, it argued that the wireless industry
    does not require any additional time beyond March 2000 to implement
    LNP because there is an alternative approach, known as "LRN relay,"
    that would enable the industry to support LNP more quickly and less
    expensively than the industry-proposed MIN/MDN separation process.
    TRA also requested that we place the TRA proposal on public
    notice.[^51]

18. We find that we adequately considered TRA's proposal in the *CMRS
    LNP Forbearance Order*. First, we concluded that, given the
    extensive comment that TRA\'s proposal has generated in this
    proceeding and a related proceeding on wireless-wireline
    integration,[^52] and the fact that the wireless industry had
    previously considered proposals similar to TRA\'s in the standards
    development process, it was not necessary to seek further public
    comment on TRA\'s proposal.[^53] Second, we questioned whether the
    LRN relay approach could realistically be submitted to the relevant
    industry standards bodies, developed, and fully implemented by March
    2000, as TRA asserted. [^54] Third, we concluded that we did not
    need to resolve the debate about the technical feasibility of TRA\'s
    proposed alternative or its relative technical merits as compared
    with the MIN/MDN approach in addressing CTIA's forbearance petition.
    [^55] We stated that, even if TRA\'s proposal is technically viable,
    there was no reason to compel the wireless industry at this stage in
    the LNP development process to abandon its substantial efforts to
    date in favor of a different methodology. We also stated that, even
    assuming that TRA\'s proposal would be less costly than MIN/MDN
    separation, on balance our view remains that maintaining the March
    2000 CMRS LNP schedule would impose additional costs and technical
    burdens on the wireless industry that, given the current market
    conditions in the industry, are not necessary to protect consumers,
    promote the public interest, and ensure just, reasonable, and
    nondiscriminatory rates and practices.

19. [Application of Section 10]{.underline}. TRA argues that we did not
    apply the appropriate standard under section 10(a)(2) as part of our
    analysis of the effect of the requested forbearance on
    consumers.[^56] Section 10(a)(2) requires the Commission to
    determine whether "enforcement of \[a\] regulation or provision is
    not necessary for the protection of consumers."[^57] We find that we
    correctly applied this standard. In the *CMRS LNP Forbearance
    Order*, we concluded that extending the implementation deadline
    until November 2002 would not harm consumers; in other words, we
    concluded that maintaining the March 31, 2000 deadline was not
    necessary to protect consumers.[^58] In making our determination
    under section 10(a)(2), we evaluated a number of competitive factors
    in the CMRS market and did not, as TRA contends, rely solely on
    evidence of the lack of current consumer demand for number
    portability.

20. In its petition for reconsideration, GTE argues that once the
    Commission found in the *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order* that the three
    prongs of the section 10 forbearance standard were met, section 10
    requires the Commission to forbear indefinitely from imposing
    service provider LNP requirements on CMRS carriers.[^59] We
    disagree.

21. CTIA's forbearance petition sought forbearance from the Commission's
    service provider LNP requirements imposed on CMRS providers at least
    until the expiration of the five-year buildout period for broadband
    PCS carriers.[^60] CTIA's forbearance request reasonably can be
    construed to encompass three alternative forms of relief: (1)
    forbearance from imposing service provider LNP requirements on CMRS
    carriers until the end of the five-year buildout period (November
    24, 2002); (2) forbearance from imposing these requirements until a
    date after the five-year buildout period; or (3) forbearance from
    these requirements indefinitely. We considered each of these
    alternatives under section 10 and concluded in the *CMRS LNP
    Forbearance Order* that forbearance from imposing service provider
    LNP requirements on CMRS providers until the expiration of the
    five-year buildout period for PCS providers (November 24, 2002)
    satisfied the statutory standards for forbearance, [^61] whereas
    forbearance beyond the expiration of the buildout period would not
    satisfy the section 10 statutory standard.[^62]

22. Section 10(c) provides that the Commission may grant or deny a
    forbearance petition "in whole or in part."[^63] We find, first,
    that section 10(c) expressly permits the Commission to grant one of
    the three alternative forms of relief sought by CTIA, even if the
    relief granted results in forbearance for a shorter period of time
    than would have occurred if the Commission had granted one of the
    other alternative forms of relief requested by CTIA. We find,
    second, that section 10(c), by permitting the Commission to grant a
    forbearance petition "in part," gives us the authority to forbear
    from our CMRS LNP requirements until November 24, 2002, even if CTIA
    had not requested that alternative form of relief.

23. Moreover, accepting GTE's argument that we are not permitted to
    forbear from our CMRS LNP requirements until November 24, 2002 would
    lead to an anomalous result in this case. Under GTE's argument, we
    would not have the option of granting forbearance until the
    expiration of the buildout period, even though that was a form of
    forbearance relief actually requested by the petitioner and that
    relief satisfied the section 10 statutory standard. Therefore,
    having concluded that the alternative forms of relief requested by
    the petitioner did not satisfy the section 10 statutory standard, we
    would be required to reject CTIA's forbearance petition in its
    entirety. We believe that this result is inconsistent with the
    deregulatory mandate of section 10.

24. We note that, even if we had been required to reject CTIA's
    forbearance petition in its entirety because we lacked the authority
    to extend the CMRS LNP implementation deadline to November 24, 2002
    under a section 10 forbearance analysis, we could have accomplished
    the same result by granting a waiver of the CMRS service provider
    LNP requirement in section 52.31(a) until November 24, 2002. The
    record for the *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order* contained sufficient
    evidence to satisfy the "good cause" waiver standard of section 1.3
    of the Commission's rules.[^64] Specifically, the record
    demonstrated that the wireless industry needs additional time beyond
    the March 31, 2000 implementation deadline to finalize standards,
    produce software, and deploy number portability in their
    networks.[^65] The record also established that extending the
    deadline until November 24, 2002 will give CMRS carriers greater
    flexibility in that time-frame to complete network buildout,
    technical upgrades, and other improvements that are likely to have a
    more immediate impact on enhancing service to the public and
    promoting competition in the telecommunications marketplace.[^66] In
    addition, the record demonstrated that the public interest in
    efficient use of numbering resources would not be harmed by the
    limited extension of the LNP deadline.[^67] Thus, the relief sought
    by CTIA could have been granted by waiver.

25. [Conclusion]{.underline}. As discussed above, we conclude that none
    of the petitions raises arguments that warrant reconsideration of
    our decision in the *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order* to forbear from
    imposing service provider LNP requirements on CMRS providers until
    November 24, 2002. We find that we adequately considered issues
    related to number conservation, competition in the wireless
    industry, and TRA's alternate LNP proposal. We also find that our
    analysis of CTIA's petition for forbearance was consistent with the
    standard set forth in section 10 of the Communications Act.

# Ordering clause

26. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.106 of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that the petitions for
    reconsideration of the *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order* filed by GTE
    Service Corporation, MCI WorldCom Inc., the Pennsylvania Public
    Utility Commission, and the Telecommunications Resellers Association
    ARE DENIED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

> Magalie Roman Salas
>
> Secretary

###### SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH {#separate-statement-of-commissioner-harold-furchtgott-roth .unnumbered}

Re: Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association's Petition for
Forbearance from Commercial Mobile Radio Services Number Portability
Obligations and Telephone Number Portability, WT Docket No. 98-229, CC
Docket No. 95-116 (February 9, 2000)

While I have no qualms with today\'s decision to deny these petitions
for reconsideration, I write separately to express my concern about the
Commission's jurisdiction to order number portability for CMRS providers
in the first instance. The Commission has grounded its authority in
sections 1, 2, 4(i), and 332, of the Communications Act.[^68] I have
long voiced concern about this agency's efforts to impose costly and
far-reaching regulatory obligations based on authority cobbled together
from various general and ancillary provisions of the Act. Such
assertions of jurisdiction are particularly troubling here in light of
Section 251's statutory provision specifically mandating number
portability solely for local exchange carriers. Moreover, elsewhere we
have concluded that CMRS providers are not subject to these LEC
obligations.[^69] In the highly competitive CMRS arena, it is the
market, not government, that should generate new service opportunities
and technological innovation. To take a government-first, mandate-driven
approach in the face of meager statutory authority strikes me as
unnecessary and unproductive.

\-- FCC \--

[^1]: In this Order, we use \"CMRS\" to refer only to broadband personal
    communications services (PCS), cellular, and specialized mobile
    radio service (SMR) carriers that are subject to service provider
    LNP requirements. \"Covered\" services that must support LNP consist
    of systems offering real‑time, two‑way switched voice services that
    are interconnected with the public switched network and that utilize
    in‑network switching facilities, enabling the provider to reuse
    frequencies and accomplish seamless hand‑offs of subscriber calls.
    Thus, number portability must be provided by PCS, cellular, and SMR
    licensees only if they provide \"covered\" services under this
    definition. Telephone Number Portability, *Second Memorandum Opinion
    and Order on Reconsideration*, CC Docket No. 95-116, 13 FCC Rcd
    21204, 21228-30, ¶¶ 52-57 (1998).

[^2]: Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association's Petition for
    Forbearance From Commercial Mobile Radio Services Number Portability
    Obligations, WT Docket No. 98-229, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*,
    14 FCC Rcd 3092 (1999) (*CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*). GTE Service
    Corporation (GTE), MCI WorldCom Inc. (MCI WorldCom), and the
    Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA) filed petitions for
    reconsideration, and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
    (Pennsylvania Commission) filed a petition for reconsideration
    and/or clarification. We will refer to the Pennsylvania Commission's
    petition, as well as the other petitions, as "petitions for
    reconsideration."

[^3]: For a discussion of the Commission's prior LNP decisions, *see
    CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3093-3095, ¶¶ 3-6.

[^4]: *See CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 3092. CTIA's petition
    requested forbearance from the requirement in section 52.31(a) of
    the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 52.31(a), that CMRS carriers
    provide a long-term database method for number portability,
    including the ability to support roaming, in the top 100 MSAs, in
    switches for which another carrier has made a specific request for
    the provision of number portability. *See* Petition for Forbearance
    of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association in CC Docket
    No. 95-116, at 3 (filed Dec. 16, 1997) (CTIA Petition for
    Forbearance). CTIA's petition did not request forbearance from the
    requirement in section 52.31(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
    § 52.31(b), that CMRS carriers develop by December 31, 1998, the
    capability to obtain routing information, either by querying the
    appropriate database themselves or by making arrangements with other
    carriers that are capable of performing database queries, so that
    they can deliver calls from their networks to any party that has
    retained its number after switching from one telecommunications
    carrier to another. *See* CTIA Petition for Forbearance at 3 n.7.
    The capability to obtain routing information, as outlined in section
    52.31(b), is known as "Phase I" of LNP deployment, and the
    capability to provide a long-term database method for number
    portability, as outlined in section 52.31(a), is known as "Phase II"
    of LNP deployment.

[^5]: 47 U.S.C. § 160(a). Section 10 provides that the Commission must
    forbear from applying any regulation or provision of the Act to a
    telecommunications carrier if the Commission determines that: (1)
    enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary to
    ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations
    by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier or
    telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are not
    unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2) enforcement of such
    regulation or provision is not necessary for the protection of
    consumers; and (3) forbearance from applying such regulation or
    provision is consistent with the public interest.

[^6]: We noted that the five year PCS buildout deadline is in fact not
    uniform for all PCS carriers because the different blocks of
    broadband PCS spectrum have been licensed in phases and some PCS
    spectrum remains subject to future reauction. However, we concluded
    that it is appropriate to designate November 24, 2002 as a uniform
    \"benchmark\" PCS buildout date for purposes of setting the
    implementation deadline for wireless LNP*. CMRS LNP Forbearance
    Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3112, ¶ 39.

[^7]: *Id.* at 3116, ¶¶ 47-48. Telephone number pooling addresses one of
    the causes of area code exhaust: the allocation of numbers in full
    central office code (NXX) blocks of 10,000. 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. Number pooling allows service
    providers in a given area to receive numbers in blocks smaller than
    10,000 by breaking the association between the NPA-NXX and the
    service provider to whom the call is routed.

[^8]: *See* Numbering Resource Optimization, CC Docket No. 99-200,
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 14 FCC Rcd 10322 (1999) (*Numbering
    Resource Optimization Notice*).

[^9]: The Pennsylvania Commission notes that its comments on CTIA's
    petition for forbearance were not filed during the pleading cycle
    established for that petition. *See* Pennsylvania Commission
    Petition at 1-2 and n.1. Under section 1.106(b)(1) of our rules, 47
    C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(1), any party to the proceeding or any other
    person whose interests are adversely affected by any action taken by
    the Commission may file a petition for reconsideration, subject to
    certain limitations. If the petition is filed by a person who is not
    a party to the proceeding, it shall state with particularity the
    manner in which the person's interests are adversely affected by the
    action taken, and shall show good reason why it was not possible for
    the person to participate in the earlier stage of the proceeding. 47
    C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(1). Although the Pennsylvania Commission did not
    file comments on the CTIA petition for forbearance during the
    pleading cycle, and thus was not a party to this proceeding, we find
    that the Pennsylvania Commission has demonstrated its interest in
    this proceeding, as it relates to number conservation efforts, and
    has shown good reason why it was unable to participate at an earlier
    stage.

[^10]: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (AT&T Wireless), CTIA, and TRA filed
    oppositions and MCI WorldCom filed comments. These oppositions and
    comments were filed on June 25, 1999.

[^11]: GTE, MCI, and TRA filed replies. We note that the replies by GTE
    and MCI were filed on July 8, 1999, two days after the deadline for
    filing replies. *See* Petitions for Reconsideration and
    Clarification of Action in Rulemaking Proceedings, *Public Notice*,
    Report No. 2333, released June 3, 1999, published in the Federal
    Register June 10, 1999, 64 Fed. Reg. 31222. In the interest of
    developing a comprehensive record in this proceeding, however, we
    have considered all arguments raised in the replies filed by GTE and
    MCI, as well as all arguments raised in other pleadings and *ex
    parte* filings in this proceeding.

[^12]: SBC Communications Inc. (filed March 3, 1999); TRA (filed May 28,
    1999); Sprint Corporation (filed Aug. 30, 1999).

[^13]: *See CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 3092.

[^14]: *See* MCI WorldCom Petition at 2-3; TRA Petition at 5, 15;
    Pennsylvania Commission Petition at 2-6. Thousands-block number
    pooling permits the allocation of numbers in blocks of a thousand,
    rather than the traditional allocation in blocks of ten thousand.
    For a description of thousands-block number pooling, *see Numbering
    Resource Optimization Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10383, ¶¶ 136-37. For a
    description of number pooling generally, *see supra* note 7.

[^15]: *See CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3116, ¶ 48.

[^16]: *See Numbering Resource Optimization Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    10395-96, 10399, ¶ 168 (seeking comment on whether an accelerated
    schedule for CMRS LNP implementation is necessary to address
    specific number exhaust problems). *See also id.* at 10399, ¶ 176
    (seeking comment on a non-discriminatory number allocation method
    for markets in which non-LNP-capable carriers continue to receive
    numbers in full NXX blocks while LNP-capable carriers draw smaller
    blocks of numbers from a pool).

[^17]: GTE Petition at 13-16.

[^18]: *Id.* at 14-15.

[^19]: *Id.* at 13-14.

[^20]: 47 U.S.C. § 160(a)(3).

[^21]: *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3095-97, ¶¶ 7-8.

[^22]: We explicitly noted from the outset of the rulemaking that one of
    the public interest benefits of LNP is its potential to further the
    efficient use of numbering resources. *See id.* at 3116, ¶ 48,
    citing Telephone Number Portability, CC Docket No. 95-116, *Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking*, 10 FCC Rcd 12350, 12362, ¶ 31 (1995);
    *First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,
    11 FCC Rcd 8352, 8370-71, 8431-32, ¶¶ 36-37, 153 (1996) (*LNP First
    Report and Order*). Moreover, we deferred our decision on CTIA's
    petition for an additional 90 days in order to develop a
    comprehensive record in the instant forbearance proceeding on the
    impact that extending the LNP timetable for CMRS providers would
    have on number conservation efforts. *See* Cellular
    Telecommunications Industry Association\'s Petition for Forbearance
    from Commercial Mobile Radio Services Number Portability
    Obligations, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, WT Docket No. 98-229,
    14 FCC Rcd 1291 (1998) (*Extension Order*). In the *Extension
    Order*, we exercised our authority under Section 10(c) of the Act to
    extend until March 16, 1999, the date on which CTIA\'s petition
    would be deemed granted in the absence of a Commission decision that
    the petition did not meet the standard for forbearance under section
    10(a). We noted that the report on numbering resource optimization
    by the North American Numbering Council (NANC), a federal advisory
    committee to the Commission on numbering policy issues, had been
    submitted to the Common Carrier Bureau on October 21, 1998, and that
    comments on the NANC Report were due on December 21, 1998. As the
    comment deadline was five days after the one-year deadline for
    acting on CTIA\'s petition, we stated that we would defer a decision
    on the petition so that we would have the opportunity to consider
    responsive comments on both LNP-based and non-LNP-based number
    optimization methods. We also urged wireless carriers and other
    interested parties to (1) address whether it is appropriate from a
    legal, policy, or technical standpoint to consider numbering
    resource optimization concerns in addressing CTIA\'s petition; (2)
    provide information on current utilization of numbering resources by
    wireless carriers (particularly in the 100 largest MSAs); and (3)
    offer proposals for wireless carriers to promote efficient use of
    numbering resources before implementing LNP.

[^23]: *See infra* para. 11*.*

[^24]: GTE Petition at 4, 16.

[^25]: *See CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3115-16, ¶ 47.
    *See also Numbering Resource Optimization Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    10338-68 ¶¶ 36-104 (administrative measures, including reporting
    requirements, audits, and reclamation of NXX blocks), 10370-76 ¶¶
    111-121 (rate center consolidation), 10376-80 ¶¶ 122-129 (mandatory
    ten-digit dialing and related measures), 10416-23 ¶¶ 225-240
    (pricing options).

[^26]: GTE Petition at 4, 16-18, Appendix A.

[^27]: *See id.* at 17, Appendix A at ¶¶ 7,8. As discussed in note 4
    *supra*, CMRS providers were required to complete Phase I of LNP
    deployment (*i.e.*, develop the capability to obtain routing
    information) by December 31, 1998. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 52.31(b).

[^28]: *See* GTE Petition at 17, Appendix A at ¶¶ 7,8. As discussed in
    note 4 *supra*, CMRS are required to complete Phase II of LNP
    deployment (*i.e.*, develop the capability to provide a long-term
    database method for number portability) by November 24, 2002. *See*
    47 C.F.R. § 52.31(a). The method chosen by the CMRS industry to
    implement Phase II of LNP deployment is the separation of the Mobile
    Directory Number (MDN), the number that is dialed to reach the
    mobile unit, from the Mobile Identification Number (MIN), which is
    used to identify the mobile unit to the carrier\'s network and to
    the networks of the carrier\'s roaming partners. *See CMRS LNP
    Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3105-06, ¶ 28. For AMPS, CDMA, and
    TDMA-based carriers, the MDN and the MIN are currently the same for
    each subscriber, and are associated with a particular carrier. To
    implement number portability, however, the industry proposes to
    configure all wireless networks so that the MIN and the MDN of any
    mobile unit can be separated when a customer ports from one wireless
    carrier to another. Under this scenario, the MDN will be ported by
    the customer when the customer switches carriers, but the MIN (a
    ten-digit non-dialable number) can then be reused (with another MDN)
    by the customer\'s old carrier.

[^29]: *See CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3113 and n.120, ¶
    43. The 1998 NANC Numbering Resource Optimization Report indicates
    that number pooling techniques and LNP share a common technological
    architecture, and a number of state commissions noted that continued
    CMRS LNP implementation is necessary for CMRS participation in
    number pooling. *See* Number Resource Optimization Working Group
    Modified Report to the North American Numbering Council on Number
    Optimization Methods, October 21, 1998, at Executive Summary, §§
    4.1, 5.1.2 (1998 NANC Numbering Resource Optimization Report)
    (available at \<http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/Nanc/nanccorr.html\>). *See
    also* *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3093, 3096-97,
    3113 and n.120, ¶¶ 2, 8, 43. In the *Extension Order*, we
    specifically sought comment from wireless carriers and other
    interested parties on, among other things, whether it is appropriate
    from a legal, policy, or technical standpoint to consider numbering
    resource optimization concerns in addressing CTIA\'s petition. *See
    supra* note 22. None of the commenters that filed in response to the
    *Extension Order* asserted that, from a technical standpoint,
    continued CMRS LNP implementation is not necessary for CMRS
    participation in number pooling.

[^30]: *See* NANC Meeting Minutes, July 20-21, 1999, at 3-4,
    <http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/Nanc>. *See also* AT&T Opposition at 14.

[^31]: *See CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3112-13, ¶¶
    40-42.

[^32]: *See id.* at 3112-13, ¶ 40.

[^33]: *See id.* at 3113, ¶ 41.

[^34]: *See id.* at 3113, ¶ 42.

[^35]: Pennsylvania Commission Petition at 8.

[^36]: *Id.* at 7.

[^37]: *See* *Numbering Resource Optimization Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    10350, 10360, 10362-63, 10366-67, 10385, 10386-87, 10412, ¶¶ 63, 88,
    93-94, 100, 142, 145-47, 210. *See also* 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, NSD File No. L-97-42, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order and Order on Reconsideration*, 13 FCC Rcd 19009 (1998)
    (petitions for reconsideration pending, including petition filed by
    the Pennsylvania Commission on December 15, 1998).

[^38]: *See* Maine Public Utilities Commission Petition for Additional
    Delegated Authority to Implement Number Conservation Measures, CC
    Docket No. 96-98, *Order*, FCC 99-260 (rel. Sept. 28, 1999);
    California Public Utilities Commission Petition for Delegation of
    Additional Authority Pertaining to Area Code Relief and NXX Code
    Conservation Measures, CC Docket No. 96-98, *Order*, FCC 99-248
    (rel. Sept. 15, 1999); Florida Public Service Commission Petition to
    Federal Communications Commission for Expedited Decision for Grant
    of Authority to Implement Number Conservation Measures, CC Docket
    No. 96-98, *Order*, FCC 99-249 (rel. Sept. 15, 1999); 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, CC Docket No. 96-98, *Order*,
    FCC 99-246 (rel. Sept. 15, 1999); New York State Department of
    Public Service Petition for Additional Delegated Authority to
    Implement Number Conservation Measures, CC Docket No. 96-98,
    *Order*, FCC 99-247 (rel. Sept. 15, 1999).

[^39]: Pennsylvania Commission Petition at 9.

[^40]: *Id.*

[^41]: MCI WorldCom Comments at 5; MCI Reply at 1-2.

[^42]: We note that our authority over CMRS LNP implementation is based
    on sections 1, 2, 4(i), and 332 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
    §§ 1, 2, 4(i), 332. *See CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    3094, ¶ 4, citing *LNP First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 8433,
    ¶ 155. Bell Atlantic Mobile's challenge to the Commission's
    statutory authority to impose number portability requirements on
    CMRS providers was dismissed, upon joint motion of the parties, on
    March 24, 1999. *See Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile, Inc. v. FCC et.
    al.*, No. 97-9551 (10^th^ Cir. 1999). We have not previously
    considered the issue of whether states could establish technical
    standards for CMRS LNP implementation without additional delegated
    authority from the Commission. Given our conclusion that it is
    premature to consider mandating specific wireless LNP implementation
    measures or reporting requirements, we do not believe it is
    necessary to resolve this issue of state authority at this time.

[^43]: *See* Pennsylvania Commission Petition at 8*; CMRS LNP
    Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3109, ¶ 33.

[^44]: At the monthly meetings of the NANC, the Wireless Number
    Portability Subcommittee of the NANC's Local Number Portability
    Administration Working Group reports on issues related to LNP
    implementation by the wireless industry. For NANC meeting minutes,
    *see* <http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/Nanc>. For timelines and other
    documents prepared by the Wireless Number Portability Subcommittee,
    *see* http://www.npac.com/cmas.

[^45]: 47 C.F.R. § 52.31(e).

[^46]: *Id.*

[^47]: TRA Petition at 8-10. *See CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC
    Rcd at 3109-12, ¶¶ 34-39.

[^48]: GTE Petition at 20-23. *See CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC
    Rcd at 3112-13, ¶ 40.

[^49]: *See CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 3109-13, ¶¶ 34-42.

[^50]: TRA Petition at 6-7, 14-15; TRA Reply at 6-7.

[^51]: *See ex parte letter* from David Gusky, Vice President, TRA, to
    William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC, dated December 4, 1998.

[^52]: The wireless-wireline integration proceeding sought comment on
    NANC\'s May 18, 1998 report on wireless-wireline integration issues
    relating to LNP implementation. *See Public Notice*, Telephone
    Number Portability and North American Numbering Council (NANC)
    Recommendation Concerning Local Number Portability Administration,
    Wireless and Wireline Integration Report, CC Docket 95-116, 13 FCC
    Rcd 17342 (1998).

[^53]: *See* *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3108, ¶ 32.

[^54]: *See* *id.* at 3109, ¶ 33.

[^55]: *See* *id.* at 3108-09, ¶¶ 32-33.

[^56]: TRA Petition at 11-12; TRA Reply at 6.

[^57]: 47 U.S.C. § 160(a)(2).

[^58]: *See* *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3103, ¶ 22.

[^59]: *See* GTE Comments at 5-12; GTE Reply Comments at 2-4. *But see*
    MCI Comments at 2 (arguing that the Commission has various
    alternatives, including rule changes and waivers, to extend the CMRS
    LNP implementation date in accordance with the public interest).

[^60]: *See* CTIA Petition for Forbearance at 3.

[^61]: *See CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3101-02, 3103,
    3105-06, 3109-12, 3116, ¶¶ 19, 22, 28-29, 34-39, 48.

[^62]: *See id.* at 3103-04, 3112-13, 3116, ¶¶ 23, 40-42, 48.

[^63]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 160(c).

[^64]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. Courts have interpreted good cause to mean cases
    where special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general
    rule and such deviation will serve the public interest better than
    adherence to the general rule. *See* *WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418 F.2d
    1135, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969); *Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v.
    FCC*, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

[^65]: *CMRS LNP Forbearance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3105-06, ¶¶ 28-29.

[^66]: *Id.* at 3109-13, ¶¶ 34-42.

[^67]: *Id.* at 3116, ¶ 48.

[^68]: ^1^ *Telephone Number Portability*, First Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 8352, 8431 (1996)
    (citing these provisions as the basis of the Commission\'s statutory
    authority); *see also* *Telephone Number Portability*, First
    Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 7236,
    7315 (1997).

[^69]: ^2^ *See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996*, CC Docket No. 96-98, First
    Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15995-96 (1996).