North American Numbering Council

Meeting Minutes

February 17-18, 1999

**I. Time, Date and Place of Meeting:** The North American Numbering
Council held a meeting, commencing at 8:30 a.m., at the Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

**II. List of Attendees:**

A. Council Members

[Voting Members]{.underline} [ Organization]{.underline}

1\. Beth Kistner ALTS

2\. Lisa Sarno American Mobile Satellite

3\. Edmund Gould AT&T Corp.

4\. Dan Hochvert/Jo Gallagher Bell Atlantic

5\. Paul Kenefick Cable & Wireless, Inc.

6\. Ronald Binz Competition Policy Institute

7\. Robert McDowell CompTel

8\. Lori Messing CTIA

9\. Alan Hasselwander Frontier

10\. Bernard Harris GTE

11\. Peter Guggina MCI WorldCom

12\. Vincent Majkowski/Bruce Armstrong NARUC

13\. Jo Ann Sanford NARUC

14\. Beth O'Donnell NCTA

15\. Larry Krevor Nextel Communications, Inc.

16\. Dan Gonzalez NEXTLINK

17\. Ray Strassburger NorTel Networks

18\. Carl Hansen/Michelle Thompson Omnipoint

19\. Trent Boaldin OPASTCO

20\. Cathy Handley PCIA

21\. Bill Adair SBC Communications, Inc.

22\. Ron Havens Sprint Corp

23\. Stephanie Montgomery TIA

24\. Paul Hart USTA

[Special Members (non-voting)]{.underline}:

John Manning ATIS

Leo Mevel Industry Canada

Ron Conners NANPA

B. Commission Employees

Kris Monteith, Designated Federal Official

Diane Harmon, Assistant Chief, Network Services Division (NSD)

Blaise Scinto, Deputy Chief, NSD

David Furth, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB)

Jared Carlson, NSD, Common Carrier Bureau (CCB)

Les Selzer, NSD, CCB

Patrick Forster, NSD, CCB

Jeannie Grimes, NSD, CCB

Linda Simms, NSD, CCB

**III. Estimated Public Attendance**: Approximately 43 members of the
public attended the meeting as observers.

**IV. Documents Introduced**. Each member received the following
handouts:

\(1\) LNPA Working Group Status Report to NANC

\(2\) LNPA Working Group 2^nd^ Report on Wireless Wireline Integration,
February, 5, 1999

\(3\) Report of the Issue Management Group Regarding the Scope of
Requirements of NANPA for Central Office Code Administration and NPA
Relief Activities

\(4\) Colorado Numbering Task Force

\(5\) California PUC Decision 96-10-067, Oct. 25, 1996

\(6\) INC Report to the NANC

\(7\) NRO Report to NANC

\(8\) Cost Recovery Working Group Report

\(9\) NANPA Fund Performance Status Report & Funds Projection

\(10\) NANPA Oversight Working Group Report

\(11\) NANC Interim Audits Recommendation

\(12\) Public Notice DA 99-347 (rel., Feb 17, 1999) Lockheed Martin CIS
Divestiture

\(13\) Lockheed Martin Number Utilization Forecast and Trends

\(14\) Non-Disclosure Agreement, Thousands Block Pool Administrator
Response to Requirements Document

**V. Summary of the Meeting:**

***A.** **Welcoming Remarks*.** Alan Hasselwander, Chairman of the
Council, provided welcoming remarks.

***B.** **Approval of Minutes of January meeting.* **The minutes of the
January 1999 NANC meeting were approved with one minor correction.

***C.** **LNPA Working Group Report. ***Tom Sweeney, co-chair, commenced
by reviewing the major work areas of the Working Group: the Wireless
Number Portability Subcommittee (WNP SC) status; Wireline/Wireless
Integration Status (WWIS) and the Second Integration Report; a
recommendation to create a wireless number portability working group; a
recommendation for a Y2K moratorium (quiet period) on NPAC
hardware/software changes; the National Number Pooling Subcommittee
status; the Slow Horse Subcommittee status; and, the NPAC Release 2.0
status.

Paula Jordan, co-chair, reviewed key wireless issues. With respect to
intercarrier testing, Ms. Jordan reported that a documented workplan to
complete the test plan is targeted for July 1999. Ms. Jordan reported
that the subcommittee had analyzed the timeframes associated with the
three categories of testing \-- internal, NPAC, and intercarrier. The
subcommittee had identified a potential problem in meeting the March 31,
2000 timeframe for most wireless carriers, given that the NPAC/SMS
Release 2.0 will not be available for production until September 1999.
Ms. Jordan also reported that the WNP SC had reached agreement on the
formula and assumptions for busy hour porting volumes.

Ms. Jordan reported that the Commission had granted a petition for
forbearance, extending the time for implementation of wireless number
portability to November 24, 2002. As a result of the extension, Ms.
Jordan reported that the WNP SC had identified the testing tasks,
timeframes, and timeline to achieve wireless LNP implementation by
November 24, 2002.

Chairman Hasselwander raised the issue of whether the wireless industry
could comply if the FCC ordered number pooling in the second quarter of
2000. Ms. Jordan responded in the negative, indicating that the industry
could not be ready for a March 2000 implementation.

Vincent Majkowski, NARUC, stated that he intends to push for a
resolution from NARUC urging the FCC to issue a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on number pooling for all telecommunications carriers
immediately. Mr. Majkowski indicated that he does not believe that the
technical issue alleged by the wireless industry is present and that the
industry\'s non-participation in number portability and number pooling
does not benefit consumers.

Mr. Majkowski asked who has responsibility for NPAC Release 2.0. Ms.
Jordan responded that the responsibility rests with Lockheed Martin. Mr.
Majkowski asked whether the NANC had asked Lockheed Martin to accelerate
the work on NPAC Release 2.0. Ms. Jordan and Mr. Sweeney reported that
the LNPA Working Group had asked for an accelerated schedule on the
work. Mr. Sweeney indicated, however, that the LLCs had negotiated with
Lockheed Martin on the schedule and the price.

A discussion ensued on whether Release 2.0 included number pooling, with
Anne La Lena, MCI WorldCom, and Mark Foster, Lockheed Martin, confirming
that it did not include pooling at this point. Chairman Hasselwander
revisited his earlier question about whether the wireless industry would
be ready to implement number pooling, if mandated by the FCC. Chairman
Hasselwander asked what actions would be necessary if the FCC ordered
thousands block pooling for all carriers.

A discussion followed concerning whether the LNPA Working Group should
attempt to develop a timeline for implementation of number pooling by,
for example, March 2000. Several NANC members expressed opposition to
Chairman Hasselwander\'s suggestion, indicating that the wireless
industry had been given an extension until November 2002 to implement
number portability. Chairman Hasselwander indicated that he recognized
that an extension had been granted; his suggestion that the tightest
possible timeline be developed stemmed from his desire that the industry
not be caught off-guard. Kris Monteith, FCC, noted that the suggestion
to develop a timeline did not appear unreasonable in light of the
express language of the FCC forbearance order, which left room for the
possibility that the 2002 date could be moved forward, if necessary to
address specific number exhaust problems.

Following further discussion, the NANC determined that the LNPA Working
Group should look at the timeline for implementation of number
portability and whether the timeframes could be shortened. Ms. Jordan
next asked for any questions on the Second Wireline/Wireless Integration
Report, which should be finalized by June 1999. Ron Havens indicated
that he had edits that he would give to Ms. Jordan and also asked why
some ports must be performed during busy times of the day. Ms. Jordan
stated that the report simply indicates that possibility. Chairman
Hasselwander raised a question concerning porting of numbers at off
hours. Mr. Sweeney indicated that the question related to the slow horse
issue, on which he would report shortly. Gerry Thompson, Mobility
Canada, indicated concern that Alternative #2 not impact 911 systems. In
response to a question from Vince Majkowski, NARUC, Ms. Jordan confirmed
that the schedule for wireless/wireline integration had not been changed
by the grant of the number portability forbearance petition.

Ms. Jordan then reported on the LNPA Working Group\'s recommendation to
create a Wireless Number Portability Working Group. Ms. Jordan reported
that the impetus for the new working group is to increase participation
and to be able to report directly to the NANC on wireless issues, rather
than through the LNPA Working Group. Following significant discussion,
in which issues were raised both in support and in opposition to the
proposal, Chairman Hasselwander suggested that the wireless only group
officially be recognized as a subtending group of the LNPA Working
Group, but that some wireless only issues be brought directly to the
NANC. Chairman Hasselwander suggested that the LNPA Working Group bring
to the NANC a work plan, describing the responsibility of each subgroup.
Hearing no oppositions, the NANC agreed to Chairman Hasselwander\'s
suggestion. Chairman Hasselwander also called for contributions on how
to increase wireless carriers\' participation within the LNPA Working
Group.

Tom Sweeney, AT&T, reported on the recommendation for a Y2K moratorium
on NPAC hardware/software changes. Mr. Sweeney reported that the LNPA
Working Group recommended that there be no changes to the NPAC/SMS
production software or hardware from November 1, 1999, until March 1,
1000, except corrections for Y2K specific problems. Vince Majkowski,
NARUC, questioned the need to completely stop work for four months. Mr.
Sweeney reported that the suggestion was intended to ensure a stable
environment and to minimize risk. Mr. Majkowski noted that no one had
come to the states requesting a similar moratorium.

Following discussion, the NANC agreed that the use of the word
\"moratorium\" was too strong and that a four month stop on work could
be too extreme. The LNPA Working Group agreed to rework the
recommendation to accommodate the NANC\'s concerns.

Mr. Sweeney reviewed the National Number Pooling Subcommittee status, as
reported on the LNPA Working Group handout. He then reported on the slow
horse status. Mr. Sweeney reported that the slow horse subcommittee is
in the process of analyzing \"slow horse\" data. He also reported that
the subcommittee has started to frame ideas for industry LSMS interface
performance criteria and that the next step is to develop \"slow horse\"
identification criteria including minimum LSMS interface performance
requirements, performance thresholds, and data collection/reporting
processes. Mr. Sweeney reviewed the differences between \"slow horse,\"
\"lame horse,\" and \"dead horse.\"

Chairman Hasselwander noted that the FCC had received at least one
complaint on this issue and that he had heard that some carriers would
not allow porting beyond a maximum number of telephone numbers between
certain hours. Mr. Sweeney explained that an agreement had been reached
at a cross-regional operations meeting to limit the number of telephone
numbers ported because of LSMS issues. He indicated that the limitation
was no longer in place because the LSMS range capacity problems had been
resolved.

Following further discussion, the LNPA Working Group agreed to develop a
draft schedule for the resolution of the \"slow horse\" issue.

Finally, Mr. Sweeney reported that the NPAC Release 2.0 remains on
target for service provider testing in mid-June, 1999.

***D.** **Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Report. ***INC Moderator,
Richard Round, GTE, presented the INC Report. The INC Report contains
the status of both the INC Guidelines on Number Pooling and the INC
500/900 Number Portability effort, along with the schedule and logistics
for the next two INC meetings. Mr. Round reported that INC had held its
first meeting of the year on January 27, 1999, and had reviewed proposed
modifications to the Thousand Block (NXX-X) Pooling Administration
Guidelines and associated forms. At that time, the INC finalized the INC
documents on Thousand Block (NXX-X) Pooling Administration Guidelines,
NPA Allocation Plan and Assignment Guidelines, Central Office Code (NXX)
Assignment Guidelines, and NPA Code Relief Planning & Notification
Guidelines. Any proposed changes to these guidelines would require a new
INC issue statement.

Mr. Round then reported that INC Issue 105, Number Pooling, moved to
initial closure during the meeting, and that final closure is planned
for the INC meeting to be held March 22-26, 1999. Mr. Round noted that
all of the above-noted INC documents are available on the INC web page
at http://www.atis.org/ atis/clc/inc/incdocs.htm

Mr. Round outlined the LNPA Work Plan for the INC LNPA Workshop to be
conducted on March 22, 1999. Mr. Round explained that the INC\'s Initial
Report to the NANC on Number Pooling is an ongoing report that was first
given to the NANC some time ago, is now in its third version, and
continues to be modified. Mr. Round noted that a decision will need to
be made as to whether to continue the report. Participants will review
the INC\'s Initial Report to the NANC on Number Pooling to decide on a
work plan associated with this document.

Chairman Hasselwander asked what kind of modifications are being made to
the INC Report on Number Pooling. Mr. Round replied that different
agreements reached by the INC were being included in the report, such as
the agreement on Thousand Block Number Pooling. Also, as Mr. Round
noted, the Work Plan proposes that the INC begin to develop Individual
Telephone Number Pooling Administration Guidelines; these guidelines
would be included in the INC Report on Number Pooling.

Mr. Round reported that a 500/900 Number Portability Workshop Meeting
was held February 2-3, 1999. Several contributions were received, and an
initial set of assumptions developed. These assumptions will be revised
and updated as work on 500/900 Number Portability continues. Mr. Round
then noted that the INC had agreed to a baseline text concerning 500
Architectural/Call Flow Assumptions and Use of Existing Toll Free
Databases. In addition, a proposed 900 Portability Architecture had been
developed and will be forwarded to the NIIF and OBF along with a list of
questions for their review and input. Also, meeting participants had
agreed to the assumption that all 900 numbers would be pooled at the
individual telephone number level. A similar agreement, however, was not
reached concerning 500 numbers.

Peter Guggina, MCI WorldCom, asked why an agreement had not been reached
that 500 numbers would be pooled at the individual telephone number
level. Mr. Round responded that some individuals and entities believe
that pooling may not be necessary for the 500 numbering resource. Mr.
Round reported that the group debated whether 500 number pooling is
necessary, or whether current number assignment practices should
continue where portability has been implemented.

Peter Guggina, MCI WorldCom, stated that he believed that the issue of
whether individual telephone number pooling for the 500 numbering
resource may be a policy issue requiring guidance for the INC. Chairman
Hasselwander noted that, based on his recollection, the FCC order
required the NANC to recommend how 500/900 portability would be
implemented, not whether it would be implemented. Mr. Round replied that
pooling is an assignment process, whereas portability is not. In
addition, Mr. Round noted that the FCC order clearly required the NANC
to report on portability, but did not clearly require pooling. Mr. Round
reported that his report accurately reported the status of the INC\'s
deliberations. He clarified, however, that the INC had not affirmatively
decided not to require individual telephone number pooling of 500
numbers; rather, it had not yet reached a decision on that issue.

Tony Pupek, USTA, asked whether or not the 500/900 Portability Workshop
could continue to work without addressing the issue of 500/900 number
pooling. Mr. Round replied that he could not answer that question at
this time, but suggested that some sort of number pooling would be
necessary. Even though assignments may be made at the 10,000 number
level, Mr. Round noted that thousand block pooling still is considered
pooling. Mr. Pupek then suggested that the word \"pooled\" in the last
bullet on page 5 of the INC Report could be changed to \"assigned\" to
more clearly describe the process. Mr. Round agreed.

Following further discussion on this issue, Chairman Hasselwander
requested that INC report on the outcome of its further deliberations at
the March NANC meeting.

Mr. Round reviewed the INC 500/900 Portability Workshop Work Plan and
meeting schedule for the 1999 meetings, as indicated on the INC handout.
Mr. Round reported that the next meeting is scheduled for March 9-11,
1999, in Atlanta, Georgia. He also noted that the next quarterly INC
meeting will be held on March 22-26, 1999, in Trinidad and Tobago.

Ron Havens, Sprint, questioned whether conference bridges would be set
up for the upcoming meetings, and how well used the bridges had been in
past meetings. Mr. Round affirmed that conference bridges would be set
up at all meetings. He also indicated that at the first meeting this
year seven persons from five different organizations participated via
the bridge. Overall, 21 persons from 13 different organizations had
participated in the meeting.

***E.** **NRO Working Group Report.*** Co‑Chair, Mike Whaley, provided
the report to the Council. Mr. Whaley reported that the Working Group
has held three meetings since the January NANC meeting, focussing on the
telephone number reservation process and definition, and the COCUS
replacement model. With regard to the reservation process, Mr. Whaley
reported that an agreement had been reached that DID numbers activated
in the public switched telephone network are working numbers; and that
the initial period for a reserved telephone number is defined as \"up to
one year,\" using the four criteria and conditions directed by NANC at
its January 1999 meeting. An extension may be provided for as long as
specific actions are taken by the customer and the service provider to
initiate the extension. Mr. Whaley reported that alternatives to the
extension period are undergoing further review by the NRO. He also
reported that the reservation process issue is scheduled to be completed
by June 1999.

Next, Mr. Whaley reported that the Working Group has received three
contributions for a COCUS replacement: (1) the NANPA utilization and
forecast process, known as \"LINUS\" (2) AT&T's \"A Minimalist Code
Utilization and Forecasting Model\" and (3) a U S WEST model entitled
\"COCUS Replacement.\" Mr. Whaley reported that the NRO Working Group
reached agreement that the implemented model must address utilization
and forecasting in one tool. He also noted that the Working Group had
agreed that the core purpose of the forecasting/utilization tool is to
forecast exhaust of specific NPAs and by extension the NANP; to assess
the current utilization within the NANP for application of number
resource optimization measures; and, to check compliance with numbering
guidelines and requirements. Mr. Whaley stated that the target date for
completion of a recommendation on a revised COCUS model is April 1999.

With respect to miscellaneous matters, Mr. Whaley indicated that the
Working Group had agreed to continue with three co‑chairs. He indicated
that nominations were being considered and a recommendation would be
provided to the NANC at the NANC\'s April 1999 meeting.

Mr. Whaley provided the NANC members with a handout entitled \"NRO
Master Matrix.\" He indicated that the NRO Working Group would await
further direction from the NANC and the FCC with respect to the
prioritization of work. Finally, Mr. Whaley reported that the next
Working Group meeting was scheduled for March 17‑19, in Washington,
D.C., following the NANC meeting.

***F. Issue Management Group Report\-- Scope of Requirements of NANPA.*
**Ron Binz, CPI, reported on the development of the Policy Statement of
the NANC Concerning the Scope of Requirements of NANPA for Central
Office Code Administration and NPA Relief Activities. Mr. Binz reviewed
the Report of the Issue Management Group, indicating that NANC\'s
assignment had been to make edits agreed to by the NANC to the draft
Policy Statement; to recommend whether to add the NANPA Transition Plan
to documents defining the core responsibilities of NANPA in the Policy
Statement; to review and summarize the relevant factual history of the
California court reporter issue; and, to recommend a process to be used
and questions to be considered in addressing the court reporter issue.
Mr. Binz reported that the edits had been made and that the Issue
Management Group recommended the incorporation of the Transition Plan to
the list of documents referenced in the Policy Statement. Following Mr.
Binz\' presentation, the NANC adopted the Policy Statement, as revised.

Mr. Binz next identified the documents reviewed by the Issue Management
Group in considering the California court reporter issue, as listed on
the handout. Thereafter, he reviewed the Issue Management Group\'s
consensus regarding relevant facts and conclusions, also identified on
the handout. Finally, Mr. Binz reviewed the two recommendations of the
Issue Management Group: (1) that the NANC decide the California court
report issue by applying its policy statement on the scope of the
NANPA\'s responsibilities; and, (2) that the NANC refer to the NANPA
Oversight Working Group the question of the NANPA\'s responsibilities
for NPA planning and implementation meetings with respect to attending,
chairing, facilitating, recording, publicizing, and covering the costs
of such meetings. Chairman Hasselwander then opened the floor to
discussion.

A representative of the California Cable Association made a statement to
the NANC. He indicated that the decisions of the California Public
Utilities Commission (PUC) are law and that the court reporter
transcripts are used to justify NPA relief plans, not simply for the
benefit of industry. He referenced an Opinion of the California PUC, in
which the responsibilities of the code administrator are listed,
including the responsibility to provide for a \"stenographer to record
and distribute transcripts of the meeting.\" Members of the California
PUC, participating in the discussion via conference bridge, confirmed
this position. They indicated that although the California PUC had never
directly ordered Pacific Bell, the Code Administrator, to provide court
reporters, Pacific Bell had undertaken that responsibility and the
California PUC Opinion did identify it as a responsibility of the code
administrator.

Ron Conners, Lockheed Martin, then presented Lockheed Martin\'s
position, as reflected on its handout. He stated that the NANPA regards
the scheduling, preparation, and co-facilitation of the local
jurisdiction and public meetings as part of its relief planning
responsibilities. The NANPA believes, however, that no existing rules or
policies require that the NANPA reimburse court reporters. In NANPA\'s
view, court reporter costs should be treated as they are in other
states; that is, they should be paid for directly by the public utility
commission or prorated to participants in the proceeding.

A discussion followed. Beth O\'Donnell, NCTA, stated that, in her view,
the NANPA should not be required to provide court reporter coverage in
every state; nonetheless, the California requirement was an already
existing responsibility that should have been known by the industry.
Several NANC members raised concerns about including state-specific
requirements within the scope of the NANPA\'s responsibilities.
Conversely, other members suggested that the NANPA Requirements Document
and FCC decisions required the NANPA to assume all responsibilities of
the then-current code administrators and that the California court
reporter requirement was a known activity.

Following further discussion, the NANC determined to defer the issue to
the March NANC meeting. It also agreed not to refer to the NANPA
Oversight Working Group the broad question of the NANPA\'s
responsibilities for NPA planning and implementation meetings. The
NANC\'s determination followed the remarks of Andrea Cooper, NANPA
Oversight Working Group Co-Chair, that the question had already been
before that Working Group and had, in fact, been referred to the NANC
when the Working Group was unable to answer the question.

Parties interested in this issue were asked to make contributions,
summarizing their position and to participate in the future discussion,
to be held on March 16, at 1:30 p.m.

***G.** **Cost Recovery Working Group Report.*** Co‑Chair Anne La Lena,
MCI WorldCom, provided the report to the Council on the following
issues: a recommendation on the treatment of variables under the fixed
price thousand block number administration/pooling proposal; and,
authority of the NANC to hire a consultant for a NANPA audit. Ms. La
Lena also generally announced the need for increased involvement and
participation in the Cost Recovery Working Group.

With regard to pricing of the thousand block administration function,
Ms. La Lena reported that the Working Group recommended: a one‑time
true‑up adjustment for variables in March of each year; that NBANC add a
safety factor estimate for variables activity within the base price;
that the NANPA establish the first year safety factor; that the NANPA
identify fixed and variable pricing elements; and, that the NANPA
provide cost information and assumptions to the greatest degree
possible.

With regard to whether NANC has the authority to hire an outside
consultant for a NANPA audit, Ms. La Lena reported that the Working
Group concluded that the NANC has the authority to use and pay a
consultant for the audit of the NANPA, if consensus is reached on the
need for the audit. Ms. La Lena also noted that the Working Group
recommends that NBANC is the proper vehicle to bill and collect
additional, needed funds, and that NBANC should be notified as quickly
as possible of the additional costs involved.

Finally, Ms. La Lena reported that the issue of individual telephone
number and unassigned number portability cost allocation remains an
outstanding issue for the Working Group. Those issues have been tabled
pending further direction from the NANC or the FCC.

[NBANC Report]{.underline}. Vincent Majkowski, Chair, NBANC, provided
the report to the Council on the fund status, process and current
activities. Mr. Majkowski reported that letters will be sent to carriers
regarding the submission of their NANPA fund payment in response to
initial bills rendered on or around February 20, 1999, with payments due
by March 12, 1999.

Mr. Majkowski reported that the current fund balance is \$910,000 with
projected receivables of \$516,000 in monthly contributions,
approximately \$100,000 due from Canada, \$17,800 due from the Dominican
Republic, and \$10,000 due from non-compliant carriers. Mr. Majkowski
reported that payments to Lockheed Martin to date total \$3.025 million
with a remaining payment of \$.275 million due. Payments of \$235,000
have been made to NECA, with \$13,000 remaining to be paid. Finally, Mr.
Majkowski reported that the projected cost for an outside auditor, to
perform an audit of the NANPA Fund, is \$22,000 and that the NBANC had
recommended that Price Waterhouse Coopers conduct the 1999-2000 audit.

***H.** **Colorado Public Utilities Commission Letter of January 27,
1999.* ** Bruce Armstrong, Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC),
provided the report to the Council concerning the letter of the Colorado
PUC regarding the unauthorized use of central office codes by carriers
lacking certification by the state public utilities commission. Vince
Majkowski, a Colorado PUC Commissioner, clarified that although the
letter had been signed only by one of the three Colorado Commissioners,
all three Commissioners supported the letter and the recommendations
made therein.

Mr. Armstrong then continued with a review of the specific Colorado
audit findings, as outlined in the handout provided to the NANC members.
For example, Mr. Armstrong reported that the audit had disclosed that
carriers had received CO codes for rate centers for which they are not
authorized to provided service by the Colorado Commission; that carriers
had obtained codes that they have not actually opened for customers;
that carriers have entire NXX codes with all numbers designated as
reserved; and that carriers have entire NXX codes as assigned to
customers.

Mr. Armstrong then reviewed the five recommendations resulting from the
Colorado number utilization audit findings: (1) that carriers requesting
central office codes in new exchange areas be required to certify the
veracity of the information supplied to the NANPA regarding the
carriers\' certification in that exchange; (2) that the NANPA be
required to audit carrier requests for new CO codes and to be allowed to
withhold such codes upon a finding on non-certification; (3) that the
NANPA be required to perform audits across the entire NANP on carriers
that have been found to misrepresent their need for central office codes
in an uncertified territory; (4) that the LERG assignment of a new CO
code to an exchange be required to correspond with the requested
exchange made to the NANPA when the code was requested; and, (5) that
any change to the exchange assigned to a particular central office code
in the LERG be verified regarding that carrier\'s certification for the
new exchange.

In response, Ron Conners, Director, NANP Administration, supported
Colorado\'s audit activities. Mr. Conners stated, however, that industry
guidelines do not require the steps work suggested by the first and
second recommendations; rather the CO code administration guidelines
only require carriers to certify that they are authorized in that
exchange. With respect to the third recommendation, Mr. Conners
indicated that the NANPA needs additional guidance before it could
perform the suggested audits. Finally, Mr. Conners stated that the NANPA
would be unable to perform the functions suggested by the fourth and
fifth recommendations because once NANPA assigns a code, it disconnects
and does not have any involvement in the verification of the LERG
database.

The NANC discussed the issues raised by the Colorado letter, including
changes to SS7 networks that might be necessary, the disassociation of
the current rate center with rating and routing, how many of the
problems raised by the letter might be solved by the NANC\'s ongoing
work, the need for telephone number administration guidelines, and
enforcement follow-up on requests for codes. Following significant
discussion, Chairman Hasselwander suggested that at its meeting that
evening, the Steering Group considered the issues and recommend a course
of action to the NANC the following day. The NANC concurred with
Chairman Hasselwander\'s suggestion.

***I.** **NANPA Oversight WG Report.*** Co‑Chair, Andrea Cooper,
AirTouch, provided the report to the Council. Ms. Cooper reviewed the
NANPA performance evaluation work plan timeline. Ms. Cooper reported
that the performance matrix had been completed on February 4, 1999, and
that it had been provided to the NANPA for the NANPA\'s completion of
its self‑evaluation. Ms. Cooper stated that Ron Conners, Lockheed
Martin/NANPA, had been involved in the matrix development process.

More generally, Ms. Cooper reported that the NANPA evaluation will be
conducted from March 8 to April 8, 1999. The evaluation will consist of
several activities, including completion of the matrix, on-site visits
to the Concord, California and Washington, D.C. Central Office Code
Administration offices. The CO Code Transition Task Force also will
provide input about transition-related issues throughout the past year.
Ms. Cooper also reported that the survey form, requesting public input
on the NANPA\'s performance, including input from industry, the states
and other interested members of the public, will be completed for the
NANC\'s review and distribution by March 1, 1999. Ms. Cooper reported
that the FCC had agreed to issue a press release concerning the survey,
in an effort to increase the awareness of the survey and its purpose.
Finally, Ms. Cooper indicated that the overall evaluation of the
NANPA\'s performance will be drafted and provided to the NANC members by
April 14, 1999, for final review at the NANC meeting on April 21, 1999.

Ms. Cooper commented that the on-site observations at the Concord office
on February 24 will provide the NANPA Oversight Working Group evaluation
team an opportunity to see the NANPA systems in place, inspect the
secure areas and ensure that the processes set forth in section 9 of the
Requirements Document are actually being performed.

Following discussion, the NANC accepted the work plan and associated
timeline prepared by the NANPA Oversight Working Group. Vince Majkowski,
NARUC, indicated that NARUC would distribute the performance feedback
survey to its members, as well as to provide the survey to NASUCA
representatives, as quickly as possible. In response to a question about
the confidentiality of performance evaluation responses, Robert
McDowell, Comptel, and Cathy Handley, PCIA, indicated that trade
associations might be able to help on that issue, by submitting input on
behalf of the association, rather than on behalf of any particular
company. Ms. Cooper indicated that Linda Hymans, Texas PUC, will
consolidate the survey responses.

In terms of the NANPA Oversight Working Group\'s future work, Ms. Cooper
reported that the next meeting is scheduled for March 8, in Atlanta, for
review of the completed compliance matrix. Thereafter, on March 30‑31,
the Working Group will meet in Dallas, to review the input from industry
participants (survey results) and continue the review of the completed
NANPA compliance matrix. In conclusion, Ms. Cooper stated that the final
report will be drafted during the Working Group meeting scheduled for
April 6-9 in Denver.

***J.** **NANC CIS Petition Recommendation.*** Chairman Hasselwander
reported that the FCC had that day released a Public Notice, seeking
comments by March 17, 1999, on the Lockheed Martin petition to divest
the CIS business unit, taking into account the responses submitted by
Lockheed Martin and Mitretek Systems to the questions directed to them.
Peter Guggina, MCI WorldCom, and the other members of the CIS Issue
Management Group, agreed to review the responses of Lockheed Martin and
Mitretek and to develop a draft recommendation for the full NANC\'s
consideration by March 9. The NANC will review the draft recommendation
and develop a final recommendation to be forwarded to the FCC by March
17, 1999.

Mr. Guggina agreed to organize the first conference call of the Issue
Management Group.

***February 18, 1999***

**Opening Remarks.** Chairman Hasselwander discussed the
[ex]{.underline} [parte]{.underline} filing that had been made by
Lockheed Martin on February 4, 1999, on number optimization approaches
and his [ex]{.underline} [parte]{.underline} meetings with FCC
Commissioners on number exhaust issues. Chairman Hasselwander discussed
the facts leading up to the study performed by Lockheed Martin on Number
Utilization Forecast and Trends and, in response, to NANC member
questions, confirmed that the study to be presented to the NANC that day
was not substantively different from that presented to the FCC in the
Lockheed Martin [ex]{.underline} [parte]{.underline}. Chairman
Hasselwander then turned the meeting over to Lockheed Martin for its
presentation.

***K.** **Lockheed Martin Presentation Relative to Number Utilization
and Trends.* **Mark Foster, Lockheed Martin, provided background to the
development of the initial report and explained the data models**.** Mr.
Foster noted that the study is preliminary and had been released only
because of the nature of the initial results. Mr. Foster indicated that
the study is not intended to be definitive. Mr. Foster noted that
forecasting the availability of NANP numbering resources is part of the
general responsibilities of the NANPA, under the FCC\'s rules. He also
noted that the 1999 COCUS results are expected by mid-1999 and that
Lockheed Martin expects those results to predict area code exhaust
within the next 10 years. Mr. Foster then provided an indepth review and
explanation of Lockheed Martin\'s study and its results, as presented on
the Lockheed Martin handout.

Mr. Foster\'s presentation provoked considerable discussion on the
assumptions and results of the study. Chairman Hasselwander proposed, as
a process going forward, that the NANC continue to study and to analyze
number exhaust. Chairman Hasselwander recommended that analysis of
pooling and other conservation measures be included within the scope of
that work. He suggested that the NANC put together a group of 10-15
individuals who, working with Lockheed Martin, could test Lockheed
Martin\'s study, its assumptions and results. Chairman Hasselwander
suggested that participants should be knowledgeable with respect to
Excel spread sheets, statistical methodology, and overall industry and
numbering issues. They also should be able to dedicate a significant
amount of time to the endeavor and participation should reflect a
cross-representation of the industry. Chairman Hasselwander also
suggested that the FCC and Canadian representatives should participate,
to the extent possible.

Chairman Hasselwander suggested that the outcome of the effort should be
a reasonable range of predicted NANP exhaust, using the Lockheed Martin
study as a platform. The Lockheed Martin study should serve as a model
against which to measure other conservation methods. Paul Hart, USTA,
stated that the result of the NANC\'s efforts should be to develop a
basic model by which industry can agree to continuously assess the
assumptions on NANP exhaust. He also indicated that he believes the NANC
must use this development as a means by which to finally resolve the
issues surrounding the collection of forecast and utilization data.

Ron Binz, CPI, stated that it should be clear at the outset that the
product of the study is a NANPA/Lockheed Martin product and not a NANC
product; NANC\'s role should be to assist the NANPA in improving the
product. Mr. Binz also expressed the view that the goal should not be to
reach a consensus on NANP exhaust, but rather to conduct a study that
will project the date of NANP exhaust with as much accuracy as possible.

Several NANC representatives volunteered to provide participants from
within their organizations to assist in studying the current model and
in developing an exhaust projection with which the industry is
comfortable. Leo Mevel, CRTC, stated that this issue is crucial to
Canada, and suggested that the costs of NANP expansion should be
compared very carefully to the costs of number resource optimization.
Peter Guggina, MCI WorldCom, added that the industry could currently
implement many strategies to add years to the life of the existing NANP
before considering expansion of the NANP, which has been projected to
cost anywhere from 50-150 billion dollars.

Chairman Hasselwander stated that as a first step the volunteers from
USTA, PCIA, CTIA, NCTA, NARUC, MCI WorldCom, AT&T, Bell Atlantic, and
SBC, should scrub and test the Lockheed Martin exhaust assumptions and
conclusions. This group should report back to the NANC at NANC\'s April
meeting. Chairman Hasselwander suggested that the group should test the
effect of number resource optimization or conservations methods \--
thousands block pooling, individual telephone number pooling and rate
center consolidation \-- on the estimates of NANP exhaust. Chairman
Hasselwander suggested that volunteers provide Lockheed Martin with the
name of the individual from within their organization who will
participate in the activity and coordinate with Lockheed Martin to
establish a first meeting date. Bill Adair, SBC, added that the model
has the potential to test the use of the NPA resource with respect to
overlays and should be used to conduct a total examination of the entire
NPA resource.

Chairman Hasselwander restated that the group first should endeavor to
understand the predicted exhaust date and, thereafter, to use the
revised model to understand the potential effect of thousands block
number pooling on number exhaust. The NANC agreed.

In closing, Frank Ferrante, Mitretek Systems, offered to assist in the
review of the Lockheed Martin study. Blaise Scinto, Deputy Chief,
Network Services Division, stated that the FCC also would participate in
the group\'s efforts.

***L.** **Steering Group Report.*** Chairman Hasselwander provided the
report to the Council on the previous evening\'s Steering Group meeting.
Chairman Hasselwander reported that the Steering Group had developed an
interim audits process and recommendation. For the benefit of the NANC
members, Karen Mulberry, MCI WorldCom, reviewed the handout entitled
\"Interim Audits Recommendation,\" including the objective, purpose,
scope and audit process. Ms. Mulberry provided an overview of the
proposed interim audit process. Following discussion, the NANC agreed to
the interim audits recommendation, and concluded that the NANPA should
begin the audit process immediately. Bell Atlantic volunteered to be the
first \"auditee.\"

Chairman Hasselwander reported that Ron Conners, Lockheed Martin, had
provided the Steering Group with a report on its examination of various
databases and the overall usefulness of the available data to serve as
carrier contact information for COCUS and other purposes. Chairman
Hasselwander reported that Lockheed Martin had concluded that because of
uncertainty about the reliability of the data, Lockheed Martin had
determined to rely on scrubbing its own database for carrier-specific
contact information.

Chairman Hasselwander reported that a review of the Lockheed Martin
Response to the Thousands Block Administration Requirements Document had
started late in the evening. He also reported that all participants on
the Steering Group Ad Hoc Review Team will need to sign non-disclosure
agreements. Chairman Hasselwander noted that the group should be limited
to 12-15 individuals and should include representatives from the Cost
Recovery and NANPA Oversight Working Groups. Finally, Chairman
Hasselwander reported that a meeting will be held in Washington, D.C.,
with the Steering Group Ad Hoc Review Team and Lockheed Martin
representatives present, to review the Lockheed Martin proposal.

Finally, Chairman Hasselwander reported that SBC volunteered to provide
refreshments at the next Steering Group meeting, scheduled for the
evening of March 16, 1999.

***M.** **Other Business.*** Ron Havens, Sprint, reported that he has
received a copy of the Australian consumer survey study. The study is
copyright protected, however. Mr. Havens indicated that he would contact
the proper Australian officials to receive approval to duplicate the
study; once approval is received, he will make the study available to
NANC members for their review and use.

**V. NANC Action Items and Decisions Reached. **

1\. [Local Number Portability Administration Working Group (LNPA
WG]{.underline}). The LNPA WG will answer the question . . . if thousand
block pooling was ordered by the Commission, when is the earliest date
that CMRS carriers could participate? The answer will be provided at the
March NANC meeting.

Through a public notification, the NANC will seek to supplement
participation in the existing WNP SC. The LNPA WG will produce, and
bring to the NANC, a work plan that distinguishes the work of the LNPA
WG from that of the WNP SC. The LNPA WG is expected to continue to
address the integration matters and the WNP SC will address wireless
only matters; in the future, each group will make separate reports to
the NANC. Groups are encouraged to continue to communicate with each
other going forward.

The LNPA WG will revisit the recommendation presented for a Y2K quiet
period. NANC is interested to see if a shorter time frame could be
capable of accomplishing the concern of Y2K relating to NPAC/SMS
software changes.

2\. [California Court Reporter Issue]{.underline}. Parties who wish to
make a short position statement regarding the court reporter issue
should send them to Chairman Hasselwander by March 9, 1999. NANC will
close this issue at its meeting on March 16, at 1:30 p.m.

3\. [Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Report]{.underline}. On the
issue of 500/900 number portability, at the March NANC meeting, INC will
report its progress relative to 500 number portability.

4\. [NANPA Oversight Working Group Report]{.underline}. NANC approved
the NANPA Oversight Working Group\'s NANPA performance evaluation work
plan. The FCC will issue a press release on or before March 1, 1999.
Industry associations, USTA, PCIA ALTS, CompTel, and OPASTCO, as well as
NARUC, will assist with distribution of the performance feedback survey.
A draft press release, with survey questions, will be distributed to
NANC members on or before February 25, 1999.

5\. [CIS Petition Issue Management Group (IMG)]{.underline}. In response
to a request from the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, in the Common
Carrier Bureau\'s February 17, 1999 Public Notice, NANC will provide a
recommendation to the FCC by March 17, 1999, regarding the Lockheed
Martin CIS divestiture petition. The CIS IMG will provide a draft
recommendation to NANC by March 9, for final approval at the March 17
meeting.

6\. [Lockheed Martin Number Utilization Forecast and Trends
Presentation]{.underline}. NANC agreed to form an ad hoc group
consisting of 12-15 representatives to work with Lockheed Martin on the
NANP exhaust as presented, in an effort to reach a level of comfort on
the exhaust projection within the boundary of the Lockheed Martin
report. This effort will include the effect of thousand block pooling on
number exhaust. The results will be reported at the April NANC meeting.
Chairman Hasselwander will coordinate the first meeting date with
Lockheed Martin and the ad hoc group. Industry volunteers are to forward
the name of their representative to Chairman Hasselwander as soon as
possible.

7\. [Steering Group Report]{.underline}. NANC approved the Steering
Group's interim audits recommendation. The NANPA will commence audits as
soon as possible. The recommendation will be modified to add clarity as
to what entity has responsibility for providing the documentation
identified in the bullet items of the section titled Audit Process. The
next Steering Group meeting will be held on March 16, in the Commission
Meeting Room, at the FCC\'s Portals location. SBC has volunteered to
provide refreshments for the evening meeting.

8\. [Ad Hoc Thousands Block Administration Group]{.underline}. An ad hoc
group was formed to begin a first level review of the Lockheed Martin
response to the Thousands Block Administration Requirements Document.
Non-disclosure agreements were provided to those representatives
participating in the evaluation effort. Peter Guggina will serve as
coordinator for first meeting.