******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control's Petition for Delegation of Additional Authority to Implement Area Code Conservation Measures ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 96-98 NSD File No. L-99-62 ORDER Adopted: November 30, 1999 Released: November 30, 1999 By the Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau: I.INTRODUCTION 1. This order responds to the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control's (Department) July 28, 1999, Petition for Waiver of Section 52.19 (Petition) requesting additional authority from the Commission to implement various area code conservation measures. We herein conditionally grant the Department the authority to institute thousands- block pooling trials; reclaim unused and reserved NXX codes, and portions of those codes; and audit number assignment and utilization requirements. 2. Although the Petition is a petition for waiver of 47 C.F.R.  52.19(c)(3), because that section refers only to the requirements for implementing an area code overlay, we will interpret the Petition as a request for an additional delegation of authority, as paragraph 31 of the Pennsylvania Numbering Order contemplates. In order to grant the Department's request, we must find that the Department's proposed number usage optimization plans do not negatively impact consumers' ability to choose from competing telecommunications service providers in the marketplace, and that the plans do not impair the functioning of the public switched telephone network in Connecticut and nationwide. 3. Many of the measures proposed in the Department's Petition are also examined in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the Commission released earlier this year. Although we grant the Department interim authority to institute many of the optimization measures in the Petition, we do so subject to the caveat that this grant will be superseded by forthcoming decisions in the Numbering Resource Optimization proceeding that will establish national guidelines, standards, and procedures for numbering optimization. This limited grant of delegated authority should not be construed as a prejudgment of any of the measures on which the Commission has sought public comment in the Numbering Resource Optimization Notice. IV.BACKGROUND 5. Congress granted the Commission plenary jurisdiction over numbering issues. Section 251(e)(1) of the Act also allows the Commission to delegate to state commissions all or any portion of its jurisdiction over numbering administration. The Commission's regulations generally require that numbering administration: (1) facilitate entry into the telecommunications marketplace by making telecommunications resources available on an efficient and timely basis to telecommunications carriers; (2) not unduly favor or disfavor any particular industry segment or group of telecommunications consumers; and (3) not unduly favor one telecommunications technology over another. Further, our regulations specify that, if the Commission delegates any telecommunications numbering administration functions to any state, the states must perform the functions in a manner consistent with these general requirements. 6. On September 28, 1998, the Commission released the Pennsylvania Numbering Order delegating additional authority to state commissions to order NXX code rationing in conjunction with area code relief decisions, in the absence of industry consensus. The order further approved a mandatory thousands-block number pooling trial in Illinois. The order provided that state utility commissions could order voluntary pooling trials, but in view of the Commission's efforts to develop national pooling standards, we declined to delegate to state commissions the general authority to order mandatory number pooling. The Pennsylvania Numbering Order, however, encouraged state commissions to seek further limited delegations of authority to implement other innovative number conservation methods prior to implementing number conservation plans. 7. In September 1999, the Commission addressed five similar petitions from state utility commissions. The Commission, in those five orders, addressed all of the issues raised in the instant Petition. The instant Petition raises no new issues, and therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) in the Pennsylvania Numbering Order, we address the Petition herein. 8. In its Petition, the Department requests that the Commission grant it the authority, to: (1) institute thousands-block number pooling; (2) reclaim unused and reserved NXX Codes, and portions of those codes; and (3) audit number assignment and utilization requirements. The Department states that it requests this additional authority as part of its ongoing area code relief plan investigation and area code conservation investigation for the state of Connecticut. The Department also believes that a grant of the requested authority will help mitigate consumer confusion and expense associated with introducing new area codes in Connecticut. On August 5, 1999, the Petition was placed on Public Notice for public comment. IX.DISCUSSION 10. We recognize that the area code situation in Connecticut is critical, with the Department struggling with area code relief for approximately three years. To empower the Department to take steps to make number utilization more efficient, we herein grant significant additional authority to the Department. In some instances, we are granting the Department authority that goes beyond the parameters outlined in the Pennsylvania Numbering Order, because we find such grant to be appropriate in light of the specific circumstances in Connecticut. 11. Congress granted the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) that relate to the United States, and directed that the Commission administer the NANP in a manner which assures that numbering resources are available on an equitable basis. The Commission was also granted the authority to delegate this jurisdiction to state utility commissions. Thus, while we grant authority below to the Department to engage in various matters related to administration of the NANP in Connecticut, we require the Department to abide by the same general requirements that the Commission has imposed on the numbering administrator. Thus, the Department, to the extent it acts under the authority delegated herein, must ensure that numbers are made available on an equitable basis; that numbering resources are made available on an efficient and timely basis; that whatever policies the Department institutes with regard to numbering administration not unduly favor or disfavor any particular telecommunications industry segment or group of telecommunications consumers; and that the Department not unduly favor one telecommunications technology over another. 12. The grants of authority herein are not intended to allow the Department to engage in number conservation measures to the exclusion of, or as a substitute for, unavoidable and timely area code relief. While we are giving the Department tools that may prolong the lives of existing area codes, the Department continues to bear the obligation of implementing area code relief when necessary, and we expect the Department to fulfill this obligation in a timely manner. Under no circumstances should consumers be precluded from receiving telecommunications services of their choice from providers of their choice for a want of numbering resources. For consumers to benefit from the competition envisioned by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it is imperative that competitors in the telecommunications marketplace face as few barriers to entry as possible. 13. Several commenting parties urged the Commission to grant the Department's Petition in its entirety on the basis that state utility commissions require greater authority to implement number conservation measures in order to rectify the causes of area code exhaust. Other parties suggested that we deny the Petition on the basis that number conservation measures must be developed at the national level, and that the Petition does not provide an adequate basis on which to grant the requested delegations of authority. 14. Thousands-block number pooling. The Department requests authority to institute thousands-block number pooling. The Commission tentatively concluded that thousands- block pooling is an important numbering resource optimization strategy, essential to extending the life of the NANP. According to the Department, mandatory thousands-block pooling would be more effective than voluntary number pooling trials. In granting the Illinois Commission the authority to engage in a mandatory thousands-block pooling trial in the Pennsylvania Numbering Order, the Commission recognized that state number pooling trials could aid in developing national pooling implementation, architecture, and administrative standards. 15. In prior orders, the Commission has granted several state public utility commissions the authority to implement thousands block pooling trials. In so doing, the Commission considered support for the proposal, as well as concerns regarding the burdens that thousands block pooling trials might impose. The Commission noted that, in spite of the potential for strain on the network occasioned by multiple pooling trials, the relatively small volume of ported numbers and the importance of providing relief to states experiencing severe strain on their numbering resources weighed heavily in favor of delegating authority to implement number pooling trials. 16. Since the release of the Pennsylvania Numbering Order, the telecommunications industry has arrived at detailed guidelines governing the technical and administrative functioning of thousands-block number pooling. In the Pennsylvania Numbering Order, the Commission stated that, upon the establishment of uniform, national standards for pooling, it may determine that it is appropriate to delegate to state commissions the additional authority to implement and enforce those standards. 17. Parties to the instant proceeding raise issues similar to those that the Commission addressed in its prior orders. Because no new issues peculiar to Connecticut have been raised, based on Commission precedent we, therefore, grant authority to the Department to conduct mandatory thousands-block number pooling trials in Connecticut, subject to the same conditions the Commission has previously imposed. 18. We direct the Department to conduct its pooling trial in accordance with industry- adopted thousands-block pooling guidelines. Where the Department determines that changes, modifications, or departures from the guidelines are desirable, we direct the Department to consult with the industry prior to implementing such changes. Although we will not dictate the manner in which the Department should consult with industry, the Department should, at a minimum, seek input from the industry regarding the implications of any proposed changes to the guidelines so that the Department may be able to weigh the industry's concerns in its decision-making process. 19. We grant this authority subject to the conditions and safeguards similar to those enumerated in the Pennsylvania Numbering Order that granted such authority to Illinois. Thus, we require that in any NPA which is in jeopardy in which the Department implements a pooling trial, the Department must take all necessary steps to prepare an NPA relief plan that may be adopted by the Department in the event that numbering resources in the NPA at issue are in imminent danger of being exhausted. This criterion is not intended to require the Department to implement an NPA relief plan prior to requiring thousands-block number pooling in Connecticut. Rather, we require only that the Department must be prepared to implement a "back-up" NPA relief plan prior to the exhaustion of numbering resources in the NPA at issue. Consumers should never be in the position of being unable to exercise their choice of carrier because that carrier does not have access to numbering resources. This criterion attempts to ensure that consumers continue to retain a choice of telecommunications providers in the event that the pooling trial or trials do not stave off the need for area code relief. 20. Only those carriers that have implemented permanent LNP shall be subject to the trial. At the present time, we do not grant the Department the authority to require a carrier to acquire LNP solely for the purpose of being able to participate in a thousands-block pooling trial. Carriers are only required to implement LNP if requested by another carrier subject to the requirements established by the Commission. Within NPAs that are subject to the pooling trial, non-LNP capable carriers shall have the same access to numbering resources after pooling is implemented that they had prior to the implementation of a pooling regime, i.e., non-LNP capable carriers shall continue to be able to obtain full NXX codes. We recognize that conditioning the Department's authority to implement a mandatory thousands- block pooling trial on exemption of non-LNP capable carriers from participation in the trial will create a disparity in the way different types of service providers obtain access to numbering resources, in tension with the criteria set forth above. In order to ensure that consumers may continue to obtain service from non-LNP capable carriers of their choosing, however, we find that for the purposes of this interim delegation, it is necessary to safeguard these carriers' access to numbering resources, while they lack the technical capability to participate in pooling. The Numbering Resource Optimization Notice raises a number of issues relating to non-LNP capable carriers' participation in pooling, and we believe these issues are best addressed in the larger rulemaking context. In the meantime, we suggest to the Department that it urge the non-LNP capable carriers to use various other numbering resource optimization strategies such as those discussed in the Numbering Resource Optimization Notice to improve the efficiency of numbering resources assigned to such carriers. 21. We direct the Department to ensure that an adequate transition time is provided to carriers to implement pooling in their switches and administrative systems. Thousands-block pooling requires carriers to alter significantly the manner in which they account for their inventory of telephone numbers, including changing their Operations Support Systems (OSSs) and retraining their staffs. In addition, we also urge the Department not to require carriers to engage in processes related to thousands-block pooling which might divert critical resources away from preparations related to the Year 2000 rollover. 22. We further require that the Department determine the method to recover the costs of the pooling trial. The Department must also determine how carrier-specific costs directly related to pooling administration should be recovered. The Commission has tentatively concluded that thousands-block number pooling is a numbering administration function, and that section 251(e)(2) authorizes the Commission to provide the distribution and recovery mechanisms for the interstate and intrastate costs of number pooling. We conclude that, inasmuch as we are hereby delegating numbering administration authority to the Department, the Department must abide by the same statute applicable to the Commission, and, therefore, ensure that costs of number pooling are recovered in a competitively neutral manner. We note that the Telephone Number Portability proceeding found that section 251(e)(2) requires all carriers to bear the costs of number portability on a competitively neutral basis, and, thus, established a cost recovery mechanism that assesses even carriers that cannot or have not implemented LNP to date. The Department may consider the recently released Telephone Number Portability Order for guidance regarding the criteria with which a cost recovery mechanism must comply in order to be considered competitively neutral: First, "a 'competitively neutral' cost recovery mechanism should not give one service provider an appreciable, incremental cost advantage over another service provider, when competing for a specific subscriber." Second, the cost recovery mechanism "should not have a disparate effect on the ability of competing service providers to earn normal returns on their investments." Consistent with our treatment of cost recovery in the Telephone Number Portability proceeding, we believe that even those carriers that cannot participate in pooling at this time will benefit from the more efficient use of numbering resources that pooling will facilitate. We also encourage the Department to consider the "road map" provided by the Numbering Resource Optimization Notice regarding cost recovery for thousands-block number pooling. 23. In order to minimize possible disruption and expense and maximize the value of the information that can be obtained from a number pooling trial, we believe that such a trial should be limited in nature. As an initial matter, we limit the authority we grant to the Department to a trial that generally covers one Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). We believe that such a limitation strikes the appropriate balance between the Department's desire to move quickly to implement measures that will enhance number utilization efficiency, and possibly prolong the lives of certain area codes in Connecticut and our obligation to ensure that such pooling trials are implemented and conducted in a manner that does not disrupt network operations or reliability. We believe these goals ultimately benefit consumers in Connecticut by allowing the Department to move forward with a pooling trial quickly in whatever area it determines it is most necessary, while providing some assurance that the network changes required for the trials are implemented in a manner that does not disrupt the normal functioning of the network in Connecticut and nationwide. 24. After having implemented a thousands-block number pooling trial in one MSA, the Department may wish to expand to another MSA. Should it wish to do so, we direct the Department to allow sufficient transition time for carriers to undertake any necessary steps, such as modifying databases and upgrading switch software, to prepare for an expansion of thousands-block pooling to other MSAs. In other words, start dates for thousands-block pooling trials in different MSAs should be appropriately staggered to permit the industry to undertake all necessary steps. The purpose of a staggered roll-out is to provide carriers time to upgrade or replace their Service Control Points (SCPs) and other components of their network, as necessary, if the increased volume of ported numbers as a result of the pooling trial requires them to do so. 25. We suggest to the Department that it consider concentrating its thousands-block pooling trial in those NPAs which are the best candidates for pooling, based on the considerations set forth in the Numbering Resource Optimization Notice. For example, we encourage the Department to consider number pooling in areas where multiple LNP-capable carriers exist. We also suggest to the Department that it allow for exceptions to participating in a pooling trial, if doing so would prove prohibitively expensive to a particular carrier. For example, certain switch types may not be able to accommodate thousands-block number pooling. Finally, as we stated in the Numbering Resource Optimization Notice, we encourage the Department, to the extent it has not already done so, to consider consolidating rate centers prior to implementing pooling. Fewer, larger pools logically increase the effectiveness of thousands-block pooling. 26. We reiterate that the authority we grant herein to the Department to undertake a thousands-block pooling trial is interim in nature, and is in no way intended to relieve the Department of its obligation to implement necessary area code relief in a timely fashion. Whatever decisions the Commission reaches with regard to thousands-block pooling administration and guidelines will supersede whatever systems the Department puts in place prior to enactment of those rules. 27. Reclamation of unused and reserved NXX codes and thousand-number blocks. The Department requests authority to require the reclamation to the area code administrator of unused exchange codes or thousand number blocks from carriers with excess number resources. The CO Code Assignment Guidelines provide that carriers shall activate NXXs within six months of the "initially published effective date." In prior orders, the Commission has granted state commissions the authority to reclaim unused NXX codes, and has recognized the value in reclaiming those codes. 28. Parties commenting in the instant proceeding have not raised any new concerns. Based on Commission precedent, we grant authority to the Department to investigate whether code holders have activated NXXs assigned to them within the time frames specified in the CO Code Assignment Guidelines, and to direct the NANPA to reclaim NXXs that the Department determines have not been activated in a timely manner. This authority necessarily implies that the Department may request proof from all code holders that NXX codes have been "placed in service" according to the CO Code Assignment Guidelines. We further direct the NANPA to abide by the Department's determination to reclaim an NXX code if the Department is satisfied that the code holder has not activated the code within the time specified by the CO Code Assignment Guidelines. 29. We note that the CO Code Assignment Guidelines dictate substantial procedural hurdles prior to reclamation of an unused NXX, in part to afford the code holder an opportunity to explain the circumstances that have led to a delay in code activation. The Commission earlier recognized that new entrants, in particular, may suffer unexpected delays or scheduling setbacks beyond their control, which may lead to code activation delays. We clarify that the Department need not follow the reclamation procedures set forth in the CO Code Assignment Guidelines relating to referring the issue to the Industry Numbering Committee (INC), as long as the Department accords the code holder an opportunity to explain the extenuating circumstances behind the unactivated NXX codes. 30. The Department also requests the authority to reclaim unused blocks of 1,000 numbers from code holders in Connecticut. In prior orders, the Commission recognized the utility to be gained in connection with number pooling trials through the reclamation of blocks of 1,000 numbers with no, or relatively low, contamination. Parties who commented on this aspect of the Petition raised issues similar to those the Commission addressed in these prior orders. Based on Commission precedent, to the extent we have delegated to the Department the authority to initiate thousands-block number pooling trials, we also delegate to it the authority to reclaim unused thousands blocks in connection with those trials. The conditions that apply to the implementation of thousands-block number pooling trials shall also apply to any reclamation of unused blocks of numbers. In particular, the industry's guidelines regarding reclamation of thousands blocks shall apply to the Department. 31. Auditing number assignment and utilization requirements. The Department seeks the additional authority to audit number assignment and utilization requirements. We agree with the parties that the Department should be able to audit number assignment and utilization requirements, if it chooses to do so. We therefore delegate authority to the Department to audit number assignment and utilization requirements. We reiterate, however, that because this is a topic of the Numbering Resource Optimization Notice, this grant of authority is limited in duration until such time as the Commission enacts rules or policies relating to auditing number assignment and utilization requirements. XXXII.CONCLUSION 33. The authority we have herein delegated to the Department, we hope, will provide it the tools it needs to address the situation in Connecticut. For example, the authority to order thousands-block pooling trials allows the Department to address inefficiencies on the supply side of the telephone number assignment regime by ordering that LNP-capable carriers receive smaller blocks of numbers than they now do. The authority to reclaim unused and reserved NXX codes has the potential to add significant numbering resources in Connecticut. XXXIV.ORDERING CLAUSE 35. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), and 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), and 251, and pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.1 and 52.9(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, 1.1 and 52.9(b), IT IS ORDERED that the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control's Petition for Delegation of Additional Authority to Implement Area Code Conservation Measures is GRANTED to the extent described herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau