$//Dec.Rul.&Order, Ameritech;IAD94-102;FCC95-19//$ $/300.201 Service&Charges;300.202Discrimination&Preferences/$ FOR RECORD ONLY Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 FCC 95-19 In the Matter of ) ) Proposed 708 Relief Plan and ) IAD File No. 94-102 630 Numbering Plan Area Code ) by Ameritech - Illinois ) DECLARATORY RULING AND ORDER Adopted: January 12, 1995; Released: January 23, 1995 By the Commission: Commissioner Barrett issuing a statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 2 III. ANALYSIS A. Federal/State Jurisdiction Pleadings ...................................................................... 5 Discussion ..................................................................... 8 B. Federal Policy Objectives for the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) ............................................. 17 C. Unreasonable Discrimination Pleadings ...................................................................... 21 Discussion ................................................................... 25 D. Unjust, Unreasonable Conduct Pleadings .................................................................... 30 Discussion .................................................................... 33 E. Delegated Authority ......................................................... 36 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 37 V. ORDERING CLAUSES .................................................................... 38 APPENDIX: List of Parties I. INTRODUCTION 1. On August 4, 1994, three paging companies, Mobilemedia Communications, Inc., Paging Network, Inc., and Page Mart, Inc. (Petitioners), filed a Request for Declaratory Ruling and Interlocutory Order (Petition). Petitioners object to a plan Ameritech (Ameritech) developed to relieve an anticipated shortage of telephone numbers in that part of Illinois covered by area code 708. Petitioners request a declaratory ruling from the Commission stating that aspects of the Ameritech plan violate the Communications Act and industry guidelines. Petitioners also request an interlocutory order to restore the status quo ante. After thorough consideration of the record before us, we grant the petition in part and deny it in part for the reasons discussed below. II. BACKGROUND 2. Telephone numbers in the United States are composed of a three-digit area code, a three-digit central office code, and a four digit line number. Area codes are assigned by Bell Communications Research, Inc. (Bellcore), which serves as administrator of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP). Within each geographic area, the predominant local exchange carrier traditionally has served as the administrator of the area code. Ameritech is the largest local exchange carrier in northern Illinois and serves as the administrator of area code 312 (serving Chicago) and area code 708 (which covers an adjacent suburban area). In its role as administrator, Ameritech also assigns central office codes to other carriers and itself and performs certain planning functions. In addition to assigning codes to itself, Ameritech assigns the central office codes to cellular carriers, paging companies, competitive access providers, and others needing telephone numbers within the two area codes. Carriers that have been assigned central office codes then use these codes to distribute telephone numbers to their customers. 3. In early 1994, Ameritech announced that the supply of central office codes within area code 708 was nearing exhaustion and subsequently presented its plan for providing relief. Ameritech proposed to use a new area code (630) as an "overlay." An "overlay" NPA covers the same geographical area as an existing area code, or area codes, and allows customers in the area to be served through either code. The proposed overlay would cover the same geographical area as existing area codes 708 and 312. The plan would require cellular and paging carriers to surrender or "give back" central office codes currently assigned to them. Their customers, in turn, would have to surrender the telephone numbers currently assigned to them that are served using the central office codes that Ameritech would "take back". 4. Ameritech's relief plan has several components: Ameritech would cease providing central office codes in area code 708 to cellular and other wireless companies. It would reserve the remaining codes in 708 for wireline customers. Until a new area code became available, wireless companies requesting numbering resources in area code 708 would be assigned central office codes from the 312 area code. The central office codes returned by wireless carriers would then be used by Ameritech to assign numbers to its own customers, and by competitive access providers and other wireline carriers to assign numbers to their customers. This plan, in Ameritech's view, would minimize the disruptions to the Chicago metropolitan area in general. On July 29, 1994, Ameritech petitioned the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) for approval of its plan. The ICC has not completed its consideration of the plan. III. ANALYSIS A. Federal/State Jurisdiction Pleadings 5. No party challenges this Commission's broad authority over numbering matters. Notwithstanding our undisputed jurisdiction over numbering, several parties request that this Commission refrain from exercising its jurisdiction over numbering issues until the Illinois proceeding has been concluded. Some commenters, including the ICC, suggest that this Commission delay any decision concerning Ameritech's plan until after the ICC has acted. The ICC points out that it is conducting an expedited proceeding that will permit all parties to engage in discovery, file testimony, and cross-examine witnesses -- and that two of the three petitioners are actively participating. On the other hand, the Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS) argues that we must act now because we cannot delegate our exclusive authority to the ICC and appoint the ICC, in essence, as our arbitrator. 6. Many parties urge us to grant the Petition in its entirety, notwithstanding the ICC's current consideration of these matters. Other parties contend that we should set "overarching policies" for area code relief even if we do not become involved in the Illinois dispute. Commenters request that the Commission address possible future discrimination and seek parallel treatment of all carriers and neutrality in the administration of telephone number resources. For example, Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems (SBMS) argues this Commission should permit the ICC to continue its investigation, but that we should prohibit discrimination, proscribe any "take-back" of numbers, and ensure that area code relief plans similar to Ameritech's proposal are not implemented elsewhere. US West also supports a declaratory ruling that would provide general guidelines for future administration of these central office codes. Commenters also request the Commission to expedite its proceeding in CC Docket No. 92-237. AirTouch adds "neutrality requires that all new growth be assigned numbers out of a new overlay code from the beginning, and not on a wireless-first, wireline-later basis." 7. Contending that area code relief should be the responsibility of the states, Ameritech and others urge the Commission not to become involved in area code relief planning. In particular, Ameritech opposes any national rules that might "limit the flexibility of the states to respond to diverse local circumstances and the need for continuity in local dialing plans." Similarly, Pacific Bell recommends that the Commission leave "boundary" decisions to the relevant states. USTA also encourages the Commission to allow states to oversee area code relief plans. Discussion 8. The pleadings raise two related issues. First, we take this opportunity to address the breadth of our jurisdiction over numbering resources. Second, we must consider whether, in exercising our authority under our jurisdiction, we should delay our decision to consider the action taken by the ICC in making our decision. 9. As to the first issue, it is undisputed by the parties that we have broad authority to oversee telephone numbering issues. Moreover, we recognize that we have made prior statements that could be interpreted to mean that we believe that our authority over numbering resources occupies the entire regulatory field. However, several state commissions have addressed essentially local disputes related to or arising from planned or proposed implementation of new area codes. As a result, there may be some uncertainty as to whether our jurisdiction over telephone numbering resources forecloses state action. We take this opportunity to clarify this matter. 10. The Communications Act establishes a dual regulatory system over telephone service by granting to the Commission the authority to regulate "interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication," while reserving to the states "jurisdiction with respect to . . . intrastate communication service . . . ." Thus, we recognize that the states have a role and certain interests in regulating numbering resources. For example, NARUC noted in a Resolution adopted in November, 1994 that "NPA overlays, boundary realignments and splits may involve many state specific variations in local dialing patterns that may be responsive to local geographic circumstances or certain local customer expectations. . . . [and that] State commissions are uniquely positioned to understand, judge and determine [those] local circumstances and customer expectations . . ." 11. While there is no need for us to take such action now, we recognize that there might be situations in the future in which a state's regulation of local exchange carriers' activities related to the NANP administration could raise the issue of preemption. Under Louisiana PSC, the Commission may preempt state regulation of intrastate telephone services where it is "not possible to separate the interstate and intrastate components of the asserted regulation." We may preempt intrastate regulation when (1) the matter to be regulated has both interstate and intrastate aspects; (2) preemption is necessary to protect a valid federal regulatory objective; and (3) state regulation would "negate" the exercise of our authority because regulation of the interstate aspects of the matter cannot be severed from regulation of the intrastate aspects. 12. As we have already observed, NPAs and the associated telephone numbers assigned under the NANP are essential to the routing and billing of both interstate and intrastate calls. NPAs must be used to complete an interstate call, and where more than one NPA exists within the borders of a state, it may also be necessary to use the NPA to complete an intrastate call. Thus the administration of NPAs and telephone numbers has both interstate and intrastate aspects. 13. The overarching goal of the Communications Act is to make available to all the people of the United States "a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communications service ." We have identified the introduction of new technologies, the modernization of the nation's telecommunications infrastructure, and the offering of new services to the public as objectives essential to realizing this statutory goal. We rely heavily upon competition as the best means for obtaining these objectives. The role that the NANP plays with respect to each of these goals is illustrated not just by the petition before us but also by such recent proceedings as the ones involving the introduction of the 500 NPA, which will facilitate the introduction of a new service predicated upon recent technological advances, and the assignment of N11 codes, which are used in some areas already to provide enhanced services. We believe a nationwide, uniform system of numbering is essential to the efficient delivery of interstate and international telecommunications services. Title II of the Act presents the statutory scheme upon which we rely to achieve both the immediate and overarching goals listed above. In particular, we rely upon Sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act, which require that carriers' practices and services are just and reasonable and that the carriers not discriminate unreasonably in their performance of their practices and services. These important federal regulatory objectives guide our consideration of NANP issues. 14. We find that it is a practical and economic impossibility to separate NPAs for local use from NPAs for interstate use. Not only are NPAs scarce resources, but also, it would be technologically impossible to have separate NPAs for interstate and intrastate telephone calls. Thus under Louisiana PSC, we may preempt state actions concerning the NANP if they would thwart our regulatory goals. We conclude this discussion of jurisdiction, however, by restating our recognition that state regulators clearly have legitimate interests in the administration of the NANP. We would expect that they would continue to exercise regulatory supervision over the NANP as it affects intrastate telecommunications just as we intend to continue exercising our regulatory authority to resolve NANP issues clearly of interstate concern. We will continue to monitor the administration of the NANP to assure that our goals are being met. 15. We now address whether we should delay our consideration of the Petition before us until the ICC completes its review of the Ameritech numbering plan. We believe it is important to consider the merits of Ameritech's numbering plan. Ameritech's area code relief plan is one of several similar plans proposed recently to address number shortages throughout the country. The issues raised in the Petition require prompt response because it appears that central office codes in the 708 NPA are approaching exhaustion and that Ameritech has suspended issuing such codes to certain carriers that provide interstate and interstate access services (including affiliates of the Petitioners). 16. We decline to adopt the viewpoint of those commenters who urge that we should defer to the ICC on these issues or at least await the outcome of the current proceedings before the ICC. While this Commission has often allowed local commissions and interested parties to resolve their own disputes involving area code relief, we are concerned not only about defects in Ameritech's plan under the Communications Act, but also about the possibility that such defects may appear in plans now being drawn for other areas of the country. Thus, we conclude that we should not delay responding to the Petition because of: (a) the impact on interstate and foreign telecommunications; (b) the clear violations of the Communications Act with respect to various parts of the Ameritech Plan (as described below); and (c) the strong possibility that some of the defects in the plan may be repeated in the code relief plans being drawn for other parts of the country. We think it appropriate promptly to identify the defective parts of the plan as originally proposed and provide guidance on these matters so that we can assure that such plan defects are not implemented by other code administrators. We believe that this will allow for more efficient and foresightful planning in anticipation of the exhaustion of other area codes in other parts of the country. B. Federal Policy Objectives for the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) 17. This matter presents this Commission with an opportunity to express some initial views on broad policy objectives it believes should and could be achieved through judicious administration of the NANP. It also permits us to identify at least some options for addressing number exhaustion that would clearly be inconsistent with those objectives, all of which are grounded upon the congressional intent manifested in Title II of the Act. 18. Administration of the NANP will significantly affect the ease with which new telecommunications services and enhanced services are introduced in the future. In general, we believe that administration of the NANP must reflect sensitivity to the growth and dynamic nature of the communications industry if our regulatory goals identified above are to be realized. If it is to achieve such sensitivity, administration of the plan must seek to facilitate entry into the communications marketplace by making numbering resources available on an efficient, timely basis to communications services providers. In general, we believe that a successful administration of the NANP will not unduly favor or disadvantage any particular industry segment or group of consumers. Similarly, we believe that the administration of the plan should not unduly favor one technology over another. Thus, the NANP should be largely technology neutral. We believe that an administration of the NANP that follows these broad guidelines will generally be consistent with the goals referenced above. We agree with those commenters in this proceeding that have noted the importance of the NANP to achieving our regulatory goals. 19. The ready availability, and use, of numbering resources by communications services providers is essential if the public is to receive the communications services it wants and needs. The timely availability of numbers is essential if new providers are to enter and new services are to appear in the telecommunications marketplace. For example, new wireless service providers and competitive access providers (CAPs) can not offer service without adequate access to new telephone numbers. Unavailability of numbers, or an unreasonable allocation of available numbers, could prevent or discourage consumers from taking new services. 20. Measuring the Ameritech plan to address the rapidly approaching exhaustion of the numbers available in the 708 area code against the principles we have described, we find that it is deficient. In reaching this conclusion, we note that under Title II, a carrier may not discriminate unreasonably in its "charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service . . ." We find that Ameritech's proposed numbering plan would unreasonably discriminate against wireless carriers and in so doing, violates the principle that NANP administration should strive to be technology neutral. The Ameritech numbering plan would, moreover, impose significant costs and burdens on its wireless competitors that could delay or eliminate the introduction of new services from such providers. Thus, the Ameritech numbering plan could thwart our regulatory goals seeking to encourage new services for consumers and the introduction of additional competition in provision of communications services. C. Unreasonable Discrimination Pleadings 21. Petitioners identify several facets of Ameritech's plan that they allege to be unreasonably discriminatory in violation of Section 202(a) of the Communications Act. Specifically, the Petitioners challenge the following: Ameritech's proposal to continue assigning NPA 708 codes to wireline carriers (including competitive access providers), while excluding paging and cellular carriers from such assignments ("exclusion proposal"); Ameritech's proposal to require only paging and cellular carriers to take back from their subscribers and return to Ameritech all 708 telephone numbers previously assigned to them, while wireline carriers would not be required to do so ("take-back proposal"); and Ameritech's proposal to assign all numbers to paging and cellular carriers exclusively from the existing NPA 312 and the new NPA 630, while wireline carriers (and perhaps others) may continue to receive such assignments from NPA 708 ("segregation proposal"). 22. As a result of these proposals, Petitioners contend that paging and cellular carriers and their customers, unlike other similarly situated carriers and their customers, will be compelled to bear most of the costs of relieving the shortage of 708 central office codes. Specifically, Petitioners claim that, under Ameritech's plan, paging and cellular customers (but not wireline customers) will be required to accept the inconveniences of changing their telephone numbers and paying to reprogram wireless telephone equipment. Moreover, after Ameritech's plan has been implemented, customers of paging and cellular carriers generally will have to dial more digits than wireline customers to utilize their respective services. 23. Ameritech acknowledges that its "exclusion" proposal, "take-back" proposal, and "segregation" proposal, would respectively: exclude paging and cellular carriers from access to any new NPA 708 numbers; require such carriers to return NPA 708 numbers; and eventually require them to use NPA 312 and later NPA 630 exclusively. Ameritech, nevertheless, denies that its plan results in unjust or unreasonable discrimination. Ameritech contends such proposals are necessary and reasonable because: (a) the largest proportion of recent demand for NPA 708 numbers has come from wireless carriers; (b) transfer of such carriers to NPA 312 (and later to NPA 630) from NPA 708 would most significantly decrease demand for increasingly scarce NPA 708 numbers; and (c) the transfer of such carriers to NPA 312 (and later NPA 630) codes would not have a significant impact on either their customers, the network, or the dialing plan. 24. Ameritech also insists its plan does not unreasonably discriminate against wireless carriers because its proposal "treats all providers of wireless services, including [Ameritech's cellular] affiliate, alike." Ameritech contends that, "having wireless carriers utilize 312 NXX codes, instead of 708 NXX codes, was the only feasible conservation measure" because that approach made additional codes available while at the same time preventing exhaustion of the NPA 708 codes. Ameritech argues that, unlike wireline carriers, paging and cellular carriers are able to utilize NPA 312 codes within the 708 geographical area because their wireless terminals do not have a fixed (hard-wired) location on the public switched network. Thus, a paging customer located in the geographic area covered by area code 708 could be issued a number using area code 312. Discussion 25. It is undisputed that, under Section 202(a), Ameritech cannot "make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination" in "practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any . . . class of persons . . . or to subject any . . . class of persons . . . to any undue prejudice or disadvantage." In deciding whether any "unjust or unreasonable discrimination" has occurred, the Commission and the Courts have generally applied a three- part test. The test involves, first, a comparison of the services provided to determine if "like" services have been offered by the carrier to different customers. Second, a determination is made as to whether "like" services have been offered by the carrier under different terms or conditions. Third, if different terms or conditions of service have been offered to different customers for "like" services, a determination must then be made as to whether the different terms or conditions are just and reasonable under the circumstances. 26. Applying the three-part discrimination test to Ameritech's proposed plan for administering the 708, 312, and 630 area codes, we conclude that Ameritech would make telephone numbering resources (central office codes within these area codes) available to both wireless and wireline carriers and, therefore, would be offering "like" services to different customers. Ameritech also would make central office codes in different NPAs, available to wireless and wireline carriers, thus offering "like" services under different terms or conditions. Ameritech acknowledges its plan would treat wireless carriers different from wireline carriers. We find that three facets of Ameritech's plan would discriminate between classes of carriers: (a) its "exclusion" proposal; (b) its "segregation" proposal; and (c) its "take-back" proposal. 27. We find Ameritech's "exclusion" and "segregation" proposals would confer significant competitive advantages on the wireline companies in competition with paging and cellular companies, and, in particular, Ameritech itself. Similarly, Ameritech's "take-back proposal" would confer a significant competitive advantage on wireline carriers that would be permitted to retain their NPA 708 numbers because customers of those carriers would be able to avoid the inconvenience associated with number changes. On the other hand, paging and cellular companies would be placed at a distinct disadvantage by the "take- back proposal" because their customers would suffer the cost and inconvenience of having to surrender existing numbers and go through the process of reprogramming their equipment, changing over to new numbers, and informing callers of the new number. 28. Ameritech's purported justifications for these proposals are not persuasive in light of the disproportionate burden they would appear to place on some classes of carriers, but not others. Ameritech has not shown that other plans that do not have unreasonably discriminatory impacts could not also equally meet the needs for additional numbering resources. Regardless of the particular industry segment making the most requests for numbering resources at any particular time, Ameritech must treat all applicants for such codes in an impartial manner, providing telephone number resources in accordance with the Act. NPA codes and the central office codes assigned within the NPA code should be viewed as essential resources to be shared as fairly and equitably as possible by all those carriers who require such codes to offer interstate access service to their customers. Thus, on the record before us, we find that Ameritech's plan would unlawfully discriminate against paging and cellular carriers. Accordingly, we find as a matter of law that each of these three Ameritech proposals violates the prohibition in the Act against unjust or unreasonable discrimination. 29. In addition, we do not believe that Ameritech's plan is consistent with an administration of the NANP that would meet our regulatory goals. As stated, we believe that a successful administration of the NANP should seek to accommodate new telecommunications services and providers by making numbering resources available in a way that does not unduly favor one industry segment or technology and by making numbering resources available on an efficient, timely basis. We believe that assignment of numbers based on whether the carrier provides wireless service is not consistent with these objectives and could hinder the growth and provision of new beneficial services to consumers. D. Unjust, Unreasonable Conduct Pleadings 30. Petitioners identify several aspects of Ameritech's plan that they allege constitute unjust and unreasonable practices in violation of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act. Into this category of unlawful acts, they place Ameritech's "exclusion," "take-back," and "segregation" proposals described earlier. 31. Petitioners also contend the Ameritech plan violates applicable industry guidelines. In this regard, Petitioners claim that Ameritech did not provide affected parties with a meaningful opportunity to participate in formulating the plan, and that Ameritech failed to give adequate consideration to the "disparate impact" of its plan on paging carriers and their customers. In addition, Petitioners contend Ameritech's "exclusion" proposal violates the industry's "first-come, first-served" standard for assignment of central office codes. Petitioners further contend Ameritech's plan would be "particularly onerous" in view of alternatives to the plan that would be less expensive and more reasonable for all affected wireline and wireless carriers, and for their respective subscribers. Finally, Petitioners request an interlocutory order to "preserve the status quo ante." While the meaning of this request is not entirely clear, it appears Petitioners would like the Commission not only to declare portions of the Ameritech plan to be unlawful but also, on an interlocutory basis, to require Ameritech to reverse certain unspecified actions already taken. Several parties note that the concept of a wireless-only overlay is a departure from normal industry practices. Bellcore, the Administrator of the North American Numbering Plan, notes that it "has long opposed service-specific code assignments" and that it informed Ameritech that it assigned the 630 overlay code to Ameritech "for both voice and mobile uses." 32. Ameritech asserts that it followed applicable guidelines in formulating its plan. Alternatively, if the Commission finds that the plan or its formulation conflicts with such guidelines, Ameritech argues that the draft NPA relief guidelines give the parties (presumably Ameritech and affected carriers) authority to "refine the NPA-specific conservation procedures as necessary until NPA relief" is achieved. USTA argues that any such conflict asserted is not relevant in any event, because industry guidelines for NPA code relief have not yet been formally adopted. Further, even if these draft guidelines had been formally adopted, USTA contends that compliance with such guidelines would be voluntary. In addition, Ameritech contends that, in an emergency situation such as the one faced in NPA 708, "first-come, first-served" policies must be suspended. Ameritech claims that if it continued to assign central office codes to all applicants on that basis, the supply of codes would be exhausted quickly or some form of code rationing would be needed. While it does not specifically address Petitioners' request for an interlocutory order, Ameritech generally urges that their request be "expeditiously dismissed." Discussion 33. Section 201(b) of the Act requires that all common carrier "practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with . . . communications service . . . be just and reasonable . . . " and declares any unjust or unreasonable practice, classification, or regulation to be unlawful. On the basis of the record before us and for the reasons set out below, we agree with Petitioners that Ameritech's "exclusion," "take-back," and "segregation" proposals represent unjust and unreasonable practices under Section 201(b) of the Act and therefore would be unlawful if implemented. 34. Ameritech states that its area code relief plan "is the only feasible plan that expands the number of codes available and ... ensures an uninterrupted supply of codes." Ameritech argues that its plan, which included the "needs of paging customers" and customer surveys was designed to balance three objectives: (a) an optimal dialing plan for customers, (b) "as minimal a burden as feasible . . ., " and (c) "an uninterrupted supply of codes and numbers." Ameritech additionally states that it will "bear a substantial burden . . . as a result of reprogramming switches." As code administrator in the Chicago area, Ameritech states that it bears the costs of making "massive translations into switches required to implement the 630 NPA . . . (and) must also adjust its internal billing systems . . . in moving cellular codes from 708 to 630 numbers." 35. We agree with Ameritech that any area code relief plan that becomes effective should strike an optimal balance among the three objectives it identifies. We find that the optimal balance must assure that any burden associated with the introduction of the new numbering code falls in as evenhanded a way as possible upon all carriers and customers affected by its introduction. We find that three facets of Ameritech's plan -- its "exclusion," "take-back," and "segregation" proposals -- prevent that plan from achieving such an optimal and evenhanded balance of the three objectives. In particular, we find that Ameritech's plan would impose a disproportionate burden upon wireless carriers and their customers. As noted earlier, each of the three proposals would impose significant competitive disadvantages on the wireless carriers, while giving certain advantages to wireline carriers, including Ameritech itself. The justifications Ameritech offers for incorporating these proposals in its plan are not persuasive because those justifications cannot override the fact that a plan built upon the "exclusion", "take-back," and "segregation" proposals would inhibit competition in the interstate access market. While every violation of Section 202(a) is not necessarily a violation of Section 201(b), in this particular case, we find the selective and asymmetric treatment of carriers in the administration of telephone number resources is also an unjust and unreasonable practice that violates Section 201(b) of the Act. E. Delegated Authority 36. We believe that it will facilitate Commission supervision of numbering issues if the Common Carrier Bureau addresses them in the first instance pursuant to delegated authority. The Common Carrier Bureau will resolve these issues in coordination with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and other Bureaus. Thus, we authorize the Common Carrier Bureau to act for the Commission under delegated authority in resolving future number resource allocation disputes. IV. CONCLUSION 37. Ameritech has proposed a numbering plan that, if implemented, would be unreasonably discriminatory and constitute unjust and unreasonable discrimination in violation of the Communications Act. Accordingly, we grant in part the Petitioners' request for a ruling that parts of Ameritech's plan described above as the "exclusion," "take-back," and "segregation" proposals are unlawful under the Act. We make no further judgment on the plan. We deny the Petitioners' request seeking an interlocutory order to restore the status quo ante. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 38. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 1, 4(i), 201-205, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.151, 154(i), 201-205, and 403, and pursuant to Section 1.2 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.2, IT IS ORDERED that the Request for Declaratory Ruling filed by Mobilemedia Communications, Inc., Paging Network, Inc., and Page Mart, Inc. is GRANTED IN PART and IS OTHERWISE DENIED as set forth herein. 39. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ameritech's Motion to accept late-filed comments is hereby accepted. 40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Interlocutory Order filed by Mobilemedia Communications, Inc., Paging Network, Inc., and Page Mart, Inc. IS DENIED as set forth herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary Appendix Petitioners 1. Mobilemedia Communications, Inc. (MobileMedia) 2. Paging Network, Inc. (PageNet) 3. Page Mart, Inc. (Page Mart) (collectively, "Petitioners") Commenting Parties 1. AirTouch Communications (AirTouch) 2. Apple Communications, Inc. (Apple) 3. Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS) 4. Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) 5. Florida Mobile Communications Association, Inc. (FMCA) 6. Illinois Bell (Ameritech-Illinois) (late) 7. Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) 8. McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc. (McCaw) 9. MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) 10. Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel) 11. Pacific Bell (Pacific) 12. Page America of Illinois, Inc. (Page America) 13. Paging Network, Inc. (PageNet) 14. Personal Communications Industry Association (PICA) 15. ProNet Inc. (ProNet) 16. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. (SBMS) 17. Sprint Corporation (Sprint) 18. Teleport Communications Group Inc. (TCG) Replying Parties 1. AirTouch Communications (AirTouch) 2. Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS) 3. Bell Communications Research, Inc. (Bellcore) 4. BellSouth Corporation and Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth) 5. California Cable Television Association ((CCTA) 6. Illinois Bell (Ameritech) 7. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company (LACTC) 8. McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc. (McCaw) 9. MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) 10. Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel) 11. Pacific Bell (Pacific) 12. Page America of Illinois, Inc. (Page America) 13. Paging Network, Inc. (PageNet) 14. Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA) 15. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) 16. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. (SBMS) 17. Sprint Corporation (Sprint) 18. US West 19. United States Telephone Association (USTA)