WPC 2BJ Courier3|aTimes New Roman Bold P6G;PTimes New RomanRm 221 lpt 2HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\&$"ZX@26KF<6 Z3|I"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNa1DocumentgDocument Style StyleF#$   ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style&%&  . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&'(  . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style*)*    2%ia3TechnicalTechnical Document Style'+,    a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style&-.    a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style4/$0     a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&12  . 2;} a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&34  . a1Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F$ a2Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F/` ` ` a3Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F:` ` `  2'm ha4Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0FE` ` `  a5Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0FP` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F[ a7Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0Ff 2 Y!r#"#r'a8Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F q a2Agenda!a1AgendaAgenda Items"7D yP ) I. a3Agenda#2$%[&' a1Order$8X X-I.xa2Order%Ap X-xA.` ` a3Order&J* X-x` ` 1. a4Order'4 X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. 1.(1)(a) i) a)I.x26#() *!+^"annotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "(OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI ")2c(dDefault Para`6]Default Paragraph Font( :* 8BYNE*;;#o\  PCXP##]\  PCP#endnote text`6]endnote text*=( Y :* 8BYNE+E;#o\  PCXP##]\  PCP#2(,h#-<$.%/2%endnote refe`6]endnote reference Y :* 8BYNE,>>#o\  PCXP##]\  PCP#footnote tex`6]footnote text*=( Y :* 8BYNE-E;#o\  PCXP##]\  PCP#footnote ref`6]footnote reference Y :* 8BYNE.> > #o\  P CXP##]\  P CP#toc 1Y `6]toc 1 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE/ (#`` hp x (#2102L(12~*22,32.toc 2Y `6]toc 2 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE0 ` (#`` hp x (#toc 3Y `6]toc 3 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE1` (#` hp x (#toc 4Y `6]toc 4 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE2 (#` hp x (#toc 5Y`6]toc 5 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE3h(#` hp x (#2f842F15x36247246toc 6Y`6]toc 6 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE4(# ` hp x (#toc 7Y`6]toc 7 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE5toc 8Y`6]toc 8 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE6(# ` hp x (#toc 9Y`6]toc 9 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE7(#`` hp x (#2@82892::2<;.?index 1Y`6]index 1 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE8` (#` hp x (#index 2Y`6]index 2 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE9 ` (#`` hp x (#toa heading`6]toa heading*=( Y :* 8BYNE:!"(#` hp x (#captionY`6]caption I*=( Y :* 8BYNE;E#;$#o\  P CXP##]\  P CP#2D<8@=JA>2PB?gD_Equation Ca`6]_Equation Caption Y :* 8BYNE<;%;&#o\  P CXP##]\  PCP#headerY`6]header I*=( Y :* 8BYNE='( (# footerY`6]footer I*=( Y :* 8BYNE>)* (# ` hp x (#" 2=1!oSmall Circle1c?1=o>?1L=1?"2K@tEA+EBFCGBibliogrphyBibliography@:X (# Doc InitInitialize Document StyleA  0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgTech InitInitialize Technical StyleB. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 TechnicalPleadingHeader for numbered pleading paperCP@n   $] X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:MGMPage Number`69bpO?*=(?[o> :*?8!Zo>NED''#A\  PP##A\  PP#a5OrderEP)* a6OrderF[+, a7OrderGf-. 2QHNIOJKPKPa8OrderHq/0 a4AgendaAgenda ItemsIE78 a5AgendaAgenda ItemsJP9: a6AgendaAgenda ItemsK[;< 2TLQMRNcSOSa7AgendaAgenda ItemsLf=> a8AgendaAgenda ItemsMq?@ a114Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersN8QR@    a214Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersOAST@ `  `  2WPTQfURVSVa314Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersPJUV@  `   a414Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersQSWX@   a514Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersR\YZ@ h# #h# a614Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersSe[\@ ( h#(( 2ZTWUXVSYWYa714Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersTn]^@ - (-- a814Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersUw_`@ p2 -2p2 a113Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersV8ab@    a213Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersWAcd@ `  `  2x]XZYV[Z\[\a313Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersXJef@  `   a413Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersYSgh@   a513Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersZ\ij@ h# #h# a613Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers[ekl@ ( h#(( 2%`\]]r^^qC__q_a713Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\nmn@ - (-- a813Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers]wop@ p2 -2p2 2^qr3_st2b`qW`aq`bq9acqa4`uv5awx6byz7c{|2=ddqMbeqbfq/cgc8d}~9e10fHeadingChapter Headingg3  *  ׃  2nfhodiejeekpeRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh<@     SubheadingSubheadingi.    Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush Leftj Heading 1Centered Headingk * Ã  2unlsfmgnhokBullet ListIndented Bullet Listl`  heading 3heading 3mAӂheading 4heading 4nA@ӂheading 5heading 5oA@ӂ2 zpnqqr[ts5wheading 6heading 6pA@ӂheading 7heading 7qA@ӂheading 8heading 8rA@ӂDocument 8Document 8s@@2t?zu#}vwӂDocument 4Document 4tFF  Document 6Document 6u@@Document 5Document 5v@@Document 2Document 2w@@2x݅yzzz/{Document 7Document 7x@@Right Par 1Right Par 1yX` hp x (#` hp x (#ЂRight Par 2Right Par 2zX` hp x (#0` hp x (#ЂDocument 3Document 3{@@2|z}z-~zz!Right Par 3Right Par 3|X` P hp x (#` hp x (#ЂRight Par 4Right Par 4}X` hp x (#0` hp x (#ЂRight Par 5Right Par 5~X` hp x (#` hp x (#ЂRight Par 6Right Par 6X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Ђ2ŸzͦzGERight Par 7Right Par 7X` hp x (#` hp x (#ЂRight Par 8Right Par 8X` hp x (#0` hp x (#ЂDocument 1Document 1łX` hp x (#` hp x (#łTechnical 5Technical 5X` hp x (# ` hp x (#Ђ2wO'Technical 6Technical 6X` hp x (# ` hp x (#ЂTechnical 2Technical 2@@Technical 3Technical 3@@Technical 4Technical 4X` hp x (# ` hp x (#Ђ21&Technical 1Technical 1@@Technical 7Technical 7X` hp x (# ` hp x (#ЂTechnical 8Technical 8X` hp x (# ` hp x (#ЂWP Heading 2WP Heading 2gg 6X@C  Xx6X@ 2& |/eWP Heading 1WP Heading 1gg 6X@C   Xx6X@ head1$ 2P Quick 1. . Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2elar?footnote referencefootnote reference _Equation Caption_Equation Caption endnote referenceendnote reference para numS3n6OMnumbered indented paragraphs 3H*_0F_8S\E/'0 1.#Xx{2 PQXP# 1.Ҳ2^)d7"FOOTNOTES9n6OMFootnote - Appearance8S 9H*_0F_8S\E78HIGHLIGHT 1n6OMItalics and Bold(_08S :H*_0F_8S\E9: DRAFT ONS;n6OMHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateH*_0F_8S\E;< X 8#Xx6X@QX@#`X (#EDRAFTă `H(#@D3 1, 4D  DRAFT OFF?n6OMTurn Draft Style off8S ?H*_0F_8S\ED=>    2|ccSccLETTER LANDn6OMLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5 AH*_0F_8S\E AB '3   LEGAL LANDn6OMLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5S BH*_0F_8S\E CD 'A   LETTER PORTn6OMLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11S CH*_0F_8S\E EF 3'   LEGAL PORTn6OMLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14S DH*_0F_8S\E GH A'   2kndjTITLESEn6OMTitle of a Document8S EH*_0F_8S\EIJ* ăBLOCK QUOTEn6OMSmall, single-spaced, indentedH*_0F_8S\EMN HIGHLIGHT 2n6OMLarge and Bold=(_08S IH*_0F_8S\EQR HIGHLIGHT 3n6OMLarge, Italicized and UnderscoredH*_0F_8S\E S T2I i<zLETTERHEADn6OMLetterhead - date/marginsS KH*_0F_8S\E!U V X  3'   * 3' Ѓ   INVOICE FEEn6OMFee Amount for Math Invoice LH*_0F_8S\EWX X, $0  MEMORANDUMn6OMMemo Page Format(_08S MH*_0F_8S\EYZ  * M E M O R A N D U M ă y<N dddy INVOICE EXPn6OMExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice*_0F_8S\E[\ ,p, $02<H$Xl[INVOICE TOTn6OMTotals Invoice for Math MacroOH*_0F_8S\E]^ p,p, $0INVOICE HEADn6OMHeading Portion of Math InvoiceH*_0F_8S\Ev_`l   p,X 9H#Xx6X@QX@# XX  *$HHީH  ӧ   XX H#Xx6X@QX@# XX  *$HHީHNORMALSSn6OMReturn to Normal TypestyleS SH*_0F_8S\EabSMALLSTn6OMSmall Typestyle=(_08S TH*_0F_8S\Ecd2[Q[[[bFINE8SUn6OMFine Typestyle=(_08S UH*_0F_8S\EefLARGESVn6OMLarge Typestyle=(_08S VH*_0F_8S\EghEXTRA LARGEn6OMExtra Large Typestyle8S WH*_0F_8S\EijVERY LARGEn6OMVery Large Typestyle8S XH*_0F_8S\Ekl2X3ENVELOPESYn6OMStandard Business Envelope with Header0F_8S\Emn V,  X  , 8N#Xx6X@QX@#   N `   MACNormal[n6OM Z/08=(_08S [H*_0F_8S\EopStyle 14S]n6OMSwiss 8 Pt Without MarginsS ]H*_0F_8S\E's't#Co> PQP##)a [ PQXP#Style 12S`n6OMDutch Italics 11.508S `H*_0F_8S\E'u'v#)^ `> Xi QXX##)a [ P QXP#2z( sLStyle 11Sbn6OMInitial Codes for Advanced IIbH*_0F_8S\Ewx#)a [ P QXP# dn  #  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ P QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi QXX#`e%%Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   #)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   #)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3Shn6OMDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs*_0F_8S\Eyz#)a [ PQXP# n  ## b, oT9 !Style 4Sin6OMSwiss 8 Point with MarginsS iH*_0F_8S\EG{|#Co> PQP# dd  #  Style 1Sjn6OMDutch Roman 11.5 Font8S jH*_0F_8S\E7}~#)a [ PQXP# dn 2 +wStyle 2Skn6OMDutch Italic 11.5_08S kH*_0F_8S\E'#)^ `> XiQXX#Style 5Sln6OMDutch Bold 18 Point8S lH*_0F_8S\E''#T~> pQp##)a [ PQXP#Style 7Snn6OMSwiss 11.5Z/08=(_08S nH*_0F_8S\E''#)ao> PQXP##)a [ PQXP#Style 6Spn6OMDutch Roman 14 Point8S pH*_0F_8S\E''#w [ PQP##)a [ PQXP#2t.F O F D U %Style 10Srn6OMInitial Codes for AdvancedS rH*_0F_8S\E#)a [ PQXP# dn   #  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi QXX#`Ue%'Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P!QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi"QXX#Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P#QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi$QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ P%QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi&QXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8Swn6OMInitial Codes for Beginning wH*_0F_8S\E#)a [ P'QXP# dn  ## b, oT9  [ #)a [ P(QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi)QXX#`1e%&Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P*QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi+QXX#Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P,QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi-QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ P.QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi/QXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9S|n6OMInitial Codes for IntermediateH*_0F_8S\E#)a [ P0QXP# dn  ## b, oT9 Њ [ #)a [ P1QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi2QXX#`ke%%Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P3QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi4QXX#Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P5QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi6QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`e%APage  #)a [ P7QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi8QXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateSn6OMInitial Codes for Update ModuleH*_0F_8S\E#)a [ P9QXP# dn  ##  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ P:QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi;QXX#`e%"Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   #)a [ P<QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi=QXX#Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   #)a [ P>QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi?QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ P@QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiAQXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2B1.;//011_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E0    12_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EJ` ` @  ` `  13_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\ES` `  @  14_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E\` `  @hh# hhh 24t1322315_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 16_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\En` `  hh#(@- ( 17_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 18_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EF D*  ׃  264=55^619_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 20_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 21_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E*    22_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E'   2s9%77i8823_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&   24_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E4$     25_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 26_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 2;}9"::=;27_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E$ 28_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E/` ` ` 29_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E:` ` `  30_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EE` ` `  2> <<j=)>31_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EP` ` ` hhh 32_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E[ 33_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\Ef 34_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\Eq 2B2%?qWAeAe-Btoa_8Sn6OMtoa Z/08=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E` hp x (#35_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  . 36_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  37_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  2DBpWCCYD38_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E*   39_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E` ` ` 40_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E8@   41_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EA@` `  ` ` ` 2G&EE_F G42_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E0     43_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EJ` ` @  ` `  44_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\ES` `  @  45_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E\` `  @hh# hhh 2KGH{ILJ46_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Ee  ` `  hh#@( hh# 47_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\En  ` `  hh#(@- ( 48_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Ew ` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 49_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EF D*  ׃  2sM8KKBLL50_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 51_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 52_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E*    53_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E'   2OM9NNnO54_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&   55_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E4$     56_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 57_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&   . 2[R}%PP*QQ58_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E$!" 59_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E/#$` ` ` 60_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E:%&` ` `  61_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EE'(` ` `  2sUR6SST62_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EP)*` ` ` hhh 63_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E[+, 64_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\Ef-. 65_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\Eq/0 27YUVWX66_8Sn6OMDefault Paragraph Font8S H*_0F_8S\EO1O2#PLP##PMP#67_8Sn6OM_Equation Caption_08S H*_0F_8S\EO3O4#PNP##POP#68_8Sn6OMendnote reference_08S H*_0F_8S\ER5R6#PPP##PQP#69_8Sn6OMfootnote reference08S H*_0F_8S\ER78#PRP#2[ZiYdY'Zp)[1, 2, 3,Sn6OMNumbers Z/08=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EIJ1.A, B,Sn6OMUppercase Letters_08S H*_0F_8S\E KL.70_8Sn6OMfootnote text8=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EZMPN71_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EOP` ` ` 2_q[e<\e\K]72_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EQ R . 73_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E ST 74_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E UV "i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\p=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc=\Q\\=f===QQ@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\g=\Id77=iS.=79\Qzpppp====gf\QQQQQQzQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\d\\\\\\\2kD(`KcKfKhTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicCourier%2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&P&2e=5,&e4  pG;&7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP==\\=\=7N=ddhIih\\i.=f\\3==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==hhh\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\h=\Id77=ic.=7=\\zzzzGGGGhpf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\d\ffff\f"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\zB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`lBdYddBoBBBYYFdBNB2Bdddd(dB7dqBdPn<dYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,OhBddddBoBBBddFdBNB2Bdddd,dB8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""ddzzzzzzzzzzBBBBozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd2h{ KxxJQ_"i~'^'-5CCph---CK#-#%CCCCCCCCCC%%KKK;{`XX`SK``-3`Su``K`XKS``}``S-%-=C-;C;C;-CC%%C%hCCCC-3%CC`CC;@@H-#H=---#------C-C%`;`;`;`;`;uWX;S;S;S;S;-%-%-%-%`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`;`C`A`C`C`CKC`;`;`;X;X;XHX;`TS;S;S;S;`C`C`C`H`C`H`C-%-C---C]KHH`CS%S5S-S-S%`CO`C`C`C`Cu`X-X-X-K3K3K3KHS8S%S=`C`C`C`C`C`C}``HS;S;S;`CS-`CK3S-`CT#CC,,W]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN0PP0=C-;CCCCC%+eeC(+eeCe(--;;C..PCCPe0PP0OmmKK-;Cp("XXXXee{CePMHCKPPCQ,%,?C,;C;C;,CC%%C%hCCCC,4%CC`CC;@@H^,C;CC,J,v,,;;/C,4,``!,CCCCC,e%CK,eC5I((,M/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\4  pG;<?xxx,<x6X@`7X@"i~'^DO]uuĶOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuAAgרOYͨۨOAOkuOgugugOuuAAuAuuuuOYAuuuugp/p~O=~kOOO=OOOOOOuOuAggggg͘gggggOAOAOAOAuuuuuuuuuuguruuuuggggg~ggggguuu~u~uOAOuOOOu~~uA]OOAuuuuuͨOOOYYY~bAkuuuuuuۨ~ggguOuYOu=uuN*NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTTkuOguuuuuAKuFKuFOOgguPPuu匱T錌TOguF"u錇~u匌u2`NZ$y.X80,ɒX\  P6G;P  %2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&P&2e=5,&e4  pG;&'7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP(7nC:,\4  pG;<?xxx,<x6X@`7X@/@|ND,_|\  P6G;P@ND,4  pG;nRm 221 lpt 2HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\&$"ZX@ S-  o S-  Federal Communications Commission`g(#FCC 98224 ă  yx}dddy P3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  S-" Washington, D.C. 20554 ă R) In the Matter of R) R)  X-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#Petition for Declaratory Ruling andR)  Xx-Request for Expedited Action on theR)hppNSD File No. L9742 July 15, 1997 Order of the PennsylvaniaR) Public Utility Commission RegardingR) Area Codes 412, 610, 215, and 717R) R) R) Implementation of the Local CompetitionR)  X -Provisions of the Telecommunications ActR)hppCC Docket No. 9698 of 1996R)  X-  X-VF MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION TP  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:  yO8-ԍ Pennsylvania Commission Order at 19.M x  X -x` `  III. SUMMARY OF PARTIES' POSITIONS    X -x18.` `  Petitioners and commenters in support of Petitioners!?B  yO- xԍ Generally, AirTouch, AMTA, Comcast, CTIA, GTE, PageNet, PCIA, USCC, and USTA support the wireless  {O- x=carriers' petition. But cf. USTA comments at 3 (stating that the Commission should not rule on Petitioners'  xdiscrimination, jurisdictional, or section 253 arguments, but should simply allow the Pennsylvania Commission to  x[adopt a split or an overlay). PageNet filed reply comments on December 10, 1997, along with a Request for  xJAcceptance of LateFiled Reply Comments. The Citizens Utility Board (CUB), People of the State of Illinois, City  xof Chicago, and People of Cook County also filed joint reply comments on December 10, 1997, two days past the  xydate reply comments were due. In the interest of having as complete a record as possible with respect to the significant and novel issues raised, we will accept the latefiled reply comments into the record.! made several arguments in support of their claims that the July 15, 1997 Pennsylvania Commission Order was unlawful. First, they argued that the Order exceeded the authority over telephone numbering  Xg-that the Commission delegated to state commissions under section 251(e)(1) of the Act.`@g {O!-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(1). See Petition at 1214.` Second, Petitioners argued that the Order discriminated against wireless carriers and customers"D 4@0*&&,,f"  X-in violation of section 52.9 of our rules.A {Oy- xԍ Id. at 14; see also AirTouch comments at 23, 7; AMTA comments at 36; CTIA comments at 27; Omnipoint comments at 13; PCIA comments at 2; PageNet reply comments at 23; USCC reply comments at 14. Third, Petitioners argued that, because the Order eliminated numbering resources that wireless carriers could use effectively, and because numbers are necessary to provide service, the Order constituted an unlawful barrier to entry in  X-violation of section 253 of the Act that the Commission is required to preempt.B" {Oj- xhԍ Petition at 17, citing 47 U.S.C.  253(d). See also AirTouch comments at 89; PCIA comments at 23; CTIA comments at 89. x  XQ-x19.` ` The Pennsylvania Commission, the PaOCA, NARUC, the ICC, and MCI opposed the petition. The Pennsylvania Commission argued that: (1) its Order provided both  X -interim and long-term solutions to the "runaway" demand for NXX codes;SC | yO8 -ԍ Pennsylvania Commission comments at 1516.S (2) Petitioners' section 253 argument was improper because section 253 is unrelated to section 251(e)(1),  X-which addresses jurisdiction over numbering;<D  {O-ԍ Id. at 1718.< (3) the Commission should not intercede in this matter of local concern because "jurisdiction over numbering issues has been delegated to  X -the states;"<E  {O-ԍ Id. at 1824.< and (4) principles of "comity and abstention" dictate forbearance where the state  X\ -appellate process has been initiated by petitioners.<F\ 0  {O=-ԍ Id. at 2426.< x x` `  X -x IV. DISCUSSION ă  X-x20. ` ` The actions taken by the Pennsylvania Commission in its two most recent Orders resolve certain issues raised by the Petitioners. We commend the Pennsylvania Commission for ensuring that all carriers have numbering resources to provide service by ordering area code relief in the affected area codes. As events have unfolded in Pennsylvania, however, it has become apparent that state commissions need additional guidance and clarification as to the limits of their authority over area code relief and number conservation  X-as they address decisions in this area.PG  {ON!-ԍ See, e.g., Comcast comments at 5.P We are taking the opportunity afforded by the Petition to provide that necessary clarification.  Xr-x21.` ` We are sympathetic to the concerns of the Pennsylvania Commission and PaOCA that continued use of geographic splits and overlays as the only solutions to NXX"OT G0*&&,," code depletion is unresponsive to the needs of telephone consumers, and we are aware of the  X-need for improved NXX code conservation.H" yOV- xԍ Pennsylvania Commission comments at 3; PaOCA comments at 13. Specifically, the PaOCA states that  xLbusinesses will have to reprint stationery and advertising materials, alarm monitoring companies will have to  xreprogram dialing devices located on their patrons' premises, and government agencies will have to advise citizens  {O-of new dialing requirements. Id. at 14.  Concerns regarding the societal costs of area  X-code relief are wellfounded,(I  yO- xԍ Such costs include the loss of a community's geographic identity, the risk that a business customer will dial  xan "old" number and not reach the intended business, the costs associated with reprogramming PBXs, and many other  yO - x"costs which are difficult to quantify. Where Have All the Numbers Gone? Longterm Area Code Relief Policies and  yOu -the Need for Shortterm Reform, Economics and Technology, Inc., March 1998, at 2022.( and consumers are understandably reluctant to undergo area code relief, particularly when there are inefficiencies in the allocation of numbering resources. Although we wish to support state commissions' efforts to develop innovative ways to address the problem of NXX code depletion, we are also mindful that the 1996 Act assigned to the Commission the responsibility for implementing a national numbering policy. As the Commission has stated, a nationwide, uniform system of numbering is essential to the  X-efficient delivery of telecommunications services in the United States.J {O3- x-ԍ Proposed 708 Relief Plan and 630 Numbering Plan Area Code by Ameritech Illinois, Declaratory Ruling  {O-and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 4596, 4602 (1995). The Commission, the state commissions, and the industry should work together to bring about as quickly as possible national methods to conserve and promote efficient use of numbers that do not undermine that uniform system of numbering. Such attempts, however, cannot be made on a piecemeal basis without jeopardizing telecommunications services throughout the country. Substantial social and economic costs would result if the uniformity of the North American Numbering Plan were compromised by states imposing varying and inconsistent regimes for number conservation and area code relief. Such inconsistency could interfere with, or even prevent,  X -the routing of calls in the United States.6K  {Ow- xԍ See infra at para. 39; see, e.g., Comcast comments at 23 (effect of wireless pooling in only a single state or  xsingle area code would be to deprive customers of ability to use service outside of a state or area code in which a  x-pooled number was assigned); Industry Numbering Committee, Initial Report to the North American Numbering  xCouncil (NANC) on Number Pooling, INC 971017019, at  5.0 (dated Jan. 16, 1998, revised June 1998) (stating  xthat pooling represents a major change in number assignment and administration, requiring changes in network infrastructure, operations support systems, and variations in call processing, including call routing and rating).6 The lack of uniformity also could hamper the industry's efforts to forecast and plan properly for exhaust of the North American Numbering Plan, and therefore ultimately could accelerate unnecessarily the introduction of a new  Xg-nationwide numbering plan.L gp yO"- xԍ Currently, out of approximately 800 different threedigit combinations for area codes, 249 codes are assigned  x<for all purposes. Two hundred thirtyfive codes are set aside for future area code relief, and 174 are set aside for  xvarious special purposes. One hundred fortytwo general purpose codes remain that could be used for general area code relief.  Introduction of a new plan would mean costly network"gXL0*&&,,+"  X-upgrades to accommodate a new dialing scheme that would be confusing to consumers.6M yOy- xhԍ The Industry Numbering Committee (INC) is working to identify the procedures required to expand the NANP  xto meet the long term needs of the telecommunications industry and end users in the geographic area served by the  x.NANP. The INC will document expansion options and process requirements for the current 10digit NANP  {O- xenvironment and for expansion beyond that format. See Draft Industry Numbering Committee NANP Expansion Report. 6 Upgrades would be necessary for carriers' networks as well as for privately owned systems  X-such as private branch exchanges (PBXs).Nz yO- xԍ Upgrades to PBXs usually are phased in over time by ordering prospectively changes to equipment that is connected to the public switched telephone network.  Xt-x22. ` ` Industry groups, at the direction of the NANC, are working to develop number conservation measures and more efficient means of allocating and using numbers, particularly  X.-number pooling.FO. {O- x-ԍ See Letters from Alan C. Hasselwander, NANC, to A. Richard Metzger, Jr., FCC, dated November 5, 1997  x;and December 22, 1997 (NANC November 5 Pooling Letter and NANC December 22 Pooling Letter). The NANC  xhas concluded that number pooling is in the public interest and that national guidelines for number pooling  {O - xwarchitecture, implementation, and administration are appropriate. See NANC November 5 Pooling Letter. Further,  xthe NANC has concluded that number pooling is not a substitute for appropriate area code relief in exhaust situations,  {O-but that it can improve number utilization and enhance local competition. See NANC December 22 Pooling Letter. F The NANC will make recommendations to the Commission on number pooling, and those recommendations will have the benefit of industry expertise and will be in large part the product of industry consensus. The Commission recognizes that number pooling should result in significant efficiencies in NXX administration and use, and anticipates using the NANC recommendations to conduct a rulemaking to establish national standards and regulations for number pooling architecture, administration, and implementation, and possibly  X\ -other number conservation methods.LP \ P  yO]- xԍ The Common Carrier Bureau requested the NANC to provide a report on number pooling by September 23,  x1998. The Bureau also requested the NANC to examine number conservation methods other than number pooling.  {O- x.See Letter from A. Richard Metzger, Jr., FCC, to Alan C. Hasselwander, NANC, dated March 23, 1998. We  yO- xrecognize that there are certain problems associated with number pooling that will have to be addressed. We note  xthat the Number Pooling Subcommittee of the Illinois Number Portability Workshop, another group that is exploring  xnumber pooling as a means to conserve NXX codes, has informed the Commission that the NXXX/LRN method,  xhwhile promising, would "stretch the existing capabilities of number administration systems and LNP network routing  {O- xdatabases." See Letter from Members of the Number Pooling Subcommittee of the Illinois Number Portability  xWorkshop to A. Richard Metzger, Jr., FCC, dated October 8, 1997. The Number Pooling Subcommittee also states  xxthat number pooling would initially be limited to wireline carriers whose networks are LRNcapable, which means  xthat wireless and other nonLRNcapable carriers would still need whole NXXs to ensure that numbering resources  {O!- xare available to all carriers in an equitable manner.  Id. at 1 n.1. According to the Number Pooling Subcommittee,  xnumber pooling, if implemented using existing LNP processes and systems, would strain number administration  {O#-systems and LNP network routing databases. Id. at 2.L We look forward to the states' input in that process, and also look forward to working with the states to ensure that the process results in uniform, nondiscriminatory, and procompetitive regulations in the area of number pooling and efficient" P0*&&,, " use of numbering resources. Conservation methods are not, however, area code relief and it is important that state commissions recognize that distinction and implement area code relief when it is necessary.  Xt-x23. ` ` Delegation of Additional Authority to States. As discussed above, in the Local  XS-Competition Second Report and Order, we did not delegate any authority to state commissions in the area of NXX code allocation or administration. Therefore, a state commission ordering NXX code rationing, or any other NXX code conservation measure, is, under the current regulatory structure, acting outside the scope of its delegated authority. We understand the exigencies of the situation in Pennsylvania and other states. We realize that, as the Pennsylvania Commission points out, NXX code rationing is common when an area code is facing relief, and we believe that state commissions may need flexibility to become involved in attempts to conserve NXX codes in order to extend the lives of area codes within their  X= -borders.OQ=  yO -ԍ Pennsylvania Commission comments at 5.O Therefore, we are reconsidering on our own motion the portion of the Local  X -Competition Second Report and Order where we delegated authority to state commissions to implement new area codes, and we specifically delegate a limited amount of additional authority to state commissions that will allow them to order NXX code rationing in certain  X-situations.IRX yO-ԍ See Appendix B for rule changes.I This authorization is effective immediately upon publication in the Federal  X-Register. Because many state commissions are facing area code relief now, they need the ability to plan for the allocation of remaining NXX codes in the area codes that are being relieved and to ensure that the area codes will last until implementation of new codes. Therefore, there is good cause for this action to be effective upon publication pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  553 (d)(3).  X-x24.` ` We agree with commenters asserting that the rationing of NXX codes should only occur when it is clear that an NPA will run out of NXX codes before implementation of  X~-a relief plan.S~ {O-ԍ See, e.g., Petition at 18, Comcast comments at 4. See also PageNet reply comments at 46. We therefore delegate authority to state commissions to order NXX code rationing only in conjunction with area code relief decisions, if the industry has been unable to reach consensus on a rationing plan to extend the life of an area code until implementation  X-of relief.rTzz yO@ - xYԍ Under the current industry guidelines, when the code administrator determines that an area code is in jeopardy,  xthe code administrator will notify the NANPA and the affected parties of the established code relief date. Affected  xparties within the jeopardy NPA will be invited to attend a meeting that the code administrator will convene for an  xhexplanation of special conservation procedures that will be in effect until implementation of relief. At the meeting,  {O`#- x,the code administrator will also initiate discussion of extraordinary area codespecific conservation procedures. See  x<Industry Numbering Committee, Central Office Code (NXX) Assignment Guidelines, INC 950407008, reissued April 1997 at  8.3.r A state commission, therefore, may only impose an NXX rationing plan if the" T0*&&,,"  X-state commission has decided on a specific form of area code relief (i.e., a split, overlay, or boundary realignment) and has established an implementation date. At that point, a state commission may work in partnership with the NXX code administrator to devise an NXX rationing plan based on whatever mechanisms the state commission and the NXX code administrator determine are most appropriate, including a lottery such as that used in Pennsylvania. State commissions and NXX code administrators also may consider imposing a usage threshold that a carrier must meet in its NXXs before obtaining another NXX in the same rate center. We are granting this limited amount of additional authority because we recognize that in some situations the number of available NXX codes may be so few that the state may want to ensure that codes remain available on an equitable basis until the new area code is introduced, and that the industry may not reach consensus on a rationing plan when the situation is so extreme. We clarify that state commissions do not have authority to order return of NXX codes or 1,000 number blocks to the code administrator. First, a state commission may not order such a return pursuant to a pooling trial. As discussed below, we decline to grant states the authority to order mandatory number pooling. Thus, states do not have the authority to order a return of a partial or entire NXX as part of a number pooling trial. Further, a state commission may not order the return of an NXX code or a 1,000 block pursuant to a number rationing scheme implemented as part of a state-ordered area code relief plan. Such actions fall outside of the authority granted the states to initiate traditional area  Xi-code relief,HU&i yO- xԍ Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No.  {O- x9698, Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 19392 (1996) (Local  {Ot- xCompetition Second Report and Order), vacated in part, People of the State of California v. FCC, 124 F.3d 934 (8th  {O>-Cir. Aug. 22, 1997), cert. granted, AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Util. Bd., 118 S.Ct 879 (Jan. 26, 1998).H and would interfere with the code administrator's functioning pursuant to rules delegating to the code administrator the authority to manage the United States CO code  X#-numbering resource.<V$# {O- xԍ See 47 C.F.R.  52.15(d). We also note that currently, the NANC is developing a recommendation regarding  {OT- xthe authority the code administrator exerts over auditing carriers' predictions for CO code utilization. See 7/2223/98  xZNANC Meeting Minutes. We will address our role as well as that of the states and the NANPA in a future action regarding procedures to be taken in the event a carrier's NXX code utilization predictions prove to be inaccurate.<  X-x25.` ` If an area code goes into jeopardy, which industry guidelines define as that time when the forecasted or actual demand for NXX resources will exceed the known supply  X-during the planning and implementation interval for area code relief,W {O- xԍ See Industry Numbering Committee, Central Office Code (NXX) Assignment Guidelines, INC 950407008, reissued April 1997 at  8.3 n.12. the state commission's role with regard to NXX code rationing shall depend on where the state commission is in the process of making an area code relief decision and establishing an area code relief date. A state commission may order rationing only if it has ordered relief and established an implementation date, and the industry is unable to agree on a rationing plan. If the state commission has not yet chosen a relief method and established a relief date, the NXX code" W0*&&,," administrator and the industry should devise the jeopardy conservation or rationing measures, consistent with current industry practice. We encourage the state commissions to participate in the discussions on the rationing plan through attendance at industry meetings, but a state commission may not impose a rationing plan on its own to avoid making a decision on area code relief.  X.-x26.` ` Carriers alleging that a particular NXX code conservation or rationing measure that a state commission orders unduly favors or disfavors a particular industry segment, or otherwise violates our guidelines for numbering administration, may file a petition for declaratory ruling with this Commission to seek relief. State commissions may not use conservation measures as substitutes for area code relief or to avoid making difficult and potentially unpopular decisions on area code relief. If state commissions do not make decisions on area code relief when forecasts indicate that NXX depletion is imminent, carriers may petition this Commission for relief. The Commission, under its exclusive jurisdiction over numbering, can order the code administrator (which ultimately will be the NANPA) to implement area code relief.  X-x27.` ` We are aware that some states, such as Illinois, are conducting number pooling  X-trials.\X {O-ԍ See Illinois Commission reply comments at 1. \ We encourage those efforts, and believe that state commissions conducting experimental number pooling trials may provide useful information that will aid in the development of uniform national standards for number pooling implementation, architecture, and administration. At this time, however, we decline to delegate to state commissions the authority to order number pooling, in view of the activity occurring at the federal level to develop such national standards. As we discuss below, we expect a recommendation from the NANC on national standards for number pooling by September 23, 1998, and we anticipate  X-conducting a rulemaking to develop regulations on number pooling.YZ {O- x=ԍ See Letter from A. Richard Metzger, Jr., FCC, to Alan C. Hasselwander, NANC, dated March 23, 1998 (requesting a report from the NANC on number pooling within six months of the date of the letter). Until that time, we encourage number pooling experiments in the various states, provided that such experiments do not violate previous Commission decisions in the area of numbering administration and  X,-area code relief and that carrier participation is voluntary.Z@, yO- xԍ On April 17, 1998, the Pennsylvania Commission issued a Secretarial Letter to its Joint Task Force on Number  xPooling. The letter stated that the Architecture and Administrative Guidelines subcommittees had recommended that  xPennsylvania delay moving forward with 1,000 block number pooling until national standards and guidelines are  xestablished. The letter further stated that the Pennsylvania Commission will not delay the implementation of 1,000  xblock number pooling. The Pennsylvania Commission directed members of the task force to develop a Pennsylvania x;specific implementation plan for 1,000 block number pooling, including a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a pooling  xadministrator. Again, we support a number pooling trial in Pennsylvania, provided that carrier participation is voluntary and that Pennsylvania complies with the other conditions outlined in this Order. To that end, state commissions may order that a certain number of NXX codes in a new area code be withheld from"  Z0*&&,," assignment and saved for number pooling. No carrier, however, may be denied a NXX code so that it can be saved for pooling purposes. If a NXX code exhaust situation in an area code becomes so dire that there are not NXXs available to assign to carriers, the NXXs that have been withheld from assignment must be made available for carriers. States are thus free to implement number pooling trials that comply with the guidelines set forth in this Order.  X.-x28. ` ` Once the uniform national standards for number pooling are in place, it may be appropriate to delegate to state commissions additional authority to implement and enforce those standards. We emphasize, however, that the Pennsylvania Commission and other state commissions proceed with number pooling with the understanding that they ultimately may  X-have to change their number pooling methods to conform to the national standards.[,  yO - xZԍ In its comments in this proceeding, the Colorado Public Utility Commission (Colorado Commission) states  xithat it has established an industry task force to address efficient use of numbers in Colorado, and the task force is  xdetermining the feasibility of efficient number utilization techniques, such as number pooling. Colorado Commission  x+ comments at 2. The Colorado Commission states that it expects that any recommendation of the Colorado task force  xthat the Colorado Commission ultimately implements will be subject to possible modification when a national  xstandard is developed. It views its efforts as "an attempt to help forge a national standard" and recommends that  {O- xwthose efforts be allowed to continue. Id. Similarly, the Illinois Commerce Commission (Illinois Commission) argues  xthat state commissions are better positioned to address number pooling issues related to area code exhaust and  xefficient number assignment because they have a better understanding of their statespecific conditions and needs.  xThe Illinois Commission notes that it currently has two open proceedings addressing number pooling, and asks that  {O- xit be allowed to continue working on the issues to conclusion. Illinois Commission reply comments at 1. See also  xCUB reply comments at 2. We support the work of the Illinois and Colorado Commissions, and we anticipate that their trials will advance the understanding of different number conservation techniques. So that number pooling trials will not compromise uniform NXX code administration, we recommend that state commissions conducting pooling trials work cooperatively with the NXX code administrator on those aspects of the number pooling trial that affect NXX code administration. Further, while we do not require state commissions to conduct number pooling trials in a manner that is consistent with industry guidelines on NXX code  X -administration, where applicable, we recommend that state commissions do so.\  {O=- xԍ See Industry Numbering Committee Central Office Code (NXX) Assignment Guidelines (INC 95-0407-008) (dated April 1997). The guidelines are the product of industry consensus and adherence to those guidelines will promote nationwide uniformity.  XD-x29.` ` Number pooling is not a substitute for area code relief because, at this time, it does not provide sufficient assurance that all telecommunications carriers will have access to numbering resources. In fact, number pooling would probably be a more effective conservation tool if applied to new area codes with many whole NXX codes, rather than to codes that already have a high usage rate, because there will be more whole NXXs, including blocks of 1,000 or fewer numbers and individual telephone numbers, to pool. Moreover, if a state commission implements number pooling on an experimental basis, numbering resources"r\0*&&,," must be available for those carriers that do not have the LNP technology available to participate in number pooling. We encourage the Pennsylvania Commission and other state commissions to consider other measures and activities, such as rate center consolidation, that  X-affect number usage and may decrease the frequency of the need for area code relief.i]  yO- xԍ In the Pennsylvania Commission Order II, the Pennsylvania Commission established a Joint Task Force for  xhthe implementation of the Pennsylvania Commission's directives on NPA/NXX code relief and related conservation  x,measures. It also solicited comments by February 20, 1998 on rate center consolidation and ordered the Joint Task  xForce to analyze the comments and report to the Pennsylvania Commission by April 10, 1998. We note Vanguard's  xhstatement in its reply comments that rate center consolidation is a potential method of number conservation that is  x,within the Pennsylvania Commission's jurisdiction but is not subject to the technical barriers of number pooling and  {O -the transparent overlay. Vanguard reply comments at 9. See also Comcast reply comments at 12, 4.  x Recently, the Colorado Commission ordered that the 43 rate centers comprising the 303 area code be reduced  x-to 16. Rate Center Consolidation within the 303 Area Code, Creation of a Single Local Calling Area Defined as  {O - xAll Territory Within the 303 Area Code, and Permissive 11 Digit Local Dialing, Decision and Order, Decision No.  xC98439, Docket No. 97M548T, at 21 (dated April 29, 1998). The Colorado Commission noted that by  xconsolidating rate centers, facilitiesbased local exchange service providers would need fewer NXX codes to provide  xlocal service. Such a result, the Colorado Commission concluded, would reduce the demand for NXX codes,  {O-improve number utilization, and prolong the life of the area codes serving the Denver metropolitan area. Id. at 6.i  XQ-x30. ` ` Although the Illinois number pooling trial falls outside of the guidelines that we adopt herein, we acknowledge Illinois has taken steps to ensure that the trial will not impede our NPA relief guidelines and efforts to initiate national number pooling standards. We therefore grant to Illinois limited authority to continue its pooling initiative, in spite of the trial's mandatory nature. Illinois has taken several precautions to conduct its pooling trial in a  X-nondiscriminatory manner.^ N  yO- xԍ The Illinois Commission stated that it was concerned with the possible exhaust of the 847 NPA. Petition by  xYCitizens Utility Board to Implement a form of telephone number conservation known as number pooling within the  x312, 773, 847, 630, and 708 area codes and Petition by Illinois Bell Telephone Company for Approval of an NPA  {O- xRelief Plan for the 847 NPA, Docket Nos. 970192 and 970211 (Consol.), Order (May 11, 1998) (Illinois Order)  xat 20. While ordering pooling, the Illinois Commission recognized that a "backup plan" was necessary because the  {O- xpooling solution had not yet been completely developed or tested. Id. The Illinois Commission thus ordered the  xcode administrator, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, to implement an allservices overlay plan within the 847 NPA,  {O- xhbut to refrain from assigning the new NPA for as long as possible without causing an exhaust situation. Id. at 2021.  yO- xThe Illinois Commission also exempted wireless carriers from participating in number pooling until June 30, 1999,  {O- xin accordance with the date listed by the Commission by which wireless providers are to be LNP capable. Id. at 21.  xOn September 1, 1998, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, under delegated authority, released an order  xhdelaying this date until March 31, 2000. In the Matter of Telephone Number Portability, Petition for Extension of  xImplementation Deadlines of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, CC Docket No. 95-116,  {O!-Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 97-2579 (September 1, 1998) Further, although the Illinois pooling trial is mandatory, because the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) has ordered that an all services overlay will supersede the pooling trial in the event that NXXs in the 847 NPA are depleted, we conclude that the Illinois trial does not interfere with the operation of the guidelines that the Commission has established for traditional area code relief. We also observe that only those" ^0*&&,, " carriers that have implemented permanent number portability are subject to the trial, and that  X-wireless carriers will not be subject to the trial until they are required to implement LNP._" yOV- xԍ While the Illinois Commerce Commission's order mandates that all wireline carriers participate in number  xpooling, the guidelines under which wireline carriers in the 847 NPA are operating specify that the 1,000 block  xassignment guidelines apply only to those carriers which have implemented permanent service provider number  {O-portability. See 847 NPA Number Pooling Guideline at 2.4 Finally, by requiring that national pooling rules or guidelines mandated by the Commission will supersede whatever guidelines Illinois has in effect for carriers operating within Illinois, we conclude that Illinois has not acted in a manner that undermines efforts by the  XQ-Commission and the industry to establish a national pooling solution.`Q {O - xԍ See also 847 NPA Number Pooling Guidelines at  2.3 (recognizing that guidelines are interim only, and will remain in place until national guidelines are developed and implemented). We acknowledge that Illinois has been at the forefront of developing number pooling as a number conservation measure, and we do not wish to discourage Illinois from continuing the work it has done in this area. We continue to be concerned, however, that there not be multiple, inconsistent pooling trials throughout the country, and therefore limit this grant of authority only to Illinois. We encourage states to participate in the national efforts to develop number conservation measures, including number pooling. Nothing in this paragraph should be read to prohibit stateordered pooling trials, so long as such trials are voluntary as described herein. Because we do not wish to stifle state creativity, but rather seek to encourage state efforts to implement innovative number pooling plans, as we discuss in more detail in paragraph 31 below, state commissions that are considering number pooling trials that fall outside of the guidelines adopted herein should submit such plans to the Common Carrier Bureau.  X-x31. ` ` We are very interested in working with state commissions that have additional ideas for innovative number conservation methods that this Commission has not addressed, or state commissions that wish to initiate number pooling trials the implementation of which would fall outside of the guidelines we adopt in this Order. We therefore encourage such state commissions, prior to the release of any order implementing a number conservation plan or number pooling trial, to request from the Commission an additional, limited, delegation of authority to implement these proposed conservation methods, comparable to the authority we are granting to Illinois in this Order. Because of the NANC's broad industry representation and the subjectmatter expertise of its members, the Commission will seek a recommendation from the NANC on the proposed conservation method that a state commission presents. We encourage state commissions to present their proposals to the NANC first. If a proposed conservation method will conserve numbers and thus slow the pace of area code relief, without having anticompetitive consequences, we will consider delegating additional authority to state commissions to use the conservation method. We direct the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, to make this determination, consistent with the authority we have delegated to the Common Carrier Bureau to determine whether area code relief plans are consistent with our regulations by acting on petitions filed by parties wishing to dispute proposed area code plans. "Z `0*&&,," We direct the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, to consult with other Bureaus within the Commission, for example, the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, when necessary to determine the potential ramifications on a particular industry segment of a proposed conservation method.  XQ-x32.` ` State Commission Authority. We clarify that the actions mandated by the Pennsylvania Commission in its July 1997 Order exceeded the scope of the authority the Commission has delegated to the state commissions. The Commission has not delegated  X-jurisdiction over numbering issues to the states, as the above discussion of the Local  X-Competition Second Report and Order demonstrates.`az {OB - xԍ Pennsylvania Commission comments at 18, citing 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(1). See also NARUC comments at 2.  x\NARUC argued that, because state area code relief decisions are based upon extensive records that include  xparticipation by consumers, the Commission should defer to state decisions as long as they are not discriminatory  xor technically anticompetitive. In its reply comments, however, Vanguard stated that the Pennsylvania Commission  xproceedings focused on what area code relief to adopt. The conservation measures, Vanguard argued, arose as a  x.result of informal contacts between some of the parties and were not subject to normal notice and comment procedures. Vanguard reply comments at 6. ` The text of that Order is clear that the Commission delegated to state commissions the authority to implement new area codes. Thus, state commissions can choose among available area code relief mechanisms (a split, an overlay, or a rearrangement of area code boundaries), based on their knowledge of local circumstances, including consumer preferences and demographics. State commissions also can make the decisions pertaining to the details of implementation of one of those area code relief methods, such as a decision on where the boundary between the old and the new area codes will be for a geographic split. In delegating authority to the state commissions to implement new area codes, we intended that state commissions would use that authority to implement relief when jeopardy has been declared.  XJ-x 33.` ` As discussed above, the Commission specifically declined to delegate to state  X'-commissions the authority to administer or allocate NXX codes.bb'  {O-ԍ Local Competition Second Report and Order at 19533.b We disagree with MCI that the measures the Pennsylvania Commission originally took did not constitute NXX code  X-administration.;c yO.-ԍ MCI comments at 4.; While the Pennsylvania Commission itself was not actually assigning the NXX codes, it ordered carriers and the NXX code administrator to implement several measures, including 1,000 block pooling, 1,000 block reclamation, the return of NXX codes, and NXX code rationing, that are part of NXX code administration. If each state commission were to implement its own NXX code administration measures without any national uniformity or standards, it would hamper the NANPA's efforts to carry out its duties as the centralized NXX code administrator. In that event, the NANPA would have the potentially impossible task of performing its NXX code administration and area code relief planning functions in a manner that is consistent with both Commission rules and industry guidelines,", c0*&&,," as well as fiftyone different regimes for overall NXX code administration. Further, a lack of consistency in NXX code administration could interfere with forecasting and projections for exhaust of the North American Numbering Plan and could force implementation of a new plan earlier than would otherwise be necessary to ensure that numbers are always available for telecommunications service providers.  X.-x!34.` ` We disagree with the assertion that, if Congress had intended to have the Commission review state commission decisions regarding numbering administration, the  X-statute would expressly provide for such review.Pd yOa -ԍ Pennsylvania Commission comments at 18.P Congress did not assign to state commissions any authority for area code relief or numbering issues in general. Congress gave the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over numbering matters in the United States, and the authority to delegate to state commissions all or any portion of that jurisdiction. The Commission delegated a discrete portion of that jurisdiction and placed certain parameters around that delegation, one of which is that the Commission retains authority to ensure that state commissions act consistently with federal regulations.  X -x"35.` ` We disagree with arguments asserting that, because Petitioners filed appeals with the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, that forum is where this matter must be  X-decided.eX {O- xԍ Id. at 19. Similarly, the Pennsylvania Commission argued that forbearance by the Commission is called for  xJwhere the state appellate process has been initiated by petitioners, and that a federal regulatory agency should apply  {O%- xcomity in considering matters addressed by state regulatory agencies. Id. at 2425. The Pennsylvania Commission  xstated that, because Petitioners are seeking review of issues pending in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, the  xCommission should decline to review the issues even if it is empowered to do so, because duplicate litigation of  {O- xidentical issues is contrary to the principles of abstention, whereby federal courts defer to state courts.  Id. at 25.  {OI- xSee also NARUC comments at 45. Subsequent to the Pennsylvania Commission filing its comments, the  {O- xYCommonwealth Court remanded the case to the Pennsylvania Commission. See Order of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Nos. 2241, 2255, and 2297, Commonwealth Docket 1997, February 26, 1998.  The Commission specifically retained jurisdiction over state commissions' decisions on area code relief when the Commission provided that parties wishing to dispute a proposed area code plan seek relief from the Commission. We have no intention of reviewing all state commission area code decisions. The Commission, however, reserved authority to act when a party alleges that a state has acted inconsistently with Commission guidelines and seeks relief.  X-x#36.` ` Compliance With Numbering Administration Regulations. The Pennsylvania Commission's original plan violated our regulations, which we promulgated to ensure that  XQ-telecommunications numbers are made available on an equitable basis.=fQ2  yO4#-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  52.9.= ". f0*&&,,"Ԍ X-x$37.` ` Availability of Numbering Resources. The original Pennsylvania plan did not facilitate entry into the telecommunications marketplace by making numbering resources  X-available on an efficient and timely basis to carriers.Dg yO5-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  52.9 (a)(1).D Although the Pennsylvania Commission intended for transparent overlays and number pooling to extend the exhaust date for the area codes, the measures were unproven and could have deprived carriers of the numbers they needed to offer their services. If the conservation measures, even if technically feasible, did not yield the desired return of whole NXXs, so that carriers that could not participate in the conservation measures could obtain them to provide service, those carriers would not have access to numbering resources during the time in which the Pennsylvania  X-Commission decided on splits or overlays and carriers implemented the new area codes.ph|X yO - xxԍ We agree with several wireless carriers' comments noting that the Pennsylvania Commission Order did not  {O - xsuggest how wireless carriers were to obtain numbers after their existing assigned NXXs were depleted. See AT&T  {Ob - xWireless comments at 25; see also AirTouch comments at 67 (stating that the Pennsylvania Commission did not  xadopt any safeguards to ensure wireless access to numbering resources, and that the Pennsylvania Commission's  xdecision to ration only three NXX codes per month exacerbated the anticompetitive impact of its number pooling  yO- xplan by limiting further the resources available to wireless carriers); AMTA comments at 4; PageNet reply comments at 34. p  X -x%38. ` ` We do not question the good faith efforts of the Pennsylvania Commission to conserve numbering resources and avoid unnecessary disruption to consumers. Conservation measures should delay the declaration of jeopardy by the code administrator and provide additional time for the implementation of area code relief once jeopardy has been declared. Such measures, however, particularly unproven ones such as number pooling, are not a  X -substitute for area code relief after jeopardy has been declared.)i  yO- xԍ We agree with commenters arguing that it was not possible for the Pennsylvania Commission to base a relief  xplan on either a transparent overlay or on number pooling, because transparent overlays raised many issues that most  xhlikely could not be resolved satisfactorily in time to extend significantly the life of the Pennsylvania area codes, and  {Ow- xbecause the industry has not yet developed a number pooling mechanism. See, e.g., USTA comments at 2; see also  xjGTE reply comments at 1011 (contending that pooling is not a workable alternative before number pooling  yO -administration guidelines have been determined by the NANC).  ) When an area code is in  X-jeopardy, a decision on area code relief (i.e., a geographic split, an overlay, or a rearrangement of area code boundaries) should occur promptly, and through an orderly process. State commissions, by declining to implement area code relief, should not put carriers in the position of having no numbers and therefore being unable to serve customers. We commend the Pennsylvania Commission's recent actions to implement traditional area code relief. For competition to continue to develop, all carriers must have access to numbering resources. Relying on experimental conservation methods, rather than planning for traditional area code relief, during the jeopardy period would place some carriers at risk and could delay area code relief implementation well beyond the projected exhaust dates. "vi0*&&,,4"Ԍ X-x&39.` ` Measures such as those ordered by the Pennsylvania Commission could affect negatively the routing of calls in the United States. For example, although the Pennsylvania Commission and the PaOCA asserted that the "transparent overlays" did not conflict with the  X-requirements for 911 or E911 service,sj {O-ԍ Pennsylvania Commission comments at 12; PaOCA comments at 69.s and that no solution in the Order adversely affected  Xt-roaming,ktZ yO- xԍ PaOCA comments at 910. Roaming is defined as a telecommunications service occurring when the  xhsubscriber of one CMRS provider utilizes the facilities of another CMRS provider. Most often, roaming occurs when  {O - x_the subscriber is physically located outside the service area of his or her service provider. See Đ xiWireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment On CTIA Petition for Waiver to Extend Implementation  {O - xDeadlines of Wireless Number Portability, Public Notice, CC Docket No. 95-116, DA 97-2579, (rel. December 9, 1997). the record supports a finding that there is at least a potential for disruption in 911 service if wireless carriers must participate in the "transparent overlays" in order to obtain numbers. For example, Petitioners allege that when calling 911, a wireless customer's "transparent number" would be transmitted to the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), not  X-the customer's "ported number."l {Oo- xwԍ Petition at 9; see also Vanguard reply comments at 8; Sprint PCS reply comments at 10; AirTouch comments at 46; AMTA comments at 56; Comcast comments at 23; PCIA comments at 2. According to Petitioners, transmitting this "transparent number""which is noncallable"to the PSAP would disrupt the ability of the 911 system to  X-call back the location from which the 911 call was received.2m0  {O-ԍ Id.2 The record also indicates a potential for service disruption if Pennsylvania wireless customers who have numbers assigned from the "transparent overlays" or whose carriers are attempting to participate in 1,000 block number pooling roam outside of Pennsylvania. Transparent overlays require the use of  X -RCF.Sn  {O-ԍ Petition at 15. See also supra n.37S The Commission previously recognized several limitations surrounding the use of  X -RCF, including degradation of transmission quality.o w  {O- xԍ Telephone Number Portability, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 95116, FCC 95284, 10 FCC Rcd 12350, 12369 (1995). The Commission also found that use of RCF places a significant strain on number administration and contributes to area code  X-exhaust.2p {OR-ԍ Id.2 Furthermore, according to Comcast, the effect of wireless pooling in only a single state or single area code would be to deprive customers of the ability to use the service  Xg-outside of the state or area code in which a pooled number was assigned.oq^g {O!- xԍ Comcast comments at 23. See also Sprint PCS reply comments at 10; CTIA reply comments at 910;  {Oh"- xAirTouch comments at 46; AMTA comments at 56; PCIA comments at 2. But cf. PaOCA Comments at 9; see  {O2#-also MCI comments at 1011.o "Dq0*&&,,"Ԍ X-x'40. ` ` Discrimination Against an Industry Segment. We agree with Petitioners that the Pennsylvania Commission's original reliance on the use of number pooling and transparent overlays unduly disfavored wireless and nonLRN capable carriers because it did not provide adequate assurances that those carriers would have access to numbering resources. We find, therefore, that the measures mandated in the July 15, 1997 Order violated our rule requiring that numbering administration not unduly favor or disfavor any particular telecommunications  X0-industry segment.Dr0 yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  52.9 (a)(2).D As Petitioners note, because of the later introduction of LNP for wireless technologies and other technological aspects of wireless service, the measures the Pennsylvania Commission originally ordered provided no assurances of useful numbering resources to wireless carriers and appeared to leave those carriers without a source of numbers  X-in these area codes that are approaching exhaust.Usj X {O - xԍ Petition at 14. We recognize that the measures that the Pennsylvania Commission proposed to attempt to  x,alleviate the NXX code depletion problem unduly disfavor wireless carriers because they cannot participate in LNP.  xOn the other hand, we would be remiss if we did not note that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, under  x delegated authority, recently granted the petition of CTIA to extend the schedule for wireless carriers' implementation  x of LNP to March 31, 2000. In the Matter of Telephone Number Portability, Petition for Extension of  xImplementation Deadlines of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, CC Docket No. 95-116,  {O_- x Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 97-2579 (September 1, 1998). We also observe that CTIA has filed a separate  xwbut related petition requesting the Commission to forbear from enforcing number portability requirements for CMRS  {O- xlicensees until the fiveyear buildout period for PCS carriers has expired. See CC Docket No. 95116, Petition for  {O- xKForbearance of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (filed Dec. 16, 1997) (CTIA Forbearance  {O- xPetition). The CTIA Forbearance Petition is currently pending before the Commission. Thus, even in the future, wireless carriers may not be able to participate in a number pooling scheme.U As explained above, if carriers could not take advantage of the transparent overlays and number pooling, and there was no area code relief, those carriers would be unable to obtain numbers and, consequently, would be unable to provide service to customers.  X -x(41.` ` The PaOCA stated that Commission rules do not prohibit wireless carriers from implementing LNP before June 30, 1999, and that the first Pennsylvania Commission Order  X-offered equal opportunity for all carriers to use LNPbased number pooling.>t  yO-ԍ PaOCA comments at 3. > In the Number  X-Portability Order, the Commission stated that additional time was needed to develop standards and protocols to overcome the technical burdens unique to the provision of seamless roaming  XJ-on cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR networks.buJ {O!-ԍ Number Portability Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 8440.b Wireless carriers may not be able to overcome those technical burdens to implement LNP before the June 30, 1999, deadline. Further, even if wireless carriers could overcome the technical burdens and implement LNP in Pennsylvania, the repercussions could be widespread. Because of the manner in which wireless carriers offer their services, they cannot develop a localized number portability"u0*&&,," method without affecting the other states in their service areas and the carriers with whom  X-they have roaming agreements across the country.v yOV- xԍ Wireless carriers' service areas are not restricted to particular state, area code, or Local Access and Transport  x,Area (LATA) boundaries. Any LNP method developed in one state automatically would impact customers in other  xstates that are in a wireless carrier's service area. Further, carriers with whom wireless carriers have roaming  xagreements may be unable to honor those agreements if they cannot recognize numbers that have been ported to and from wireless carriers who are applying a localized number portability method in a particular state.  Forcing wireless LNP implementation before the Commission's deadline would have an impact on more than just the Pennsylvania area codes at issue, even if wireless carriers only had to implement LNP in Pennsylvania.  XQ-x)42.` ` The original plan also unduly disfavored wireless carriers because its implementation would have caused service problems for wireless carriers and their customers, but similar burdens would not have been placed on other types of carriers. As noted above, the transparent overlays could cause problems for wireless 911 service and wireless roaming, and the burden of rectifying those problems in order to use numbers from the transparent  X-overlays would be imposed solely on the wireless industry.Fwx {O-ԍ See supra at para. 38. F  X\ -x*43.` ` Because of the NXX code rationing plan that the Pennsylvania Commission ordered, the original plan also would have unduly disfavored carriers that could not participate in the transparent overlays and number pooling. The Pennsylvania Commission asserts that the NXX code rationing is not discriminatory against wireless carriers because there is always NXX code rationing, initiated by the NXX code administrator, when an NPA approaches the  X-end of its life, and all carriers are treated equally in the rationing process.Ux  yOh-ԍ Pennsylvania Commission comments at 5.U While it is true that NXX code rationing is common when an area code is in jeopardy, rationing typically  Xg-extends the life of an area code until implementation of a relief code,cyZg {O- xԍ See Industry Numbering Committee, Central Office Code (NXX) Assignment Guidelines, INC 950407008,  xreissued April 1997 at  8.3. The code administrator is to convene a meeting to explain the conservation procedures that will be in effect until code relief is implemented.c and rationing typically affects all carriers equally. In this case, however, the rationing would have a disparate effect on the carriers that could not participate in the transparent overlays and number pooling ordered by the Pennsylvania Commission, because carriers that could not participate in those conservation measures would only have been able to obtain numbers through the rationing process, and may thus have been thwarted in providing service, while carriers that could participate in the conservation measures would have had multiple potential  Xr-sources for obtaining numbers.zr  yO#- xKԍ Comcast noted that, by not adopting an area code relief plan, the Pennsylvania Commission extended the period of rationing indefinitely in all affected area codes. Comcast reply comments at 4 n.7.  The record before us demonstrates that at least one carrier,"rz0*&&,,R" Nextel, ran out of numbers in area codes 610 and 215, would not have been able to participate in the transparent overlays and number pooling without significant problems, and  X-had difficulty obtaining NXX codes under the rationing plan.{L  yO3- xԍ Letter from Robert S. Foosaner, Nextel, to A. Richard Metzger, Jr., FCC, dated November 18, 1997 (Nextel  {O- xNovember 18 ex parte) at 1. See also Letter from Robert S. Foosaner, Nextel, to Chairman William E. Kennard,  xCommissioner Susan Ness, Commissioner Harold FurchtgottRoth, Commissioner Michael Powell, and Commissioner  xGloria Tristani, FCC, dated December 19, 1997 (Nextel December 19 ex parte) at 1 and Letter from Robert S.  xFoosaner, Nextel, to Ari Q. Fitzgerald, FCC, dated January 9, 1998 (Nextel January 9 ex parte) at 1. Nextel stated  xthat it had to assign Philadelphia customers numbers from NXXs in the 609 area code in New Jersey, which meant  xZthat calls to Nextel subscribers from Philadelphia homes and businesses became toll calls. Nextel also stated that  xZit was forced to reimburse these toll charges for its customers in order to compete. Further, Nextel stated that it  x"purchased" 215 and 610 telephone numbers from a competitive local exchange carrier, which meant that it paid the  xhCLEC to switch 1,000 number ranges from its 215 and 610 NXXs to Nextel. Nextel stated that it incurred costs for  xJT1 facilities and trunks to the CLEC, per call switching costs and the costs of sending its traffic through the CLEC's  xnetwork. Nextel added that customers assigned these numbers experienced degraded service. Nextel January 9 ex  xxparte at 1. The Pennsylvania Commission responded that Nextel's actions demonstrated that "code sharing" is a  {O]- xZreality and that Nextel can secure numbers in blocks of 1,000. See Letter from James J. McNulty, Pennsylvania  xCommission, to Magalie R. Salas, FCC, dated January 28, 1998 at 3. The fact remains, however, that, in order to  xprovide service through these measures, Nextel has experienced burdens and expenses that other carriers have not  yO-experienced. Ĺ  Xt-x+44.` ` The Pennsylvania Commission has changed its directions to the NXX code administrator regarding rationing and directed that NXX codes be rationed at a rate of ten per month. The Pennsylvania Commission also asked the NXX code administrator to schedule an industry meeting for discussion of the allocation of remaining NXX codes pending the  X-availability of additional codes.w| yOu-ԍ Pennsylvania Commission Order IV at 15; Pennsylvania Commission Order V at 17.w If some carriers were to participate in number pooling between now and implementation of new area codes for 717, 215, and 610, it appears that the rationing could still have a disparate effect on those carriers that cannot participate in such conservation measures. We are, as explained further below, providing a forum for relief for carriers that may need to obtain an NXX code outside of the parameters of the rationing plan.  X -x,45. ` ` Technological Neutrality. We do not determine whether Pennsylvania's original proposed methods would have been "technologyneutral,"and therefore consistent with our rule requiring that numbering administration not unduly favor or disfavor any telecommunications technology, if carriers that could not have participated in the transparent"l|0*&&,,-"  X-overlays and number pooling had other access to numbering resources.D} yOy-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  52.9 (a)(3).D It is not necessary  X-to resolve that question here.M~ X yO- xԍ By letter dated August 22, 1997, the NANC requested guidance from the Commission on the meaning of  xtechnological neutrality in the context of addressing area code depletion generally, and more specifically in the  xintroduction of number pooling under an NXXX/LRN scheme prior to the adoption of LNP by all carriers and in  xunassigned number porting. The NANC stated that Commission orders have required technological neutrality, and  xxthat NANC members have explored inconclusively the meaning of this term. The Commission sought comment  {O- xon the issues raised in the NANC's letter. See Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment on North American  {O - xNumbering Council Letter Seeking Clarification of the Term "Technology Neutral," Public Notice, DA 972234 (rel.  xOct. 20, 1997). The Commission received comments on October 29, 1997, and received reply comments on November 6, 1997.M  X-x-46.` ` Section 253. Although Petitioners and commenters raised arguments under  Xv-section 253 of the Communications Act,<v,  yOS-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  253.< we will not address those arguments in this Order. Because of the Pennsylvania Commission's most recent Orders, Petitioners have obtained the relief they seek, and addressing the arguments put forth under section 253 is not necessary to provide the clarification and guidance that state commissions need in this area.  X-x.47.` ` Area Code Relief in Pennsylvania. We are not ordering area code relief for area codes 215, 610, and 717, as requested by Petitioners, because the Pennsylvania Commission has acted to provide for such relief. Because wireline carriers have implemented  X` -LNP or will be implementing LNP soon in the area codes at issue,$`  yO- x=ԍ Under our implementation schedule, wireline carriers were to have completed LNP implementation in  xPhiladelphia by March 31, 1998. Implementation must be completed in Harrisburg by December 31, 1998.  {O]- xTelephone Number Portability, First Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 95116,  {O'-12 FCC Rcd 7236, 7346 (1997) (First Order on Reconsideration). it does not appear that the Pennsylvania Commission still intends to implement transparent overlays, but the Pennsylvania Commission Orders VI and VII did not specifically rescind the earlier Orders' provisions regarding transparent overlays. We clarify that implementation of transparent overlays is beyond the state commissions' jurisdiction, and, as discussed above, we have misgivings about transparent overlays as an effective relief method because of their impacts on some carriers.  XH-x/48. ` ` The Pennsylvania Commission's original imposition of NXX rationing measures was inconsistent with this Order's delegation of authority to state commissions, because the state commission imposed the rationing plan when the area codes were in jeopardy, without having chosen an area code relief method and established a relief date. As discussed above, rationing of NXX codes should only occur when the area code is in jeopardy"0*&&,," and should only be for the purpose of extending the life of the area code until the date of area code relief implementation. Because the Pennsylvania Commission has ordered area code relief and because the NXX code situation in Pennsylvania is exigent, however, the current NXX code rationing plan may continue.  XQ-x049.` ` Until area code relief is implemented in the 215, 610, and 717 area codes in Pennsylvania, we grant additional authority to the Pennsylvania Commission, if requested, to hear and address claims of carriers claiming that they do not, or in the near future will not, have any line numbers remaining in their NXX codes, and will be unable to serve customers if they cannot obtain an NXX, or that they are using or will have to use extraordinary and unreasonably costly measures to provide service. Evidence presented may include the carrier's business plan, requests for new service that the carrier has denied because of its lack of numbering resources, and the number of requests for new service that the carrier has been receiving. We request that the Pennsylvania Commission not share the information with any party or entity other than this Commission, if necessary. If, in fact, those carriers cannot serve customers because they do not have numbers, or if they are having to use extraordinary and unreasonably costly measures to obtain numbers in order to provide service before implementation of the new area codes, the Pennsylvania Commission should work with the code administrator to ensure that those carriers have access to NXXs outside of the parameters of the rationing plan. If the Pennsylvania Commission orders a carrier to use an extraordinary measure to obtain numbering resources, such as NXX code sharing, it should not unduly disfavor the carrier, impede the carrier's ability to enter the market, or put the carrier in the position of being in violation of this Commission's rules.  X-x150.` ` We decline to order an "expanded overlay," as Omnipoint advocates.C yO1-ԍ Omnipoint comments at 35.C Because the Pennsylvania Commission has acted to provide area code relief, Omnipoint's arguments are moot.  X,-x251.` ` Referral to the NANC. We ask the NANC for a recommendation as to whether, in the future, the state commissions or the NANPA, Lockheed Martin IMS, should perform the function of evaluating whether a carrier that is subject to an NXX code rationing plan should receive an NXX or multiple NXXs outside of the parameters of the rationing plan if it demonstrates that it has no numbers and cannot provide service to customers or is having to rely on extraordinary and costly measures in order to provide service. We recognize the need for such a forum for extraordinary relief, whether the rationing plan is the product of industry consensus or is one a state commission has ordered. We request that the NANC provide a recommendation on this question within 60 days of the effective date of this order. "X0*&&,, "Ԍ X-x` ` V. FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION  X-x352. ` ` As permitted by section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),> yO3-ԍ 5 U.S.C.  605(b).> we certify that a regulatory flexibility analysis is not necessary because the amendments to the rules adopted in this Order will not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by statute, or by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the  X -terms "small business," "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."l X {O -#]\  PCɒP#э Id.  601(6). l In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern"  X-under the Small Business Act. yO` - x#]\  PCɒP#э 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. 632).  xPursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with  x;the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes  xjone or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C.  601(3). A small business concern is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any  X -additional criteria established by the SBA.~  yO-#]\  PCɒP#э Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632 (1996).~ The rule expands state commissions' authority to implement area code relief by granting additional authority to the state commissions to, under certain conditions, ration NXX codes in conjunction with area code relief decisions. Because state commissions will be the entities complying with the rule, and because the expansion of the rule simply supplements authority that the state commissions already have, we can certify that a regulatory flexibility analysis is unnecessary. This certification conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996  X-(SBREFA).*  yOe- x;ԍ SBREFA is Title II of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847, 857 (1996), codified at 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq.  XD-x453. ` ` The Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Public Reference Branch, will send a copy of this certification, along with this Order, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. section 801(a)(1)(A), and to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Association, 5 U.S.C. section  X-605(b). A copy of this certification will also be published in the Federal Register.  X-T Ã "t 0*&&,,p"Ԍ X-x` `  hhVI. CONCLUSION  X-x554.` ` We delegate additional authority to state commissions to order NXX code rationing in conjunction with area code relief decisions, in the absence of industry consensus on a rationing plan. We also delegate authority to the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, to delegate additional authority for state commissions to implement innovative or experimental number conservation efforts. We conclude that: (1) the Pennsylvania Commission acted outside of the scope of its delegated authority in the July 15, 1997 area code order; and (2) the July 15, 1997 area code order unduly disfavored Petitioners and carriers that could not participate in certain number conservation measures ordered by the Pennsylvania Commission. We ask the NANC for a recommendation as to whether, in the future, the state commissions or the new NANPA, Lockheed Martin IMS, should perform the function of evaluating whether a carrier that is subject to an NXX code rationing plan should receive an NXX or multiple NXXs outside of the parameters of the rationing plan if it demonstrates that it has no numbers and cannot provide service to customers or is having to rely on extraordinary and costly measures in order to provide service.  X-  X-x ` `   VII. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  XD-x655. ` ` Accordingly, pursuant to section 1, 4(i), 201205, 251, 253, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 201205, 251, 253, and 403, and pursuant to section 1.2 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.2, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by Nextel Communications, Inc., Sprint PCS, Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc., 360 Communications Company, and Bell Atlantic Mobile, Inc. is GRANTED to the extent described herein.   XO-x756. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that, pursuant to section 1, 4(i), 201205, 251, 253, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 201205, 251, 253, and 403, and pursuant to section 1.2 of the Commission's Rules, 47  X-C.F.R.  1.2, we reconsider on our own motion a portion of Implementation of the Local  X-Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Second Report and Order  X-and Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 96-98, 11 FCC Rcd 19392 (1996)  X-(Local Competition Second Report and Order), and authorize state commissions to order NXX code rationing in conjunction with area code relief decisions, consistent with the terms as defined in this Order. Pursuant to the authority contained in section 408 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  408, this authorization is effective  X-immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. The remaining policies and requirements set forth herein are effective upon release of this Order.  X"-x857. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, is directed to determine whether state commissions should be delegated additional authority to implement innovative or experimental number conservation efforts. "'%!0*&&,,%"Ԍ X-x958. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the NANC, within 60 days of the effective date of this Order, provide a recommendation as to whether, in the future, the state commissions or the NANPA should perform the function of evaluating whether a carrier that is subject to an NXX code rationing plan should receive an NXX or multiple NXXs outside of the parameters of the rationing plan if it demonstrates that it has no number and cannot provide service to customers or is having to rely on extraordinary and costly measures in order to provide service.  X-x:59. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Public Reference Branch, will send a copy of this certification, along with this Order, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A), and to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Association, 5 U.S.C.  605(b). A copy of this certification will also be published in the  X9 -Federal Register.  X -x;60. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that PageNet's Motion to accept latefiled reply comments is hereby accepted.  X-x ` ` x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@Magalie Roman Salas x` `  hh@Secretary""0*&&,,"  X-) APPENDIX A  X-  X-Parties Filing Comments American Mobile Telecommunication Association, Inc. (AMTA) AirTouch Communications (AirTouch) AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (AT&T Wireless) Bell Atlantic Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) Colorado Public Utility Commission (Colorado Commission) Comcast Cellular Communications, Inc. (Comcast) MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) Omnipoint Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Pennsylvania Commission) Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate (PaOCA) Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA) United States Telephone Association (USTA)  XD-Parties Filing Reply Comments AT&T Wireless CTIA  X-Citizens Utility Board, People of the State of Illinois, City of Chicago, and People of Cook (#(#XxCounty (CUB) Comcast GTE The Illinois Commerce Commission (Illinois Commission) MCI Nextel Communications (Nextel) Paging Network, Inc. (PageNet) Pennsylvania Commission Sprint PCS Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc. (Vanguard) United States Cellular Corporation (USCC) 360 Communications Company (360)  X-"#0*&&,, "  X-x0 Appendix B ă x  X-Rule Changes PART 52NUMBERING 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 1,2,4,5, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C.  151, 152, 154, 155 unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply secs. 3,4, 20105, 20709, 218, 2257, 2512, 271 and 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 153, 154, 201205, 20709, 218, 2257, 2512, 271 and 332 unless otherwise noted. 2. Revise paragraph (a) of section 52.19 to read as follows: ***** (a) State commissions may resolve matters involving the introduction of new area codes within their states. Such matters may include, but are not limited to: Directing whether area code relief will take the form of a geographic split, an overlay area code, or a boundary realignment; establishing new area code boundaries; establishing necessary dates for the implementation of area code relief plans; and directing public education efforts regarding area code changes. State commissions may also order central office code rationing in conjunction with area code relief decisions, if the carriers operating in the area have been unable to reach consensus on a rationing plan to extend the life of an area code, until implementation of relief. A state commission may impose a central office code rationing plan only if the state  XO-commission has decided on a specific form of area code relief (i.e., a split, overlay, or boundary realignment) and has established an implementation date for that relief. *****"$0*&&,,^" x` `  hh@hpp#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#F<%PSeptember 21, 1998#x6X@`7 X@# F  a<9#|\  P6G; _P# Joint Separate Statement of  a<rCommissioners Gloria Tristani and Harold FurchtgottRoth # Xj\  P6G;ynXP# TP  Vl-Re:XxPetition for Declaratory Ruling and Request for Expedited Action on the July 15, 1997 Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Regarding Area Codes 412, 610,  V&-215, and 717. CC Docket No. 9698.(# xWe support today's Order concerning the division of responsibility over telephone number allocation. We believe it strikes a reasonable balance between giving state commissions more breathing room to conduct certain types of number conservation trials and ensuring that individual carriers can acquire new blocks of numbers when they need them. xWe would express our strong support for the idea of giving state commissions greater control over number allocation. The reason is that state commissions, not this Commission, directly face the millions of consumers who are unhappy at the prospect of having new area codes imposed on them. We sympathize with state commissioners who face this difficult situation, and we fully understand their interest in taking aggressive action to stem the depletion of telephone numbers. xWe would underscore the Order's invitation to state commissions to work with the FCC, both formally and informally, to devise ways of alleviating the strain on the numbering system. There is no question that state commissions and the FCC share the goal of minimizing the number of consumers who must endure a change in their area codes. xFinally, we note that the North American Numbering Council will present its recommendations on various longterm number conservation techniques to the Commission soon. Those recommendations will provide the foundation for a Commission proceeding on number conservation techniques that we hope will finally provide real relief to state commissions and consumers on this issue. Given the continued and growing demand for new numbers, along with the substantial difficulty this causes for consumers and state commissions, we would express our strong interest in seeing this Commission complete its upcoming proceeding on numbering conservation issues as rapidly as possible. x` `  hh@# # #