******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Numbering Resource Optimization ) CC Docket No. 99-200 ) ORDER Adopted: August 31, 2000 Released: August 31, 2000 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1. On March 31, 2000, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) released a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Numbering Resource Optimization (NRO Order). In the NRO Order, the Commission adopted certain administrative and technical measures to allow it to monitor more closely use of numbering resources within the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) and promote more efficient use of numbering resources. Among other things, the Commission required that states conform their thousands- block number pooling trials to the Commission's national pooling rules by September 1, 2000. 2. The California Public Utilities Commission and the People of the State of California (California) and the Maine Public Utilities Commission (Maine) have requested waiver of this requirement so that California and Maine may continue to apply their number pooling rules until the national pooling rollout begins, at which time California and Maine would conform to the national pooling rules. In a Public Notice released on August 30, 2000, the Common Carrier Bureau sought comment on California and Maine's petitions. We stay compliance with the national pooling rules for California and Maine until we rule on the merits of these two petitions or December 31, 2000, whichever date is sooner. II. DISCUSSION 3. In the NRO Order, we established a set of national rules for thousands-block number pooling. As we enunciated in that Order, uniform standards for thousands-block number pooling are necessary to minimize the confusion and additional expense related to compliance with inconsistent regulatory requirements. We stated in the NRO Order that state commissions had until September 1, 2000 to bring their pooling trials into conformity with the national framework. We recognized in the Order that pooling trials already underway might not conform to the standards set forth in the national framework. Our goal in establishing these parameters and setting the September 1, 2000 deadline was to give state commissions time to bring their pooling trials into conformity with the national framework, and to maintain uniformity in the implementation of thousands-block number pooling on a nationwide basis. 4. California and Maine have asserted that they require waivers from complying with the September 1, 2000 deadline so that they may continue to implement utilization threshold requirements for pooling carriers, which have proven integral to their number pooling trials. California and Maine assert that they will conform with national number pooling rules when the national pooling rollout begins. Although California and Maine's petitions ask for relief from all the national pooling rules, the petitions only provide specific arguments supporting the request to continue to apply a utilization threshold for pooling carriers. California and Maine assert that conforming with national pooling rules would be detrimental to their efforts to delay the exhaust of area codes. 5. In response to these petitions, we intend to examine whether enforcing this and other national pooling requirements will be detrimental to numbering resource optimization efforts in California and Maine. We find that good cause has been shown to support a stay of the conformity requirement until we can adequately consider the merits of the petitions. One goal of the conformity requirement was to reduce the burden on carriers from having to comply with varying pooling rules. That goal could be thwarted if we do not grant this interim relief, because in the event we ultimately rule in favor of the petitions, carriers would first have to comply with state rules (before September 1), then national rules (after September 1), and perhaps come back into compliance with state rules. This would be unnecessarily burdensome for both carriers and the states. The Common Carrier Bureau has sought comment on the petitions, and once that record is compiled, we intend to consider that record expeditiously. In light of these considerations, we stay national pooling conformity requirement in California and Maine until December 31, 2000, or until we rule on the merits of the petitions, whichever date is sooner. III. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES 6. For the reasons set forth above, we grant California and Maine a stay of the requirement to comply with national pooling rules until December 31, 2000, or until we rule on the merits of the petitions, whichever date is sooner. California and Maine may continue to impose their number pooling rules until that time. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 10, 272, 303(r), 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 160, 272, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and 47 C.F.R.  1.429(k), that the effectiveness of the provisions of 47 C.F.R.  52 requiring states to conform their pooling trials to the Commission's national pooling rules by September 1, 2000 ARE STAYED for California and Maine until December 31, 2000, or until we rule on the merits of the petitions, whichever date is sooner. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary