**DA 01-341**

**Released: February 9, 2001**

**COMMON CARRIER BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION PETITION FOR EXPEDITED DECISION FOR THE RELEASE OF A NEW AREA
CODE TO PROVIDE RELIEF FOR THE 561 NUMBERING PLAN AREA**

**NSD File No. L-01-21**

**CC Docket 96-98**

**Pleading Cycle Established**

**COMMENTS: March 9, 2001 REPLY COMMENTS: March 23, 2001**

In this Public Notice, the Common Carrier Bureau seeks comment on the
request of the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) for the release
of a new area code to provide relief for the 561 numbering plan area
(NPA). The North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) has
declined to release the relief code because it concluded that the
Florida PSC's relief plan was inconsistent with the Industry Numbering
Committee's NPA Allocation Plan and Assignment Guidelines (INC
Guidelines).

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives the Federal Communications
Commission (Commission) exclusive jurisdiction over the North American
Numbering Plan (NANP) in the United States, but permits the Commission
to delegate any portion of that jurisdiction to state regulatory
commissions or other entities.[^1] The Commission, recognizing that
state commissions are uniquely positioned to understand local conditions
and what effect new area codes will have on those conditions, has
authorized the states to resolve many matters involving the
implementation of new area codes, subject to the Commission's directives
and rules governing administration of telephone numbers.[^2]

The authority that the Commission delegated to the states includes
determination of the boundaries of a new area code, the time frame
during which the new area code is introduced, and the mechanism for
introducing the new area code.[^3] Under Commission rules, states can
introduce new area codes through the use of: (1) a geographic split,
which occurs when the geographic area served by an area code is split
into two or more geographic regions and one region maintains the old
area code and one (or more) receive a new area code; (2) an area code
boundary realignment, which occurs when the boundary lines between two
adjacent area codes are shifted to allow the assignment of some central
office codes from an area code in which central office codes remain
unassigned to an area code in which few or no central office codes are
left for assignment; or (3) an all-services area code overlay, which
occurs when a new area code is introduced to serve the same geographic
area as an existing area code.[^4] The Commission's guidelines for area
code implementation generally seek to ensure that administration of
telephone numbers encourages the introduction of new telecommunications
services, while not unduly favoring or disadvantaging certain segments
of the telecommunications industry, certain types of services, or
certain technologies. Moreover, the Common Carrier Bureau has urged
state commissions to conform to the industry's area code relief planning
guidelines, and will review any area code relief plan that is
inconsistent with the industry guidelines.[^5]

In an Order issued on October 20, 2000, the Florida PSC approved an area
code relief plan for the 561 NPA, consisting of a geographic split.[^6]
The Florida PSC also ordered the implementation of thousands-block
number pooling for the Fort Pierce-Port St. Lucie metropolitan
statistical area (MSA) in the 561 NPA.[^7] By letter dated November 28,
2000, the NANPA denied the Florida PSC's application for a relief NPA
code for the 561 NPA.[^8] The NANPA concluded that the plan set forth in
the Florida PSC's Order was inconsistent with NPA Assignment
Guidelines.[^9] On January 8, 2001, the Florida PSC requested that the
Commission direct the NANPA to release a new area code to provide relief
for the 561 NPA.[^10]

The Florida PSC relief plan creates two regions for the 561 NPA.[^11]
The projected approximate exhaust periods of the two regions are 24.6
years and 3.1 years.[^12] The INC Guidelines provide that when
geographic code relief occurs, "relief options shall cover a period of
at least five years beyond the predicted date of exhaust" in each area,
and that "a difference in NPA lifetimes \[between each area\] of more
than 15 years, shall be avoided."[^13] Thus, the relief plan does not
appear to conform with Industry Numbering Committee (INC)
Guidelines.[^14] The Florida PSC notes that its exhaust projections may
not be correct, and that the implementation of thousands-block pooling
may extend the projected exhaust dates in the approved plan.[^15] The
Florida PSC also notes that industry guidelines neither take into
account customer input, nor allow state commissions the flexibility to
consider matters beyond those guidelines.[^16] The Florida PSC asserts
that its 561 area code relief order is "based on evidence received
through customer service hearings, interrogatories to the industry,
testimony provided by elected officials, industry members and by a
representative of NeuStar."[^17] The Florida PSC further contends that
this evidence, coupled with the fact that the Commission approved a
similar request for relief filed by the State of New York Department of
Public Service, mitigates in favor of the Commission granting the
Florida PSC its requested relief.[^18]

We hereby seek comment on the Florida PSC's request for the release of a
new area code to provide relief for the 561 NPA, and on the Florida
PSC's assertion that its decision reflects viewpoints not represented in
the industry guidelines.

A copy of the Florida PSC's Letter and Petition will be available during
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Center, Portals II, 445
12^th^ Street, S.W., Suite CY-A257, Washington, D.C. 20554, (202)
418-0270. Interested parties may file comments concerning this matter on
or before **March 9, 2001*,*** and reply comments on or before **March
23, 2001**. All filings must reference **File No. NSD-L-01-21 and CC
Docket 96-98**. Send an original and four copies to the Commission
Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Portals II, 445 12^th^ Street, SW, Suite
TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554 and two copies to Al McCloud, Network
Services Division, Portals II, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Room 6A-320,
Washington, D.C. 20554.

Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. Comments filed through the ECFS
can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
**\<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html\>.** If using this method,
please reference **CC Docket No. 96-98** in the Proceeding block.
Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In
completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full
name, postal service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by
Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments,
commenters should send an e-mail to <ecfs@fcc.gov>, including "get form
\<your e-mail address\>" in the body of the message. A sample form and
directions will be sent in reply. After filing your comments
electronically, please send an e-mail to Al McCloud, <amccloud@fcc.gov>,
indicating that comments have been filed.

This is a "permit but disclose" proceeding for purposes of the
Commission's *ex parte* rules.[^19] As a "permit but disclose"
proceeding, *ex parte* presentations will be governed by the procedures
set forth in Section 1.1206 of the Commission's rules applicable to
non-restricted proceedings.[^20]

Parties making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must contain a summary of the substance of
the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed.
More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments
presented is generally required.[^21] Other rules pertaining to oral and
written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b) as well.

For further information contact Sanford Williams of the Common Carrier
Bureau, Network Services Division, at (202) 418-2320 or
<swilliam@fcc.gov>. The TTY number is (202) 418-0484.

**- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION -**

[^1]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(1).

[^2]: *See Implementation of the Local Competition of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, Second Report and Order and
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 19392, 19512-16 (1996)
    (*Local Competition Second Report and Order*).

[^3]: *Id*.

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 52.19.

[^5]: *See* Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment On The State Of New York
    Department Of Public Service Request For The Release Of A New Area
    Code To Provide Relief For The 716 Numbering Plan Area, *Public
    Notice*, CC Docket No. 96-98, DA 00-1806 (rel. Aug. 9, 2000).

[^6]: *Final Order Approving Number Plan Relief for the 305/786 Area
    Code, the 561 Area Code, the 954 Area Code, and the 904 Area Code,
    Requiring Customer Survey for a Number Change, and Notice of
    Proposed Agency Action Order Implementing Rate Center Consolidation
    and Code Sharing in Certain Areas and Requiring Customer Survey for
    Cost Sharing*, Order, Docket Nos. 990455-TL, 990456-TL, 990457-TL
    and 990517-TL, Order No. PSC-00-1937-PAA-TL.

[^7]: *Id*.

[^8]: *See* Letter from Ronald R. Conners, Director, North American
    Numbering Plan Administration, to Blanca S. Bayo, Director, Division
    of Records and Reporting, Florida PSC, dated November 28, 2000
    (NANPA Letter).

[^9]: *Id*.

[^10]: *See* Letter from Cynthia B. Miller, Bureau of Intergovernmental
    Liaison, Florida PSC, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission, dated January 8, 2001 (Florida PSC
    Letter); Florida Public Service Commission Petition for Expedited
    Decision for the Release of a New Area Code to Provide Relief for
    the 561 Numbering Plan Area, CC Docket No. 96-98, NSD File No.
    L-01-21 (January 8, 2001) (Florida PSC Petition).

[^11]: *See* Florida PSC Petition.

[^12]: *Id.*

[^13]: INC Guidelines § 9.2.2.2.

[^14]: *See* NANPA Letter; *NPA Allocation Plan and Assignment
    Guidelines*, INC 96-0308-011 (Feb. 28, 2000) (INC Guidelines) § 9.2.

[^15]: *See* Florida PSC Petition.

[^16]: *Id*.

[^17]: *Id*.

[^18]: *See* Florida PSC Petition.

[^19]: *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200-1.1216.

[^20]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206.

[^21]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).