**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

)

The State Of New York ) CC Docket 96-98

> Department of Public Service ) NSD File No. L-00-161

Request for the Release of a )

New Area Code to Provide Relief )

for the 716 Numbering Plan Area )

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted:** March 16, 2001 **Released:** March 20, 2001

> By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:

### I. INTRODUCTION

> 1\. On June 20, 2000, the State of New York Department of Public
> Service (NYDPS) requested that the Common Carrier Bureau direct the
> North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) to release a new
> area code to provide relief for the 716 area code.[^1] The NANPA, by
> letter dated June 12, 2000,[^2] had declined to release an area code
> because the relief plan adopted by the NYDPS resulted in the splitting
> of certain rate centers; such rate center splitting is not consistent
> with industry guidelines.[^3] In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we
> grant the request of the NYDPS and direct the NANPA to release an area
> code to relieve the 716 NPA.
>
> **II. BACKGROUND**
>
> 2\. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives the Federal
> Communications Commission (Commission) exclusive jurisdiction over the
> North American Numbering Plan (NANP) in the United States, and permits
> the Commission to delegate any portion of that jurisdiction to state
> regulatory commissions (state commissions) or other entities.[^4] The
> Commission, recognizing that state commissions are uniquely positioned
> to understand local conditions and the potential effects associated
> with new area code or numbering plan area (NPA) implementation, has
> authorized the states to resolve various matters involving the
> implementation of new area codes, subject to Commission rules and
> guidelines governing the administration of telephone numbers.[^5]
>
> 3\. The specific authority delegated to the states includes
> determining the boundaries of a new area code, the time frame for its
> introduction, and the mechanism for introducing the new area code.[^6]
> Under Commission rules,[^7] states can introduce new area codes
> through the use of a geographic split, an area code boundary
> realignment, or an all-services area code overlay.[^8] The Common
> Carrier Bureau has urged states to conform to the industry's area code
> relief planning guidelines, and has stated that it may review plans
> that are clearly inconsistent with them. [^9]

4\. On February 23, 1999, the NANPA announced that the 716 area code was
in jeopardy of exhaust and established code conservation measures that
were to be in effect during the development of a relief plan.[^10] On
May 22, 2000, after a public proceeding in which various relief
proposals were considered, the NYDPS issued an Opinion and Order
directing implementation of a geographic split of the existing 716 NPA
along county boundaries.[^11]

> 5\. Because the NYDPS relief plan would split 14 rate centers between
> the old and new area codes, the NANPA determined that releasing the
> requested code would violate the industry's area code relief
> guidelines.[^12] These guidelines, developed by the Industry Numbering
> Committee (INC) of the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry
> Solutions (ATIS), provide that in a geographic NPA split, \"the actual
> boundaries must conform to existing rate center boundaries.\"[^13] On
> June 12, 2000, the NANPA informed the NYDPS that its request for a new
> area code was denied.[^14] On June 20, 2000, the NYDPS requested that
> the Commission direct the NANPA to release a new area code to
> facilitate implementation of its relief plan for the 716 NPA.[^15]
>
> 6\. In its request to the Commission, the NYDPS states that the impact
> of rate center splits is minimal in this case, resulting in the
> duplication of about 29 central office (CO) codes.[^16] The NYDPS
> points out that it has implemented thousands-block number pooling in
> the 716 NPA, already resulting in the preservation of 60 CO codes, and
> is also engaged in CO code reclamation activities.[^17] In light of
> its aggressive efforts to conserve numbering resources, the NYDPS
> argues that the guidelines should be administered flexibly to
> accommodate its proposed area code relief plan.[^18] The NYDPS
> contends, moreover, that its decision reflects local consumer and
> government viewpoints not represented in the development of the
> industry's area code relief guidelines, and therefore, the Commission
> should defer to the NYDPS decision as consistent with the area code
> relief authority that the Commission has delegated to states.[^19]

7\. In a public notice released on August 9, 2000, the Common Carrier
Bureau sought comment on the NYDPS's request for a new area code to
relieve the 716 NPA.[^20] The Bureau also sought comment generally on
the issue of rate center splitting, and on the relationship between the
area code relief authority delegated to the states and the area code
relief guidelines developed by industry. Furthermore, the Bureau sought
comment on the tension between the policy against splitting rate centers
and the Commission\'s encouragement to consolidate rate centers.

III. **DISCUSSION**

> 8\. In determining whether to direct the NANPA to release an area code
> to the NYDPS to implement its adopted relief plan, we consider the
> policy underlying the industry guideline prohibiting the splitting of
> rate centers. We also consider the impact of the relief plan, and
> whether the number of CO codes that must be duplicated in the new area
> code is significant. Finally, we consider, in deference to the states
> and their delegated authority to implement area code relief,
> additional factors such as states' unique knowledge of local
> conditions and the importance of maintaining geographic and community
> identity, which are important factors in determining the appropriate
> relief plan. For the reasons described below, we grant the request of
> the NYDPS and direct the NANPA to release an area code to relieve the
> 716 NPA.

9\. The industry guideline and the underlying policy against splitting
rate centers when establishing area code boundaries seeks primarily to
address the negative impact of area code relief on numbering resource
optimization. To ensure that carriers can continue to serve existing
customers within the rate center in both area codes without requiring a
change of their seven-digit telephone numbers, duplicate central office
(CO) codes must be assigned in the new area code. Thus, some codes in
the new area code are immediately unavailable upon release of the new
area code. Depending on how many codes must be duplicated, the impact on
number exhaust in the new area code can be significant. Some carriers
assert that the splitting of rate centers also significantly impacts
them by imposing additional implementation requirements, many of which
must be accomplished manually at the individual line level.[^21] These
include geographically mapping individual customer telephone numbers and
service addresses against the new boundaries to determine in which area
code the customer will reside, and changing provisioning and operating
support systems (OSS) to ensure that all new customers are correctly
mapped to the appropriate area code.[^22] Some carriers opine that the
need for such labor-intensive, manual adjustments carries with it a high
probability that mistakes will be made,[^23] which could result in
interruptions of telephone service to end users. The splitting of rate
centers can also affect the implementation of local number portability
(LNP) and cause other technical problems such as complicating the
mapping of direct 911 calls.[^24]

> 10\. It is estimated that the area code relief plan proposed by the
> NYDPS would result in the splitting of 14 rate centers, and the
> duplication of 29 CO codes. In the *716 Order*, the NYDPS correctly
> noted that the Bureau, in its letter directing the NANPA to release an
> area code to relieve the 914 NPA, approved an area code relief plan
> that resulted in the splitting of 5 rate centers and the duplication
> of 10 to 20 CO codes.[^25] The Bureau did so after considering the
> effect of the area code relief plan on numbering resource usage, and
> the other efforts undertaken by the NYDPS to conserve numbering
> resources. Moreover, the Bureau determined that granting the NYDPS's
> request was in the public interest because the area code relief plan
> was developed only after extensive industry and consumer input, which
> balanced a number of competing goals and interests. The Bureau also
> stated, however, that it would carefully and critically review any
> future area code relief plans that are clearly outside the industry
> guidelines,[^26] which, in this instance, reflect the Bureau's stated
> preference that state commissions avoid adopting area code splits that
> do not follow rate center boundaries.[^27]
>
> 11\. In this instance, we find that the number of rate centers that
> will be split and the number of CO codes that will likely have to be
> duplicated raises some concerns from a number conservation
> perspective. Moreover, we recognize and appreciate the concerns raised
> by carriers regarding the technical difficulties inherent with an area
> code relief plan that results in the splitting of rate centers. We
> must balance these concerns, however, with the state commissions'
> delegated authority to make certain area code implementation
> decisions, and with their unique knowledge of the local conditions
> which necessarily informs and affects area code implementation
> decisions. Despite the Commission's responsibility to ensure the
> proper administration of the NANP's resources overall, the Bureau is
> mindful of the states' delegated responsibilities over implementing
> new area codes, and we try to give deference to the states'
> determinations except in instances in which national goals and
> policies are significantly undermined by the states' actions. Further,
> we agree that evidence of other number conservation efforts should be
> considered, and indeed weighs in favor of states, when deciding
> whether the number inefficiency resulting from a particular area code
> relief plan is acceptable. By rewarding state efforts to conserve
> numbers in this manner, we hope to achieve our nationwide goal of
> prolonging the life of the NANP.
>
> 12\. We find that the splitting of 14 rate centers and the duplication
> of 29 CO codes, in this instance, will neither severely impact the
> life of the new area code, nor the life of the NANP as a whole. Both
> represent a relatively small proportion of the rate centers and
> available CO codes in the 716 NPA. Moreover, we commend the NYDPS on
> its successful efforts to date in conserving numbering resources
> through the use of thousands-block number pooling in the 716 NPA and
> other number conservation measures under delegated authority. These
> efforts persuade us to allow the NYDPS to proceed with its adopted
> area code relief plan. The Bureau therefore directs the NANPA to
> release a new area code to relieve the 716 NPA in accordance with the
> NYDPS's adopted area code relief plan. We reiterate, however, that
> states should continue to adhere to the industry guidelines in making
> future area code relief decisions to the extent that they serve to
> further the Commission's national numbering administration goals.

13\. Finally, we encourage states to continue to consider and implement
rate center consolidation in conjunction with other number conservation
measures. We are mindful that consolidating rate centers may make it
more difficult in the future to avoid splitting rate centers, but
believe that the benefits of fewer and larger rate centers, which
include eliminating the need for carriers to acquire multiple CO codes
to establish a "footprint" in a given area, can far outweigh the
problems inherent in splitting rate centers. Therefore, the NANPA need
not be bound by the industry guideline requiring that area code split
boundaries conform to existing rate center boundaries when responding to
requests for relief NPAs where the state has successfully undertaken
rate center consolidation in the affected geographic area and so
certifies to the NANPA.

### IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES

##### 

14\. Based on the foregoing, we direct the NANPA to release an area code
for the purpose of relieving the 716 NPA in accordance with the area
code relief plan adopted by the NYDPS.

> 15\. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 251(e) of the
> Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 251, and
> section 0.91 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, IT IS
> ORDERED, that the request of the State of New York Department of
> Public Service for the release of a new area code is granted.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Dorothy T. Attwood

Chief, Common Carrier Bureau

[^1]:
    > *See* Letter from Lawrence G. Malone, General Counsel, NYDPS, to
    > Lawrence E. Strickling, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, dated June
    > 20, 2000 (Malone Letter).

[^2]:
    > *See* Letter from Ronald R. Conners, Director, North American
    > Numbering Plan Administrator, to Janet Deixler, Secretary, NYDPS,
    > dated June 12, 2000 (Conners Letter).

[^3]: NPA Code Relief Planning & Notification Guidelines (INC
    97-0404-016 Nov. 8, 1999) (NPA Relief Guidelines).

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(1).

[^5]:
    > *See Implementation of the Local Competition Provision 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*).

[^6]: *Id.*

[^7]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 52.19.

[^8]:
    > With a geographic split, the region served by an area code is
    > split into two or more parts, one maintaining the old area code
    > and one (or more) receiving a new one. With a boundary
    > realignment, the boundary line between two adjacent area codes is
    > shifted to allow the transfer of some central office codes from
    > one area code to another. With an overlay, a new area code is
    > introduced to serve the same region as one or more existing area
    > codes.

[^9]:
    > *See* Letter from Lawerence E. Strickling, Chief, Common Carrier
    > Bureau, to Lawrence G. Malone, General Counsel, NYDPS, dated
    > December 3, 1999 at 2 (Strickling Letter).

[^10]: *See* Planning Letter from North American Numbering Plan
    Administrator, Number: PL-NANP-162, (Feb. 23, 1999).

[^11]:
    > *In the Matter of an Investigation of the Efficient Usage of
    > Telephone Numbering Resources and Evaluation of the Options for
    > Making Additional Central Office Codes and/or Area Codes Available
    > in New York State*, Opinion and Order Directing a Geographic Split
    > of the 716 NPA, Case 99-C-0800, Opinion No. 00-06 (May 22, 2000)
    > (716 Order).

[^12]: NPA Relief Guidelines, *supra* note 3.

[^13]: NPA Relief Guidelines at 11.

[^14]: Conners Letter, *supra* note 2.

[^15]: Malone Letter, *supra* note 1.

[^16]: Malone Letter at 2.

[^17]: *Id.*

[^18]: *Id*.

[^19]: *Id*. at 3.

[^20]:
    > *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 96-98, NSD File No. L-00-161, DA 00-1806 (rel.
    > Aug. 9, 2000) (*716 Public Notice*).

[^21]: *See generally* MCI Comments at 6-9.

[^22]: MCI Comments at 6.

[^23]: *See, e.g.*, MCI Comments at 9, Winstar Comments at 3.

[^24]: *See, e.g.,* Winstar Comments at 3-4.

[^25]: 716 Order at 28.

[^26]: Strickling Letter at 2.

[^27]: *Id*.