Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

##  NSD File No. L-01-21

CC Docket No. 96-98

### August 28, 2001

By U.S. Mail and Facsimile

Mr. E. Leon Jacobs, Jr.

Chairman

Florida Public Service Commission

Capital Circle Office Center

2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850

Re: 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

Dear Mr. Jacobs:

This letter addresses the Florida Public Service Commission's (Florida
PSC or Petitioner) petition for the release of a new area code to
provide relief for the 561 numbering plan area (NPA).[^1] Petitioner
requests that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) direct the
North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) to release a new
area code to relieve the 561 NPA by means of a geographic split. As
discussed below, we grant the petition, and by copy of this letter, we
direct the NANPA to release the requested NPA code as soon as practical.

By Order issued on October 20, 2000, the Florida PSC approved an area
code relief plan for the 561 NPA, consisting of a geographic split.[^2]
The Florida PSC in that Order also directed the implementation of
thousands-block number pooling for the Fort Pierce-Port St. Lucie
metropolitan statistical area (MSA) in the 561 NPA. By letter dated
November 28, 2000, the NANPA denied the Florida PSC's application for a
relief NPA code for the 561 NPA.[^3] In that letter, the NANPA concluded
that the plan set forth in the Florida PSC's Order was inconsistent with
NPA Assignment Guidelines. On January 8, 2001, the Florida PSC requested
that the FCC direct the NANPA to release a new area code to provide
relief for the 561 NPA.[^4] On February 9, 2001, the FCC issued a Public
Notice seeking comment on the Florida PSC's petition.[^5] On July 17,
2001, the Florida PSC submitted a supplemental filing to further support
its petition.[^6]

The Florida PSC relief plan creates two regions for the 561 NPA. In its
initial filing, the Florida PSC projected approximate exhaust periods
for the two regions at 24.6 years (region A) and 3.1 years (region B).
The Industry Numbering Committee (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."[^7] Thus, based on the Florida PSC's
initial filing, the relief plan did not appear to conform with INC
Guidelines. In its petition, the Florida PSC noted that the exhaust
projections may not be correct, and that the implementation of
thousands-block number pooling may extend the projected exhaust dates of
the two regions. The Florida PSC also noted that industry guidelines
neither take into account customer input, nor allow state commissions
the flexibility to consider matters beyond those guidelines. The Florida
PSC asserted 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."[^8] The Florida PSC further contended
in its initial petition that this evidence mitigates in favor of the
Commission granting the Florida PSC its requested relief.

In its supplemental petition, the Florida PSC notes that its initial
exhaust projections did not incorporate the impact of number pooling.
The supplemental petition states that when pooling is considered, region
B, which was initially projected to exhaust in 3.1 years, is scheduled
to exhaust in 5.05 years.[^9] Thus, the Florida PSC's relief plan now
conforms with the INC Guideline provision that relief options shall
cover a period of at least five years.[^10]

Although industry guidelines are not dispositive of our decision, we
believe that area code relief plans should, absent compelling reasons,
comply with the industry guidelines, because they seek, among other
things, to ensure consistent implementation of area codes throughout the
United States. We strongly support the rationale and the policy behind
the INC Guidelines. Nevertheless, we have carefully considered
Petitioner's arguments in support of its request, and we grant the
request. We grant the petition's requested relief in part because the
Florida PSC's relief plan was developed based on extensive input from
industry, local governments, and from consumers affected by the
decision, which balanced a number of public interest goals.[^11] As we
have noted in the past, state commissions are uniquely positioned to
determine when, and in what form, to implement area code relief. While
the Florida PSC's relief plan may not conform strictly to the INC
Guideline provision concerning lifetime disparities of the two new
regions, we find that special circumstances exist in this case.[^12]
Moreover, the supplemental petition presents evidence that the 19 year
disparity may be further decreased by the growth in region A.[^13] Given
Petitioner's substantial compliance with the INC Guidelines and the
Florida PSC's active involvement in developing a dynamic relief plan, we
find that issuance of a new area code is warranted in this case. We are
also persuaded by the unanimous support for the relief plan among all
the affected local governments.[^14] We find the aforementioned reasons
to be compelling, and we therefore direct the NANPA to release an area
code to relieve the 561 NPA.

> Sincerely,
>
> Dorothy T. Attwood
>
> Chief, Common Carrier Bureau

cc: Ronald R. Conners, Director, North American Numbering Plan
Administration

Robert Casey, Regulatory Analyst Supervisor, Florida Public Service
Commission

[^1]: 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).

[^2]: *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.

[^3]: *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).

[^4]: *See* Florida PSC Petition.

[^5]: *See* 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, *Public Notice*, DA 01-341 (rel. Feb. 9, 2001) (February 9
    Public Notice).

[^6]: Florida Public Service Commission Supplemental Filing to Further
    Support 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 (July 28, 2001) (Florida PSC
    Supplemental Petition).

[^7]: *NPA Allocation Plan and Assignment Guidelines*, INC 96-0308-011
    (Feb. 28, 2000) at § 9.2.2 (INC Guidelines).

[^8]: *See* Florida PSC Petition at 5.

[^9]: Florida PSC Supplemental Petition at 3.

[^10]: *See* *supra* note 7.

[^11]: *See* Florida PSC Petition at 4-6; Florida PSC Supplemental
    Petition at 5-6.

[^12]: We note that disparities in the number of years between the
    projected lives of two area codes creates the potential need for an
    additional area code within a shortened period of time, which would
    accelerate the use of an additional area code.

[^13]: The Florida PSC notes in its supplemental petition that the
    growth in region A is "phenomenal," so the region's projected
    exhaust of 24.6 years is probably too high. A decrease in projected
    exhaust for region A would further decrease the difference between
    the lifetimes between regions A and B. *See* Florida PSC
    Supplemental Petition at 3.

[^14]: *See* Florida PSC Supplemental Petition at 6.