# DA 00-1806

# Released: August 9, 2000

> **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**
>
> **NSD File No. L-00-161**
>
> **CC Docket 96-98**
>
> **Pleading Cycle Established**

## COMMENTS: September 5, 2000 REPLY COMMENTS: September 20, 2000

> In this Public Notice, the Common Carrier Bureau seeks comment on the
> request of the State of New York Department of Public Service (NYDPS)
> for the release of a new area code to provide relief for the 716 area
> code. The North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) has
> declined to release the relief code because the NYDPS did not adhere
> to the industry guidelines against splitting rate centers in area code
> relief planning.
>
> 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 guidelines 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 clearly outside the industry
> guidelines.[^5]
>
> In an Opinion and Order issued on May 22, 2000, the NYDPS ordered
> implementation of a geographic split of the existing 716 numbering
> plan area (NPA) along county boundaries.[^6] Because the relief plan
> would result in the splitting of approximately 14 rate centers between
> the old and the new NPAs, however, the NANPA determined that releasing
> the requested code would violate the industry's area code relief
> guidelines.[^7] Consequently, on June 12, 2000, the NANPA informed the
> NYDPS that its request for a new area code had been denied.[^8] On
> June 20, 2000, the NYDPS requested that the Commission direct the
> NANPA to release a new area code to provide relief for the 716
> NPA.[^9]
>
> The New York plan, by dividing rate centers, requires existing
> carriers to obtain duplicate central office (CO) codes in each NPA in
> order to continue to serve existing customers in each half of the rate
> center without requiring those customers to change their seven-digit
> telephone numbers. This aspect of the plan does not conform with the
> industry's area code relief guidelines. The NYDPS states, however,
> that the impact of the rate center split is minimal. The NYDPS
> estimates that the division of these rate centers will necessitate the
> duplication of approximately 29 CO codes. In addition, the NYDPS has
> implemented thousands block pooling in the 716 NPA, already resulting
> in the preservation of 60 CO codes, and is engaged in CO code
> reclamation activities. Because of its aggressive pursuit of measures
> designed to optimize the use of numbering resources, the NYDPS
> contends that the guidelines should be administered flexibly to allow
> the 716 NPA split. Moreover, the NYDPS contends that its decision
> reflects viewpoints not represented in the development of the
> industry's area code relief guidelines and, therefore, the Commission
> should defer to the decision of the NYDPS as consistent with the
> Commission's delegation of area code relief implementation to the
> states. We hereby seek comment on the NYDPS's request for the release
> of a new area code to provide relief for the 716 NPA, and on the
> NYDPS's assertion that its decision reflects viewpoints not
> represented in the industry guidelines development process. We also
> generally seek comment on the issue of splitting of rate centers, and
> on the inter-relationship between the area code relief authority
> delegated to state commissions and the industry area code relief
> guidelines regarding this issue.
>
> We also seek comment on the tension between the policy against
> splitting rate centers in area code relief planning and rate center
> consolidation. Rate center consolidation involves creating larger
> geographic areas in which individual NXX codes can be used by
> consolidating or combining existing rate centers. Because carriers
> must obtain numbering resources in each rate center in which they wish
> to provide service, the Commission has encouraged state regulatory
> commissions to proceed as expeditiously as possible to consolidate
> rate centers.[^10] State commissions may consolidate rate centers
> without any additional delegation of authority from the Commission.
> Although we believe that rate center consolidations will assist in
> optimizing numbering resources, we understand that as state
> commissions consolidate rate centers it may become increasingly
> difficult to avoid rate center splits altogether. Thus, we seek
> comment on this issue.
>
> A copy of the NYDPS Letter will be available during regular business
> hours at the FCC Reference Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
> Suite CY-A257, Washington, D.C. 20554, (202) 418-0270. Interested
> parties may file comments concerning this matter on or before
> **September 5, 2000**, and reply comments on or before **September 20,
> 2000**. All filings must reference **File No. NSD-L-00-161 and CC
> Docket 96-98**. Send an original and four copies to the Commission
> Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Suite
> TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554 and two copies to Al McCloud, Network
> Services Division, Portals II, 445 12th 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.[^11] 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.[^12]
>
> 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.[^13] Other rules
> pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Section
> 1.1206(b) as well.
>
> For further information contact Aaron Goldberger of the Common Carrier
> Bureau, Network Services Division, at (202) 418-2320 or
> agoldber@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 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*)

[^3]:
    > *Id.*

[^4]:
    > 47 C.F.R. § 52.19.

[^5]:
    > *See* Letter from Lawrence E. Strickling, Chief, Common Carrier
    > Bureau, to Lawrence G. Malone, General Counsel, NYDPS, dated
    > December 3, 1999.

[^6]:
    > *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).

[^7]:
    > *See* Letter from Ronald R. Conners, Director, North American
    > Numbering Plan Administration, to Janet Deixler, Secretary, NYDPS,
    > dated June 12, 2000.

[^8]:
    > *Id.*

[^9]:
    > Letter from Lawrence G. Malone, General Counsel, NYDPS, to
    > Lawrence E. Strickling, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, dated June
    > 20, 2000 (NYDPS Letter).

[^10]:
    > *Petition 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, 215, and 717*,
    > Memorandum Opinion and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC
    > Rcd 19009, 19029 (1998) (*Pennsylvania Numbering Order*) *recon.
    > pending*.

[^11]: *See* *generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200-1.1216.

[^12]:
    > 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206.

[^13]:
    > 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).