28859.hrg.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING PLAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE APPROVAL OF NUMBERING PLAN AREA RELIEF FOR THE 208 AREA CODE. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. GNR-T-00-36

NOTICE OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS AND HEARINGS

NOTICE OF EXTENDED COMMENT DEADLINE

ORDER NO.  28859

On October 27, 2000, a Petition for telephone area code relief was filed by NeuStar, Inc., the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (Administrator, NANPA). The NANPA is appointed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to manage the exhaustion and issuance of telephone area codes. In its Petition, the Administrator projected that Idaho’s “208” area code would run out of telephone numbers (i.e., “exhaust”) in the first quarter of 2003. In May 2001, NeuStar updated its projection to indicate that the supply of telephone numbers for the “208” area code will exhaust during the third quarter of 2003. The Administrator’s Petition represents that it was filed on its own behalf and that of “the Idaho Telecommunications Industry” (Industry), which the Petition states “is composed of current and prospective telecommunications carriers operating in, or considering operations within, the state of Idaho.” In Order No. 28819, the Commission discussed the possibility of a technology-specific overlay, an option not presented in the Petition, as well as two preferred options to effectuate a geographic split of area codes in the event a technology-specific overlay is found to be infeasible or undesirable. The Commission directed that this case be processed under Modified Procedure and established a deadline for written comment. In this Order, the Commission schedules four public workshops and hearings and extends the comment deadline until November 13, 2001.
THE PETITION
NeuStar projects that, absent numbering plan area relief, the supply of telephone numbers for the 208 area code will exhaust during the third quarter of 2003. The Petition asserts that the Administrator convened a telecommunications industry meeting in Boise on September 28, 2000, to review and discuss alternatives for relief of the 208 NPA. The meeting participants reviewed the various alternatives and apparently reached consensus to recommend to the Commission an all-services distributed overlay plan as the preferred means of relief for the 208 NPA. The Petition asserts the Industry members recommend the overlay alternative because telephone customers do not need to change their area codes, its projected life of 10 years is longer than the projected lives of the other alternatives, and it does not reduce the geographic size of the NPA. However, the relief plan endorsed by NueStar would require 10-digit dialing for all local calls within and between the 208 NPA and the new overlay NPA.
Two other viable alternatives discussed in the September 28, 2000 Industry meeting proposed splitting the state geographically into separate area codes. Both of the plans call for the state to be divided south of White Bird in the north and on either the western or eastern edge of the Magic Valley in the south, thus separating southwest Idaho from northern and eastern Idaho. Unlike the overlay plan recommended by NueStar and the telecommunications industry, these plans would retain 7-digit dialing for local calls within each area code for the present time. It should also be noted that a plan to split northern and southern Idaho was initially considered, but it did not meet Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines for new NPAs.
The Petition recommends, if the Commission approves the all-services distributed overlay endorsed by NueStar, that permissive 10 digit dialing begin on January 12, 2002, and the conversion to mandatory 10 digit dialing begin on July 13, 2002. The Petition states that adhering to the proposed time frame will avoid the denial or delay of services to telecommunications customers due to the unavailability of telephone numbers.
The Petition did not mention the possibility of a service-specific or technology-specific overlay, presumably because such an overlay is currently prohibited by the FCC. However, the FCC is reconsidering this prohibition. In its Second Report and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-98 and CC Docket No. 99-200, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-200, released December 29, 2000, the FCC said:
We conclude that we should revisit the prohibition against service-specific and technology-specific overlays. We are persuaded by commenters who argue that this action is warranted by changes in the use of numbering resources that have occurred since the Commission’s previous decisions. State commissions, in particular, have urged that we permit them to implement service and technology-specific overlays to address the escalating demand for numbering resources. They argue that there is widespread public support for such overlays, especially as a means of avoiding new area codes for home and business phones. By temporarily diverting a portion of the demand for numbering resources in existing area codes, implementation of service- or technology-specific overlays may help ease the transition to needed area code relief prior to the complete implementation of pooling, reducing end-user costs and inconveniences.

(Paragraph 128)
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS IN ORDER NO. 28819
The Commission preliminarily found in Order No. 28819 that the technology-specific overlay may offer the most benefits for least costs to the public. Nevertheless, it has at least three problems. First is the FCC’s current prohibition, second is the question of whether it can be implemented before the “208” area code is exhausted and third is the probability that some wireless carriers may believe it will disadvantage them. We asked that all parties interested in this option, either pro or con, comment on it.
Of the other two options presented to us, i.e., an all-services overlay and a geographic split, we noted that the Petition correctly states that the overlay alternative would not cause any current telephone customers to change their “208” area code, would have a longer projected life than any of the geographic splits, and would not reduce the geographic size of the NPA. The Commission received approximately 111 public comments responding to the Notice of Petition between January 2, 2001 and August 23, 2001. Although the Commission had not yet initiated a formal comment period, those who responded almost unanimously objected to the prospect of 10-digit dialing for local calls that would be required by an all-services overlay. Given this public sentiment and the fact that Idaho’s telecommunications providers would not be significantly harmed by a geographic split, the Commission preliminarily found that a geographic split is the better of these two alternatives. Order No. 28819 at 4. However, proponents of an all-service overlay were advised that they might still present evidence in their comments to persuade the Commission to alter its preliminary findings.
After reviewing Industry’s geographic split options, the Commission preliminarily found it reasonable to narrow the options under consideration to those most advantageous to a majority of Idahoans. Id. at 7. Option Nos. 1 and 2 are attractive because they have relatively balanced projected area code lifetimes, disrupt a minimum of existing EAS routes or communities with common interests, and preserve 7-digit dialing for local calls within each area code for the present time. Consequently, the Commission preliminarily found that Option Nos. 1 and 2 deserve consideration and should be the focus of industry, Staff and public comments. Id.
Persons favoring implementation of a geographic split should comment on: 1) whether a geographic split is preferable to a technology-specific overlay; 2) which geographic split option should be implemented; 3) whether a better geographic split exists that the Commission did not consider (e.g., one that better equalizes the projected lives of the two area codes while minimizing disruption to communities of interest and EAS); and 4) which region should retain the “208” area code. In regards to comments addressing which region should retain the “208” area code, commentors should address the appropriateness of implementing the FCC’s guideline that the area with the longest projected area code life after the split is the one that should have the initial area code change.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS AND HEARINGS
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Commission has scheduled four public workshops and hearings to discuss the proposed area code options in:

Twin Falls on Thursday, October 18, 2001 at the Weston Plaza located at 1350 Blue Lakes Blvd. The public workshop will begin at 6:30 p.m. MDT, with the public hearing to follow at 7:30 p.m. MDT.

Coeur d’Alene on Wednesday, October 24, 2001 at the Kootenai County Administration Building located at 451 Government Way. The public workshop will begin at 6:30 p.m. PDT, with the public hearing to follow at 7:30 p.m. PDT.

Boise on Wednesday, November 7, 2001 in the Idaho Public Utilities Commission hearing room located at 472 West Washington Street. The public workshop will begin at 6:30 p.m. MST, with the public hearing to follow at 7:30 p.m. MST.

Pocatello on Thursday, November 8, 2001 at the West Coast Hotel located at 1555 Pocatello Creek Rd. The public workshop will begin at 6:30 p.m. MST, with the public hearing to follow at 7:30 p.m. MST.

The public workshops will offer the public an opportunity to meet with the Commission Staff to ask questions and receive information about relief proposed for the 208 Numbering Plan Area.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the authority and power granted under Title 61 of the Idaho Code and the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.000 et seq.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all hearings will be conducted pursuant to the Rules of Procedure adopted by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission. IDAPA 31.01.01.000 et seq.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all hearings and prehearing conferences in this matter will be held in facilities meeting the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In order to participate in or to understand testimony and argument at a public hearing, persons needing help of a sign language interpreter or other assistance may ask the Commission to provide a sign language interpreter or other assistance as required under the ADA. The request for assistance must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing by contacting the Commission Secretary at:
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone] (TELEPHONE)
[phone] (FAX)

NOTICE OF EXTENDED COMMENT DEADLINE
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that in addition to the public workshops and hearings, the Commission extends the comment deadline to solicit further written comments regarding the proposed area code options. Any person or party desiring to state a position on the proposed area code options or protest the use of Modified Procedure in Case No. GNR-T-00-36 may file a written comment with the Commission no later than Tuesday, November 13, 2001. The Commission has extended the comment period beyond the standard 21 days to give the public additional time to provide written comment regarding the proposed area code options. Reference IDAPA 31.01.01.202.02.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that given the preliminary findings made in Order No. 28819, the Commission specifically solicits comment from Commission Staff, the telecommunications industry and the public regarding:
1. The merits of a technology-specific overlay.
2. Which of the two proposed geographic split options should be adopted, and if split, which region should retain the “208” area code.

Interested persons or parties who disagree with the Commission’s preliminary findings may object and explain their reasoning why an all-services overlay would be preferable to a geographic split.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the comment must contain a statement of reasons supporting the comment. These comments should contain the case caption and case number shown on the first page of this document. Written comments concerning this Application shall be mailed to the Commission and the Applicant at the addresses reflected below:

Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074

Street Address for Express Mail:

472 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83702-5983 Joe Cocke
Sr. NPA Relief Planner – Western Region
NeuStar, Inc.
North American Numbering Plan Administrator
1445 E. Los Angeles Avenue, Suite 301-N
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Email: [e-mail]

Kimberly Wheeler
Attorney at Law
NeuStar, Inc.
North American Numbering Plan Administrator
1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
Email: [e-mail]
Persons desiring to submit comments via e-mail may do so by accessing the Commission’s homepage located at www.puc.state.id.us under the “Comments and Questions” icon. Once at the “Comments and Questions” icon, fill in the case number as it appears on the front of this document, and enter your comments. These comments should also be sent to the Applicant at the e-mail addresses listed above.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Petition in Case No. GNR-T-00-36 together with accompanying exhibits and workpapers can be reviewed at the Commission’s office during regular business hours.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that public workshops and hearings take place at the locations and dates as set out in this Notice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the comment deadline in this case be extended to November 13, 2001.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of September 2001.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

O:GNR-T-00-36_ln2
NPA Relief Planning Guidelines at § 5(f).

NOTICE OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS AND HEARINGS
NOTICE OF EXTENDED COMMENT DEADLINE
ORDER NO. 28859 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
September 26, 2001