4. Description of Application 07-06-018

On June 18, 2007, Neustar, Inc., the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) filed this application seeking Commission authorization for numbering relief in the 760 area code. The application states that available central office codes will be exhausted in the 760 area code in the third quarter of 2009. NANPA requests, on behalf of telecommunications carriers operating or contemplating operations in the 760 numbering plan area, either an all services distributed overlay relief plan for this numbering plan area or a two-way geographic split.⁴ NANPA provided a proposed 13-month implementation schedule for an all-services overlay and a proposed 15-month implementation schedule for the geographic split alternative.

As provided in Rule 1.9(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, NANPA served a notice of availability of its application on all 760 central office code or block holders and all cities and counties in the 760 area.

No protests were filed.

NANPA stated that in 1998 it formulated a split plan due to the high demand for diminishing numbering resources which was approved by the Commission, but, as noted above, was subsequently suspended by the Commission which instead ordered development and implementation of more efficient means of using numbering resources to extend the life of the area codes.

In April 2006, NANPA prepared a Number Resource and Utilization Forecast and NPA Exhaust Analysis for the 760 area code which concluded that the 760 area code would exhaust in the third quarter 2009. Based on this conclusion, NANPA convened an Industry Relief meeting on October 10, 2006, to consider four alternatives.⁵ Three of the alternatives consist of splits or geographically separating the current 760 area code into two different area codes. In a split, one side of a designated line retains the existing area code, while the other side implements the new area code. The fourth alternative was an all-services distributed overlay.⁶ The industry representatives reached consensus and decided to recommend the all-services overlay to the Commission as their choice for relief in the 760 area code and, in the event the Commission chooses a geographic split, Alternative Number 4.

NANPA then conducted a public comment process that included the following public participation and local jurisdiction meetings:

Type of Meeting	Date	Location
Public Participation Local Jurisdiction	February 5, 2007	Apple Valley
Public Participation	February 6, 2007	Palm Springs
Public Participation Local Jurisdiction	February 21, 2007	Carlsbad
Public Participation	February 22, 2007	El Centro

The Commission's Public Advisor also accepted written comments via postal and electronic mail.

Of the more than 1,300 comments received by the Commission staff, 601 supported the alternative one split, 163 preferred the alternative four split, and 261 supported the alternative three all-service overlay. Thus, about 75% of the commenters preferred a split of some type, with only 25% in favor of an overlay. Attachment C is a summary of the comments.

On March 14 and April 18, 2007, NANPA reconvened the industry representatives to review the public comment and issue a final recommendation. The industry consensus recommendation was an all-services overlay. The representatives supported this option because it would be quicker to implement than a geographic split and, in their opinion, would be least disruptive to customers. The representatives discounted the significant public support for a geographic split because "public participation meeting attendees generally expressed their preference to keep their 760 area code, and many assumed they would do so in the event of a split."⁷

AT&T California and Verizon advocated for the all services overlay and contended that it would be more difficult to comply with number portability requirements in an area with a geographic split. Cox Communications and Citizens/Frontier supported a geographic split with the western or San Diego side retaining the 760 area code.

Should the Commission order a geographic split, however, the industry representatives recommended alternative four.

Specifically, the industry's all-services overlay recommendation was to superimpose a new area code, 442, over the same geographic area as the current 760. All existing customers would retain the 760 area code and not be required to change telephone numbers. As required by Federal Communication Commission regulations and California uniform dialing, the recommended relief plan will require 1 + 10 digit dialing for all calls within and between 760 and 442.

The industry representatives' recommended geographic split alternative would split the current 760 area code into two portions. The southwestern portion would include 21 rate centers in Northern San Diego County and the Imperial Valley. The other portion would cover the northern and eastern regions of the current 760 area and would include 63 rate centers. The industry did not recommend which portion should receive the new 442 area code, but all customers in that portion would be required to use the new area code. Customers would continue to use 7-digit dialing within their home area code, and 1 + 10 digit dialing to reach all other area codes.

Finally, the industry representatives included a 13-month customer education plan for an all-services overlay and a 15-month plan for a two-way geographic split.

4.1. Response to the Application

On July 20, 2007, the Joint Telecommunications Carriers⁸ responded in support of the all services overlay alternative set forth in the application. The Joint Carriers stated that an overlay allows all customers to retain their existing telephone numbers, avoiding expense and inconvenience especially to small businesses. With the successful implementation of the 424/310 overlay, these carriers concluded that overlays, rather than splits, should be the Commission's preferred manner of addressing the need for new numbering resources. The Carriers explained that numerous other states have adopted overlays even for geographically large areas, such as 760. The Carriers concluded that the Commission should focus on the harm caused by requiring existing customers to change their telephone numbers, rather than the size of the existing 760.

⁴ NANPA's specific geographic split varies slightly from the 1999 plan in that 21 rate centers (rather than 14) in northern San Diego and Imperial counties comprise the new area code. Split alternative four is shown on the map in Attachment A.

⁵ The four alternatives are described in Attachment A, with maps depicting split alternatives one and four.

⁶ An overlay keeps the geographic boundaries of an existing area code intact, and a new area code is added to the same geographic area. New customers, or customers adding additional lines, could be assigned numbers with the new overlay area code. It is an FCC requirement that 10 digits are to be used to dial all calls using the area code and the 7-digit number after an overlay has been implemented in an area code. Calls are billed according to the existing rate structures and the use of the new area code does not effect the rate paid for a call.

⁷ Application at page 8.

⁸ Verizon Wireless, Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California, Sprint Nextel Corporation, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, dba AT&T Mobility, Omnipoint Communications Inc. dba T-Mobile, Sprint -Nextel, and Verizon California, Inc.