Decision 00-05-025 May 4, 2000

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's Own Motion into Competition for Local Exchange Service.	Rulemaking 95-04-043 (Filed April 26, 1995)		^
Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion into Competition for Local Exchange Service.	Investigation 95-04-044 (Filed April 26, 1995)

OPINION

I. Introduction

By this decision, we address the Petition to Modify Decision (D.) 00-01-023, as filed by the City of San Diego (City). We also address the City's "Emergency Motion" seeking deferral of further implementation of both phases of the previously approved area code relief plan for the 619 area code. In the interests of addressing the City's pleadings expeditiously, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a ruling on March 1, 2000, shortening the time for responses to the City's Petition, and calling for responses both to the Petition and to the Motion by March 9, 2000.

As decided herein, we deny the City's Petition to Modify D.00-01-023, seeking to reinstate permissive dialing of the 858 area code and to implement a seven-digit overlay as interim relief in the San Diego region. In D.00-01-023, we denied the Petition to Modify D.98-06-018, as filed by Robert Kuczewski, seeking to reverse the previously approved relief plan and to impose a seven-digit overlay for the San Diego region. In D.98-06-018, we adopted a 619 numbering

plan area (NPA) relief plan for the San Diego region to be implemented in two phases. In Phase 1, a new 858 NPA was authorized in the northern region, with permissive dialing of the new 858 area code beginning on June 12, 1999, and mandatory dialing beginning on December 11, 1999. In Phase 2, a new 935 NPA was authorized for the eastern region, with permissive dialing to begin on June 10, 2000, and mandatory dialing to begin on December 9, 2000.

As explained below, we find that it is too late to reverse the first phase of NPA relief, as proposed by the City. The 858 NPA, created in Phase 1, shall thus remain in effect. We also determine, however, that the second phase of the 619 NPA should be deferred, at least temporarily, to provide additional time to give further consideration to the use of number pooling and other conservation measures to extend the life of the 619 NPA. Thus, we grant the City's "Emergency Motion," in part, to the extent it seeks a deferral of the second phase of relief in the 619 NPA. We decline, however, to grant the City's request to implement a seven-digit overlay.

Parties filing comments either in response to the ALJ ruling or to the pleadings of the City, or both, in addition to the City, included Pacific Bell (Pacific), GTE California Incorporated (GTEC), a joint group of parties representing competitive local carriers,¹ the Cellular Carriers Association of California (CCAC), the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), the Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN), and Robert M. Kuczewski.