II. Process for Planning and Implementing New Area Codes

The creation of a new area code is required when the supply of numbering resources available to a region covered by an existing area code are insufficient to meet the demand for new numbers. The process for implementing new area codes is governed both by state statute, applicable Commission decisions, and industry guidelines. California state statutes prescribe requirements for customer notification, establishment of new NPA boundaries and transitional dialing periods.

A. Initial Steps to Relieve Code Exhaust

In March 1998, the NANPA first declared a "jeopardy" situation³ in the 909 area code. Beginning in April 1998, NXX codes in the 909 NPA became subject to rationing through a monthly lottery. The industry then proceeded through the prescribed process required to implement a new area code in response to impending code exhaust.⁴ By letter to the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dated December 7, 1998, the NANPA, presented two alternative NPA relief plans for the 909 area code.

By Decision (D.) 99-09-059, dated March 18, 1999, the Commission determined that a new area code was required to relieve code exhaust in the 909 area code and approved an industry plan that entailed two-phase geographic split of the 909 area code followed by an overlay. Implementation of the 909 area code relief plan was suspended, however, pursuant to D.99-12-051, as part of a broader statewide Commission initiative to undertake a comprehensive menu of measures to assure that numbering resources were being utilized as efficiently as possible before imposing any further area code changes on Californians. We

undertook these measures pursuant to the delegated authority granted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in a September 15, 1999 Order.⁵

B. Measures to Extend the Life of the Existing 909 Area Code

Since suspension of the previous 909 area code relief plan, the Commission has made significant progress in promoting more efficient utilization of numbering resources through number pooling and related conservation measures. These measures have extended the life of the 909 area code without the burden of a new area code.

In suspending the 909 area code plan, we observed that claims of impending exhaust were based merely upon carriers' forecasts of numbering requirements. No independent analysis had been provided, however, concerning carriers' actual utilization of numbering resources. Assembly Bill 406, enacted in 1999 and codified as Pub. Util. Code § 7937, required the Commission to obtain historical telephone number usage data from every telecommunications company in California. Accordingly, the staff undertook a study of the 909 area code number utilization, and on November 28, 2000, the Telecommunications Division (TD) released its Number Utilization Report on the 909 area code.

In compiling this report, the TD report relied upon representations of carriers as to the accuracy and reliability of reported number utilization. To provide greater confidence in the reliability and accuracy of number utilization data reported by carriers, an independent audit of numbering resources in the 909 area code was authorized.⁶ By ALJ ruling dated June 14, 2001, TD was directed to audit number resource utilization reported by carriers in the 909 area code. The 909 Audit Report was released on December 21, 2001. Comments were filed in response to the 909 Audit Report on January 15, 2002.

The TD audit report indicated that number pooling has been largely successful in meeting the needs of pooling participants through better utilization of existing numbering resources. At the present time, only paging carriers do not participate in the 909 number pool. Paging carriers are still dependent on the semi-monthly lottery rationing for their numbering needs.

Based on the Audit Report findings, the TD staff concluded that the numbering needs of all carriers, including cellular carriers, in the 909 area code could probably be met through approximately 2003 from the 985 blocks then in the 909 number pool, assuming cellular carriers were to begin number pooling in November 2002. At the time of the Audit Report, there were 13 prefixes available for the 909 lottery and 23 prefixes identified as reserved for the number pool. The TD Audit Report recommended that the Commission move forward in adopting a new area code plan for the 909 area code within six months from that date (i.e., December 21, 2001) in order to provide adequate time for carriers to implement an area code change.

In view of the findings of the Audit Report, the Director of TD sent a letter dated March 14, 2002, to the NANPA Relief Planner, indicating that the 909 relief plans that had been submitted to the Commission in December 1998 should be revised as necessary to reflect more current conditions. The Director requested that an industry meeting be convened and that an updated industry proposal for a 909 area code relief plan be submitted to the Commission by June 17, 2002.

In accordance with the letter from the TD Director, NANPA notified the industry on March 27, 2002, that an updated plan for 909 area code relief needed to be addressed. Industry members met via conference call on May 1, 2002 to discuss various updated relief alternatives to arrive at an optimal overall plan. Industry members evaluated seven updated relief alternatives, and reached consensus to recommend that the Commission adopt and implement either Alternative #6 (an all-services overlay) or Alternative #7 (a two-way geographic split) for the 909 area code. On June 13, 2002, the NANPA formally filed a Petition on behalf of the industry members seeking Commission approval of either of these options for a 909 area code change.

As an additional measure to extend the life of the 909 area code, the Commission filed a petition with the FCC on September 5, 2002,⁷ seeking a waiver from the FCC "contamination" or number use, threshold requirement. Specifically, the Commission requested the FCC to grant California the authority to increase the existing 10% "contamination" rate. Under FCC rules, carriers must donate to each area code's common number pool all thousand-blocks of telephone numbers that contain less than 10% "contaminated," or used, numbers. An increased level of allowable contamination or usage rates for poolable thousand-number blocks (from current 10% to 25%) increases the number of

thousand-blocks that are available to all carriers through each area code's number pool. By increasing the number of available thousand-blocks in this manner, the life of the 909 area code can be extended.

The FCC acted upon this Petition by its Order adopted August 5, 2003 and released August 11, 2003. While the FCC declined to grant a statewide waiver of the 10% contamination rate, it did find good cause to justify raising the contamination level in the 310 and 909 area codes, on an interim basis, while the Commission implements area code relief in those areas. The FCC concluded that the additional thousand-blocks that will be made available by increasing the level of contamination from 10% to 25% will extend the life of the 909 area code by one additional month. The FCC thus expressed its expectation that the Commission would now implement relief in the 909 area code, and make use of the additional thousand blocks to extend the implementation period accordingly.

C. Current Need to Open New Area Code

The public interest demanded an accounting of what numbers are actually in use before we proceeded with 909 area code relief plan. With that accounting now completed, we can state confidently that a rigorous scrutiny of existing number utilization has been undertaken, and several reforms have been instituted to ensure more efficient utilization of scarce numbering resources in the 909 area code. Customers have been spared the risk of being prematurely forced to undergo an area code change.

We remain cognizant of our obligation, however, to provide for adequate numbering resources so that the public may have a competitive choice in selecting a local carrier. The FCC has required that in any area code in jeopardy where the Commission implements a number pooling trial, steps must be taken

to adopt an area code back-up relief plan that could be implemented if numbering resources were in imminent danger of being exhausted.

The passage of time since the release of the TD audit report has provided the opportunity to evaluate the results of number pooling, as well as other number conservation measures adopted by this Commission and the FCC. As of the date of its updated filing of relief plan options in June 2002, the NANPA reported that 18 codes remained available for assignment, and 9 codes were set aside for number pooling. The forecasted demand rate at that time was 81 codes per year, including the non-local number portability (LNP) demand and requirements to stock the number pool. As of August 2003, there were 2 central office codes remaining for the set-aside allotment to the 909 number pool. There were 6 codes left for assignment through lottery rationing in the 909 area code. The NANPA's projected exhaust for the 909 area code is the fourth quarter of calendar year 2003.

Given the limited number of remaining prefix codes available for assignment either to the lottery or to the number pool, we find that implementation of the adopted 909 area code change plan must go forward now in view of impending code exhaust.

D. Public Notification and Meetings of Area Code Change

The industry team held an initial round of public meetings in August 1998 in response to the initial notification to NANPA of impending number exhaust in the 909 area code, in conformance with Pub. Util. Code § 7930. In view of the passage of time since these initial meetings and the summer of 2002 issuance of updated relief proposals submitted by the industry, the Commission scheduled a new round of public and "local jurisdiction" meetings in July 2003.

Although these new meetings were not required by statute, they provided the public and local jurisdiction officials an opportunity to express their views and provide input concerning the plans filed in June 2002.

As part of the 909 area code outreach efforts, Commissioner Loretta Lynch sent letters to some 320 public agencies and elected officials notifying them of the public and local jurisdiction meetings, asking them to attend, and enclosing informational materials regarding the potential area code changes. Letters were sent to city council members, mayors, city managers, fire chiefs, police chiefs, Riverside and San Bernardino County Boards of Supervisors, California State assembly members and senators, and U.S. congresspersons and senators associated with regions covered by the 909 area code.

Two local jurisdiction meetings were held in each of the affected counties (San Bernardino and Riverside Counties) on July 11, 2003. The Commission also held five meetings to present the proposed alternatives to the general public and gather their input. These meetings were held in Riverside City on July 12, San Bernardino on July 15, Murieta and Moreno Valley on July 16, and Ontario on July 17, 2003. We welcome the opportunity to receive this input in considering options for area code planning that are in the public interest.

At the public and local jurisdiction meetings held by the Commission in July 2003, participants were presented with the seven updated relief alternative plans for the 909 area code, and provided the opportunity to express their concerns and preferences among the proposed alternatives.

The overlay, Alternative #6, was not favored by most participants at the local jurisdiction and public meetings. Many attendees expressed opposition to the overlay, calling it difficult or cumbersome. Several speakers mentioned how confusing it would be to the senior community.

Of the seven alternatives under consideration, the majority of speakers expressed a preference for either Alternative #1 or #7. These two alternatives are very similar variations on a two-way geographic split. The split boundary line runs along rate center boundaries in a west to east direction approximately through the center of the 909 area code, creating a northern "Area A" and a southern "Area B." Under both Alternative #1 and #7, Area A would keep the 909 area code following the split, while Area B would be assigned the 951 area code. The boundary line approximately separates Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Alternative #7 is a variation of Alternative #1, except the Calimesa rate center is moved from Area A into Area B. Otherwise, the two alternatives are the same.

At the Local Jurisdiction Meeting, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino and the Mayor of Yucaipa both expressed strong preferences for Alternative #1 because it minimizes division of communities of common interest. Alternative #1 essentially splits the area code along the counties of San Bernardino and Riverside county boundaries, keeping all of San Bernardino County in the 909 area code. Supporters of Alternative #1 believe it adversely impacts fewer residents compared to Alternative #7. Alternative #1 keeps the City of Yucaipa with neighboring communities in San Bernardino County, which supporters of Alternative #1 believe is consistent with current, well-established patterns of communications for residents within the city.