VI. Assignment of Proceeding

Michael R. Peevey is the Assigned Commissioner and Thomas R. Pulsifer is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.

Findings of Fact

1. In D.05-08-040, this Commission adopted an overlay plan for the 310 area code, and directed implementation to commence based on the fact that number supplies would not otherwise remain in sufficient quantities to meet demand.

2. The Commission has undertaken numerous reforms since 1999 to ensure that numbering resources in the 310 area code are being utilized as efficiently as possible.

3. The Commission's staff has regularly monitored the status of numbering resources in the 310 area code since the 310 Number Utilization Report was released in the year 2000, and the Commission has diligently pursued all feasible means to ensure that numbers are allocated efficiently, fairly, and consistently.

4. The Commission relied on up-to-date numbering data in assessing the need for and timing of 310 area code relief, as adopted in D.05-08-040.

5. Even to the extent that future expectations as to demand growth for certain customer categories may have declined, the 310 area code still has technically already reached exhaust since no more full NXX codes remain available for assignment to carriers.

6. The question of rate center consolidation and/or elimination warrants further consideration as a potential long term strategy for extending area code lives, but is not a feasible alternative to implementing the 310/424 area code overlay.

7. Even assuming an ambitious schedule, proceedings to consolidate rate centers in the 310 area code could not be initiated and concluded quickly enough in order to avoid numbering supplies running out.

8. The Commission previously considered a Draft Decision as to whether this Commission has the authority to impose guidelines regarding the six-month inventory level of numbers that carriers may retain, and declined to adopt guidelines beyond what is already authorized by the FCC.

9. The FCC has determined that a carrier should be able to retain a sufficient number of thousands-blocks to meet its six-month forecast.

10. A relatively constant supply of carrier inventory is not evidence that plenty of numbers remain available in the 310 area code, but merely indicates that carriers have been drawing down the remaining supply of numbers to meet demand from sources other than carrier inventory.

11. Carriers generally have satisfied ongoing demand in the 310 area code by drawing new numbers from either the NXX lottery (where applicable) or through the thousand-block number pool.

12. Under current carrier inventory rules, carriers cannot obtain new numbers unless they can demonstrate a clear need for additional resources.

13. The County has not convincingly shown that recent industry mergers will significantly increase the available supply of numbering resources in the 310 area code, and certainly not to the point where the overlay is no longer needed.

14. The County has failed to show that 310 area code number shortages could be resolved by requiring the porting of unassigned blocks of carrier inventory, particularly in view of FCC rules permitting carriers to retain an inventory level based on carriers' six-month forecasts.

15. Even assuming that UNP is otherwise technically and operationally feasible, the Commission does not presently have jurisdictional authority to implement UNP.

16. The County has provided no convincing argument that the supply of numbers held in carrier inventory will necessarily change due to the FCC's expected adoption of a new "numbers-based" universal service mechanism.

17. In response to the FCC's "numbers-based" charge, a carrier might choose to simply pass on the charge to its end-use customers through retail rates instead of eliminating numbers otherwise needed for its inventory.

18. The County has not provided a justification for modifying D.05-08-040 to halt the overlay on the basis that the Commission's statewide 1+10-digit dialing policy dispute should be resolved first.

19. By proposing that the Commission petition the FCC for a waiver of the 1+10-digit dialing requirement, the County is likewise repeating an argument that was already addressed in D.05-08-040.

Conclusions of Law

1. The County has not provided a proper basis for modifying D.05-08-040 in order to halt implementation of the 310/424 area code overlay indefinitely in order to conduct additional investigation and study.

2. The County has identified no new information that would change the conclusion reached in D.05-08-040 that a new area code must be implemented without delay in order to provide for a continuing supply of numbers in the 310 area code region.

3. The Commission properly recognized in D.05-08-040 that it is required under FCC rules to open a new area code where necessary to avoid code exhaustion and denial of numbering resources necessary for competitive service.

4. The Commission does not have delegated authority from the FCC to establish rules or requirements for carriers to reduce their own inventories of numbers below the level of a six-month supply based upon carriers' own forecasts.

5. Because the FCC has not delegated authority to this Commission to impose carrier inventory rules, the Commission previously concluded in D.05-08-040 that there was no basis to delay implementation of area code relief in the 310 area in order to develop carrier inventory guidelines.

6. The Commission does not have delegated authority from the FCC to implement UNP as an alternative way to meet carriers' need for new numbers in lieu of the 310/424 area code overlay.

7. Although the Commission should continue to explore ongoing opportunities to improve the utilization of numbering supplies as a long-term goal, including the potential for rate center consolidation/elimination, the Commission cannot reasonably postpone implementation of the 310/424 area code overlay in order to pursue additional efforts to extend the life of the 310 area code.

8. The Petition for Modification of D.05-08-040 should be denied.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Modification of Decision 05-08-040 filed by the Los Angeles County is hereby denied.

This order is effective today.

Dated April 27, 2006, at San Francisco, California.

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page