ALJ/TRP/sid Mailing 4/28/2006

Decision 06-04-072 April 27, 2006

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 DENYING THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF DECISION 05-08-040

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

OPINION DENYING THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF DECISION 05-08-040 2

I. Introduction 2

II. Procedural Requirements for Petitions for Modification 3

III. Responses to the Petition 4

IV. Consideration of the County's Claims 6

A. Claim that the Commission Relied on Outdated Data and
Erroneous Assumptions 6

1. Parties' Positions 6

2. Discussion 7

B. Claim that Rate Center Consolidation Can Defer Need
for an Overlay 11

1. Parties' Positions 11

2. Discussion 12

C. Claim that Recent Data and Industry Changes Indicate Reduced Demand for Numbers 13

1. Parties' Positions 13

2. Discussion 14

D. Claim that Existing Number Inventories are Sufficient
to Meet Demand for Numbers in the 310 Area Code 16

1. Parties' Positions 16

2. Discussion 17

E. Claim that the Commission Should Order Porting of
Unassigned Numbers 24

1. Parties' Positions 24

2. Discussion 24

F. Claims that Industry Mergers and Consolidations Will Increase the Supply of Numbers 26

1. Parties' Positions 26

2. Discussion 27

G. Claim that Number-Based Usage Fees Will Increase
Number Supplies 28

1. Parties' Positions 28

2. Discussion 29

H. Claim that the Commission Should First Resolve the Pending Issue Regarding Ten-Digit Dialing Before Implementing the Overlay 29

1. Parties' Positions 29

2. Discussion 30

I. Claim that the Commission Should Seek a Waiver of the 1+10-Digit Dialing Requirement in the 310 Area Code Overlay Region 31

1. Parties' Positions 31

2. Discussion 31

J. Claim that the Commission Should Adopt a County-Wide Number Resource Management Policy Before Implementing the Overlay 33

1. Parties' Positions 33

2. Discussion 33

V. Comments on Draft Decision 34

VI. Assignment of Proceeding 35

Findings of Fact 35

Conclusions of Law 37

ORDER 39

OPINION DENYING THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF DECISION 05-08-040

I. Introduction

By this decision, we deny the Petition for Modification of Decision (D.) 05-08-040 (Petition) filed on December 22, 2005, by the County of Los Angeles (County). In D.05-08-040, we authorized the implementation of a new 424 area code overlay of the existing 310 area code, whereby numbers are to become available for use with the new area code beginning on August 26, 2006. In its Petition, the County asks that the Commission suspend implementation of the overlay indefinitely while additional investigation is conducted.

We have carefully considered the claims made by the County to support its argument that the Commission should suspend the overlay indefinitely in order to conduct further investigation and to compile additional utilization data. As discussed below, however, we find no basis to halt the implementation of the overlay in order to conduct further inquiry, as proposed by the County.

Seven years ago, the Commission suspended implementation of the 310 area code overlay that had been approved to go forward in 1999. We suspended implementation then in response to valid concerns raised by a coalition of local governments that code exhaust assumptions underlying the order had not been adequately verified. In the intervening years, the Commission has undertaken a comprehensive program of number conservation and utilization monitoring measures to assure that any subsequent 310 area code relief plan would not go forward until proper measures had been carried out to ensure that a new area code was actually required

In August 2005, in D.05-08-040, we ultimately determined that the time had arrived for implementing the new 310/424 area code overlay, and that no further delay was feasible. The County claims, however, that the Commission has still prematurely implemented the overlay in D.05-08-040. Nonetheless, we conclude that the Commission is obligated to open the 424 area code in order to carry out its responsibility to provide numbering resources. Our mandate to implement area code relief is set forth in the September 15, 1999, FCC Order granting the Commission's April 23, 1999 Petition for Additional Delegated Authority to implement area code conservation and relief planning. The FCC Order requires that, in any area code in jeopardy where a number pooling trial had been implemented, the Commission must adopt an area code relief plan that could be implemented if numbering resources were in imminent danger of being exhausted. In D.05-08-040, we confirmed that a new area code plan must go forward in order to ensure an adequate supply of numbering resources.

As discussed below, we conclude that the County has not presented any convincing evidence to support a delay in implementing the overlay. D.05-08-040 reached the proper determination that no further delay in the implementation of the 310/424 area code overlay is feasible consistent with our mandate to provide adequate numbering resources. Accordingly, we deny the County's Petition for Modification.