NANC
2012
NANPA
Performance
Evaluation
Report
Prepared by the
Numbering Oversight Working Group 
(NOWG)
June 20, 2013
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..............................................................................................3
Section 1.0 Performance Review Methodology .............................................4
Section 2.0 NANPA Reports..........................................................................6
Section 3.0 Program Improvement Plan (PIP)...............................................8
Section 4.0 2012 Performance Survey Results .............................................9
Section 5.0 Operational Review ..................................................................13
Section 6.0 NANP Administration System (NAS) ........................................18
Section 7.0 Change Orders .........................................................................20
Section 8.0 NANPA Website .......................................................................21
Section 9.0 Conclusion and Recommendation ............................................22
Section 10.0 Acknowledgements & NOWG Participants...............................23
Section 11.0 List of Appendices ....................................................................24
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
3
Executive Summary
The North American Numbering Plan Administrator’s (NANPA) annual 
performance assessment is based upon a compilation of performance feedback 
surveys, monthly standing agenda conference calls, the annual operational 
review, and observations/interactions between the NANPA and the Numbering 
Oversight Working Group (NOWG).  The NANPA serves under a contract with 
the FCC.  The NOWG has compiled this data into an annual performance report 
for the FCC and the North American Numbering Council (NANC).  
NANPA’s rating for the 2012 performance year was determined by consensus of 
the NOWG to be Exceeded.  This rating is defined below:
EXCEEDED
Exceeded performance requirement(s) 
? Provided excellence above performance requirements and exceeded 
expectations
? Performance was well above requirements  
? Decisions and recommendations exceeded requirements and expectations
The Exceeded rating was given to the NANPA for its ongoing consistency in 
meeting or exceeding all of its requirements related to Code Administration, 
Other NANP Resources, NRUF, and NPA Relief Planning.  
Throughout 2012, the NANPA personnel continued to exhibit their 
professionalism and expertise while performing NANPA duties.
In 2012, the NANPA consistently exceeded its required responsibilities.  
Highlights included:
? The NANPA continues to perform at a high level of efficiency in the 
administration of all NANP resources.
? The NANPA proactively resolved numerous code discrepancies, and 
conducted research on the viability of transferring codes to avoid opening 
new codes for LRN routing purposes.
? During Hurricane Sandy, the NANPA assisted service providers as 
needed to process expedited requests for resources necessary to restore 
service.
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
4
Section 1.0 Performance Review Methodology
The annual NANPA Performance Evaluation is a summary of significant events 
that were accomplished during the 2012 performance year.  In addition to the 
annual performance review survey process, the NOWG’s interactions with 
NANPA included the following:
? Monthly NOWG/NANPA status meetings
? Annual operational review 
? Change Order review process
? NANPA NANC reports
? Interaction with the industry 
The methodology used by the NOWG in weighting the quantitative responses 
from the surveys is as follows:
Each rating category was assigned a point value (Exceeded = 5, More 
Than Met = 4, Met = 3, Sometimes Met = 2, Not Met =1). The NOWG 
multiplied the corresponding point value by the number of responses in 
that category and then divided the results by the total number of 
respondents to the question.
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
5
The following chart provides the definition of each rating category: 
Satisfaction Rating Used when the NANPA...
EXCEEDED
Exceeded performance requirement(s)
? Provided excellence above performance requirements and 
exceeded expectations
? Performance was well above requirements
? Decisions and recommendations exceeded requirements and 
expectations
MORE THAN
MET
Met and often went beyond performance requirement(s)
? Provided more than what was required to be successful
? Performance was more than competent and reliable
? Decisions and recommendations usually exceeded requirements 
and expectations
MET
Met performance requirement(s)
? Met requirements in order to be considered successful
? Performance was competent and reliable
? Decisions and recommendations were within requirements and 
expectations
SOMETIMES MET
Sometimes met performance requirement(s)
? Was inconsistent in meeting performance requirements
? Performance was sometimes competent and reliable
? Decisions and recommendations were sometimes within 
requirements
NOT MET
Did not meet performance requirement(s)
? Administrative tasks and objectives were not within requirements in 
order to be considered successful
? Performance was unreliable and commitments were not met
? Decisions and recommendations were inconsistent with requirements
N/A
Did not observe activity or does not apply to service provider/regulator
The NOWG will present the preliminary report to the FCC and the NANPA.  The 
final report will be presented to the NANC for endorsement and then forwarded to 
the FCC.
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
6
Section 2.0 NANPA Reports 
In 2012, the NANPA reported its monthly numbering administration activities to 
the NANC and the NOWG. The reports were consistently completed and 
delivered as required. The NANPA provided monthly reports to the FCC and 
made presentations at the March, June, September, and December NANC 
meetings.
2.1      Monthly Reports to the FCC
As per Section 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5 of the NANPA Technical Requirements 
Document, the NANPA reported monthly to the FCC on activity in applications, 
assignments and denials for Central Office (CO) Codes. They also reported on 
other numbering resources, as well as the status of NPA relief activities.
2.2      NANC Reports
In 2012 the NANPA provided monthly reports to the NANC and made 
presentations at NANC meetings on a variety of subject matter, which included 
the following: 
? Neustar’s award of a new NANP Administration contract 
? 2011 versus 2012 CO Code and NPA Inventory Status, and a summary of 
CO Code Activity, including data showing that 95 percent of CO Codes 
assigned in 2012 went to thousand block numbering pools 
? NPA and NANP Exhaust Forecasts and Status Report
? NANPA initiated relief planning activities in three NPAs in 2012: California 
415, Indiana 812 and Texas 512 
? Planning for the introduction of the 844 toll free NPA was initiated  
? NRUF data collection
? NewNAS functionality to improve efficiency for Service Providers
? NAS future functionality, including software and hardware improvements, 
and efficiency and security enhancements as part of the new contract
? Code Reclamations for other NANP resources, in particular; CICs and 555 
NXX line numbers
2.3      NOWG Reports
The NOWG/NANPA followed a standing agenda during scheduled monthly 
conference calls. The NANPA prepared monthly performance measurements 
and status reports for the NOWG that were reviewed in-depth during the monthly 
calls. NANPA also reported on a range of activities and services performed for 
the industry and regulators. The transparency, quality and content of these 
reports provided the NOWG with detailed information and valuable insight into 
the operations of the NANPA.
. 
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
7
The NANPA reported on its training for service providers and state regulators on 
NAS and other numbering administration activities. 
The NANPA responded to a request by state regulators for assistance in 
evaluating the impact of the PSTN-IP transition on numbering resources by 
providing a tool for estimating NPA exhaust. 
The NANPA reported on a situation associated with deploying stronger security 
measures for NAS that affected seven providers, trouble tickets that affected 
single service providers, and minor items such as broken hotlinks.
See Appendix A for 2012 NANPA / NOWG Standing Agenda
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
8
Section 3.0 Program Improvement Plan (PIP)
The PIP is utilized for identifying and tracking performance improvements and 
improvements in the user experience. The NANPA developed an additional 
document for tracking and reporting performance activities at the monthly status 
meetings, called the Monthly Operational Report (MOR), to serve as a repository 
of various NANPA activities and events occurring throughout the year.
Highlights of the 2012 PIP included: 
? Use of Online Meeting for NPA relief planning meetings and introduction of 
on-line meeting aids to assist in evaluation of relief alternatives
? Development of a month-by-month NRUF action checklist for service
providers
? Introduction of training videos to supplement live training 
See Appendix B for 2012 NANPA PIP Report
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
9
Section 4.0 2012 Performance Survey Results
4.1 Survey Ratings – Quantitative Analysis 
The NANPA 2012 Performance Surveys were completed by a total of 55
respondents.  The respondents were comprised of 38 industry and other and 17
state regulators.
The results are as follows:
? CO Code (NXX) Administration (Section A)
o There were four questions in this section to which respondents 
provided the following aggregated response ratings:  
? 65 as Exceeded
? 53 as More than Met
? 14 as Met
? 2 as Sometimes Met
? NPA Relief Planning (Section B)
o There were four questions in this section to which respondents 
provided the following aggregated response ratings: 
? 57 as Exceeded
? 39 as More than Met 
? 21 as Met
? NRUF (Section C)
o There were four questions in this section to which respondents 
provided the following aggregated response ratings:  
? 62 as Exceeded 
? 57 as More than Met
? 22 as Met
? 1 as Not Met
? Other NANP Resources (Section D)
o There was one question in this section to which respondents provided 
the following aggregated response ratings:  
? 13 as Exceeded
? 9 as More than Met
? 8 as Met
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
10
? NANP Administration System (NAS) (Section E)
o There were two questions in this section to which respondents 
provided the following aggregated response ratings:  
? 45 as Exceeded
? 34 as More than Met 
? 19 as Met
? NANPA Website, Reports, and Industry Activities  (Section F)
o There were three questions in this section to which respondents 
provided the following aggregated response ratings:  
? 61 as Exceeded 
? 53 as More than Met 
? 31 as Met
? 1 as Sometimes Met
? 2 as Not Met
? Overall Assessment of the NANPA (Section G)
o There was one question in this section to which respondents provided 
the following aggregated response ratings:  
? 28 as Exceeded 
? 18 as More than Met 
? 8 as Met
? 1 as Sometimes Met
See Appendix C for 2012 NANPA Numerical Survey Results and Bar Charts and 
Appendix D for 2012 NANPA Survey Cover Letter and Performance Survey
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
11
4.2 Written Comments
The comment sections in the survey allowed respondents the opportunity to 
provide details regarding their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with NANPA’s 
performance in 2012.  The NOWG reviewed all comments to determine if there 
was a common theme substantiated by multiple respondents.
Following is a summary of written comments that were provided by survey 
respondents.
Significant praise for the NANPA staff was a consistent theme throughout the 
survey.  In many cases, the comments provided praise for individual staff 
members.  The following adjectives and phrases were used by multiple 
respondents to describe their experiences in working with the NANPA staff:
? Timely, responsive, professional
? Courteous, helpful, and knowledgeable
? Excellent, accurate, dedicated
? Always willing to assist
? Provides clear and concise direction
? Goes above and beyond
? Invaluable source of information
None of the comments suggested any areas needing improvement.  After 
thoroughly reviewing the comments received, the NOWG concluded that the 
written comments indicated a very high level of satisfaction experienced by those 
who interacted with the NANPA.
Samples of the written comments received are provided below:
“The NANPA Code Administrator team has provided and delivered 
outstanding service in 2012.  They have exceeded all expectations to 
execute, deliver and respond to our company's needs for codes.  They 
were courteous and respondent to call when necessary to provide further 
explanation to questions.  Our company has a need to receive codes in a 
most efficient and timely manner to meet our network and customer 
demands.  NANPA code administrator's made this happen in 2012.”
“My interactions with NANPA staff are always professional and 
expeditious.  They consistently go above and beyond what's required in 
order to assist me with whatever I may need.”
“I have always had positive results when interacting with NANPA CO code 
administrators.  They provide accurate and correct information, return calls 
asap in a professional, courteous and timely manner.”
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
12
“The Code Administrators are always helpful in any questions I might have 
regarding processes or direction of an issue.”
“Nanpa always carries out assignment process well withing allowable time 
frames.”
“It's difficult to think of what NANPA could have done better to support the 
Industry during 2012. Great job everyone!”
“The periodic conference calls to state commission numbering personnel 
are extremely helpful.”
“Throughout 2012, I've had the need to contact NANPA for many various 
issues from NRUF to NAS to code returns.  Calls/emails have always 
been returned promptly, which I sincerely appreciate; and, staff has been 
exceedingly helpful in resolving any issues I had.”
“Great crew!”
“The team at NANPA continues to do an excellent job in all areas of the 
NANPA.”
See Appendix E for 2012 NANPA Survey Respondents and Appendix F for 2012 
NANPA Survey Respondents’ Comments
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
13
Section 5.0 Operational Review
The NOWG members met with NANPA representatives in Sterling, Virginia on 
April 16-17, 2013, to conduct the annual operational review of the 
NANPA. During the operational review, there were formal status presentations 
regarding:
? 2012 Overview
? Central Office Code Administration
? NPA Relief Planning
? Numbering Resource Utilization & Forecast (NRUF) Reporting
? Other NANP Resource Administration
? NANPA Reports
? NANPA Enterprise Services
? NANPA Forum Participation and Industry Liaison Activities
The NANPA presentation shared at this meeting can be found in Appendix G.
The following sections summarize highlights of specific areas within the NANPA 
operational review.
5.1 Central Office Code Administration
The NANPA presented the following 2012 highlights on code administration 
services: 
? The NANPA staff processed 10,243 applications in 2012 
? All applications were processed within the 7 calendar day requirement
? No central office code assignments resulted in a code conflict
? Due to the FCC’s Red Light Rule, 30 applications were denied
? Initiated reclamation on 12 codes for those states that have not exercised 
their delegated authority over reclamation
? Worked with 25 states on over 120 central office codes appearing on state 
delinquent lists in 2012, resulting in the reclamation of 9 codes 
? Coordinated the recovery of 262 abandoned codes with regulators in 11 
states and the FCC
? Worked with state regulators and service providers to identify potential 
recoverable NXXs in advance of relief planning in 3 NPAs 
? Worked with 12 service providers to investigate 7-digit cross-NPA dialing 
arrangements to identify 22 protected routes that could be eliminated in 
NAS and ensure the maximum quantity of codes available for assignment 
in each rate center
? Voluntarily investigated and coordinated communication among state 
regulators and service providers on the possibility of transferring about 30 
codes in 8 states to a new service provider to avoid opening new codes 
for LRN purposes 
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
14
? At year end, there were only 4 NPAs in jeopardy: IL 217, FL 305, PA 570 
and IL 618
? Developed and posted to the NANPA website a training video to assist 
service providers in requesting assignment of an initial code in a pooling 
rate center
? Resolved discrepancies on over 70 codes by proactively reminding 
service providers of the requirements to build new codes in industry 
databases, perform work necessary to transfer codes and return codes 
not in use
5.2 NPA Relief Planning
The NANPA presented the following 2012 highlights on NPA relief activities: 
? Met all performance objectives on 33 tracked events
? Filed NPA relief petitions for KY 270, NV 702 and IN 812
? Conducted pre-Initial Planning Document (IPD) and relief planning 
conference calls for CA 415
? Conducted initial relief implementation conference calls for TX 512 and NV 
702
? Rescinded jeopardy in MD 410/443 and CA 408
? Conducted conference call regarding the impact of 33 returned codes on 
the AR 870 relief implementation schedule, and filed an addendum to 
postpone the relief implementation with the state regulatory authority
? Shadowed 39 industry subcommittee meetings for relief implementation 
for CA 408, MD 410/443, TX 512 and NC 919
? Participated in 3 public input meetings or consumer sessions regarding 
NPA relief for TX 712 and NV 702, and supplied various scripts, maps and 
FAQs for regulator use at these meetings
? Conducted face-to-face meetings with state regulatory authorities to 
review number administration and NPA relief activities in OK, OH, MI and 
SC
? Advised state regulatory personnel on the status of 15 specific NPAs 
within their states
? Assisted state regulatory personnel in 15 states on various other 
numbering concerns 
? Published 6 Planning Letters announcing new relief or changes to existing 
relief projects 
? Distributed 81 NNS notifications of NPA relief planning activities
? Further enhanced NPA relief on-line meetings by providing to the industry 
a list of pros and cons identified in previous relief activities, dialing plans 
and draft implementation schedules, relevant excerpts from relief planning 
guidelines, and sending reminders of the meetings via NANP Notification 
System (NNS)  
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
15
5.3 Numbering Resource Utilization & Forecast (NRUF) Reporting
The NANPA presented the following 2012 highlights on NRUF reporting:  
? Processed 16,500 Form 502 submissions
? All 5 processing metrics were met at 100%
o Form 502s processed and confirmation notifications sent, with any 
errors identified, within 7 calendar days
o Missing utilization notices sent within 45 days
o Anomalous notifications sent within 90 days
o Phone calls/emails responded to within one business day
o Job Aid updates completed 60 days prior to submission deadline
? Answered almost 1,700 NRUF inquiries and produced 83 reports for 
states
? Added a month-by-month NRUF preparation checklist to the NANPA 
website
? Instructed NRUF filers using email to start sending their non-geographic 
Form 502s to the same email addresses as those for geographic Form 
502s
? Updated the NRUF on-line training guide, the NRUF job aid documents, 
and the NRUF FTP file format document and posted all to the NANPA 
website
? Produced and published NPA and NANP exhaust projections in April and 
October 
? Issued 4 delta NRUF exhaust projections for PA 814, AR 870, TN 615 and 
KY 270
? Began producing and publishing a separate NPA exhaust projection for 
currently assigned and reserved non-geographic 5YY NPAs
5.4 Other NANP Resource Administration
The NANPA presented the following 2012 highlights on other NANP resource 
administration:
? There was 1 non-geographic NPA put into service
? There were 5 net assignments of FGB CICs 
? There were 2 net assignments for FGD CICs
? There were 357 net assignments for 5YY-NXXs 
? There was 1 net assignment for 9YY-NXXs
? There was one 555 line number assigned, and 93 reclaimed for a net of a 
negative 92 assigned
? There were no assignments of 800-855 line numbers, vertical service 
codes, N11 codes, ANI II digits or 456-NXXs
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
16
5.5 NANPA Reports
NANPA continued to supply accurate and timely data through the web-based 
public queries and reports on NPAs, area code relief planning, CO Codes, CICs 
and other resources. NANPA also provided more than 14,000 reports that were 
auto-generated daily, weekly or monthly (frequency as requested by the 
individual) to regulatory personnel in 29 states. NANPA continued to provide ad 
hoc reports as needed to support state and federal regulatory authorities, service 
providers, and NANPA functions such as NPA relief planning.
5.6 NANP Administration System (NAS)
NAS continues to support a variety of number administration functions, including 
Central Office Code Administration, Other Resources, NRUF, and NANP 
Notifications. Please see Section 6.0 for details.
5.7 NANPA Enterprise Services
As a required for Enterprise Services, the NANPA AOCN processed 6,119 Part 2 
submissions in 2012 (a more than 40% increase over 2011), and completed all of 
those within five business days or less. In addition, all phone calls received by 
the AOCN were returned no later than the close of the next business day, 
indicating a high quality of service provided to 230 NANPA AOCN services 
customers. In addition to the AOCN Services, NANPA continued to stand ready 
to provide four other Enterprise Services, although none were requested in 2012. 
Those include the entry of paper submissions of resource applications, entry of 
paper NRUF submissions, NANPA testimony in state regulatory hearings, and 
customized reports.
5.8 NANPA Industry Forum Participation and Industry Liaison Activities
The NANPA provided monthly reports to the NANC membership and the NOWG, 
and made 4 presentations at NANC meetings. The NANPA also continued to 
manage and maintain the NANC Chair website. The NANPA actively participated 
at INC in 2012, submitting 7 new issues and 20 contributions. The NANPA also 
regularly attended the NANC’s FoN WG monthly meetings to ensure NANPA 
was available to provide input as needed on NANPA operational capabilities and 
processes. The NANPA published 4 quarterly newsletters throughout 2012 and 
its 2011 Annual Report in March 2012.
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
17
5.9 Summary of the NANPA Operational Review
Based on the information shared with the NOWG during the 2012 Operational 
Review, the NANPA not only maintained a high level of performance, but 
successfully managed new challenges and continued to proactively find ways to 
improve processes and customer satisfaction. The NANPA’s Operational Review 
presentation was very thorough in providing details of the NANPA activities in 
2012.  The NANPA staff effectively responded to NOWG inquiries during 
presentations, demonstrating their knowledge and seasoned expertise. NANPA 
received two complaint submissions in 2012 but neither was due to NANPA’s 
performance; both were issues that would have been more appropriately 
addressed by the complainant’s service provider.  
See Appendix G for 2012 NANPA Operational Review Presentation and 
Appendix H for 2012 NANPA Highlights
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
18
Section 6.0 NANP Administration System (NAS)
NAS is the primary tool used by Service Providers, Consultants, Regulators, and 
NANPA in the assignment of NANP resources and various administration 
aspects of the NANP.  NAS provides an automated system for processing 
number resource applications, collecting resource utilization and forecast data, 
and issuing notifications to the industry on numbering matters.
NAS provided system functionality in the following areas to support the 
assignment and administration of NANP resources:
? NAS Central Office Code Administration 
? Applying On-line for Other Numbering Resources
? NANP Notification System
? NAS NRUF 
? NAS Reports
? NAS User Registration
During 2012, the NANPA provided excellent support and maintenance of NAS, 
exceeding the FCC requirement for NAS system availability of 99.9%.
With the award of the new contract in June 2012, NANPA began a major NAS 
upgrade of the system hardware components and the application software 
platform.  The approach was to take advantage of business rules, logic and 
algorithms currently used in the existing system while incorporating a number of 
technological improvements.  To accomplish this, a two-phased delivery process 
was initiated.  During Phase 1, modifications to NAS hardware were implemented 
to create a secure Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), ensuring NAS conformed to 
industry best practices for system security.  Phase 1, which started in July 2012, 
was completed in September 2012.  Additional NAS upgrades for Phase 2 
implementation began in the fourth quarter of 2012 and are planned to continue 
into 2013.
Additional enhancements to NAS were made in 2012 to implement Change 
Orders 21 and 22:
? NANPA Change Order 21 was in response to INC Issue 710:  NANC 
Action Item “Multi-OCN” Issue.  With this change order, additional 
functionality was added to NAS to permit the user to select the Parent 
Company OCN from a drop-down menu that appears on the application 
and subsequent Part 1 and Part 3 reports provided to the states.
? NANPA Change Order 22 was in response to INC Issue 698 – Auto-
Populate Total Numbering Resources on the TBPAG MTE Form.  This 
change order modified NAS to include a “Pooled Code Indicator” on 
various NAS-generated reports available on the NANPA website.
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
19
Six NAS trouble tickets were opened in 2012, of which five tickets were closed 
and one ticket remained open at the end of 2012.  The five tickets were resolved 
in less than one business day (four of which were opened and closed the same 
day).
The industry appeared to be satisfied with the operation of NAS in 2012 as seen 
in the survey comments.  The 2012 Survey Comments relating to NAS included:
“Working at times with unexpected demands requires timely notifications 
for any down times or updates to the NAS systems and NANPA has 
delivered on both and I have not incurred any issues in these areas in 
2012.  The NAS-NANP Notification site is an excellent place for me to 
reference the many resources made availabile to support my numbering 
needs.”
“Communication from NANPA has been great.  With the variety of 
planning activities, INC and NRUF issues that come up, communication 
about how to handle these issues is appreciates.  The timely distribution of 
information needed to run our daily operations has been an excellent 
resource during 2012.”
“Adequate notices have always been received regarding any planned 
updates”
“The NAS communicated helpful information on numbering issues in a 
professional, timely and courteous manner.”
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
20
Section 7.0 Change Orders
During 2012, NANPA implemented Change Orders 21 and 22.  These two 
change orders were approved in December 2011 under the old NANPA contract 
but were implemented in November 2012 under the new NANPA contract.
? NANPA Change Order 21 was in response to INC Issue 710:  NANC 
Action Item “multi-OCN” Issue.  This change order modified NAS to 
include the Parent Company OCN on the Part 3 form as well as to include 
Parent Company OCN and Parent Company Name on various NAS-
generated reports.
? NANPA Change Order 22 was in response to INC Issue 698 – Auto-
Populate Total Numbering Resources on the TBPAG MTE Form.  This 
change order modified NAS to include a “Pooled Code Indicator” on 
various NAS-generated reports available on the NANPA website.  
NANPA Contract FCC12C0023 Change Order 1:
? NANPA submitted this change order in September 2012 in response to 
INC Issue 692 (Update the 5YY Requirements for Resources) and INC 
Issue 702 (Update Service Description for Use of 5YY Resources).  In 
addition to changing the purpose for Personal Communication Services 
(PCS) 5YY numbers, numerous modifications are required to the NANP 
Administration System that impact resource processing and reclamation, 
NRUF queries and reports and public website reports.  Targeted 
implementation is mid-2013.
See Appendix I for 2012 NANPA Change Order Matrix Log
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
21
Section 8.0 NANPA Website  
The website maintained by the NANPA provides information relating to 
numbering resources and relief planning for use by service providers, regulatory 
agencies, and the general public.  In 2012, several updates were made to the 
NANPA website:
? Posted documentation regarding the exhaust of toll free resources 
? Posted NANPA’s first NAS training video, “How to Request an Initial 
Central Office Code in a Pooling Area”
? NAS User Guides were updated to include Change Order 21 and Change 
Order 22
Comments received regarding the NANPA website during the 2012 survey 
process provided positive feedback.  These comments included the following:
“The website is a valuable resource to anyone involved in numbering 
management and conservation.”
“The NANPA website continues to be a source of valuable information…”
“The NANPA Website has easily accessible information…”
“Very useful in their tutorials and links.”
“Love the website and the improvements.”
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
22
Section 9.0 Conclusion and Recommendation 
The NOWG based its 2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Rating on 
documentation, information collected, and observations throughout the review 
year.  For the 2012 performance evaluation rating, the NOWG considered 
NANPA activities that included interaction with the NOWG and NANC, active 
participation at INC and other industry forums, and the NANPA’s ongoing 
consistency in addressing PIP suggestions, the resolution of issues brought to 
the NANPA’s attention, and suggestions made by the NOWG throughout the 
calendar year.
As in previous years, the 2012 survey results revealed a high level of client 
satisfaction with the continued perseverance, professionalism, and expertise 
exhibited by NANPA personnel when performing their NANPA duties.  NANPA 
continued to consistently and effectively demonstrate their expertise as the 
custodian of numbering resources in all areas in which they were involved.
In reviewing the rating criteria for the NANPA, the NOWG reviewed all aspects of 
the NANPA activities, as well as the feedback from service providers and 
regulators, and determined that the NANPA consistently exceeded in all areas of 
their responsibilities in 2012.  As a result of this analysis, the NOWG gave the 
NANPA an “Exceeded” rating.
The NOWG makes the following recommendations for NANPA’s consideration in 
2013:
? Continue to proactively search for ways to improve processes, educate 
customers, and enhance system functionality.
? Continue to develop and produce instructional and training videos, such 
as; “How to Request a Growth Code” on the NANPA website.
? On semi-annual CIC report filing, send out a reminder notice similar to the 
NRUF reminder notice.
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
23
Section 10.0   Acknowledgements & NOWG Participants 
The NOWG wishes to thank the following NANPA employees for their 
contributions throughout the year, for assisting the NOWG during the annual 
operational review, and with participating in the NOWG’s monthly meetings.
List of NANPA Participants:
Al Cipparone
Joe Cocke
Nancy Fears
Tom Foley
John Manning
Wayne Milby
Kimberly Miller
Beth Sprague
Brent Struthers
LaShanda Tomlinson
Heidi Wayman
NANPA Help Desk and Code Administrators
The following working group members have participated in varying degrees by 
attending NOWG meetings throughout the year, attending the annual operational 
review, and contributing to the development of this document.
List of NOWG Participants:
Company Participant
AT&T Linda Richardson
CenturyLink Jan Doell
Cox Communications Beth O'Donnell
EarthLink Business Linda Peterman
Pennsylvania PUC Christopher Hepburn
Sprint Nextel Rosemary Emmer
Sprint Nextel Karen Riepenkroger
T-Mobile USA Natalie McNamer
Verizon Communications Laura Dalton
Verizon Wireless Dana Crandall
Windstream Communications Michelle Bowyer
XO Communications Ruben Galvan
2012 NANPA Performance Evaluation Report
June 20, 2013
24
Section 11.0   List of Appendices 
Appendix A 2012 NANPA / NOWG Standing Agenda
Appendix B 2012 NANPA PIP Report
Appendix C 2012 NANPA Numerical Survey Results and Bar Charts 
Appendix D 2012 NANPA Survey Cover Letter and Performance Survey
Appendix E 2012 NANPA Survey Respondents
Appendix F 2012 NANPA Survey Respondents’ Comments
Appendix G 2012 NANPA Operational Review Presentation
Appendix H 2012 NANPA Highlights 
Appendix I 2012 NANPA Change Order Matrix Log