V. Comments on Draft Decision
The draft decision of ALJ Thomas R. Pulsifer in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed by Sprint PCS on May 29, 2001. We have taken the comments into account, as appropriate, in finalizing this order.
1. On May 5, 2000, Sprint PCS filed an "Emergency Petition" in the Local Competition rulemaking to obtain a growth NXX code in the Beverly Hills Rate Center in the 310 NPA. Sprint PCS subsequently withdrew its formal petition and submitted instead a letter to the Director of TD dated May 18, 2000, informally seeking the same authority to obtain an NXX code.
2. In order to evaluate Sprint PCS' request for a growth NXX code, the TD staff undertook discovery concerning how many numbers Sprint PCS already held in other rate centers in the Beverly Hills local calling area.
3. Staff submitted a request for information regarding the numbers Sprint PCS held in all rate centers within the local calling area of Beverly Hills, specifically requesting data for each rate center in the 213, 323, and 818 area codes (see Appendix A and Appendix C, hereto).
4. Sprint PCS obtained an NXX code for the Culver City rate center in December, 1999, and was able to begin assigning numbers to its customers from that prefix in February, 2000.
5. Although Sprint PCS provided information by letter to the Director of Telecommunications Division regarding the Culver City NXX (attached as Appendix D, hereto), that information was provided in a completely independent context from the staff data request at issue in this proceeding, and was not responsive to that request.
6. Sprint PCS obtained an NXX code assigned to the Inglewood rate center in April, 2000.
7. Although both the Culver City and Inglewood NXX prefixes were in Sprint PCS' possession on the date that Sprint PCS submitted its data response to the CPUC, Sprint PCS failed to include these prefixes in its data responses to TD.
8. Given the importance TD staff attached to Sprint PCS number holdings in adjacent rate centers, the omission from the data responses of information pertaining to the Culver City and Inglewood NXX codes was critical.
9. A total monetary penalty of $200,000 results from the mathematical application of the formula based upon a $10,000 per violation assessment applied to 20 separate violations.
10. Since the staff data request for disclosure of Sprint PCS' numbering resources asked for the data in incremental 1,000-number blocks as discrete elements, the failure to provide information on each incremental block of 1,000 numbers constitutes a separate violation.
11. The two NXX codes at issue in the staff data request comprised 20,000 individual numbers (i.e., 10,000 numbers for each NXX code), resulting in 20 separate violations for purposes of assessing a penalty.
1. Pursuant to Rule 1, any person that transacts business with the Commission agrees never to mislead the Commission or its staff by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.
2. The actions of Sprint PCS in not disclosing relevant information concerning NXX codes in its possession in the Culver City and Inglewood rate centers caused the Commission staff to be misled, and thereby constitutes a violation of Rule 1.
3. Pub. Util Code § 2107 provides for a penalty between $500 and $20,000 for each offense of a public utility which fails to comply with any order, decree, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of this Commission.
4. Sprint PCS should be subject to penalties as set forth below as a result of its Rule 1 violation as found herein.
5. For purposes of quantifying the number of offenses involved, each failure to respond to the separate elements of the staff's data request should be treated as a single offense.
6. Since staff requested for disclosure of Sprint PCS' numbering resources in incremental blocks of 1,000 numbers as discrete elements, the failure to provide information on each incremental block of 1,000 numbers for the Culver City and Inglewood NXX codes constitutes a separate offense for a total of 20 offenses (i.e., 20,000/1,000 = 20).
7. A penalty of $10,000 per offense represents the middle of the range of penalties provided for under Pub. Util. Code § 2107.
8. The application of the criteria in D.98-12-075 to the facts in this case indicates that Sprint PCS should pay a fine of $200,000 for violating Rule 1 based on a penalty of $10,000 per violation multiplied by 20 separate violations.
9. None of the references to Cox Communications PCS or to Sprint PCS in this order are in any way intended to implicate or be identified with Cox Communications Incorporated or Cox California Telecom.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (Sprint PCS) is hereby found to be in violation of Rule 1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and subject to the penalties as ordered below.
2. Sprint PCS is ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $200,000 for violation of Rule 1 in accordance with the findings and conclusions set forth above. Sprint PCS shall pay the fine within 20 days from the effective date of this order by
tendering to the Fiscal Office of the Commission a check in the amount of $200,000 made payable to the State of California General Fund. Applicants shall file proof of payment at the Commission's Docket Office within 40 days of payment.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
APPENDIX A
June 2, 2000 Data Request sent by
Telecommunications Division Staff in Response to
Sprint PCS Request For Assignment of a 310 NXX
Outside the Lottery Procedures
APPENDIX B
June 6, 2000 Reply Letter by Sprint PCS
Regarding the June 2, 2000 Data Request
APPENDIX C
June 14, 2000 Supplemental
Telecommunications Division Staff Data Request
APPENDIX D
Cover Letter of Sprint PCS in Response to Independent
Inquiry of Telecommunications Division Director of June 13, 2000
(providing confidential data regarding the Culver City Rate Center)
