II. BACKGROUND
FCC's Order 99-248 gave the Commission authority to implement various number conservation measures within California.1 The FCC Order specifically delegated authority to the Commission to conduct mandatory thousand-block number pooling trials, and further directed the Commission to determine a method by which to recover the incremental costs of state-mandated pooling trials.
By Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) ruling dated October 13, 1999, comments were solicited from parties concerning a method of recovering costs associated with the 310 NPA pooling trial in compliance with the FCC directives. Parties filed comments on November 2 and reply comments, on November 9, 1999. On April 28, 2000, MCI WorldCom, Inc. ("WorldCom") filed a motion for an expedited ruling on cost recovery on thousand-block number pooling trials. GTE California Incorporated (now Verizon) filed a response in support of such motion.
On July 6, 2000, the Commission issued Decision D.00-07-022 in compliance with the FCC directive, and which applied cost recovery principles to all state-mandated number pooling trials, including those already scheduled for the 310, 415, 714, and 909 Numbering Plan Areas (NPAs), in addition to any subsequent state-mandated pooling trials. Specifically, D.00-07-022 prescribed a methodology for allocating shared industry costs of number pooling among all carriers providing service in each pooling area code.
On August 21, 2000 NeuStar, the interim Pooling Administrator (PA) for California NPA codes, filed a petition for modification or clarification of certain instructions directed to NeuStar regarding pooling cost recovery, as set forth in D.00-07-022. (Petition for Modification of Decision 00-07-022).
In its petition, NeuStar sought clarification with respect to how NeuStar personnel, employed in the capacity of PA, could access confidential carrier utilization information necessary to calculate cost allocations required by D.00-07-022. Such information currently is restricted to personnel employed in the capacity of number utilization consultant. 2 The only responding party, WorldCom, filed comments on NeuStar's petition on September 19, 2000. WorldCom raised only one issue in its comments pertaining to NeuStar's position on the treatment of Direct Fees charged to carriers.
NeuStar's Petition was primarily premised on the PA's need to access each carrier's proprietary number utilization data in order to make the pro rata calculations of billings to individual carriers based upon numbers assigned to customers. Carrier-specific number utilization data is confidential; the PA could only obtain access to that data pursuant to a separate Commission order.
In D.01-04-029, we granted NeuStar's request to modify the numerical formula for calculating each carrier's contribution to pooling cost recovery. Because we agreed with NeuStar that confidential carrier-specific information must be protected, we adopted a cost-recovery methodology based on the quantity of 1,000 blocks each carrier providing service in a pooling NPA holds in its inventory. By basing the pro rata of shared costs on total thousand-blocks held by carriers (as opposed to the numbers utilized or assigned), the Commission concluded that NeuStar, acting as PA, would avoid the need to obtain confidential carrier-specific utilization data since the number of blocks assigned to each carrier is not confidential, but is publicly available information. (D. 01-04-029, pp. 4, 11).
On May 18, 2001, Applicant filed its Application for Rehearing of D.01-04-029. The Rehearing Application contained allegations of legal error with respect to the Commission's implementation of thousand-blocks as a cost allocation methodology.
Applicant argues that calculating a carrier's pro rata share of pooling costs by thousand-blocks violates Section 251(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("The Act")). Applicant asserts that D.01-04-029 effectively penalizes paging carriers who are unable to participate in pooling, and places a disproportionate allocation of pooling costs on paging carriers, which ultimately threatens the economic viability of the paging industry. Applicant requests that, in the alternative, the Commission base the allocation of shared industry costs on a carrier's pro rata share of interstate revenues or assigned numbers.
We have reviewed each and every allegation as stated in the Application for Rehearing and, for the reasons set forth below, conclude that Applicant has not identified any legal or factual error which would justify a modification or rehearing of the Decision. Therefore, the Application for Rehearing of D.01-04-029 is denied.
1 California Public Utilities Commission Petition for Delegation of Additional Authority Pertaining to Area Code Relief and NXX Code Conservation Measures, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17485 (1999). 2 NeuStar also sought clarification as to whether each carrier's proportionate share of contract costs excludes the current "Direct Fees" that are not billed proportionately, but that are billed directly to service providers. NeuStar also inquired as to whether pooling participants billed by NeuStar for the entirety of the shared industry costs, may receive credit equal to the difference between the amount the carrier was billed and the revised payment based upon the carrier's pro rata share, and whether any credit may be applied to monies subsequently collected pursuant to D.00-07-022.
