ALJ/TRP/eap DRAFT CA-4

3/15/2001

Decision DRAFT DECISION OF ALJ PULSIFER (Mailed 2/8/2001)

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)

O P I N I O N

By this decision, we grant in part the Petition for Modification of Decision (D.) 00-07-022 (Decision) which was filed by NeuStar, Inc. (NeuStar) to the extent set forth below.

Background

In D.00-07-022, the Commission adopted cost recovery principles to apply to all state-mandated number pooling trials, including those previously scheduled for the 310, 415, 714, and 909 numbering plan areas (NPAs). The principles adopted in the decision require that the Pooling Agreement,¹ executed between NeuStar and the West Coast Portability Services, Limited Liability Corporation (LLC), be modified to require all carriers in the 310 NPA to bear a pro rata share of the contract payments due to NeuStar for the pooling trial. The pro rata share also must be based upon each carrier's proportionate share of assigned numbers in service for the 310 NPA based upon the utilization data underlying the "Report on the 310 Area Code."² A similar billing approach must be applied to all subsequent state-mandated pooling trials. Additionally, the decision authorizes NeuStar to bill each carrier providing service in each of the NPAs subject to pooling for its share of contract costs in proportion with its percentage of assigned numbers in service for the NPA. NeuStar must use the number utilization data for each NPA as previously ordered by the Commission to compute each carrier's share of the contract costs.³ The decision also states that pooling participants that have previously been billed by NeuStar for the entirety of the shared industry costs shall receive a billing credit equal to the difference between the amount the carrier was previously billed and the revised amount due based upon the carrier's pro rata share of assigned numbers in service.⁴

On August 21, 2000, NeuStar, in its capacity as 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.

NeuStar seeks clarification or modification of the following issues: (1) how NeuStar personnel, employed in the capacity of PA, can access confidential carrier utilization information that is currently restricted to personnel employed in the capacity of number utilization consultant; (2) 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; (3) 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 (4) whether any credit may be applied to monies subsequently collected pursuant to D.00-07-022.

WorldCom filed a response to the NeuStar Petition for Modification on September 19, 2000. No other party filed a response. WorldCom takes issue with NeuStar's position concerning the treatment of Direct Fees charged to carriers. In other respects, WorldCom does not contest NeuStar's Petition.