BILL ANALYSIS
AB 818
Page 1
PROPOSED CONFERENCE REPORT NO. 1 - September 3, 1999
AB 818 (Knox)
As Amended August 25, 1999
Majority vote
ASSEMBLY: 70-6 ( May 27, 1999 ) SENATE: 35-1 ( August 25, 1999 )
ASSEMBLY CONFERENCE VOTE : 2-1 SENATE
CONFERENCE VOTE : 2-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Knox, Villaraigosa |Ayes:|Alarcon, Peace |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Campbell | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: U & C.
SUMMARY : Requires the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) to develop and implement available measures to assist in
area code relief planning for California citizens, and provides
specific relief for citizens in the 310 Number Plan Area (NPA)
by rescinding any split or overlay and 10-digit dialing until
specified conditions are met. Specifically, the conference
committee amendments :
1)Rescind the implementation of a split, overlay and 10-digit
dialing in the 310 NPA until September 1, 2000 until all of
the following conditions have been met:
a) CPUC directs the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator (NANPA) coordinator to obtain utilization
data for the 310 number plan area;
b) CPUC reviews that utilization data to determine how many
unused telephone numbers exist that can be redistributed to
consumers; and,
c) CPUC determines based on utilization data that consumers
will be unable to receive telephone service in a timely
manner without implementation of a split or overlay in the
310 NPA.
2)Require CPUC to direct the NANPA Coordinator to obtain
AB 818
Page 2
utilization data for any area code relief plan prior to
proposing or implementing an area code relief plan.
3)Direct CPUC to request a waiver from Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) of the federal requirement that 10-digit
dialing is required in area code overlays.
4)Direct CPUC not to implement an area code relief plan until
all of the following conditions have been met:
a) CPUC completes a study of utilization data;
b) CPUC submits the study to the Legislature; and,
c) The study demonstrates that a new area code is needed.
5)Require CPUC to develop a consumer education plan to provide
consumers information regarding participating in the CPUC
decision-making process for area code relief planning.
6)Require CPUC to develop a comprehensive plan to alert
consumers, including homeowners organizations and small
business groups information regarding the type and timing of
area code relief planned for their proposed area.
7)Delete the urgency provisions.
8)Specify that the provisions of this act are severable and that
invalidation of any provision or its application shall not
affect other provisions that can be given effect without the
invalid provision or application.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) that
FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over the provision of telephone
numbers pursuant to NANPA.
2)Provides for NANPA to notify the telephone industry when area
code relief is required and to initiate and develop an area
code relief plan.
3)Provides that FCC may delegate certain portions of such
jurisdiction to state commissions or other entities.
AB 818
Page 3
4)Authorizes state commissions to provide area code relief by:
a) Directing whether area code relief will take the form of
a geographic split, an overlay area code, or a boundary
realignment;
b) Establishing new area code boundaries;
c) Establishing necessary dates for implementation of
area code relief plans; and,
d) Directing public education and notification efforts
regarding area code changes."
5)Provides that NANPA is responsible for administering numbering
resources in an efficient, effective, fair, unbiased and
non-discriminatory manner.
6)Requires CPUC to conduct public hearings in the affected
geographical region prior to implementing a new area code to
inform members of the public about the proposed area code
relief options.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill required:
1)CPUC to develop specified measures aimed at efficiently
allocating telephone numbers.
2)CPUC to request that FCC delegate specific authority to the
states for the purpose of enabling CPUC to implement specified
measures that would assist in the efficient allocation of
telephone numbers.
3)CPUC to request that telecommunications providers provide
information relating to the number of used and unused numbers
in all telephone prefixes that they posses.
4)CPUC to institute, as an interim measure, that
telecommunications providers assign numbers to their customer
first from prefixes that are more than 25% used, and only from
prefixes with less than 25% use when numbers are not otherwise
available.
The Senate amendments :
AB 818
Page 4
1)Required CPUC to consider the cost effectiveness of any
measures it develops to efficiently allocate telephone numbers
within prefixes.
2)Established that among the measures that should be considered
are rate center consolidation and allocation of numbers in
blocks smaller than 10,000 and unassigned number porting.
3)Required CPUC to direct NANPA to obtain utilization data for
any area code for which a relief plan is proposed, prior to
adopting a plan for, or setting a date for, relief.
4)Clarify that CPUC must define the terms "in use" and "not in
use", as part of its request that each telephone corporation
provide information regarding the numbers in their possession.
5)Required CPUC to require a telephone corporation to return any
blocks of numbers for reassignment if CPUC or an authorized
federal agency establishes a process to allocate telephone
numbers in blocks smaller than 10,000.
6)Required CPUC to direct NANPA to seek the return of blocks of
numbers smaller than 10,000 that are not in use. CPUC shall
define what "not in use" means for purposes of this
requirement.
7)Required that this bill be implemented as an urgency measure.
FISCAL EFFECT : CPUC estimates first-year costs from the Utility
Reimbursement Account of $235,000, including one-time costs of
$150,000 for programming, and costs of $170,000 in the second
and third years for three staff positions to collect and analyze
data for the required audit and to review company performance
for compliance with CPUC rules on assignment of telephone
numbers.
COMMENTS :
1)Background . California has experienced a significant increase
in the number of area codes in the last few years. In fact,
the number of area codes in California has doubled since 1991.
The increase in the number of area codes has caused confusion
and frustration among telephone customers. Additionally,
business customers have been both inconvenienced and
financially impacted by the need to purchase new letterhead,
AB 818
Page 5
business cards, and notify customers and contacts of their new
telephone numbers. Within each geographic area of the United
States, area codes are assigned by an administrator that is
responsible for assigning central office codes to itself and
other carriers. Those codes are then used to distribute
telephone numbers to customers. Today, telephone numbers are
only assigned in blocks of 10,000 to the telecommunication
service providers who request them. CPUC noted that "this is
true whether the service provider has 10 customers or 9,500
customers in the area served by that block of 10,000 numbers."
2)In the Assembly . As introduced, this bill provided for a
statewide moratorium on the implementation of new area codes
and directed CPUC to institute technology specific area codes.
This bill, in that form, failed passage in the Assembly
Utilities and Commerce Committee and was amended to require
CPUC to request certain relief measures from FCC since FCC has
exclusive jurisdiction over the provision of telephone
numbers. In an effort to address these issues at the earliest
possible opportunity, CPUC has already filed a petition to FCC
seeking authority to pursue several telephone code
conservation measures and efficient number use practices,
consistent with the relief sought by the author of this bill.
CPUC, in its desire to seek additional relief has also filed a
petition that seeks a waiver to implement a technology
specific area code. FCC has indicated that it may act on
these petitions by the end of this month.
3)FCC Proceeding . FCC is also involved in a rulemaking where it
is seeking to develop comprehensive solutions to the numbering
exhaust problems. FCC has as the goal of its proceeding to:
a) Minimize negative impacts on consumers;
b) Ensure sufficient access to numbering resources for all
service providers; avoid premature exhaustion of numbers;
impose the least societal costs;
c) Ensure that no class of carriers are unduly favored;
and,
d) To minimize incentives for carriers to build large
inventories of numbers for which the have no need.
AB 818
Page 6
Many of the issues pending in California will be addressed in
FCC proceedings. It is anticipated that the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking will be issued in this proceeding by the
end of this year.
4)In the Senate . While in the Senate, the author had included
language in this bill that would have required a suspension of
the 424 overlay and 10-digit dialing. Amendments were also
taken that would have authorized technology-specific area
codes, which FCC has specifically ruled violate the
Communications Act and industry guidelines. CPUC indicates,
however, that if they were required through legislation to
halt the overlay and 10-digit dialing, that they would be
forced to implement an area code split. Those amendments were
removed in Senate Appropriations prior to passage on the
Senate Floor.
5)Issues Before CPUC . Additionally, Assemblyman Knox, on behalf
of a variety of civic groups and residential associations,
filed a petition seeking to halt the overlay plan for the 424
area code and to end 10-digit dialing in the 310 area code.
While CPUC has not yet issued a final decision, two Draft
Decisions have been issued regarding the Knox Petition.
6)In the first draft decision CPUC has indicated that an
extended suspension of the 424 area code opening would
jeopardize the availability of numbers within the 310 area
code and the ability of carriers to offer new telephone lines
to their customers. The first draft decision, however, would
adopt several recommendations in the Knox Petition. The first
draft decision does the following:
a) Directs the Consumer Services Division (CSD) to
implement any appropriate measures to assist customers
experiencing difficulty transitioning to mandatory 10-digit
dialing;
b) Directs CSD to perform additional education measures;
c) Requires CPUC to employ all diligence to promote the
development of improved number conservation and efficient
number utilization throughout California, including those
referenced in AB 818 (Knox) (as it passed out of the
Assembly);
AB 818
Page 7
d) Requires CPUC to initiate a utilization study to ensure
optimal number utilization in the 310 NPA;
e) Requires CPUC to initiates a process to reconsider
CPUC's prior decision to require 1+ 10-digit dialing
whenever an overlay provides telephone number relief; and,
f) Authorizes CPUC to seek a waiver of FCC 10-digit dialing
requirement.
7)In the second draft decision, CPUC would approved the Knox
Petition and direct CPUC to halt implementation of the new 424
area code overlay in the 310 NPA and revert to 7-digit
dialing. In the second draft decision, CPUC indicates that
its decision is issued with the understanding that CPUC
requires authority from FCC to implement some of the measures.
CPUC also noted that the basis of its decision was the
substantial customer confusion and inconvenience. Additional
features of this draft decision include:
a) Administering a utilization study of the 310 NPA;
b) Establishing a voluntary number pooling trial;
c) Requiring CPUC Telecommunications Division (TD) to
report on the extent to which number conservation measures
may resolve number shortage in the 310 NPA, by February 29,
2000;
d) Contingent of FCC approval, preparing for mandatory
pooling and the ability to return underutilized blocks of
numbers;
e) Upon receiving FCC authority, requiring all carriers to
return numbers in blocks of 1000 to the extent that those
blocks are less than 10% subscribed;
f) Upon receiving FCC authority, requiring Pacific Bell to
recall unused blocks of numbers from business customers;
g) Reducing the monthly allotment of codes in the 310 NPA
from 6 to 2 per month in order to extend the life of the
remaining codes in the 310 area for approximately 8 months;
and,
AB 818
Page 8
h) Requiring TD to begin the fair and efficient allocation
of all returned and recalled numbers as soon as practical.
8)An important factor to note about the second draft decision is
the significant amount reliance on FCC granting specific
authority to CPUC. FCC has indicated that it is likely to
issue its ruling on CPUC petitions this month. Based on the
outcome of FCC's decision, CPUC would be in a position to
either move forward with the ordering paragraphs of this draft
decision or modify its suspension of the 424 overlay and grant
area code relief.
9)CPUC is expected to adopt either of these two draft decisions
on September 16, 1999.
10)The Conference Committee Amendments . The conference
amendments attempt to do several things. First, they seek to
establish that future area code relief be conditioned on the
basis of utilization data for a specific NPA and that the
Legislature be aware of the results of any such data.
Additionally, the amendments required CPUC to seek waivers of
the 10-digit dialing requirement for overlays. In that
overlays have been ordered as relief measures in at least 6
NPAs (714, 909, 408, 510, 650, 415), it is necessary that
waivers be sought in a timely manner so FCC can issue a
definitive ruling.
11)The conference amendments also attempt to codify key portions
of the second draft decision of the Knox petition. The second
draft CPUC decision may result in litigation because the
rescission of area code relief is essentially a moratorium in
the 310 NPA. The rescission of area code relief measures is
contrary to the federal guidelines that requires that
telephone numbers be issued in a non-discriminatory,
efficient, and timely manner. Rescinding the overlay is
discriminatory because several carriers have already applied
for and received approximately 60 codes in the 424 NPA. They
have been waiting to use those codes to begin to serve
customers for several months. Rescission of the overlay
thwarts their ability to serve customers. Furthermore, the
non-issuance of numbers is clearly not a timely or efficient
manner in which to allocate numbers. CPUC staff has indicated
that it is likely that a rescission of area code relief
conflicts with the guidelines and numbering policies of FCC.
AB 818
Page 9
12)Codifying a draft decision does a couple of things. First,
it preempts CPUC decision-making authority; two markedly
different decisions are within one week away from a final
decision. Second, if the second draft decision is implemented
and faces challenges that delay some of the contingent
measures necessary to extend the life of the remaining 310 NPA
numbers, CPUC can quickly issue a revised decision and
implement area code relief. Attempting to codify those same
provisions without the safeguards taken in the second draft
decision and without any timeframes for action by CPUC would
require extensive litigation to enable CPUC to implement area
code relief, if necessary.
Analysis Prepared by : Carolyn Veal-Hunter / U. & C. / (916)
319-2083
FN: 0003251