[26 Pa.B. 4588]
[Continued from previous Web Page] Finally, GTE, PTA and ALLTEL all object to the June 3, 1996 Order's directive to ILECs to provide a list of all pre-enactment interconnection agreements. These parties argue that these ''historical arrangements'' were not voluntary/negotiated interconnection agreements among competitors and that they have no relevance or bearing on interconnection agreements as contemplated under the 1996 Act. In its Statement filed under our June 3 Order, Bell Atlantic cites to the administrative burden to the Commission of reviewing all of the potential agreements encompassed by a broad reading of the statute which would be enormous. Teleport, on the other hand, argues that ''it is only proper that every local exchange telecommunications company have the opportunity to interconnect with other local exchange telecommunications companies on equal terms and conditions.''39 Teleport argues that pre-enactment arrangements are competitively neutral and would be less characterized by efforts to impede the operations of the interconnecting parties and are important in assessing the reasonableness of post-enactment agreements.
OCA states that the rates charged between LECs for EAS traffic are rates under the jurisdiction of the Commission and should be made publicly available as tariffed rates under 66 Pa.C.S. § 1302.40 AT&T argues that the act's provisions require that the terms of any interconnection agreements must be made available without discrimination to any requesting carrier likewise seeking to exchange or terminate local and toll traffic with the ILEC.41
c. Discussion. Participation Rights and Other Issues Involving the Mediation, Arbitration and Adjudication Processes. With respect to the mediation phase of the proceeding, we grant reconsideration of that portion of our Order relating to Commission staff being present during the Commission mediation sessions. We find GTE's and United's arguments to be particularly persuasive on this point. Mediation sessions are deemed confidential, and as a result, Commission staff participating in the mediation phase of the proceeding could possibly be precluded from participating in the subsequent arbitration phase of the proceeding. Otherwise, as United points out, subsequent review of the interconnection agreement by the Commission could be tainted due to Commission staff's receipt of ideas or facts at the confidential mediation sessions. We, therefore, revise Paragraph 7 of our June 3, 1996 Order to eliminate the reference to participation by Commission staff.
We reject the arguments of ALLTEL and PTA that OCA and OSBA should be excluded from arbitration proceedings conducted by the Commission. OCA, OSBA and OTS have a statutory right to participate in any proceedings before this Commission. There is nothing in the 1996 Act which would preempt procedural requirements and/or participation rights created under State law with respect to arbitration proceedings conducted under § 252 of the act.
At the same time, however, we do not accept the argument of MCI that all interested parties have a right to participate in the arbitration process. MCI raises no arguments which were not already considered and rejected by the Commission in its June 3, 1996 Order. Section 252 of the 1996 Act does not entitle private carriers to participate in arbitration proceedings involving an agreement to which they are not a party, unless the Commission decides to consolidate proceedings under § 252(g) of the act. Our June 3, 1996 Order established a process that we continue to believe accommodates the views and interests of all parties.
We also reject MCI's argument that the Commission establish one consolidated proceeding for all requests for arbitration. Individual applicants many times have very different objectives and strategies which would diffuse the focus otherwise present when only one agreement is at issue. Nonetheless, we do agree with MCI that § 252(g) gives this Commission the authority to consolidate arbitration proceedings under § 252 where appropriate. Section 252(g) provides:
(g) CONSOLIDATION OF STATE PROCEEDINGS.--Where not inconsistent with the requirements of this Act, a State commission may, to the extent practical, consolidate proceedings under sections 214(e), 251(f), 253, and this section in order to reduce administrative burdens on telecommunications carriers, other parties to the proceedings, and the State commission in carrying out its responsibilities under this Act. (Emphasis added).To the extent that this was unclear in our June 3, 1996 Order, we clarify that where practical, we will consider consolidation of arbitration proceedings. Parties may request consolidation where common issues are being addressed and consolidation would be practical and desirable from an administrative viewpoint. We will allow full opportunity for comment by the affected parties before any consolidation is ordered. Consolidation will be at the discretion of the Commission.
Finally, with regard to the adjudication phase, we reject the arguments of GTE to restrict participation by outside parties during this phase of the proceeding. The act sets out specific findings that the Commission must make during this phase of the proceeding and the Commission's review must be completed within 90 days. Section 252(e) requires that we reject a negotiated agreement, inter alia, when we find that ''. . . the agreement (or portion thereof) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement'' or that ''the implementation of such agreement or portion is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. . .''. It would be almost impossible for the Commission to make the required discrimination and public interest findings required by the statute if, as GTE suggests, we do not permit participation by outside parties. It is our interpretation that section 252(e) specifically contemplates participation by outside parties, and we, therefore, reject GTE's request for reconsideration of this portion of our Order.
Furthermore, we reject the claims of both NEXTLINK and MCI that they should have unlimited access to proprietary documents and materials during the arbitration process even though they are not parties to the proceeding. We do, however, agree that parties should have access to proprietary material during the 90-day approval stage for a negotiated agreement. In all instances, however, parties will be required to sign protective agreements before they have access to any proprietary materials. We agree with both NEXTLINK and MCI that this information will be necessary for interested parties to determine whether the § 252 standards for approval have been met.
We also reject MCI's request that carriers be required to file copies of negotiated interconnection agreements immediately upon execution with the Commission. MCI was unable to offer any persuasive reasons why the timeframes established in our June 3, 1996 Order at pp. 33-34 are in need of modification. We believe the filing procedures established in our June 3, 1996 Order are reasonable and meet the interests of all parties. Accordingly, we decline to modify them at this time.
With regard to the procedures established in our June 3, 1996 Order for the arbitration and adjudication processes, we clarify, first that the Commission will publish notice of all negotiated interconnection agreements submitted to it for approval in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. In order to accommodate notice of all interested parties in this manner and still ensure that the Commission has sufficient time to review negotiated agreements before being required to approve them, the Commission will shorten the comment period from the current 20 days to 10 business days from the date of publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. We believe that this new process is necessary because the Commission contemplates that especially in light of the FCC's recent Order in Docket 96-98, it will begin to receive many more interconnection agreements in the future for approval which are not part of any cases currently pending before the Commission. We believe publication in the Bulletin is necessary to give interested parties notice of these various filings for the purpose of submitting comment. With arbitrated agreements, we require parties to serve their joint application for approval consistent with the directives contained in our June 3, 1996 Order.
Second, we establish a bifurcated process for the review of negotiated and arbitrated provisions of an interconnection agreement. The Commission will accept any agreed upon or negotiated provisions for approval, as long as they constitute a substantial portion of the entire interconnection agreement, prior to the completion of the 9-month arbitration process in which the Commission is considering only the disputed portions of the agreement. The Commission believes this action is appropriate for the following reasons. First, negotiated and arbitrated provisions are subject to different standards for approval. In addition, different time periods apply to the Commission's review of negotiated and arbitrated provisions; the Commission has 90 days to approve negotiated provisions, but only 30 days to approve arbitrated provisions. Further, should the Commission have to reject any negotiated provisions for not meeting the § 252 standards, parties would have an opportunity to include those provisions in the pending arbitration proceeding, if necessary. In the alternative, parties may wait until the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding to submit the entire agreement for approval. However, the Commission puts parties on notice that it will also utilize a bifurcated approval process at that time to accommodate the different review periods and standards applicable to negotiated versus arbitrated provisions of an interconnection agreement.
Third, we clarify that once a party to a given interconnection agreement files a request for arbitration, the other party to the agreement must respond to that request and shall not be permitted to instead submit another separate request for arbitration. Responses by the other party to the agreement may, however, include any new issues which the respondent believes are also in dispute and should be subject to arbitration. Any request for arbitration received by the Commission after it has already received an initial request for arbitration in the case, shall be treated as a response to the initial request for arbitration.
Pre-enactment Agreements. We come now to the last, and perhaps most contentious issue in this section, the requirement that carriers file preenactment interconnection agreements with State commissions under § 252(a). Our actions here must necessarily conform to the FCC's recent Order at Docket 96-98, which established uniform requirements under this section of the act which all states must follow. In its Order, the FCC concluded that the 1996 Act requires all interconnection agreements, including any interconnection agreement negotiated before the date of enactment of 1996 Act and those between noncompeting carriers, to be submitted to the State commission for approval under § 252(e). The FCC stated in relevant part:
State commissions should have the opportunity to review all agreements, including those that were negotiated before the new law was enacted, to ensure that such agreements do not discriminate against third parties, and are not contrary to the public interest. In particular, preexisting agreement may include provisions that violate or are inconsistent with the procompetitive goals of the 1996 Act, and states may elect to reject such agreements under section 252(e)(2)(A). Requiring all contracts to be filed also limits an incumbent LEC's ability to discriminate among carriers, for at least two reasons. First, requiring public filing of agreements enables carriers to have information about rates, terms, and conditions that an incumbent LEC makes available to others. Second, any interconnection, service or network element provided under an agreement approved by the state commission under section 252 must be made available to any other requesting telecommunications carrier upon the same terms and conditions, in accordance with section 252(i). In addition, we believe that having the opportunity to review existing agreements may provide state commissions and potential competitors with a starting point for determining what is ''technically feasible'' for interconnection.* * * *. . . Conversely, excluding certain agreements from public disclosure could have anticompetitive consequences. For example, such contracts could include agreements not to compete. In addition, if we exempt agreements between neighboring noncompeting LECs, those parties might have a disincentive to compete with each other in the future, in order to preserve the terms of their preexisting agreements. Such a result runs counter to the goal of the 1996 Act to encourage local service competition.FCC August 8, 1996 Order at pp. 87-88.
Given the FCC's ruling, we view the issue of whether we are required to review all preenactment interconnection agreements, including agreements between noncompeting carriers, as moot. As the above passage from the FCC August 8, 1996 Order makes clear, all preenactment agreements, including those between noncompeting carriers must be submitted to State commissions for review. While the FCC declined to establish a deadline for the submission of these pre-existing agreements to the State commission, it did require that preexisting agreements between Class A carriers42 be filed no later than June 30, 1997 with the appropriate State commissions. The FCC left the option open to states of imposing a shorter time period for the filing preexisting agreements between Class A carriers and also left to the State commission the ability to establish its own timetable for the submission of agreements between other carriers.
In our June 3, 1996 Order we required LECs to file with the Commission a statement of all of their preenactment interconnection agreements. We received statements from some of the larger ILECs and from at least one CLEC. We deny the request for reconsideration of the PTA on this issue and require all LECs which have not yet complied with our June 3, 1996 Order's directive to file with the Commission a statement of all of their preenactment interconnection agreements on or before October 10, 1996.
We interpret the term interconnection agreement broadly to include, inter alia, toll transport agreements, other toll agreements covering Feature Group arrangements and other services not covered in the toll transport or toll recording category, 911 agreements, directory assistance agreements, directory listing agreements, operator service agreements, toll recording agreements, SS7 agreements, switcher area agreements, private line agreements, intercept agreements, internet agreements, cellular agreements, Extended Area Service (EAS) agreements, administration of the ITORP and monthly processing of ITORP messages, shared network facilities arrangements (SNFA), common channel signaling access service agreements, and any other agreement which establishes an interconnection term and/or condition not already included in this list. Such agreements shall not be limited to agreements among wireline providers, but shall include agreements with wireless providers also.
We decline to establish a schedule for the submission of these agreements at this time, but will do so once we receive the statements of all LECs. In order to establish an orderly and manageable timetable for the submission of these agreements, we must first determine the number and type of agreements involved.
4. LEC IntraLATA Toll Imputation.
a. Background. In our June 3, 1996 Order, we modified our December 14, 1995 Order at Docket I-00940034 so as to impose an imputation requirement on Bell Atlantic in conjunction with the implementation of intraLATA toll 1+ presubscription, as required by § 272(e)(3) of the act, effective when Bell Atlantic's affiliate provides interLATA services. We went on to impose an imputation requirement on all noncompetitive intraLATA toll services provided by any local carrier, effective at the time intraLATA presubscription becomes available in its service territory.
b. Position of the Parties. Strenuous objections to the imputation provisions of our June 3, 1996 were raised by ALLTEL, United and PTA. PTA argues that the manner in which the Commission's Order was issued violates due process and is procedurally defective.43 PTA claims that there is a lack of explanatory rationale to justify imposition of the imputation requirement on all ILECs. PTA also cites extensively to our IntraLATA Investigation Order44 wherein we rejected imputation for a number of reasons. PTA further argues that there has been no change in circumstances to justify the modification to Commission policy.45 Finally, PTA argues that institution of LEC-only imputation is one-sided and places the LEC at a serious competitive disadvantage.
United in its petition raises many of the same concerns as PTA relating to inadequate notice and opportunity to be heard. However, at the same time, United states that its ''corporate position is that an imputation requirement is appropriate, but that it should be coupled with rate rebalancing and that its timing of implementation should be cognizant of the practical ramifications that will result.46 United also argues that the transition from a residually-priced ratemaking environment to a market-driven environment ''may call for a phase-in of imputation, or a delayed imputation time-frame to assess competitive market erosion, or some other mechanism designed to temper the impact of competition on incumbent LECs and their ratepayers.''47
ALLTEL argues that there has been no subsequent proceeding or new evidence which justifies the change in policy relating to imputation. ALLTEL submits that ''the imputation requirement imposed upon the LECs should be deleted and the market forces should be allowed to control.''48
AT&T opposes the requests for reconsideration by PTA, United and ALLTEL, stating that the imputation safeguard is critical to the emergence of competition in the intraLATA toll market. AT&T argues that without imputation, an ILEC would be able to exclude existing and potential competitors by pricing its own toll services below what it charges its competitors for access. AT&T also argues that it makes no sense to limit the imputation requirement solely to Bell Atlantic and impose a safeguard on only one service territory within the State ''when the conditions that give rise to that safeguard appear throughout the Commonwealth.''49 Finally, AT&T states that PTA and its other member companies had notice that the Commission was reconsidering its IntraLATA Investigation Order, that they were active participants to that proceeding and that there was no due process violation as alleged.50
c. Discussion. We grant in part the petitions for reconsideration filed by PTA, ALLTEL and United. We agree that our June 3, 1996 Order was ambiguous as to whether the Commission intended to extend the imputation requirements to other LECs. The relevant section of our June 3, 1996 Order provides as follows:
Furthermore, the Commission refrained from imposing on imputation requirement on, intraLATA services provided once presubscription is available, on either local exchange carriers, including Bell, or interexchange carriers. Instead, the Commission determined that, at least initially, the marketplace should be permitted to govern the pricing of intraLATA services and that the Commission would monitor the marketplace on an ongoing basis to assure that no carrier was engaging in anti-competitive behavior.* * * *It appears that the effect of Section 272(e)(3) is to require that Bell be made subject to an imputation requirement upon the availability of intraLATA presubscription in its service territory. Accordingly, interested parties should comment on whether the Commission's December 14, 1995 Order at I-00940034 requires revision given the application of the Act.Because of this ambiguity, we suspend the imputation requirement as to all LECs with the exception of Bell Atlantic, pending further comment at this Docket on whether all LECs should be subject to the imputation requirement. We agree with the parties that it would be appropriate to develop the record further on this issue. Parties desiring to submit further comment on this issue shall do so on or before October 15, 1996. Reply comments will be accepted for filing on or before October 31, 1996. In addition to addressing whether the imputation requirement is appropriate for all LECs, parties should address any timing considerations including the relationship with any other pending dockets at the Commission.
5. Commission Consumer Protection Task Force.
a. Background. In our June 3, 1996 Order, we established a Task Force comprised of representatives of the Commission and industry to develop definitions and marketing terminology that will be universally understood by consumers when used in the actual marketing of telecommunications services. The Task Force was intended as a important consumer protection device given the significant entry preemption contained in § 253 of the act.
b. Position of the Parties. PTA objects to the formation of the Task Force, stating that the Commission is inappropriately ''expanding the universal service proceeding into areas that are strictly at the discretion of company management. . .''51 Furthermore, states PTA, the overwhelming types of products offered by telecommunications companies are deregulated or will sooon be competitive divesting the Commission of any jurisdiction over the particular services or products.52 PTA argues that smaller LECs are not currently required to comply with the Commission's plain language policy statement and that the Commission's establishment of the Task Force imposes new regulatory burdens inconsistent with the recent Governor's Executive Order 1996-1, entitled Regulatory Review and Promulgation.53 Finally, PTA argues that ''the objective of providing consumers with comparable product detail is based on illogical assumptions and will cause unwieldy delays in market entry.''54
c. Discussion. We reject the PTA's request for reconsideration for the following reasons. First, PTA's position is based upon either a fundamental misunderstanding or unduly narrow reading of the Commission's authority under § 253(b) of the act as applying to universal service issues only. The Commission's broad authority under section 253(b) of the act authorizes it to address not only universal service issues but matters necessary to protect the public welfare as well. Section 253(b) provides in relevant part:
(b) STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY.--Nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers. (Emphasis added).Second, the argument that the Commission, through the establishment of the Task Force, intends to become involved in any day-to-day management decisions of carriers, belies a basic misunderstanding of the Task Force's purpose and mission. The Task Force's mission is to ensure that consumers have the information they will need in the future not only to make educated decisions as to their telecommunications needs, but to prevent them from falling prey to any less scrupulous providers in the open entry environment created by § 253(a) of the act. We view customer education as a critical part of our responsibilities as regulators. As such, we believe the Task Force's scope and purpose falls squarely within our authority under § 253(b). Accordingly, we deny PTA's Petition for Reconsideration of this portion of our June 3, 1996 Order.
6. Notice of FCC Filings.
a. Background. Our June 3, 1996 Order requires parties to file a copy of all FCC filings made under Title II of the Communications Act. As to other filings, our Order required that carriers file with the Commission a one-page notice of the filing which includes the docket number of the filing and a description of the document filed.
b. Position of the Parties. Both ALLTEL and GTE object to having to serve the Commission with their FCC filings stating that such a requirement is unduly burdensome. ALLTEL states that the very purpose of the act is to promote competition and reduce regulation and regulatory filings. GTE states that it has voluntarily provided the Commission with copies of comments and filings when officially requested or by informal inquiry from Commission staff.55
c. Discussion. We do not agree with either ALLTEL or GTE that the requirement that they provide the Commission with a copy of all filings made with the FCC under Title II of the Communications Act is burdensome or otherwise inappropriate. Accordingly, we decline to modify this portion of our June 3, 1996 Order. In addition, we supplement our Order to require that carriers serve the Law Bureau of the Commission, in addition to the Commission's Secretary, with a copy of any petition or request for relief filed with the FCC which affects the provision of service in Pennsylvania.
We will, however, eliminate the requirement that carriers file a one-page notice of non-Title II filings with the Commission. In lieu of this requirement, we will require parties to submit any non-Title II filing with this Commission which affects either the provision of telecommunications services in Pennsylvania, which has an impact upon a proceeding or issue otherwise before this Commission, which impinges upon a matter over which this Commission has jurisdiction, or which affects the Commission's responsibilities under the act; Therefore,
It Is Ordered That:
1. The Petitions for Reconsideration and/or Clarification filed by GTE, United, Bell Atlantic, PTA, NEXTLINK, North Pittsburgh, ALLTEL and MCI are hereby granted in part, and denied in part consistent with the discussion set forth in this Order.
2. The Commission's June 3, 1996 Order at this Docket is modified to the extent discussed herein.
3. Applicants shall have 10 days from the entry date of this Order to refile in a separate pleading within the relevant A-docket all requests for ancillary relief currently contained in their pending applications with service upon all parties.
4. ALLTEL and United shall file information with the Commission which establishes their eligibility for RTC status under section 3(a)(47)(D) as of the date of enactment of the 1996 Act within 20 days from the entry date of this Order.
5. Any LEC which has not yet complied with the requirement contained in the Commission's June 3, 1996 Order to file a statement of all preenactment interconnection agreements with the Commission, shall do so on or before October 10, 1996.
6. Parties shall file initial comments on whether the Commission should extend the imputation requirement to all LECs, in addition to Bell Atlantic, on or before October 15, 1996, and reply comments on or before October 31, 1996.
7. The Secretary shall deposit this Order and Annex A with the Legislative Reference Bureau for publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin effective immediately.
8. The Secretary's Office is directed to serve this Order on all parties on the Executive Director's telecommunications mailing list which are not parties on the service list for this docket.
JOHN G. ALFORD,
Secretary
Statement of Commissioner John Hanger The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Telco Act) presents many new opportunities for Pennsylvania's families and businesses. The Reconsideration Order now before the Commission presents staff's recommendations concerning the recently filed Petitions for Reconsideration from Alltel of Pennsylvania, United Telephone Company, the Pennsylvania Telephone Association, Bell Atlantic--Pennsylvania, MCI Corporation, and North Pittsburgh Telephone Company.
The principal issues for reconsideration by Petitioners are: new entry and application procedures applicable to non-rural telephone service territories; eligibility for rural telephone company status and entry procedures applicable to rural telephone company service areas; negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and adjudication procedures for interconnection agreements including preenactment agreements; LEC intralata toll imputation; and Commission consumer protection task force.
It should be noted that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued Orders on August 1st and 8th, which give state commissions much guidance in interpreting the Telco Act.
I will vote for the entire staff recommendation. The issues below are those of special note.
LEC Intralata Toll Imputation
The Commission's June 3rd Order on implementation of the Telco Act imposed an imputation requirement on all noncompetitive intralata toll services provided by any local carrier when intralata presubscription becomes available in its service territory.
Staff has revisited this issue, because Petitioners have asserted that improper notice of such a proposed requirement was given in the March 14th Tentative Order. In fairness to all the parties involved, staff has proposed a comment period in which affected parties may be heard concerning imputation. I agree with this recommendation.
Pre-enactment Interconnection Agreements
The FCC Order from August 8th requires that all pre-enactment agreements be submitted to state commissions for approval. I believe this is the Order's more important provision.
Commission approval of pre-enactment agreements will help ensure that the non-discrimination clauses of the Telco Act are enforced. The price paid for interconnection services by one telecommunications competitor will be the same price paid by all competitors. Competition will not happen in Pennsylvania if the rules are not fair to incumbents and new entrants.
Appendix A Sample Application Form for Parties Wishing to Offer, Render, Furnish or Supply Telecommunication Services to the Public in the Comonwealth of Pennsylvania
You may use the following form to make your application. (Remove this instruction sheet prior to filing.) If you need more space than is provided on this form or if you are attaching exhibits, attach additional pages and exhibits immediately following the page containing the item(s) being addressed. If you retype the application, please repeat each item in conjunction with your answers.
To file an application with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, file a signed and verified original and three copies of your application and attachments with the Commission's Secretary's Office in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
B-20, North Office Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120
or
P. O. Box 3265
Harrisburg, PA 17105-3265IF YOUR ANSWER TO ANY OF THESE ITEMS CHANGES DURING THE PENDENCY OF YOUR APPLICATION OR IF THE INFORMATION RELATIVE TO ANY ITEM HEREIN CHANGES WHILE YOU ARE OPERATING WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, YOU ARE UNDER A DUTY TO SO INFORM THE COMMISSION AS TO THE SPECIFICS OF THE CHANGE. ADDITIONALLY, IF YOU PLAN TO CEASE DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, YOU ARE UNDER A DUTY TO REQUEST AUTHORITY FROM THE COMMISSION FOR PERMISSION PRIOR TO CEASING BUSINESS.
As noted herein, you should file a separate application for each category of operation. If you are filing multiple applications simultaneously, the applications should cross reference each other. At the time of filing, you may petition the Commission, pursuant to Section 5.43 of the Commission's Regulations, 52 Pa. Code § 5.43, to waive the provisions of Sections 1.34 and 1.43, 52 Pa. Code §§ 1.34 and 1.43, which require a separate application fee for each application (i.e., multiple fees), and to seek authorization for the payment of one application fee. Additionally, pursuant to Sections 1.57 and 1.58 of the Commission's Regulations, 52 Pa. Code §§ 1.57 and 1.58, you must attach Proof of Service of the Application and attachments upon certain parties as specified in the Sample Application. Upon review of the Application, further notice may be required pursuant to Section 5.14 of the Commission's Regulations, 52 Pa. Code § 5.14.
BEFORE THE PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
Application of _________________ Application Docket No. d/b/a _________________ , for approval _________________ to offer, render, furnish, or supply telecommunica- F _________________ tion services as a(n) [as specified in Item 10 below] 19 _____ to the public in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
To the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission: 1. IDENTITY OF THE APPLICANT: The name, address, telephone number, and FAX number of the Applicant are: Please identify any predecessor(s) of the Applicant and provide other names under which the Applicant has operated within the preceding five (5) years, including name, address, and telephone number. 2. CONTACT PERSON: The name, title, address, telephone number, and FAX number of the person to whom questions about this Application should be addressed are: 3. ATTORNEY: If applicable, the name, address, telephone number, and FAX number of the Applicant's attorney are: 4. FICTITIOUS NAME: (select and complete appropriate statement)
[ ] The Applicant will be using a fictitious name or doing business as (''d/b/a''):
Attach to the Application a copy of the Applicant's filing with the Commonwealth's Department of State pursuant to 54 Pa.C.S. § 311, Form PA-953.
or
[ ] The Applicant will not be using a fictitious name.5. BUSINESS ENTITY AND DEPARTMENT OF STATE FILINGS: (select and complete appropriate statement)
[ ] The Applicant is a sole proprietor.
If the Applicant is located outside the Commonwealth, provide proof of compliance with 15 Pa.C.S. § 4124 relating to Department of State filing requirements.
or
[ ] The Applicant is a:
[ ] domestic general partnership (*)
[ ] domestic limited partnership (15 Pa.C.S. § 8511)
[ ] foreign general or limited partnership (15 Pa.C.S. § 4124)
[ ] domestic limited liability partnership (15 Pa.C.S. § 8201)
[ ] foreign limited liability general partnership (15 Pa.C.S. § 8211)
[ ] foreign limited liability limited partnership (15 Pa.C.S. § 8211)
Provide proof of compliance with appropriate Department of State filing requirements as indicated above. Give name, d/b/a, and address of partners. If any partner is not an individual, identify the business nature of the partner entity and identify its partners or officers. [ ] *If a corporate partner in the Applicant's domestic partnership is not domiciled in Pennsylvania, attach a copy of the Applicant's Department of State filing pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. § 4124.
or[ ] The Applicant is a:
[ ] domestic corporation (none)
[ ] foreign corporation (15 Pa.C.S. § 4124)
[ ] domestic limited liability company (15 Pa.C.S. § 8913)
[ ] foreign limited liability company (15 Pa.C.S. § 8981)Provide proof of compliance with appropriate Department of State filing requirements as indicated above. Additionally, provide a copy of the Applicant's Articles of Incorporation.
Give name and address of officers.
The Applicant is incorporated in the state of _________________ .6. AFFILIATES AND PREDECESSORS WITHIN PENNSYLVANIA: (select and complete appropriate statement)
[ ] Affiliate(s) of the Applicant doing business in Pennsylvania are:
Give name and address of the affiliate(s) and state whether the affiliate(s) are jurisdictional public utilities. Give the docket numbers for the authority of any jurisdictional affiliate(s).
[ ] If the Applicant or an affiliate has a predecessor who has done business within Pennsylvania, give name and address of the predecessor(s) and state whether the predecessor(s) were jurisdictional public utilities. Give the docket numbers for the authority of any jurisdictional predecessor(s).
or
[ ] The Applicant has no affiliates doing business in Pennsylvania or predecessors which have done business in Pennsylvania.
7. AFFILIATES AND PREDECESSORS RENDERING PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE OUTSIDE PENNSYLVANIA: (select and complete the appropriate statement)
[ ] Affiliate(s) of the Applicant rendering public utility service in any jurisdiction other than Pennsylvania are:
Give name and address of the affiliate(s).
[ ] Predecessor(s) of the Applicant which rendered public utility service in any jurisdiction other than Pennsylvania are:
Give name and address of the predecessor(s).
or
[ ] The Applicant has no affiliates rendering or predecessors which rendered public utility service outside Pennsylvania.
8. TRANSACTIONS WITH AFFILIATES: (select and complete the appropriate statement)
[ ] Identify any affiliate(s) which provide services to or receive services from the Applicant. Describe the nature of the services and how the transaction between or among affiliates will be handled.
or
[ ] The Applicant has no affiliate(s) providing service to or receiving services from the Applicant.9. APPLICANT'S PRESENT OPERATIONS: (Select and complete the appropriate statement)
[ ] The Applicant is presently doing business in Pennsylvania as a jurisdictional public utility pursuant to authority at Docket No. ______ as a:[ ] Reseller of Toll Services, e.g., MTS, 1+, 800 & 888, Out WATS, Travel Cards, Debit Cards, etc.
[ ] Competitive Access Provider, e.g., dedicated point-to-point service or IXC transporter.
[ ] Interexchange Carrier, e.g., providing toll services as a facilities-based carrier.
[ ] Competitive Local Exchange Carrier, e.g., providing local exchange service as a facilities-based carrier or as a reseller in an area previously served by an incumbent local exchange carrier.
[ ] Local Exchange Carrier, providing local exchange service as a facilities-based carrier within a defined service territory.
[ ] Other. (Identify the nature of public utility service being rendered.)
or
[ ] The Applicant is not presently doing business in Pennsylvania as a public utility.
10. APPLICANT'S PROPOSED OPERATIONS: The Applicant proposes to operate as a:
[ ] Reseller of Toll Services, e.g., MTS, 1+, 800 & 888, Out WATS, Travel Cards, Debit Cards, etc.
[ ] Competitive Access Provider, e.g., dedicated point-to-point service or IXC transporter.
[ ] Interexchange Carrier, e.g., providing toll services as a facilities-based carrier.
[ ] Competitive Local Exchange Carrier, e.g., providing local exchange service as a facilities-based carrier or as a reseller.
[ ] Other. (Identify the nature of public utility service to be rendered.)
The Applicant should file a separate application for each category of operation. If the Applicant files multiple applications simultaneously, the applications should cross reference each other. At the time of filing, the Applicant may petition to the Commission, pursuant to Section 5.43 of the Commission's Regulations, 52 Pa. Code § 5.43, to waive the provisions of Sections 1.34 and 1.43, 52 Pa. Code §§ 1.34 and 1.43, which require a separate application fee for each application (i.e., multiple fee), and to seek authorization for the payment of one application fee.
11. PROPOSED SERVICES: Describe the services which the Applicant proposes to offer. 12. SERVICE AREA: Describe the geographic service area in which the Applicant proposes to offer services.
Additionally, the Applicant asserts that it [will or will not] be a rural telephone company. State which provision of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 is applicable to the Applicant's status if the Applicant is a rural telephone company.13. MARKET: Describe the customer base to which the Applicant proposes to market its services. 14. INITIAL TARIFF: Attach to the Application a proposed Initial Tariff setting forth the rates, rules, and regulations of the Applicant. The tariff shall state on its cover sheet the nature of the Applicant's operations as identified in Item 10, above. 15. FINANCIAL: Provide a general description of the Applicant's capitalization and, if applicable, its corporate stock structure.
Attach to the Application a tentative operating balance sheet and a projected income statement for the first year of operation within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The name, title, address, telephone number, and FAX number of the Applicant's custodian for its accounting records and supporting documentation are:
The Applicant's accounting records and supporting documentation are, or will be, maintained at:
16. START DATE: The Applicant proposes to begin offering services on _________________ (approximate date). 17. FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS: Attach to the Application a statement of further developments, planned or contemplated, to which the present Application is preliminary or with which it forms a part, together with a reference to any related proceeding before the Commission.
The Applicant is under a continuing obligation to amend this Application if any matter asserted herein changes during the pendency of the Application or while the Applicant is providing public utility service within the Commonwealth.
18. NOTICE: Pursuant to Section 5.14 of the Commission's Regulations, 52 Pa. Code § 5.14, serve a copy of the signed and verified Application with attachments on the following:
Irwin A. Popowsky
Consumer Advocate
1425 Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Bernard A. Ryan, Jr.
Small Business Advocate
Commerce Building, Suite 1102
300 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Office of the Attorney General
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Strawberry Square, 14th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17120Office of Trial Staff--1 copy
Office of Special Assistants--1 copy
Bureau of Consumer Services--1 copy
Bureau of Fixed Utility Services--1 copy
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
P. O. Box 3265
Harrisburg, PA 17105-3265
Pursuant to Sections 1.57 and 1.58 of the Commission's Regulations, 52 Pa. Code §§ 1.57 and 1.58, attach Proof of Service of the Application and attachments upon the above named parties. Upon review of the Application, further notice may be required pursuant to Section 5.14 of the Commission's Regulations, 52 Pa. Code § 5.14. 19. AFFIDAVIT: Attach to the Application an affidavit as follows:
AFFIDAVIT
[Commonwealth/State] of _________________ :
: ss.
:
County of _________________
_________________ , Affiant, being duly [sworn/affirmed] according to law, deposes and says that:
[He/she is the _________________ (Office of Affiant) of _________________ (Name of Applicant);]
[That he/she is authorized to and does make this affidavit for said corporation;]
That _________________ , the Applicant herein, acknowledges that [he/she/it] may have an obligation to serve or to continue to serve the public by virtue of the Applicant commencing the rendering of service pursuant to this Application consistent with the Public Utility Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Title 66 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes; with the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed February 6, 1996; or with other applicable statutes or regulations;
That _________________ , the Applicant herein, asserts that [he/she/it] possesses the requisite technical, managerial, and financial fitness to render public utility service within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and that the Applicant will abide by all applicable federal and state laws and regulations and by the decisions of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.
That the facts above set forth are [true and correct/true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief] and that he/she [expects/expects said corporation] to be able to prove the same at any hearing hereof.
__________
Signature of Affiant
Sworn and subscribed before me this _____ day of ______ , 19 ____ .
__________
Signature of official administering oath
My commission expires _________________ .
20. FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996: State whether the Applicant claims a particular status pursuant to the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Provides supporting facts. 21. COMPLIANCE: State specifically whether the Applicant, an affiliate, a predecessor of either, or a person identified in this Application has been convicted of a crime involving fraud or similar activity. Identify all proceedings, limited to proceedings dealing with business operations, in the last five (5) years, whether before an administrative body or in a judicial forum, in which the Applicant, an affiliate, a predecessor of either, or a person identified herein has been a defendant or a respondent. Provide a statement as to the resolution or present status of any such proceedings.
22. CONTACT FOR RESOLVING COMPLAINTS: Provide the name, address, telephone number, and FAX number for the person and an Alternate person responsible for addressing customer complaints. These persons will ordinarily be the initial point(s) of contact for resolving complaints and queries filed with the Public Utility Commission or other agencies. 23. FALSIFICATION: The Applicant understands that the making of false statement(s) herein may be grounds for denying the Application or, if later discovered, for revoking any authority granted pursuant to the Application. This Application is subject to 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 4903 and 4904, relating to perjury and falsification in official matters. 24. CESSATION: The Applicant understands that if it plans to cease doing business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it is under a duty to request authority from the Commission for permission prior to ceasing business.
Applicant: _________________
By: _________________
Title: _________________
VERIFICATION [Commonwealth/State] of _________________ :
: ss.
:
County of _________________
_________________ , Affiant, being duly [sworn/affirmed] according to law, deposes and says that:
[He/she is the _________________ (Office of Affiant) of _________________ (Name of Applicant);]
[That he/she is authorized to and does make this affidavit for said corporation;]
That the facts above set forth are [true and correct/true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief] and that he/she [expects/excepts said corporation] to be able to prove the same at any hearing hereof.
__________
Signature of Affiant
Sworn and subscribed before me this ____ day of _________________ , 19 ____ .
__________
Signature of official administering oath
My commission expires _________________ .
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 96-1606. Filed for public inspection September 20, 1996, 9:00 a.m.] _______
39 Statement of Teleport Communications Group at p. 1.
40 OCA Answer at p. 12.
41 AT&T Opposition at p. 5.
42 Class A companies are defined as companies ''having annual revenues from regulated telecommunications operations of $100,000,000 or more./'/' 47 CFR 32.11(a)(1).
43 PTA Petition for Reconsideration at p. 3.
44 Investigation into IntraLATA Interconnection Arrangements, Docket No. I-940034 (July 26, 1994).
45 PTA Petition for Reconsideration at pp. 7-8.
46 United Petition for Reconsideration at p. 7.
47 United Petition for Reconsideration at p. 8.
48 ALLTEL Petition for Reconsideration at p. 10.
49 AT&T Opposition at p. 8.
50 AT&T Opposition at p. 9.
51 PTA Petition for Reconsideration at p. 15.
52 PTA Petition for Reconsideration at p. 16.
53 PTA Petition for Reconsideration at p. 16.
54 PTA Petition for Reconsideration at p. 17.
55 GTE Petition for Reconsideration at p. 6.
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
