PROPOSED RULEMAKING
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC
UTILITY COMMISSION
[ 52 PA. CODE CHS. 53, 63 AND 64 ]
[ L-2018-3001391 ]
Rulemaking to Comply with the Competitive Classification of Telecommunication Retail Services under 66 Pa.C.S. § 3016(a); General Review of Regulations 52 Pa. Code Chapters 53, 63 and 64
[51 Pa.B. 1999]
[Saturday, April 10, 2021]Public Meeting held
August 27, 2020Commissioners Present: Gladys Brown Dutrieuille, Chairperson, statement as follows; David W. Sweet, Vice Chairperson; John F. Coleman, Jr.; Ralph V. Yanora
Rulemaking to Comply with the Competitive Classification of Telecommunication Retail Services Under 66 Pa.C.S § 3016(a); General Review of Regulations 52 Pa. Code, Chapter 53, Chapter 63 and Chapter 64; Docket No. L-2018-3001391
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Order By the Commission:
A little over two years ago, this Commission initiated an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) pursuant to our Reclassification Order entered March 4, 2015, which addressed service provided by the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) Verizon Pennsylvania LLC (Verizon PA) and Verizon North LLC (Verizon North) (collectively Verizon).1 The ANOPR was intended to address not only those regulations that were temporarily waived due to Verizon's competitive reclassification but also those that, in effect, had become less vital given the evolution of the provision of telecommunications today.
Additionally, Chapter 30 of the Public Utility Code authorizes the Commission to review and revise quality of service standards contained in 52 Pa. Code (relating to public utilities) that address the safety, adequacy, reliability and privacy of telecommunications services and the ordering, installation, suspension, termination and restoration of any telecommunications service. This statutory provision also states that any review or revision must take into consideration the emergence of new industry participants, technological advancements, service standards and consumer demand. 66 Pa.C.S. § 3019(b)(2).
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is not just the adjunct to our ANOPR. It is more importantly our responsible exercise of regulation over utilities subject to our jurisdiction and those consumers who rely on that jurisdiction. While the telecommunications market has evolved, some issues, especially in matters involving service and safety, continue to warrant oversight. The Commission retains jurisdiction generally under all sections of the Code and specifically over the provision of service under Section 1501 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S § 1501. Our regulations provide a roadmap to guide the reasonable exercise of that jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it is time to update that map in order to further alleviate burdens on carriers while still providing sufficient directions to guide us all as we discharge our responsibilities under the Code.
In particular, with this NPRM and accompanying Appendix, the Commission proposes revisions to Chapter 53, 63 and 64 of its regulations. The Commission has worked to (1) identify common interests and concerns; (2) reasonably balance competing interests; (3) craft amendments that acknowledge today's telecommunications market but not require or rely upon formal competitive analyses or designations under Chapter 30; and (4) propose modified regulations that are more equitable for the industry, sufficiently protective for consumers, and structurally feasible for both staff and the industry. Specifically, the Commission has endeavored to reduce utility reports and other burdens while still ensuring a meaningful manner of addressing regulated service in order to find the right balance between relieving utilities of existing burdens while retaining an adequate layer of consumer protection.
The Commission is initiating this rulemaking to respond to these changes in competitive market conditions in the telecommunications industry and, in particular, to address whether the increases in competition and the subsequent reclassification of certain wire centers as competitive because of the presence of viable competitive alternatives warrant the elimination of certain regulations applicable to jurisdictional telecommunications carriers in both competitive and noncompetitive areas.
Background
I. Verizon Petition and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Following a full evidentiary proceeding under Section 3016(a), 66 Pa.C.S. § 3016(a), on March 4, 2015, the Commission entered its Reclassification Order, partially granting a petition filed jointly by Verizon PA and Verizon North to reclassify 153 of their 504 total wire centers as competitive and waive certain regulations.2 As part of the Reclassification Order, the Commission also granted for the Verizon ILECs' competitive wire centers a five-year waiver of certain of the Commission's Chapter 63 and Chapter 64 regulations, pending a rulemaking to determine the amendment of these regulations in competitive and noncompetitive wire centers on a permanent and industry-wide basis. At the same time, the Commission also temporarily waived, for any competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) operating in Verizon's competitive service areas, specific regulations in Title 52 of the Pennsylvania Code pending further review of the waivers in a subsequent rulemaking.
In furtherance of this objective, the Commission issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Order (ANOPR Order) at Docket No. L-2018-3001391 on July 12, 2018, in which it solicited initial and reply comments on these matters.3 We observed the following in our ANOPR Order:
According to Chapter 30, the primary impact of a competitive determination is that: (1) Verizon may price the service at its discretion; and (2) Verizon may maintain a price list of a competitive service rather than maintaining a Commission-approved tariff.5 However, a finding that the market is competitive is not equivalent to nor does it require a complete deregulation of the service.6
The Commission has retained authority under the Code over certain aspects of landline telecommunications services determined to be competitive, including retaining jurisdiction over quality of service standards that address the safety, adequacy, reliability, and privacy of telecommunications services and the ordering, installation, suspension, termination, and restoration of any telecommunication service.7 According to Chapter 30, our jurisdiction is only limited to the extent that competitive services' rates may not be regulated by the Commission,8 and the Commission may not require tariffs for competitive services. However, the Commission may require that a price list for competitive services be maintained at the Commission,9 an outcome similar to the principle of detariffing, which is the elimination of the requirement to file and maintain tariffs, including not only the rates for service set by the regulatory authority but also the terms and conditions of service approved by the regulatory authority.10
_______________________________________
5 See 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 3016(d) and (e).
6 ''Deregulation'' is the pervasive elimination of all regulation, including both price and service regulation.
7 See 66 Pa.C.S. § 3019(b)(2); see also 66 Pa.C.S. § 1501.
8 66 Pa.C.S. § 3016(e)(1) (''Subject to the requirements of subsection (d)(1) [establishing cost of service as the price floor], a local exchange telecommunications company may price competitive services at the company's discretion.'').
9 66 Pa.C.S. § 3016 (d)(4) (''The commission may require a local exchange telecommunications company to maintain price lists with the commission applicable to its competitive services. Price changes that are filed in a company's tariff for competitive services will go into effect on a one-day notice.'').
10 Tariffs are defined under 66 Pa.C.S § 102 as including not only rates and rate schedules but also ''rules, regulations and practices'' of the utility. Moreover, the Commission's Regulation at 52 Pa. Code § 53.25 specifies that a telephone utility's tariff shall set forth ''all rules and regulations'' which apply generally to all classes of services. Therefore, we interpret the Section 3016(d)(2) language specifying that the Commission may not require tariffs for competitive services as applying to not only rates but also terms and conditions of service. In the event rates, services, or other conditions are detariffed, consumer protections are invoked under the Consumer Protection Act, 73 P.S. §§ 201-1 to 9.
ANOPR Order at 7-8, 48 Pa.B. 4794.
The ANOPR was intended to address not only those regulations that were temporarily waived due to Verizon's competitive reclassification but also those that, in effect, had become less vital given the evolution of the provision of telecommunications today. Whatever the number of regulated access lines in Pennsylvania,4 we do not disagree with two underlying premises at play in our actions. First, unregulated providers not subject to our Title 52 regulations compete with our regulated wireline utilities. Second, many of our regulations were prescribed before those unregulated providers existed. While we lack sufficient analysis of the competitive alternatives throughout all Pennsylvania, particularly in rural carriers' territories, we may nonetheless modernize our regulations to remove obligations we believe, on balance, present a greater burden than benefit. We cannot, however, support a wholesale repeal of regulations where, upon deliberate consideration, we find some remain necessary to protect the public interest, which includes the interests of both carriers and consumers.
The Commission received comments from the following entities in the ANOPR stage of this proceeding:
• AT&T Corp. and Teleport Communications America, LLC (collectively AT&T) (Initial Comments, October 3, 2018).
• Coalition for Affordable Utility Services and Energy Efficiency (CAUSE-PA) (Initial Comments, October 2, 2018).
• Communications Workers of America (CWA) (Initial Comments, October 2, 2018).
• Dex Media, Inc. d/b/a ''Dex YP'' (Dex Media) (Initial Comments, October 2, 2018, Reply Comments, November 2, 2018).
• Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) (Initial Comments, October 3, 2018, Reply Comments, November 2, 2018).
• Rural ILECs5 (RLECs) (Initial Comments, October 3, 2018, Reply Comments, November 2, 2018).
• Tenny Journal Communications (Tenny Journal) (Initial Comments, September 4, 2018).
• The Verizon ILECs and their affiliated companies regulated by the Commission including MCImetro Access Transmission Services Corp., MCI Communications Services, Inc., XO Communications Services, LLC, Verizon Long Distance LLC, and Verizon Select Services, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as Verizon) (Initial Comments, October 3, 2018, Reply Comments, November 2, 2018).6
The relevant comments of the participating parties are substantively addressed in relation to the proposed treatment of our Chapter 53, 63 and 64 regulations in the context of this NPRM, and in relation with other pertinent matters.
To that end, and to address certain additional issues, this NPRM Order is being issued to solicit public input regarding the proposed amendment of the Commission's Chapter 53, 63, and 64 regulations, including, inter alia, whether to make permanent any regulatory waivers granted in the Reclassification Order but, as proposed herein, on an industry-wide basis, whether to make permanent temporary waivers that at various times were granted to regulated telecommunications utilities operating under our jurisdiction and whether to rescind as obsolete or amend any Chapter 63 and 64 regulations in Pennsylvania.
II. Commission Actions Following the Closure of the ANOPR Comment Period
Following the formal closure of the ANOPR Order comment period, the Commission undertook further actions consistent with the time frame that was established in the Reclassification Order with respect to the temporary regulatory waivers of certain of our regulations for the competitive wire centers of the Verizon ILECs. Through a Tentative Order that was issued on February 6, 2020, the Commission sought additional comments on a further extension of the temporary regulatory waivers granted to Verizon as well as on managing access to the proprietary Verizon ILEC data that had been submitted to the Commission for the 2015-2016 time frame, which included the filing of two separate reports for calendar years 2015 and 2016, under the relevant 2015 Implementation Order and Reporting Order by interested and participating parties in this proceeding. Following the receipt of comments from Verizon, the OCA and CAUSE-PA, the Commission issued a Final Order on February 27, 2020 on this particular matter.7 The Commission stated the following:
We disagree with OCA that the Commission must set forth further conditions or consideration of information which might militate against blanket continuation of the subject regulatory waivers. Specifically, we do not believe that it is necessary to accept OCA's recommendation that the Commission rescind or end certain waivers granted to Verizon in the Reclassification Order before we complete our analysis in the ANOPR. The Reclassification Order was very specific in stating that the regulatory waivers are granted ''temporarily'' for the earlier of five years or the completion of a rulemaking proceeding, in order to provide ''Verizon time to experience competitive operations in these wire centers,'' allow Verizon and other interested parties to track data, and, finally, ''to allow the Commission time to undertake a rulemaking to determine what service Regulations, if any, should apply in competitive and noncompetitive wire centers.'' Reclassification Order at 104. Thus, we view our decision to maintain the status quo and extend the regulatory waivers, until December 31, 2022 or completion of the Rulemaking (whichever is sooner), as a logical extension of our decision in the Reclassification Order. Moreover, the decision to extend the waivers is well within our discretion.
February 2020 Order at 8-9.
The Commission also addressed the availability of the Verizon ILECs' 2015-2016 proprietary data that had been submitted to the Commission by interested parties:
Verizon has already submitted the required two years of data to help assess the market conditions present in the 153 wire centers determined to be competitive. Since Verizon has already submitted this historic proprietary data in response to the Commission's Reclassification Order, it is our intent, as stated in the Tentative Order, to make this relevant data available to the participating parties in the ANOPR at Docket No. L-2018-3001391 in order to provide them with an opportunity to review the data, perform an independent analysis of the data and assist the Commission in assessing the market conditions of these 153 competitive wire centers and to help address the regulatory impact of continuing the regulatory waivers on a permanent and industry-wide basis for any additional areas determined to be competitive. We note that none of the commenters opposed this tentative conclusion. We further note that the data provided to the Commission should also be provided to the parties executing the Non-Disclosure Agreement as it was provided to the Commission although Verizon can, if it chooses, provide additional information. Once their review of the Verizon historic proprietary data is completed, the parties will have the opportunity to file supplemental comments and replies in the pending ANOPR proceeding. Those comments and replies shall be due on or before March 18 and April 2, 2020, respectively.
Accordingly, this process should address CAUSE-PA's concern that there be an opportunity for both parties and then subsequently the Commission to conduct a comprehensive analysis, pursuant to the data available, whether the regulatory waivers have negatively impacted the ability of consumers to access universal telecommunication service. To assist the Commission in this endeavor, we also will direct our Bureau of Consumer Services, with the assistance of Law Bureau, the Bureau of Technical Utility Services, and any other necessary Commission bureaus, to perform an analysis of the Verizon historic proprietary data to include (1) a comparison of the data, and any conclusions therefrom, regarding the effect of the waivers on competitive wire centers, pre-waiver and post-waiver, and (2) a comparison of the data, and any conclusions therefrom, between competitive and noncompetitive wire centers. We believe this analysis along with the supplemental comment process should address the concern of CAUSE-PA.
February 2020 Order at 9-10.
We directed the following with our February 2020 Order:
• That the temporary waivers of our Chapter 63 and 64 regulations specified in the Commission's Reclassification Order for the services in the 153 wire centers determined to be competitive, be extended from March 4, 2020 to December 31, 2022, or until the issuance of final-form regulations in a pending rulemaking, whichever is earlier;
• That the participants in the ANOPR proceeding be provided the opportunity to file supplemental comments based on the access and review of the Verizon historic proprietary data and with prescribed deadlines for the submission of such supplemental and reply comments; and
• That the Bureau of Consumer Services, with the assistance of the Law Bureau and the Bureau of Technical Utility Services, and other bureaus as necessary complete an analysis of and preparation of conclusions regarding the data and recommendations on moving forward with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking no later than June 30, 2020.
February 2020 Order, Ordering Paragraphs 1—3, at 12.
Following the issuance of the February 2020 Order, supplemental comments and replies were received from:
• The OCA (Supplemental Comments, filed March 18, 2020).
• The Pennsylvania Telephone Association (PTA) on behalf of the Rural ILECs (Letter in lieu of Supplemental Comments filed on March 18, 2020).
• Thryv, Inc. (f/k/a Dex Media) (Supplemental Reply Comments filed April 2, 2020).
• Verizon (Supplemental Reply Comments filed April 2, 2020).
Consistent with the determinations made in our February 2020 Order, we do not see any procedural barriers that may prevent the initiation of the actual NOPR phase in this proceeding with proposed permanent revisions to our regulations.
Concurrently with the filing of their October 3, 2018 initial comments in response to the ANOPR, the participating 35 Rural ILECs also jointly filed a petition at Docket No. P-2018-3005224 (RLEC Petition) seeking the temporary waiver of certain Chapter 63 and 64 regulations.8 The RLEC Petition sought the waiver of these regulations ''until such a time as the Commiss- ion completes its rulemaking proceeding at Docket No. L-2018-3001391.''9 The Commission disposed of the RLEC Petition with its July 28, 2020 Order that granted it in part and denied it in part as follows:
1. That the Petition of the Rural Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers for a Temporary Waiver of 52 Pa. Code Section 63.21 regarding directories be granted subject to the same conditions, terms, limitations, and requirements attached to prior Commission waivers granted for this regulation as set forth in this Order.
2. That the Petition of the Rural Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers for a Temporary Waiver of 52 Pa. Code Section 64.191(e) regarding toll presubscription be granted subject to the same conditions, terms, limitations, and requirements attached to prior Commission waivers granted for this regulation as set forth in this Order.
3. That in all other respects the Petition of the Rural Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers for a Temporary Waiver of Certain Chapter 63 and 64 Regulations be denied pending resolution of the Commission's Chapters 63 and 64 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking be- fore the Commission for consideration at Docket No. L-2018-3001391.
See Petition of the Rural Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers for Temporary Waiver of Certain Chapter 63 and 64 Regulations, Docket No. P-2018-3005224, (Order entered July 28, 2020) (RLEC Directory and Toll Presubscription Order).
III. Verizon Proprietary Data Submissions (2015-2016)
A. Procedural Matters
Our September 11, 2015 Reporting Order directed the submission of certain data for the 2015 and 2016 calendar years including certain access line and quality of service statistics no later than April 1, 2016, and April 1, 2017, respectively. The Verizon ILECs have submitted data consistent with the Reporting Order and subsequent directives and on a proprietary basis.10 The issue of access to the Verizon ILECs' 2015 and 2016 proprietary data was addressed by several parties during the comment period in the ANOPR stage of this proceeding. OCA observed that the Verizon ILEC ''reports are proprietary and so limits the ability for public discussion and comment on the impact of the Reclassification Order on the affordability of service.''11 CAUSE-PA pointed out that while ''this data may have been available to the Commission in developing its recommendations, it is not available to the public at the docket [Docket No. L-2018-3001391].''12 CWA stated the following:
Indeed, leading up to the filing of its Complaint [Docket No. P-2015-2509336], CWA's counsel asked the Commission to provide the service quality information it had collected from Verizon. That request was denied because the information was confidential, and the Commission claimed it was part of an ongoing oversight or investigative process. Now that it appears the Commission wants to use that information to make judgments about changes in regulations, CWA submits that the data must be made public.
* * * * * CWA respectfully submits, therefore, that the Commission must make public the data the Commission has collected from Verizon under the Reclassification Order. If the data are customer-specific (which the Reclassification Order does not appear to require), then an aggregated version of the data can be made public. If, however, as appears likely from the order, the data do not contain any customer-specific information, then the data should be made public as the Commission received it from Verizon.''
CWA Comments at 6-7.13
Verizon initially argued that the ''data reported includes proprietary and competitive information such as Verizon's monthly line counts and detailed service quality metrics,'' and that it had ''agreed to supply this competitively sensitive information in reliance on the fact that it would be kept confidential and not made available to the public or Verizon's competitors.''14
In our February 6, 2020 Tentative Order in this proceeding,15 we tentatively concluded and directed that ''the Verizon historic proprietary data that was submitted in response to the Commission's Reclassification Order will be made available to the participating parties in the ANOPR at Docket No. L-2018-3001391'' under an executed confidentiality agreement with Verizon. We also indicated that the ''Commission shall also provide participants in the ANOPR proceeding the opportunity to file supplemental comments and replies based on the access and review of the Verizon historic proprietary data following resolution of the waiver extension and access to confidential data.''16
In its additional comments to the Tentative Order, CAUSE-PA indicated that it had executed the confidentiality agreement to review and assess the Verizon ILECs' proprietary data filed with the Commission and reserved the right to file supplemental comments after conducting the review. CAUSE-PA also noted ''that it is not entirely clear whether further review of this data will provide the information necessary to assess whether it is appropriate to extend the regulatory waivers.''17
In its additional comments, the Verizon ILECs agreed to supply the 2015-2016 proprietary data at issue under the requisite confidentiality agreements.18 As previously recounted, we formally directed and specified the requisite access to the proprietary Verizon ILEC data with our February 2020 Order and requested supplemental comments in that regard.
In its supplemental comments, the OCA indicated that in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the closure of the Commonwealth government offices, it unfortunately encountered difficulties conducting an in-depth analysis of the Verizon ILEC proprietary data. The OCA further indicated its support for an analysis of the data by Commission Staff and requested that the ''Staff analysis be made available to the public advocates and other interested participants in this advance rulemaking proceeding [Docket No. L-2018-3001391].'' Additionally, consistent with its comments and reply comments in the ANOPR stage of this proceeding, the OCA also stated that ''the Verizon reported data is of limited value, in the scope of this ANOPR.''19 In its supplemental reply comments, Verizon indicated that ''[p]ursuant to the required protective order, Verizon provided the data to parties that requested it.'' 20
The Commission has not received any supplemental comments from interested and actively participating parties that contained any substantive analysis of the 2015-2016 Verizon ILEC proprietary data submissions. We also acknowledge that no requests or petitions for extension of the relevant deadlines under our February 2020 Order were filed. Accordingly, we conclude that we have provided adequate opportunity for interested and participating parties in the ANOPR stage of this proceeding to properly access the 2015-2016 Verizon ILEC proprietary data, to analyze such data, and submit relevant supplemental comments to the Commission. Naturally, the same proprietary 2015-2016 Verizon ILEC data can be properly utilized for the submission of further initial and reply comments to this NPRM.
B. Data Evaluation
Although the Commission did not receive any substantive analysis of the 2015-2016 Verizon ILEC proprietary data submissions from interested stakeholders, it performed its own analysis of the 2015-2016 Verizon ILEC proprietary market data. The Commission acknowledges that the requested 2015-2016 Verizon ILEC data was limited in scope, granularity and, certainly, timeframe. Because the data was submitted on a proprietary basis, the Commission will provide general observations on an aggregate basis regarding some trends that both the raw numerical data and certain ratios indicate. Our focus will be on specific quality of service metrics. It is rather well-established that the pricing of individual rate elements for basic local exchange services in the Verizon ILECs' competitive wire centers (i.e., dial tone access lines), has followed the pricing trends established under the Verizon ILECs' regulated Chapter 30 network modernization and alternative regulation plans and price stability mechanisms (Price Change Opportunity price cap formulas) for the same services in their noncompetitive wire centers.21
The data relating to certain quality of service metrics indicates that although the Verizon ILECs have experienced declines in their total access lines that were subject to the reporting parameters, there were some uneven observable trends regarding the competitive and noncompetitive wire centers for Verizon PA and Verizon North. As just one example, the average monthly number of out-of-service reports (per year) appeared to decline at a higher rate than the decrease in average monthly access lines (per year) for the competitive wire centers of both Verizon ILECs in the 2015 and 2016 timeframes. There was a generally similar trend for the average monthly number of out-of-service reports (per year) when compared to the decline of Verizon North's average monthly access lines (per year) for its non-competitive wire centers. However, the average monthly number of out-of-service reports (per year) for Verizon PA declined at a much smaller percentage rate than its corresponding rate of decrease for the average monthly figure (per year) of its access lines in its noncompetitive wire centers.
The data involving out-of-service reports (more than 24 hours) presented a dissimilar trend for both Verizon ILECs. The rate of decrease in the average number of monthly out-of-service reports (more than 24 hours) was much smaller than the corresponding rate of decrease in the average monthly number of access lines (per year) for the competitive wire centers of both Verizon PA and Verizon North in the 2015-2016 time frame. The related data comparison for the out-of-service reports (more than 24 hours) indicates that there was an opposite trend for the noncompetitive wire centers for both Verizon ILECs during the same timeframe. The rate of the average monthly out-of-service (more than 24 hours) reports (per year) for the noncompetitive wire centers of both Verizon ILECs actually increased from 2015 to 2016, while, at the same time, the average monthly access line figures for both Companies actually declined in the same timeframe. This positive rate of increase for the average number of monthly out-of-service reports (more than 24 hours) for the 2015-2016 time period—as compared to the rate of decline of the average monthly access line figure (per year)—was more pronounced for the noncompetitive wire centers of Verizon PA.22
Average monthly out-of-service report ratios as percentages of monthly access line figures in Verizon ILEC competitive and noncompetitive wire centers disclose that such ratios are higher for the noncompetitive wire centers for both Verizon ILECs, with incrementally higher values observed for the Verizon North noncompetitive wire centers both in 2015 and 2016. The same observation can be made with the same type percentage ratios for trouble reports. The average monthly trouble report ratios as percentages of monthly access line figures in Verizon ILEC competitive and noncompetitive wire centers disclosed that such ratios are higher for the noncompetitive wire centers for both Verizon ILECs, and with noticeably higher values observed for the noncompetitive wire centers of Verizon North.
However, in our estimation, the collected data did not present any direct causative links to and readily available explanations for the observable trends. For example, the 2015-2016 Verizon ILEC proprietary data does not disclose any infringement of the Commission's regulation at 52 Pa. Code § 63.57(f). However, the various ratio statistics and quality of service metrics already recounted may not indicate the most optimal situation for the noncompetitive wire centers of both Verizon ILECs, and especially for the noncompetitive wire centers of Verizon North (ex-GTE North).
Naturally, we cannot make any hypotheses nor can we draw any conclusions from these limited data before us whether the Verizon ILECs' networks in noncompetitive wire centers—which include a lesser number of major urban areas—present more quality of service issues than the competitive ones, or that the Verizon ILECs have increased the concentration of their operational maintenance activities in the competitive wire center areas. In order to make this determination, the Commission would need more detailed and specific analyses that would also need to span a longer timeframe than the 2015-2016 period. Accordingly, this conclusion substantiates many of the determinations below regarding whether we should eliminate entirely the need for and the type of regulation in competitive wire centers where consumers have multiple options for communications services, including wireline, cable-voice, and wireless options.
IV. Format of Proposed Revisions to Regulations
The Commission had granted temporary waivers of specific regulations set forth in Chapter 53 which allowed the recipients to detariff certain service to a distinct class of commercial business customer prior to the Reclassification Order. We had also granted some general waivers in specific cases, for example waiving for some utilities the obligation to provide paper directories, that were to be revisited in this NOPR. Finally, as mentioned above, in the Reclassification Order, the Commission had also granted temporary waivers of certain regulations in Chapter 63 and Chapter 64 in those wire centers where it had determined that all retail telecommunications services, including basic local exchange services, were competitive pursuant to 66 Pa.C.S. 3016(a). We acknowledged that the outcome of the Reclassification Order was that we now have both competitive and noncompetitive wire centers and that some regulations may no longer be necessary in a competitive market. ANOPR Order at 28. We sought comment on the possibility of making all of the temporary regulatory waivers the Commission had granted permanent through the rulemaking process.
However, we further acknowledged that, except for obsolete provisions, we would continue to retain any current regulation set forth in Chapters 63 or Chapter 64 of our regulations that is pertinent to and necessary for the continuation of the reliable and adequate provisioning of local exchange telecommunications service in noncompetitive wire centers. Id. Because of this dynamic, we also raised the possibility of bifurcating wire centers between competitive and noncompetitive wire centers. Id. To accomplish this, we explained that existing provisions would be retained for retail service in noncompetitive wire centers and a separate set of regulations would be needed for competitive wire centers. Id. at 28-29. With this possible new format, certain regulations would apply only in those geographic areas where the ILEC has been granted competitive classification of protected residential and small business local exchange services pursuant to Section 3016(a).23 ANOPR Order at 28-29. Thus, we discussed creating a separate Chapter and subchapters to address local exchange telecommunications service for competitive versus noncompetitive wire centers. Id.
The OCA had suggested a format which borrows on the concept of separate provisions but the ''compilation of alternative regulations could be set forth in Chapters 63-C and 64-C where the 'C' signifies competitively classified.'' OCA Comments at 5. Specifically, alternative regulations would be adopted for and apply to competitively classified areas. Id. CWA agreed that proposing to establish regulations that apply to either competitive or noncompetitive wire centers and codified in separate Chapters would provide notice and clarity to customers to determine which regulations apply. CWA Comments at 25-26.
The RLECs opposed the implementation of a two-tier regulations structure. The RLECs state that a second set of regulations would cause confusion where customers may not know which area or exchange they are in. RLEC Comments at 9. RLECs maintained serious reservations with respect to regulations that depend upon whether an exchange is competitive or noncompetitive. RLEC Reply Comments at 10.
In this NOPR Order we do not propose a bifurcated system of regulations that may be separately applicable to competitive and noncompetitive wire centers or geographic areas. Rather, we propose that all retained regulations will continue to remain applicable in all areas and not in a bifurcated fashion that differentiates between competitive and noncompetitive areas. While we approved a two-tiered regulatory structure for the Verizon competitive and noncompetitive wire centers in our Reclassification Order, we conclude that such an approach is not workable as a permanent, industry-wide solution. Having endeavored to balance the burdens and benefits of each regulation, and to propose amendments that reduce regulatory burdens while also factoring in the separate consideration of modernizing our regulations where we can irrespective of any competitive analyses, we believe a one-tier, even-handed approach affords our utilities relief in a fashion that is manageable for both them and our staff while erring, where necessary, on the side of consumer protection.
Accordingly, the Commission proposes to rescind any regulations we find to be obsolete or outdated and that the proposed regulations will supersede all waivers, waiver conditions, and all regulation-like requirements that are outside of this Commission's regulations. ANOPR Order at 29. We noted that a similar approach was undertaken in our Chapter 14 regulations where substantially the same provisions apply to utilities and customers under Subchapter A—K and Victims of Domestic Violence with a Protection from Abuse Order under Subchapter L—V. See 52 Pa. Code § 56.1(b); Id.
Finally, we also acknowledge that there are some provisions of Chapters 63 and 64 that we propose to rescind to streamline our regulations but note that other support, such as statutes other than Section 1501 or other Commission or court orders, also address the subject. For example, in Chapter 63 we propose rescinding Section 63.60 addressing automatic dialing announcing devices, yet other provisions of state and Federal law may be implicated to address today's modern-day scourge of robocalling. We are proposing to rescind Subchapter G addressing public coin telephone service, yet as the Rural ILECs noted, subchapter B of Chapter 29 of the Public Utility Code continues to address public pay phone service where necessary. We are proposing to rescind Subchapter H addressing Interexchange Telecommunications Carriers, but Chapter 30 of the Code as reenacted in 2004 and Commission orders issued since that time adequately establish the standards applicable to that service today. Similarly, in Chapter 64 we are proposing to rescind Section 64.211, addressing the availability of other procedures. However, customers still retain the right to pursue complaints under Section 301.8 and Chapter 7 of the Public Utility Code and Chapter 5 of our regulations.
The regulated industry, consuming public, and other interested stakeholders should understand that modernization of these regulations to balance the utilities' need for relief from unnecessary regulatory burdens against the consumers' need for regulatory protection does not diminish any underlying existing statutory rights or standards of care.
Proposed Regulations
I. Chapter 53 Tariffs for Noncommon Carriers: 52 Pa. Code §§ 53.57—53.60
A. Past Waivers
In the ANOPR Order, we specifically discussed the grant of temporary regulatory waivers to various telecommunications carriers over time and solicited comments whether such waivers should become permanent and embodied in revised regulations going forward. ANOPR Order at 27-28, 48 Pa.B. 4799. Certain of these past and periodic temporary regulatory waivers have involved the provision of services to enterprise and large business customers by CLECs and associated relief primarily from tariffing requirements under Section 53.58 (Offering of competitive services) of our regulations.
With respect to these waivers, Verizon explains that the Chapter 53 rules are based on the old version of Chapter 30 that expired in 2003, and some are contrary to the current Chapter 30 statutory provisions. Verizon Comments at 10. Verizon recommends that the Commission replace these regulations with ''guidelines'' that address tariffs, product guides and price lists that are consistent with the current Chapter 30 and with the Commission's recent orders on detariffing of competitive services. Id. Verizon offers the following clarification:
• Any regulated service classified as ''competitive'' under Chapter 30 may be detariffed at the option of the provider.
• If a service is detariffed, the provider must maintain its terms in conditions in a product guide that will be made available on the company's website. The Commission may require an informational price list to be filed for detariffed stand-alone basic residential service, but will not require price lists for other detariffed services.
• For any service that is required to be or chose to be tariffed, the Commission should streamline to the greatest extent possible the filing process.
• There is no need for these regulations to repeat standards that are clearly stated in Chapter 30, such as the process for competitive classification.
Verizon Comments at 10-11.
Verizon also notes that we have already concluded that we would address Chapter 53 tariff filing regulations in this rulemaking proceeding. Verizon Comments at 10, n. 17. Verizon identifies the telephone sections of Chapter 53 tariff filing requirements under 52 Pa. Code §§ 53.57—53.60 and raises the issue of permanently revising Sections 53.58 and 53.59.
The OCA supports updating the Sections 53.57—53.60 regulations to conform with the current Chapter 30 statutory language but opposes only requiring the filing of price list information for stand-alone basic residential service under Section 53.58(d), where the following is the filing requirement:
(d) CLECs and ILECs offering services classified by the Commission as competitive shall file with the Commission appropriate informational tariffs, price lists and ministerial administrative tariff changes. These filings will become effective on 1-days' notice.
OCA Reply Comments at 8-9.
According to the OCA, its proposal is consistent with Section 3016(d)(4) of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 3016(d)(4), which allows the Commission to require an ILEC ''to maintain price lists with the Commission, applicable to its competitive services.'' OCA Reply Comments at 9. The OCA also opposes any proposal that Verizon's Product Guide can reside solely on its website. Id. As support for its position, the OCA cites Section 3016(c) that authorizes the Commission to change the designation of a competitive service back to noncompetitive, which indicates the temporary nature of the relief that is granted under 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 3016(a) and (b). The OCA believes that the Commission has an obligation to monitor competition in services and markets. Id.; 66 Pa.C.S. § 3016(c).
The OCA emphasizes that the Reclassification Order and Final Implementation Order required Verizon to file with the Commission updates to its Price List and Product Guide for competitively classified services. Id.; Reclassification Order at 56, 62-63, 65-66; Final Implementation Order at 6-7, 20-21. According to the OCA, there are ''non-tariff filings necessary for the benefit of the Commission and Verizon's customers receiving competitive services,'' and they should be required. OCA Reply Comments at 9.
In granting past temporary waivers of our tariffing regulations at Section 53.58 to CLECs for the provision of retail services to their enterprise and large business customers, we recognized that such regulations, in part, were based on the statutory framework of the older version of the Chapter 30 law.24 For example we observed that:
Under the superseded version of Chapter 30, both ILECs and CLECs could petition the Commission for a determination of whether a telecommunications service or other service or business activity offered by them is competitive because the definition of local exchange telecommunications company under the superseded version of Chapter 30 simply was ''a carrier authorized'' to provide local telecommunications services.'' See 66 Pa.C.S. § 3002 [superseded and repealed]. Thus, under the old, superseded Chapter 30, both ILECs and CLECs could petition and obtain a competitive classification of their noncompetitive services from the Commission. See 66 Pa.C.S. § 3005 [superseded and repealed]. Indeed, section 53.58(c) of our regulations was promulgated under this statutory scheme. See 52 Pa. Code § 53.58(c).
However, section 3016(a)(1) of the new Chapter 30, which involves the right to petition for changes in the classification of protected or noncompetitive services, gives that right to a ''local exchange telecommunications company'' which as defined in the current section 3012 no longer includes CLECs. See 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 3012 and 3016(a)(1).
Verizon Access June 3, 2009 Order at 6 (footnotes omitted).
The Commission had granted temporary waivers of our tariff filing regulations for ILECs and CLECs along the lines outlined below in the Verizon Access June 3, 2009 Order:
1. That Verizon Access's request for a waiver of Section 53.58(c) of our regulations so as to permit it to declare its non-protected services offered to enterprise and large business customers as competitive without first having to file a petition and obtain a competitive designation from the Commission is hereby granted.
2. That Verizon Access's request for waiver of Section 53.58(d) of our regulations that would require it to maintain informational tariffs or price lists for its non-protected service offerings to enterprise and large business customers is hereby granted on the condition that it maintain its terms, conditions and rates for these services in the on-line Guide.
3. That Verizon Access's request for waiver of Section 53.59 of our regulations so as to permit it to provide the rates and terms for basic dial tone service offered to enterprise and large business customers on its Internet website is hereby granted for a trial period of 2 years from the entry date of this order and on the condition that it maintain information regarding the rates, terms, conditions for these services in the on-line Guide as would have been available in a paper tariff.
Verizon Access June 3, 2009 Order at 12.
The periodic extension of these temporary regulatory waivers also took into account the initiation of a rulemaking that would address whether Sections 53.58 and 53.59 should be modified by adopting the periodically renewed temporary waivers as a permanent regulatory change. In granting such a further extension we ruled:
2. That MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC d/b/a Verizon Access Transmission Services is hereby granted an extension of the trial permitting it to maintain information regarding the rates, terms, and conditions for basic dial tone service offered to enterprise and large business customers on its internet website. The extension is effective from entry date of this Order to the conclusion of the above-reference rulemaking wherein we will consider the necessity of 52 Pa. Code §§ 53.58(c), 53.58(d), and 53.59 in the circumstances presented by this Petition.
Petition of MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC d/b/a Verizon Access Transmission Services for a Waiver of the Commission's Regulations at 52 Pa. Code §§ 53.58 and 53.59 to Permit Detariffing of Services to Enterprise and Large Business Customers, Docket No. P-2016-2556207 (Order entered September 1, 2016) (Verizon Access Order) at 8.
AT&T also seeks a permanent implementation of the temporary waivers of 52 Pa. Code §§ 53.58(c), (d), and 53.59 with respect to detariffing that had been initially granted to it by the Commission in 2010.25 AT&T Comments at 7. According to AT&T, the current temporary regulatory waiver granted by the Commission in 2017 was based on the success of detariffing during the preceding waiver it had received in 2010. Id. AT&T argues that the detariffing of business services has not resulted in any customer complaints and has allowed AT&T to satisfy the needs of its business customers. Id.
B. Conclusion Regarding Past Detariffing Waivers
In this NOPR we propose to update the regulatory language of Sections 53.57 to 53.60 regulations to align with the current statutory language of Chapter 30. For example, the language of Section 53.58(c) which, in part, had been designed to achieve tariff filing parity between ILECs and CLECs, needs to be modified because the competitive classification and provision of ILEC services now depends on the outcome of proceedings or actions under 66 Pa.C.S. § 3016, and not on the competitive classification of corresponding services that are offered by a CLEC.26 Similarly, the potential reclassification of ILEC services previously found competitive to a noncompetitive status is governed by 66 Pa.C.S. § 3016(c). Additionally, we propose to add definitions for competitive telecommunications carriers and enterprise and large business customers, amend the definitions of competitive service and noncompetitive service, and rescind the definitions for CLEC and ILEC in Section 53.57 to provide clarity as to which retail nonprotected services are covered by the proposed changes to Section 53.58. If an interested stakeholder seeks to revise this proposed definition we request specificity and supporting documentation on its proposed definition.
Specifically, in Section 53.57 we propose to replace the current definition of ''CLEC,'' or ''competitive local exchange carrier,'' with ''CTC,'' or ''competitive telecommunications carrier.'' We propose to define a CTC as ''an entity that provides telecommunications services subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission and in competition with a local exchange telecommunications company.'' This definition is more encompassing, recognizing that CLECs are not the only competitive carriers regulated by the Commission and subject to these regulations. This term also avoids any conflict or confusion with the existing statutory definition of the term ''alternative service provider,'' under Chapter 30 of the Code, which is defined as an entity that provides competing services regardless of its status as subject to the Commission's jurisdiction and regulations.
In Section 53.58 (offering of competitive services), we propose that where reference to a ''product guide'' is applicable, the reference will be to a product guide ''or similar document.'' The term ''product guide'' was first identified in the Verizon ILECs' reclassification proceeding, and it may be specific to Verizon. For that reason, the addition of ''or similar document'' will ensure that recognition of a document not on file as a Commission tariff will apply equally to other carriers' offerings that are not necessarily described as a ''product guide.''
We propose to revise Section 53.58(c) by adding language that permits a CLEC to declare any retail nonprotected services as competitive without filing a petition and demonstrating competitiveness. Because the Code under Section 3016(d)(4) permits the Commission to require that ILECs maintain price lists for competitive services, we see no reason to keep the language in subsection (d) that requires CLECs and ILECs offering competitive services to file ''informational tariffs, price lists, and ministerial administrative tariff changes.'' 52 Pa. Code § 53.58(d). Therefore, we propose to remove this language and the reference to being ''effective on 1-days' notice.''
Similarly, in Section 53.58(d) we propose to allow an ILEC or CTC to make rates and terms of basic service available through a product guide or similar document on the carrier's website in lieu of maintaining a price list or formal tariff on file with the Commission. However, so that both the Commission and consumers retain reasonable access to the nontariffed provisions, we further propose that the carrier shall maintain an archive of outdated rates, terms, and conditions that were available in a product guide or similar document for a period of four years, and shall remain obligated to provide both current and archived documents to the Commission upon reasonable request.
We further propose to modify Section 53.58(e)(4) to align with the current statutory criteria of Chapter 30, Section 3016, of the Public Utility Code. To that end, retention of the criteria set forth in Section 53.58(e)(2), (e)(4), and (e)(4)(vii)—the presence of competitors, availability of like kind/substitute services, and other relevant factors as determined by the Commission—parallel the current statutory provisions while also affording the Commission discretion to determine whether additional factors may be relevant to a specific case at hand. Conversely, elimination of Section 53.58(e)(1), (e)(3), (e)(4)(v), and (e)(4)(vi) is appropriate because those conditions are not specifically required under the current statutory regime. Again, should the Commission believe additional information is relevant, a reclassification under this regulatory provision continues to remain subject to any additional factors the Commission may deem relevant.
We will not eliminate tariff filing requirements under our Section 53.57—53.60 regulations for noncompetitive and protected services, including basic local exchange services. However, we propose that the temporary regulatory waivers that have so far been provided in relation with the detariffing of the provision of services to enterprise and large business customers under Section 53.58(c), 53.58(d), and 53.59 be made permanent. Furthermore, in Section 53.59(f)(5) we intend to replace ''Office of Trial Staff'' with ''Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement or successor.'' A similar change is made wherever ''Office of Trial Staff' appears. Similarly, in Sections 53.57—53.60, the term ''CLEC'' will be replaced with ''CTC'' and its defined term for the reasons stated, and as previously identified.
We are generally aware that enterprise and large business customers often receive integrated telecommunications and broadband access services under individual case base (ICB) contracts, and that ILECs, CLECs, and competitive access providers (CAPs) do have tariffs that permit the provision and pricing of various of their services on an ICB basis. Therefore, our proposed definition of enterprise and large business customers will reference the monthly or annual revenues that are generated above a given threshold that can be appropriately differentiated for urban, suburban and rural exchanges within the Commonwealth as the means to determine for which types of commercial operations CLECs have the authority to detariff their retail services, including basic local voice service. The Commission determines that this is reasonable because detariffing the provision of retail services to these classes of end-user consumers will not pose any risks or concerns to these entities or the overall competitive provision of services in Pennsylvania.
II. Chapter 63. Telephone Service
As a preliminary matter, in setting forth our determinations and proposals regarding the regulations set forth in Chapter 63, we will proceed by going from Subchapter A to Subchapter O. In the Reclassification Order, we granted the Verizon ILECs' request for waiver of certain Sections of Chapter 63 as addressed specifically in each individual Subchapter B, C, E, F, and G below. Reclassification Order at 79. However, all remaining portions of Chapter 63 remained in full force in the wire centers classified to be competitive in that proceeding, including Subchapter D. Underground Service, Subchapter K. Competitive Safeguards, Subchapter L. Universal Service, and Subchapter M. Changing Local Service Providers. Id.
With regards to the Chapter 63 conditional and temporary waivers, we have reviewed the comments to the ANOPR and the 2015-2016 Verizon proprietary data to assist us in reaching a determination of whether the regulations should be deleted entirely and rescinded, thus making the temporary waivers permanent on an industry-wide basis.
The Commission notes that one of the stated policy goals of Chapter 30 of the Code is to ensure ''regulatory parity'' by reducing the regulatory obligations imposed upon ILECs to be more consistent with the regulatory obligations applicable to competing alternate service providers. Regulatory parity ensures that our jurisdictional telecommunications companies are less burdened with outdated legacy regulations from yesteryear. The Commission acknowledges that eliminating obsolete and unnecessary regulations could promote and encourage the provision of advanced services and broadband deployment by our jurisdictional ILECs in their respective service territories as streamlined regulation could allow them to be better able to compete and thrive in this modern, competitive telecommunications environment where consumers may have multiple options for communications services from wireline CLECs, cable-voice, and wireless options. Lastly, effective competition induces competitors toward efficiency, customer service, and reliability and the Commission agrees that greater competition leads to greater innovations which ultimately benefit consumers.
Notwithstanding, in pursing and establishing regulatory reform, the Commission has to balance attempting to create a more level regulatory playing field for our regulated ILECs with the countervailing principle of ensuring that consumers retain adequate protections. These two principles are not be mutually exclusive, and this is the standard by which the Commission is making its determinations in this rulemaking proceeding. In order to achieve this balance, the Commission directed Verizon to submit market data so as to provide the Commission and other interested stakeholders with the means to evaluate the market based regulatory goals of the Reclassification Order. Specifically, the data collection was intended to help assess the market in the 153 competitive areas, including the impact of our decision on affordability of basic service and quality of service in those areas and provide guidance for this instant rulemaking.
At this point, we are unable to conclude that we can do a wholesale elimination of the entirety of Chapter 63. Nor are we able to support a conclusion to make all temporary regulatory waivers of the pertinent Chapter 63 regulations permanent on an industry-wide basis. The Commission acknowledges that the presence of competition can and does work and should be a consideration when evaluating its regulations applicable to telecommunications services. However, the Commission has to conduct a more nuanced and granular analysis regarding competition as it may not work in every geographic market and may only be beneficial for certain consumer segments or for specific products. Due to the absence of compelling, sufficient and substantial data, the Commission determines that it will neither delete Chapter 63 outright nor make all temporary waivers permanent for all jurisdictional telecommunications carriers. Accordingly, the Commission is proposing that the regulations it proposes to retain, as set forth in the Annex, will be applicable to all geographic areas served by our jurisdictional telecommunications carriers whether competitive or noncompetitive.
Additionally, we propose to change the name of this Chapter of our regulations from ''Telephone Service'' to ''Telecommunications Service'' to reflect the modern nomenclature associated with this utility service. In addition, in various sections throughout this Chapter, we propose to replace the term ''telephone'' appearing in the existing text of the regulation with the term ''telecommunications,'' but only where such replacement would be appropriate.
A. Subchapter A (General Provisions)
1. 52 Pa. Code § 63.1 (Definitions)
The Commission proposes to amend this regulation consistent with the discussion infra. In this NOPR and as incorporated in the Annex, we have determined not to adopt the concept of a two-tiered regulatory structure setting forth competitive and noncompetitive regulations. Instead, we propose to retain a unified set of regulations that will apply uniformly to all geographic areas where the telecommunications services offered by the jurisdictional telecommunications carrier, whether they have been determined to be ''competitive'' under 66 Pa.C.S. § 3016 or remain noncompetitive telecommunications services, as applicable.
Additionally, since we are proposing to rescind Section 63.60, which relates to automatic dialing-announcing devices, we propose to remove the definition of automatic dialing-announcing device from Section 63.1. We also propose to update the reference to the Public Utility Code in the definition for interexchange carrier to the correct section of the statute. Additionally, we propose to establish definitions for the terms ''competitive'' and ''noncompetitive'' wire centers as well as clarify in this section that the definition of the term ''wire center'' also includes ''or other geographic area defined by the public utility.'' As with ''product guide or similar document,'' reference in a regulation to a wire center was introduced in the Reclassification Order and may be Verizon-specific or terminology of otherwise limited applicability. Our proposed regulations should be sufficiently expansive to reflect geographic areas of all carriers no matter their specific terminology. We also propose to add the language ''or other geographic area defined by the public utility'' in any other section of Chapter 63 where the term ''wire center'' is inserted in the proposed regulations of this NOPR.
B. Subchapter B (Services and Facilities)
In the Reclassification Order, we waived the applicability of the following regulations in Subchapter B of Chapter 63 for Verizon in their 153 competitive wire centers:
Section 63.12 (Minimizing interference and inductive effects);
Section 63.16 (Traffic measurements);
Section 63.17 (Reserved)
Section 63.18 (Multiparty line subscribers);
Section 63.19 (Interoffice lines);
Section 63.21 (Directories);
Section 63.23 (Construction and maintenance safety standards); and
Section 63.24 (Service interruptions).
Reclassification Order at 79. Conversely, the Commission did not waive the following regulations in Subchapter B of Chapter 63:
Section 63.13 (Periodic inspections);
Section 63.14 (Emergency equipment and personnel);
Section 63.15 (Complaint procedures);
Section 63.20 (Line extensions); and
Section 63.22 (Service records).
Reclassification Order at 80.
1. 52 Pa. Code § 63.12 (Minimizing interference and inductive effects)
Verizon generally proposes that the Commission should eliminate and replace all of these regulations for both competitive and noncompetitive wire centers. Verizon Comments at 12. The RLECs contend that Section 63.12, which addresses crosstalk and noise, is no longer applicable in today's digitally based network. RLECs Comments at 10. The OCA seeks retention of this regulation arguing that although Verizon has extended its fiber network in portions of the competitively classified areas, some Verizon customers are still served over the Verizon copper network, which presents the potential for impaired quality of message transition due to inadequate design and/or maintenance. OCA Comments at 11. The OCA responds further that switching to an alternative provider is not cost-free for the customer, and without standards there can be a discrepancy as to the reasonableness of the level of service the customer is receiving. OCA Comments at 12.
We propose to eliminate Section 63.12 and address all relevant matters of interference under Section 63.63. As currently written, Section 63.12 speaks to interference that is traditionally recognized in relation to the provision of analog service, which although it continues to exist is being replaced with digital service. In consideration of the amendments that we propose below relating to Section 63.63, addressing transmission requirements and standards, Section 63.12 is being eliminated from the existing regulations. That said, we emphasize that all jurisdictional public utilities remain statutorily obligated to provide service that is reasonable, efficient, safe, adequate, and reasonably continuous without unreasonable interruption or delay under Section 1501 of the Code. This obligation does not cease simply because a LEC has transitioned to a fiber optic based distribution network to provision jurisdictional telecommunications service.
2. 52 Pa. Code § 63.13 (Periodic Inspections) and § 63.14 (Emergency Equipment and Personnel)
Section 63.13 requires utilities to adopt a program of tests and inspections. Section 63.14 addresses telecommunications network operational matters during emergencies. Verizon asserts that these regulations are unnecessary for both competitive and noncompetitive wire centers and proposes that they should be deleted entirely. Verizon Comments at 12. The RLECs submit that periodic testing and inspections are an unnecessary maintenance requirement in today's competitive market. RLEC Comments at 10. We did not agree with that perspective in our Reclassification Order or our ANOPR Order. Reclassification Order at 80; ANOPR Order at 11.
Similar to our proposal to eliminate Section 63.12, because the subject of the regulation in Section 63.13 is adequately addressed through our proposed modifications to Section 63.63, where we will consolidate addressing matters of service delivery and interference, we agree with commenters that this section may be eliminated. While we will no longer propose to require a plan, a public utility's plan of inspections likely will play a role in its ability to maintain continuous and efficient network operations, which will still be required.
We propose to retain in its present form and in its entirety Section 63.14 (emergency equipment and personnel). We believe that the retention of this regulation is essential for the provision of adequate, reliable and resilient telecommunications services under conditions of various emergency situations including but not limited to natural disasters, for all wire centers and geographic areas our jurisdictional utilities serve.
3. 52 Pa. Code § 63.15 (Complaint Procedures) and § 63.22 (Service Records)
The RLECs also oppose retention of Section 63.22 (Service records), arguing that there is no legitimate need or consumer benefit derived from keeping these records. RLECs Comments at 11. These service records address conditions of network facilities, action taken by the utility, service complaints, and trouble reports that are relevant to the complaint process. Given the importance of this information, we do not agree in total with the RLECs' opinion that, on balance, these requirements are more unduly costly and burdensome than beneficial. RLEC Comments at 10-11. Accordingly, consistent with our prior determination in the ANOPR Order, we determine that this regulation continues to serve a legitimate purpose by giving definition to a viable complaint process.27 See ANOPR Order at 11. However, the regulations in Sections 63.15 and 63.22 can be further modernized and streamlined.
We propose to amend Section 63.15 to add new language to provide all telecommunications public utilities, most particularly our ILECs, the option to participate in a ''warm transfer'' or similar program for service and/or billing-related disputes made to the Commission's Bureau of Consumer Services (BCS). Under the parameters of the warm transfer program we adopted for the Verizon ILECs, all LEC customers who contact BCS about a service complaint would have the option, if set up between the LEC and BCS, to be transferred to a company representative in an effort to address the issues raised by the customer before BCS is called upon to address the matter as an informal complaint. Under the proposed amendment, all LECs will have the option to establish a program under which, with customers' consent, our BCS will be able to automatically transfer customers with service or billing complaints in real time to a live person at the LEC by way of a dedicated toll free number. Complaints that are not able to be resolved under this procedure will be returned to BCS for processing under other applicable regulations. This promotes efficiency for both customers and LECs. Sometimes the more challenging aspect of a complaint is having a dispute channeled to the appropriate company representative in a timely fashion.
We further propose to eliminate Section 63.22(a)(1) and (a)(4), 63.22(b), and 63.22(c) of this regulation on the same bases we have set forth addressing Sections 63.12, 63.13, and 63.63. However, we propose to retain Section 63.22(a)(2) and (3). Complaints involving service generally and outages specifically cut to the core of our regulatory oversight over consumer protections, especially when safety is involved. Retention of records required to be made under this and other service-related sections is further addressed in our discussion of Section 63.54. below.
4. 52 Pa. Code § 63.16 (Traffic measurements), § 63.18 (Multiparty line subscribers), and § 63.19 (Interoffice lines)
Verizon proposes the rescission and repeal of these regulations. Verizon Comments at 12. Likewise, the OCA does not oppose a permanent waiver of Section 63.16 (Traffic measurements), Section 63.18 (Multiparty line subscribers), and Section 63.19 (Interoffice lines) for all telecommunications carriers in competitive or noncompetitive wire centers. OCA Comments at 10. We recognized in our ANOPR Order and Reclassification Order that Subchapter B includes provisions that relate to services that essentially no longer exist, including multiparty lines and also provisions relating to traffic measurements and recordkeeping that are largely manual in nature and predate the use of computers. Reclassification Order at 77—80; ANOPR Order at 10.
Our position herewith remains the same as it was in granting a temporary waiver of these specific regulations. Reclassification Order at 79. Sections 63.16, 63.18, and 63.19 are largely outdated and obsolete. These regulatory provisions are outdated and relate to services that essentially no longer exist, including multiparty lines, and also provisions relating to traffic measurements and recordkeeping that are manual in nature and predate the use of computers. Accordingly, we propose to permanently rescind Sections 63.16, 63.18, and 63.19 from Chapter 63 of our regulations.
5. 52 Pa. Code § 63.20 (Line Extensions)
The RLECs contend that the obligations of this regulation are unreasonable. RLEC Comments at 10. The Commission continued the retention of Section 63.20 (Line extensions) because of continued relevance to Verizon's Section 1501 based carrier of last resort (COLR) obligations that will remain in competitive wire centers. Reclassification Order at 80-81. For the same COLR reason, we disagree with the RLECs' position. Thus, we propose to retain Section 63.20, and it will apply throughout all geographic areas.
6. 52 Pa. Code § 63.21 (Directories)
We noted in the Reclassification Order that Verizon no longer provides a residential White Pages directory in paper form automatically. Reclassification Order at 80. Specifically, both Verizon and CenturyLink were granted relief to end saturation delivery of paper copies of residential and business White Pages and business Yellow Pages directories, except for those customers likely to use or specifically request the directories. ANOPR Order at 10.28
The RLECs request that this regulation be eliminated. RLEC Comments at 11. Dex Media recommends that the Commission consider repealing directory regulations believing that the regulation may be obsolete. Dex Media Comments at 5—8. The OCA would agree to a revision of Section 63.21 that incorporates Ordering Paragraph No. 2 of the 2017 Directories Order that identifies the procedure to distribute print copies of White Pages directories to satisfy customer interest. OCA Comments at 13.
We waived the regulation finding that the residential White Pages directory information is available on Verizon's website and, upon request, in paper form or through CD-ROM at no charge. Reclassification Order at 80. Dex Media indicated that the changes have been overwhelmingly positive, and it has not received any complaints. Moreover, the Commission has recently granted to our thirty-five RLECs a temporary waiver of 52 Pa. Code Section 63.21 regarding directories that is subject to the same conditions, terms, limitations, and requirements attached to prior Commission waivers granted for this regulation.29
With this in mind, we agree that this regulation may be obsolete for end-user consumers that receive retail services, including protected basic local exchange services in all geographic areas. However, we are also cognizant of the fact that not all end-user consumers of regulated telecommunications services may simultaneously have broadband access to electronic directory information. Therefore, we propose to amend Section 63.21 to com- port with and codify the temporary waivers of directory distribution and availability that were granted to the Verizon, CenturyLink, and Frontier ILECs,30 which by virtue of our order entered July 28, 2020 at Docket No. P-2018-3005224, were also extended to the remaining Pennsylvania RLECs.
7. 52 Pa. Code § 63.23 (Construction and maintenance safety standards for facilities)
We concluded in the Reclassification Order that some of our regulations are outdated, such as Section 63.23 requiring compliance with the 1981 National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). Reclassification Order at 77. The OCA supported such an amendment to Section 63.23. OCA Comments at 13. We also agreed with the CWA that the regulation addresses safety and is intended to protect workers and the public, and we decided to condition the waiver upon the requirement that Verizon construct and maintain equipment and facilities, and wire or cable crossings, in compliance with the safety standards provided in the current version of the NESC. Reclassification Order at 81, 141 (Appendix D). The RLECs believe this section regulates the obvious and remains unnecessary. RLECs Comments at 11.
We still believe, as we did in the Reclassification Order, that since the goal of this provision is maintaining safety and reliability, the regulation remains relevant. However, we agree with the recommendation of the OCA that instead of just granting the waiver of Section 63.23 conditionally upon Verizon's construction and maintenance standards conforming with the current and most up-to-date version of the NESC, we shall revise the section to reflect that the most up-to-date safety standards will apply to all jurisdictional telecommunications public utilities in all areas throughout the Commonwealth. OCA Comments at 13.
The need for safety and consistent standards should apply to all LECs. When it comes to safety and standards, we conclude that attaining these goals is relevant in all markets. Therefore, we propose retaining Section 63.23 and revising it so that is current with the most recent edition of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
8. 52 Pa. Code § 63.24 (Service interruptions)
The Commission previously granted a temporary waiver of this regulation that allows a credit on a customer's bill when telecommunications service is interrupted for at least twenty-four hours. We came to the conclusion that a competitive market can offer a dissatisfied customer an alternative service from another provider and a satisfactory financial remedy. Reclassification Order at 80. Moreover, we noted in the Reclassification Order that Verizon's Product Guide, Section 1, Original Sheet 6 addresses the issue by providing credits. Id.; Final Implementation Order at 17.
The RLECs consider the regulation redundant with their Section 1501 duty and argue that credits and adjustments should not be set by regulation. RLEC Comments at 11. The OCA supports retaining Section 63.24 arguing, as it did in addressing Section 63.12, that switching to another provider is only an ''after-the-fact'' remedy and may impose additional costs on the consumer. OCA Comments at 14. In addition, the OCA points out that the Commission cannot modify a provision of the Product Guide, unless this authority is ''tied to a conditional grant of relief stated in the Verizon Reclassification proceeding'' or, we assume, action taken in the context of this rulemaking proceeding. Id. The OCA further explains that without some specific regulatory relief tied to the occurrence of a service outage, the Commission's authority to offer the customer relief for outages in competitive wire centers would be limited to a civil penalty under 66 Pa.C.S. § 3301 if Section 63.24(b) is deleted.
A public utility is required under Section 1501 to provide adequate, efficient, safe, reasonable, and reasonably continuous service. If an outage occurs and a customer is not reimbursed for the service that is not received, the customer could pursue a Section 1501 action if for some reason the Product Guide cannot provide relief for failure to compensate a customer for the outage. Furthermore, if the failure to compensate customers for service outages becomes a systemic issue, the Commission could pursue a Section 701 complaint if warranted. See 66 Pa.C.S. § 701.
Nonetheless, we are not persuaded that Section 63.24 is irrelevant for the provision of service to end-user consumers that receive retail services, including basic local exchange services. Network system maintenance and associated operational requirements and standards uniformly affect the provision of service. Similarly, network outages and service interruptions have the capability to affect all end-user consumers simultaneously and equally. Such outages and service interruptions can and do affect access to various retail services including 911/E911 emergency calling capabilities.31 While we do not necessarily agree with the OCA's perspective on the limitations of our authority and that the only relief we can grant is limited to issuing a civil penalty, based on our discussion we propose to retain Section 63.24.
C. Subchapter C (Accounts and Records)
1. 52 Pa. Code §§ 63.31—63.37
In the Reclassification Order, we noted that no party addressed the waiver of this subchapter in the reclassification proceeding. Id. at 82. We specifically and temporarily waived Section 63.31 (Classification of public utilities); Section 63.32 (System of accounts); Section 63.33 (Integrity of reserve accounts to be preserved); Section 63.34 (Reclassification of telephone plant to original cost); and Section 63.35 (Preservation of records). Reclassification Order at 82. Sections 63.36 and 63.67 were not waived, and the RLECs agree with retaining these regulations only.32
Regarding Sections 63.31—63.35, the RLECs contend that this accounting and recordkeeping is no longer relevant to the regulation of telephone companies under Chapter 30 of the Code and does not have an impact on the Commission and the regulation of those companies. However, in its Comments, the OCA cautions against a blanket waiver of these regulations mainly because the Subchapter C regulations also apply to other public utilities with their own facilities and network, and Section 3016(f)(l) of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 3016(f)(1), prohibits an ILEC from subsidizing competitive services with noncompetitive revenues or expenses. OCA Comments at 15-16.
Additionally, according to the OCA, Verizon can offer protected residential and small business services in noncompetitive wire centers based on regulated rates, but in competitive wire centers the rates being charged are subject only to Verizon's discretion. OCA Comments at 16. The OCA also commented that the Commission should consider whether the information required by these regulations may be needed for another purpose, other than setting of just and reasonable rates for end users, such as the records of investment in conduits and telephone utility poles that will be useful if the Commission assumes jurisdiction over pole attachments from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).33 OCA Comments at 16.
We find the RLEC Comments regarding the retention of our regulation on the system of accounts rather perplexing. Section 63.32 appears to be pertinent because it specifies accounting parameters and separations between regulated and unregulated operations of regulated telecommunications carriers, as well as the fundamental jurisdictional separations between intrastate and interstate operations. Although the Verizon ILECs and the majority of the RLECs operate in Pennsylvania under Chapter 30 alternative regulation and network modernization plans (NMPs) with price stability mechanisms that depend on price cap formulas, maintaining accounting information on revenues, expenses, and capital investment under a uniform system and being able to perform relevant and necessary accounting separations is still relevant and necessary.
We also note that although a number of RLECs operate under Chapter 30 price stability mechanisms with price cap formulas in Pennsylvania, the interstate operations of the same companies are subject to an overall method of rate base (RB) and rate of return (ROR) regulation (i.e., they are ''Federal ROR'' RLECs).34 Furthermore, various Chapter 30 NMPs and price stability mechanisms contain provisions that may trigger certain exogenous event revenue adjustments that may be attributable to Federal regulatory or other actions. It is unclear how such effects can be correctly tracked in the absence of a proper uniform system of accounts that can properly deal with issues of jurisdictional separations.
A uniform system of accounts also defines the parameters of revenue, expense and capital investment classification that governs the submission of annual financial reports under Section 63.36. Such accounting classifications remain relevant and useful for a number of reporting purposes and Commission activities including enforcement. Finally, a uniform system of accounts is utilized across all the operations and services of a telecommunications utility, therefore any non-uniform application is really infeasible.
Absent any information that explicitly details the use of any other accounting methods that would accurately preserve the accounting separations between the regulated and unregulated operations of a telecommunications utility, as well as the jurisdictional separation of its regulated operations in terms of appropriately classified categories of revenues, expenses and capital investments, we propose the retention of Section 63.32. In view of the preceding discussion, we also propose to update the reference to the FCC's Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) in Section 63.32.
Additionally, we still consider Section 63.36 (Filing of annual financial reports) necessary since there are statutory reporting mandates under 66 Pa.C.S. § 3015(e) including requiring LECs to file an annual financial report. Reclassification Order at 82-83.
Further, there were and still are no objections to retaining Section 63.37 (Operation of the Telecommunications Relay Service System and Relay Service Fund). The information required by the regulation is necessary to calculate the annual surcharge to support the relay service programs and, therefore, remains relevant.
The Commission disagrees that because some of the Chapter 30 ILECs have elected to move away from traditional RB/ROR regulation to an alternative form of regulation under Chapter 30, Sections 63.31 and 63.32 are unnecessary or the Commission should have to go through the process of filing a Section 701 complaint to enforce the Code. For these reasons, the Commission proposes to retain Sections 63.31, 63.32, 63.36, and 63.37.
We previously temporarily waived Sections 63.33 and 63.34, and in this proceeding we propose to rescind them permanently. We also believe that Section 63.35 has room for modernization though not full repeal. We propose to retain Section 63.35(a) while amending it to reflect the requirement that records be maintained per the requirements of the FCC and applicable Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sections ''as amended from time to time'' or an equivalent.
As to Section 63.35(b) addressing the retention of original cost of plant in continuing property records, we propose to eliminate it as it is currently written. With regard to specific record retention under an amended subsection (b), unless a retention period is otherwise specifically addressed elsewhere in our proposed or final form regulations, we propose in a new Section 63.35(b) a required eight-year retention for records required for audits that may be performed by the Commission under Section 516 of the Code, such as but not limited to financial and management audits; records required for review under Sections 505 and 506 of the Code; records required under the system of accounts followed pursuant to Section 63.35(a) as amended above; and records required for those entities remaining subject to ratemaking provisions under Chapters 13 and 30 of the Code.
We note that telecommunications public utilities may continue to have a need for these or similar records for other regulatory purposes. For example, utilities that remain subject to a form of RB/ROR regulation may continue to require these or other records for purposes of voluntary rate change proceedings. Through amendment of Section 63.53(b), it is not our intent to eliminate any obligation to retain records used for other regulatory purposes.
D. Subchapter D (Underground Service)
1. 52 Pa. Code § 63.41(a)—(l)
The RLECs oppose this regulation arguing that less regulated or unregulated providers are not required to only accept 60% contribution from a developer. The RLECs further argue that ''when telephone companies regularly filed complex rate cases, there was no impact from maintaining this regulation'' but today ''there is an uneconomic impact from maintaining this regulation.'' RLEC Comments at 12.
This regulation was not waived in the Verizon ILEC Reclassification Order. However, upon further contemplation, we are persuaded at this time that there is no reason to retain it. Act 50 of 2017 authorizes the Commission to enforce provisions of the state's Underground Utility Line Protection Law, Act 287, also known as the ''One Call Law.''35 These laws and applicable contractual agreements will govern the interactions and any potential disputes between the developer and the LEC that is being requested to place its facilities underground in order to provision telecommunications service within the development. Accordingly, we propose to rescind this regulation.
E. Subchapter E (Telephone Quality of Service Standards)
52 Pa. Code §§ 63.51—63.65
Subchapter E contains the provisions related to quality of service, i.e., the performance standards for trouble reports, service installations, operator calls, dial tone connection, completion of correctly dialed calls, as well as a safety program for its employees. We specifically and temporarily waived the following Subchapter E regulations:
Section 63.51 (Purpose);
Section 63.52 (Exceptions);
Section 63.53 (General provisions);
Section 63.54 (Record retention);
Section 63.56 (a)—(e) (Measurements);
Section 63.58 (Installation of service);
Section 63.59 (Operator-handled calls);36
Section 63.60 (Automatic Dialing Announcing Devices (ADAD));
Section 63.61 (Local dial service);
Section 63.62 (Direct distance dial service);
Section 63.63 (Transmission requirements and standards);
Section 63.64 (Metering inspections and tests); and
Section 63.65 (Safety).
Reclassification Order at 85. The Commission, however, did not waive Section 63.55, Section 63.56(f) and (g), or Section 63.57 of this Subchapter.
In temporarily waiving these regulations, we reached the conclusion that if the Verizon ILECs' service quality is unacceptable, then customers can switch to an alternate service provider or ''vote with their feet,'' and this should incentivize Verizon to provide quality service. Reclassification Order at 85. Moreover, we considered the Verizon ILECs' obligation to comply with the reasonable and adequate service requirements of Section 1501 as a ''regulatory back-stop of quality service.'' Reclassification Order at 86. Customers can still file quality of service complaints as the Code still requires the Verizon ILECs to provide reasonable service in competitive areas. Id. We further recognized that the Verizon ILECs' Section 1501 statutory obligation to provide certain standards of service was confirmed in Verizon's Chapter 30 plan and the record developed in the reclassification proceeding. Id. We shall address in order the regulations and the issues raised by the commenting parties.
1. § 63.51 (Purpose), § 63.52 (Exceptions), § 63.53 (General provisions), and § 63.55 (Surveillance levels)
The OCA recommends that Section 63.51 should be retained because it states that the provisions of Subchapter E should be applied in coordination with the Chapter 64 regulations. OCA Comments at 17. Based on our determination regarding Chapter 64 of our regulations infra, and because Section 63.51 operates in conjunction with our Chapter 64 regulations, we propose that it should be retained.
We determine that Section 63.52 covering inter- exchange carriers is no longer relevant as that service is adequately addressed under Chapter 30. Therefore, we propose to rescind it.
Also, the OCA states that it would preserve Section 63.53(a), which requires that a public utility provide telephone quality of service that meets or exceeds the Subchapter E standards, and Section 63.55 (Surveillance levels), which was not temporarily waived and still applies to all LECs. OCA Comments at 18. The OCA recommends that Section 63.53(b), which imposes a surveillance level reporting requirement, should also be retained and Section 63.53(e), which authorizes a party to petition for temporary exemption for unreasonable hardship, should also remain because a procedure should be in place if compliance causes an unreasonable hardship.
The RLECs submit that ''network surveillance has been replaced with real time monitoring capabilities facilitated by computer technology,'' and that telecommunications ''technology today uses alarms and renders the surveillance techniques envisioned and used in 1988 obsolete.'' RLEC Comments at 14. However, we note that despite such automated telecommunications and broadband access network monitoring capabilities and the existence of network operations centers, there still are network node failures including outages of central office switching facilities and equipment because of external and/or internal power supply interruptions.37
We partially agree with the OCA and propose to retain the Section 63.53(a) and (e) because of ongoing surveillance obligation and the availability of relief from unreasonable hardship provided under Section 63.53(e). The OCA does not oppose rescission of Section 63.53(c) that requires maintenance of operator services and subsection (d) that requires forecasting customer demand. Id. Accordingly, we propose that subsections (c) and (d) of Section 63.53 should be rescinded. Additionally, we also propose modifying the language of Section 63.53(a) because it will involve telecommunications carriers that may be offering certain retail services not under a Commission filed and approved tariff but under a ''product guide'' or similar document. Also, in our continual balancing of burdens and benefits, we believe that we can rescind the reporting requirement in Section 63.53(b) as unnecessary in light of other protections. In other sections discussed in this NOPR Order, we retain reporting requirements regarding service levels that remain necessary. And, as proposed below, we may always request a service report under Section 63.55(a) as proposed to be amended.
We propose to retain Section 63.55(a), addressing surveillance levels. However, in lieu of requiring a carrier to file reports to the Commission as set forth in Section 63.55(b) and 63.55(c), we propose to rescind those provisions and amend Section 63.53(a) to provide that a report of the investigation into a breach of a surveillance level shall be provided to the Commission upon request. Through these proposed revisions, the Commission may continue to monitor service quality as deemed necessary while reducing the regular reporting burden on carriers by limiting it to only those incidents for which the Commission requests a report.
2. 52 Pa. Code § 63.54 (Record Retention)
The OCA requests the preservation of Section 63.54 for both competitive and noncompetitive wire centers arguing that retention is necessary for compliance with the billing requirements of Section 1509 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 1509, and Section 64.24 of our regulations,38 which was preserved in the Reclassification Order. Reclassification Order at 96. The OCA further argues that record retention also assists with improper charges that may be placed on the bill of an end-user consumer (cramming), and the unauthorized switch of a consumer's long-distance services provider (slamming).39 The RLECs respond that the burden of proof is on the utility to maintain business records and that the utility company is in the best position to decide retention requirements. RLECs Comments at 14.
In light of the changes that we propose elsewhere with respect to reports and recordkeeping, we propose to amend Section 63.54 to retain the language that currently exists and incorporate it as a new Section 63.54(a). Thus Section 63.54(a) would retain the current 90-day retention period for undisputed billing records and a retention of records related to bills disputed until the dispute is resolved.
Under a new Section 63.54(b) we propose to establish a five-year record retention period for the following specific service records: (1) records related to call answering times, a subject currently addressed under Section 63.56 of our regulations and proposed to be amended in proposed Section 63.59 below; (2) records related to service complaints and trouble reports under Section 63.22 as proposed to be amended below; (3) records related to surveillance level investigations under Section 63.55 as proposed to be amended below; and (4) records related to service outages addressed under Sections 63.22 and 62.57 as proposed to be amended below. Through these amendments, in concert with the proposed amendments to other sections such as Sections 63.22, 63.55, and 64.57, the Commission will retain sufficient guidelines on the types of records related to service that utilities should continue to keep, thereby continuing consumer protections in core service-related matters, while at the same time also providing relief from what are multiple mandatory reporting requirements under our regulations as they currently exist.
3. 52 Pa. Code § 63.56 (Measurements)
The OCA does not oppose rescission of the measurement of dial line speeds of Section 63.56(a), (b), (c), and (d). However, the OCA submits that answer time for customer service calls reflect insight into the quality of service being provided regardless of the area where service is provided. The OCA recommends that the Commission amend and retain subsection (e) for both competitive and noncompetitive areas since there should be adequate measurement and monitoring of a telecommunications utility's answering time for calls to the utility's customer and repair service operations and business office. OCA Comments at 19.
Because of amendments that we propose to Sections 63.54 and 63.59, we propose to delete this regulation as it currently exists.
4. 52 Pa. Code § 63.57 (Customer trouble reports)
In the Reclassification Order, we found it important that certain consumer protections relating to service outages be applied during the period of transition from a protected, noncompetitive service territory to a competitive service territory. Reclassification Order at 87. We considered it important to maintain these regulations in a competitive environment to ensure Verizon's compliance with Section 1501 and manage reasonable customer expectations in a competitive wire center when service outages occur. Id. We noted that the current language under Section 63.57(b) permits Verizon and the customer to ''agree to another arrangement'' other than a ''substantial action within 24 hours'' time frame for nonemergency outage calls. We then reasoned that such flexibility in a competitive environment made sense, particularly for customers who have wireless service and can schedule an appointment at a more convenient time other than within 24 hours of reporting the trouble. Id. at 87-88.
We note the RLECs' argument regarding the interpretation of the ''substantial action'' language in the regulation. The RLECs allege that Commission staff initially interpreted it ''to mean substantial action that that would lead to 90% or higher of the out-of-service report being cleared within 24 hours,'' and that more recently Commission staff ''has developed an even more rigid interpretation of the 'substantial action' phrase which mandates that that 100% of the routine trouble reports must be cleared in 24 hours.''40 The RLECs further argue that alternative providers are not under similar obligations and that greatly disadvantages the ILECs trying to keep customers.41
The RLECs' arguments present us with a paradox. If the RLECs strive and are successful in clearing routine customer trouble reports within 24 hours, then such actions should inure to their competitive advantage in retaining their customer base if and when alternative providers do not follow the same operational standard—unless someone were to assume that telecommunications services consumers prefer to receive substandard services that lack the requisite levels of adequacy, reliability, quality and safety. We further observe that we have ruled on formal complaint cases that have dealt with the interpretation of the term ''substantial action'' under Section 63.57, and we determine that the relevant rulings provide sufficient guidance.42
That said, in an effort to minimize utility burdens where possible without sacrificing necessary customer protections, we propose to amend Section 63.57 to afford more flexibility to the customer and the telecommunications carriers. We propose to combine Sections 63.57(a) and 63.57(b) to impose a requirement that telecommunications public utilities respond to out-of-service trouble reports within 24 hours unless a different period of time is agreed to by the customer. Allowing carriers and their customers to agree to a different time period aligns better with current market practices where some issues are better resolved between the two parties without an unequivocal mandate. It also retains sufficient consumer protections, particularly in matters where safety and access to emergency services may be affected. We also propose to retain Section 63.57(c) and 63.57(d) as they are, amend Section 63.57(f) to remove the word ''reporting'' in the second sentence so that utilities remain subject to the ''requirements'' set forth in Section 63.55(a) (as proposed herein to be amended) but without any required ''report,'' and eliminate Section 63.57(e).
5. 52 Pa. Code § 63.58 (Installation of service)
With respect to Section 63.58, we reached the conclusion ''that information on the timing of service installations, including any standards applicable to service installation times, should be readily available to customers in some form other than a regulation.'' Reclassification Order at 87. We found that this would manage reasonable customer expectations, so we temporarily granted Verizon ''waiver of Section 63.58 conditionally upon the requirement that Verizon include in its Product Guide applicable to competitive services its rules regarding timing of service installations and any commitments that Verizon is willing to make to customers on the subject.'' Id.
Verizon included in its Product Guide rules regarding commitments that Verizon is willing to make to customers in competitive areas. We accepted this requirement imposed upon the Verizon ILECs applicable to competitive services, finding that this will continue to manage reasonable customer expectations. Reclassification Order at 87. The RLECs submit that there is no such requirement imposed on alternative service providers nor are there such customer expectations of service that it be installed in five working days. RLEC Comments at 14-15.
The OCA asserts that, at a minimum, in competitive wire centers, Verizon should establish the date for service installation provided to the customer pursuant to Section 64.191(c)(l), and then accurately present the standard in the Verizon Product Guide.43 OCA Comments at 21.
Installations of service—and of basic local exchange service in particular—is a critical component of the provision of service, particularly by ILECs that retain COLR obligations. We note that telecommunications utilities—as other public utilities—must manage and coordinate service installations within their overall network operations in an integrated and coordinated manner and under uniform standards irrespective whether such installations involve the provision of competitive or noncompetitive services. We reach the preliminary conclusion that the Product Guides of the Verizon ILECs, which govern the provision of competitive services, do not contain sufficient information adequately specifying the time intervals for service installations. We also note that Chapter 30 ILECs have the statutory obligation to make broadband access service available to a customer within ten business days after the customer's request.44 Furthermore, the regulatory parameters of service installation also interrelate with our Subchapter M regulations on changing local service providers, 52 Pa. Code §§ 63.191 et seq.
Installations of service, including basic local exchange service, is a critical component of the provision of service, by all utilities and in particular our ILECs that retain COLR obligations and should be uniform across all LEC service territories. Since it is unclear if Verizon's Product Guides delineate similar timeframe intervals for primary and nonprimary service installations in competitive wire centers, we propose that Section 63.58 be retained in its entirety subject to the proposed amendment discussed immediately below.
However, for reasons similar to our proposed amendment to Section 63.57, and in order to provide more flexibility in the carrier/customer relationship, we propose to allow a public utility and its customer to agree to a different installation date. Therefore, we propose to revise the regulation to provide that the respective five-day and 20-day rules in Section 63.58(a) and 63.58(b) apply unless a later date is agreed to by the customer.
6. 52 Pa. Code § 63.59 (Operator-handled calls)
We conditionally and temporarily granted the Verizon ILECs a waiver of Section 63.59 in all competitively classified wire centers. Reclassification Order at 85, 88, and 124 (Ordering Paragraph 2). The RLECs consider the requirements of the regulation arbitrary and dated and argue that current technology has rendered the regulation obsolete. The OCA believes Section 3019(d) provides more specific customer privacy directives. The OCA also notes that Verizon did not request a waiver of Subchapter J (Confidentiality of Consumer Communications and Information) in the reclassification proceeding. OCA Comments at 22. However, the OCA does not oppose rescission of Section 63.59(a).
The OCA also agrees that Section 63.59(b)(1) relates to ''toll and operator assistance calls'' and may be rescinded. Nonetheless, the OCA believes the Commission should retain the core concepts of Section 63.59(b)(2), (3), and (4) of our regulations. Section 63.59(b) sets a benchmark standard for answering performance for calls for repair or to the business office of a telecommunications utility. The OCA considers these provisions under Section 63.59(b)(2) as benchmark standards for contacting LEC repair offices and business offices that should protect consumers in both competitive and noncompetitive areas.
In any event, the OCA would accept as an alternative to the waiver of Section 63.59(b)(2), (3), and (4), continued compliance with the Section 54.153(b)(1) reporting standard for telephone access to electric distribution company (EDC) call centers or business offices. According to the OCA, the Commission had allowed the Verizon ILECs to substitute this same compliance as part of its approval of a prior settlement with Verizon in the Quality of Service Order, where we granted Verizon's request to waive Section 63.59(b)(2) for purposes of calls to the business office.45 OCA Comments at 23. However, in moving from a benchmark to a reporting standard, we noted Verizon's representation that its failure to satisfy the ''85%/20'' benchmark occurred for calls to the business office only, but not for calls to repair centers, which we expected Verizon to maintain and that will note its performance in the reporting requirement. Quality of Service Order at 34.
The OCA argues that all customers should be able to make prompt contact with telecommunications public utility representatives in the repair offices and business offices. The OCA's opinion is that it should not matter whether the price paid for basic local service is rate regulated or detariffed and should not affect the quality of service that is provided to the customer. The OCA believes that the Commission should require the same level of service quality throughout the utility's service territory and contends further that the Commission should not transition the temporary waiver of Section 63.59(b) granted to Verizon in the Reclassification Order into the elimination of any answering performance standard for LEC repair offices or business offices. OCA Comments at 23-24. The OCA argues that Section 54.153(b)(1) could provide a model for an alternative to rescission of Section 63.59(b)(2), (3), and (4) in competitively classified wire centers. However, the OCA acknowledges that Section 54.153(b)(1) would require modification to change references from EDCs to ''public utility'' (a defined term in Chapter 63) and to cover calls to repair centers, as well as ''call center or business office.'' OCA Comments at 24.
The RLECs argue that the answer requirements in subsection (b)(3) are arbitrary and with interactive voice response systems (IVRs) and call back technology, the regulation becomes obsolete.
In response to these arguments, we do not necessarily agree that the quality of service a Verizon ILEC customer receives should depend on the service area where the service is being provided.
In fact, in the Reclassification Order we made the following analysis:
Lastly, we note that, as part of its approval of a prior settlement with Verizon PA in the Quality of Service Order, we granted Verizon PA's request to waive Section 63.59(b)(2) for purposes of calls to the business office.70 In lieu of following Section 63.59(b)(2), we permitted Verizon PA, for calls to its business office, to comply with the telephone access reporting requirements at 52 Pa. Code § 54.153(b)(1) applicable to electric distribution companies until such time that Section 63.59(b)(2) either is changed or repealed.71 In light of our granting a waiver of Section 63.59, in full, pending a rulemaking, we will no longer require Verizon to comply with the telephone access reporting requirements in Section 54.153(b)(1) of our Regulations.
_________________
70 Section 63.59(b)(2) contains the standards for the speed of answering calls seeking repair service or calls to the business office.
71 By Order entered on January 10, 2013, at Docket No. P-2012-2333159, this same relief was granted to Verizon North. Because we are waiving Subsection 63.59(b)(2), for the earlier of the length of five years or the completion of a rulemaking proceeding in this Opinion and Order, our decision here supersedes and replaces the provision in the Quality of Service Order at ¶ 4.
Reclassification Order at 88.
We determine that certain and uniform performance standards governing the ability of end-user consumers to make prompt and direct contact with ILEC repair and business offices should be maintained. Our review of the Verizon ILEC 2015-2016 proprietary data as well as of other information in our administrative possession (e.g., our Bureau of Consumer Services UCARE Reports), persuades us that there is a continuous need for call answering performance standards. OCA's suggestion that at a minimum the framework of Section 54.153(b)(1) provides an alternative to the permanent waiver of Section 63.59(b)(2), (3) and (4) in competitive wire centers, or to the rescission of these standards, is a sound one. The adoption of uniform performance standards also acknowledges that telecommunications utility networks and their operational support systems for the provisioning of services function in an integrated fashion.
Accordingly, we propose to take the following actions: (1) permanently rescind Section 63.59(a) and 63.59(b)(1) and, (2) revise Section 63.59(b)(2), (3) and (4) to mirror the Section 54.153(b)(1) framework by incorporating the specific wording and definitional changes necessary to make the Section 54.153(b)(1) framework applicable to all telecommunications utilities and services throughout Pennsylvania. Because of our proposed amendments to Sections 63.54 and 63.56, our proposed amendments to Section 63.59 also address the following points:
• Renaming Section 63.59 as ''Call answering measurements.'' Specifically including the phrase: ''A public utility shall take measures necessary and keep sufficient call answering records to monitor answering times for calls as follows'' in the beginning of the amended Section 63.59.
• Utilizing the word ''records'' instead of ''reports'' and ''provide'' in the proposed amendments in line with our goal of endeavoring to reduce utility reports and other burdens while still ensuring a meaningful manner of addressing regulated service by reducing reporting requirements and replacing them with clearer rules on service requirements and attendant recordkeeping.
7. 52 Pa. Code § 63.60 (Automatic Dialing Announcing Devices (ADAD))
An automatic dialing announcing device is automatically used to place calls and play a recorded message. Our regulation addresses standards when an ADAD is used. As indicated previously, we specifically and temporarily waived Section 63.60 under our Reclassification Order. The RLECs contend that the regulation is simply not possible to enforce. RLECs Comments at 15. The OCA suggests that the Commission review the benefits of this regulation before granting a permanent waiver. OCA Comments at 25. We understand that the core issue relating to our Section 63.60 regulation primarily relates to technological change. The regulation was developed and originally implemented when ADADs would initiate automated voice calls through networks that largely utilized the time division multiplexing or TDM communications protocol. The evolution of telecommunications and broadband access networks and technologies have provided pathways for today's unwanted and unlawful ''robocalls'' that utilize caller identification (caller ID) ''spoofing'' in order to initiate and propagate such traffic. The FCC has noted:
Technological advancements and marketplace developments in IP-based telephony have made caller ID spoofing easier and more affordable than ever before. Today, widely available Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) software allows malicious callers to make spoofed calls with minimal experience and cost. Taking advantage of the ability to use spoofing to mask the true identity of an incoming call, these callers have turned to this technology as a quick and cheap way to defraud targets and avoid being discovered. Driven in part by the rise of VoIP, the telecommunications industry has transitioned from a limited number of carriers that all trusted each other to provide accurate caller origination information to a proliferation of different voice service providers and entities originating calls, which allows consumers to enjoy the benefits of far greater competition but also creates new ways for bad actors to undermine this trust.In re Call Authentication Trust Anchor; Implementation of TRACED Act—Knowledge of Customers by Entities With Access to Numbering Resources, WC Docket Nos. 17-97 and 20-67, (FCC, Rel. Mar. 31, 2020), Final Rule, FCC 20—42, 85 Fed. Reg. 22029, 22030 (April 21, 2020).
We note that Federal legislation has been enacted and that the FCC and the states have undertaken and continue to pursue various generic rulemakings as well as individual enforcement actions against entities that initiate unwanted and unlawful ''robocall'' traffic.46 Also, the Commission has existing statutory authority to exercise its own abilities to independently or in an assistive fashion combat entities that initiate and propagate unwanted and unlawful ''robocall'' traffic. Thus, in view of the developments on the Federal level and our existing state law authority, we propose to rescind Section 63.60 in its entirety.
8. 52 Pa. Code § 63.61 (Local dial service), § 63.62 (Direct distance service), and § 63.63 (Transmission requirements and standards)
The Commission granted a temporary waiver of the Sections 63.61 and 63.62 regulations. Reclassification Order at 85. These regulations deal with central office, interoffice channel, trunk, and switching facilities capacity to handle certain types of telecommunications traffic. OCA notes that such facilities currently utilize more modern telecommunications technologies (e.g., soft switches, fiber optic circuits), that are not subject to capacity constraints of the more distant past (e.g., when analog central office switching equipment was in use). Therefore, OCA does not oppose the permanent rescission of Section 63.61 and Section 63.62. OCA Comments at 25.
With respect to Section 63.63, OCA believes that the minimum standards for transmission service quality should be the same whether the service is price regulated or detariffed, and this is consistent with OCA's recommendation regarding Section 63.12 (Minimizing interference and inductive effects). OCA Comments at 26. The RLECs believe that any transmission issues should be handled between the customer and the utility. RLEC Comments at 15.
Performance requirements and standards that affect the integrated operations of telecommunications utility networks and the adequacy, efficiency, reliability and safety of the various services provided should operate in a uniform fashion. Quality of service issues such as noise, distortion and cross talk still affect voice telecommunications services today47 and hold the potential of negatively affecting 911/E911 emergency calling capabilities. Water intrusion into outside plant cable network facilities is often the culprit of such problems.48 Consistent with our proposed rescission of Section 63.12 and further amendments below, we propose the rescission of both Sections 63.61 and 63.62 in their entirety.
Our proposal to rescind Section 63.12 addressing interference is tied to our proposal to amend Section 63.63. Section 63.63(a) remains relevant, while Section 63.63(b) through 63.63(d) may be removed because as written they are increasingly obsolete. We also propose, however, to amend this Section to provide a new Section 63.63(b), using amendatory language originally proposed for inclusion in Section 63.12, as follows: ''63.63(b) Fiber networks. The provisions of this section shall apply to each wire center or other geographic area defined by the jurisdictional telecommunications public utility where the utility has fully deployed a jurisdictional fiber-optic network.'' As amended, Section 63.63 will continue to provide sufficient guidance under Section 1501 of the Code to ensure that our jurisdictional telecommunications public utilities provide reasonable service that is free from distortion, noise, and cross talk. As we recognize use of modern technology in our utility networks, however, the proposed language regarding fiber networks simply ensures that our telecommunications public utilities remain obligated to deploy and maintain networks that continue to provide for the satisfactory transmission of messages regardless of technology, confirming an obvious obligation that adds no additional burden.
9. 52 Pa. Code § 63.64 (Metering inspections and tests)
Section 63.64(a) and (b) of our regulations impose certain obligations on telecommunications utilities to carry out periodic tests, inspections, and preventive maintenance, and to maintain and test the performance of equipment and facilities. Section 63.64(c) to (h) require the use of metering equipment for a variety of purposes including, for example, the measurement of call duration for billing purposes. This regulation was previously and temporarily waived for the competitive wire centers of the Verizon ILECs under our Reclassification Order. OCA submits that the regulation should be preserved for both competitive and noncompetitive ILEC service areas. OCA Comments at 26.
We determine that matters such as periodic tests, inspections, and preventive maintenance as well as the performance testing of telecommunications network equipment and facilities should operate under standards that are uniformly applicable for all services. Operational failures to perform preventive maintenance or adequate testing can and does lead to service outages that can also affect public health and safety, e.g., loss of 911/E911 emergency calling capabilities, or loss of the technical ability to route 911/E911 emergency call traffic to the appropriate public safety answering point. Such service outages can easily and simultaneously affect the provision of all retail services.
Furthermore, to the extent that telecommunications utilities already perform the operational functions that are specified under Section 63.64(a) and (b) as they should and do in the ordinary course of their respective business and operations, the existing regulation does not impose a regulatory burden. However, we propose to amend Section 63.64 consistent with the market and technological environment in which the regulated Pennsylvania telecommunications utilities operate. Therefore, we propose to rescind Section 63.64(d), 63.64(g), and 63.64(h), retain Section 63.64(a), 63.64(b), 63.64(c), and 63.64(e), and amend 63.64(f). If a meter is not used in the provision of service, Section 63.64(c) and 63.64(e) should not present a burden. If a meter is used, the retained sections provide for standards relating to billing. Section 63.64(f) requires a utility to perform periodic testing and maintenance of its utility trunking equipment, which should remain the utility's obligation. However, in lieu of the ''periodic'' nature of this requirement, we propose amending the language in Section 63.64(f) to provide that the requirement shall apply ''upon request or complaint.''
10. 52 Pa. Code § 63.65 (Safety)
In the Reclassification Order, we recognized that the CWA and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW, collectively CWA—IBEW) sought retention of Section 63.65 (Safety) and we concluded instead that workplace safety is adequately regulated at the Federal level. Reclassification Order at 86. We explained that the subchapter at Section 63.65 already incorporates the National Electric Safety Code for poles and conduits, which—at the time of our Reclassification Order—were regulated by the FCC, and by the workplace safety regulations of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), respectively. The OCA deferred to other parties who may have a direct interest in workplace safety and the status of whether Section 63.65 should be retained, modified, or permanently waived. OCA Comments at 27. The RLECs comment that they are already required to comply with OSHA standards, so a regulation is not needed. RLEC Comments at 15.
In temporarily waiving our regulation for the Verizon ILECs, we noted that this provision is enforced by other agencies, but at the same time, violations of FCC and/or OSHA workplace safety regulations are also subject to our jurisdiction and require compliance with Section 1501 of the Code. Consequently, we propose the permanent rescission of Section 63.65(1) to 63.65(4). However, we propose to retain the first part of this section, which requires telecommunications public utilities to adopt and implement a safety program fitted to their size in conformance with Occupational Safety Health Act standards, which we propose be amended to add the words ''as amended from time to time'' or an equivalent. This is consistent with a similar amendment we proposed which referred to application of a non-Commission standard. Elimination of Section 63.65(1)—63.65(4) reduces burdens, while retention of the first part as amended simply confirms the workplace safety standards that shall apply, affirms the importance of safety of Pennsylvania workers to the Commission, and adds no additional burden.
F. Subchapter F (Extended Area Service)—52 Pa. Code §§ 63.71—63.77
Subchapter G (Public Coin Service)—52 Pa. Code §§ 63.91—63.98
We specifically and temporarily waived the following Subchapter F (Extended Area Service) regulations for the Verizon ILECs under our Reclassification Order:
Section 63.71 (Definitions);
Section 63.72 (Traffic usage studies);
Section 63.72(a) (InterLATA traffic studies);
Section 63.73 (Optional calling plans);
Section 63.74 (EAS polls);
Section 63.75 (Subscriber polls);
Section 63.76 (EAS complaints);
Section 63.77 (Evaluation criteria).
In that same Order, we also temporarily waived the following Subchapter G (Public Coin Service) regulations for the Verizon ILECs:
Section 63.91 (Purpose);
Section 63.92 (Definitions);
Section 63.93 (Conditions of service);
Section 63.94 (Coin telephone requirements);
Section 63.95 (Sufficiency of public telephone service);
Section 63.96 (Service requirements for coin telephones);
Section 63.97 ([Reserved]); and
Section 63.98 (Compliance).
No party objected to the request of the Verizon ILECs for a temporary waiver of Subchapters F and G. Reclassification Order at 88.
In the Reclassification Order, we discussed that the regulations were outdated and no longer purposeful or relevant in today's regulatory environment. Reclassification Order at 89. We explained the reasons why EAS regulations are no longer necessary as follows:
Our extended area service (EAS) regulations, which were developed before the existence of competition in the local market, are no longer enforced by the Commission. The EAS Regulations are a vestige of an era when local calling areas were limited in regard to the number of persons that could be called without having to incur a per-minute based long-distance toll charge. Local calling areas expanded significantly during the 1990's and early 2000's in part due to the automatic implementation clause of the EAS Regulations that required LECs to implement EAS on a toll route of a contiguous exchange whenever the average calling frequency on a specific route and the number of access lines making at least one call per month on that route reached a certain threshold. We take administrative notice that no LEC has implemented an EAS route in accordance with our EAS Regulations nor has any customer filed an EAS formal complaint against any LEC within at least the last five years. We note that EAS Regulations have been rendered useless, in part, by their success, which led to the more expansive local calling areas in place today, but especially by competition that evolved in the telecommunications market, especially over the last ten years that led to an abundance of flat rate calling plans (e.g., nation-wide calling for a fixed rate), bundled service packages, and competitive alternatives that are not measurable, including those from wireless and VoIP providers.
Reclassification Order at 89—91.
Based on the same analysis, the competitive telecommunications market eliminated the need for payphone service across Pennsylvania and throughout the country. Verizon notes that it no longer provides payphone services in Pennsylvania and that payphones also have been rendered obsolete, particularly due to the proliferation of wireless services across the Commonwealth. Reclassification Order at 90. The RLECs also address the technological obsolescence of the Subchapters F and G regulations. Furthermore, the RLECs indicate that ''to the extent any carriers are still providing payphone service in Pennsylvania, those carriers will still be subject to Sections 2911—2915 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 2911—2915, which address the regulation of coin service and which will continue to provide sufficient Commission oversight and consumer protections.''49 OCA agrees that Subchapters F and G can be rescinded since they are no longer needed.50
Tenny Journal Communications (Tenny), an independent payphone services provider based in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, submitted comments in this proceeding. Tenny's comments included a series of allegations directed against Verizon and Verizon's practices with respect to the provision of payphone services by independent providers such as Tenny. Tenny's comments allege that Verizon has provided ''false certification that it no longer provided payphone services in Pennsylvania,'' and that in December 2017 ''Verizon, without legal right or justification, refused service to Tenny Journal in Pennsylvania.''51 Tenny further alleges that ''Verizon abruptly deactivated [Tenny's] Pennsylvania phones [payphones] knowing that doing so was an unjustified breach of contract,'' and that Tenny has been subjected to ''unauthorized charges'' by Verizon.52
Verizon responded to these allegations indicating that Tenny is improperly utilizing this proceeding ''to cast aspersions on Verizon due to an unrelated wholesale billing dispute.''53 Verizon further stated that it does not provide payphones and provides ''access to wholesale lines that Tenny may use for payphone service,'' and that in ''areas where Verizon is retiring copper pursuant to the FCC's rules those lines are only available over fiber.''54 We agree that this proceeding is not the appropriate forum for addressing a dispute between Tenny and Verizon. To the extent that this Commission can exercise appropriate jurisdiction, a wholesale interconnection and intercarrier compensation dispute can be properly brought before it through the filing and adjudication of a formal complaint. Accordingly, we propose to rescind Subchapters F and G regulations in their entirety.
G. Subchapters H, J, K, L M, N and O
All of these remaining Subchapters of Chapter 63 have remained in full force for all geographic areas. While Verizon encouraged the Commission to overhaul thoroughly the Chapter 63 regulations by eliminating various subchapters and provisions in Chapter 63, it also indicated that the following provisions could be kept as is: Chapter 63 L, Sections 63.161 through 63.171 (Universal Service), Chapter 63 M, Sections 63.191 through 63.222 (Changing Local Service Providers); Chapter 63 N, Sections 63.301 through 63.310 (Local Service Provider Abandonment Process) and Chapter 63 O, Sections 63.321 through 63.325 (Abbreviated Procedures for Review and Approval of Transfer of Control for Telecommunications Public Utilities). Verizon Comments at 9-10.
The RLECs asserted that Subchapter H—Inter- exchange Telecommunications Carriers (Sections 63.101 through 63.109) and Subchapter I—Interexchange Resellers (Section 63.101) no longer serve a useful purpose. The RLECs further asserted that these sections under these subchapters have been rendered obsolete given the competitive nature of interexchange services. Therefore, the RLECs propose that this subchapter should be eliminated. RLEC Comments at 17.
Additionally, the RLECs have asserted that Subchapter J—Confidentiality of Consumer Communications and Information (Sections 63.131 through 63.137) are largely duplicative of Section 222 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 222, and Federal Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) requirements,55 and supplemental to state and Federal wiretap laws. Id. They indicate that there are also state data breach laws in all 50 states addressing security measures to prevent unauthorized acquisition of information. Id. The RLECs state that they support the confidential treatment of all consumer communications and information, but the landscape has evolved and the provisions addressed in this subchapter are simply unnecessary.
Further, the RLECs assert that Subchapter K—Competitive Safeguards (Sections 63.141 through 63.144) along with Subchapter M (Changing local service providers (Sections 63.191 through 63.222) and Subchapter N (Local Service Provider Abandonment Process (Sections 63.301 through 63.310)—involve wholesale relationships. Id. at 17-18. They contend that this subchapter is outdated and effectively duplicative of Sections 251, 252, and 271 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 251, 252, 271. However, they state that the retail regulations in Chapters 63 require immediate attention and relief. Id. Thus, they state that despite the inefficiencies created by Subchapter K, action on the Chapter 63 wholesale-type regulations could be addressed later.
Furthermore, the RLECs state that Subchapter L contains the Commission's Universal Service regulations which, they maintain, should continue to remain in effect. They submit that these regulations are integral to the ability of the RLECs to provide reliable service at affordable rates and satisfy their COLR obligations. Id. at 18.
Lastly, the RLECs also support the retention of Subchapter O so long as the Commission retains its statutory authority under Chapter 11 of the Public Utility Code for reviewing and approving mergers, acquisitions, and other changes of control. The RLECs, however, recommended certain modifications to Subchapter O which, at a minimum, impose accelerated timelines for Commission action and order on general rule and pro forma transactions. Id.
Accordingly, we propose to rescind Subchapter H and I as obsolete. We understand the RLECs' position that the regulatory provisions of Subchapter J may be duplicative of existing Federal law and Federal CPNI requirements. We also agree that if there is a data breach, the alleged violator will be subject to Section 1501 of the Code or a Section 701 proceeding. Nevertheless, considering the circumstances regarding the recent data breaches, we determine that it necessary to continue to give specific instructions to our jurisdictional telecommunications companies so that they comply with 66 Pa.C.S. § 3019(d).
We will retain Subchapter J but propose to amend certain provisions. We specifically propose to add the words ''agent,'' to be defined as ''an individual or entity that performs work on behalf of a telecommunications public utility as the principal and is subject to this chapter,'' and ''independent contractor,'' to be defined as ''an individual or entity that performs work on behalf of a telecommunications public utility subject to this chapter,'' in Section 63.132. In this spirit, we also propose to insert ''agent'' and ''independent contractor'' after every mention of ''employee'' in the regulation. We believe this assumption of responsibility is both proper in the marketplace and no more burdensome a requirement than we currently impose in the energy market.
Finally, we propose to retain Subchapters K, L, M, N and O.
III. Chapter 64. Standards and Billing Practices for Residential Telephone Service
A. Background
In the reclassification proceeding, the Verizon ILECs requested a waiver of the entire Chapter 64 regulations at 52 Pa. Code §§ 64.1—64.213. The Chapter 64 regulations are titled ''Standards and Billing Practices for Residential Telephone Service'' and address the following items involving interactions with customers: billing and payment, credit and deposit, termination, restoration of service, and complaint handling. Reclassification Order at 90—103.
In the same way we considered the temporary waivers of our quality of service regulations in the Reclassification Order, the Code under Section 1501 still requires the Verizon ILECs to provide reasonable and adequate service in competitive wire centers, including the provision of billing services. Thus, customers can still have recourse to the Commission and complain about billing matters that do not involve competitive service prices that are set ''at the company's discretion.'' See 66 Pa.C.S. § 3016(e). In the context of the Reclassification Order, we ascertained that many of these regulations were no longer needed in competitive markets where competition could provide sufficient incentives for the Verizon ILECs to satisfy reasonable customer expectations and their Product Guides could adequately address certain issues.
The OCA has recommended that the Commission preserve the Chapter 64 protections for residential local exchange service in competitive areas, subject to limited amendments. OCA Comments at 28. In the Reclassification Order, we concluded that certain protections were still needed, and we addressed the regulations individually and granted, in part, and denied, in part, the Verizon ILECs' request to waive our entire Chapter 64 regulations in competitive wire centers. Reclassification Order at 93-94. We shall address these regulations in order below.
B. Subchapter A (Preliminary Provisions)
1. 52 Pa. Code § 64.1 Statement of purpose and policy; § 64.2 Definitions
Section 64.1 is the Chapter 64 statement of purpose and policy and Section 64.2 contains definitions. In the Reclassification Order, we reviewed the policy statement and found most of Section 64.1 relevant even for the Verizon ILECs' competitive wire centers. However, we granted a temporary waiver of the first sentence because that description of the purpose is no longer an accurate statement for the areas served by the Verizon ILEC competitive wire centers.
The OCA did not oppose the temporary waiver with the understanding that there will not be uniform standards because there will be two sets of service standards for competitive and noncompetitive areas. OCA Comments at 28. The standards should be uniform, fair, and equitable for protected services.
For the reasons stated above, we decline to establish a two-tiered regulatory structure that would impose different regulations and standards in competitive and noncompetitive areas. Consequently, we propose the retention of Section 64.1 in its present form applied uniformly to all geographic areas where telecommunications services are offered by the jurisdictional telecommunications utilities. Furthermore, consistent with our previous proposals renaming certain sections of our regulations, we propose to rename Chapter 64 as ''Standards and Billing Practices for Residential Telecommunications Service.'' Similarly, we propose the replacement of the term ''Telephone'' with ''Telecommunications'' throughout this chapter as appropriate and where the word ''telephone'' appears in the existing text of the regulation.
The Section 64.2 definitions are retained to the extent certain provisions within the Chapter are retained and that retention implicates certain definitions contained in Section 64.2. Reclassification Order at 95. Also, OCA commented that many of the Chapter 64 definitions relate to other Chapter 64 regulations which are being preserved. Id. Thus, we agree and propose the retention of those definitions that are still relevant to the regulations. And, as we did in Chapter 63, we will also incorporate definitions for a competitive and noncompetitive wire center for purposes of future competitive designations. And for the reasons stated above supporting our proposal to further amend Section 63.1 of Chapter 63, our proposal to amend this section to define a term using the words ''wire centers'' will be expanded to include ''or other geographic area defined by the public utility'' in this section and anywhere else in Chapter 64 where there are further proposed amendments to insert the term ''wire center'' for those utilities that do not use the wire center terminology We are also updating references to Chapter 30 of the Public Utility Code.
C. Subchapter B (Payment and Billing Standards)
1. 52 Pa. Code §§ 64.11—64.24
In Subchapter B, which governs payment and billing, in the context of the reclassification proceeding, we temporarily waived the following Subchapter B regulations for the Verizon ILEC competitive wire centers:
Section 64.11 (Method of payment);
Section 64.12 (Due date for payment);
Section 64.13 (Billing frequency);
Section 64.14 (Billing information);
Section 64.15 (Advance payments);
Section 64.16 (Accrual of late payment charges);
Section 64.17 (Partial payments for current bills);
Section 64.18 (Application of partial payments between past and current bills);
Section 64.19 (Rebilling);
Section 64.20 (Transfer of accounts);
Section 64.21 ([Reserved]); and
Section 64.22 (Billing service for interexchange carriers).
Reclassification Order at 95.
We retained the applicability of the following Sections in Subchapter B both for the competitive and the noncompetitive wire centers of the Verizon ILECs:
Section 64.23 (Cramming/Slamming); and
Section 64.24 (Provision of bundled service packages)
As initial support for our action, we pointed out that Verizon's Product Guide, Section 1 Original Sheets 5 and 6, addresses several of these payment related issues in the Verizon ILECs' competitive wire centers. Reclassification Order at 96. However, we recognize that some important consumer protections still remain relevant such as Section 64.23 that relates to the standardized LEC response to cramming and slamming. We also noted that the Verizon ILECs are required to comply with the 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401 Federal truth-in-billing requirements applicable to billings for intrastate or interstate services. Id.
In the Reclassification Order we also denied the Verizon ILECs' request for the temporary waiver of Section 64.24 that preserves basic local exchange service upon the termination of a bundled package. This is an important consumer protection still relevant in a competitive market given the proliferation of bundled packages and the Chapter 30 statutory goals of preserving universal service. Id. We shall address Sections 64.11—64.24 in this instant order, plus Section 64.33 (Payment of outstanding balance) which is related to Section 64.20.
Generally, the OCA recommends, that the Commission should preserve Sections 64.11 through 64.22 for both competitive and noncompetitive wire centers. The OCA notes that without a statutory or regulatory standard, the Verizon ILECs can merely change ''the scope and content of its Product Guide at will.'' OCA Comments at 27. The OCA submits that the statutory ''Billing Procedures'' protection of Section 1509 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 1509, still apply in competitive and noncompetitive areas and the Payment and Billing Standards will assist the Commission in determining whether the LECs are in compliance with both Section 1501 and Section 1509 of the Code. OCA Comments at 30. The RLECs object arguing that voluminous regulations are not required to make Sections 1501 and 1509 effective, and in fact, Section 1509 is straight forward and is not in need of regulatory assistance. RLECs Reply Comments at 11; Verizon Comments at 9.
1. 52 Pa. Code § 64.11 (Method of payment)
The OCA submits that the payment standards set forth in Section 64.11 (Method of payment) should be retained in both competitive and noncompetitive wire centers. We considered accepting the OCA's recommendation to amend the regulation to recognize ''electronic payments.'' However, the regulation references that ''[p]ayments may be made in any reasonable manner'' and that can include electronic payments so we do not propose to make a change to the regulation. Additionally, we propose to revise the regulation to reference that returned check charges are to be included in the ''carrier's approved tariff, Product Guide or similar document.'' However, even though we will not fully adopt the OCA's recommendation, we propose the retention of the Section 64.11 regulation in all geographic areas where our jurisdictional telecommunications carriers serve.
2. 52 Pa. Code § 64.12 (Due date for payment), § 64.13 (Billing frequency), and § 64.14 (Billing information)
OCA contends that the Commission should retain Sections 64.12 (Due date for payment), 64.13 (Billing frequency), and 64.14 (Billing information) as applicable in all LEC service areas, whether classified as competitive or noncompetitive. The OCA argues again that these regulations implement the provisions of Section 1509 of the Code that apply billing procedures for consumer protections. OCA submits that for purposes of simplification, the Commission should retain Section 64.14(a) that details the information that must be provided on each bill, but acknowledges, alternatively, that subsections (b), (c), and (d) could be rescinded or amended. OCA Comments at 29—31. The RLECs contend that none of its competitors are required to present bills in these arcane formats. RLEC Comments at 21.
OCA presents a better argument that provides for better billing transparency to end-user consumers of LEC services whether such services are provided on a competitive or non-competitive basis. Furthermore, regulated telecommunications utilities have been utilizing the billing formats prescribed by our regulations for a very long time and, consequently, their billing and operational support systems are already and appropriately configured to continue with established practices. This billing format is also an appropriate device for the consumers to detect the presence of unwarranted and unauthorized charges potentially from third parties (e.g., cramming).
We take note of the RLECs' arguments for the use of electronic billing although their relevant comments correctly recognize ''that some customers do not choose to have a broadband connection,''56 and we observe that consumer engagement of broadband access services may not be solely and exclusively a simple matter of ''personal choice.'' Nevertheless, we recognize the wide availability and use of electronic billing and we address this matter below. Consequently, we propose to retain Section 64.12 and Section 64.13 and also revise them so that the regulations delineate the necessary information and data for incorporating the availability and use of electronic billing in lieu of paper bills.
We propose to retain Section 64.14(a) and (c) and to rescind Section 64.14(b) and 64.14(d). The information provided in Section 64.14(c) is sometimes at the heart of consumer disputes. As is the case in other proposed revisions where we have proposed retention of information, for example our proposed amendment to Section 64.191, infra, this requirement that a utility inform the customer of charges to be incurred for new or additional services and then retain that information for 90 days, or approximately 3 billing cycles, protects both the provider and the consumer should a dispute arise from either party. We impose this obligation in other competitive industries. We believe it is appropriate to retain it here.
3. 52 Pa. Code § 64.15 (Advanced payments) and § 64.16 (Accrual of late payment charges)
The OCA does not oppose the permanent rescission of Section 64.15 (Advanced payments) in both competitive and noncompetitive wire centers. OCA believes that Section 64.16 (Accrual of late payment charges) improves the affordability of service and should be preserved in both categories of wire centers. OCA Comments at 32. Our decision in the Reclassification Order allowed the Verizon ILECs to price their retail services, including basic local exchange services, at their discretion. Reclassification Order at 8. That being said, we also determined that customers in competitive wire centers who do not want to pay the price for the Verizon ILEC services have alternate services to choose from to replace their services. Reclassification Order at 62. Similarly, if Verizon ILEC customers in competitive wire centers are not satisfied with their terms of service for late payments, they can choose another provider with different terms of service.
We note that the Verizon ILECs provide retail services, including basic local exchange services, to Lifeline eligible consumers and households within their competitive wire centers. We understand that the terms of service regarding late payment fees in the Product Guide is the same for both Lifeline eligible customers and households that receive service from the Verizon ILECs in competitive wire centers. However, we note that at a certain point the Verizon ILECs had formally petitioned this Commission for a waiver of the Section 64.16(a) regulations in relation to their noncompetitive wire centers and had requested certain increases in late payment charges.57 In view of this discussion and because the provision of Lifeline services is inherently part of the universal service concept both under applicable Pennsylvania and Federal law, we propose the following: (1) the permanent rescission of Section 64.15; and, (2) the permanent retention of Section 64.16 for all geographic areas.
4. 52 Pa. Code § 64.17 (Partial payments for current bills) and § 64.18 (Application of partial payments between past and current bills)
In competitive wire centers, the OCA recommends amending Sections 64.17 and 64.18 to instruct Verizon and any other LEC how to handle partial payments in accordance with the specific instructions of the consumer or if there are no instructions, reduce the balance due for basic service. OCA Comments at 32. OCA supports the retention of the Sections 64.17 and 64.18 regulations for both competitive and noncompetitive wire centers. In view of our preceding discussion on the proposed final disposition of Section 64.16, we propose to take the same course of action with the proposed disposition of Sections 64.17 and 64.18. Therefore, we will propose the permanent retention of Sections 64.17 and 64.18 for all geographic areas.
5. 52 Pa. Code § 64.19 (Rebilling)
Section 64.19(a) addresses a four-year limit for the issuance of a make-up bill for unbilled services resulting from a LEC's billing error. Section 64.19(b) provides consumer protections through a remedy for over-billing by requiring the LEC to provide an appropriate credit to the customer's account including taxes. Section 64.19(c) requires a LEC to provide notice to the Commission ''of rebilling affecting more than 10% of its residential customers within 90 days of the rebilling.''
The OCA recommends that the provision of Section 64.19(a) and (b) should continue to apply in the competitive wire centers if any portion of the make-up bill for unbilled services or credit for overbilling relates to services received prior to the implementation date of the Reclassification Order's temporary waivers for the Verizon ILECs. OCA Comments at 33. We note that such implementation date would be September 15, 2015, the entry date for the Final Implementation Order. Final Implementation Order, Ordering Paragraph No. 6.
OCA further recommends that the Commission should retain the notice requirement of Section 64.19(c) with applicability to both competitive and noncompetitive wire centers. The OCA notes that the need for such a significant rebilling activity would be highly unusual and could be avoided because of computerized billing systems. However, according to OCA, a cybersecurity attack is not impossible and can disrupt routine operations including billing activities and, regardless of the cause, the Commission should receive notice of any such significant rebilling activities under Section 64.19(c). We find the OCA arguments persuasive and we propose the permanent retention of Section 64.19 in all geographic areas.
6. 52 Pa. Code § 64.20 (Transfer of account) and § 64.33 (Payment of outstanding balance)
Both Section 64.20 from Subchapter B and Section 64.33 from Subchapter C were temporarily waived, as to the Verizon ILECs' provision of residential local service in competitive wire centers. The OCA explains that Section 64.20 addresses transfer of accounts and outstanding balances associated with discontinuance or termination to a new or existing customer, and Section 64.33(a) allows a LEC to condition the provision of service to a new applicant upon payment of an outstanding balance ''for which the applicant is legally responsible. . . .'' In addition, Section 64.33(b) prohibits a LEC from requiring an applicant for service to pay an outstanding balance incurred in another person's name, absent a legal order determining the applicant's obligation to pay. OCA Comments at 33-34.
The OCA believes that these regulations protect the affordability and continuity of residential local service by providing specific guidance as to a LEC's collection practices applied to a customer, where the charges were incurred in another account or by another person. The OCA submits that the important balancing of interests contained in the regulations is unlikely to appear in the terms and conditions of a Product Guide. OCA recommends that these regulations should be preserved and apply to residential service in both competitive and noncompetitive areas. Id. at 34.
In light of our rejection of a two-tiered regulatory approach, and in consideration of our balancing of interests as explained above and asserted by the OCA, we propose to retain these regulations in all geographic areas.
7. 52 Pa. Code § 64.22 (Billing services for interexchange carriers)
This grant of a temporary waiver to the Verizon ILECs of this provision in competitive wire centers is unopposed. We also consider this regulation to be obsolete. Therefore, we propose the permanent rescission of Section 64.22 in all geographic areas.
8. 52 Pa. Code § 64.23 (Cramming/Slamming) and § 64.24 (Provision of bundled service packages)
We retained the applicability of Section 64.23 (Standardizing LEC responses to customer contacts alleging unauthorized charges added to the customer's bill (cramming) and unauthorized changes to the customer's long distance carrier (slamming)) and Section 64.24 (Provision of bundled service packages) to the Verizon ILECs' provision of service in competitive areas within the context of our Reclassification Order.
OCA does not oppose the retention and continuous applicability of both regulations to both competitive and non-competitive wire centers.58 The RLECs support the elimination of Section 64.24 and they allege that it ''unnecessarily limits and extends the billing and collection process that alternative providers with bundles need not undertake.''59 We disagree with this assertion and we note that Section 64.24 operates so that consumers who are unable to pay the full price for a bundle of services can default to a basic local exchange service and not lose connectivity. This serves the statutory goal of preserving universal service under 66 Pa.C.S. § 3011(2) and, contrary to the RLECs' assertions, does not undermine the pricing flexibility for bundled service packages under 66 Pa.C.S. § 3016(e).
Consistent with our proposed actions for Sections 64.14, 64.17 and 64.18, we propose the permanent retention of existing Sections 64.23 and 64.24 for all geographic areas.
D. Subchapter C (Credit and Deposit Standards Policy) 52 Pa. Code §§ 64.31—64.41
In our Reclassification Order, we granted the Verizon ILECs a waiver of all the following Subchapter C regulations in their competitive wire centers:
Section 64.31 (LEC credit and deposit policies);
Section 64.32 (Credit standards);
Section 64.33 (Payment of outstanding balance);
Section 64.34 (Written procedures);
Section 64.35 (Deposit requirements for exiting customers);
Section 64.36 (Method of making deposit);
Section 64.37 (Refund of deposits);
Section 64.38 (Application of deposit to bills);
Section 64.39 (Periodic review);
Section 64.40 (Refund statement); and
Section 64.41 (Interest).
In addressing the credit and deposit standards, we acknowledged the importance of customer access to relevant information about their services with the following understanding:
We take note of Section 1, Original Sheet 1 of Verizon's Product Guide in both of its service territories in Pennsylvania, which applies to competitive services and which specifies that Verizon will use a credit check to determine creditworthiness. To the extent that the Product Guide does not address Verizon's policies and procedures applicable to applicants for service that are not deemed creditworthy, we believe such information should be added to the Product Guide. Therefore, we shall grant a waiver of this Subchapter conditionally upon the requirement that Verizon provide information in its Product Guide concerning the consequences if an applicant for service is not deemed to be creditworthy.
Reclassification Order at 97.
We relied on the Verizon ILECs to include this information in their Product Guides. We held the belief that disclosure of credit and deposit standards would help manage reasonable customer expectations. Id.
The OCA opposes to the elimination of Subchapter C for application to competitive services. OCA Comments at 35-36. The RLECs contend that the credit and deposit regulatory requirements do not reflect current business environment of serving only 12% of the market and the provisions are so onerous that the existing regulations effectively discourage companies from taking a deposit. RLEC Comments at 23. The RLECs further submit that consumers today are familiar with deposit practices which do not require payment of an actual cash deposit. Consumers, for example, may prefer a credit card kept on file. Moreover, the RLECs submit that alternative service providers in today's competitive marketplace do not have these requirements. Id.
1. 52 Pa. Code § 64.31 (LEC credit and deposit policies), § 64.32 (Credit standards), § 64.33 (Payment of outstanding balance), § 64.41 (Interest), and §§ 64.34—64.40
The OCA specifically addresses Section 64.31. OCA Comments at 36. In particular, the OCA asserts that Section 64.31 (LEC credit and deposit policies) should apply to all residential local service customers in both competitive and noncompetitive wire centers. Id. The OCA notes that the Reclassification Order did not change COLR obligations of the Verizon ILECs. Reclassification Order at 125. The OCA states that the Commission recognized that the Verizon ILECs' Product Guides (as of 2015) regarding extension of service were in conflict with Verizon's COLR obligation and Section 63.20 (Service line) obligations. OCA Comments at 36. Furthermore, the OCA submitted that the Commission required the Verizon ILECs to amend their Product Guides and provide information that explains the consequences if an applicant for service is not deemed to be creditworthy. Reclassification Order at 97.
The OCA believes that the Verizon ILECs' Product Guides is a temporary measure and when it comes to an ILEC's screening of applicants for service in a competitive area, the ILEC should be guided by an affirmative statement of the Commission's credit and deposit policies that will provide more protection. To the extent any of the other regulations should be amended, the OCA submits that the changes should simplify regulatory requirements, while preserving guidance to LECs in competitive areas. The OCA supports the preservation of the other Subchapter C sections in competitive and non-competitive areas, which cover credit standards, payment of outstanding balances, deposit requirements, refunds, and interest. OCA Comments at 36-37. The RLECs oppose the retention of these regulations on the grounds that they do not reflect the current business environment. RLEC Comments at 23.
We agree that since certain of these regulations contain objective credit standards and operate in conjunction with all LEC services, in particular the ILECs' COLR obligations (e.g., applications for the installation of service), their applicability should be uniform between competitive and non-competitive wire centers. Customer credit and deposit protections are important, and based on the input provided to the ANOPR, we are not persuaded that these requirements are fairly characterized as outdated in today's marketplace. In considering the overall balance of interests, and lacking a competitive analysis, we believe the scale tilts in favor of retaining the substantive requirements of this subchapter as is. Therefore, we propose the permanent retention of Sections 64.31, 64.32, 64.41 and 64.34—64.40, and their uniform and continuous application in all geographic areas served by our jurisdictional telecommunications utilities.
E. Subchapter D (Interruption and discontinuance of service)
52 Pa. Code §§ 64.51—64.53
In the Reclassification Order, we recognized that the Verizon ILEC Product Guide, Section 1 Original Sheet 6, is applicable to basic local exchange services in competitive wire centers in both Verizon ILEC service territories in Pennsylvania, and it addresses refunds for service interruptions and customer-initiated discontinuation of service. Reclassification Order at 97. We decided to temporarily waive the Subchapter D regulations Section 64.52 (Refunds for service interruption) and Section 64.53 (Discontinuation of service) for the Verizon ILECs. Id. However, we decided to retain Section 64.51. The regulations are addressed below. We note specifically that in light of our review in this NOPR including our overall balancing of interests and rejection of a two-tiered regulatory structure, we propose the retention of this subchapter in its entirety in all geographic areas.
1. 52 Pa. Code § 64.51 (Temporary interruption)
Section 64.51 allows an ILEC to interrupt service to a customer under emergency conditions and for critical maintenance purposes. The Commission retained the applicability of Section 64.51 in the context of the Reclassification Order for the Verizon ILECs, and this was not opposed. The OCA supports preservation of the requirement that the ILEC provide the residential customers with notice, if possible, of temporary interruptions and limit the duration. OCA Comments at 37. We continue to agree that ILECs must have the ability to interrupt service under emergency conditions and to perform critical maintenance. Therefore, the regulation shall be retained for all geographic areas.
2. 52 Pa. Code § 64.52 (Refunds for service interruptions)
We granted the Verizon ILECs a temporary waiver of Section 64.52 indicating that the Verizon ILECs' Product Guide in 2015 addressed the topic of refunds for service interruptions. Reclassification Order at 97-98; ANOPR Order at 17-18. Section 64.52(a) and (b) provide the general rules for calculation of an allowance in the event of an interruption of at least 24 hours and when the interruption is due to storms or other events beyond the telecommunications utility's control, respectively.
The OCA seeks preservation of these sections, analogizing this protection to a utility's obligation to provide reasonably continuous service. The OCA had recommended that the allowances provided for in Section 63.24 (Service interruptions) should be preserved in all areas as a corollary to this obligation. OCA Comments at 37. Since service interruptions have the capability of impacting end-user consumers of residential telecommunications services in the same fashion whether they receive such services in competitive or noncompetitive wire centers, we determine that the same protections should be extended to both consumer groups under the same objective standards. Therefore, we propose to retain the uniform applicability of Section 64.52 for all geographic areas.
3. 52 Pa. Code § 64.53 (Discontinuance of service)
The OCA agrees with the Commission that this regulation that addresses customer obligations can be rescinded in the competitive service areas. OCA Comments at 38. As we noted in the Reclassification Order, the Verizon ILECs' Product Guide, Section 1, Original Sheet 6 is applicable to local exchange service in competitive wire centers that address customer-initiated discontinuation of service. Reclassification Order at 97. Consistent with our approach, we propose the retention of this regulation in all geographic areas.
F. Subchapter E (Suspension of Service)
52 Pa. Code §§ 64.61—64.111
Subchapter E regulates grounds for suspension of service and notice procedures prior to suspension of service. In the context of our Reclassification Order, we temporarily waived a number of Subchapter E regulations for the Verizon ILECs but also concluded that a number of regulations remain relevant for competitive service. Reclassification Order at 98—100.
Specifically, we decided to temporarily waive the following Subchapter E regulations for the Verizon ILECs pertaining to grounds for suspension of service and certain notice procedures:
Section 64.61 (Authorized suspension of service);
Section 64.63 (Unauthorized suspension of service), ex- cept for subsection (10) relating to medical certificates;
Section 64.72 (Suspension notice information);
Section 64.73 (Notice when dispute pending);
Section 64.74 (Procedures upon customer contact before suspension); and
Section 64.81 (Limited notice upon noncompliance with report or order).
However, we denied the Verizon ILECs' temporary waiver request for the following Subchapter E regulations, which we acknowledged remained relevant and should continue to apply in a competitive environment:
Section 64.62 (Days suspension or termination of service is prohibited);
Section 64.63(10) (Unauthorized suspension of service) relating to medical certificates;
Section 64.71 (General notice provisions);
Section 64.75 (Exception for suspension based on occurrences harmful to person or property);
Section 64.101 (General provision);
Section 64.102 (Postponement of suspension pending re- ceipt of certificate);
Section 64.103 (Medical certification);
Section 64.104 (Length of postponement);
Section 64.105 (Restoration of service);
Section 64.106 (Duty of customer to pay bills);
Section 64.107 (Suspension upon expiration of medical certification);
Section 64.108 (Right of LEC to petition the Commission);
Section 64.109 (Suspension prior to expiration of medical certification); and
Section 64.111 (Third-party notification).
The OCA agrees with the Subchapter E regulations the Commission preserved in the Reclassification Order for competitive wire centers. However, the OCA does not agree with the Commission's temporary waiver of a number of other regulations. The OCA sees these regulations as interrelated and as standards and mutual obligations of the LEC and its customers to assist these customers in staying connected to the network. OCA Comments at 38-39. The RLECs oppose these regulations as costly and time-consuming. RLEC Comments at 24. We shall address these waivers or rescissions of regulations that are opposed by the OCA.
As part of their obligation to provide reasonable service, we continue to retain for all geographic areas LECs' compliance with Section 64.62 regarding the days that services cannot be suspended or terminated and the written notice requirement prior to suspending service under Section 64.71. Without any data evidencing decreased customer reliance on these emergency-related provisions or to support a determination that the alleged utility burden is greater than the consumer benefit, we are reluctant to waive them. Accordingly, we shall retain the Subchapter E emergency provisions at Sections 64.101—64.111, given the potential impacts of suspension of service on customers with serious medical conditions, throughout all geographic areas.
1. 52 Pa. Code § 64.61 (Authorized suspension of service)
The Commission temporarily waived this regulation for the Verizon ILECs in the context of the Reclassification Order as no longer relevant in a competitive market as these terms of service for grounds for suspension and termination are addressed in the Verizon ILECs' Product Guide at Section 1, Original Sheets 4 and 4.1, while termination is covered in Section 29. Reclassification Order at 99. Section 64.61 states eight separate grounds for authorized suspension of service. OCA submits that the regulatory paragraphs provide simple guidance as to when a suspension of service to a dwelling may be allowed on payment-related grounds.60
OCA also brings to our attention that the Verizon ILECs have utilized Section 64.61(3) in the context of network transitions from conventional copper-based connections to fiber optic ones for residential customers. OCA indicates that Section 64.61(3) permits a LEC to suspend residential service upon ''[u]nreasonable refusal to permit access to service connections, equipment and other property of the LEC for maintenance or repair,'' and references the Altman case.61 In the Fox copper to fiber transition case the presiding Administrative Law Judge determined that Mr. Fox's refusal to provide Verizon PA with access to his dwelling was unreasonable and put Mr. Fox at risk of suspension of service, and that Verizon must meet the notice requirements of Section 64.71 and 64.72 before proceeding with a service suspension.62
OCA points out that the Commission's denial of Mr. Fox's complaint noted that ''[w]hen migrating telephone service from a copper to fiber-based service, Verizon also must comply with the relevant customer notice requirements regarding suspension/termination of service in Chapter 64 of the Commission's regulations.''63 OCA recommends that ''the Commission should not, through this rulemaking, diminish or dismantle such important, inter-related Chapter 64 provisions that relate to suspension of service and timely notice of how the customer may cure the potential suspension,'' and that the copper to fiber transition of network connections should be accomplished in a manner that does not confuse consumers or result in the avoidable suspension of vital residential basic local exchange services.64 OCA supports the retention of the Section 64.61 regulation for both competitive and non-competitive areas.65
OCA presents persuasive arguments, and, aside from our rejection of a two-tiered regulatory approach generally, we are not convinced that the authorized suspension of residential services, including basic local exchange services, should be governed by potentially different standards. In addition, to the extent that authorized suspension procedures provide standardized guidance for the operations of telecommunications utilities, such guidance should be applied uniformly in all geographic areas particularly in matters such as the continuing transition of network connections from copper-based to fiber optic facilities thus avoiding the suspension or even the loss of vital basic local exchange services. Thus, we propose to retain Section 64.61 for all geographic areas.
2. 52 Pa. Code § 64.62 (Days suspension or termination of service is prohibited)
We denied Verizon's waiver request for Section 64.62 on the basis that identifying the dates service cannot be suspended or terminated is relevant and should apply in a competitive market. Reclassification Order at 99. Rather than a Product Guide determining these dates, we continue to conclude that these dates should be controlled by regulation indicating the importance of controlling these dates. Accordingly, the regulation will be retained and apply in all geographic areas.
3. 52 Pa. Code § 64.63 (Unauthorized suspension of service)
This regulation identifies the reasons where ''basic service may not be suspended, and a suspension notice may not be sent[.]'' This regulation, except for subsection (10) addressing medical certifications, has been temporarily waived for the Verizon ILECs in our Reclassification Order. OCA notes that the regulation protects against unauthorized suspension of service for nonpayment of other telephone services or use of suspension to collect unpaid charges, from four or more years earlier. Also, OCA cites subsection (7) stating that basic local service is protected from suspension, based upon nonpayment by a third party unless a court order or administrative agency establishes the customer is legally obligated to pay the outstanding balance. OCA Comments at 41-42.
OCA argues that that the preservation of Section 64.63(1) through (9) provides consumer protections by preventing LECs from using suspension of residential basic exchange services as a means to collect payments owed for other services, owed by other parties, or outstanding amounts that may have already been written off. OCA recommends that the Commission preserve the regulation arguing that the regulation provides important consumer protections that should apply in all areas, competitive or noncompetitive. OCA Comments at 42.
We agree with OCA's position. In addition to our rejection of a two-tiered regulatory approach, we do not believe processes and procedures governing unauthorized suspensions for residential services, including basic local exchange services, should be governed by different standards when and where the same services are provided in competitive and non-competitive wire centers by the same telecommunications utility. Furthermore, it is unclear how potentially differing standards for dealing with unauthorized suspensions would operate with respect to select residential customer groups in the competitive and noncompetitive wire centers of the same utility, e.g., low-income consumers and households that are eligible for Lifeline services. For these reasons, we conclude that the uniformity of treatment of unauthorized suspensions is a better resolution, and we propose to retain the Section 64.63 regulation for all geographic areas.
4. 52 Pa. Code § 64.71 (General notice provisions)
In the Reclassification Order, the Commission retained Section 64.71 containing the notice requirements prior to suspension of service. The Commission considered the regulation relevant for application in a competitive environment. Reclassification Order at 99; ANOPR Order at 19, 25.
The OCA agrees, recommending that the 7-day written notice prior to the suspension be continued to apply to both competitive and noncompetitive areas. OCA Comments at 43. However, the OCA noted the clarification in the ANOPR that in fact only the first sentence of Section 64.71 would be retained66 because of the exception to the 7-day notice provision where there is a ''[f]ailure to comply with the material terms of a payment agreement for toll or non-basic service, or both.'' In these cases, the LEC shall comply with § 64.81 (relating to limited notice upon noncompliance with report or order). As indicated in the regulation, if there is a failure to comply with the material terms of a payment agreement, the LEC shall comply with Section 64.81 which provides for a limited notice. However, in the Reclassification Order, we waived Section 64.81 as no longer necessary in a competitive market as the grounds for suspension and termination of service are addressed in the Verizon ILECs' Product Guide, Section 1, Original Sheets 4 and 4.1 and Section 29.
For reasons previously stated, we conclude that the uniformity of treatment of unauthorized suspensions is a better resolution, and we propose to retain Sections 64.71 and 64.81 as they presently exist for all geographic areas.
5. 52 Pa. Code § 64.72 (Suspension notice information)
OCA recommends that the Commission retain Section 64.72 so that it is applicable to all residential local service customers, whether in competitive or noncompetitive wire centers. OCA Comments at 43. The regulation requires specific information that must be included on the suspension notice including a medical emergency notice. OCA asserts that the Commission waived Section 64.72 including the subsection (6) requirement that a suspension notice shall include, where applicable, a ''medical emergency notice'' based upon the Subchapter E, Appendix A ''Medical Emergency Notice'' form. OCA Comments at 43. OCA believes the waiver diminishes protection for all Verizon residential local exchange customers because customers need clear notice of the steps to take to prevent suspension of service (including those who may not comply with an initial Verizon notice of network connection transition from copper-based facilities to fiber optic ones), and since Section 64.72 may be permanently waived, customers may not receive notice of the medical certificate process. OCA Comments at 43-44.
The Commission temporarily waived this regulation for the Verizon ILECs finding that the provision is no longer necessary in a competitive market. Reclassification Order at 99. We temporarily waived the regulation with the understanding, as we stated previously, the grounds for suspension and termination of service are addressed in the Verizon ILECs' Product Guide. However, for the reasons stated above, we agree that the OCA arguments hold merit and do not find a compelling reason why suspension notice information for the same residential services should be subject to different standards. Adequate suspension notices that comply with the Section 64.72 standard preserve consumer protections and can timely prevent curtailment of services to residential consumers including essential basic local exchange services. This can be of particular benefit to select residential consumer groups including eligible low-income consumers and households that obtain Lifeline services in both competitive and noncompetitive wire centers, and it is consistent with the preservation of universal service principles under Pennsylvania and Federal law. Consequently, we propose to retain the Section 64.72 in all geographic areas.
6. 52 Pa. Code § 64.73 (Notice when dispute pending)
This Section under subsections (a) and (b) essentially determines that a LEC cannot mail or deliver a notice of suspension if a notice of dispute has been filed and the failure to comply with this requirement shall render the suspension notice ''void,'' respectively. Although this Section was temporarily waived for the Verizon ILECs, Reclassification Order at 99, OCA believes that the waiver of this regulation and of other Subchapter E provisions reduces the power of the Section 64.71 protection of the notice provision which was retained for both competitive and noncompetitive wire centers.
According to the OCA, the retention of Section 64.73 will avoid confusion. Further, because the Section 64.61(3) grounds for suspension were temporarily removed, Verizon could come up with its own standards for suspension on any grounds. Even though the Commission is not removing the Subchapter G (Disputes; Informal and Formal Complaints) regulations, if a customer had a pending dispute, the written notice protections of Section 64.73 would not apply. OCA Comments at 45. The OCA believes that with Section 64.73 rescinded in a competitive wire center, a Verizon ILEC can still issue a suspension notice where a dispute or informal complaint is pending. Id.
We first note that for reasons previously stated, in this NOPR we reject a bifurcated regulatory structure and thus propose the permanent retention of Section 64.61 for all geographic areas. Also, for the same reasons recounted previously, we find that the OCA arguments are persuasive, and we are reluctant to adopt different standards for notices when disputes are pending between essentially the same residential services, including basic local exchange services. However, we determine that the Section 64.73 regulation needs to be simplified. Therefore, we propose the following: (1) the retention of Section 64.73(a) and (b), including their uniform applicability in all geographic areas; and (2) the elimination of the part ''except where toll usage exceeds the following usage in a billing period after the filing of the notice of dispute or informal complaint:''; and, subsections (1) and (2) of Section 64.73(a).
7. 52 Pa. Code § 64.74 (Procedures upon customer contact before suspension)
The OCA believes that the basic concept in this regulation should be preserved. OCA Comments at 46. The regulation addresses the information that must be provided to a customer who has been issued a suspension notice but before suspension of service has taken place. The regulation addresses payment agreements and the consequences if the customer breaches the agreement. OCA supports retention of the regulation to help the customer take the steps to avoid termination of service. OCA acknowledges the need for updating the provisions that focus on toll and IXC services but still recommends preserving the basic concept.
We agree with OCA that these procedures are of material help to consumers and can substantially contribute to the avoidance of undesirable service suspensions and even terminations, as well as in a consequent reduction of informal and formal complaints that reach this Commission for adjudication and resolution. They are equally applicable to residential services, including basic local exchange services, that are provided in both competitive and noncompetitive wire centers of the same telecommunications utility. They are of particular benefit to low-income consumers and households that are eligible and receive Lifeline services in both competitive and noncompetitive wire centers. In these respects, the Section 64.74 specified procedures contribute to the preservation of universal service within Pennsylvania. We also agree that the regulation should be changed with respect to its references to interexchange carrier (IXC) services and billings. Therefore, we propose the retention of Section 64.74 and its uniform applicability in all geographic areas. We also propose to amend Section 64.74 to eliminate the term ''other than IXC toll charges'' in subsection 64.74(a)(3) and to eliminate subsection 64.74(a)(5).
8. 52 Pa. Code § 64.75 (Exceptions for suspension based on occurrences harmful to person or property)
This regulation was retained and does not appear to be opposed. ANOPR Order at 18, 25, 48 Pa.B. 4795, 4798. Based on the exigent circumstances that this regulation addresses we determine it more appropriate to address with regulatory action. Therefore, the regulation shall be retained and uniformly apply in all geographic areas.
9. 52 Pa. Code § 64.81 (Limited notice upon noncompliance with report or order)
This regulation was temporarily waived in the Reclassification Order for the Verizon ILECs and addresses the circumstances where a customer does not comply with a dispute, informal or formal complaint resolution, and the original grounds for suspension are then revived, and the LEC can suspend subject to a 24-hour advanced notice by telephone. Reclassification Order at 99; ANOPR Order at 18, 25. The OCA reserved comment. Therefore, consistent with our discussions above, we propose that Section 64.81 be retained in its entirety and apply in all geographic areas.
10. 52 Pa. Code§§ 64.101—64.109 (Emergency provisions) and § 64.111 (Third Party Notification)
These regulations were retained in both competitive and noncompetitive wire centers in our Reclassification Order. No arguments have been presented to convince us that customers do not rely on these important provisions. Therefore, these regulations will remain without amendment.
G. Subchapter F 52 Pa. Code §§ 64.121—64.123 (Termination of Service)
The Commission temporarily waived all of the Subchapter F provisions for the Verizon ILECs concluding that these provisions were no longer necessary in a competitive market and noting that the Verizon ILECs' grounds for suspension and termination are covered in their Product Guides. Reclassification Order at 99; ANOPR Order at 19-20. We shall address the OCA's opposition to the permanent waiver of these Subchapter F regulations in order.
1. 52 Pa. Code § 64.121 (Authorized termination of service), § 64.122 (Unauthorized termination of service when dispute pending), and § 64.123 (Termination notice)
The OCA contends Sections 64.121 and 64.122 mirror Sections 64.61 and 64.63 and recommends that the 10-day wait between suspension of service and termination should be preserved in both competitive and noncompetitive service areas. The OCA notes that the Commission retained Section 64.62 identifying the days when suspension and termination of services are prohibited. OCA Comments at 47-48. Also, the OCA contends that the waiver of Section 64.122 presents the same concern as raised with respect to Section 64.73, the prohibiting of sending a suspension notice when a dispute is pending. Finally, the OCA notes that waiver of Section 64.123 raises concern that certain termination notice protections will not be provided to the customer. The OCA recommends that the Commission retain these timing and notice protections for both competitive and non-competitive areas. Id. at 48.
The OCA's arguments hold merit. We agree that Sections 64.121 and 64.122 mirror our corresponding regulations regarding suspension of service in Sections 64.61 and 64.63. We find that the same reasons that we have explained earlier in permanently retaining Section 64.61 and 64.63 are equally applicable here without undue repetition. Similarly, a potential and permanent waiver of Section 64.123 would remove consumer protections that are inherent in the specifications of the relevant termination notice, including the timely availability of the medical certificate form.
As also previously noted, we also see the need to maintain a certain degree of uniformity of our suspension and termination regulations that are applicable to residential service and in all geographic areas. This uniformity and associated standards are also much easier to incorporate into the billing and operational support systems of telecommunications utilities. For example, we note that although our 2015 Final Implementation Order allowed for a ''one-tier'' notification process that would have permitted the Verizon ILECs to send only one notice before terminating service in its competitive wire centers, the Verizon ILECs never implemented this process. Verizon acknowledges that it ''did not adopt this option because it was too difficult from a systems perspective and too potentially confusing to customers and employees to have very different suspension and termination requirements in certain geographic areas.''67
For these reasons, we propose the retention of our regulations at Sections 64.121, 64.122, and 64.123, and their uniform applicability in all geographic areas.
H. Subchapter G (Disputes; Informal and Formal Complaints)
We did not grant a waiver of Subchapter G in the Reclassification Order for the Verizon ILECs since a customer has a legal right to file an informal or a formal service complaint with the Commission, and we wanted to ensure and control the complaint process. See 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 308(b)(1) and 701; ANOPR Order at 20, n.16, citing 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 308(b)(1), 701; Reclassification Order at 100-01. However, we did streamline the process by making the ''warm transfer'' available for all Verizon ILEC retail customers in competitive wire centers who submit an informal complaint to our BCS about service and also adding billing-related complaints against the Verizon ILECs. Under this process, customers filing an informal complaint would be given the option to be transferred to Verizon to resolve the customer's complaint thereby eliminating the need for the customer to file an informal complaint. Reclassification Order at 100-01.
In response, OCA submits that even though Subchapter G provisions are preserved in the Verizon ILECs competitive wire centers, the waiver of other Chapter 64 provisions in this rulemaking may overall diminish the scope of protections provided by these regulations. OCA Comments at 49. The RLECs argue that since this three-phase procedural process is complicated and tedious, the Commission should adopt a streamlined, consumer-friendly dispute resolution process which encourages the LEC and retail customer to directly resolve disputes and issues between parties before the Commission takes action and spends time and resources. RLEC Comments at 26. The RLECs propose a process that requires the customer to reach out to the company first to resolve a dispute, eliminates the informal complaint process, and requires mandatory mediation before a formal complaint can be filed. Id. at 27.
We agree with the OCA that we should preserve the full scope and protections provided to residential local service customers, whether in competitive or non-competitive areas. While Verizon's Product Guide may adequately address the waived Chapter 64 provisions such that the preserved provisions will not be adversely affected or be diminished by the rescinded provisions, even if the provisions of Subchapter G apply to Verizon's competitive wire centers, the waiver of other Chapter 64 provision may diminish the scope of protections. Moreover, to the RLECs' point, we did streamline the process by making the ''warm transfer'' available and noting that a customer has a legal right to file an informal complaint. See 66 Pa.C.S. § 308(b)(1).
In consideration of our determination that we should have uniform standards across all geographic areas on matters affecting customer service suspension or termination, we propose to retain Subchapter G will throughout all geographic areas. We also propose amendments to relevant regulations that will address the availability of a ''warm transfer'' process for the residential customers of all telecommunications utilities.
1. 52 Pa. Code §§ 64.151—64.154 (Informal complaint procedures)
Consistent with our prior proposals to amend Section 63.15 (Complaint procedures), we propose to add new language to provide all telecommunications public utilities, most particularly our ILECs, the option to participate in a ''warm transfer'' or similar program for service and/or billing, related disputes made to the Commission's BCS. The parameters of the proposed ''warm transfer'' or similar program have already been recounted in our proposed amendments of Section 63.15, they will not be repeated here, but are detailed in Annex A to this NOPR Order.
I. Subchapter H (Restoration of Service)
52 Pa. Code §§ 64.181—64.182
1. 52 Pa. Code § 64.181 (Restoration of service after suspension) and § 64.182 (Restoration of service after termination)
The Commission temporarily waived all of Subchapter H as to the Verizon ILECs provision of residential service in competitive wire centers. Reclassification Order at 99, 144. The OCA is concerned that the waiver of Section 64.181 requiring suspended service reconnected ''by the end of the first full working day,'' will remove ''a certain, measurable standard'' for reconnecting service. OCA Comments at 49. However, the OCA supports rescission of Section 64.182 which allows a customer who has been terminated to reapply as a new applicant. We agree that the regulation in Section 64.182 is unnecessary and propose to rescind it.
The OCA seeks preservation of Section 64.181 to compliment other Chapter 64 regulations that address notice on suspension of service. We agree that the OCA arguments hold merit and are consistent with our previous proposals to permanently retain the applicability of certain service suspension and termination regulations for both competitive and noncompetitive wire centers. Therefore, we propose the following: (1) the retention of Section 64.181 for all geographic areas; (2) the amendment of Section 64.181 to include reference to ''product guides or other similar documents'' in addition to a LEC's lawful tariff to the extent those terms are applicable to the particular service.
The OCA supports rescission of Section 64.182, which allows a customer who has been terminated to reapply as a new applicant. Finding the regulation in Section 64.182 unnecessary and its rescission unopposed, we propose to rescind it.
J. Subchapter I (Public Information; Record Maintenance)
1. 52 Pa. Code § 64.191 (Public Information)
In Subchapter I, we temporarily waived Section 64.191(f) and (g) for the Verizon ILECs as no longer necessary in a competitive environment. However, we concluded that Section 64.191(a)—(d) provide necessary regulatory provisions governing applications for service and disclosure of information about available services to potential customers. Also, as we noted in the Reclassification Order, this regulation addresses the requirements of fair marketing that is also required of electric generation suppliers and natural gas suppliers. Reclassification Order at 102; see also, e.g., 52 Pa. Code §§ 54.43(1) and 62.114(1).
Section 64.191(e) which addresses toll presubscription was previously waived because of the competitive market forces. Joint Petition of Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. and Verizon North, Inc. for a Waiver of the Commission's Order Dated May 9, 1997, et al., Docket Nos. I-00940034 and P-00072348 (Tentative Order entered September 24, 2008, made Final Order effective October 6, 2008, by Secretarial Letter dated January 22, 2009) (May 9, 1997 Implementation Order). Since many customers receive bundled services, we found this no longer relevant or necessary in both competitive and noncompetitive markets.
The OCA describes Section 64.191 as a regulation setting forth information to be provided by a LEC service representative to an applicant such as price lists, service options, and other information covered in the application process. OCA Comments at 50. The RLECs object to the ''minority'' voice providers in Pennsylvania having to continue with these perceived outdated regulations.
Although the OCA acknowledges that Section 64.191 needs to be updated to reflect new technology, the OCA argues that the regulation requires that a LEC provide certain useful information. For example, subsection (f) requires the LEC to send a confirmation letter to the applicant with information about the service they ordered and subsection (g) requires that the LEC mail the applicant a summary of rights and responsibilities under Chapter 64. The OCA believes that the letter with the required information is more important in a competitive market as a customer chooses between detariffed basic and bundled service offerings. The OCA also sees the need for a summary of rights where there is a mix of information based upon Chapter 64 regulations and a LEC's Product Guide. OCA Comments at 51.
In light of our rejection of a two-tiered regulatory structure and our prior proposals retaining regulations that provide necessary information to customers, we propose the permanent retention of Section 64.191(a)—64.191(d) and 64.191(f)-(g) for all geographic areas. However, we also propose to amend subsection (g) to require this information be made only to new customers and thereafter only upon request. Ensuring that both parties to a new service know their rights and responsibilities affords protection to both the customer and the provider. However, in our continual effort to balance burdens on providers with protections for customers, narrowing the provision of this information to new customers only should reduce our providers' burdens while still protecting all parties to the transaction.
With regard to Section 64.191(e) that requires ''explanations of toll presubscription,'' in addition to the temporary waivers that had been previously granted to the CenturyLink and Verizon ILECs, in our RLEC Directory and Toll Presubscription Order we granted the RLEC Petition for a temporary waiver of 52 Pa. Code Section 64.191(e) subject to the same conditions, terms, limitations, and requirements attached to prior Commission waivers granted for this regulation.68
Therefore, finding this regulation to be no longer relevant, we propose its permanent rescission.
2. 52 Pa. Code § 64.192 (Record Maintenance)
This regulation was temporarily waived in the Reclassification Order proceeding and no longer obligated the Verizon ILECs to preserve all written and recorded disputes and complaints for four years. OCA Comments at 51; ANOPR Order at 21. OCA believes that the obligation to keep dispute and complaint records and information should apply in all wire centers. In particular, the OCA maintains that because of ''warm transfers'' the disputes and complaints regarding the copper to fiber network transition process should be part of the records maintained by not just Verizon but all LECs in competitive service areas. In addition, the OCA submits that the residential consumer disputes and informal complaints filed against Verizon regarding the copper to fiber network transition process should be part of the records maintained by Verizon pursuant to Section 64.192. OCA Comments at 52.
We agree with the OCA position and we determine that such record retention can and does assist when various disputes arise as well as in the resolution of informal and formal complaints. Since such record generation, retention and storage are being performed through electronic means in the ordinary course of business of telecommunications utilities by their respective billing and operational support systems, we do not see that the requirement to maintain such records uniformly for residential services provided in both competitive and noncompetitive wire centers constitutes an administrative burden. For these reasons, we propose to retain Section 64.192 for all geographic areas.
K. Subchapter J 52 Pa. Code §§ 64.201-64.202 (Annual Reporting Requirements)
1. 52 Pa. Code § 64.201 (Reporting Requirements)
The Commission retained the Section 64.201(a) annual reporting requirement that imposes on each LEC with residential accounts the obligation to file a report providing information that is set forth in Section 64.201(b).69 We determined that parts of this regulation requiring the reporting of certain information related to basic local exchange service remain relevant and should continue to apply in competitive wire centers. Thus Verizon was to comply with Section 64.201(a) and the following Section 64.201(b) provisions: (b)(2)(i), (b)(4)(i), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(8)(i), (b)(9)(i), and (b)(10)(i). All other remaining Section 64.201(b) provisions were temporarily waived for competitive wire centers. Reclassification Order at 102.
The OCA supports the retention of the Section 64.201(a) obligation that each LEC file an annual report with information about the number of residential accounts, average residential bill per month, average residential overdue customer bill per month, and other covered information. Moreover, if a LEC offers residential local service in some of the competitive areas then the OCA supports reporting Section 64.201 information split between competitive and noncompetitive areas. OCA Comments at 53.
We agree that these reporting requirements for residential account information that covers non-basic and toll service data is no longer necessary in any area. Accordingly, we propose to rescind (b)(2)(ii), (iii), and (iv); (b)(4)(ii), (iii), and (iv); (b)(8)(ii), (iii), and (iv); (b)(9)(ii), (iii), and (iv); (b)(10)(ii), (iii), and (iv); and (b)(11). We propose to retain the remaining reporting requirements in Section 64.201, including the previously temporarily waived subsections (b)(1) and (3) for all geographic areas. The retention of these reporting provisions will continue to provide useful information regarding the status and assist our understanding of changes in the residential telecommunications services market.
2. 52 Pa. Code § 64.202 (Petition for waiver)
The Commission retained Section 64.202 which provided the basis for the Commission's authority to grant Verizon the temporary waivers of specific Chapter 63 and 64 regulations.70 Moreover, since we have retained some Chapter 64 regulations, Section 64.202 remains relevant.71 Thus, we propose to retain this regulation in all geographic areas.
L. Subchapter K (General Provisions)
52 Pa. Code §§ 64.211—64.213
1. 52 Pa. Code § 64.211 (Availability of normal Commission procedures)
According to Section 64.211, ''[n]othing in this chapter shall be deemed to prevent a customer of a LEC from pursuing other Commission procedures in a case not described in this chapter.'' We temporarily waived Section 64.211 in the Verizon ILECs' competitive wire centers.72 The OCA submits that the Commission should retain this provision and give residential local service customers, whether in competitive or noncompetitive wire centers, the ability to pursue other Commission procedures to obtain some relief or remedy which is beyond the protections and procedures described in Chapter 64. OCA Comments at 54. We do not consider the general provision necessary in any geographic areas since not having the regulation does not prevent a customer from pursuing other procedures prescribed by law. Thus, we propose to rescind this regulation.
2. 52 Pa. Code § 64.212 (Applications for modification or exception) and § 64.213 (Repealers)
We retained Sections 64.212 and 64.213 ''because certain Chapter 64 provisions are retained. . .Section 64.212, governing waiver requests, and Section 64.213, governing the effect of tariff provisions that are inconsistent, potentially remained useful.''73 We propose to retain these regulations as they currently exist.
Conclusion
We welcome this comprehensive review of our telecommunications regulations. Our review reexamines the regulatory obligations on our regulated utilities through today's lens while maintaining sufficient regulatory means to continue to ensure the provision of uninterrupted, modern, and safe service. We can remove unnecessary regulation, continue to ensure adequate, efficient, safe, and reasonable service and facilities, and provide for the accommodation, convenience and safety of utility patrons, employees, and the pubic in a reasonably continuous fashion. In other words, we can improve our regulatory construct while continuing to exercise our jurisdiction responsibly.
We invite interested parties to file comments and reply comments on this proposal to update the Commission's regulations in Chapters 53, 63, and 64. We request that if an interested party suggests any amendments or revisions to the proposed regulations set forth in the Annex that they supplement their proposal with relevant and detailed supporting documentation, including, but not limited to cost information, market analysis studies or performance metrics etc., when necessary in order to support their amendments. Accordingly, under Sections 501, 504, 505, 506, 1501, 1504, 1507, 1508, 1509, and 3011—3019 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 501, 504, 505, 506, 1501, 1504, 1507, 1508, 1509, and 3011—3019; Section 201 of the act of July 31, 1968 (P.L. 769, No. 240), known as the Commonwealth Documents Law (45 P.S. § 1201), and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 1 Pa. Code §§ 7.1, 7.2 and 7.5; Section 204(b) of the Commonwealth Attorneys Act (71 P.S. § 732 204(b)); Section 5 of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P.S. § 745.5); and Section 612 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P.S. § 232), and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 4 Pa. Code §§ 7.231—7.234, the Commission proposes to amend its regulations at 52 Pa. Code §§ 53.57—53.60 and 52 Pa. Code Chapters 63 & 64, as set forth in Annex A; Therefore,
It Is Ordered:
1. That the proposed rulemaking at the above-captioned docket will consider the regulations set forth in Annex A.
2. That the Law Bureau shall submit this Order and Annex A to the Office of Attorney General for review as to form and legality and to the Governor's Budget Office for review of fiscal impact.
3. That the Law Bureau shall submit this Order and Annex A for review and comment to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission and Legislative Standing Committees.
4. That the Law Bureau shall deposit Order and Annex A with the Legislative Reference Bureau to be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
5. That interested parties may submit written comments referencing Docket No. L-2018-3001391 within 45 days of publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, and reply comments 30 days thereafter, to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Attn: Secretary, Commonwealth Keystone Building, 400 North Street, 2nd Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17120. Comments may also be filed electronically through the Commission's eFiling System. Filing instructions may be found on the Commission's website at: http://www.puc.pa.gov/filing_resources.aspx.
6. The contact person for this matter are David E. Screven, Deputy Chief Counsel, Law Bureau, dscreven@pa.gov. Alternate formats of this document are available to persons with disabilities and may be obtained by contacting Heather Probst, Law Bureau, (717) 783-2810, heprobst@pa.gov.
7. That the Secretary's Bureau will serve copy of this Order and Annex A upon the Pennsylvania Telephone Association, all the participating parties in the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Office of Consumer Advocate, the Office of Small Business Advocate, and the Commission's Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement.
8. That a copy of this Order will be published on the Commission's website at http://www.puc.pa.gov.
ROSEMARY CHIAVETTA,
SecretaryFiscal Note: 57-331. No fiscal impact; (8) recommends adoption.
ORDER ADOPTED: August 27, 2020
ORDER ENTERED: September 21, 2020
Statement of Chairperson Gladys Brown Dutrieuille While I support revising our regulations today, there are additional questions on which I would like more input, including proposed language, as we move forward.
Over 90% of the last mile connections serving consumers are provided by two industries: the cable and telephone companies.74 The Federal law requiring the states to promote local competition using resale, unbundled network elements (UNEs), and standalone networks has been significantly altered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The application of resale and UNE requirements have largely disappeared, not only from fiber networks, but also from copper networks.75 Resale and UNEs provided access to competitors on the incumbents' networks so that competitors could compete. These changes also resulted in private contracts replacing the transparent Commission-approved interconnection agreements along with the competitors' right to opt-in to those agreements. Many entities that appear to be competitors are often incumbent affiliates.76
First, to ensure that Pennsylvania continues to have a safe, adequate, and reliable network under Sections 1501 of the Code, should Commission-approved reliability standards addressing the inspection, testing, surveillance, and interference minimization on the providers' networks, down to the consumer's Network Interface Device (NID) be developed?
Second, to promote reasonable and adequate service, should there be a specific response time for documenting and showing the resolution of problems with service installations, trouble reports, interference, and service outage except where the consumer agrees otherwise? What should those times be? How should consumer consent to a different time be recorded?
Third, should the regulations on installation, interference, trouble reports, and service outages contain a remedy for failure to perform? For example, an automatic reduction by a fixed percentage of the consumer's bill, for times when the service provider fails to meet the required or agreed upon response time? If so, what is a reasonable remedy?
Fourth, should there be a threshold for installations, interference, trouble reports, and service outages which requires not only notification but also a report demonstrating the problem's source and resolution? Should any issue or report provided to the FCC automatically be reported to the Commission?
Fifth, the proposed regulations understandably eliminate some subchapters in their entirety and propose to rely on Commission consumer education instead. Should a small portion of the chapter be retained that explains the matter to the consumer and should there be a provision educating the consumer about their right to contact the Commission or file an informal or formal complaint?
Sixth, the revision proposes to end any regulation of Automatic Dialing Devices, an earlier form of robocalls. Federal law and state efforts continue to try to eradicate robocalls. Should the Commission revise this subchapter to address robocalls? If so, how?
Seventh, the revisions in Section 63.59 address operator-assisted calls but there is no specific time-period in which a consumer can reach a live customer service representative. Should there be a specific time period, and if so, what should it be? Should there be a remedy for noncompliance?
Eighth, should the Section 63.63 provisions governing transmissions on traditional and fiber networks use the definition for incumbent local exchange carrier or competitive telecommunications carrier, as proposed in Section 53.57 and not an undefined term like jurisdictional telecommunications public utility? Should the scope of Section 63.63 include traditional or fiber connection both fully and partially deployed given the patchwork quilt of Pennsylvania's networks?
Finally, while traditional metering addressed ''local'' and ''long distance'' calling for billing and is no longer as relevant due to bundled service, should Section 63.64 be revised to encompass the ongoing metering measurements that network owners are doing to monitor and manage their network traffic? How should the Commission be informed about network monitoring, challenges, and their resolutions—particularly given the ''bursty'' nature of internet protocol transmission?
GLADYS BROWN DUTRIEUILLE,
Chairperson
[Continued on next Web Page] _______
1 Joint Petition of Verizon Pennsylvania LLC and Verizon North LLC for Competitive Classification of All Retail Services in Certain Geographic Areas and for a Waiver of Regulations for Competitive Services, Docket Nos. P-2014-2446303 and P-2014-2446304 (Order entered March 4, 2015) (Reclassification Order).
2 See also Tentative Implementation Opinion and Order at Joint Petition of Verizon Pennsylvania LLC and Verizon North LLC for Competitive Classification of All Retail Services in Certain Geographic Areas and for a Waiver of Regulations for Competitive Services, Docket Nos. P-2014-2446303 and P-2014-2446304 (Order entered June 1, 2015) (Tentative Implementation Order), Final Implementation Opinion and Order at Joint Petition of Verizon Pennsylvania LLC and Verizon North LLC for Competitive Classification of All Retail Services in Certain Geographic Areas and for a Waiver of Regulations for Competitive Services, Docket Nos. P-2014-2446303 and P-2014-2446304 (Order entered September 11, 2015) (Final Implementation Order), and Reporting Order at Joint Petition of Verizon Pennsylvania LLC and Verizon North LLC for Competitive Classification of All Retail Services in Certain Geographic Areas and for a Waiver of Regulations for Competitive Services, Docket Nos. P-2014-2446303 and P-2014-2446304 (Order entered September 11, 2015) (Reporting Order).
3 Rulemaking to Comply with the Competitive Classification of Telecommunications Retail Services Under 66 Pa.C.S. § 3016(a); General Review of Regulations 52 Pa. Code, Chapter 63 and 64, Docket No. L-2018-3001391, (Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Order entered July 12, 2018), 48 Pa.B. 4792 (Aug. 4, 2018) (ANOPR Order).
4 Our regulations apply to certificated wireline carriers, including ILECs, CLECs, and Competitive Access Providers. The access line counts reported to and on file at the Commission from certificated carriers reveal 4,244,647 wireline access lines in Pennsylvania for the year ended December 31, 2019, up from 4,239,517 as of December 31, 2018. Our incumbent carriers rely on the Voice Telephone Services Report filed at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which reveals just under 1.7 million ILEC-only access lines as of December 31, 2018.
5 Armstrong Telephone Company—North; Armstrong Telephone Company—Pennsylvania; Bentleyville Communications Company; Citizens Telecommunications Company of New York, Inc.; Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg; Consolidated Communications of Pennsylvania Company, LLC; Frontier Communications Commonwealth Telephone Company; Frontier Communications of Breezewood, LLC; Frontier Communications of Canton, LLC; Frontier Communications of Lakewood, LLC; Frontier Communications of Oswayo River, LLC; Frontier Communications of Pennsylvania, LLC; Hancock Telephone Company; Hickory Telephone Company; Ironton Telephone Company; Lackawaxen Telecommunications Services, Inc.; Laurel Highland Telephone Company; Marianna & Scenery Hill Telephone Company; North-Eastern Pennsylvania Telephone Company; North Penn Telephone Company; Palmerton Telephone Company; Pennsylvania Telephone Company; Pymatuning Independent Telephone Company; South Canaan Telephone Company; TDS Telecom/Deposit Telephone Company; TDS Telecom/Mahanoy & Mahantango; Telephone Company; TDS Telecom/Sugar Valley Telephone Company; The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania; LLC d/b/a CenturyLink; Venus Telephone Corporation; West Side Telephone Company; Windstream Buffalo Valley, Inc.; Windstream Conestoga, Inc.; Windstream D&E, Inc.; Windstream Pennsylvania, LLC and Yukon-Waltz Telephone Company (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ''Rural ILECs'').
6 The term Verizon and Verizon ILECs may on occasion be used interchangeably in this NPRM Order. However, where there are references to Verizon comments, the term also encompasses Verizon's competitive affiliates. Verizon Comments, n. 1 at 1.
7 Joint Petition of Verizon Pennsylvania LLC and Verizon North LLC for Competitive Classification of All Retail Services in Certain Geographic Areas and for a Waiver of Regulations for Competitive Services; Rulemaking to Comply with the Competitive Classification of Telecommunications Retail Services Under 66 Pa.C.S. § 3016(a); General Review of Regulations 52 Pa. Code, Chapter 63 and 64, Docket Nos. P-2014-2446303, P-2014-2446304, L-2018-3001391 (Order entered February 27, 2020) (February 2020 Order).
8 As set forth in the RLEC Petition, the RLECs were seeking temporary waivers of 52 Pa. Code §§ 63.12, 63.13, 63.15(b) and (c), 63.16, 63.18—63.24, 63.31, 63.32, 63.54—63.62, 63.64, 63.71—63.77, 63.91, 63.98, 64.12, 64.123, 64.141, 64.142, 64.191, 64.192, and 64.201.
9 RLEC Petition ¶ 7 at 3. The RLECs also sought: (1) An immediate and permanent waiver of 52 Pa. Code §§ 63.21 and 64.191(g) for all jointly petitioning RLECs consistent with the relief granted to CenturyLink, and the Verizon ILECs to end saturation delivery of paper copies of residential white pages, business white pages, and business yellow page directories, except for those customers who are likely to use the directories or who specifically request them. See Joint Petition and Notice of the United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania LLC d/b/a CenturyLink, Verizon Pennsylvania LLC and Verizon North LLC and Dex Media, Inc. to Reduce Distribution of Print Telephone Directories and Transition to Digital Publication or, Alternatively, for Relief of 52 Pa. Code § 64.191(g), Docket No. P-2017-2610359 (Order entered August 31, 2017) (CenturyLink/Verizon/Dex Media White Pages Order); and, (2) an immediate and permanent waiver of 52 Pa. Code § 64.191(e) for all jointly petitioning RLECs consistent with the respective waivers granted to the CenturyLink and Verizon ILECs with respect to various provisions of the Commission's IntraLATA Presubscription Implementation Order at Docket No. I-00940034 (Order entered May 9, 1997), and the Commission's toll presubscription regulation. See Petition of The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania LLC d/b/a CenturyLink for a Waiver of the Commission's Regulation Governing Toll Presubscription, 52 Pa. Code § 64.191(e), Docket No. P-2014-2439191 (Tentative Order entered Oct. 23, 2014) (becoming final by operation of law on Nov. 2, 2014). RLEC Petition, n.5 and 6 at 3-4.
10 Reporting Order, Ordering Paragraph 1 at 17. See also Docket Nos. P-2014-2446303, P-2014-2446304, Secretarial Letters entered December 8, 2016 and January 10, 2017.
11 OCA Comments at 6. OCA also observed that ''[w]ith regard to the pricing of protected residential and small business basic local services in competitive areas, Verizon PA and Verizon North have increased the monthly dial tone line and usage prices for these services to mirror the amount and timing of those increases to non-competitive protected local services implemented as part of the Companies' annual Price Change Opportunity (PCO) filings,'' and that the ''availability of cable and wireless alternatives in the competitively classified wire centers has not deterred Verizon from increasing its basic service rates in those areas.'' Id. at 6-7 (citation omitted).
12 CAUSE-PA Comments at 3 (emphasis in the original omitted).
13 See also CWA Comments n.2 at 1, citing Petition of Communications Workers of America for a Public, On-the-Record Commission Investigation of the Safety, Adequacy, and Reasonableness of Service Provided by Verizon Pennsylvania LLC (converted by Commission Order to complaint proceeding), Docket No. P-2015-2509336, Settlement Agreement and Certificate of Satisfaction filed June 2, 2017.
14 Verizon Comments at 25.
15 Tentative Order, Docket Nos. P-2014-2446303, P-2014-2446304, L-2018-3001391 (Order entered February 6, 2020) (Tentative Order).
16 Tentative Order at 4-5.
17 CAUSE-PA Additional Comments, February 18, 2020, at 3.
18 Verizon ILECs Additional Comments, February 18, 2020, at 5.
19 OCA Supplemental Comments, March 18, 2020, at 2-3.
20 Verizon Supplemental Reply Comments, April 2, 2020, n. 2 at 1.
21 OCA Comments at 6-7.
22 We note that the operations of both Verizon ILECs were impacted in part by a work stoppage that occurred between April 3, 2016 and May 31, 2016.
23 The only Pennsylvania ILEC that has obtained this statutory relief is Verizon. But only for 153 of its 504 wire centers This relief also applied to CLECs operating in those wire centers.
24 Petition of MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC d/b/a Verizon Access Transmission Services for a Waiver of the Commission's Regulations at 52 Pa. Code §§ 53.58 and 53.59 to Permit Detariffing of Services to Enterprise and Large Business Customers, Docket No. P-2009-2082991 (Order entered June 3, 2009) (Verizon Access June 3, 2009 Order). On April 26, 2012, we granted Verizon Access a four-year extension of the trial waiver to continue detariffing of basic dial tone service in its service territory. The Commission did not conclude that granting a permanent waiver was warranted. Petition of MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLDC d/b/a Verizon Access Transmission Services for a Waiver of the Commission's Regulations at 52 Pa. Code §§ 53.58 and 53.59 to Permit Detariffing of Services to Enterprise and Large Business Customers, Docket Nos. P-2011-2267522 and P-2009-2082991(Order entered April 26, 2012), at 7. The same waiver was granted for other CLECs, AT&T, Windstream Communications, and CenturyLink. Id., n. 9. That waiver expired on April 26, 2016.
25 Based upon the relief it had granted in the Verizon Access June 3, 2009 Order, the Commission previously waived the relevant portions of Sections 53.58 and 53.59 for AT&T in 2010 and extended these waivers for service to business customers by CLECs on June 21, 2012, for four years. Both Orders (in 2010 granting the two-year trial period and in 2012 granting the four-year extension) were based on the same analyses and subject to the same conditions set forth in preceding orders granting identical waivers to Verizon Access.
26 We note that under our Reclassification Order, the competitive provision of Verizon ILEC services, including basic local exchange services, correspondingly leads to the similar provision of corresponding services by CLECs that operate in the same competitively classified Verizon ILEC wire centers. Reclassification Order at 124 (Ordering Paragraph 4).
27 We also noted that these regulations should be subject to the reporting requirements. Reclassification Order at 80.
28 Joint Petition and Notice of the United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania LLC d/b/a CenturyLink, Verizon Pennsylvania LLC and Verizon North LLC and Dex Media, Inc. to reduce Distribution of Print Telephone Directories and Transition to Digital Publication or, Alternatively, for relief of 52 Pa. Code § 64.191(g), Docket No. P-2017-2610359 (Order entered August 31, 2017) (2017 Directories Order).
29 See RLEC Directory and Toll Presubscription Order.
30 Joint Notice and Petition of the Frontier Communications Companies to Reduce Mass Distribution of Printed Telephone Directories, Docket No. P-2019-3007831 (Order entered April 11, 2019).
31 We note that network outages and service interruptions can also disturb wholesale interconnection services. Thus, they have the capability of negatively affecting various retail services that are offered to end-users by interconnected telecommunications carriers.
32 However, under 52 Pa. Code § 63.37, the RLECs would require the reporting of TRS surcharge revenue only once per calendar year. RLEC Comments at 11.
33 See Assumption of Commission Jurisdiction over Pole Attachments from the Federal Communications Commission, Docket No. L-2018-3002672, 48 Pa.B. 6273 (Sept. 29, 2018). We note that the Commission has affirmatively assumed jurisdiction from the FCC over pole attachments on or about March 18, 2020. Id., Final Rulemaking Order entered September 3, 2020, 50 Pa.B. 469 (Jan. 18, 2020).
34 We note that conventional methods of RB/ROR regulation are still relevant not only for some RLECs under Chapter 30 in Pennsylvania but also in the computation of wholesale interconnection unbundled network element costs and rates that are derived through the total element long-run incremental cost method.
35 73 P.S. § 176 et seq.
36 Pursuant to a prior ruling, we note that we have already granted a waiver for Verizon PA for Section 63.59(b)(2) related to customer calls to the business office, in place until a rulemaking is undertaken. See Pa. Public Utility Commission, Law Bureau Prosecutory Staff v. Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc., Docket No. M-2008-2077881 (Order entered October 12, 2012) at 32—35, Ordering ¶ 4 (Quality of Service Order).
37 A power interruption that causes the outage of a central office network switching node can also negatively affect the proper operation of associated special access network circuit facilities and services, as well as the provision of various retail services including 911/E911 calling capabilities for end-user consumers.
38 Section 64.24 requires preservation of basic local exchange service upon the termination of a bundled package.
39 OCA Comments at 18-19.
40 RLEC Comments at 14.
41 RLEC Comments at 14.
42 See, e.g., Larry L. Wolfe v. Verizon North LLC, Docket No. C-2011-2266224 (Order entered December 12, 2012); Russell T. Lerch v. Verizon Pennsylvania Inc., Docket No. C-20077297 (Order entered September 11, 2008).
43 OCA points out that the ''Commission properly retained Section 64.191 (Public information), subparts (a) to (d), as establishing base line information which Verizon must provide to residential applicants for service in competitive and noncompetitive wire centers.'' OCA Comments at 21, citing to Reclassification Order at 102.
44 66 Pa.C.S. § 3014(b)(5).
45 We noted previously that we have already granted a waiver for Verizon PA for Section 63.59(b)(2) related to consumer calls to the call center or business office. (Quality of Service Order at 32—35, Ordering ¶ 4.).
46 See, e.g., In re Implementing Section 13(d) of the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (TRACED Act), EB Docket No. 20-22, (FCC Rel. Mar. 27, 2020), Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, slip op. FCC 20—34.
47 See, e.g., Williams v. Verizon Pennsylvania LLC, Docket No. C-2018-3005368, (Order entered August 23, 2019).
48 See, e.g., Optatus Chailla v. Verizon Pennsylvania LLC, Docket No. C-2019-3008691 (Order entered March 31, 2020).
49 RLEC Comments at 16-17.
50 OCA Comments at 27.
51 Tenny Comments at 1-2.
52 Tenny Comments at 3.
53 Verizon Reply Comments at 19.
54 Verizon Reply Comments, n.46 at 19.
55 The CPNI rules at 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.2001—64.2011 provide more detail and require reasonable measures to discover and protect against attempts to gain unauthorized access to CPNI and reporting of CPNI breaches.
56 RLEC Comments at 22. The RLEC Comments also reference the Commission's actions in prohibiting the imposition of paper billing fees. Id. n.28 at 22 (including citation to Rulemaking Re Amendment to 52 Pa. Code Chapter 53; Paper Billing Fees, Docket No. L-2014-2411278, (Final Rulemaking Order entered January 12, 2016). See also 52 Pa. Code § 53.85.
57 In eventually granting the Verizon ILECs' request to withdraw the underlying petition, the Commission noted the following:
In its Waiver Petition, Verizon sought a waiver from the Commission's late-payment charge regulation at 52 Pa. Code § 64.16(a). Specifically, Verizon requested that, in noncompetitive wire centers, the Commission waive its limitation on late-payment charges for residential local exchange carrier service. Verizon sought to impose the greater amount of a $5.00 minimum late-payment charge or a charge of 1.5436000n the overdue amount owed. Verizon sought Commission approval prior to October 13, 2017, so that it could recognize the increase in its late-payment fee in preparation of its annual Chapter 30 Price Change Opportunity (PCO) filings to be made November 1, 2017, effective January 1, 2018. [57] On September 15, 2017, the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) filed an Answer opposing, in part, the Verizon Petition.
Petition for Leave to Withdraw of Verizon Pennsylvania LLC and Verizon North LLC, Docket No. P-2017-2621343, (Order entered October 26, 2017) at 1-2.58 OCA Comments at 34-35.
59 RLEC Comments at 23.
60 OCA Comments at 39.
61 OCA Comments at 39-40, citing Neil and Gilda Altman v. Verizon Pennsylvania LLC, Docket No. C-2015-2515583, (Order entered November 18, 2016) (Altman). OCA indicates that Verizon cited Section 64.61(3) as support for the possible suspension of service, but the presiding Administrative Law Judge found Section 64.61(3) inapplicable on the particular facts. OCA Comments at 40, citing the Altman Initial Decision at 14-15.
62 OCA Comments at 40-41, citing to Irwin Fox v. Verizon Pennsylvania LLC, Docket No. C-2016-2576094, (Order entered July 18, 2018) (Fox).
63 OCA Comments at 40-41, citing to Fox at 9.
64 OCA Comments at 41, citing Altman at 4, Ordering Paragraph 5. OCA also notes that the FCC has eliminated the requirement of a ''direct notice to retail customers'' in copper retirement network transitions. Id. at 41, n.79 at 41.
65 OCA Comments at 39.
66 OCA Comments at 43, citing ANOPR Order at 25, n.19.
67 Verizon Reply Comments at 13-14, citing Final Implementation Order at 34-35. See also OCA Comments at 7, 55; CAUSE-PA Comments at 3-4.
68 RLEC Directory and Toll Presubscription Order at 10-11.
69 See Final Implementation Order at 32.
70 Reclassification Order at 76, fn. 63.
71 AONPR at 21; Reclassification Order at 103.
72 Reclassification Order at 22.
73 Id.
74 See e.g., In re: IP-Enabled Services, Docket No. 04-36, Comments of Covad (5/29/4); Comments of MCI (5/29/4).
75 See e.g., Report and Order on Remand and Memorandum Opinion and Order in WC Docket Nos. 18-141, et al. (UNE [Unbundled Network Elements] Transport Forbearance Order) released on July 12, 2019 and Order FCC 1972, Memorandum Opinion and Order in WC Docket 18-141 (UNE Loop and Resale Forbearance Order) released on August 2, 2019, (together, UNE/Resale Forbearance Orders).
76 See e.g., Joint Application of Windstream Holdings, Inc.; Windstream Services, LLC; Windstream Pennsylvania LLC; Windstream Buffalo Valley, Inc.; Windstream Conestoga, Inc.; Windstream D&E Inc.; Windstream Communications, Inc.; Windstream D&E Systems, Inc.; Windstream KDL, Inc.; Intellifiber Networks Inc.; US LEC of Pennsylvania, LLC; Talk America, LLC; PAETEC Communications, Inc.; Choice One Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc. d/b/a EarthLink Business; Cavalier Telephone Mid-Atlantic, LLC; CTC Communications Corp. d/b/a EarthLink Business; MassComm LLC; Lightship Telecom d/b/a EarthLink Business, LLC; Eureka Telecom, Inc. Earthlink Business, LLC; ATX Licensing, Inc.; Broadview NP Acquisition Corp.; Broadview Networks, Inc.; BridgeCom International, Inc.; Business Telecom LLC d/b/a EarthLink Business III; American Telephone Company, LLC; A.R.C. Networks, Inc.; Windstream Norlight, Inc.; Windstream NTI, Inc.; McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, LLC; LDMI Telecommunications Services, LLC; and DeltaCom, LLC for Approval of a General Rule Indirect Transfer of Control, Docket No. A-2020-3020132 (August 25, 2020)
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.
