[27 Pa.B. 3217]
[Continued from previous Web Page] 3. Standard of Commission Review for Existing Noncompetitive Services
AT&T consistently argues in its comments that the proposed ''. . . regulations pertaining to noncompetitive services should not be made to apply to operator and calling card services provided by facilities-based, interexchange carriers.'' AT&T Comments at 12, emphasis in the original. In addition, AT&T argues that ''...even if these services are characterized as noncompetitive under the rules, the extent of Commission review for proposed changes to noncompetitive services is limited by law, and should be limited by long-standing Commission policy, to assuring that a reasonable justification is provided and that the change complies with the 'service adequacy' and privacy requirements of the Code.'' Id., emphasis in the original. AT&T goes on to argue that the proposed regulation at § 63.105 is in need of substantial modification and that, statutorily, the Commission's review of tariff changes in noncompetitive IXC services should be bound only by the ''. . . provisions regarding safety, adequacy, reliability and privacy of telecommunications services'' found at 66 Pa.C.S. § 3009(b)(4). Id., emphasis in the original. AT&T further asserts that this ''is the only grant of authority established by Chapter 30 for changes to interexchange carrier's noncompetitive services'' and that the ''Commission's reviewing authority does not, therefore, extend to a traditional review of the reasonableness of the rates proposed for these services or requiring cost justifications or cost-of-service or revenue analyses.'' Id. AT&T also offers the additional arguments as to why cost justification and data are not required for the evaluation of existing IXC noncompetitive service tariff filings and associated rate changes:
Moreover, requiring cost justifications and data . . . would mean that a statute that was passed to deregulate virtually all of the services provided by facilities-based carriers would be used to impose greater regulatory review and justification requirements than existed before the statutory reform was passed. Indeed, AT&T has [sic] not been required by the Commission to provide cost or cost-of-service justifications for its proposed rate changes since the PUC's Generic IXC Order in 1985. Opinion and Order, dated August 9, 1985, Re: Petition Requesting the Commission to Institute a Generic Investigation Concerning the Development of Intrastate Access Charges, Doc. No. P-830452. It hardly could have been the intent of the Legislature in passing Act 67 to reverse 10 years of regulatory restraint and to re-regulate AT&T.
Accordingly, a reasonable business justification, along with relevant information indicating that the change complies with code standards for safety, reliability, adequacy and privacy, is all that the Commission should require for interexchange carriers. The rules should specify that justification for changes could include: conforming the rate or surcharge to the comparable interstate charge, responding to competitive conditions, reducing customer confusion, conforming the rates or the service to generally applicable marketing plans or making changes to improve the quality or the value of the service provided. Cost justifications, cost-of-service or detailed rate data are unnecessary and the rule should state that such information or data are not required.
AT&T Comments at 13-14, footnote omitted, emphasis in the original.
We addressed the same AT&T argument in a limited fashion in our June 8, 1995, Order at Docket No. R-00953364, where we stated:
AT&T urges us to adopt a limited statutory interpretation regarding our authority to review IXC tariff filings that involve noncompetitive services as those are defined under the premises of 66 Pa.C.S. § 3008(a)(1)&(2) '. . . unless determined otherwise by the commission.' AT&T's statutory interpretation, anchored in its reading of 66 Pa.C.S. § 3009(b)(4), would permit this Commission's review of changes to existing IXC noncompetitive services on the basis of whether such changes are in '... compliance with applicable provisions regarding safety, adequacy, reliability and privacy of telecommunications services.'
AT&T's suggested interpretation may render unanswered the question of how this Commission is supposed to perform a review of the rates for IXC services that could be classified as noncompetitive under the premises of 66 Pa.C.S. § 3008(a)(1).
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. AT&T Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc., Docket No. R-00953364, Order entered on June 8, 1995, at 4-5, emphasis in the original.
Although we sympathize with AT&T's position on the required flexibility for our evaluation standards of IXC noncompetitive services tariffs, we find its statutory interpretation on the scope of the available review standards to be disturbingly narrow. AT&T's interpretation will deprive this Commission of certain evaluation standards, inclusive of the cost information that may be of relevance to a particular tariff filing. This interpretation is unacceptable. As the trend of IXC noncompetitive service tariff filing evaluations demonstrates, following our Order at Docket No. R-00953364, the cost information issue or the cost-based rates of IXC tariff filings for noncompetitive services, have not become subjects of litigation before this Commission. Therefore, AT&T's concerns that the regulatory evaluation process for IXC noncompetitive service tariff filings would become unduly burdensome, have not materialized under our Interim Guidelines. However, in the remote possibility that cost data or information are legitimately needed in order to evaluate an IXC noncompetitive service tariff filing, this Commission and its staff cannot deprive themselves of the opportunity to seek such information in order to protect the broader public interest and the welfare of end-user consumers of telecommunications services.
We must also pay attention to the evaluation mechanism that will be used for existing IXC noncompetitive service tariff filings in the context of our proposed rules, since the same mechanism will be used for the evaluation of intraLATA toll rate changes by LECs under conditions of ''1+'' intraLATA toll dialing parity. We believe that AT&T and other IXCs will be hard pressed to argue that cost information and data are irrelevant in the evaluation of toll rate changes that can and will be filed by LECs under the procedures contemplated in the instant rulemaking. This is due to the traditional interest that IXCs have expressed and continue to express about LEC intraLATA toll service rate movements and their relationship to the LEC carrier access services and rates that are engaged by the IXCs for the origination, transport, switching and termination of toll calls within the Commonwealth.
We believe, however, that we can formally adopt additional flexibility in our rules regarding the evaluation standards for the IXC tariff filings with changes to their existing noncompetitive services. This flexibility largely reflects the decisions that we have already taken with respect to certain tariff filings from facilities-based IXCs such as AT&T and Sprint at Docket Nos. R-00953364 and R-00953388, respectively. Thus, we will include an additional subsection in our final regulation at § 63.105 (relating to noncompetitive services) to reflect these decisions as well as certain of the suggestions that have been made by AT&T in its comments. This subsection will essentially accomplish the following:
--It will eliminate the need of any review for IXC existing noncompetitive service tariff filings, on the basis of cost justification, cost-of-service, or revenue data if the proposed tariff changes reflect tariff changes for the same service that have become lawfully effective in the interstate jurisdiction or in several other states.
--Gives the IXC the opportunity to submit other reasonable justification for its proposed existing noncompetitive service tariff change, and provides the Commission and its staff the opportunity to request any other relevant data.
--It will eliminate the need for any review if the IXC requests a rate decrease for its existing noncompetitive service.
--It will eliminate the need for any review if the IXC proposed tariff change for an existing noncompetitive service involves terms and conditions for the service without any rate effects.
AT&T's Comments suggest that the regulations should ''...explicitly permit a filing that reflects a negotiated or compromise version of the tariff supplement arrived at between the PUC staff and the interexchange carrier'' and that ''[e]xplicit recognition of this alternative may facilitate a compromise solution, saving time and resources for all concerned.'' AT&T Comments at 11 and Appendix A at 23-24. The IRRC Comments endorse this approach. We find great merit in this proposal. Thus, our final regulation regarding the evaluation of IXC tariff filings for existing noncompetitive services shall be modified accordingly to reflect this approach.
AT&T proposes that if a contested IXC tariff filing with a change in an existing noncompetitive service is brought before the Commission by the Commission's staff, such action should be taken at the next available Public Meeting following the issuance of the staff report that suspended the filing. Furthermore, AT&T suggests that if the Commission would fail ''to reject the carrier's tariff at the next public meeting, the tariff filing shall be deemed approved and the carrier may place the service into effect upon one day's notice.'' AT&T Comments, Appendix A at 23.
We decline to accept AT&T's suggestion. We are aware that our staff strives to bring contested matters to our attention for resolution with all possible speed. Our experience with contested IXC tariff filings for existing noncompetitive services clearly indicates that such matters were resolved without any undue delay. In addition, we cannot precisely forecast at this time if IXC tariff filings for their services may become contested matters because of the actions of other interested telecommunications carriers or parties. If past experience with proposed toll rate changes by certain ILECs in this Commonwealth is any indication, it is highly probable that our staff will be called to analyze such disputes and refer them to the Commission for final disposition. Under such circumstances, the Commission cannot limit the necessary time frame in which a contested matter can be timely resolved while following all due process requirements. Such a time frame cannot be bound by the time limits suggested by AT&T which we find to be highly arbitrary.
4. New Competitive Services
We agree with AT&T's comments that our proposed rule requirement for the submission of ''comprehensive information'' when a new IXC competitive service is filed, needs to be modified. Thus, we believe that AT&T's suggestion has merit in replacing the term ''comprehensive'' with ''relevant.'' AT&T Comments at 8. We further agree with AT&T's Comments that if an IXC files a tariff for a new competitive service, the IXC will not need to submit any information regarding comparable services from other IXCs. AT&T Comments at 9. We believe that there is no need for such an administrative burden in automatically requesting such information from the IXCs. If there is a need to obtain such information in order to analyze the related IXC filing, such information can be obtained on a case-by-case basis.
5. Reclassification of Services
AT&T urges us to modify § 63.106 (relating to reclassification of services) of our proposed regulations in order to incorporate a time limit for the Commission to decide whether an IXC noncompetitive service is competitive. AT&T Comments at 15. AT&T suggests that although Chapter 30 contains a 180-day limit for such a decision if the service involved is an LEC noncompetitive service, the corresponding decision for an IXC noncompetitive service should be reached within 90 days from the date of commencement of the relevant proceeding. AT&T states in support that ''... the strong presumption is that the General Assembly's characterization of a service as `noncompetitive' was a temporary phenomenon and, if an investigation under this section is initiated, the service likely will be found to be competitive.'' AT&T Comments at 16.
For generally similar reasons, AT&T argues that the IXC noncompetitive service reclassification to a competitive one should take place without the need for a hearing. AT&T contrasts the statutory language at 66 Pa.C.S. § 3008(c) where the Commission ''shall have the authority to reclassify telecommunications services provided by an interexchange ...carrier as noncompetitive if, after notice and hearing, it determines, upon application of the criteria set forth in this chapter, that sufficient competition is no longer present,'' with 66 Pa.C.S. § 3008(a) where the telecommunications services ''provided by an interexchange carrier shall be deemed to be competitive services ...except for the provision of the following interexchange services which will be deemed to be noncompetitive services unless determined otherwise by the commission...'' AT&T reaches the conclusion that ''...since Chapter 30 does not require it, the [proposed regulation] section should be rewritten to acknowledge that the Commission can resolve a petition by an interexchange carrier to reclassify a service from noncompetitive to competitive without requiring a hearing.'' AT&T Comments at 17, emphasis in the original.
As we have previously noted, the procedures contemplated in the instant rulemaking will also be utilized by other telecommunications carriers for the provision of their intraLATA toll services under conditions of ''1+'' intraLATA toll dialing parity. Thus, the need for maintaining competitive neutrality among the various competing carriers in the intraLATA toll services market, obliges us to adopt the existing statutorily specified procedural guidelines that are already contained in Chapter 30 that relate to the competitive reclassification of LEC noncompetitive services at 66 Pa.C.S. § 3005(a). Thus, the Commission will utilize both a 180-day period and a hearing in reaching its determination on whether an IXC noncompetitive service can be reclassified as competitive. We cannot fail to observe that the competitive reclassification of the IXC services to aggregator telephones and of IXC optional calling plans would in all likelihood require a hearing because of the multitude of issues involved and the potential effects on various interested parties and on the public interest in general.
6. Annual Reporting Requirements
AT&T argues against the proposed annual reporting requirement for intrastate service-by-service revenue and usage data. AT&T Comments at 18. The IRRC comments also question whether this Commission needs such data if an IXC files an annual report with the FCC, with more comprehensive information than that required under our proposed regulation, and the IXC also forwards a copy of its FCC annual report to this Commission as well. It should be noted that only AT&T was under the obligation of providing a comprehensive annual report to the FCC. Thus, it is imperative that this Commission shall obtain the necessary information on IXC operations within this Commonwealth. In this respect, we will not adopt AT&T's suggestion to eliminate the annual reporting requirement for revenue and usage data on a service-by-service basis. Furthermore, we note that we are requesting such information on ''subject to data availability basis.'' Thus, such a reporting requirement will not be an undue administrative burden on smaller IXCs, while the larger ones maintain such data on a highly automated basis.
C. Availability of Procedures to Local Exchange Carriers
Under our previously discussed pronouncements, the procedures contained in the present final rule will also be available for ILEC and CLEC intraLATA toll rate changes once intraLATA ''1+'' dialing parity is implemented. This Commission will be issuing further directives regarding ILEC and CLEC rate changes for their respective toll services, including the disposition of AT&T's Petition for Clarification at Docket Nos. P-00961024 and P-00961081, Commonwealth Ch. 30 Order. Pending the issuance of such directives, ILECs and CLECs that plan to utilize the IXC procedures for intraLATA toll service rate changes once ''1+'' intraLATA toll dialing parity is implemented, are directed to propose intraLATA toll rate changes in separate and distinct tariff filings from those involving their local exchange and/or carrier access services. We intend to continue accepting, evaluating and resolving ILEC and CLEC tariff filings on a 60-day notice basis under the premises of Section 1308(a) of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 1308(a). Thus, ILEC and CLEC tariffs which may ''intermix'' proposed rate changes in intraLATA toll services under the procedures in the instant final regulations, with rate changes for local exchange and/or carrier access services, will be deemed improper and will not be accepted for filing by this Commission.
Accordingly, under section 501 and section 3009(d) of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 501 and 3009(d), and the Commonwealth Documents Law (45 P. S. § 1201, et seq.) and regulations promulgated thereunder at 1 Pa. Code §§ 7.1--7.4, we amend the regulations at 52 Pa. Code § 63.101, et seq., Subchapter H, as noted above and as set forth in Annex A of this order; Therefore,
It is Ordered that:
1. The Interim Guidelines, currently in place, regarding the regulation of interexchange carriers operating or otherwise conducting business in this Commonwealth, and contained in Appendix A of the January 10, 1995 Declaratory Order, shall remain in effect until these regulations become effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
2. The regulations of the Commission, 52 Pa. Code Chapter 63, are amended by adding §§ 63.101--63.110 to read as set forth in Annex A.
3. The Secretary shall submit this Order and Annex A to the Office of Attorney General for approval as to legality.
4. The Secretary shall submit this Order, together with Annex A, to the Governor's Budget Office for review of fiscal impact.
5. The Secretary shall submit this Order and Annex A for formal review by the designated standing committees of both Houses of the General Assembly, and for formal review by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission.
6. The Secretary shall duly certify this Order and Annex A and deposit them with the Legislative Reference Bureau for publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. Alternative formats of this document are available to persons with disabilities and may be obtained by contacting Shirley M. Leming, Regulatory Coordinator, Law Bureau at (717) 722-4597, or through AT&T Relay Center at 1-800-654-5988.
7. These regulations shall become effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
By the Commission,
JOHN G. ALFORD,
Secretary(Editor's Note: For the text of the order of the Independent Regulatory Review Commission relating to this document, see 27 Pa.B. 2790 (June 7, 1997).)
Fiscal Note: Fiscal Note 57-155 remains valid for the final adoption of the subject regulations.
Annex A
TITLE 52. PUBLIC UTILITIES
PART I. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
Subpart C. FIXED SERVICE UTILITIES
CHAPTER 63. TELEPHONE SERVICE
Subchapter H. INTEREXCHANGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS (Editors Note: As part of this regulatory package, the Commission is relettering subchapters in Chapter 63. The rulemaking inserts a new Subchapter H, §§ 63.101--63.110. The current Subchapter H, §§ 63.111--63.118 becomes Subchapter I, numbered sections do not change. The current Subchapter I, §§ 63.131--63.137, becomes Subchapter J, numbered sections do not change.)
Sec.
63.101. Statement of purpose and policy. 63.102. Definitions. 63.103. Existing competitive services. 63.104. New competitive services. 63.105. Noncompetitive services. 63.106. Reclassification of services. 63.107. Annual reporting requirements. § 63.101. Statement of purpose and policy.
On July 8, 1993, the General Assembly enacted sections 3001--3009 of the code (relating to alternative form of regulation of telecommunications services) (Chapter 30), which provided for the regulatory reform of the telephone industry in this Commonwealth. Sections 3008 and 3009(b)(4) of the code (relating to interexchange telecommunications and carrier; and additional powers and duties) have significant effect on the future regulation by the Commission of interexchange telecommunications carriers. The purpose of this subchapter is to codify the application of Chapter 30 to interexchange telecommunications carriers and codify the modification of procedures to address the application of Chapter 30.
§ 63.102. Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
Code--The Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. §§ 101--3316.
Competitive services--Interexchange services other than noncompetitive services.
Existing service--A competitive or noncompetitive service which an interexchange telecommunications carrier offered prior to July 5, 1997, or a competitive or noncompetitive service previously introduced as a new service under either § 63.104 or § 63.105(b) (relating to new competitive services; and noncompetitive services).
Interexchange service to aggregator telephones--An interexchange service offered to consumers using telephones, including coin telephones, credit card telephones and telephones located in hotels, motels, hospitals and universities, which are made available to the transient public, customers or patrons. The term includes live and automated operator services and other services which are provided to consumers placing calls from aggregator telephones, but excludes prepaid debit calling card services.
Interexchange telecommunications carrier--A carrier other than a local exchange carrier or local telecommunications company authorized by the Commission to provide long distance telecommunications service. The term includes both interexchange transporters and interexchange resellers as those terms are defined in § 63.112 (relating to definitions).
New service--A competitive or noncompetitive service which an interexchange telecommunications carrier is proposing to offer not previously offered by that interexchange telecommunications carrier and which is not a modification to an existing service or an adjunct to an existing service.
Noncompetitive services--
(i) This term includes the following categories of service:
(A) Interexchange service to aggregator telephones.
(B) Optional calling plans required by the Commission under § 63.73 (relating to optional calling plans).
(C) Other interexchange services expressly determined by the Commission to be noncompetitive under § 63.106 (relating to reclassification of services).
(ii) The term does not include services incorporated within the service categories identified in subparagraph (i) which the Commission expressly determines to be competitive under § 63.106.
§ 63.103. Existing competitive services.
(a) An interexchange telecommunications carrier shall maintain in its tariff rates and service description information relating to each of its existing competitive services.
(b) Tariff supplements intended to modify existing competitive service rates or conditions of service may be filed to become effective on 1 days' notice. Supporting data and cost justification related to the modification contained in the tariff supplements are unnecessary. These tariff supplements shall become effective as filed and will not be subject to Commission approval.
(c) Tariff supplements intended to modify existing competitive services shall clearly indicate this purpose on each page of the tariff supplement.
(d) Tariff supplements intended to modify existing competitive services shall be in compliance with section 3008(d) of the code (relating to interexchange telecommunications carrier) and regulations promulgated thereunder.
(e) This section supersedes Chapter 53 (relating to tariffs for noncommon carriers) to the extent those provisions are inconsistent with this section.
§ 63.104. New competitive services.
(a) New competitive services shall be introduced through the filing of a tariff supplement and verified, supporting documentation which contains the following information:
(1) An indication on each page of the tariff supplement that the page pertains to a new competitive service.
(2) A description of the new competitive service.
(3) The rates for the new competitive service.
(4) An executive overview summarizing the reason for the filing which includes relevant information regarding the safety, adequacy, reliability and privacy considerations related to the new competitive service.
(b) New competitive service tariff supplements may be filed with the Commission to become effective on 16-days' notice.
(c) The Commission and Commission staff's review of new competitive service tariff supplements is restricted to reviewing whether the proposed service is a competitive service and is safe, adequate, reliable and consistent with privacy concerns. This review shall be conducted consistent with the following procedures:
(1) Within 14 days of the date of filing, Commission staff shall either issue a notice allowing the tariff supplement to become effective or issue a report which explains why the tariff supplement should not be permitted to become effective without modification. The staff report may identify modifications which would eliminate inadequacies in the tariff supplement. Commission staff will deliver or transmit the notice or report to the filing interexchange telecommunications carrier at the time of issuance.
(2) When Commission staff issues a notice allowing the tariff supplement to go into effect, the tariff supplement will become effective, without modification, 16 days after the filing date. If the Commission staff does not issue a notice or report on the tariff supplement within the 14-day period, the tariff supplement will go into effect by operation of law at the end of the 16-day notice period.
(3) When Commission staff does not allow the tariff supplement to go into effect and issues a report addressing the inadequacies in the tariff supplement, the tariff supplement will be suspended pending consideration of the tariff supplement under paragraphs (4) and (5).
(4) The filing interexchange telecommunications carrier may file a response to a staff report suspending the carrier's tariff supplement. Responses shall be filed within 7 days of the issuance of the staff report. Contested staff reports shall be considered by the Commission at public meeting.
(5) In the alternative, the interexchange telecommunications carrier may withdraw the tariff supplement and file a tariff supplement which adopts the modifications addressed in the staff report. When a modified tariff supplement is filed, the modified tariff supplement shall become effective on 1 day's notice unless the modified tariff supplement is not in full compliance with the staff report.
(d) This section supersedes Chapter 53 (relating to tariffs for noncommon carriers) to the extent that Chapter 53 is inconsistent with this section.
§ 63.105. Noncompetitive services.
(a) Each noncompetitive service offered by an interexchange telecommunications company shall be included in the carrier's tariff in compliance with sections 1302 and 1303 of the code (relating to tariff filing and inspection; and adherence to tariffs).
(b) New noncompetitive services shall be introduced through the filing of a tariff supplement. The tariff supplement and verified, supporting documentation shall contain the following information:
(1) An indication on each page of the tariff supplement that the page pertains to a new noncompetitive service.
(2) A description of the new noncompetitive service.
(3) The rates proposed for the new noncompetitive service.
(4) Supporting data justifying the proposed rates for the noncompetitive service.
(5) An executive overview summarizing the reason for the filing which includes relevant information regarding the safety, adequacy, reliability and privacy considerations related to the proposed service.
(c) Modifications to existing noncompetitive services shall be implemented through filing of a tariff supplement and verified supporting documentation. The tariff supplement and supporting documentation shall contain the information prescribed in subsection (b)(1)--(4). Supporting rate data is only required if the tariff supplement purports to increase an existing rate or surcharge.
(d) When a proposed change to an existing noncompetitive service is accompanied by information which satisfies one or more of the following provisions, the Commission and the Commission staff's review of the proposed change will be based on a review of whether the proposed change in the noncompetitive service is safe, adequate, reliable and consistent with privacy requirements, and the submitting interexchange carrier is not required to submit cost justification, cost-of-service or revenue data relating to the proposed change if one of the following applies:
(1) The proposed change is designed to make the rates, terms or conditions for the service conform to the comparable rates, or conditions for the same service that have become lawfully effective in the interstate jurisdiction.
(2) The proposed change is designed to make the rates, terms or conditions that have become lawfully effective in several other states.
(e) An interexchange carrier may also satisfy the requirements of subsections (b)(4) and (c), and obtain approval for a rate change filed under this section, if the interexchange carrier submits other reasonable justification for the change, or if the Commission or the Commission's staff request any other relevant data.
(f) An interexchange carrier requesting rate decreases for its existing noncompetitive services will be permitted to put them in effect at the end of the specified 16-day notice period without any further review or approval by the Commission or the Commission's staff.
(g) An interexchange carrier requesting changes in the terms and conditions of its existing noncompetitive services, where the changes will not result in any rate changes, will be permitted to put them in effect at the end of the specified 16-day notice period without any further review or approval by the Commission or the Commission's staff.
(h) Noncompetitive service tariff supplements shall be filed to become effective on 16-days' notice.
(i) Review of noncompetitive service tariff supplements shall be conducted consistent with the following procedures:
(1) Within 14 days of the date of filing, Commission staff will either issue a notice allowing the tariff supplement to become effective or issue a report which explains why the tariff supplement should not be permitted to become effective without modification. The staff report may identify modifications which would eliminate inadequacies in the tariff supplement. Commission staff will deliver or transmit the notice or report to the filing interexchange telecommunications carrier at the time of issuance.
(2) When Commission staff issues a notice allowing the tariff supplement to go into effect, the tariff supplement will become effective, without modification, 16 days after the filing date. If the Commission staff does not issue a notice or report on the tariff supplement within the 14-day period, the tariff supplement will go into effect by operation of law at the end of the 16-days' notice period.
(3) When Commission staff does not allow the tariff supplement to go into effect and issues a report addressing the inadequacies in the tariff supplement, the tariff supplement will be suspended pending consideration of the tariff supplement under paragraphs (4) and (5).
(4) The filing interexchange telecommunications carrier may file a response to a staff report suspending the carrier's tariff supplement. Any response shall be filed within 7 days of the issuance of the staff report. Contested staff reports will be considered by the Commission at public meeting.
(5) In the alternative, the interexchange telecommunications carrier may withdraw the tariff supplement and file a tariff supplement which adopts the modifications addressed in the staff report or which reflects a version of the tariff supplement that has been agreed to by the carrier and the staff. When a modified tariff supplement is filed, the modified tariff supplement shall become effective on 1-days' notice.
(j) This section supersedes Chapter 53 (relating to tariffs for noncommon carriers) to the extent that Chapter 53 is inconsistent with this section.
§ 63.106. Reclassification of services.
(a) The Commission has authority, under section 3008(a) and (c) of the code (relating to interexchange telecommunications carrier), to, after notice and hearing, reclassify services defined as either a noncompetitive service or a competitive service.
(b) Commission review of whether a competitive service should be reclassified as a noncompetitive service will be performed either within the scope of a Commission investigation conducted under section 331(a) of the code (relating to powers of commission and administrative law judges), or upon consideration of a complaint filed under section 701 of the code (relating to complaints).
(c) Commission review of whether a noncompetitive service should be reclassified as a competitive service will be performed either within the scope of a Commission investigation conducted under section 331(a) of the code or upon consideration of a petition filed by the interexchange telecommunications carrier under § 5.41 (relating to petitions generally).
(d) When reviewing whether a service should be reclassified, the Commission will consider the following factors:
(1) The ease of entry by potential competitors into the market for the specific service at issue.
(2) The presence of other existing telecommunications carriers in the market for the specific service at issue.
(3) The ability of other telecommunications carriers to offer the service at competitive prices, terms and conditions.
(4) The availability of like or substitute service alternatives in the relevant geographic area for the service at issue.
(5) Other factors deemed relevant by the Commission.
§ 63.107. Annual reporting requirements.
(a) On or before May 31 of each calendar year, a certificated interexchange transporter, as defined in § 63.112 (relating to definitions), shall file with the Commission an annual report for the preceding calendar year. The annual report shall be filed with the appropriate office or bureau. The report shall be considered a proprietary document by the Commission.
(b) The annual report shall contain aggregate total revenue and traffic volume data measured in minutes of use for the carrier's intrastate operations during the preceding calendar year. Subject to data availability, this information should be disaggregated in the following service categories:
(1) Message toll service (MTS) and associated services including operator assisted and calling card services.
(2) Services corresponding to outbound Wide Area Telecommunications Services (WATS).
(3) Services corresponding to inbound WATS or ''800'' type services.
(4) Private line or dedicated communication path services.
(5) Dedicated network type services, including virtual network type services.
(c) Together with the annual report required by subsection (a), an interexchange telecommunications carrier which is required to file an annual report with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), shall also file a copy of the FCC annual report. The FCC annual report shall be considered a public document by the Commission unless deemed to be proprietary in whole or in part by the FCC.
Subchapter I. INTEREXCHANGE RESELLERS
* * * * * (Editor's Note: Throughout the entire Chapter 63, Subchapter I (former Subchapter H), the term ''aggregator'' shall be changed to ''nonpublic utility aggregator.'')
Subchapter J. CONFIDENTIALITY OF CUSTOMER COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION
* * * * *
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 97-1078. Filed for public inspection July 3, 1997, 9:00 a.m.]
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.
