Proposed Modifications to the Review of Interconnection Agreements [34 Pa.B. 2657] Public Meeting held
April 29, 2004Commissioners Present: Terence J. Fitzpatrick, Chairperson; Robert K. Bloom, Vice Chairperson; Glen R. Thomas; Kim Pizzingrilli; Wendell F. Holland
Proposed Modifications to the Review of Interconnection Agreements; M-00960799
Final Order By the Commission:
Before the Commission for consideration are the Comments filed in response to the Tentative Order entered on July 1, 2003, in the previously captioned proceeding. Specifically, on August 18, 2003, The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania and Sprint Communications Company, L. P. (Sprint) filed Joint Comments (Sprint Comments) and Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. and Verizon North Inc. filed Joint Comments (Verizon Comments). No reply comments were filed.
Also before the Commission is the motion for appearance Pro Hac Vice filed on August 18, 2003, by Zsuzsanna E. Benedek, a member of the Pennsylvania Bar, for admission of Craig D. Dingwall to appear as an attorney on behalf of Sprint.1
I. History of the Proceeding
On June 3, 1996, the Commission entered an Order at Docket No. M-00960799 for the purpose of implementing the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TA-96) in Pennsylvania.2 The Implementation Order, inter alia, established specific procedures and requirements relating to the consideration and approval of interconnection agreements. See 47 U.S.C. § 252.
As noted in the Tentative Order, supra, during the time that has elapsed since the entry of the Implementation Order, a number of issues arose in the context of processing interconnection agreements. The Tentative Order reviewed the specific requirements and procedures contained in the Implementation Order and, where new issues have been identified, the Tentative Order proposed procedural modifications to address those issues.
Prior to the issuance of the Tentative Order, in an attempt to involve the affected telecommunications company entities in this process, on November 1, 2002, the Commission served a copy of Proposed Modifications on all incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) and competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), as well as the Pennsylvania Telephone Association. Notice of the proposed modifications was also published at 32 Pa.B. 5485 (November 2, 2002).
In response to the published notice, original Comments were filed by the following Parties: ALLTEL/North Pittsburgh Telephone Company; MCI WorldCom Network Services, Inc. (MCIW); Sprint Communications Company L. P./United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania (Sprint); Verizon PA; and Level 3 Communications LLC. Original Reply Comments were filed by Verizon PA.
In the Tentative Order, we first addressed the failure of companies to notify the Commission about the initial interconnection request date (Day 1). After considering the original Comments of the Parties regarding this issue, we required, as a tentative resolution, that the ILECs be responsible for notifying this Commission that a request for an interconnection has been filed. Tentative Order at 6-10.
The second concern addressed in the Tentative Order was the failure of the companies to file an executed interconnection agreement with this Commission within 30 days after the agreement is signed. After considering the positions of the Parties in their original Comments, we tentatively adopted, instead of our initially proposed resolution, Sprint's proposal, that the Parties either be permitted to file the agreement under a cover letter rather than a joint petition, as well as Verizon's proposal that the ILEC individually be permitted to file a Petition for approval of a jointly signed agreement instead of a joint petition. We also stated that the issue of penalties does not need to be addressed in the Tentative Order, but should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Tentative Order at 10-15.
The third matter we tentatively addressed was whether we should continue our current policy of approving an interconnection agreement between an ILEC and a CLEC prior to granting a certificate of public convenience to the CLEC. After considering the original Comments of the Parties, we tentatively decided against requiring that a CLEC obtain a certificate of public convenience prior to filing an interconnection agreement. Tentative Order at 15-18.
The fourth issue we addressed was the failure to file ''true and correct'' copies of interconnection agreements with the Commission. After considering the original Comments of the Parties, we tentatively decided to eliminate ordering paragraphs from our Orders approving interconnection agreements that require Parties to file a true and correct paper copy of the agreement after it is approved. We further tentatively determined that an acceptable compromise to requiring the ILECs to include a copy of all interconnection agreements on their websites would be for the ILECs to file an electronic true and correct copy of all interconnections agreements, including any amendments, for inclusion on the Commission website. Tentative Order at 18-21.
The Tentative Order was entered on July 1, 2003, and provided the Parties with an opportunity to file comments and reply comments. As previously mentioned, Sprint and Verizon filed timely Comments, to which no replies were filed.
II. Implementation Order Overview
As noted in the Tentative Order (at 4-6), in the Implementation Order, we stated as follows:
The development of an interconnection agreement commences on the day a carrier receives a request for interconnection from another carrier (day 1). It is absolutely essential, and through this order we will require that each carrier requesting an interconnection agreement from another carrier shall file a copy of the request with the Commission at the requesting carrier's A-docket.
Implementation Order at 24.
TA-96 established a 160-day period, beginning with Day 1, as defined in the Implementation Order (that is, the day a carrier receives a request for interconnection from another carrier), within which the Parties may negotiate the terms of interconnection. During the first 135 days, any party may request that the Commission mediate the interconnection request. If mediation is requested, the Commission appoints a mediator who proceeds in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Implementation Order. (See Implementation Order at 26-28 and Order on Reconsideration at 16).
Included in the 160-day negotiation period is a 25-day period, from Day 135 through Day 160, during which any of the Parties may request arbitration of any or all unresolved issues whenever negotiation and/or mediation fails. Section 252(b)(1). TA-96 specifies that the Commission must resolve all outstanding issues within 9 months of the date that interconnection is first requested (Day 1).3 Section 252(b)(4)(C). TA-96 further specifies that the Commission must then act within 30 days of the date that an executed agreement resulting from arbitration proceedings is filed. Section 252(e)(4).
In the Implementation Order, the Commission recognized that TA-96 does not place any time constraints on the Parties after Day 160 with respect to negotiated and/or mediated interconnection agreements. As a result, the Implementation Order established a 30-day period after the close of the negotiation period (Day 160), or by Day 190, within which the Parties to a negotiated and/or mediated agreement must file an executed agreement with the Commission. Implementation Order at 33. Once filed, the Commission, as required by TA-96, must then complete review within 90 days. Section 252(e)(4).
Likewise, in the case of arbitrated agreements, TA-96 does not specify when an executed agreement that results from arbitration proceedings must be filed with the Commission. In the Implementation Order, we specified that an executed agreement resulting from arbitration must be filed with the Commission within 30 days of the date of entry of the Order resolving the arbitration proceedings. Implementation Order at 33. The Commission, in accordance with TA-96, then has 30 days within which it must complete its review of the filed agreement. Section 252(e)(4).
In summary, the time period established by TA-96 and our Implementation Order for an interconnection agreement arrived at through negotiation and mediation is as follows. During the first 160 days, the parties voluntarily negotiate the terms of the Agreement. At any point during the first 135 days of the negotiation period, either party may request the Commission to participate in the negotiations and to mediate any differences arising in the course of the negotiations. An agreement arrived at through either negotiation or mediation is then filed with the Commission and the Commission must then either approve or reject the agreement within 90 days from the filing date; otherwise the agreement is deemed approved. For agreements arrived at through arbitration (that is, if the parties are unsuccessful in negotiating an interconnection agreement, with or without mediation) either party may file a petition with the Commission between Day 135 and Day 160 to arbitrate the contractual dispute. Responses to the arbitration petition must be filed with the Commission within 25 days. The arbitrator will issue a recommended decision no later than 220 days from Day 1, or the date of the original request for interconnection. Exceptions must be filed within 15 days from the date of issuance of the recommended decision and no reply exceptions are permitted. The Commission must then issue an arbitration order within 270 days of the date of the interconnection request. (See Arbitration Order at 28-33.) After the compliance interconnection agreement is filed, the Commission must act within 30 days to either reject or approve the compliance agreement; otherwise it is deemed approved under section 252(e)(4).
In both of the previous cases, if the Commission fails to meet its responsibility under TA-96 to act within the prescribed 90 days (in the case of negotiated and/or mediated agreements), and 30 days (in the case of arbitrated agreements), the Interconnection Agreement is deemed approved under section 252(e)(4) of TA-96, and the Federal Communications Commission may assume jurisdiction under section 252(e)(5).
III. Issues Relative to TA-96 and the Implementation Order
As previously noted, since entry of the Implementation Order in 1996, several issues have arisen with respect to the foregoing time-related requirements regarding the review of interconnection agreements. What follows is the presentation of those issues as identified in our November 1, 2002, Notice of Proposed Modifications; a statement of our tentative resolution of those issues in the Tentative Order based on the original Comments of the Parties; a summary of the current Comments filed in response to the Tentative Order; and the final resolution of those issues.
A. Failure to Notify Commission about the Initial Interconnection Request Date (Day 1)
As noted in the Tentative Order, this has been a recurring problem since entry of the Implementation Order. Routinely, the requesting interconnection carrier4 has not been advising the Commission of the date that it initially requested interconnection with an ILEC as required by the Implementation Order. This results in the Commission not knowing when any of the time periods prescribed either by TA-96 or by the Implementation Order actually begin.
1. Initially Recommended Solution
The solution initially recommended in our Proposed Modifications was to require that ILECs formally notify the Commission of the date (Day 1) on which another carrier first requests interconnection. It was proposed that notification be in writing and submitted to the Secretary within 20 days after a request for interconnection. It was also suggested that the notification state whether the Day 1 date pertains to a new interconnection agreement (that is, the first time the ILEC is interconnecting with the requesting carrier), an amended or revised interconnection agreement, a replacement interconnection agreement or an ''opt-in'' request regarding an existing interconnection agreement. In all instances, except when the Commission has not established an A-docket for the requesting carrier, the ILEC would be required to reference in the notice the Commission A-docket assigned to the requesting carrier. Where the requesting carrier has no A-docket assigned, the ILEC would be required to note that fact and the Secretary would then assign an A-docket as noted in the Implementation Order.
This represents a departure from the current requirements of the Implementation Order. The Implementation Order states that it is the obligation of the requesting carrier to notify the Commission of the date when interconnection is requested. However, since we do not have jurisdiction over all requesting carriers, enforcement of this requirement is problematic. As a result, we proposed placing the notice requirement on the ILEC.
2. Tentative Resolution
After reviewing the originally filed comments regarding the Day 1 notice issue, we tentatively determined that the ILECs should be responsible for notifying this Commission that a request for an interconnection has been filed. This is because in section 252(b)(4)(c), TA-96 expressly mandates that the interconnection request process take no longer than 9 months. We further noted that if we are to adhere to TA-96, some form of enforceable requirement to notify the Commission of the Day 1 date is required. For these reasons, we tentatively required that the ILEC notify the Commission of a request for interconnection within 20 days of the date interconnection is requested by a party. Tentative Order at 6-10, 21.
3. Comments to Tentative Order
Regarding the Day 1 issue, Sprint objects to the Tentative Order's requirement that the ILEC be the responsible entity to file notice with the Commission of the request for an interconnection agreement. Sprint argues that the Commission should eliminate this requirement altogether or at least require the requesting carrier to give the notice. Sprint asserts that this requirement would needlessly inundate the Commission with filings that may never amount to an arbitrated or negotiated agreement or an arbitration or mediation. Sprint argues that this requirement may also produce a flood of readjusted Day 1 requests in light of the fact that the carriers often ''re-start the clock'' multiple times during the course of interconnection negotiations to give themselves more negotiating time, while avoiding premature and unnecessary litigation. Sprint Comments at 2-4.
Verizon also does not agree with our tentative resolution of this issue. Verizon contends that the Commission's proposed modification would not solve the problem as intended. Verizon further argues that making it Verizon's (or another ILEC's) responsibility to give the Commission Day 1 notice would only serve to slow an already cumbersome task. Verizon submits that the responsibility should remain with the requesting CLECs. Verizon Comments at 1-5.
4. Final Resolution
We are persuaded by Sprint's comments that we reconsider our determination in the Tentative Order that requires ILEC to file a ''Day 1 notice'' with the Commission within 20 days of the date interconnection is requested. We agree with Sprint's concern that putting this obligation on the ILEC presumes that the ILEC can determine whether or not the carrier is certificated and what, if any, A-docket has been assigned to the requesting carrier. (See Sprint Comments at 3.)
It is not our intent to create an undue, administrative burden on the ILECs and we are concerned that our tentative decision may increase the administrative burdens on both the ILECs and this Commission with unnecessary filings and inquiries. In light of the fact that ''Day 1 notices'' are more pertinent to interconnection agreements requests that may go to arbitration rather than for interconnection agreements arrived at through direct negotiations, we are of the opinion that instead of requiring the filing of ''Day 1 notices'' by ILECs (as recommended in our Tentative Order) or the CLECs (as is our current policy under the Implementation Order) with the Commission, it would be less burdensome if we were just to require that the ILECs maintain a log of the dates of the ''Day 1 requests'' and any readjusted ''Day 1 requests'' for each interconnection agreement request. That information would then be made available upon request by an ALJ or a member of the Commission in the case of arbitrated proceedings or whenever it would be necessary to know when ''Day 1'' began. After the interconnection agreement is approved or the proceeding involving a request for arbitration has been concluded, the ILEC would be permitted to discard the log. This would alleviate the administrative burdens of having the ILEC determine the docket number of a requesting carrier as well as having to make a paper filing of the ''Day 1 notices'' and any relevant subsequent updates of those ''Day 1 notices'' where the Parties mutually agree to ''restart the clock.'' Therefore, we shall modify the Implementation Order and our tentative resolution of this matter consistent with the above discussion.
B. Failure to File an Executed Interconnection Agreement With the Commission Within 30 Days After the Agreement is Signed
As we explained in the Tentative Order on page 10, this issue is probably the most significant, especially with respect to negotiated or mediated agreements, since Parties have routinely been ignoring the directive in our Implementation Order to file the executed agreement within 30 days from the date it is signed. Parties have been taking several months, and even longer, after a negotiated agreement has been executed before filing the agreement with the Commission for approval.
In the interim, the Parties, in most cases, begin operating under the agreement as soon as it has been executed regardless of the fact that the agreement has not been either filed with, or approved by, the Commission. In several instances, the interconnection agreement actually expired either prior to, or during, the 90-day review period while it is pending before this Commission for approval. The concern here is that the Parties to the agreement are operating under an agreement that has not been filed with the Commission, has not been published for public comment, has not been approved by the Commission, and is not available to any other carrier to opt-in to should a carrier so desire.
1. Initially Recommended Solution
In the Proposed Modifications published in November 2002, we stated that any recommended solution to this problem must impose the requirement for compliance on both the requesting carrier and the ILEC providing interconnection, and must also take into consideration the fact that the Commission may not assert jurisdiction over all requesting carriers, for example, wireless carriers. In many instances where this problem has occurred, the ILEC in question has indicated that the requesting carrier delays signing the joint petition for approval of the agreement that is to be filed with the Commission under the Implementation Order. The initially recommended solution, therefore, was to permit and/or require the ILEC in question not to operate under the agreement until a time as the requesting carrier signs the joint petition requesting approval of the executed agreement.
It was also proposed that the Commission enforce the civil penalty provisions under section 3301 of the Public Utility Code (66 Pa.C.S. § 3301) against all jurisdictional carriers whereby a fine could be imposed on the ILEC and on any jurisdictional interconnecting carrier for each day filing is delayed beyond the initial 30-day grace period provided for filing an executed interconnection agreement by the Implementation Order.
2. Tentative Resolution
After reviewing the original comments filed by the Parties, we observed our grave concerns regarding the late-filed agreements. Rather than establishing firm guidelines on how penalties should be assessed on nonconforming Parties, we stated that the matter concerning penalties should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than in the context of the Tentative Order. We tentatively adopted, instead of our originally proposed resolution, the proposals by Sprint and Verizon that would: (1) permit the filing of the interconnection agreement under a cover letter instead of a joint petition; and (2) permit the ILEC to file a petition for approval of a jointly signed agreement instead of a joint petition. In this regard we stated the following:
Regardless of whether the submittal is via a ''letter petition'' or a formal pleading, the requirement to submit the agreement should be imposed upon a jurisdictional entity and need not require the requesting carrier to participate in a joint filing, which has been the cause for delay in many instances. Additionally, the thirty days within which the requesting carrier would be allowed to notify the commission if the agreement submitted by the ILEC is not a true and correct copy would not cause any appreciable delay in the review process since the Commission staff could complete its review within that time period and simply await any objection by the requesting carrier. In the absence of any objection, the agreement could be approved at Public Meeting without further action. If a timely objection was filed, there would still be adequate time left in the 90-day review period to have the ILEC correct any deficiencies.
Tentative Order at 10-15.
3. Comments to Tentative Order
In its Comments, Sprint argues that the ILEC should not be the sole responsible party to file the interconnection agreement with the Commission within 30 days after it is signed. Sprint also submits that the 30-day time period is unreasonable and that the Commission should have adopted its suggestion for up to three 30-day extensions to file the signed, executed interconnection agreement. Finally, Sprint contends that the penalties should be clarified and not applied exclusively to ILECs.
Verizon agrees with the tentative resolution, but notes that until the Tentative Order becomes final, Verizon will still face the problem that many CLECs will fail or refuse to promptly sign the joint petition for approval currently required by the Implementation Order. Therefore, it observes that the Commission should not impose penalties for additional delayed filings during the interim period. Verizon Comments at 5.
4. Final Resolution
In our consideration of this matter, we note that Sprint's objection that the ILEC should not be the sole responsible party to file the interconnection agreement with the Commission within 30 days after it is signed is without merit. The ILEC and the requesting party have been working closely up to the point when the interconnection agreement is ready to be filed. Since the ILECs argued in the past that it was the requesting party that often led to the delay in filing the interconnection agreement with the Commission, we are of the opinion that the tentative recommendation will resolve their concerns. In this regard, we reiterate what we stated in our Tentative Order--''[o]nce the agreement has been executed, the parties have concluded negotiations, reduced the agreement in writing and have jointly signed the agreement. In most cases, the parties also begin operating under the at that point. At this point, there is no reason why the executed agreement cannot be filed with the Commission within thirty days.''
We are also of the opinion that our tentative resolution to require a signed ''true and correct'' copy of the interconnection agreement at the time the request for approval is made will eliminate any problems we have had up to this point with regard to obtaining signed ''true and correct'' copies of interconnection agreements after we have entered an order approving the interconnection agreement.5 We clarify, however, that if we require any changes to the signed ''true and correct'' interconnection agreement, we will be specific in the order as to what and when the revised signed ''true and correct'' copy must be filed.
With regard to Sprint's comments that the penalties should be clarified and not just imposed on the ILECs, we note that our tentative determination to address penalties on a ''case by case'' basis should continue. It is also important to note, however, that it is not our intent to impose penalties only on the ILECs since ILECs and the requesting Parties are equally responsible for complying with our directives. However, as we stated before, if the other party is not under our jurisdiction, we have no way of imposing penalties on the Parties unless, and until, jurisdiction is duly established. Therefore, we remind all ILECs and CLECs that failure to comply with our Implementation Order, as well as this Order, could subject the jurisdictional Parties to civil penalties for violations under section 3301 of the Public Utility Code.
With respect to Verizon's concern that there may be continuing violations until this Final Order becomes effective and replaces the scheme presently in effect under the Implementation Order, we note that it is not our intent to enforce the requirements of the Implementation Order any more rigorously until this Final Order becomes effective and is published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
For these reasons, we shall adopt our tentative resolution in the Tentative Order as the final resolution. In this regard, we shall permit the ILEC or CLEC to file a letter or petition for approval of a jointly signed interconnection agreement. We shall, however, also require the filing Party to serve notice and a copy of the Interconnection Agreement on the other Party at the same time it files the Interconnection Agreement with the Commission. In these cases, the other Party would then have 30 days to notify the Commission if the interconnection agreement submitted by the ILEC was not a true and correct copy of the Parties' agreement.
C. Approval of an Interconnection Agreement Prior to a CLEC's Certification
In the Tentative Order on pages 15-18, we noted that neither TA-96 nor the Implementation Order requires that a requesting carrier have Commission or Federal authority to operate prior to requesting interconnection. The Implementation Order, in fact, recognizes that some carriers may not have the requisite authority as follows:
If the requesting carrier does not have an A-docket, an A-docket shall be assigned by the Commission's Secretary at the time of filing of the interconnection agreement.
Implementation Order at 25.
The previous language pertains to carriers that fall under this Commission's jurisdiction but have not yet been certificated (for example, CLECs), as well as carriers that, under Commonwealth law, are not subject to regulation by this Commission (for example, wireless carriers), and may not have received a Federal license to operate. The problem with dealing with uncertificated jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional carriers is that the Commission has no knowledge of the entity or requesting carrier until that entity files an interconnection agreement with the Commission. This further exacerbates the problem described earlier whereby Parties to an interconnection agreement may have been operating under interconnection agreements for months before filing the agreement with the Commission for review.6
1. Initially Recommended Solution
In the Tentative Order at pages 15-18, we noted that the Proposed Modifications observe that any requirement for certification of a carrier prior to seeking interconnection would only address those companies subject to our jurisdiction and not those we do not regulate. Any requirement would thus only address our current concerns about noncertificated jurisdictional carriers operating under approved executed interconnection agreements. Since we do not exercise jurisdiction over carriers such as wireless companies, they are not required to obtain Commonwealth certification. However, we noted that we can realistically require any nonjurisdictional carrier desiring to operate under an interconnection agreement in this Commonwealth to fill out a brief, nonutility application or registration form (similar to what is done for COCOTs).7 The nonutility application/registration form would be completed by the requesting entity and given to the ILEC at the time of an interconnection request. The ILEC would then file the applicant/registration form along with the Day 1 notification with the Commission. It would be important for Commission recordkeeping purposes that the requesting carrier include on this form the type of carrier it is, any trade name it uses and whether there have been any previous interconnection agreements approved by this Commission at a time when it has operated under a different name. The nonregulated carrier should also notify the Commission whenever it has undergone a name change during the tenure of any approved interconnection agreement.
2. Tentative Resolution
After considering the original Comments of the Parties regarding this issue, we tentatively decided against requiring CLEC authority prior to the filing of an interconnection agreement request. Further, we noted that since we are implementing the modification concerning the Day 1 issue and requiring the filing of an agreement within 30 days of execution, it was anticipated that this issue will, for the most part, be resolved. As a result, this proposed modification was withdrawn. Nonetheless, we noted that we will continue to monitor this issue and we will revisit it if appropriate.
3. Comments to Tentative Order
Sprint did not address this issue in its current Comments.
In its current Comments, Verizon objects to not requiring the requesting party to have full certificate authority to operate in this Commonwealth prior to approval of an interconnection agreement. Verizon disputes the Commission's conclusion that requiring full certificate authority prior to approval would cause a significant delay in a CLEC's entry into the market. Verizon Comments at 6-7.
4. Final Resolution
As previously noted, neither TA-96 nor our Implementation Order requires prior and full certification of both Parties before filing a joint petition for interconnection. We have permitted noncertificated CLECs to apply for authority and operate under ''provisional authority'' in this Commonwealth prior to the granting of the application so as not to delay the CLEC's entry into the markets in this Commonwealth. We are not persuaded by Verizon's arguments that CLECs should be fully certificated prior to the approval of an interconnection agreement. For these reasons, we will adopt our tentative resolution, as the final resolution and thereby maintaining the status quo, which permits noncertificated CLECs to enter into interconnection agreements.
D. Filing of ''True and Correct'' Copies of Interconnection Agreements
In the Tentative Order (at 18-21), we noted that, currently, each order approving an interconnection agreement includes an ordering paragraph requiring that a ''true and correct'' copy of the interconnection agreement be filed as part of compliance obligations of the Parties. Routinely, the ''true and correct'' copy is not filed with the Commission primarily because the agreement has not changed since it was originally submitted for approval with the Commission. As a result, Parties to the agreement have been filing a letter indicating that the original executed copy filed at the beginning of the review process is a ''true and correct'' copy and requesting that this copy meet its compliance responsibility. A problem arises in that all Parties do not automatically file even a letter making this request. The Parties are sent a Secretarial letter, sometimes several letters, reminding them of their responsibility under the Order, but frequently a response is not forthcoming.
1. Initially Recommended Solution
The initially recommended solution to this issue was to eliminate the ordering paragraph requiring that a ''true and correct'' copy be filed with the Commission, with the exception of those instances when: (1) the Commission and/or a party makes a change to the original agreement; (2) the agreements are arrived at through the arbitration process; or (3) a copy was not filed at the beginning of the review process.
It was also recommended that ILECs be required to include a section on their respective websites that contains currently effective interconnection agreements that were either approved by this Commission or became effective by operation of law. This would: (1) more readily provide the public with access to interconnection agreements; (2) reduce the cost to the public in obtaining copies of agreements; (3) assist in reducing the number of inquiries as to which companies have approved agreements and how an official copy of an agreement can be obtained; and (4) assist in reducing the burden on the Secretary's Bureau in duplicating the voluminous copies.
2. Tentative Resolution
After considering the original Comments of the Parties, we tentatively decided to eliminate the requirement in the approving Order that directs the Parties to file a true and correct copy of the interconnection agreement (with the previously cited exceptions) within 30 days of the entry date of the approving Order. We also tentatively concluded that the ILECs need not include a copy of interconnection agreements on their websites but that an acceptable compromise would be for the ILECs to file an electronic true and correct copy of all interconnection agreements, including any amendments, with the Commission so that the Commission can include them on its own website. Tentative Order at 18-22.
3. Comments to Tentative Order
Sprint did not address this issue in its current Comments.
Verizon, in its Comments, does not oppose the tentative resolution. Verizon does however state that, consistent with the tentative resolution of this issue, it recommends that the electronic version of the agreement be submitted in ''.pdf format'' because this format is both universally accessible and provides for ''read-only'' text.
4. Final Resolution
As previously noted, none of the Parties who filed current comments objected to our tentative resolution regarding this matter. Regarding Verizon's suggestion that the electronic version to the agreement be submitted in ''.pdf format,'' none of the Parties filed reply comments objecting to this suggestion either. We find Verizon's suggestion to have merit. The use of this read-only format should make the agreements more readily available to interested Parties, but at the same time, prevent those Parties from altering those forms in any way.
Accordingly, we concur with Verizon's suggestion and will modify the Tentative Order to require the use of this format. Also, consistent with the Tentative Order, we shall no longer include an ordering paragraph in the approving Order requiring Parties to file a ''true and correct'' paper copy of the interconnection agreement with the Commission, except in those instances when: (1) the Commission and/or a party makes a change to the original agreement; (2) the agreements are arrived at through the arbitration process; or (3) a copy was not filed at the beginning of the review process. In all other instances, ''true and correct'' copies have been filed as hard copies with the filing.
Therefore, consistent with the previous discussion, and the determination reached in our Tentative Order, we shall require all ILECs to file a true and correct, electronic copy of the interconnection agreement, and any amendment, with the Commission. We will then post each interconnection agreement and any associated amendments on the Commission's website for public access.
IV. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, consistent with the requirements under 66 Pa.C.S. § 703(3), relating to notification of Commission orders, we adopt the revised procedures adduced in the body of the Tentative Order entered on July 1, 2003, as modified by this Final Order; Therefore,
It Is Ordered That:
1. The Motion Pro Hac Vice filed on August 18, 2003, by Zsuzsanna E. Benedek, a member of the Pennsylvania Bar, for admission of Craig D. Dingwall to appear as an attorney on behalf of Sprint Communications Company, L. P. is granted.
2. The tentative resolutions adopted in the Tentative Order entered on July 1, 2003, are made final, except as modified by this Opinion and Order.
3. The Implementation Order at Docket No. M-00960799 entered on June 3, 1996, is modified relative to the filing and review of interconnection agreements.
4. Incumbent local exchange carriers, shall, upon receipt of a request for interconnection, maintain a log of the dates of the ''Day 1 requests'' and any readjusted ''Day 1 requests.'' The information shall be made available at the request of the Commission and the log may be discarded after an interconnection agreement has been approved or an interconnection arbitration proceeding concluded.
5. The incumbent local exchange carrier is responsible for filing, on behalf of itself and the requesting entity, a jointly signed interconnection agreement with the Commission, for Commission approval, within 30 days of the date that the agreement is signed.
6. The incumbent local exchange carrier, within 30 days of entry of an Order approving an Interconnection Agreement, shall file, in ''.pdf format,'' an electronic true and correct copy of the agreement with the Commission for inclusion on the Commission website.
7. A copy of this Opinion and Order be served on all incumbent local exchange carriers and competitive local exchange carriers.
8. The Secretary shall deposit this Order with the Legislative Reference Bureau for publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
JAMES J. MCNULTY,
Secretary[Pa.B. Doc. No. 04-881. Filed for public inspection May 14, 2004, 9:00 a.m.] _______
1 We note that none of the Parties has objected to the admission of Mr. Dingwall to appear on behalf of Sprint. Our review of the Motion reveals nothing objectionable regarding the appearance. Accordingly, we shall grant the Motion.
2 See In Re: Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Doc. No. M-00960799 (Order entered June 3, 1996) (hereinafter, Implementation Order) (Order on Reconsideration entered on September 9, 1996).
3 Under TA-96, the Commission must act on any Interconnection Agreement filed as a result of negotiation and/or mediation within 90 days of an executed agreement being filed with the Commission, and within 30 days after submission of an agreement adopted by arbitration. Section 252(e)(4).
4 The requesting interconnection carrier may or may not be subject to this Commission's jurisdiction. However, the ILEC providing interconnection to the requesting interconnection carrier is currently subject to this Commission's jurisdiction.
5 In our Tentative Order, we also noted that we agree with MCIW's argument that the cover letter accompanying an Interconnection Agreement is not the proper place for position statements by any Party. We stated that we have not perceived this issue to be a problem at this point in time but we will monitor the issue and make a determination at the time of the 1-year review if further action is warranted. No comments were filed on this issue. At any rate, it is not appropriate to include position statements in the cover letter and we discourage the Parties from doing so.
6 All Orders that approve the initial interconnection agreements between ILECs and CLECs include the following language to ensure that CLECs obtain certification before attempting to operate under the interconnection agreement. This language is not included in Orders where the requesting carrier is not subject to Commission jurisdiction:
It is noted that, regardless of the types of services covered by this Interconnection Agreement, it would be a violation of the Public Utility Code if the Applicant began offering services or assessing surcharges, to end users, for which it has not been authorized to provide and for which tariffs have not been authorized.7 COCOTs are customer-owned coin operated telephones. For further description of COCOTS, see Tentative Order at 18-19.
