Pennsylvania Code & Bulletin

• No statutes or acts will be found at this website.

The Pennsylvania Bulletin website includes the following: Rulemakings by State agencies; Proposed Rulemakings by State agencies; State agency notices; the Governor’s Proclamations and Executive Orders; Actions by the General Assembly; and Statewide and local court rules.

PA Bulletin, Doc. No. 05-1513




[52 PA. CODE CH. 63]

[35 Pa.B. 4597]


Changing Local Service Providers

   The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, on May 5, 2005, adopted a final rulemaking order which sets forth regulations establishing an orderly process for customer migration between local service providers within the telecommunications industry.

Executive Summary

   The advent of competition in the local telephone market in this Commonwealth has created situations that the Commission's current regulations do not address. Specifically, consumers have encountered a variety of problems when they attempt to change local service providers (LSPs) in the competitive market. In April 2002, recognizing the need for both short-term and long-run solutions to problems associated with migrating local phone service, the Commission approved Interim Guidelines addressing the issues raised by the changes. Later in 2002, the Commission held collaborative sessions that involved telecommunications carriers and other interested parties in discussions of the issues. Two of the collaborative groups focused on issues related to changing local service providers and quality of service. The participants in these two groups agreed to combine the issues into one rulemaking. The collaborative participants addressed proposals for regulations and proposed solutions to the problems created by the changing telecommunications marketplace.

   By Order entered on October 3, 2003, at Docket No. L-00030163, the Commission adopted a Proposed Rulemaking Order to amend Chapter 63, consistent with the order and recommendations of the collaborative participants, the Bureau of Consumer Services and the Law Bureau. The intent of the proposed rulemaking was to promulgate a regulation to establish general rules, procedures, and standards to ensure that customers can migrate from one LSP to another without confusion, delay, or interruption of their basic telephone service.

   Comments to the proposed rulemaking were filed, and the Commission addressed all comments and entered a final rulemaking order on February 9, 2005. A petition for reconsideration was timely filed and granted in part by the Commission by Order entered on May 5, 2005. The May 5, 2005, Order replaces the February 9, 2005, Order in its entirety.

   The new regulation applies to all LSPs and network service providers (NSPs) operating in this Commonwealth. Although the new regulations do not apply to mass migrations of customers brought about by the selling or transferring of a customer base of one LSP to another, an LSP that has properly proceeded with the abandonment of service to its customer base, Digital Subscriber Line migration, or line sharing/splitting arrangements, the rules may provide guidance for those transactions.

   The regulations recognize the right of a telephone customer to migrate from one LSP to another and address the responsibilities of old LSPs, new LSPs and NSPs throughout the migration process. The old and new LSPs are to work together to minimize or avoid problems associated with migrating a customer's account. The Commission will establish an industry work group to develop and update migration guidelines that LSPs and NSPs are to follow to facilitate migration of a customer's local telephone service.

   Prospective new LSPs will need verified authorization from a customer to obtain the customer's service information from the current LSP. The current LSP is to provide specific customer service information within a specified time frame to the prospective new LSP when the customer has indicated a desire to switch LSPs. The prospective new LSP may not process a change in LSPs for a customer who has a local service provider freeze in effect. LSPs are to provide various methods for customers to lift or remove local service provider freezes.

   An old LSP may not refuse to port a customer's telephone number to a new LSP unless the old LSP has terminated or discontinued service for that number prior to the migration request. In addition, an old LSP shall issue a final bill within 42 days to any customer who has requested to switch service providers and the old LSP shall stop billing the customer for any recurring charges as of the date of the change to the new LSP.

   LSPs and NSPs are to follow specific procedures when preexisting service at a location prevents a new LSP from reusing the existing telephone facilities to serve a new customer. If the problem cannot be resolved, the new LSP is to inform the consumer of various options for obtaining service including paying for the installation of new facilities.

   In the event of a migration dispute between LSPs or between an LSP and an NSP, the Commission will make available a nonadversarial, expedited dispute process within the Commission to address the dispute and suggest a resolution.

Regulatory Review

   Under section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5(a)), on March 18, 2004, the Commission submitted a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking, published at 34 Pa.B. 1784 (April 3, 2004), to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairpersons of the House Committee on Consumer Affairs and the Senate Committees on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure for review and comment.

   Under section 5(c) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC and the Committees were provided with copies of the comments received during the public comment period, as well as other documents when requested. In preparing the final-form rulemaking, the Department has considered all comments from IRRC, the House and Senate Committees and the public.

   Under section 5.1(j.2) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5a(j.2)), on July 13, 2005, the final-form rulemaking was deemed approved by the House and Senate Committees. Under section 5.1(c) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC met on July 14, 2005, and approved the final-form rulemaking.

Public Meeting held
May 5, 2005

Commissioners Present: Wendell F. Holland, Chairperson; Robert K. Bloom, Vice Chairperson; Kim Pizzingrilli

Rulemaking Re Changing Local Service Providers; L-00030163

Final Rulemaking Order
Order on Reconsideration

By the Commission:

   On October 3, 2003, the Commission entered a Proposed Rulemaking Order to promulgate regulations to establish an orderly process for customer migration between local service providers (LSPs) within the telecommunications industry. The final-form regulations apply to all LSPs and all network service providers (NSPs) operating in Pennsylvania and are not mandatory with respect to mass migrations of customers brought about by the selling or transferring of customer base from one LSP to another, to an LSP that has properly proceeded with the abandonment of service to its customer base, to Digital Subscriber Line migration, or to line sharing or line splitting arrangements.


   The October 3, 2003 Order was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on April 3, 2004, at 34 Pa.B. 1784. The Commission received written comments from the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC); the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA); the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), the Pennsylvania Telephone Association (PTA); AT&T Communication of Pennsylvania, LLC. (AT&T); Curry Communications, Inc. (Curry); Full Service Network (FSN); MCI WorldCom Network Services, Inc. (MCI); and Verizon Pennsylvania Inc./Verizon North Inc. (Verizon).

   On February 9, 2005, this Commission entered an Order addressing the comments and setting forth final regulations. On February 24, 2005, before the Order and final-form regulations were transmitted to IRRC for final review prior to publication, Verizon filed and served1 a timely Petition for Reconsideration seeking review of three points:

   (1)  Migration and restoration coordination responsibilities. (P/R at ¶9). Specifically, the new LSP (NLSP), rather than the network service provider (NSP), should be responsible for coordinating migrations of service and restorations of service if the migration fails.

   (2)  The non-contact period by current LSPs with potentially departing customers. (P/R at ¶10). Specifically, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations provide that this period does not expire.

   (3)  Confirmation or rejection of a Local Service Request (LSR). (P/R at ¶11). Specifically, the § 63.202(d) interval should be shortened, the section should apply to the old LSP (OLSP), and ''or rejection'' should be deleted from the section.

   On March 15, 2005, Metropolitan Telecommunications (MetTel) filed a letter in lieu of answer generally supporting reconsideration on Verizon PA's first and third points. MetTel did not address the second point.

   The substance of Verizon's concerns raised in its Petition for Reconsideration, coupled with MetTel's support and the lack of any formal opposition to reconsideration or Verizon's concerns, persuade us to consider their merit under the standard enunciated in Duick v. Pa. Gas & Water, 56 Pa PUC 553 (1982).

   This Final Rulemaking Order/Order on Reconsideration and Annex A replace the February 9, 2005 Order and regulations in their entirety, address the comments to the February 3, 2003 Order, address the Petition for Reconsideration, and adopt and set forth in Annex A revised final regulations.


   As a preliminary matter, we note that it is well settled that we are not required to consider expressly or at length each contention or argument raised by the parties. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Pa. P.U.C., 625 A.2d 741 (Pa. Cmnwlth. 1993); U. of Pa. v. Pa. PUC, 485 A.2d 1217 (Pa. Cmnwlth. 1984). Accordingly, any comment, issue, or request for reconsideration that we do not specifically address herein has been duly considered and rejected and will not be further discussed. Further, ministerial edits, which do not have a substantive effect, have been included in this order without specific discussion.


General Comments

   Several parties provided comments about some general aspects of the proposed regulations. AT&T suggested that the Commission should withdraw the proposal until the market evolves. According to AT&T, the proposed rulemaking is a bad solution in search of an unproven problem and may create problems in a process that is working well. The Commission's experience, however, has been that existing procedures for migration do not always work well. The Commission's Bureau of Consumer Services (BCS) has recorded numerous complaints from frustrated consumers for whom the process has not worked. At times, consumers are faced with the inability to migrate their local service to an LSP of their choice. Other complaints include the inability to port telephone numbers when they change LSPs, continued billing from an OLSP after switching to a NLSP, lack of communication about the migration process, lack of cooperation among the entities involved in the migration process, delays in service migrations, and even loss of telephone service. Such complaints prompted the Commission to establish interim guidelines for changing LSPs and for quality of service, and to arrange collaborative meetings with interested parties. Additionally, numerous inter-carrier disagreements as to processes for migrations surfaced during the collaborative process. From its review of consumer complaints and the issues raised in the collaborative sessions, this Commission finds it must disagree with AT&T's suggestion and will, therefore, proceed with the rulemaking.

   FSN agreed with the goal of the Commission's proposed regulations to establish consistent procedures and standards for customer migration between LSPs that will enable consumers to switch LSPs without confusion, abuse, delay, or service interruptions but feared that the proposed rules will have the opposite result. FSN alleged that ''loopholes'' and ambiguity in the proposed regulations could encourage abuse and discourage competition. As discussed in greater detail as follows, the Commission has made adjustments to the proposed rules in response to the comments of the parties. Those adjustments, as well as the protections that are already in place through other regulations and statutes, will serve to plug the ''loopholes'' and prevent the potential abuses about which FSN is concerned.


§ 63.191.  Statement of purpose and policy.

   IRRC commented that the final-form rulemaking should specify that the regulations apply to both residential and business customers. Based on this comment, we added language to subsection (a) and (b) to indicate that the purpose of the subchapter is to ensure that residential and business customers can migrate from one LSP to another without confusion, delay, or interruption of local service. As discussed more fully in regard to § 63.192, we replaced ''basic service'' with ''local service'' in the last sentence under subsection (a), as recommended by IRRC, and we revised the proposed regulations to use ''local service'' when appropriate throughout the final-form regulations.

§ 63.192.  Definitions.

   IRRC noted that the proposed rulemaking uses ''telephone service,'' ''local service,'' ''local basic service,'' ''service,'' ''vertical service,'' ''optional services,'' and ''telecommunications service'' throughout the regulations, yet ''local service'' was the only term that appeared in the definitions. IRRC recommended that ''local service'' be used throughout the regulations. We have modified the regulations to insert ''local'' before service where this addition is appropriate. We also substituted ''local service'' in place of ''local basic service'' and ''telecommunications service'' where ''local service'' is appropriate. However, since ''vertical services'' and ''optional services,'' are not interchangeable with ''local service,'' we added definitions for ''optional services,'' and ''vertical services'' and clarified other terminology to be consistent in usage. Based on IRRC's further recommendation, we have added a number of other terms to this section: ''appropriate retained documentation,'' ''authorized agent,'' ''facilities,'' ''interLATA,'' ''intraLATA,'' ''LATA,'' ''local loop,'' ''network serving arrangements,'' ''recording verifying permission,'' ''third party verification,'' ''UNE (unbundled network element),'' ''UNE-P (UNE-platform),'' and ''unbundled loop.'' We also added ''line loss notification.''

   We have also made numerous changes and additions to this section based on comments by IRRC, AT&T, and OAG, coupled with our own efforts to add clarity and consistency to the regulations. We deleted the definition of ''LSP-to-LSP end user migration guidelines or migration guidelines'' because we have removed the provisions relating to these guidelines from the final-form regulations.2 We also deleted ''local service reseller'' from the definitions because this term does not appear in the final-form regulations. Further, we changed ''new LSP'' to ''NLSP'' and ''previous LSP'' to ''OLSP'' in several locations.

   Both the OAG and AT&T noted that the proposed definition of ''applicant'' did not include or make reference to applicants who would be business customers. The OAG noted that the use of the term ''dwelling'' within the definition connoted residential service only. We agreed with these comments and revised the definition to add that ''applicant'' includes ''association, partnership, corporation, or government agency.'' We also clarified the definition to include an entity ''making a written or oral request for the commencement of local service.'' Further, we inserted ''local'' before ''service'' throughout the definition and changed ''dwelling'' to ''location'' since ''location'' is appropriate for both residential and business classes of service. We also inserted ''same'' before ''LSP'' to improve the clarity of this definition.

   Based on comments from IRRC regarding customer service records (CSRs) and network service arrangements, as well as technical clarification from industry participants, we included ''network serving arrangements'' in the definition of ''CSR'' to specify that a customer's network serving arrangements should be part of the information that is included in the customer's CSR. ''Network serving arrangements'' is now also listed as one of the 13 requisite elements of a CSR in the renumbered § 63.203(e) in the final-form regulations.

   Our agreement with IRRC's suggestion to add ''local'' before ''service'' throughout the regulations was the basis for our adding ''local'' to the definition of ''interfering station.''

   Comments of both AT&T and IRRC prompted us to revise the definition of ''LOA--Letter of authorization'' so as to make the definition less ambiguous and vague. We deleted the first part of the definition that appeared in the proposed rulemaking as IRRC suggested and also deleted ''The term is used to indicate'' from the second part. Finally, we replaced ''document'' with ''written or electronic record'' to improve the relevance of this definition to today's environment.

   IRRC commented that the definition of ''LSC--Local service confirmation'' in the proposed rulemaking included the undefined term ''unbundled loop connections.'' In response, we have modified the definition of ''LSC,'' replacing ''telecommunications service activities such as unbundled loop connections'' with ''the migration of local service.'' This change makes the definition simpler and clearer.

   IRRC commented that the terms ''NLSP (new local service provider),'' and ''OLSP (old local service provider)'' that appeared under the definition of ''LSP--Local service provider'' should have stand alone definitions. AT&T suggested language for the new definitions. In response, we modified the definition of ''LSP'' and added ''NLSP'' and ''OLSP'' as separately defined terms. We defined ''NLSP'' as ''The company that will provide local service to a customer after a migration.'' ''OLSP'' is defined as ''The company that provides local service to a customer prior to a migration.'' Although we did not totally adopt AT&T's suggested language, the new definitions in the final-form regulations reflect AT&T's suggestion.

   IRRC and AT&T also each noted that the definition of ''LSP'' contained the undefined term ''nonjurisdictional services.'' Upon review, we determined that the sentence containing ''nonjurisdictional services'' was unnecessary and did not add clarity; we therefore deleted the sentence. This revision is consistent with the definition of ''LSP'' that appears in the final-form regulations pertaining to the Local Service Provider Abandonment Process (LSP Abandonment) at Docket L-00030165, as approved by the Commission on January 13, 2005.

   AT&T commented that the definition of ''LSR--Local Service Request'' inappropriately requires the LSP to issue the LSR to the NSP. We deleted the phrase ''issued by LSPs to NSPs'' from the first section of the definition to accommodate AT&T's concern. We also replaced ''document'' with ''electronic or paper form'' to recognize the industry's use of electronic transmission of information or order.

   In response to IRRC's comment that the definition of the term ''NSP--Network service provider'' contained the undefined term ''carrier,'' we replaced ''carrier'' with ''telecommunications provider.'' This change is consistent with the definition of ''NSP'' in the LSP Abandonment final-form regulations.


§ 63.201.  General migration standards.

   AT&T commented that § 63.201(a) was inconsistent with other aspects of the proposed regulations in that it says that customers have a right to migrate while § 63.191(c) states that DSL customers, line share/splitting customers, and customers under special contracts do not have the right to migrate. We hasten to point out that the provisions of § 63.191(c)(1)--(3) do not preclude customers under the listed circumstances from migrating services, filing a complaint with the Commission, or porting their telephone numbers; they merely list circumstances in which the instant rulemaking is not mandatory. We find that AT&T's interpretation misconstrues the language and intent of § 63.191(c)(1)--(3). We did not revise subsection § 63.201(a).

   Both IRRC and AT&T pointed out that the proposed rules at § 63.202(a) restated the § 63.201(b) requirement that the NLSP communicate and explain the migration process and timetable to the migrating customer. Each also expressed concern with the use of ''when applicable'' in the proposed § 63.201(b). In response, we revised the original language in § 63.201(b) and eliminated the redundancy in § 63.202.

   AT&T and IRRC also voiced concerns with § 63.201(c). AT&T alleged that the section was confusing and that ''[i]t should go without saying that a [service provider] can act in accordance with Commission regulations.'' IRRC asked how an OLSP could protect itself from loss and stated that the section should include a citation to applicable regulations. Our intention in including this subsection was to make clear that an OLSP is able to use available statutes and regulations to make sure that a migrating customer cannot use migration as a tool to avoid payment for services rendered. We agree with AT&T's comment that § 63.201(c) states the obvious. As a result, we deleted § 63.201(c) from the final-form regulations, rendering IRRC's comment moot.

   AT&T commented that proposed § 63.201(d), now § 63.201(c), should extend good faith obligations to the NSP as well as to the OLSP and the NLSP. We agree and have inserted ''NSP'' into the renumbered § 63.201(c).

   FSN commented that the word ''facilities'' is too broad as it is used in proposed § 63.201(e), § 63.201(d) and that it might be better to replace it with ''loops.'' Rather than replace ''facilities'' with ''loops,'' we added ''facilities'' to the definitions section to address FSN's concerns. In addition, we realized that an appropriate forum for resolving conflicts over the reuse of facilities may be the expedited dispute process under § 63.222 and have added a reference to that process to this subsection in the final-form regulations. IRRC recommended adding a reference to the interfering stations sections, which we have done. Conversely, AT&T advocated deleting the interfering stations provisions from the regulations, which would make the reference to the interfering station provisions inappropriate. However, because interfering stations are continually being brought to the Commission's attention, we retained the interfering stations provisions and the cross-reference in the renumbered § 63.201(d).

   Based on comments from AT&T, FSN, and IRRC, we revised the language of proposed § 63.201(f), now § 63.201(e), to place the responsibility expressly on the NLSP for notifying the appropriate entities about 9-1-1 and directory listings. The final-form regulations direct the NLSP to notify the 9-1-1 host carrier3 and the directory listings/white pages provider of the changes. We also added language that the NLSP must notify these entities at the end of each working day regarding changes that came about as a result of the day's work. This provision now appears at renumbered § 63.201(e).

   Regarding proposed § 63.201(g), now § 63.201(f), we have incorporated the suggestion of AT&T to require each LSP and NSP to post a company contact list on a publicly accessible website and to supply the website address to the Commission. The Commission will post the addresses on its website so that they are available to any entity that needs them. The revised language appears in the renumbered § 63.201(f).

§ 63.202.  Migration responsibilities of NLSPs and NSPs.

   IRRC recommended that we should also list the responsibilities of an OLSP in this section. Our purpose in § 63.202 is to identify general responsibilities of the service providers involved in the migration process. Accordingly, we have revised the title and content of this section to include OLSP responsibilities when contacted by a prospective NLSP. As explained in our previous discussion regarding § 63.201(b), we eliminated the redundant iteration of the NLSP responsibility in § 63.202(a). The revised § 63.202(a) now specifies that the OLSP is responsible for responding to a prospective NLSP's request for a CSR and that the response is to be consistent with the requirements of § 63.203, which lists the required elements of a CSR. We note, however, that the listing of migration responsibilities in § 63.202 does not include all the potential confirmations, inquiries, and other communications that may be part of a migration. It would be excessive to spell out scenario-specific duties for OLSPs since at present there are at least 16 different scenarios. The steps required of the OLSP vary considerably depending on the type of migration (e.g., such as those involving bundled service arrangements, those involving unbundled service arrangements, those for full facilities-based LSPs, and so forth). A scenario-specific listing of duties is more appropriately left to industry migration guidelines, which can be revised more easily than regulations as industry practices change.

   The proposed regulations placed responsibility on the NLSP to coordinate with the OLSP to fulfill the NLSP's LSR. In comments to the proposed § 63.202(b), AT&T suggested that the NSP should have that coordination responsibility. IRRC questioned how a prospective NLSP can be responsible for coordinating a migration that depends on the cooperation of the OLSP. In light of AT&T's comments and IRRC's inquiry, we adopted AT&T's suggestion in the February 9, 2005 Order.

   In its Petition for Reconsideration, however, Verizon points out that throughout Verizon territories and in the New York Migration Guidelines (which have been mandated by the NY Public Service Commission), the NLSP manages the entire migration process from start to finish. Verizon maintains that the NLSP's customer expects the NLSP to coordinate a proper and timely transition of the customer from the OLSP to the NLSP. Verizon notes that it is the NLSP who has the most incentive to ensure that the migration goes smoothly and that the NSP should not be ''stuck in the middle'' between the OLSP and the NLSP. Verizon suggests that it is the responsibility of the NLSP to take appropriate action to make a balking OLSP fulfill its migration responsibilities, up to and including instituting legal action against the OLSP. Verizon further points out that an NSP has no more leverage over an OLSP regarding migration than a NLSP does. In support of the Verizon Petition for Reconsideration, MetTel states that it also believes that the NLSP is the entity that has a relationship with the customer and, as such, must engage in any necessary coordination between both the NSP and the OLSP.

   Upon reconsideration, we agree with Verizon and MetTel. We find that our original proposal is the correct one--the NLSP is the entity with the contractual obligations to the customer. The NLSP has more information about the migrating customer's services and can convey more information to the customer about the migration process when communicating directly with the OLSP as well as with the NSP. Further, as Verizon points out, the NLSP has a variety of options to ensure compliance from the OLSP and the NSP. Therefore, as we originally proposed, the NLSP shall be responsible for coordinating between the NSP(s) and the OLSP to make a customer's service migration as seamless as possible. In the event that the entities cannot resolve a dispute, we designed the expedited process for resolution of migration disputes between service providers, to be codified at § 63.222, so that LSPs could use this process to resolve such issues. Further, the Commission's mediation process under §§ 69.391--69.397 is available to the parties should the expedited dispute process fail. Accordingly, we shall retain § 63.202(b) as originally proposed.

   In comments to the proposed § 63.202(d), IRRC suggested changing ''working days'' to ''business days.'' We note that §§ 63.1--63.102 (Chapter 63) consistently uses the term ''working days'' rather than ''business days.'' To avoid confusion, we chose to continue using this term. We did, however, add ''working day'' to the list of terms in the definitions section and revised the proposed regulations to use the term ''working days'' throughout. We also retained the interval of 5 working days from the proposed regulations.

   In its Petition for Reconsideration of § 63.202(d), Verizon suggests that the response intervals of this subsection should apply to OLSPs as well as to NSPs since some LSRs, such as requests to port customer telephone numbers, are submitted to OLSPs. We agree with this suggestion that the response interval should apply to OLSPs as well as NSPs and have made the necessary adjustments to the language of this subsection.

   Verizon also reiterates its comments that the dramatic increase in local competition plus rising customer expectations of speedy LSP changes call for a reduction in the time frame specified in the February 9, 2005 Order for processing LSRs. Verizon proposes that rather than five days, the interval for an NSP to provide a Local Service Confirmation (LSC) be set at 48 hours, and, after one year to allow time for increased mechanization, reduced to 24 hours. MetTel suggests that the time intervals be reduced progressively in 6-month intervals beginning with four days and decreasing to 24 hours to allow LSPs a phase-in period.

   We agree with Verizon that consumer demand for prompt migrations calls for an accelerated migration process. However, we are concerned that some companies may not be able to process LSRs at times other than normal business hours. Further, we find that MetTel's suggestion to about give LSPs a phase-in period is valid although the suggested length of the phase-in is too lenient. As a result, we have taken a compromise position regarding the response time to an LSR. The final rulemaking specifies that for the first six months from the effective date of the final rulemaking, the NSP or OLSP shall issue an LSC within 3 working days. For 6 months to 1 year after the effective date, the NSP or OLSP shall issue an LSC within 2 working days from the date it receives a valid LSR from the prospective NLSP. Thereafter, the NSP or OLSP shall issue an LSC within one working day.

   Verizon further recommends that the words ''or rejection'' be deleted from this subsection since it makes reference to a ''valid LSR'' and, thus, there would be no need to reject the request. We carefully weighed this suggestion that we delete ''or rejection'' from this subsection because an NSP or OLSP would not reject a valid LSR. However, our intention in this subsection is to make certain that the NSP or OLSP acts on each LSR in a timely fashion, whether or not the LSR is valid. If the LSR is not valid, the NLSP would want to be able to quickly resolve the issues that render it invalid, if possible, in order to begin serving the new customer. To do this, the NLSP must be made aware by the NSP or the OLSP that the LSR is not valid. Rather than accept Verizon's suggestion to remove ''or rejection'' from this subsection, we chose to delete the term ''valid'' as a modifier of ''LSR.'' Thus, the NSP or the OLSP must issue either an LSC or a rejection for each LSR within the time frame specified in this subsection.

   The proposed § 63.202(e) placed responsibility for coordinating a service restoration on the NLSP. AT&T and FSN commented that the responsibility for coordinating a service restoration should be the responsibility of the NSP, not the NLSP. In light of AT&T's comments, we adopted AT&T's suggestion in the February 9, 2005 Order. However, Verizon maintains in its Petition for Reconsideration that, as with coordination of migrations, it should be the NLSP's role to coordinate any service restoration that may become necessary due to difficulties caused by the migration process. The customer has entrusted the NLSP to provide the customer's local service and, thus, expects that the NLSP will handle all migration problems, including restoration of service if that becomes necessary.

   Upon reconsideration, we agree with Verizon. The customer, in fact has no interaction with an NSP and may not even be cognizant of an NSP's existence. A customer should be able to handle any problems or questions regarding a migration of service (or restoration if the migration is problematic and the old service must be restored) with a single entity, the NLSP. Accordingly, the revised § 63.202(e) gives the NLSP the responsibility of coordinating between the customer and other entities on behalf of the customer when restoration of service is necessary.

   We added § 63.202(f) to specify that the old NSP has the responsibility of notifying the OLSP that the migration of the customer to the NLSP has been completed. In the industry, this is generally known as a ''line loss notification.'' It is the Commission's expectation that the NSP will issue the line loss notification to the OLSP within a reasonable period of time. As previously noted, we defined ''line loss notification'' in § 63.192.

§ 63.203 (now deleted).  Migration guidelines and industry work group.

   This aspect of the proposed regulations received considerable attention during the collaboratives. While there were challenges during the collaboratives, it appeared that there was substantial interest in developing a consensus document that would not take years to amend yet could be recognized as addressing, in a standard, concise, timely, and uniform fashion, the myriad questions regarding migration as processes and systems evolve. As a result, the proposed rulemaking was designed to facilitate this process. We received, however, a number of comments about the proposed migration guidelines and industry work group provisions. These comments led us to delete this section from the final-form regulations. Nevertheless, we remain firm in our commitment to encourage the formation of an industry working group that will formulate industry guidelines to identify and address the myriad and evolving intricate details associated with customer migrations within this technologically evolving industry.

§ 63.204 (now § 63.203).  Standards for the exchange of customer service records.

   IRRC and MCI commented that the title of this section should be changed to ''Standards for the exchange of customer service records'' since the term ''customer service record'' is defined in § 63.192 while ''customer service information'' is not. We agree and have changed the section title accordingly. Further, due to the elimination of § 63.203 as it appeared in the proposed rulemaking, the proposed § 63.204 is renumbered as § 63.203 in the final-form regulations.

   Comments from IRRC and others regarding § 63.204 (a) and (d), now § 63.203(a) and (d), questioned the need for a 2-year retention period for customer authorization and verification of that authorization. This length of time is necessary to allow the Commission to properly investigate customer complaints about the exchange of CSRs and migrations. The Commission's experience is that it often takes longer than a year for a customer complaint investigation to take place and the 2-year retention period will allow the LSP to have adequate records to provide to the Commission in response to a customer complaint. Further, the FCC requires a submitting carrier to maintain and preserve certain records of verification of subscriber authorization for a minimum period of 2 years. 47 CFR 64.1120(c)(3)(iv). For these reasons, we will retain the 2-year requirement.

   FSN commented that the access to customer records afforded by renumbered § 63.203(a) contains a potential for abuse that ''could endanger its customers' proprietary information and work product.'' FSN noted that a carrier must have the discretion from time to time, as circumstances may warrant, to require a copy of the LOA from the requesting NLSP before releasing the customer's CSR. FSN further noted that the provisions of this subsection discourage ''commercial end user customers from developing special telecommunications arrangements to further their business knowing that their competitor . . . could fraudulently request and receive their sensitive CSR information through a competing LSP.'' FSN suggested that the regulations should afford LSPs the opportunity to place a ''proprietary records'' protection indicator on customers' records as a protection against unscrupulous NLSPs and other customers. IRRC further asked what guarantees are in place to protect confidential customer information. We note in response that the Commission's regulations at §§ 63.131--63.137, relating to confidentiality of customer communications and information, establish minimum standards to ensure that public utilities providing regulated telecommunication services maintain the confidentiality of customer communications and customer information. Failure to do so can lead to penalties. Additionally, the Commission does not prohibit LSPs from offering a ''proprietary records'' protection service to customers as may be applicable and as requested by and agreed to by individual customers.

   In response to the proposed § 63.204(a)(5) and § 63.204(d)(4), now § 63.203(a)(5) and § 63.203(d)(4), IRRC questioned the use of the phrase ''Additional procedures as may be authorized by the FCC or the Commission.'' IRRC asked why the prospective procedures from this Commission are not included in this rulemaking and how the additional procedures will be developed and communicated to affected parties. Our intention when we included this language was to recognize that the function of verification should not be constrained by the technology of today. The reference in the final-form regulations to prospective verification techniques will accommodate new methodologies as they become accepted in the ordinary course of commerce as well as in dispute resolution. We did not include a delineation of prospective verification techniques in the final-form regulations because the new methodologies have not been identified or developed. If the parties cannot resolve a specific controversy over whether a verification process not delineated is acceptable and effective, they have recourse to this Commission's dispute resolution processes. The burden would be on the party desiring to rely on an alternative method of verification to establish that the customer had actually granted the authority in question. For clarification purposes, we did make two small changes to these sections by inserting ''verification'' before ''procedures'' in the renumbered § 63.203(a)(5) and § 63.203(d)(4).

   Regarding proposed § 63.204(a)(2), (3) and (4), now § 63.203(a)(2), (3) and (4), IRRC commented that we should explain or define the terms ''third-party verification,'' ''recording verifying permission,'' and ''appropriate retained documentation.'' In response, we added these terms and their meanings to § 63.192.

   In comments to proposed § 63.204(c), now § 63.203(c), IRRC raised three questions: why is the protection needed? when does this prohibition expire so the LSP can attempt to regain the customer? and what constitutes contact? In the February 9, 2005 Order, we revised the proposed regulations to define ''contact'' and added a 45-day limit to the prohibition.

   Verizon's Petition for Reconsideration maintains that the prohibitions in the proposed regulations were designed to reflect a pre-existing Federal prohibition.4 Verizon asserts that the Federal prohibition has no expiration date or time constraint and bars only contacts to retain or keep the customer that are made as a result of carrier change information from a potential NLSP. Verizon's request is based upon language that the FCC describes as a ''rule that a carrier executing a change for another carrier 'is prohibited from using such information to attempt to change the subscriber's decision to switch to another carrier.''' FCC CPNI at para. 131. Specifically, the FCC explained in footnote 302 that:

[C]ompetition is harmed if any carrier uses carrier-to-carrier information . . . to trigger marketing campaigns, and consequently [the FCC] prohibit[s] such actions accordingly. . . . Thus, where a carrier exploits advance notice of a customer change by virtue of its status as the underlying network-facilities or service provider to market to that customer, it does so in violation of section 222(b) [47 USC § 222(b)].

(internal citations omitted).

   Upon reconsideration, in melding IRRC's concerns with the parameters of the Federal requirements, the final regulations prohibit any type of contact with the customer specially designed ''to retain or keep the customer,'' consistent with Federal requirements, and without a time limitation. Sending new rate information generally available to all customers of the same class of service or other mass advertising contacts could, however, be permissible under this prohibition. Accordingly, we have retained this subsection as it was originally proposed.

   In its comments to proposed subsection § 63.204(d), now § 63.203(d), IRRC recommended that we clarify ''network serving arrangements.'' In response, we added this term and definition to the definitions section at § 63.192. In addition, we removed ''network serving arrangements'' from the renumbered § 63.203(d) and added it to the renumbered § 63.203(e)(11) in place of ''service configuration information'' since the two terms are interchangeable.

   Regarding the renumbered § 63.203(d), IRRC also asked how consumers and OLSPs will be protected from illegal business practices such as ''slamming.'' We find that the FCC's slamming liability regulations at 47 CFR 64.1140--64.1180 are adequate to protect customers from the practice of ''slamming.'' The FCC slamming liability rules take the profit out of slamming and offer incentives for other service providers to go after slammers. The FCC provisions also ensure that if the FCC finds that a slam occurred, the consumer will receive financial compensation from the unauthorized service provider. Regarding other possible illegal business practices, our response to FSN's similar concerns is equally applicable here. The Commission's rules at §§ 63.131--63.137 relating to Confidentiality of Customer Communications and Information provide prohibitions to any LSP that may be tempted to abuse its right to obtain customer information without being required to have and produce, as required, evidence of a customer's authorization to obtain the customer's service record.

   In its comments to § 63.204(e), now § 63.203(e), IRRC noted concerns regarding the 13 items listed in the subsection as the composite parts of a CSR. IRRC suggested that there may be no need to list the items separately if the items are typically part of a CSR. If they are not typically part of a CSR, IRRC suggested that they be located in the definition of CSR at § 63.192. IRRC further asked about the relationship between network serving arrangements and the 13 elements of a CSR. We appreciate IRRC's recommendation but chose to retain the list in subsections § 63.203(e)(1)--(13) in the final-form regulations. In our opinion, the items serve as a checklist for the current LSP to use when making sure that it sends the necessary information to a prospective NLSP. These items do not merely describe or define the CSR; rather they are what an LSP must provide to be in compliance with the regulations. It has been the Commission's experience that in cases where we must rely upon a definition to list required elements or actions, it is difficult to cite a company for failure to comply with requirements contained only in the definition section of regulations. The subsections as originally proposed serve a valuable purpose in identifying exactly what a current LSP must produce and send to a prospective NLSP when the prospective NLSP requests a CSR to migrate a customer's service. This construction will also aid the Commission in citing an OLSP's non-compliance with this aspect of the migration process. ''Network serving arrangements'' is now listed as one of the 13 CSR elements, having replaced the synonymous term ''service configuration information'' in the renumbered § 63.203(d).

   IRRC commented that the final-form regulations should define several of the elements listed in proposed § 63.204(e), now § 63.203(e). We agree and added the following terms and definitions to § 63.192: ''InterLATA,'' ''IntraLATA,'' ''LATA,'' ''Network serving arrangements,'' ''Unbundled loop,'' ''UNEs (unbundled network elements),'' and ''UNE-P (UNE Platform).''

   MCI commented that we should add ''circuit IDs'' to the list of required elements. We do not agree that circuit identification information should be required on all CSRs and, thus, did not add this to the list of required elements. Although a NLSP needs circuit identification when a loop must be migrated, it is not required for all migrations. Further, providing the circuit identification to the NLSP by the OLSP traditionally has served as notice to the NLSP that the NLSP may reuse facilities. Since the facilities are not always available for reuse, it is counterproductive for the circuit identification to be part of the CSR.

   Consistent with our earlier discussion, we also removed ''basic'' from ''local basic service'' in § 63.204(e)(6) and (7), now § 63.203(e)(6) and (7), as recommended by IRRC, and we also replaced ''service configuration information'' with ''network serving arrangements'' in subsection § 63.203 (e)(11) since we confirmed with the telephone industry that these terms have the same meaning. We defined ''network serving arrangements'' in § 63.192.

   Finally, in regard to this section, the timetable at now-renumbered § 63.203(f) drew comments from several parties. IRRC queried whether the timetable applies to both CSRs and network serving arrangements, or just to CSRs. PTA commented that its member companies do not have the resources to provide requested CSRs in less than 24 hours. PTA proposed that the timetable be revised to set the 24-hour standard to be effective within 12 months. Verizon proposed that all requested CSRs be provided within 2 business days initially and within one business day after 6 months. Verizon also recommended that the final-form regulations include a provision to cover situations when an OLSP has a legitimate reason for needing more time to produce CSRs such as migrations involving a business customer with complex or numerous CSRs. IRRC asked why the proposed regulations use hours rather than days as to when the OLSP is to provide the CSR. IRRC also pointed out that in proposed subsection § 63.204(f)(3) the word ''day'' should be modified with either ''business'' or ''calendar.''

   We made several changes to this subsection based on these comments. In the new § 63.203(f)(1) and (2) containing these provisions, we changed the time requirements to ''working days'' rather than ''hours,'' choosing ''working'' days rather than ''business'' days to be consistent with other subchapters of Chapter 63. Since network serving arrangements are part of CSRs, they are on the same timetable as CSRs. We did not make the change that Verizon requested that all CSRs be required within 2 working days initially and then within 1 working day at the end of 6 months. In addition, we did not accept Verizon's suggestion that we develop a new subsection for exceptions such as complex CSRs that might take longer than the prescribed time limit. We structured the 80% requirement as originally proposed to allow for the exceptional cases, and thus we chose to retain this percentage in subsections (f)(1) and (f)(2). Similarly, we did not revise the language that requires all OLSPs to provide CSRs by the same day if the request is made by noon of that day, or by noon the next day if requested after noon. It is important that the migration process be as expeditious as possible in order to foster competition. We recognize that the varying capabilities of the smaller companies may require some time until they are able to meet the requirements of this subsection now at § 63.203(f)(3) and that is why we gave the companies 1 year from the effective date of the final-form regulations to modify their systems so they can meet the terms of this subsection.

§ 63.205 (now § 63.204). Removal or lifting of Local Service Provider Freezes (LSPFs).

   We received a number of comments regarding this section of the proposed regulations. Both IRRC and FSN questioned the use of ''appropriate'' as modifying agent in proposed § 63.205(a)(2), now § 63.204(a)(2). To clarify our intentions, we substituted ''appropriate'' with ''authorized'' and have defined ''authorized agent'' as ''any adult designated by an applicant or a customer to act on the behalf of the applicant or customer'' in the definitions at § 63.192, consistent with the FCC definition at 47 CFR 64.1100(h).

   We note that the discussion of the removal or lifting of LSPFs in our October 3, 2003 Order created an ambiguity with respect to proposed § 63.205, now § 63.204. The Order indicated that a ''NLSP'' could act as the ''appropriate agent'' to contact the OLSP to have the LSPF lifted, and the proposed regulations indicated that a ''prospective NLSP'' could not. As specified in the Federal rules, one LSP may not authorize the removal of an LSPF on behalf of a customer when that entity is acting solely as a prospective NLSP.

   IRRC commented that the final-form regulations should clearly establish who can authorize lifting an LSPF and, if that authority can be delegated, the specific customer protections required in such a circumstance. Additionally, MCI pointed out that a customer does not physically remove an LSPF but rather authorizes its removal. MCI recommended that this be clarified in the regulations. At renumbered § 63.204(a), we specified that the applicant or the applicant's authorized agent must contact the OLSP to have an LSPF lifted. To protect customers, we expanded this section to require that the OLSP confirm appropriate verification data such as the customer's date of birth, social security number, or mother's birth name with the applicant or the applicant's authorized agent before processing the request to lift the LSPF. An authorized agent must have this information when acting on the customer's behalf. These revisions also clarify that the applicant or the authorized agent authorizes the ''lifting'' of the LSPF but does not actually ''lift'' the LSPF.

   Curry commented that the Commission should amend this section to give the current LSP the right to refuse to remove the LSPF until an account is satisfied for past due amounts. Neither we nor the FCC agree with Curry, and we did not make the amendment as requested. The LSPF is not a collection tool to protect the LSP; it is instead a tool available to the customer for protection against slamming.

   AT&T commented that this subsection requires that a customer lift an existing LSPF at the time of application in order that the prospective NLSP may process a change in LSP; however, the customer may forget that there is an LSPF on the account. According to AT&T, the customer should be able to take steps at a later time to lift an LSPF. We agree and have removed the phrase ''at the time of application'' from new § 63.204(a). The applicant may authorize the removal of an existing LSPF at any time. The prospective NLSP may not learn of the existence of an LSPF until it receives a CSR from the applicant's current LSP. At that time, the prospective NLSP should contact the applicant and remind the applicant that the LSPF must be lifted before the migration can take place.

   AT&T also argued against imposing a duty on each NLSP to inform prospective customers of the three requirements, as prescribed by proposed § 63.205(a)(1)--(3), now § 63.204(a)(1)--(3). We do not agree with AT&T. This is important information for customers to have when they are contemplating a change in LSPs. We did not make the suggested revision.

   In its comments to § 63.205(c), now § 63.204(c), AT&T argued that it should not be necessary for an LSP to provide methods of lifting an LSPF if the LSP does not offer an LSPF. We agree with AT&T and revised subsection (c) to include language that limits the requirements of this section to LSPs that offer LSPFs to their customers.

   IRRC advised that the final-form regulations should include a list of the methods of lifting freezes or provide a reference to where those methods can be found. We agree. LSPs must follow the requirements of the FCC as set forth in 47 CFR Subpart K. The final-form regulations include a citation to the FCC regulations. We also deleted ''the Commission'' from this subsection since the Commission has established no required methods that LSPs must offer customers for lifting freezes and we do not currently anticipate doing so.

   AT&T commented that this Commission does not have jurisdiction over intra- and interLATA freezes, notwithstanding the reference to lifting them in § 63.205, now § 63.204)(b). Our reference to lifting intra- and interLATA freezes is not an attempt to exert jurisdiction on them but rather to recognize that the various telecommunications service providers often bundle jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional services. The reference allows service providers and customers an opportunity, if they so chose, to lift all freezes at the same time.

§ 63.206 (now § 63.205). Porting telephone numbers.

   PTA commented that a customer should not be permitted to port his or her telephone number to another LSP if the current LSP has suspended the account for nonpayment or if there is an outstanding balance owed to the current LSP. This comment is very similar in intent to the Curry comment regarding LSPFs. For the same reasons we declined to adopt the Curry suggestion, we cannot accept PTA's recommendation. Control of porting is not a collection tool for the LSPs. Further, such a proposal conflicts with Federal porting requirements.

   AT&T recommended that because the old NSP receives and processes LSRs, the regulations should be amended to include the NSP. We agree and added language to the final-form regulations to also prohibit NSPs from refusing to port a number to a NLSP unless the account has been terminated or discontinued under §§ 64.1--64.213 (Chapter 64). We also deleted the word ''lawful'' from this section as AT&T recommended.

§ 63.207 (now § 63.206). Discontinuance of billing.

   AT&T, Curry, FSN, MCI, and IRRC all commented that using the receipt of a request to migrate as the trigger for a final bill, as originally proposed, was inappropriate. Based on comments from several parties, we revised the proposed § 63.207(b), now § 63.206(b), to make the receipt of a line loss notification from the NSP the trigger that generates a final bill from the OLSP. We added language to renumbered § 63.206(c) and § 63.206(d) to cover cases in which only partial migrations occur. Finally, we added language to renumbered § 63.206(d) as recommended by AT&T, to reflect the applicability of tariff or contract terms that may affect the customer's billing cycle.

§ 63.208 (now § 63.207).  Carrier-to-carrier guidelines and performance assurance plans.

   AT&T commented that we should add language to this proposed section to specifically include ILECs. We note that the use of ''LSP'' indicates that the section includes all LECs, i.e., both incumbents (ILECs) and competitive entrants (CLECs). Thus, to make this addition would be redundant and perhaps confusing. Therefore, we did not adopt this recommended change. We added the language ''than otherwise specified under this subchapter'' to provide a reference for the comparison.


General Comments

   AT&T commented that it finds the entire interfering stations section to be fundamentally infirm and argued that it should be deleted in its entirety. According to AT&T, the circumstances under which the problem exists are not broad enough to warrant a regulation. In response to AT&T's comments, we note that the Commission receives a large number of consumer complaints that involve interfering station conditions that keep consumers from getting telephone service.

   MCI also requested that the Commission eliminate this process from the final-form regulations because the process is not one that has been tested. MCI suggested that the Commission permit parties to use procedures that they have already developed or work together to develop new procedures. MCI also proposed that, in lieu of eliminating the procedures, the Commission give companies the option of using either the procedures outlined in regulations or procedures that the company has used successfully such as those MCI and Verizon currently use. Under the Verizon/MCI Procedure, the NLSP must call the applicant to obtain the landlord's name and telephone number if the service address is a rental property. Then the NLSP is to call the landlord to verify that the previous occupant has moved out and the new customer has taken over. If it is not a rental property, the NLSP must call the city or town assessor to verify the transfer of property ownership. Until the landlord or assessor makes the confirmation, the request for service cannot be processed. While this procedure may work for Verizon and MCI, industry participants and other interested parties discussed the procedure during the collaborative sessions but could come to no agreement about its use. In addition, representatives of consumer groups objected to aspects of the Verizon/MCI Procedure based on privacy concerns. We also envision delays in resolving the interfering station condition using the Verizon/MCI Procedure because it involves more parties (landlords and assessors). Further, certain steps in the Verizon/MCI Procedure may be beyond our jurisdiction to order. Thus, we declined to incorporate the Verizon/MCI Procedure into these regulations.

   Verizon suggested that the interfering station procedures should be eliminated from the final-form rules and placed in the migration guidelines contemplated by the provisions originally proposed at § 63.203, which has since been eliminated. We find that the problems involving interfering stations are extensive enough to merit enforceable regulations rather than voluntary guidelines. The migration guidelines were conceived to be a fluid document to address items or processes that are likely to involve evolving technology over time. We do not see that an interfering station process requires such fluidity. As a result, we have retained these sections with some modifications in the final-form regulations.

§ 63.211.  Duties of OLSPs and NSPs when an interfering station condition is identified.

   AT&T commented that assigning responsibility to both the OLSP and the NSP for informing the prospective NLSP about the interfering condition may allow a situation in which neither party informs the prospective NLSP. IRRC agreed with AT&T's position and advised that we should establish parameters that would clearly indicate which party must perform the required duty. Based on these comments we made several revisions to this section and to the subsections that follow. We delegated the responsibility to the NSP of informing the prospective NLSP of the interfering station condition by the end of the next working day after the NSP identifies that the condition exists. We eliminated reference to the OLSP in § 63.211(a).

   Regarding § 63.211(b), AT&T commented that the OLSP has no right to review the NLSP's LSR, which is submitted to the NSP. Regarding § 63.211(b)(1), AT&T commented that the OLSP is not able to cancel the NLSP's LSR to the NSP because the OLSP is not a party to the transaction. Verizon suggested a revision to the language of (b)(1), replacing ''is cancelled'' with ''cannot be fulfilled.'' We revised the language of § 63.211(b) and (b)(1) as AT&T and Verizon proposed; accordingly, now the NSP has the responsibility of reviewing the LSR information with the prospective NLSP. As suggested by Verizon, we replaced ''cancelled'' with ''cannot be fulfilled.''

   PTA commented that in § 63.211(b)(2) the issuing NLSP should have the responsibility for correcting the information where an error is found in the LSR. AT&T commented that the OLSP cannot and should not have any role in correcting the NLSP's LSR. IRRC asked what the need is for the OLSP to review the LSR. Based on these comments and question, we revised this subsection to give the responsibility of correcting the LSR to the prospective NLSP who shall ''correct the information and resubmit the LSR to the NSP.''

§ 63.212.  Duties of the prospective NLSP and the applicant when an interfering station condition is identified.

   IRRC and PTA commented that § 63.212(c) and (d) should be combined into one provision and § 63.212(e) and (f) should be merged into one provision. We agree with these comments and merged the sections as proposed. We also revised the construction of § 63.212(f), now § 63.212(d)(1)--(3). PTA commented that former § 63.212(f)(2) should be clarified to reinforce the intention that there be no disclosure of confidential proprietary customer information. We note that Commission regulations in §§ 63.131--63.137 ensure that regulated telecommunications services maintain the confidentiality of customer information. However, it has been our experience that the interfering station condition is sometimes caused by a departing roommate, spouse, or other individual with whom the applicant has had a shared-domicile connection. In these instances, we find that it is appropriate for the applicant to attempt to resolve the problem with the customer of record. Based on PTA's comment and for clarification, we added ''if known to the applicant'' to the provision in former subsection (f)(2). In addition, we clarified the pronoun ''it'' in § 63.212(a) by replacing ''it'' with ''NLSP.'' Further, in § 63.212(d)(3)(ii), we deleted ''lawful'' as a modifier of ''tariff rates.''

§ 63.213.  Duties of the OLSP if notified by the prospective NLSP that an interfering station exists at a location where existing service is provided by the OLSP and the applicant has shown proof of ownership or right of occupancy.

   PTA commented that the title of this section should be modified to include the requirement that in addition to proof of ownership, the applicant has also shown proof of identity. We agree and added ''identity'' to the title. In § 63.213(a) we added ''the'' before ''notification.'' Verizon had suggested the addition of ''such,'' but ''such'' is not consistent with proper regulatory language. For consistency with other Chapter 63 provisions, we also changed ''business days'' to ''working days.''

   IRRC queried whether 7 days was a sufficient amount of time for a customer of record to respond to a termination notice. This interval is consistent with § 64.71, relating to general notice provisions.

   IRRC and Verizon each commented on § 63.213(b). IRRC asked us to explain the reason for removing the customer of record from billing. Our response is that generally the OLSP may no longer bill a customer for services that are not being rendered. The applicant intends to become the customer of record, and sometimes an interfering station condition involves the same LSP. However, for clarification purposes, we modified this subsection to require the OLSP to ''terminate the customer's service and take appropriate action to release the customer's facilities to the prospective NLSP.'' Verizon suggested some minor language changes to this subsection so that the provision would read: ''If it is not contacted by the customer of record by the termination date, the OLSP . . . .'' Verizon also recommended changing § 63.213(c) so as to read: ''If the customer of record contacts the OLSP by the termination date . . . .'' We accepted these recommendations and made the changes.

§ 63.214.  Duties of the prospective NLSP when the OLSP is unable to resolve the interfering station condition at the applicant's service location.

   In its comments to § 63.214(b)(1), MCI proposed that the regulations should expressly provide that the Commission will reject complaints that entail private disputes between customers and applicants and thus prevent companies from incurring additional and unnecessary costs and expenses associated with responding to these complaints.

   The Commission understands MCI's concerns about the costs of handling consumer complaints; however, it is the Commission's policy to address every complaint separately on its merit. For this reason, we did not change this subsection based on MCI's concerns. The process for handling interfering stations complaints as established in the final-form regulations will significantly reduce the number of consumer complaints to the Commission about the issue of interfering stations. We did make some changes to the construction of § 63.214(b)(2) and former § 63.214(b)(3), now § 63.214(b)(2)(ii), in the final-form regulations to clarify the intent of these subsections. We also deleted ''lawful'' as modifier of ''tariff rates'' in § 63.214(b)(3).

[Continued on next Web Page]


1  Verizon served the active parties at this docket and provided a copy of the petition to IRRC.

2  Nevertheless, we remain committed to fostering industry guidelines to respond to the needs of this technologically evolving industry. See our discussion of the former § 63.203.

3  The 9-1-1 host carrier is the incumbent LSP that provides service to the public service answering point (PSAP) for the end-user's geographic location.

4  In footnote 7 of Verizon's Petition for Reconsideration, the citation to paragraph 31 actually refers to paragraph 131 of the FCC's Customer Proprietary Network Information Third Report and Order, FCC Dkt No. 02-214, 17 FCC Rcd 14860, 2002 FCC Lexis 3663 (July 25, 2002) (FCC CPNI Order).

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.