Texas Register
(25 TexReg 2889). The amendments
and new rule are necessary to implement provisions of the Public Utility Regulatory
Act (PURA) §§17.051-17.053 and §§64.051-64.053 (Vernon
1998, Supplement 2000), which direct the commission to require registration
as a condition of doing business in the state of Texas, as well as to establish
customer service and protection rules, suspend or revoke certificates or registrations
for repeated violations of this chapter or commission rules, and require telecommunications
service providers to submit reports concerning any matter over which the commission
has authority. This new section and amendments were adopted under Project
Number 21456.
A public hearing on the amendments and proposed section was held at commission
offices on 9:00 a.m. on May 31, 2000. Representatives from AT&T Communications
of Texas, L.P. (AT&T), Southwestern Bell Telephone (SWBT), AT&T Wireless
Services, Inc. (AT&T Wireless), Texas Coalition for Cities for Utility
Issues (TCCFUI), and Allegiance Telecom of Texas, Inc.; CCCTX, Inc. d/b/a
Connect!; JATO Operating Corp.; KMC Telecom Holdings, Inc.; NEXTLINK Texas,
Inc.; Reliant Energy Communications, Inc.; Time Warner Telecom, L.P.; and
Z-Tel Communications (collectively the CLEC Coalition) attended the hearing
and provided comments. To the extent that these comments differ from the submitted
written comments, such comments are summarized herein.
The commission received comments on the proposed new section and proposed
amendments from AT&T, TCCFUI, the CLEC Coalition, GTE Southwest Incorporated
and GTE Communications Corporation (collectively GTE), and the Telecommunications
Resellers Association and Southwest Competitive Telecommunications Association
(collectively the Associations).
Generally, comments applied to the corresponding sections of §26.109,
Standards for Granting of Certificates of Operating Authority (COAs) and §26.111,
Standards for Granting of Service Provider Certificates of Operating Authority
(SPCOAs). Both sections are identified in the subheading. Comments applying
to both rules are addressed first, followed by the comments specific to a
single rule. Additionally, COAs and SPCOAs are collectively identified as
competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs).
§26.109, Standards for Granting Certificates
of Operating Authority (COAs) and §26.111, Standards for Granting Service
Provider Certificates of Operating Authority (SPCOAs).
General comments on the rules:
The CLEC Coalition stated that imposing excessive Texas-specific regulatory
burdens on CLECs would discourage providers from entering the Texas market.
According to the CLEC Coalition, the costs of complying with excessive regulation
will increase costs for providers that are already certificated in Texas.
The Associations also commented that costs associated with complex regulations
might preclude market entry for smaller providers.
The commission has responded to a number of specific issues as discussed
below, but believes the costs associated with these amendments will not prevent
providers from entering the Texas market.
§26.109(a) and §26.111(a):
AT&T objected to the elimination of the term "basic local exchange
telephone service," because it believed this exclusion would prevent CLECs
from providing many of the same services now provided by the certificate of
convenience and necessity (CCN) holder. AT&T recommended the rule follow
PURA §54.001 and remove only the word "basic" from the term "basic local
exchange telephone service."
The commission agrees with AT&T and only removes the word "basic" from
the term "basic local exchange telephone service" in order to reflect the
statutory language.
§26.109(c) and §26.111 (c):
AT&T recommended clauses §26.109(c)(1)(C)(ii) and §26.111(c)(1)(D)(ii)
be amended to conform to the certification application which requests complaint
and/or compliance histories for the past 24 months.
GTE commented these clauses were objectionably vague and requested the
term "compliance" be defined and "other relevant regulatory agencies" be clarified
to give providers notice of what is required to comply.
The Associations commented the requirements for complaint and/or compliance
histories is unclear about the data requested and the detail necessary. The
Associations were concerned applicants might devote more time and resources
than necessary or may provide insufficient information, resulting in processing
delays.
The Associations commented the proposed requirements are of questionable
relevance and could impose unnecessary burdens on new applicants and multi-state
providers. While the Associations did not generally object to being required
to provide a list of all states where a company is registered, they contended
that the commission should contact the appropriate state commissions to obtain
the same information. Yet, the Associations still argued that a telecommunications
service provider's complaint or compliance history in another state would
have little bearing on its performance in Texas. The Associations commented
that a more fair and accurate measure of a CLEC's ability to provide quality
telecommunications services is to evaluate the documentation demonstrating
technical, financial, and managerial ability.
Finally, the Associations recommended clauses §26.109(c)(1)(C)(ii)
and §26.111(c)(1)(D)(ii) be eliminated or simplified. The Associations
suggested the commission adopt a simple affirmation statement that the applicant
and its operations are in full compliance with all applicable regulations
and statutes. The Associations contended the documented affirmative statement
would compel the applicant to remain in compliance with all applicable regulation
and law.
The commission has utilized this form for several years, but amends the
published clauses to conform to the certification application and to clarify
that complaint and/or compliance histories are only requested for the previous
24 months.
The commission declines to amend the rules by defining "compliance." However,
as a point of clarification, the issue of other relevant agencies is clarified
in the proposed amended application. New Question 14 requests compliance information
from the Texas Comptroller's Office, Secretary of State, and the Texas Universal
Service Fund Administrator, which are among the "other relevant regulatory
agencies" discussed in clauses §26.109(c)(1)(C)(ii) and §26.111(c)(1)(D)(ii).
In response to the Associations' comments about data and detail, the commission
finds no reason to modify published clauses §26.109(c)(1)(C)(ii) and §26.111(c)(1)(D)(ii)
further, as the language is clear about the relevant information that must
be provided with the complaint and/or compliance histories. However, the amount
of time utilized to complete the certification applications is left solely
to the discretion of the applicant.
The commission declines to amend the clauses to incorporate the suggestion
of the Associations to replace the complaint and/or compliance histories with
an affirmation statement. The commission concludes it is necessary to maintain
current application procedures, which include a review of complaint and/or
compliance histories in other jurisdictions, as this information may be indicative
of a provider's performance in Texas. The complaint history in conjunction
with technical, financial, and managerial ability is all relevant in helping
the commission determine which providers are capable of providing customers
with the best service.
AT&T noted that some regulatory or enforcement agencies do not provide
notice of an investigation unless action will result from the investigation,
and stated the published rules imposed an obligation to provide a statement
about investigation for which a certificate holder may not have received notice.
AT&T also contended the request of §26.109(c)(1)(C)(v) and §26.111(c)(2)(D)(v)
regarding investigations and enforcement actions is covered by §26.109(c)(1)(C)(ii)
and §26.111(c)(2)(D)(ii).
The commission agrees with AT&T's contention that some regulatory bodies
do not provide notice of investigations. Consequently, §26.109(c)(1)(C)(v)
and §26.111(c)(2)(D)(v) are amended to request information on investigations
for which a company has received notice. However, the commission does not
believe the information requested in §26.109(c)(1)(C)(v) and §26.111(c)(2)(D)(v)
is covered by §26.109(c)(1)(C)(ii) and §26.111(c)(2)(D)(ii). §26.109(c)(1)(C)(ii)
and §26.111(c)(2)(D)(ii) request information about complaints, while
clauses §26.109(c)(1)(C)(v) and §26.111(c)(2)(D)(v) request information
regarding investigations and enforcement actions. Complaints do not necessarily
result in formal investigations or enforcement actions; therefore, complaint
and/or compliance histories may not reveal information about pending enforcement
actions.
§26.109(f) and §26.111 (f):
GTE objected to §26.109(f) and §26.111(f) and argued that the
commission does not have authority to automatically revoke a certificate for
non-use. GTE cited PURA §54.104 in arguing that a certificate holder
must only be prepared and able to provide service and is not actually required
by the statute to serve customers. GTE also noted the statute was silent on
re- qualification, thereby making the published rules' §26.109(f)(2)
and §26.111(f)(2) requirements a dubious assertion of commission authority.
Finally, GTE commented that re- qualification, if acceptable at all, should
not be required unless the carrier demonstrated a questionable ability to
comply with the statute, and that withdrawing a provider's opportunity to
re-qualify on an arbitrary basis would not be consistent with the statute.
The Associations argued that CLECs should not be required to utilize certificates
within a specific time period and that the published rules were inappropriate
because the burden of filing an affidavit of non-use within a certain period
greatly outweighs the public benefits of such a requirement. The Associations
noted that consumers are not harmed if service is not offered immediately.
The Associations also noted many reasons for a valid delay, including lack
of established systems, lengthy arbitration proceedings, and unforeseen changes
in business plans. The Associations stressed that delayed use of a certification
should not be viewed as foot- dragging or otherwise intentional.
In addition, the Associations argued that providers with unused certificates
should not be required to re-qualify for certification. The Associations considered
it unfair to file an annual report and sworn affidavit in the first year,
and an annual report and an application for re- qualification in the second
year. The Associations suggested the filing of an annual letter of intent
in lieu of an annual report. According to the Associations, the commission
could then review CLECs on a case-by-case basis if concerns about a CLEC's
qualifications arose. The Associations also suggested that if the commission
determined that competitors with unused certificates must re-qualify, the
time frame should be extended to five years and the same qualification standards
that were in place at the time the certification was initially approved should
be used. The Associations were also uncertain about the re-qualification process
and requested the commission clarify what information should be re-filed,
or whether a letter certifying compliance with commission rules would suffice.
The commission disagrees with GTE's assessment that a certificate cannot
be terminated due to non-use. PURA §54.008 states that "the Commission
may revoke or amend a certificate of convenience and necessity, a certificate
of operating authority or a service provider certificate of operating authority
after notice and hearing if the commission finds that the certificate holder
has never provided or is no longer providing service in all or any part of
the certificated area." The commission recognizes that business plans change
over time due to factors outside the control of the company. In this regard,
the proposed §26.109(f)(2) and §26.111(f)(2) permit non-use for
up to 48 months, a sufficient basis for determining non-use of a certificate.
However, the commission asserts that the conditions for technical and financial
qualification can deteriorate over time. For example, technical experts may
leave the company and financial resources may disappear. These conditions
would require providers to re-qualify after 48 months in order to ensure adequate
expertise and resources to serve customers.
To clarify the process, the commission amends §26.109(f)(1) and §26.111(f)(1)
by deleting subparagraphs (A) and rewriting paragraphs §26.109(f)(1)
and §26.111(f)(1) to require certificate holders to affirm yearly during
non-use of a certificate that they continue to be technically and financially
qualified.
The commission also concludes that re-qualification should be complete
and equivalent to the process for certification. A letter requesting reinstatement
and certifying compliance is inadequate as regulations may be subject to change
in every legislative session. To clarify its intent and the information that
should be filed the commission also rewrites subparagraphs §26.109(f)(2)(A)
and §26.111(f)(2)(A).
The commission further asserts that the initial technical and financial
qualification of a certificate holder under §26.109(c) and §26.111(c)
presumes the timely start-up of a certificate holder after certification is
granted. For example, cash flow and accounts receivable forecasts for 24 months
after start-up are required to qualify all COAs and SPCOAs, and capital spending
forecasts for 36 months after start-up are required to qualify COAs and facilities-based
SPCOAs. While business plans may change after certification, the commission
believes certificate holders must, nevertheless, continue to be technically
and financially qualified to provide service. Furthermore, the commission
concludes that a re-qualification for non-use after 48 months is acceptable
public policy.
§26.109(g) and §26.111 (g):
TCCFUI commented that as a result of Project Number 20935,
Implementation of HB 1777
, all certificated telecommunications providers
(CTPs) are also required to abide by the reporting requirements of §26.465
of this title (relating to Methodology for Counting Access Lines and Reporting
Requirements for Certificated Telecommunications Providers) and §26.467
of this title (relating to Rates, Allocation, Compensation, Adjustments and
Reporting).
AT&T proposed that the information requested in subsections (g) be
required of all certificated providers to insure that CCN holders file the
same information in the same format. AT&T cited PURA §17.051 and §64.051
as the commission's authority to require reports from all certificated providers
and PURA §52.154 to emphasize that the commission may not "impose on
a telecommunications utility a greater regulatory burden than is imposed on
a holder of a certificate of convenience and necessity serving the same area."
In reply comments GTE opposed AT&T's proposal. GTE stated that CCN
holders are already held to a higher level of regulation than CLECs and are
required to file reports that provide the commission with sufficient information
so that no other reports are necessary.
The commission responds to the comments of TCCFUI by adding subsection
(g)(5) to remind CLECs of their duty to report information in compliance with §26.465
and §26.467. These paragraphs conform §26.109 and §26.111 to §26.114.
In response to the comments of AT&T and GTE, the commission determines
that the scope of this project applies only to CLECs. Therefore, the requirements
of §26.109(g) and §26.111(g) cannot be placed on CCNs within the
scope of this project. The commission further finds the requirements of §26.109(g), §26.111(g)
and the annual information report are not more burdensome than the reporting
requirements for CCNs and are not in conflict with PURA §52.154.
§26.109(h) and §26.111(h):
TCCFUI recommended that §26.109(h) and §26.111(h) state how enforcement
action against the holder of a COA or SPCOA can be initiated and that a notification
provision be added so that a municipality will be informed of any compliance
or enforcement action taken against a certificate holder serving customers
within that municipality.
In reply comments, GTE and AT&T opposed TCCFUI's proposal. GTE noted
it was unnecessary since the commission has a complaint process that any party
can use. Additionally, §26.461 - §26.467 were adopted to implement
the provisions of HB1777 and provide municipalities an avenue to initiate
a complaint against a certificated telecommunications provider. GTE also noted
that TCCFUI's request for notice of any compliance or enforcement action is
unnecessary since notice is provided in the
Texas
Register
and/or on the commission's website.
AT&T responded to TCCFUI's suggestion by noting that neither HB1777
nor the Local Government Code authorizes the commission to suspend or revoke
certification of a telecommunications utility because of failure to pay compensation
or provide reports. AT&T commented that the commission has regulatory
authority over the business and property of telecommunications utilities while
municipalities have separate authority to enforce the requirement of franchise
fee payment. AT&T concluded by stating the commission should ignore the
request of TCCFUI.
The commission concludes that amendments requested by TCCFUI are unnecessary.
Current procedural rules allow any affected party to file a complaint with
the commission. Additionally, enforcement actions taken against any entity
are public record and information regarding the enforcement action can be
accessed by any interested party.
GTE commented that §26.109(h)(3) and §26.111(h)(3) seemed more
appropriate for consumer fraud or antitrust enforcement rather than certification
and reporting requirements. GTE suggested that if the commission intended
for fraudulent statements on applications or reports to be pursued by the
office of the attorney general, the language should be amended to reflect
this.
The commission does not intend to indicate that fraudulent statements on
an application or report will be pursued solely by the office of the attorney
general. The commission finds it appropriate to disclose to applicants that
enforcement efforts against fraudulent, unfair, misleading, deceptive, and
anti-competitive business practices will be coordinated with the office of
the attorney general in accordance with PURA §17.004(d) and §64.004(d).
§26.109, Standards for Granting Certificates
of Operating Authority (COAs)
§26.109(b):
GTE stated §26.109(b)(2) is not applicable to all applicants, but
only to those with an affiliate which is a holder of a CCN. The language,
they stated, should be modified to read, "if applicable, if the applicant
and its affiliated holder of a CCN---are not in compliance with PURA §54.102(c)."
The commission finds GTE's proposed language regarding applicability is
unnecessary because applicants without an affiliation to a CCN holder would
not meet the automatic disqualification conditions of subsection (b). While
the commission does not adopt the language proposed by GTE, minor grammatical
changes are made to subsection (b)(2) for clarity.
§26.111, Standards for Granting Service Provider
Certificates of Operating Authority (SPCOAs).
§26.111(b):
GTE stated the language of §26.111(b)(2) exceeded the scope of PURA §54.102,
which does not appear to disqualify a holder of an SPCOA if it is affiliated
with a holder of a CCN. GTE recommended the subparagraph be stricken.
The commission finds it would be premature to place in this rule an issue
that has yet to be resolved by Project Number 21164,
Rulemaking to Address Affiliate Issues for Telecommunications Services Providers,
PURA §§54.102, 60.164 and 60.165.
As the commission has no
desire to restrict the discussion or outcome of that project, the paragraph
is removed.
§26.111(c):
GTE commented that PURA §54.102 does not support the requirement of
published §26.111(c)(4) for SPCOA applicants.
As previously noted, the commission removes this paragraph because these
issues have yet to be resolved in Project Number 21164.
§26.114, Suspension or Revocation of Certificates
of Operating Authority (COAs) and Service Provider Certificates of Operating
Authority (SPCOAs).
General Comments:
AT&T commented that the proposed amendments go beyond the statutory
requirements and impose significant new requirements, obligations, and risks
on emerging competitive entities.
The commission determines that PURA §17.052(4) and §64.052(4)
support all the amended paragraphs of subsection (c). There are few additional
obligations imposed because existing commission rules are generally cited.
The rule simply gives CLECs notice that the commission has authority to suspend
or revoke certification and provides examples of the actions that may initiate
an investigation that may result in suspension or revocation.
§26.114(c):
GTE questioned the commission's authority to revoke or suspend a certificate
holder for non- use. The Associations proposed striking subparagraph (c)(1)(A),
but in the alternative, proposed the timing requirement be increased to five
years. However, AT&T commented that the commission's authority to suspend
or revoke certificates is permitted by PURA §§17.052, 64.052, and §54.008
and allows for subparagraphs (A) and (F) of paragraph (c)(1). In reply comments,
GTE noted that AT&T's assessment of the commission's authority to revoke
or suspend certificates due to non-use also requires notice and hearing and
requested §26.114 be amended accordingly.
As its authority to revoke CLEC certificates for non-use, the commission
cites PURA §54.008 which states, "The commission may revoke or amend
a certificate of convenience and necessity, a certificate of operating authority,
and a service provider certificate of operating authority after notice and
hearing if the certificate holder has never provided or is no longer providing
service in all or any part of the certificated area." The commission declines
to amend §26.114(c)(1)(A) to allow for five years of non-use as requested
by the Associations; however a correction is made to §26.114(c)(1)(A)
to correlate with §26.109(f)(2) and §26.111(f)(2) by setting 48
months as the maximum time for non-use. Such a period should adequately reflect
delays based on changing business conditions without permitting indefinite
non-use of the certificate.
While the commission declines to make GTE's requested amendment to §26.114(c)(1)(A),
it amends §26.114(a), as the commission concludes that standards for
due process should apply to any investigation that may result in suspension
or revocation.
AT&T commented that instead of violations, §26.114(c)(1)(B) would
allow the consideration of complaints, including the complaints of other agencies,
and did not adhere to the statutory language of "repeated violations" in PURA §17.052(4).
GTE suggested that §26.114(c)(1)(B) include the types and numbers of
complaints.
To clarify the issue of complaints versus violations, the commission amends §26.114(c)(1)(B)
to reflect that only verified complaints are to be considered. A verified
complaint is a violation of a commission rule as determined by commission
staff and multiple verified complaints meet the statutory standard of "repeated
violations." The commission declines to include in the rule the types of verified
complaints that would lead to investigations, since a violation of any commission
rule can initiate an investigation. The number of complaints to launch an
investigation is also excluded from the rule to allow for reasonable discretion
of commission staff.
The commission concludes the reference to the office of the attorney general
must remain since enforcement efforts against fraudulent, unfair, misleading,
deceptive, and anti-competitive business practices must be coordinated with
the office of the attorney general in accordance with PURA §17.004(d)
and §64.004(d).
According to AT&T, published §26.114(c)(1)(C), (D), (J) and (L)
would allow a single violation, rather than the "repeated violations" established
by PURA §17.052(4) and §64.052, and added that published §26.114(c)(1)(J)
and (L) are superfluous since they are addressed by published §26.114(c)(1)(F).
GTE also commented that published §26.114(c)(1)(J) did not address repeated
failures.
In reply comments, TCCFUI stated that AT&T's objection to published §26.114(c)(1)(L)
was without merit since failure to meet the reporting requirements of §26.465
and §26.467 would constitute a violation of commission rules. TCCFUI
also noted that it would be highly unlikely that the commission would suspend
or revoke certification unless the violations were repeated.
The commission amends published §26.114(c)(1)(C) to clarify the applicability
of this subparagraph to only the certification process. Providing false information
to obtain certification renders the application null and void since the applicant
must submit an affidavit attesting that the application is truthful. The certification
process occurs only once, so a repeated violation could not happen.
The commission finds published §26.114(c)(1)(D) can be deleted because
such violations are addressed by new §26.114(c)(1)(E).
The commission also agrees with the parties' comments and amends published §26.114(c)(1)(J)
and §26.114(c)(1)(L) as new §26.114(c)(1)(G) and §26.114(c)(1)(H)
to indicate investigations for suspension or revocation may be initiated due
to repeated failures to meet commission reporting requirements. The commission
concludes that the importance of reporting requirements and the requirements
of §26.465 and §26.467 merit the existence of these sections in
order to distinguish them from the general provision regarding violations
of commission rules.
AT&T objected to published §26.114(c)(1)(E) and the published
rule's involvement in the ongoing financial stability of certificate holders
because such intrusion is beyond the commission's authority under PURA §17.052
and §64.052. According to AT&T, not even highly regulated public
utilities are required to maintain solvency.
GTE noted that the revocation of certification based on a bankruptcy filing
could run afoul of federal bankruptcy laws. GTE was also concerned about insolvency
and the chronic inability to meet financial obligations, and proposed recasting
the clause as follows: "Imminent termination of a carrier's ability to provide
service as a result of actions of a bankruptcy court or court- appointed receiver,
or insolvency as measured by chronic inability to meet financial obligations
on a timely basis."
The Associations argued that the phrase "failure to meet financial obligations"
was ambiguous. While recognizing that the provision was directed against "deadbeat"
providers that regularly fail to pay their bills, the Associations argued
that this provision could inadvertently penalize a company involved in a legitimate
dispute with a vendor, including the possible suspension or revocation of
its certification. GTE also argued that this provision could put providers
at risk if they were late on a single payment.
The commission disagrees with AT&T's comment that financial issues
are beyond the scope of the commission's authority. In particular, PURA §17.001(a)
and §64.001(a) states that "the legislature finds...it essential that
customers have safeguards...against businesses that do not have the technical
and financial resources to provide adequate service (to customers)." As for
public utilities, the commission engages in extensive earnings report monitoring.
In addition, the commission declines to make GTE's proposed amendments
to published §26.114(c)(1)(E) because the factors under §26.114(c)(1)
will not automatically result in suspension or revocation, nor does the language
imply such automatic action. Rather, published §26.114(c)(1)(E) is one
factor to alert the commission of developing problems with a CLEC as permitted
by PURA §17.052(4) and §64.052(4) which allow the commission to
adopt and enforce rules to "suspend or revoke certificates for violations
of this chapter (17 or 64) or commission rules." The commission will exercise
discretion in suspending or revoking certifications, whatever the factor(s),
and will proceed on a case-by-case basis.
Further, the commission recognizes the possibility of a reasonable payment
dispute and amends published §26.114(c)(1)(E) (new §26.114(c)(1)(D))
by adding the qualifier "except if reasonably disputed" after the phrase "financial
obligations on a timely basis." The commission believes this rewording adequately
addresses the concerns of the Associations and GTE.
AT&T commented that published §26.114 (c)(1)(G) attempts to impermissibly
expand the commission's authority beyond PURA Chapters 17 and 64 by considering
other state and federal laws.
GTE also noted that published §26.114(c)(1)(G) exceeds the commission's
authority and was so broad it carried the potential of revocation for minor,
inadvertent violations of laws totally unrelated to telecommunications. GTE
suggested the published §26.114(c)(1)(G) should be recast to provide
detailed notice of violations that would subject carrier to investigations.
The commission amends published §26.114(c)(1)(G) (new §26.114(c)(1)(F))
and deletes the reference to federal law, and clarifies that only violations
of state laws affecting the ability of a CLEC to provide telecommunications
services will be considered in initiating an investigation for suspension
or revocation.
AT&T objected to published §26.114(c)(1)(H) which allows the commission
to base its investigations upon actions in other jurisdictions, even if no
violations occurred in Texas. GTE noted that revocation for non-use in another
state should not be a basis for revocation in Texas and suggested reworking §26.114(c)(1)(H)
to indicate that only revocation in another jurisdiction based on fault and
not non-use should be considered.
AT&T also argued that published §26.114(c)(1)(I) would allow the
commission to consider matters well beyond its jurisdiction and is more stringent
in its treatment of felons than statutes where the legislature has expressly
authorized the consideration of criminal records as a factor in consideration
of other types of applications.
Finally, AT&T and GTE proposed omitting published §26.114(c)(1)(K),
as it is too broad to provide any notice to certificate holders about what
is being required or prohibited. AT&T stated it was not arguing these
issues were not legitimate concerns; only that the commission has enforcement
tools other than suspension or revocation.
Due to the compelling arguments of the parties as summarized above, the
commission deletes published §§26.114(c)(1)(H), 26.114(c)(1)(I),
and 26.114(c)(1)(K).
All comments, including any not specifically referenced herein, were fully
considered by the commission. In adopting this section, the commission makes
other minor modifications for the purpose of clarifying its intent.
The amendments and new section are adopted under the Public Utility
Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities Code Annotated, §14.002 (Vernon 1998,
Supplement 2000) (PURA) which provides the commission with the authority to
make and enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and
jurisdiction; and specifically, §15.023 which grants the commission authority
to impose an administrative penalty against an entity for violation of a rule
as necessary or appropriate to establish customer protection standards. PURA §17.051
and §64.051 direct the commission to adopt registration requirements
for all telecommunications utilities. PURA §17.052 and §64.052 allow
the commission to require registration as a condition of doing business in
Texas; establish customer service and protection rules; and suspend or revoke
certificates or registrations for repeated violations of this chapter or commission
rules. PURA §17.053 and §64.053 allow the commission to require
a telecommunications service provider to submit reports to the commission
concerning any matter over which it has authority under PURA Chapters 17 and
64. PURA §54.008 grants the commission authority to revoke or amend a
certificate of operating authority or a service provider certificate of operating
authority after notice and hearing if the commission finds that the certificate
holder has never provided or is no longer providing service in all or any
part of the certificated area.
Cross Reference to Statutes: Public Utility Regulatory Act §§14.002,
15.023, 17.051, 17.052, 17.053, 54.008, 64.051, 64.052, and 64.053.
§26.109.Standards for Granting Certificates of Operating Authority (COAs).
(a)
Scope and purpose. This section applies to the certification
of persons and entities to provide local exchange telephone service, basic
local telecommunications service, and switched access service as holders of
certificates of operating authority established in the Public Utility Regulatory
Act (PURA), Chapter 54, Subchapter C. Through this section, the commission
strives to protect the public interest against entities that are not qualified
to provide local exchange telephone service, basic local telecommunications
service, and switched access service. The commission's overall goal is to
encourage the development of a competitive marketplace for local exchange
telecommunications services, free of unreasonable barriers to entry, that
will provide consumers with the best services at the lowest cost.
(b)
Automatic disqualification. This section contains reasons
an applicant would be prohibited from acquiring a COA. An applicant is automatically
disqualified from obtaining a COA:
(1)
if the applicant is a municipality; or
(2)
if the applicant has not created a proper separation of
business between itself and an affiliate holder of a certificate of convenience
and necessity as required by PURA §54.102.
(c)
Standards for granting certification to COA applicants.
(1)
The commission shall consider the factors listed in subparagraphs
(A) - (F) of this paragraph in deciding whether to grant a COA to an applicant
proposing to serve an exchange.
(A)
Whether the applicant has satisfactorily provided all of
the information required in the Application for a Certificate of Operating
Authority.
(B)
Whether the applicant is financially qualified to be a
facilities-based local service provider. To prove financial qualification
as a facilities-based utility, an applicant shall provide evidence sufficient
to establish that:
(i)
Applicant possesses the greater of $100,000 cash or cash
equivalent or sufficient cash or cash equivalent to meet start-up expenses,
working capital requirements and capital expenditures, liquid and readily
available to meet the applicant's start-up expenses, working capital requirements
and capital expenditures for the first two years of its Texas operations;
or
(ii)
Applicant is an established business entity and is able
to demonstrate evidence of profitability in existing operations for two years
preceding the date of application by submitting a balance sheet and income
statement audited or reviewed by a certified public accountant establishing
all of the following:
(I)
A long-term debt to capitalization ratio of less than 60%;
(II)
A return-on-assets ratio of at least 10%; and,
(III)
The greater of $50,000 cash or cash equivalent or sufficient
cash or cash equivalent to meet start-up expenses, working capital requirements
and capital expenditures, liquid and readily available to meet the applicant's
start-up expenses, working capital requirements and capital expenditures for
a minimum of the first two years of its Texas operations.
(C)
Whether the applicant is technically qualified. The commission
shall determine whether an applicant possesses sufficient technical qualifications
to be awarded a COA based upon a review of the following information.
(i)
Prior experience by the applicant or one or more of the
applicant's principals or employees in the telecommunications industry or
a related industry.
(ii)
Any complaint and/or compliance history regarding the
applicant, applicant's telecommunications or public utility affiliates, predecessors
in interest, shareholders, and principals at the Public Utility Commission
of Texas, the Office of the attorney general, the Attorney General in other
states, and any other relevant regulatory agency for the previous two calendar
years. If available, relevant information shall include, but not be limited
to, the type of complaint, status of complaint, resolution of complaint and
the number of customers in each state where complaints occur.
(iii)
If available, an affirmation that the applicant, its
telecommunications or public utility affiliates, predecessors in interest,
shareholders, and principals are in good standing at the Texas Comptroller's
Office, active in the Texas Secretary of State files, and current in its Texas
Universal Service Fund assessment.
(iv)
A summary of any history of bankruptcy, dissolution, merger
or acquisition of the applicant or any predecessors in interest in the two
calendar years immediately preceding the application.
(v)
A statement indicating whether the applicant has been notified
that it is currently under investigation, either in this state or in another
state or jurisdiction for violation of any deceptive trade or consumer protection
law or regulation, and whether the applicant has been fined, sanctioned or
otherwise penalized either in this state or in another state or jurisdiction
for violation of any consumer protection law or regulation.
(D)
Whether the applicant is able to meet the commission's
quality of service standards. Quality of service standards shall include,
but not be limited to, 911 compliance and local number portability capability.
(E)
The applicant will be required to meet the customer protection
rules and disclosure requirements applicable to certificate holders set forth
in Chapter 26, Subchapter B of this title (relating to Customer Service and
Protection).
(F)
Whether certification of the applicant is in the public
interest.
(2)
If, after considering the factors in this subsection, the
commission finds it to be in the public interest to do so, the commission
may limit the geographic scope of the COA.
(3)
If the applicant is an affiliate of a certificate of convenience
and necessity (CCN) holder, the applicant must show that the affiliated CCN
holder is in compliance with federal law and Federal Communications Commission
rules governing affiliates and structural separation. The applicant shall
file an affidavit from the affiliated CCN holder attesting to this compliance,
and provide reference to the Federal Cost Allocation Manual (CAM) filed with
the commission.
(d)
Financial instruments that will meet the cash requirements
established in this section.
(1)
Applicants for COAs shall be permitted to use any of the
financial instruments set out in subparagraphs (A)-(F) of this paragraph to
satisfy the cash requirements established in this rule to prove financial
qualification.
(A)
Cash or cash equivalent, including cashier's check or sight
draft.
(B)
A certificate of deposit with a bank or other financial
institution.
(C)
A letter of credit issued by a bank or other financial
institution, irrevocable for a period of at least 12 months beyond certification
of the applicant by the commission.
(D)
A line of credit or other loan, issued by a bank or other
financial institution, irrevocable for a period of at least 12 months beyond
certification of the applicant by the commission and payable on an interest-only
basis for the same period.
(E)
A loan issued by a subsidiary or affiliate of applicant,
or a corporation holding controlling interest in the applicant, irrevocable
for a period of at least 12 months beyond certification of the applicant by
the commission, and payable on an interest-only basis for the same period.
(F)
A guaranty issued by a shareholder or principal of applicant,
a subsidiary or affiliate of applicant, or a corporation holding controlling
interest in the applicant, irrevocable for a period of at least 12 months
beyond the certification of the applicant by the commission.
(2)
To the extent that the applicant relies upon a loan or
guaranty provided in paragraph (1)(E) or (F) of this subsection, the applicant
shall provide evidence sufficient to establish that the lender or guarantor
possesses sufficient cash or cash equivalent to fund the loan or guaranty.
(3)
All cash and instruments listed in paragraph (1) (A) -
(F) of this subsection shall be unencumbered by pledges as collateral and
shall be subject to verification and review by the commission prior to certification
of the applicant and for a period of 12 months beyond the date of certification
of the applicant by the commission. Failure to comply with this requirement
may void an applicant's certification or result in such other action as the
commission deems in the public interest, including, but not limited to, assessment
of reasonable penalties and all other available remedies under the Public
Utility Regulatory Act.
(e)
Name on certificates.
(1)
All local exchange telephone service, basic local telecommunications
service, and switched access service provided under a COA shall be provided
in the name under which certification was granted by the commission. The commission
shall grant the certificate in only one name.
(A)
If the applicant is a corporation, the commission shall
issue the certificate in the corporate or assumed name of the applicant.
(B)
If the applicant is an unincorporated business entity or
an individual, the commission shall issue the certificate in the assumed name
of the entity or the individual.
(C)
The commission shall review the requested name to determine
if the name is deceptive, misleading, vague, inappropriate, or duplicative
of an existing certificated telecommunications utility. If the commission
determines that the requested name is deceptive, misleading, vague, inappropriate,
or duplicative, it shall notify the applicant and the applicant shall modify
the name to alleviate the commission's concerns. If the name is not adequately
modified, the application may be denied.
(2)
The holder of a COA may request commission approval to
change the name on the certificate by filing an application to amend its certificate
with the commission.
(f)
Non-use of certificates. Applicants will use their COA
certificates expeditiously.
(1)
A COA certificate holder that has not provided service
for a period of 12 consecutive months must provide a sworn affidavit to the
commission on an annual basis attesting that they continue to possess the
technical and financial resources necessary to provide the level of service
proposed in their initial application.
(2)
A COA certificate holder that has not provided service
within 48 months of being granted the certificate by the commission, may have
its certificate suspended or revoked, as defined by §26.114 of this title
(relating to Suspension or Revocation of Certificates of Operating Authority
(COAs) and Service Provider Certificates of Operating Authority (SPCOAs)),
after due process or undergo certification re-qualification.
(A)
Certification re-qualification shall consist of an entirely
new filing certifying that the certificate holder possesses the technical
and financial resources necessary to provide the proposed level of service.
(B)
Any certification re-qualification must be filed at the
commission before the expiration of the 48-month period.
(g)
Reporting requirements.
(1)
All COA holders shall file an annual report with the commission
by June 30 of each year using the commission-prescribed form Annual Information
Reporting Requirements for a Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority
and/or a Certificate of Operating Authority. This form may be obtained from
the commission's Central Records and the commission's website.
(2)
If the certificate holder has any change during the year
in the information requested in Section One of the annual report form, then
the certificate holder shall file an updated form correcting the information
in Section One within 30 days of the change.
(3)
The completed annual report form shall be filed in the
commission's Central Records in a project number designated annually by the
Filing Clerk.
(4)
A certificate holder shall also file annual reports as
required by §26.89 of this title (relating to Information Regarding
Rates and Services of Nondominant Carriers).
(5)
A certificate holder shall also file monthly reports as
required by §26.465 of this title (relating to Methodology for Counting
Access Lines and Reporting Requirements for Certificated Telecommunications
Providers) and §26.467 of this title (relating to Rates, Allocation,
Compensation, Adjustments and Reporting.)
(h)
Compliance enforcement.
(1)
Administrative penalties. If the commission finds that
a certificate holder has violated any provision of this section, the commission
shall order the certificate holder to take corrective action, as necessary,
and the certificate holder may be subject to administrative penalties and
other enforcement actions pursuant to PURA, Chapter 15.
(2)
Revocation or suspension. If the commission finds that
a certificate holder is repeatedly in violation of PURA or commission rules,
the commission may suspend or revoke a COA certificate pursuant to PURA Chapter
17.
(3)
Enforcement. The commission shall coordinate its enforcement
efforts of fraudulent, unfair, misleading, deceptive, and anticompetitive
business practices with the Office of the attorney general in order to ensure
consistent treatment of specific alleged violations.
§26.111.Standards for Granting Service Provider Certificates of Operating Authority (SPCOAs).
(a)
Scope and purpose. This section applies to the certification
of persons and entities to provide, local exchange telephone service, basic
local telecommunications service, and switched access service as holders of
service provider certificates of operating authority, established in the Public
Utility Regulatory Act (PURA), Chapter 54, Subchapter D. Through this section,
the commission strives to protect the public interest against entities that
are not qualified to provide local exchange telephone service, basic local
telecommunications service, and switched access service. The commission's
overall goal is to encourage the development of a competitive marketplace
for local exchange telecommunications services, free of unreasonable barriers
to entry, that will provide consumers with the best services at the lowest
cost.
(b)
Automatic disqualification. This section contains the reasons
that an applicant would be prohibited from acquiring an SPCOA. An applicant
is disqualified from obtaining an SPCOA:
(1)
if the applicant is a municipality; or
(2)
if the applicant, together with its affiliates, has more
than 6.0% of the total intrastate switched access minutes of use as measured
for the most recent 12-month period.
(c)
Standards for granting certification to SPCOA applicants.
(1)
The commission may condition or limit the scope of an SPCOA's
service in at least the following ways:
(A)
Facility-based;
(B)
Resale-only;
(C)
Data-only;
(D)
Geographic scope;
(E)
Some combination of the above, as appropriate.
(2)
The commission shall consider the factors listed in subparagraphs
(A) - (H) of this paragraph in deciding whether and how to condition or limit
an SPCOA to an applicant proposing to serve an exchange:
(A)
Whether the applicant has satisfactorily provided all of
the information required in the application for an SPCOA.
(B)
Whether the applicant is financially qualified as a facilities-based
SPCOA. To prove financial qualifications as a facilities-based SPCOA, the
applicant shall meet the standards set forth in §26.109(c)(1)(B) of this
title (relating to Standards for Granting Certificates of Operating Authority).
(C)
Whether the applicant is financially qualified as a resale-only
SPCOA. To prove financial qualifications as a resale-only SPCOA, an applicant
shall provide evidence sufficient to establish that:
(i)
Applicant possesses the greater of $25,000 cash or cash
equivalent or sufficient cash or cash equivalent to meet start-up expenses,
working capital requirements and capital expenditures, liquid and readily
available to meet the applicant's start-up expenses, working capital requirements
and capital expenditures for the first year of its Texas operations; or
(ii)
Applicant is an established business entity and is able
to demonstrate evidence of profitability in existing operations for two years
preceding the date of application by submitting a balance sheet and income
statement audited or reviewed by a certified public accountant establishing
all of the following:
(I)
A long-term debt to capitalization ratio of less than 60%;
(II)
A return-on-assets ratio of at least 10%; and,
(III)
The greater of $10,000 cash or cash equivalent or sufficient
cash or cash equivalent to meet start-up expenses, working capital requirements
and capital expenditures, liquid and readily available to meet the applicant's
start-up expenses, working capital requirements and capital expenditures for
the first year of its Texas operations.
(D)
Whether the applicant is technically qualified. The commission
shall determine whether an applicant possesses sufficient technical qualifications
to be awarded a facilities-based SPCOA certification or whether applicant
should be restricted to a resale-only SPCOA certification, based upon a review
of the following information.
(i)
Prior experience by the applicant or one or more of the
applicant's principals or employees in the telecommunications industry or
a related industry.
(ii)
Any complaint and/or compliance history regarding the
applicant, applicant's telecommunications or public utility affiliates, predecessors
in interest, shareholders, and principals on file at the Public Utility Commission
of Texas, the Office of the Texas Attorney General, the Attorney General in
other states, and any other relevant regulatory agency for the previous two
calendar years. If available, relevant information shall include, but not
be limited to, the type of complaint, status of complaint, resolution of complaint,
and the number of customers in each state where complaints have occurred.
(iii)
If available, an affirmation that the applicant, its
telecommunications or public utility affiliates, predecessors in interest,
shareholders, and principals are in good standing at the Texas Comptroller's
Office, active in the Texas Secretary of State files, and current in its Texas
Universal Service Fund assessment.
(iv)
A summary of any history of bankruptcy, dissolution, merger
or acquisition of the applicant or any predecessors in interest in the two
calendar years immediately preceding the application.
(v)
A statement indicating whether the applicant has been notified
that it is currently under investigation, either in this state or in another
state or jurisdiction for violation of any deceptive trade or consumer protection
law or regulation, and whether the applicant has been fined, sanctioned or
otherwise penalized either in this state or in another state or jurisdiction
for violation of any consumer protection law or regulation.
(E)
Whether the applicant is able to meet the commission's
quality of service standards. The quality of service standards shall include,
but not be limited to, 911 compliance and local number portability capability.
(F)
The applicant will be required to meet the customer protection
rules and disclosure requirements applicable to certificate holders set forth
in Chapter 26, Subchapter B of this title (relating to Customer Service and
Protection).
(G)
Whether certification of the applicant is in the public
interest.
(H)
If the applicant has requested to limit, or has been limited
to data-only services, the applicant shall be waived from 911 and local number
portability compliance as related to switched voice services. If the applicant
intends to add voice services at a future date, the applicant must first file
an amendment, subject to approval of the commission, which shows that the
applicant is in compliance with all of the commission's quality of service
standards.
(3)
If, after considering the factors in this subsection, the
commission finds it to be in the public interest to do so, the commission
may limit the geographic scope of the SPCOA.
(d)
Financial instruments that will meet the cash requirements
established in this section.
(1)
Applicants for SPCOAs shall be permitted to use any of
the financial instruments set out in subparagraphs (A)-(F) of this paragraph
to satisfy the cash requirements established in this rule to prove financial
qualification.
(A)
Cash or cash equivalent, including cashier's check or sight
draft.
(B)
A certificate of deposit with a bank or other financial
institution.
(C)
A letter of credit issued by a bank or other financial
institution, irrevocable for a period of at least 12 months beyond certification
of the applicant by the commission.
(D)
A line of credit or other loan, issued by a bank or other
financial institution, irrevocable for a period of at least 12 months beyond
certification of the applicant by the commission and payable on an interest-only
basis for the same period.
(E)
A loan issued by a subsidiary or affiliate of applicant,
or a corporation holding controlling interest in the applicant, irrevocable
for a period of at least 12 months beyond certification of the applicant by
the commission, and payable on an interest-only basis for the same period.
(F)
A guaranty issued by a shareholder or principal of applicant,
a subsidiary or affiliate of applicant, or a corporation holding controlling
interest in the applicant, irrevocable for a period of at least 12 months
beyond the certification of the applicant by the commission.
(2)
To the extent that the applicant relies upon a loan or
guaranty provided in paragraph (1)(E) or (F) of this subsection, the applicant
shall provide evidence sufficient to establish that the lender or guarantor
possesses sufficient cash or cash equivalent to fund the loan or guaranty.
(3)
All cash and instruments listed in paragraph (1) (A) -
(F) of this subsection shall be unencumbered by pledges as collateral and
shall be subject to verification and review by the commission prior to certification
of the applicant and for a period of 12 months beyond the date of certification
of the applicant by the commission. Failure to comply with this requirement
may void an applicant's certification or result in such other action as the
commission deems in the public interest, including, but not limited to, assessment
of reasonable penalties and all other available remedies under the Public
Utility Regulatory Act.
(e)
Name on certificates.
(1)
All local exchange telephone service, basic local telecommunications
service, and switched access service provided under an SPCOA shall be provided
in the name under which certification was granted by the commission. The commission
shall grant the certificate in only one name.
(A)
If the applicant is a corporation, the commission shall
issue the certificate in the corporate or assumed name of the applicant.
(B)
If the applicant is an unincorporated business entity or
an individual, the commission shall issue the certificate in the assumed name
of the entity or the individual.
(C)
The commission shall review the requested name to determine
if the name is deceptive, misleading, vague, inappropriate, or duplicative
of an existing certificated telecommunications utility. If the commission
determines that the requested name is deceptive, misleading, vague, inappropriate,
or duplicative, it shall notify the applicant and the applicant shall modify
the name to alleviate the commission's concerns. If the name is not adequately
modified, the application may be denied.
(2)
The holder of an SPCOA may request commission approval
to change the name on the certificate by filing an application to amend its
certificate with the commission
(f)
Non-use of certificates. Applicants will use their SPCOA
certificates expeditiously.
(1)
An SPCOA certificate holder that has not provided service
for a period of 12 consecutive months must provide a sworn affidavit to the
commission on an annual basis attesting that they continue to possess the
technical and financial resources necessary to provide the level of service
proposed in their initial application.
(2)
An SPCOA certificate holder that has not provided service
within 48 months of being granted the certificate by the commission, may have
its certificate suspended or revoked, as defined by §26.114 of this title
(relating to Suspension or Revocation of Certificates of Operating Authority
(COAs) and Service Provider Certificates of Operating Authority (SPCOAs)),
after due process, or undergo certification re-qualification.
(A)
Certification re-qualification shall consist of an entirely
new filing certifying that the SPCOA holder possesses the technical and financial
resources necessary to provide the proposed level of service.
(B)
Any certification re-qualification must be filed at the
commission before the expiration of the 48-month period.
(g)
Reporting requirements.
(1)
All certificate holders shall file an annual report with
the commission by June 30 of each year using the commission-prescribed form, Annual Information Reporting Requirements for a Service
Provider Certificate of Operating Authority and/or a Certificate of Operating
Authority
. This form may be obtained from the commission's Central
Records and the commission's website.
(2)
If the SPCOA holder has any change during the year in the
information requested in Section One of the annual report form, then the SPCOA
holder shall file an updated form correcting the information in Section One
within 30 days of the change.
(3)
The completed annual report form shall be filed in the
commission's Central Records in a project number designated annually by the
Filing Clerk.
(4)
An SPCOA holder shall also file annual reports required
by §26.89 of this title (relating to Information Regarding Rates and
Services of Nondominant Carriers).
(5)
A certificate holder shall also file monthly reports as
required by §26.465 of this title (relating to Methodology for Counting
Access Lines and Reporting Requirements for Certificated Telecommunications
Providers) and §26.467 of this title (relating to Rates, Allocation,
Compensation, Adjustments and Reporting.)
(h)
Compliance and enforcement.
(1)
Administrative penalties. If the commission finds that
an SPCOA holder has violated any provision of this section, the commission
shall order the SPCOA holder to take corrective action, as necessary, and
the SPCOA holder may be subject to administrative penalties and other enforcement
actions pursuant to PURA, Chapter 15.
(2)
Revocation or suspension. If the commission finds that
a certificate holder is repeatedly in violation of PURA or commission rules,
the commission may suspend or revoke an SPCOA certificate pursuant to PURA
Chapter 17.
(3)
Enforcement. The commission shall coordinate its enforcement
efforts of fraudulent, unfair, misleading, deceptive, and anticompetitive
business practices with the Office of the attorney general in order to ensure
consistent treatment of specific alleged violations.
§26.114.Suspension or Revocation of Certificates of Operating Authority (COAs) and Service Provider Certificates of Operating Authority (SPCOAs).
(a)
Scope and purpose. This section addresses the suspension
or revocation of COAs and SPCOAs. A COA or an SPCOA may be suspended or revoked
by the commission after due process.
(b)
Definitions. The following words and terms when used in
this section shall have the following meanings unless the context indicates
otherwise:
(1)
Revocation - The cessation of all telecommunications business
operations in the state of Texas pursuant commission order.
(2)
Suspension - The cessation of all telecommunications business
operations in the state of Texas associated with adding new customers.
(c)
Suspension and revocation.
(1)
The commission may initiate an investigation for suspension
or revocation of a COA or SPCOA. Grounds for initiating an investigation that
may result in the suspension or revocation may include, but not be limited
to the following:
(A)
Non-use of approved certificate for a period of 48 months,
without re- qualification prior to the expiration of the 48-month period;
(B)
Verified complaints reported to the commission or the Attorney
General;
(C)
Intentionally providing false information to the commission
at the time of certification;
(D)
Bankruptcy, insolvency, failure to meet financial obligations
on a timely basis, except if reasonably disputed, or the inability to obtain
the financial resources needed to provide adequate service;
(E)
Repeated violation of the Public Utility Regulatory Act
(PURA) or any commission rule or order applicable to the certificate holder;
(F)
Violation of any state law applicable to the certificate
holder that affects the certificate holders' ability to provide telecommunications
services;
(G)
Repeated failure to meet commission reporting requirements;
or
(H)
Repeated failure to meet reporting requirements pursuant
to §26.465 of this title (relating to Methodology for Counting Access
Lines and Reporting Requirements for Certificated Telecommunications Providers)
and §26.467 of this title (relating to Rates, Allocation, Compensation,
Adjustments and Reporting).
(2)
Any certificate holder whose certificate is revoked or
suspended by the commission shall comply with the standards for relinquishment
in §26.113 of this title (relating to Amendment of Certificate of Operating
Authority (COA) or Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority (SPCOA)).
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's
legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on July 11, 2000.
TRD-200004776
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Effective date: July 31, 2000
Proposal publication date: April 7, 2000
For further information, please call: (512) 936-7308